Powell suggests Limbaugh's comments about him show GOP still has a "problem" with race
July 05, 2009 11:34 am ET
From the July 5th edition of CNN's State Of The Union:
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
And if you say if often enough it must surely be true.
80P
3 comments will be misunderstood
2 comments will be taken out of context
1 comment will be repeating someone elses' words
9 comments will be jokes that only Rush gets.
Wagering on 15 racist comments starts at 9-5.
I would think Satan would have a very good chance of winning in hell. Name recognition and all that, you know.
I think if Satan ran as a dem, the same would be true!
I still can't come up with a prominent dem who voted for the (R) and actively campaigned for him or her...
As each week passes, Boss Hog excommunicates more of those who disagree with his right wing, chickenhawk, racist ideology.
And since the Republicans don't have the numbers or ideas to attract non-Republicans, they'll be a permanent minority.
Myself, I don't have a problem with that. Not at all.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/25/cnn-poll-powell-vs-cheney-and-limbaugh/
Among Republicans, it's a different story. The poll suggests that 66 percent of Republicans have a favorable view of Cheney, 64 percent give Powell a thumbs up, and 62 view Limbaugh in a favorable way.
Powell is more popular than Limbaugh AMONG REPUBLICANS. No need to ask about the country as a whole. If the day comes you EVER know what you are taling about maybe you could drop by again. Or for another spanking whichever.
If the GOP is satisfied having a CystJockey as its' Comptroller, then so be it. But why have a RightWing Extreme Conservative at the head of the Party? Powell shows more concern about the Republicans than Limbaugh ever has.
I know this may be out of the Twilight Zone for you but maybe, just maybe, Powell voted for the person who he thought was better for America at this time...something the Republicans dismissed years ago.
Still waiting for any odds to change.
Is that why herr dubyah selected Powell as his Secretary of State?
Powell was willing to put Party ahead of truth and be a good soldier, just as he did when he attempted to cover up the MyLai massacre during the Vietnam War.
Powell didn't have the stomach to support Sarah Palin. He could barely stomach supporting John McCain. But eventually his stunted conscience started to grow slightly, and he supported Obama for the Presidency. He stated why in a seven minute uninterrupted talk on MTP, that was extremely well thought out, supported by facts and logic, and which Rush Limbaugh said was based only upon race, which was never mentioned in Powell's entire MTP statement.
It is interersting that Powell's seven minute statement was precisely the amount of time W sat dumbstruck on 9/11, before jumping into AF1 and high-tailing it to Nebraska.
Second, I find Powell to be an extremely honorable man, and great civil servant. I'm pretty sure he did what he did, because he was given the "facts" to present, and by all indications, almost right until the moment he gave his little dog and pony show, he was questioning the intelligence behind what he was saying. He has also said that he felt, and continues to feel guilty about that, and that he does take responsibility.
I also think that if Powell were ever to run for President, he would win, easily. I would vote for him. I do trust him, and I think that most Americans would trust him as well. Luckily for the democratic party, he'll never run for an elected office, it's not the path that he chooses to take, but it's bad for the country. We could use a man like Powell.
He supported Obama, because I'm sure that he felt, and knew that Obama was the best man in the race.
W jumped AF-1 to Nebraska and other places, because that was security protocol. That is what he should have done, and I'm certain that is what the Secret Service told him to do, or basically had him do (I'm sure he did not have a choice), and considering that there was the plane that went down in PA, that was angling towards Congress or the White House, it was better that he wasn't there. I don't blame him, or Cheney for hiding out for awhile. We didn't know the details. We didn't know if we were going to see more attacks. We didn't know what was totally going on. I can fault Bush for a lot of things, and I have, but NOT going back to DC on 9/11 was the best choice.
I don't care where W went. What he wasn't was in charge and competent.
And, of course, you were correct about Powell being SoS before giving the UN speech. That was my mistake, thanks for setting me straight. But I still don't trust Powell, and would not consider voting for him.
