This article pretty much explains why I can't stand Bush and his pathetically weak milquetoastyness, and why I can't stand the scum that runs the Demoncrap party, or their silly apologists.

The only thing he gets wrong is how long this crap has been going on in this nation. It started waaaay before 2000.

***************************

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/06/the_audacity_of_the_democrats.html

June 07, 2008
The Audacity of the Democrats
By Rocco DiPippo

There was a pre-Lewinsky time, before moral relativism blurred America's vision, when associating with people like Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers would have automatically excluded someone from attaining the highest office in the land. Back then, anyone with well known connections to such America-averse personalities would have been rejected by a super-majority of the electorate during primary season and almost certainly blocked by the Democratic Party before they could have gotten to within a mile of the White House. But those days -- when patriotic, true liberals like Joe Lieberman were considered typical Democratic Party politicians -- are gone. Now politicians like Lieberman are banished to the Party's periphery and leftists, not liberals, like Denis Kucinich, Bernie Sanders, Jim McDermott, John Kerry, (who served in Vietnam), Jim McGovern, Patrick Leahy, Richard Durbin, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have replaced them.

Until recently in our history, a President Barack Obama would have been an impossibility. But given the political and ideological climate that exists today in America, the ascension of a leftist like Barack Obama into presidential politics makes perfect sense. Beliefs like domestic terrorist William Ayers's and racist, anti-US preacher Jeremiah Wright's are no longer met with utter scorn or a trip to behind the woodshed, but are embraced, promoted and defended by many Americans. Think MoveOn, International ANSWER, think hordes of young neo-communists and their indoctrinating, puppet-master Marx-spouting professors. Think Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, Noam Chomsky, Ward Churchill and his acolytes. Think NYU, Columbia, The New School and Harvard. Most importantly, ponder the makeup and direction of the Democratic Party leadership. Like Barack Obama and his radical friends, it is appallingly far Left.

Ideological descendants of Marx and Rousseau now lead the Democratic Party and they have turned it into a disloyal opposition to an increasingly accommodating GOP. They have molded the Party into a force working stridently and unashamedly against a Commander in Chief during wartime. They have made it a den of treachery devoted to American defeat in Iraq. They preside over an institution advised and influenced by moneyed, non-governmental groups and individuals with unquestionably anti-US agendas who help make the Party a pseudo-intellectual sinkhole filled with perverse, tried-and-failed ideas repulsive to the majority of Americans. Those ideas are shaped into agendas which are then forced on the public by an activist leftwing judiciary and by a major media and arts consortium shot through with utter disrespect, indeed contempt, for traditional American values, religions and institutions.

The Democratic Party has devolved into a club for the illegitimately aggrieved, the self-absorbed, the self-hating and the perpetually pissed-off. It is a sanctuary where solipsistic malcontents and their disjointed causes find refuge and support. It has long ceased being an earnest gathering of broad minds where man's timeless problems are examined against the backdrop of the Constitution and solutions to them proposed based on the actual realities of the human condition. It is now the political province of the intellectually deceased, where frightened, lock-step ideologues and other small men and women concoct and promote divisive, destructive, weird and cowardly policies developed within a not-so-quaint, quasi-Marxist stricture of gender, class and race.

So what does all of that have to do with the propulsion of Barack Obama to within a whisker of the Presidency? Everything. It could not have happened without the existence of a substantial, organized, internal anti-US Left and the approval and guidance of the Democratic leadership I describe. Obama is in step with that radical element and with that leadership. His views reflect their views, and he is now a central figure in the deceptive, destructive strategy to restore the Democrats to power, a strategy that has been in play since the US Supreme Court declared Albert Gore the loser of the 2000 presidential contest. "Don't call me a liberal," says Obama. In a precise, lawyerly sort of way he is being honest - he truly isn't a liberal, but he is a leftist.

At a glance, Obama's quick rise in the world of presidential politics is puzzling. His background, including his personal and political associations, is antithetical to the historical stature of the American presidency. It could also be said that given his non-traditional upbringing, his schooling in radical politics and his seeming preference for friends and mentors who view America disdainfully, he is antithetical to the traditional American Experience itself. Obama is young and he has less than one Senate term under his belt. Neither quality is particularly presidential. Questions of patriotism dog him, as do questions about his religious and ethnic heritage. Many of the people who tutored and supported him through his personal and political journeys from the backwaters of Indonesia to the main stage of US presidential politics are contemptuous of the US. Some of them publicly express outright hatred of the country Obama now seeks to lead.

So why is so controversial a candidate even in the running to be president?

Because he reflects his Party's leftist agenda, has unique, prodigious manipulative talents and equally impressive Hollywood attributes. These are indispensable in closing out the dangerous, deliberate game the Democrats have been playing with America's security and its perceived stature in the world. It is a game that has been going on beneath our noses since the election of 2000. Its object is simple: the acquisition of power regardless of cost to the Nation. It is something the American people must be reminded of, made aware of, before they enter the voting booth in November.

A strategy of contention vs. the risk of irrelevance

The opening event setting the stage for Obama's ascension was the contentious 2000 election. When Bush was declared its winner, Democrats fumed that the election had been stolen by the Republicans. The promotion of that canard within leftwing and media circles and the personal quality of the resentment of Bush it provoked within the Democratic Party is important to mention, since a similar canard that morphed from it and became popularized -- "Bush Stole the Election," -- became the base justification for the future blizzard of untruths used to disparage the President. It also provided justification for the widespread disrespect and abuse President Bush endures to this day, disrespect that would be far more deserved if he had indeed illegally assumed power.

Less than a year after the 2000 election was finalized, September 11, 2001 arrived. In the baleful blink of a jihadist's eye, most of the issues that normally occupy the American polity in peaceful times were swept off the table. Issues that normally help Americans differentiate between the two major political parties and define those party's respective agendas -- health care, taxes, the environment, social programs and civil rights -- took a far-distant back seat to two far more pressing matters: Exacting justice for the 911 atrocities and protecting the homeland from additional attacks.

Since the American electorate historically views Republicans as being more competent and trustworthy than Democrats in matters of war and security, and since all other issues that Democrats could normally use to make political hay with had been blasted off the table by 911, the Party was facing the threat of irrelevance. There was another factor that did not bode well for the future political fortunes of the Democratic Party in the wake of the 911 attacks: George W. Bush had become an extraordinarily popular president.

Whatever patriotism was stoked within the hearts of Democratic Party leaders by that September Day of Infamy was likely tempered by an unsettling reality: If America stayed united behind George W. Bush and the Republicans during the coming military response to 911, the Democratic Party would be out of power for a long time.