As for Powell's UN speech, he was operating off the same intel that one bill clinton operated off during Operation Desert Fox for violations of HR 4655. Was HE fed the wrong intel also?
Had he run, I have no doubt he would have been elected.
powell refused to tow the line anymore and dare challeged the wisdom of dick and co and their all knowing powers
That's what you should have said. The GOP has a problem with anything that's not White, male and religious!
May 18, 2009 - The decline in Republican Party affiliation among Americans in recent years is well documented, but a Gallup analysis now shows that this movement away from the GOP has occurred among nearly every major demographic subgroup. Since the first year of George W. Bush's presidency in 2001, the Republican Party has maintained its support only among frequent churchgoers, with conservatives and senior citizens showing minimal decline.
GOP Losses Span Nearly All Demographic Groups...
June 1, 2009 - PRINCETON, NJ -- More than 6 in 10 Republicans today are white conservatives, while most of the rest are whites with other ideological leanings; only 11% of Republicans are Hispanics, or are blacks or members of other races. By contrast, only 12% of Democrats are white conservatives, while about half are white moderates or liberals and a third are nonwhite.
Republican Base Heavily White, Conservative, Religious...
And, as anybody knows, his reasons for supporting Obama were anything BUT racial. He gave his reasons and I found them solid.
Unlike a certain unelected conservative broadcaster who makes stuff up.
Rush's inability to hear Powell's reasons for endorsing Obama, and instead going to a knee-jerk " Wull, they're both black guys, so..." is perfectly transparent to anybody who isn't as confused as he is.
JPEagle's post above is just as unintentionally illuminating. He's been programmed to believe it, so it's a fact to him. "Race card politics". Funny. I guess all black people must vote for the non-black candidate, no matter how inferior that candidate is.
I'm not sure how it went out there Colonel, but I spent the 4th in a little Virginia shore town and there were no teabaggers.
Is it possible that there were fewer people out teabagging than there were commenting on JPEagles' post?
I don't know if JP earned that record by being any more dopey than many of his comrades, maybe he just got a heavy concentration of thumbs down by being the only one completely confused by this item and willing to comment.
I can say no more.
Liberals are so hypocritically blind as to be truly pathetic. Powell laid out his 'reasons' for endorsing Obama: "Obama is against everything my party stands for. I'm a loyal Republican, I'll endorse him."
Lieberman, quite reasonably, said that he thought Obama's policies toward the 'War on Terror' were naive and dangerous so he endorsed McCain. It seems that President Obama has agreed with Lieberman, quietly continuing the very policies that he castigated Bush for. Welcome to reality. Maybe Powell will someday understand it, too.
Powell reminds me of a story once told about Eisenhower. General MacArthur was asked his opinion of Eisenhower, he said, "Best clerk I ever had."
In that respect, Powell has a lot in common with Eisenhower. The difference being that Eisenhower rose to prominence through hard work and diligence, while Powell was the beneficiary of a drastic social engineering project that the army pushed through in the 70's and beyond, making race more important than competence for promotions.
Powell talked about the nature of McCain's campaign, specifically how he was troubled by the Muslim issue and the selection of Palin. He also mentioned that Obama was the better choice because we needed to reach out to other countries. How does what Powell actually said (as opposed to your otherworldly interpretation) make him any different from Lieberman and his disagreement over foreign policy? Lieberman is supposedly reasonable for his endorsement, since it's based on Obama's policies, but when Powell makes a comment about McCain's policies, then he's a turncoat.
Or, on the flipside of that, if Powell can be reasonably summarized as saying "Obama is against everything my party stands for...", then why can't Lieberman be summarized as "McCain is against everything Democrats stand for..."? You seem to be engaging in hypocrisy, rather blindly at that.
I'll type this slow for you:
The MMFA crowd has been voracious in its condemnation of Lieberman, but is pretty vocal in its praise for Powell. Both men have turned against their own party. They are both spineless jellyfish, but surely Lieberman is the less contemptible of the two - at least he isn't a liar. Powell says now that he regrets the speech he made at the U.N. So, he was lying at the U.N., or at best, was just woefully ignorant. Great resume line, heh?