As the wreckage of the Towers was being scoured for the remains of the murdered, the Democratic Party faced an extended stay in the political wilderness. It must have been an extraordinarily bitter pill to swallow, especially on the heels of its having lost the presidency by a tattered handful of contested votes. As things stood, Democrat prospects for winning it back anytime soon looked grim. Americans did not switch horses in the middle of a war -- unless they perceived a war to be headed towards defeat. This was especially true after the 911 attacks. The Democratic Party, with its conflict-averse, Vietnam-era mentality would be naturally unattractive to a war-time electorate seeking vengeance for the mass murder of its brothers and sisters. Pragmatically speaking, the only hope the Party had then, in terms of making inroads with post-911 American voters, rested on a single option: overlaying the US military response to 911 with a template -- the rhetoric, look and feel of the Vietnam debacle of years earlier, portraying those directing and supporting the war and those fighting it on the ground, as corrupt, inept and malevolent.

As the Democrats weighed their narrow, post-911 political options and saw a grim future, at least a few of them might have considered Jimmy Carter's triumph on the heels of Vietnam and Watergate, and felt a flicker of hope.

A Vietnam strategy develops

Soon after 911, as America shifted into a wartime footing, leftists in academia and in the Legal Left began testing the waters of dissent by deconstructing Bush and the Republicans and blaming American foreign policy for the 911 attacks. Several professors at major Universities openly proclaimed their wishes to see America defeated and disgraced. One of them, Professor Nicholas DeGenova of Columbia University, announced to those attending a ‘peace' conference at the school shortly after the 911 attacks that he "wished for a million Mogadishus," a reference to the loss of 18 US serviceman during a mission to capture a warlord in Somalia in 1997. DeGenova also said, "the only true heroes are those who find ways that help defeat the U.S. military," and referred to patriotism as a form of white supremacism adding that "My rejection of U.S. nationalism is an appeal to liberate our own political imaginations such that we might usher in a radically different world in which we will not remain the prisoners of U.S. global domination." Since DeGenova is an American collecting an excellent salary at a prestigious American university, it is puzzling who he meant by "we."

When the Democratic Party joined the academic Left's undermining of the Administration's military response to 911, a lethargic Republican public relations machine and inarticulate President were no match for the polish and reach of the influential leftwing media assisting the Democrats. Within months of 911 the Party and its media assistants began manufacturing anti-Bush, antiwar propaganda with impunity. Prominent leftwing intellectuals spoke openly of America's culpability in the 911 disaster even as the Towers still smoldered and the Nation wept, sowing seeds of doubt and divisiveness amongst a population that had been traumatized and then unified by the terrorist attacks. The press began chipping, then hammering away at the Administration's war policies and its domestic policies regarding security. When the debate on whether or not to invade Iraq came, there was no doubt which side of the discussion the press -- and most of the Democrats -- would be on.

Predictably, the historically anti-US, European socialist Left closed ranks with the Democrats and the academic Left. It also fell in line with the neo-communist-organized antiwar movement in America that was taking shape. With the first wave of antiwar street protests, the Democratic Party's mission to reacquire power lurched into high gear. That mission would be accomplished at the risk of weakening America's security and at the expense of her standing in the world.

Shortly after the US invaded Iraq, Party leaders and their friends in the media started kidney-punching America, pounding away at the wartime president, deriding his administrators and his policies, harping on and grossly magnifying each setback in Iraq.

On the home front, every Bush policy designed to protect America from further attacks was framed and presented by Democratic Party leaders and leftwing 527 groups as direct assaults on the US Constitution and as being destructive to the Bill of Rights. The press followed the Party's antagonistic lead, flooding the news with disproportionate coverage of subjects like Abu Ghraib, Haditha, US so-called torture and rendition; so-called domestic spying; the so-called rights of terrorists in Guantanamo; the so-called evils of the Patriot Act; the so-called lies of George W. Bush; the so-called warmongering of Dick Cheney and the so-called greed and evil of defense-related corporations like Halliburton.

The effect was to frame isolated incidents of US atrocities and other malfeasances that occur in any war as emblematic of the entire Iraq enterprise. A narrative of an administration hell-bent on imperialistic conquest, spying on Americans and shredding the Constitution concretized within most American and international newsrooms. And who can forget the endemic, Left-generated conflation of the Bush Administration with the Nazis and the invention and promotion of theories that Bush and Cheney planned and directed the attacks of 911 to advance a secret desire of turning America into a fascist state. Those theories were boosted by prominent leftists, including respected author Gore Vidal, who wrote a book promoting such a theory. The collective message of the anti-Bush noise machine was clear and diabolical: The President of the United States was a bigger threat to world peace than men like Osama Bin Laden were. Bush was more evil than Adolf Hitler.

The withering attacks on the Bush Administration took their toll. Bush was slowly becoming a pariah, even within his own political party. His approval ratings, burdened by the vicious attacks on his character and constant attacks on his war policies, sank like a stone.

By the 2004 election, the Democrats' strategy of throwing everything but the kitchen sink at Bush was poised to render results. But a lackluster campaign by a wooden candidate, John Kerry, and serious attacks on Kerry's credibility and patriotism by 250 decorated war veterans caused the Party's presidential effort to fail, but just barely.

In spite of that loss, or perhaps buoyed by the closeness of it, the Democrat assault on America's President and on America's war-time morale intensified as the 2006 congressional elections approached. Efforts to stabilize a post-Saddam Iraq were sputtering and support for Bush and Republican politicians sagged in direct proportion to every real, over-reported and media invented setback there.

It is common knowledge, supported by history, that war is fraught with uncertainties and surprises that cannot always be planned in advance for. It is the side in a conflict that best adapts and adjusts in response to those vagaries that usually wins. The slaughter of 5,000 US soldiers at Omaha beach in a single day during WWII was not trumpeted by the US media to America and to the world as evidence of imminent US defeat against the Nazis, nor did US politicians of that era cry for withdrawal from the larger battle when disasters like Omaha Beach and Corregidor happened. They did not publicize enemy successes during the vicious battles of Guadalcanal nor did they pronounce defeat whenever Americans suffered setbacks while fighting the fanatical Japanese. But throughout every phase of the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts nearly every negative event, every disaster or perceived disaster, exploded across the front pages of the major US papers and was broadcast by Democrats from the halls of Congress as evidence of Bush's malevolence, stupidity or incompetence and as evidence of impending American defeat. Michael Yon, the Iraq conflict's Ernie Pyle, best sums up the result of that grinding media assault on the Iraq War and its American leaders:

"Enemy dominance of the media battle space translated quite directly into military setbacks. Terrorists from many countries swarmed into Iraq to be part of the victory they saw happening on the TV screens."

Deliberately or not, the Democratic Party and the leftwing media, with their endless criticisms of the Iraq conflict, and their endless public comparisons of that war to Vietnam, sent a direct message to the rag-tag army of ultra-violent terrorists in Iraq who were detonating car bombs in crowded marketplaces, beheading and mutilating civilians and killing American and Coalition soldiers: "Keep the violence up just a bit longer. We'll take care of wearing down America's will to win from within, just like during Vietnam."

Even violent, under-equipped sociopaths facing the most powerful military on earth know a gift horse when they see one, and react accordingly.

On the other hand, nearly every bit of positive war news was whispered in quiet sentences or totally ignored. Today, with the Iraq venture steadily closing in on success, the amount of news about Iraq has slowed to barely a drip. That is quite telling.

Under the deliberate, massive media barrage of negative news about the war and hampered by a lack of coherent strategy with which to counter it, Republican prospects for the retention of Congressional majorities in 2006 looked shaky at best. Then the Congressman Larry Craig sex scandal broke and the Republican majorities in the House and Senate were lost.

In less than five years, the Democratic Party had gone from being an increasingly irrelevant political minority to controlling both houses of Congress.

A Strategy Emboldened

Buoyed by the 2006 election success of their Vietnam-era strategy, Democrat leaders and other leftists began openly calling Iraq an ‘unjust' war, an "unwinnable" war and relying on the short memories of most Americans to hide the fact that many prominent Democrats had actually voted to authorize it. Jesse Macbeth, Jimmy Massey, Scott Beauchamp and other antiwar frauds who admitted faking tales of atrocities committed by US soldiers were praised by the press and the Democrats as heroic dissenters against the evil Bush war machine, their false tales of butchery and bloodlust spread far and wide. Widespread, positive coverage was given to antiwar, anti-American, pro-terrorist activists like Cindy Sheehan, who was sanctimoniously christened America's "Peace Mom" by leading Democrats and the leftwing media, while true American heroes, patriots like Paul R. Smith and Jason L. Dunham, both Medal of Honor winners, both killed in the act of protecting America from her enemies, received virtual media silence for their heroism and sacrifice and little public acknowledgment from Democrat politicians.

The press and the Democrats did however publicly acknowledge American soldiers when they were killed, when they spun tales of atrocities, when they groused or when they returned home and fell through the cracks. They wanted Americans to be ashamed of their soldiers, to be ashamed of the Commander-in-Chief, to be ashamed of America itself. They needed America on its knees -- disillusioned, angry at its leaders and their policies -- hopeless, sick of hearing about the war and demoralized because then, out of desperation, they would naturally look to Democratic politicians for relief.

The technique of creating discontent and "talking all things Bush down" paid big dividends for the Democrats in 2006. Devoid of credible ideas and solutions, they had nevertheless worked a strategy leading to the re-acquisition of at least some of the political power they had lost during their wilderness years after the Reagan Revolution. The 2006 election confirmed the effectiveness of their "destroy Bush" election strategy. And so the Democratic Party's attacks on Bush and the Republicans increased to a ferocious level, even as Iraq turned a corner towards security and political stability.

When to the Party's dismay the Bush troop surge took hold and the situation in Iraq began improving, the Democrats' defeatist rhetoric reached a desperate, farcical crescendo: "The war is lost," (even though objective measurements indicated that it was being won) crowed many Democrats, including prominent ones like Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, John Murtha, Edward Kennedy, John Kerry and Barack Obama. Prominent Democrat John Murtha publicly tried and convicted US Marines involved in the Haditha incident before those Marines even went to trial. "Bush lied us into war" became the catch-phrase of almost the entire Democratic Party leadership, even though before the war had commenced many of those same Democrats had access to the same information that the Bush Administration used to justify it.

Power at any cost indeed, even at the defeat and humiliation of one's own country.


***

Now the 2008 election is upon us. Whether it is Iraq or Afghanistan, the economy or the overblown dangers of anthropogenic global warming, the Democratic Party and its media shills continue crafting and pounding home messages telling us that our national problems, real and imagined, are caused by Bush and the Republicans, They tell us that due to Bush and his policies, our nation is an evil one, our nation is hated by the world, our nation is fractured into pieces, our nation is murdering innocents, our nation is the world's biggest polluter, our nation is a den of racism, our nation is stingy, our citizens are impoverished, our economy has been destroyed. Collectively, this endless stream of buckshot propaganda adds up to a single, powerful and demoralizing statement: America has come apart at the seams - and George W. Bush and the Republicans are to blame for it.

Though the Democrats and their media shills are responsible for creating that illusion, Bush and the Republicans are to blame for generally ignoring or responding weakly to the Left's relentless assault on America's war-time morale. Instead of using the power of the White House pulpit to broadcast a steady, convincing message on the importance of presenting a unified national front in the face of totalitarian Islam, America is instead often treated to incongruous platitudes like, "Islam is a religion of peace." Instead of a forceful, direct calling-out of the Democratic Party, the State Department and CIA on their numerous subversions of Bush policies, those subversions are usually referred to by the White House as "disagreements."

Because of the Administration's seeming refusal to conduct investigations leading to the indictment of those leaking classified security information to the press, and thereby to the enemy, the Democrat-leftwing press consortium has been given implied consent to inundate America with torrents of articles and highly publicized tell-all books from former government officials, some revealing sensitive war-time information, most of them highly critical of America's Commander-in-Chief -- all published while American soldiers and civilians were, (and are), on the ground in combat areas, directly in harm's way.

With the exception of the Vietnam War, never before in America's history have such things happened while hostilities were ongoing. And what happened during Vietnam was tame in comparison. Worst of all, due to the subversive Democrat-media barrage, and crippled by its public relations ineptness, Bush and the Republicans could never quite convince the American people of a simple reality: that they are all in the fight of their lives against an implacable, dedicated, totalitarian death cult, one seeking nothing less than America's utter destruction, and that the fight demands focus and sacrifice from all Americans. Instead of rousing, convincing, patriotic speeches, the public was usually treated to lame utterances from Bush like, "Its hard work . . . we're working hard . . . we're making progress."

The end result of the inability of Bush and his PR team to own and promote the Big Ideas necessary to have focused America on the prize of victory in Iraq and on a greater victory over the worldwide forces of totalitarian Islam, is best summed up by three, short sentences written on a whiteboard in a US Marines barracks:

America is not at war.

The Marine Corp is at war.

America is at the mall.


***


It is no wonder the American electorate has slipped into a foul mood -- little wonder why it seems that its heart is not in the fight against the totalitarian theocrats who threaten it. For seven years Americans have been pounded with messages that their country and its leaders are unjust, warmongering, and evil and hated by all -- it deserves whatever evil it gets.