But the MMFA crowd seems to think that Powell would be a wonderful leader in the GOP, while they would not give the time of day to Lieberman.
The hypocrisy occurs in the pretense that somehow the liberal is more "high-minded' and unbigoted than the conservative because of the embracing/rejecting of Powell. The conservative rejects Powell because he is a turncoat to his party. The liberal rejects Lieberman because he is a turncoat to his party. It is as senseless to charge the conservative with racism in his rejection of Powell as it is to accuse the liberal of antisemitism because of his rejection of Lieberman.
And yet the MMFA types do just that. (see Snoopy and Solon below for examples)
Powell has NOT been forced out of the Republican party and is welcome within our ranks, even if criticized by the likes of Rush.
MoveOn.org supports Lamont
Rise of Netroots
It was prominent conservatives who proclaimed Powell's support of Obama to be "totally about race". I agree with you that it's senseless to charge liberals with antisemitism in the case of Lieberman, but that's because no prominent liberal ever accused Lieberman of breaking with his party because he's Jewish. Powell, on the other hand, has been accused by very prominent conservatives of putting race before country.
Please, by all means, please continue to call a man who earned the Purple Heart a "spineless jellyfish". It just makes your whole argument that much more credible.
I'm not sure what makes you think I don't understand that. You still seem to be suggesting that there's some hypocrisy there, as if conservatives don't condemn Powell and embrace Lieberman. You had Lieberman speak at the Republican National Convention, if I recall correctly.
You're shifting your argument. Before it was hypocrisy that the left accepted Powell but not Lieberman. Now it's about saying that "the conservative" is racist but not Lieberman. As pointed out, this very thread is about Limbaugh and his comments about Powell. He said that Powell did it because of race. Are you lost? Do you not know where you are?
How could I have forgotten that? It's on this very thread.
Lieberman did -not- become a Democrat because he had some awakening, because he woke up one morning, smacked himself in the forehead, and said, "Oh dear! I've been wrong all these years!" No no. Lieberman pretended to become a Democrat because it was the only hope he had of being elected one more time.
Yeah, let's just forget all about Powell's proven success as a general and boil it down to the racist screed of he got promoted over the superior white guy because of the color of his skin. I'm quite sure your daddy is very proud of you, bubba.
"In the early 1980s, Powell served at Fort Carson, Colorado. It was there that he had a major clash with General John Hudachek, his commander. Hudachek said in an efficiency evaluation that Powell was a poor leader who should not be promoted." (Reference.com) emphasis mine
The fact that the Army engaged in radical social engineering in the 70s and 80s doesn't make me a racist, nor does calling me a racist disprove my contention that Powell (a black man) profited from it. It just proves that you are willing to pre-judge people (that's called prejudice or bigotry in lands that speak English).
Powell's rise did happen precisely because of affirmative action, (plus his ability to play politics).
Do you know John Hudachek? Do you know that he would try to scuttle someone's career out of personal pique? Or maybe he was a racist, too. Maybe the whole world is full of racist morons, Solon, and you're the only rational one left on the face of the earth! You go, girl!
Like Obama and Clarence Thomas, Powell would not be in a position of prominence were it not for their skin color. Thomas has proven to be an adequate choice, but he would never have been chosen were it not for his skin color. The same is true of Obama and Powell. Powell is actually a very good example of the destructive effects of affirmative action.
That's certainly not to say that there aren't blacks or persons of non-pallor that aren't eminently qualified for the positions they are in or could be considered for. But the political reality is that affirmative action is as destructive to the achievement of the favored as it is to the aspirations of the disfavored.
All affirmative action is is reverse racism. I learned a saying early in life that has always held true: "Two wrongs don't make a right."
Prove it.
(And you've joined the league of troll racists on this site).
By the way, the only way you can claim that affirmative action is racist is if you can show that it's based on the premise that a minority is superior to the majority. That's what the word means. Why so many conservatives are allergic to definitions is a great mystery to me.