America now has serious doubts about itself. Its citizens have been pummeled with those terrible messages for so long now, that many of them believe them to be true. They are vulnerable to the Democratic Party's sudden mantra of Hope and Change and Progress. In a nutshell, here are the mechanics of the crude, hate-based initiative the Democratic Party and its media wing have forced on America since 2001:

1) Invent, inflate, and over-report bad war news. Tie all bad news to Bush and/or Republicans. At the same time, ignore or downplay good news as it relates to Bush, the Republicans or the war(s).

2) Create the illusion of widespread, honest dissent to Bush policies by giving plenty of airtime to leftwing groups and individuals historically antagonistic toward the projection of US, and only US, power. Fail to report the true agendas of those groups -- when covering antiwar, anti-Bush protests and events, make sure to meticulously portray antiwar marches as spontaneous gatherings of mainstream, mom and pop Americans.

3) Downplay, ignore and disparage American success wherever you find it.

4) Exalt in, sympathize with and mythologize America's enemies, vilify and deconstruct its protectors.

5) Downplay America's generosity and righteousness. Recast a mission that includes saving a nation from a murdering brute and his rapist, sociopath sons as a brutal occupation in the pursuit of American Empire.

6) Fill the Nation's airwaves, from sea to shining sea, with questionable and sometimes outright false tales of Bush-related misery, butchery, fraud and waste.

7) Foment as much national anxiety and hatred of the Republican leader as money and can buy. George Soros and other moneyed leftists will fund you. Give airtime and print coverage to leftist radicals and Democrats who call Bush a war criminal. Present those radicals and their crazy plans to try President Bush and Vice President Cheney for "war crimes" as worthy of consideration.

8) Provide coverage to leftwing intellectuals and scientists making anti-Bush statements. Present them as legitimate, non-partisan experts in their fields. Publicize their specious, politicized findings, present those findings as non-partisan, accurate and objective.

9) Present major news coverage of every antiwar protest you can find, whether it draws 100 people or 10,000 people, ignore all pro-US, pro-Iraq War, pro-troop rallies completely or portray their attendees as violence-prone, fringe-lunatic jingoists.

10) Blame a hurricane's aftermath on Bush. Give news coverage to racists and Democrat crackpots who say Bush and Cheney actually caused the hurricane and blew up levees to kill African Americans. Keep that Bush-hate buzz alive at all costs.

11) Give airtime and print coverage to groups and individuals accusing George W. Bush of having engineered and directed the 911 attacks. Remember, it is not the credibility of accusations that count in shaping public opinion now, but the seriousness and sheer volume of accusations that do.

12) To sow further strife, anxiety and confusion, continue stoking the fires of racial tension and class warfare.

13) Once the onslaught of lies, moral relativisms and crazy notions have created a self-sustaining, luciferous, widespread unhappiness and confusion, dangle a fat bait of silence and tranquility -- of Hope, Change and Progress -- crowning your deceptive achievement by hooking the same fish you made hungry.

That is the immoral, destructive strategy used by the Democratic Party, even as our soldier sons and daughters have been fighting and sometimes dying to protect us, in the years since 911 to recapture power it unjustly covets as its Divine right.

Now, a master psychological fisherman, Barack Obama, dangles a bait of salvation. As a highly experienced practitioner of Saul Alinsky's radical arts, he is perfect for the job. Those who know Obama well, like Mike Kruglik, who helped train him in Alinsky's methods would agree:

"He [Obama] was a natural, the undisputed master of agitation. . . As with the panhandler, he could be aggressive and confrontational. With probing, sometimes personal questions, he would pinpoint the source of pain in their lives, tearing down their egos just enough before dangling a carrot of hope that they could make things better."

It is truly audacious of the Democrats to entice us with their slick-tongued messiah, one who appears out of nowhere and graciously offers to scrape clean and sanitize the same plate of defeat he, his party and their assistants in the media served to America for nearly eight years in the middle of a war. Soon we will see if a majority of the American electorate accepts that offer, or if it rejects it, sending the Democratic Party back to confront the same irrelevance it risked the safety and security of our nation to avoid.

Rocco DiPippo, an American Thinker contributor, spent time in Iraq as a civilian contractor. He currently lives throughout the Middle East. Email him here.

*****************
"...I am afraid that there is a certain class of race-problem solvers who don't want the patient to get well, because as long as the disease holds out they have not only an easy means of making a living, but also an easy medium through which to make themselves prominent before the public." -Booker T. Washington, 1911

Good read.
I enjoyed it...

The liberals will scream that this guy is a Bush lover, blah blah blah...

Honestly, if you follow the time line, he is correct on so many fronts.
Nothing new in the piece, but he spells it out.




“…man is not free unless government is limited. There's a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: As government expands, liberty contracts.”

"the neo-communist-organized antiwar movement in America..."

Is this guy serious? He is a fukking moron and delusional. I have never seen anyone attempt to polish the terd that is the Bush administration with more bravado in my life.

I am printing this out to show people that there are people who bullsh!t better than attorneys do.

I love how says the Democrats were becoming increasingly irrlevant. LOL
Yup, two elections and they had become irrelevant. Read a history book sometime and don't forget to take your crazy pills.

This article is too long and contains too many factual and political errors. I am glad I read it, now I understand a bit more of the views of the right and how their recent idealogy is framed. LOL

"By the 2004 election, the Democrats' strategy of throwing everything but the kitchen sink at Bush was poised to render results. But a lackluster campaign by a wooden candidate, John Kerry, and serious attacks on Kerry's credibility and patriotism by 250 decorated war veterans caused the Party's presidential effort to fail, but just barely."

---249 of those people never served with him on that boat. Of the people that did 99% of them thought Kerry was a great leader who deserved his medals.

Fugg it, I am going to take this guy's article apart bit by bit. It might take a few weeks (LOL), but this is too easy and fun.

It's election season and the right-wing nuts are mobilizing. Polish off the old rhetoric and plug in the smear machine.

"Get a clue jack azz! Stop reading your history books" - quote from "Murf's Guide to Survivin' in Da Hood"

Chris:

I don't begrudge your being fed up with both parties. I am too for the most part. But I would think you could come up with reasons why you feel the way you do other than this nazi screed.

Tearing this piece of crap apart would be easy - but also very time consuming. And frankly, it isn't worth my time. But just to point you in the right direction, after all I know you have a critical mind and when you do your research, you are usually right on target, by starting at the start: The very first line of this piece:

There was a pre-Lewinsky time, before moral relativism blurred America's vision

So name me all the Presidents who didn't have a Monica Lewinsky of some sort. I'll even make it easier for you. Just start with the 20th C. We can go back further later on if you like. In the 20th C we had Harry Truman who history shows to have been true-blue to Bess. We have Nixon who, although didn't have a concubine, nevertheless slept in a separate bedroom from Pat....not exactly sexually normal. Then there was Coolidge who I think was "clean." Other than those, who else doesn't fit the same description?

Oh yea one other thing. "Leftists?" In the United States? After McCarthyism?? You must be kidding. McCarthyism if nothing else was indeed quite effective. It went on way after McCarthy's death, and well in the the late 1960's, and to a certain extent, all the way until 1989. The Left was annihilated in the United States. Erased. Cleaned out. In this country that preaches freedom of thought and political persuasion --- Socialism is the equivalent of Communism in the minds of most Americans. Even though they are quite different. The last true leftist we had in this country who made a serious run for the White House was Henry Wallace. And he got creamed. No Chris - there is no "left" in the United States -- it exists only in the paranoid minds of the far right...those folks who brought you two red-scares & McCarthyism (which led directly to our escapade in Viet Nam...), those folks who see RED even after the USSR broke apart because they don't know how to exist without a mortal enemy, and those same folks who think Joe Lieberman is a "true liberal." LMAO!!!!

Anyway, I agree with your main argument that there is something definitely amiss in the two-party system, and I don't have a good answer for you at the moment. But I know what the answer isn't...and it isn't in this piece that you posted.

SWAMP

This is an interesting read too...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

A liberal calling anyone else a smear machine......lmfao!
You have got to be some type of a prankster...



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Polish off the old rhetoric and plug in the smear machine.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Seriously, almost pissed myself!

“…man is not free unless government is limited. There's a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: As government expands, liberty contracts.”

Provide me one example of a concerted smear effort by the Democrats in recent years. I'm talking Swift Boat level. Show me, smart guy.

"Get a clue jack azz! Stop reading your history books" - quote from "Murf's Guide to Survivin' in Da Hood"

Accusing Bush of being a coke-head two days before the election in 2000?
lol.

Dewey, you are right, and you are wrong. Yes, there are some irrelevent things in the article, like the Lewisnksy dress comment, that didn't need to be there, but if you think that the media and academia isn't stuffed to the gills with leftists, I don't know what to say to you. If you don't see it, you never will.

McCarthy didn't do sh!t. He was roundly demonized eventually, and accused of chasing after ghosts that weren't there. Dewey, there are communists party members that hold elected office in this nation right now. The lady that Obama replaced in his first election in Illinois that he won (running uncontested because he managed to disqualify ALL the other signatures on the petitions right before the election, which gave his opponenets no time to set the record straight) was a happy little communist.

Do an advnaced google search on: communism "Alice Palmer."
Then do a search on: Obama "Alice Palmer"

Sorry fellas, but the jig is up for these people. If you want to keep your heads in the sand and insist that the Dem party has no affiliation with marxism and leftists, that's your choice, but the MSM is becoming replaced by "pajama journalists" that don't have to have all their info filtered for them via the MSM. When you got Chris Matthews talking about how he gets "a tingle going up my leg whenever I hears Obama talk," then it's time to stop this silly pretense of the MSM being the font of objective journalism, and time to move on in your own news gathering. The net is supplanting them, and dragging them along kicking and screaming all the way as they become more and more worthless to the masses that care to take the time and check out stuff for themselves. The interent isn't on "auto-trust" either, but it's becoming more and more easy to skip the MSM "filter" and look for multiple news sources with different angles on the same topic.

Here's a great example of the kind of MSM (mainstream media) reporting I'm talking about just from today.

Today, Hillary Clinton supposedly gave her "concession speech" congratualting Barack Obama. Big fanfare. Everyone happy. Hillary promising to support Obama. Yadayadayada. What did she "actually" say?

She said "I am suspending my cmapaign and giving Barack Obama my full support..."

Now, look up what the word "suspending" means, and then tie it to the same political machine that parses what the meaning of the word "is" is. Get my drift?
Did she throw him her delegates? No. All she did was say she was "suspending" her campaign, and then offered, what on the surface, appeared to be her full support.

Translation: "I'm still going to keep all my delegates, should 'something come up' regarding Obama's candidacy, and as possible bargaining chips for a future favor..."

What did the MSM report? They reported that she "ended" her campaign today.

"Ended" does not mean "suspended." Ended means ended. "Suspended" means "I'm ending it...for now...maybe...we'll see what happens..."

This of course is just a small example of MSM twist. It's no big deal, really.

But for all the fanfare that the event garnered where she was supposed to END her campaign, she said no such thing. If anyone ELSE said they were "suspending" their campaign, then maybe I believe them, but this is Hillary and Bill we're talking about. People need to keep that in mind. The MSM certainly knows who they are.

So instead of telling the truth, because then they'd have to admit that Hillary didn't officially say she was ending her campaign, they end up shilling for Obama by not telling the truth that no, Hillary has not, in fact, stated that she's "ended" her campaign.

As far as the article? I really don't care what anyone says about it. Most of all what this guy said regarding the Dems is all over the archives on this board, and we all had many tenacious arguments over whether or not their actions were undermining the war effort. The question is up to each individual to determine whether or not the Dems were doing what they were doing for political reasons, or out of the goodness of their hearts and out of a concern for the best interests of this nation. I've already posted an article from one Dem describing how they (yes, plural) basically duped their constituents into electing them in 2006 by promising to get out of Iraq if elected, admitting that they knew full well they weren't going anywhere and calling those who believed them "bad students of government" for actually taking them at their word. lol.

*****************
"...I am afraid that there is a certain class of race-problem solvers who don't want the patient to get well, because as long as the disease holds out they have not only an easy means of making a living, but also an easy medium through which to make themselves prominent before the public." -Booker T. Washington, 1911

Provide me one example of a concerted smear effort by the Democrats in recent years. I'm talking Swift Boat level. Show me, smart guy.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~

My lord, everyday in the news, there is another half truth and smear.
The entire war effort, the left has been on a 24/7 smear at all cost since day 1.

You name any major event over the pst 8 years and you go back to the media stories behind them, and there is a smear.

Dingbat and Ried are in office b/c of the smear machine on the left.



“…man is not free unless government is limited. There's a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: As government expands, liberty contracts.”

Chris:

That is the FIRST LINE of the article!!! If you are saying the 1st line of the article "didn't need to be there," then in effect you are saying the article didn't need to be there. And with that, I agree with you. If it were a line buried in the screed I'd give you the benefit of the doubt. But it isn't. Its the topic sentence fer cryin' out loud. And the rest of the article goes downhill from there.