Uh-huh. You know what else is institutionalized racism? Oh, just maybe the denial to people of color of the right to vote, the right to own property, the right to drink at the same water fountain as anyone else, denial of access to credit based on nothing but skin color, and the systematic depiction of people of color as criminals, sexual menaces, mental inferiors and comic relief in mass media. But sure, Powell never faced anything remotely related to those things while growing up in Harlem and the South Bronx in the 1940s and 1950s as a child of Jamaican immigrant parents.
You asked in a previous post for someone to remind you of Powell's successes. I guess you missed the parts of Powell's biography that included his service to this country as Second Lieutenant, First Lieutenant, Captain, Lieutenant Colonel, Colonel, Brigadier General, Major General, Lieutenant General, General, Four Star General, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Secretary of State, or his having earned the Combat Infantryman Badge, the Expert Infantryman Badge, the Ranger Tab, the Parachutist Badge, the Pathfinder Badge, the Air Assault Badge, the Presidential Service Badge, the Secretary of Defense Identification Badge, the Joint Chiefs of Staff Identification Badge, the Army Staff Identification Badge, the Military medals and ribbons, the Defense Distinguished Service Medal with 3 Oak Leaf Clusters, the Distinguished Service Medal, the Army medal with Oak Leaf Cluster, the Defense Superior Service Medal, the Legion of Merit medal with Oak Leaf Cluster, the Soldier's Medal, the Bronze Star, the Purple Heart, the Air Medal, the Joint Service Commendation Medal, the Army Commendation Medal with 2 Oak Leaf Clusters, the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the Presidential Citizens Medal, the National Defense Service Medal with 1 Bronze Service Star, the Vietnam Service Medal with 1 Silver Service Star, the Army Service Ribbon and the Army Overseas Service Ribbon. And contrary to what you say, being called "the reluctant warrior" is hardly an insult; it's an honor.
How sad that you need reminding about this man's successes.
I'd like to think I'm exaggerating, but what are you supposed to believe about someone who seems to think that even when affirmative action puts a qualified minority into a position, it's still "wrong"?
I don't know about the point system of social engineering that our friend edrossinoelwein9669 keeps talking about, but here's a fine editorial on the actual policies in place in the US military in 1995:
What this boils down to is quite simple. If our friend edrossinoelwein9669 has one shred of evidence that Powell received an honor or a promotion that he didn't deserve, then he had best offer it. Otherwise, I'd suggest he admit to himself that he doesn't know what he's talking about.
Your quote says it perfectly: "Only fully qualified people are promoted, but not necessarily the best-qualified."
That is the soft bigotry of lower expectations.
We know, your actions prove you're a racist for you.
This expression is from a 2000 speech by then presidential candidate George W. Bush. Under Bush, Powell would serve as Secretary of State. So which is it: are you wrong and Powell deserved his job, or was Bush a hypocrite who talked about the soft bigotry of affirmative action and then hired someone who was unqualified just because of skin color?
Actually if your argument was based on facts and you wanted anyone to take your position seriously, you could very easily try to prove what you've said with citations. For example, earlier you wrote: "During the 70s and 80s, it was nigh near impossible to be promoted in the army unless you had 'points.' Those were awarded for skin color and gender." Where's your evidence? Where are the statistics that show a sudden drop to near zero among promotions of white people in the military? How many points did being a woman earn? If you can't back up this claim, how can anyone possibly take it seriously?
Meanwhile, I've at least provided an account with quotes from a military officer who explains how the system actually works. And that account undermines unfounded claims of yours, like this one:
Under the affirmative action program we're talking about, everyone who is promoted DOES earn their promotion by their own merit and qualifications. Everyone who is promoted is fully qualified. No one gets a free pass.
In Powell's case, his performance pretty much proves that he got the jobs (the political appointments) because of his skin color not because of his superior skills.
Does anyone on this thread want to argue that Clarence Thomas got his job because of his credentials? The same dynamics work in the case of Powell and Obama.
New Haven Firefighters...Clarence Thomas...
If you really ask your keyboard to describe you, STOOPID would come up on your screen.
You have proved over and over that you are a gasbag trying to defend your idiotic clams..with no proof by the way.
And if you wish to call me some name with liberal at the end, go ahead..but my response to you is...you are acting like a little child who loses all the time and we all know why.
So on one hand you have systemic racism. On the other hand, you have the idea that the beneficiary of the alleviation of that racism doesn't know whether they deserved the job or not.
That's a real quandary for the ages, alright. Maybe we should allow systemic discrimination so that minority applicants will only have to wonder if they were denied a job because they were unqualified or if it was because of their skin color, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. Your priorities need some serious adjustment, to put it kindly.
Why, because he followed orders? And is his performance notably inferior to that of any number of white people? Wick, Meese, Poindexter, Watt, Rumsfeld, and Abrams, to name a few? Conservatives sure didn't seem to think that Janet Reno did a good job, but when we're talking about a black person, any question of performance automatically proves that they only got the job in the first place because of "reverse racism".
Thomas was appointed when Thurgood Marshall left the bench. That was a factor in his selection, obviously. What similarity is there to Powell and Obama? More specifically, what happened in 2008 that designated it was time for a black president, as opposed to 1984 or 1988, for instance? If it's "he just got elected because he was black", then why didn't the same dynamic work for Jesse Jackson? Why didn't it work for Al Sharpton or Alan Keyes later on? There must be some other factor at hand.
It might very well be that the 'other factors' with Jackson and Sharpton is that they are con men and the public saw through the con. Keyes is not a likeable fellow, no matter his skin color.
Obama is likeable, smooth, a savvy politico, and played the race issue extremely well. But what he said about race was that it shouldn't matter, while at the same time playing the 'race card' against the Clintons (and others?).
You're not establishing any tangible effect here. Obama is a great politician, and he gets elected because he's black. Keyes is a terrible politician, but he doesn't win even though he's black. If they were of any combination of races between the two of them, that would still be the same. You're not showing me where the difference would be, or why it would be there. And how about Carol Mosely-Braun? Did she drop out because people thought she was a con artist or abrasive? Where were the "contributing factors" for her, since she had both race and gender on her side?
Racism is the belief that one race is superior or inferior to another. If you can't show that the goal of affirmative action is to make black people superior on a socioeconomic level, then it isn't "racist". The word simply doesn't apply to efforts to make the races equal.
Your argument boils down to "black people get jobs because they're black, although I can't explain where the benefit comes in, and that's wrong because it's reverse racism, therefore it's racism, even though it doesn't have anything to do with the actual definition of the word". That's slightly less than compelling.
The difference is that the sort of "social engineering" you so detest is the kind that is based on the egalitarian presumption that merit is equally probable among all people of all identities. The other kind, the kind that has been practiced for far longer and continues to be practiced, is the kind that discriminates against minorities and then turns a blind eye to that discrimination.
We can all agree that race shouldn't matter. Sadly, this is not the world we live in so long as you and people who share your views are willing to make things up about the military's affirmative action program in order to justify your opinion that Powell didn't earn his success on his own merits. (I'm still waiting for proof of that "point" system you spoke of.)
I'll leave it at that, even though I don't agree with really anything else you've said. Seems you're getting plenty from everyone else here!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Powell
Affirmative action only righted a wrong which was giving the less qualified white man a promotion over the more qualified black man. I guess you don't like the idea of competion on an equal playing field. Why is that?
Like most 'liberal' solutions, affirmative action aggravated the situation it was proposed to solve and makes a solution more difficult to achieve. It's wrong. It doesn't work.
Let's look at it another way;if there's systemic racism, then white people are taking something from minorities that the minorities should have. I don't know how you can deny that premise without wearing a sheet and a hood. So if someone takes something from you, then why shouldn't the system take it back on your behalf? It's not "reverse stealing, which is just as bad as stealing" or "two wrongs making a right" or "I have an advantage that the guy who stole from me doesn't have, so that's wrong". It's correcting a transgression.