Yes I am quite sure you are correct that there is a Communist or a Socialist here and/or there somewhere around the country. But as a viable movement with any political clout whatsoever --?? -- sorry, you are paranoid. There is no such thing. And there hasn't been since McCarthyism.


And try not to confuse "McCarthyism" with Joseph McCarthy alone. Yes he inherited the description. But "McCarthyism" was much, much more than just Joseph McCarthy. It started well before him, and went on for 30 years after he died. Yes he was discredited. (Better put, he did himself in...) But the ideology he exploited well beyond the limits of the law was never discredited. Never ever ever until the wall came down when it was simply shoved to the back burner. But its still there ready to rear its ugly head.

Problem here is I don't think you understand the difference between a Communist and a Socialist, the difference between a Socialist and a Post Great Depression/WWII American liberal, or the difference between a few free thinkers out there on their own and a movement.

All that said, I still agree with you that there are severe issues plaguing both parties. But leftism in the Democratic party isn't one of them!!! There hasn't even been a Liberal (as defined above) in power in the Democratic Party, excluding Ted Kennedy who only ever made it to Senator, since LBJ...and remember, LBJ bought into McCarthyism lock, stock, and barrel, which is how and why we ended up neck-deep in Viet Nam. LBJ didn't want the right to be able to call him "soft on Communism." Listen to the Johnson tapes! Its all there for your listening and/or reading pleasure!

Swamp

"There was a pre-Lewinsky time, before moral relativism blurred America's vision, when associating with people like Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers would have automatically excluded someone from attaining the highest office in the land. Back then, anyone with well known connections to such America-averse personalities would have been rejected by a super-majority of the electorate during primary season and almost certainly blocked by the Democratic Party before they could have gotten to within a mile of the White House. But those days -- when patriotic, true liberals like Joe Lieberman were considered typical Democratic Party politicians -- are gone. Now politicians like Lieberman are banished to the Party's periphery and leftists, not liberals, like Denis Kucinich, Bernie Sanders, Jim McDermott, John Kerry, (who served in Vietnam), Jim McGovern, Patrick Leahy, Richard Durbin, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have replaced them."

Ok, lets do it.

The Lewinsky scandal didn't initiate moral relativism. Moral relativism, or the idea of it has been around for decades (actually centuries). It wasnt born in the 90's like this guy suggests. This author is another of the many right wing ilk that like to defend the billion dollars Congress authorized at that time to investigate a b.j. Yeah, we know he lied about the BJ, the problem is most of us didnt think spending a billion dollars to find out the truth about the BJ was worth the trouble. Then again, accoridng to this author, the Lewisnky BJ was the birthplace of moral relativism, so he may have his facts confused or off by a century or two. LOL

Secondly, the Wright and Ayers examples can be shown to every candidate who has ever tried to get the presidency. I know, I know, not every candidate has a 20 year relationship with a whacko like Wright. However, for many of us Americans, we see little difference in a non-political relatioship like Wright/Obama and some other shady characters who have donated and spent time with Repubs in the last 30 years (See Falwell, Jerry or Robertson, Pat or Graham, William).

The difference with Obama is he and Wright happen to be black. The sad fact is that every black democrat with a chance to lead the party is going to have some pseudo-skeletons as viewed by the right wing media.

If Lieberman is a liberal, I am a neo-con. LOL Furthermore, Liberman left the party on his own. No one asked him to leave. In fact, you can have him...LOL

"Until recently in our history, a President Barack Obama would have been an impossibility."

Of course you moron. That is because he isnt white. You think America would have voted for him 20 years ago? LOL Give me a break. This is one of those cultural issues that has taken time to ripen. The reality is this as more Americans are born after the Civil Rights movement occurs, more tolernace and less prejudice occurs. Our grandfathers and grandmothers (and fathers and mothers) grew up in a time of incredible ignorance and bigotry as it pertains to race. And with their grandparents it was even worse. So, duh!, its no suprise Obama wouldnt have been elected. With every generation the country gets a little more color blind and the hate towards different people lessens.

"But given the political and ideological climate that exists today in America, the ascension of a leftist like Barack Obama into presidential politics makes perfect sense. Beliefs like domestic terrorist William Ayers's and racist, anti-US preacher Jeremiah Wright's are no longer met with utter scorn or a trip to behind the woodshed, but are embraced, promoted and defended by many Americans."

Yup, I know sooooooooo many people who embrace, promote and defend Reverand Wright's viewpoint. I have always defended his right to say his drivel, but no one on this board has ever embraced, promoted or defended his viewpoint. The closest we had to defending his viewpoint was BA attempting to understand where his viewpoint came from as Wright comes from a different generation.


"Think MoveOn, International ANSWER, think hordes of young neo-communists and their indoctrinating, puppet-master Marx-spouting professors. Think Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, Noam Chomsky, Ward Churchill and his acolytes. Think NYU, Columbia, The New School and Harvard. Most importantly, ponder the makeup and direction of the Democratic Party leadership. Like Barack Obama and his radical friends, it is appallingly far Left."

---As compared to what? According to this guy, you would think the Dems are nothing but a bunch of bra burning, tree hugging hippies who hate America. LOL at this disingenuous load of b.s.! Yeah buddy, NYU, Columbua, Harvard are breeding grounds for dolts. Is this guy Murf's uncle? The way he talks about a college education is pretty scary.



"The American Cancer Society says uninsured patients are 60 percent more likely to die within five years of their diagnosis."

Do any of you guys goto yahoo chat to talk about politics? If you think talking about it here is bad,you ought to listen to some of those boneheads!

This is an exact quote I read in a political chat room there last night by someone calling them self "Big Joe"...

"They're still cleaning up Clintons' cum stains out of the White House...now they will have to clean up chicken bones and watermelon rinds if Obama wins...Let's keep the White House clean, vote for McCain!"

Both sides get dirty on Yahoo chat...I been going there for years...but this quote above is an instant classic. I know
"Big Joe" only speaks for him self and he has a right to his opinion,but it's his mindset that is truely unbelievable...I
ask him if he was serious and he said he was...go figure.

April 23, 2008
"The Reverend Wright is off limits"~John McCain

....My prediction on Rev. Wright. April 24, 2008...

http://www.network54.com/Forum/90650/message/1209095195/Re-+McCain+shows+some+class%21

That's a silly article Chris. The writer is whacked out of his mind...so far right Sean Hanity think's he's radical. I think it's writen to be comedy. Seriously.

-------------------------------------------
President of the FalconGoose Association of North America or FANA.

Great article, Chris.  It was a good summary of one of the primary reasons I dislike the DemonRat party.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_iZ8M5vSmU
http://www.petfinder.com/

Val was in the fertilized egg business. He had several hundred young
layers (hens), called 'pullets,' and ten roosters to fertilize the
eggs. He kept records, and any rooster not performing went into the
soup pot and was replaced. This took a lot of time, so he bought some
tiny bells and attached them to his roosters. Each bell had a
different tone, so he could tell from a distance, which rooster was
performing. Now, he could sit on the porch and fill out an efficiency
Report by just listening to the bells.

Val's favorite rooster, old Butch, was a very fine specimen, but
this morning he noti ced old Butch's bell hadn't rung at all!
When he went to investigate, he saw the other roosters were busy
chasing pullets, bells-a-ringing, but the pullets, hearing the
roosters coming, could run for cover. To Val's amazement, old Butch
had his bell in his beak, so it couldn't ring. He'd sneak up on a
pullet, do his job and walk on to the next one. Val was so proud of
old Butch, he entered him in the Renfrew County Fair and he became an
overnight sensation among the judges.

The result was the judges not only awarded old Butch the No Bell
Piece Prize but they also awarded him the PulletSurprise as well.
Clearly old Butch was a politician in the making. Who else but a
politician could figure out how to win two of the most highly coveted
awards on our planet by being the best at sneaking up on the populace
and screwing them when they weren't paying attention.

Vote carefully this year...the bells are not always audible.

A good story you can tell even your youngest child and they will know the difference between a liberal Democrat and a conservative Republican.

I remember the time that Catherine, one of my daughter Shannon's friends when she was little, told me that she wanted to be President one day. Both of her parents are liberal Democrats and were standing there with us - and I asked Catherine, "If you were President what would be the first thing you would do?"

Catherine replied, "I would give houses to all the homeless people."

"Wow, what a worthy goal you have there, Catherine." I told her, "You don't have to wait until you are President to do that, you can come over to my house and clean up all the dog poop in the back yard and I will pay you $5. Then we can go over to the grocery store where the homeless guy hangs out, and you can give him the $5 to use for a new house."

Catherine, who was about 4, thought that over for a second, while her mom looked at me, and Catherine replied, "Why doesn't the homeless guy come over and clean up the dog poop and you can pay him the $5."

Welcome to the Republican Party, Catherine.

John McCain's Sons


Talk about putting your most valuable where your mouth is! Apparently this was not "newsworthy" enough for the media to comment about. Can either of the other presidential candidates truthfully come close to this? ... Just a question for each of us to seek an answer, and not a statement.

You see...character is what's shown when the public is not looking. There were no cameras or press invited to what you are about to read about, and the story comes from one person in New Hampshire.

One evening last July, Senator John McCain of Arizona arrived at the New Hampshire home of Erin Flanagan for sandwiches, chocolate-chip cookies and a heartfelt talk about Iraq. They had met at a presidential debate, when she asked the candidates what they would do to bring home American soldiers - - soldiers like her brother, who had been kill ed in action a few months earlier.

Mr. McCain did not bring cameras or press. Instead, he brought his youngest son, James McCain, 19, then a private first class in the Marine Corps about to leave for Iraq. Father and son sat down to hear more about Ms. Flanagan's brother Michael Cleary, a 24-year-old Army First Lieutenant killed by an ambush ... a roadside bomb.

No one mentioned the obvious: In just days, Jimmy McCain could face similar perils. 'I can't imagine what it must have been like for them as they were coming to meet with a family that ......' Ms. Flanagan recalled, choking up. 'We lost a dear one,' she finished.

Mr. McCain, now the presumptive Republican nominee, has staked his candidacy on the promise that American troops can bring stability to Iraq. What he almost never says is that one of them is his own son, who spent seven months patrolling Anbar Province and learned of his father's New Hampshire victory in January while he was digging a stuck mil itary vehicle out of the mud.

Two of Jimmy's three older brothers went into the military. Doug McCain, 48, was a Navy pilot. Jack McCain, 21, is to graduate from the Naval Academy next year, raising the chances that his father, if elected, could become the first president since Dwight D. Eisenhower with a son at war.

I chose to share this with those who I believe will pass it on, to others who will pass it on. We hear so much inflated trash out there. How about a simple act of kindness ... and dedication to others placed above oneself?

Has anybody heard if Barack Hussein Obama has served in The American Armed Services?

This is for all you Barack voters. From Barack's book, Audacity of Hope:

"I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction."

HE DID NOT SAY STAND WITH AMERICANS!!!!!

Hey Shalom,

We already proved that your previous posts about Barack's quotes were taken out of context and that some didnt exist at all.

For a new poster, you are really shining.

You really look smart when you post quotes that dont include the paragraphs that explain them.

Are you saying that all Presidential candidates need to have served in the military? Sounds like you favor military mixed with politics. The nations that have that problem are usually pretty f*cked.

The problem with having military folks receive power is they dont like to relinquish it. I'm not saying McCain would become some dictator, but if we start mandating all presidential candiates have to have military experience, we would be setting a dangerous precedent. Besides, when a democrat does have military experience (Kerry(, you guys just trash his military experience and get 249 people to lie to the American public about what they actually saw on his boat.

For the record, I think all presidential candidates should have a working knowledge of the Constiution, how it was created and a basic understanding of Supreme Court application of the Constitution over the last 200 years when intepreting the law. That's just me though...

"The American Cancer Society says uninsured patients are 60 percent more likely to die within five years of their diagnosis."

"you guys just trash his military experience and get 249 people to lie to the American public about what they actually saw on his boat."

Are you sure about that bronco? Were you there or are you just repeating what you read on somewhere on the internet.

Look it up, Homey.

Out of the 250 people that joined the SBVFT, only one actually served with him on the boat.

Look it up. Check snopes.com

"The American Cancer Society says uninsured patients are 60 percent more likely to die within five years of their diagnosis."

Once again Bronco, you are using the "only one guy served on his boat" nonsense to say the rest were liars. As a Tank Platoon leader in West Germany I had 4 tanks under my command and 15 men plus myself to take care of. I only served, i.e. rode on ONE of the tanks. Are you saying I have no idea nor was cabable of passing judgement on my other soldiers on the three other tanks? Nonsense.

As a company executive officer I was second in commmand of a 14 tank M1A1 tank company yet only served one ONE tank. Are you implying that I had no idea what kind of men I had serving on the other 13 tanks and wheeled vehicles in my company? Again, nonsense.

My Battalion Commander was in charge of 58 M1A1 Tanks along with the scout platoon, mortar platoon, and headquarters company. All in all some 128 vehicles. Are you implying that our Battalion commander was not capable of commenting on the officers and non commissioned officers in his Battalion since he didn't ride on their vehicle? Nonsense.

Your pathetic game may work with those who have not served but it doesn't work with me. Kerry sold out his men for political gain and they got their just revenge in the end. My father's close friend was one of the Swift Boat commanders Kerry served under (in charge of lots of boats to include Kerry's, not just one like JK) and said flat out Kerry was full of it, particularly the nonsense he said in front of Congress about war atrocities.



_____________________________________________
January 6,1991: The last post season victory for the Bengals.

"Your pathetic game may work with those who have not served but it doesn't work with me. Kerry sold out his men for political gain and they got their just revenge in the end. My father's close friend was one of the Swift Boat commanders Kerry served under (in charge of lots of boats to include Kerry's, not just one like JK) and said flat out Kerry was full of it, particularly the nonsense he said in front of Congress about war atrocities."

You just proved my point.

People didnt get all fired up about Kerry until after he testified. No one, including the one Benedict Arnold her served with, even criticized Kerry to superior officers until (a) after he testified as to war atrocities or (b) after they became aware he was running for President for the Dems and the Dems were touting his service. No one said sh!t at the time of war or right after the war. One would think someone would say something at the time of the war, right? Seems kinda convenient, doesnt it? Jesus, quit insulting my intelligence. Sounds like you dad's friend also didn't say anything until after Kerry testified. LOL

For all of your pandering and b.s., you cant escape a few startling realities.

1. A few of those Swift Boat Veterans for Truth stood by, supported, financially supported and even appeared publicly for Kerry in his Senate election campaigns. Suddenly, they failed to support him in the Presidential campaign when the SBVFT came along. How could that possibly be explained? How could they believe he was a good soldier for the state elctions and then denigrate his character in the presidential? I wonder...

2. Only one of the people on his boat attacked his service. And that yahoo only did so once Kerry was a presidential candidate. Weird timing, huh? Why didnt he do it on the state elections.

3. More than 90% of the SBVFT did not know Kerry or even actually met or served with him directly. The right wing strategy was brilliant in that it perpetuate one of the greatest lies put on television about a candidate. Almost as good as what Bush did to McCain in South Carolina in 2000. LOL

GIVE ME A BREAK AND QUIT PERPETUATING THE LIE!

We all know about your infinite knowledge of oil production and military service. At least on this issue, can you please take back the B.S. you just shoveled? It smells and no one believes it anymore.

"The American Cancer Society says uninsured patients are 60 percent more likely to die within five years of their diagnosis."

"No one said sh!t at the time of war or right after the war. One would think someone would say something at the time of the war, right? Seems kinda convenient, doesnt it?"

Say something to who? He wasn't running to be their president at the time. Timing is irrelevant and is not evidence of falsehood.

The remarks from his books are very, very disturbing. Again, the remarks are there- and they are NOT taken out of context.

Example:

Quote from Barack Obama's book, Dreams Of My Father:
"The person who made me proudest of all, though, was [half brother] Roy .. He converted to Islam."

From 'Dreams of my Father', "In Indonesia, I had spent two years at a Muslim school"
"I studied the Koran.."

From 'Audacity of Hope: "Lolo (Obama's step father) followed a brand of Islam ...."I looked to Lolo for guidance".

From 'The Audacity Of Hope, "I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction."

From The Audacity Of Hope, "We are no longer just a Christian nation," "We are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers."

From Dreams of My Father, " I FOUND A SOLACE IN NURSING A PERVASIVE SENSE OF GRIEVANCE AND ANIMOSITY AGAINST MY MOTHER'S RACE".

From 'Dreams of my Father', "The emotion between the races could never be pure..... the other race would always remain just that: menacing, alien, and apart."

From 'Dreams of My Father',
"I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites"

From Dreams Of My Father, "never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn't speak to my own. It was into my father's image, the black man, son of Africa, that I'd packed all the attributes I sought in myself..".

From Dreams Of My Father:
"That hate hadn't gone away," he wrote, blaming "white people — some cruel, some ignorant, sometimes a single face, sometimes just a faceless image of a system claiming power over our lives."

From Dreams Of My Father;
"There were enough of us on campus to constitute a tribe, and when it came to hanging out many of us chose to function like a tribe, staying close together, traveling in packs," he wrote. "It remained necessary to prove which side you were on,to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names"

From Dreams Of My Father, "I had grown accustomed, everywhere, to suspicions between the races."

"I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction."

~~~~~~~~~~~~

It is amazing how so many can make excuses for this man.
He is a racist...what is the old saying, once a racist always a racist?

He spells out his racist attitude in the book, attends a church that is not only racist, but hands out terror networks pamphlets.
Embraces the Islamic religion then changes to a so called Christian religion b/c he knows that he has no chance as a muslim, then ditches his racist so called church when the truth comes out about the hate speach being tossed out.

If this man becomes President, we get what we deserve.
The media will hide most of the dirt untill it is too late.
Sigh....
What a sad day in this nations history.
~~~~~~~~~~~
Kerry did not get my vote b/c he was a liar and an idiot.
It had nothing to do with his Millitary Service.
I hated his utopian dream world and truly hated him after he tossed his fellow soldiers under the bus.
What kind of man, betrays those who protected him?



“…man is not free unless government is limited. There's a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: As government expands, liberty contracts.”

Murf,

Since you havent read the book, I will help your learning curve.

He was referring to post 9/11 and people in our country turning against all Muslims for the actions of those on 9/11.

He is sayign he would stand behind them in the face of bigotry and prejudice.

Its actually a good thing. However, the way Shalom writes it, you would think Obama is the next suicide bomber. That is textbook taking it out of context.

"The American Cancer Society says uninsured patients are 60 percent more likely to die within five years of their diagnosis."

I am not here to bow to anyone. And just because you 'proved' something in your own mind does not mean I don't believe it is true. You can twist words but I take people literally. If you call a spade a spade, I don't wonder if you mean a shovel or a diamond. Don't try to tell me how to think about what someone is saying-- I can figure it out for myself. I listen over and over to his speeches as I am looking for key words and phrases that prove to me what he is really about. Ideals are just that-- they mean nothing without actions and Obama has little or no experience under fire period. You cannot dispute that and I don't want to change just for the sake of change. That is the problem with those that want to change because some guy can give a good speech. I challenge you to go back to 1984 and look at Mario Cuomo's remarks during the end of the Democratic primaries and see how close they resemble Obama. Obama is not original or remarkable-- he just is a good speaker. Yep-- that I what I want is a fast talker that has no credance or history of being in a tough situation like 9/11 running this country. Sorry but I want to see someone more seasoned, that sees the Christian agenda and understands how important those things are to the fabric of this country. There is no hatred meant-- I just understand what history shows as important to our way of life.

You tel