You attribute attitudes and opinions to me that are completely untrue and unjustified. I understand (but disagree) with your argument about the balance of power. But Desert Storm changed the balance of power in the mid-east for the better, and hopefully it will never recover its former status. There are democratic forces at work all across the mid-east because of Saddam being toppled. Iran's regime has been deeply destabilized. The Sauds are being pressured about women's rights. Gaddafi has apparently broken with the terrorists.
Bush-I and Powell were too foggy bottom to achieve anything of lasting impact in the area.
It has nothing to do with their race. It is about their policies - which reflect their competence.
I am confident that most of the people who serve in the armed services earned their medals and honors. (There will always be a few 'heroes' like John Kerry who milk the system.) I'm not making any 'racially tinged' statements about Powell. He would be a traitor to the GOP cause if he were colored blue. He would be a poor military leader if he were orange. His character and abilities (or lack thereof) are not a matter of race.
The idea that a black man shouldn't be criticized or evaluated by the same standard used for Jews, Anglos and Asians is bigotry.
Except for women minorities, whose career successes you've argued have been artificially inflated.
Seriously, do you have memory problems? These are your words from your first comment, I believe, on this thread:
If you're going to begin by claiming that the man got where he is in life because he's more black than qualified, why be shy about it now?
No, it doesn't.
Prior to the implementation of affirmative action programs, women and minorities were ridiculously underrepresented in educational institutions and higher salary jobs. Now, according to you, there was no horrible affirmative action program skewing our wonderful meritocritous educational system and workforce, so the only way to account for these disproportionately lower rates of success would be to posit that women and minorities simply didn't have as much merit as white men. And conveniently, even after the implementation of affirmative action programs, you make the same claim. Your problem is that you're beginning with the assumption that not all people are equally capable of the same accomplishments.
Institutionalized racism exists and has existed long before (and in a much more pervasive form) than any affirmative action program. The difference is that affirmative action is actually a rigorous, systematic, documented effort that takes as its premise the idea that merit is equally probable among every demographic category. This is not demeaning. This is the opposite of demeaning.
Demeaning is when a man is denied a promotion because he looks to "street" to represent the company. Demeaning is when you baselessly cast doubt on the accomplishments and career achievements of any woman or minority who has ever worked in an organization that implemented an affirmative action policy, even when you know that those policies ensure that no one is promoted who is not fully qualified. Demeaning is claiming that any effort to fight that kind of racism is "reverse racism".
Except for creeps like John Kerry, most soldiers are honorable and brave individuals who earn the awards and honors they receive.
This idea that it is racist to evaluate or criticize a black man with a common standard is soft bigotry.
OK, now you're simply not telling the truth. Your words were: "In that respect, Powell has a lot in common with Eisenhower. The difference being that Eisenhower rose to prominence through hard work and diligence, while Powell was the beneficiary of a drastic social engineering project that the army pushed through in the 70's and beyond, making race more important than competence for promotions."
Your original claim is that Powell's racial identity outweighed his merits in determining his career successes. If you can't be honest about what you yourself said, you certainly can't be trusted to be honest in your account of anything that goes on in the world outside your own skull.
Common sense dictates that his race was a significant factor in all his political appointments. As highly racialized as the American political scene is, no astute politician (Democrat or Republican) does anything that is truly 'color-blind.'
Armitage source of leak
More on Dick Armitage
Armitage was Powell's aide. Both Armitage & Novak affirmed this. Powell is such great man.... he was the guy who wrote the cover-up for the Mai Lai massacre in Viet Nam.
I don't need reasons to "diss" him. He is a turncoat to the people who groomed him for leadership. He's not very bright, and he is not loyal, nor trustworthy. He is a political opportunist. I could care less what he says the GOP's problem is. He wouldn't recognize a solution unless it was something that bit him.
Since when has being "a reluctant warrior" been derogative? I know soldiers. My father served in the US military during the Korean war. I've worked with people who served in Iraq and Afghanistan. A good friend of mine served in the first Gulf War. None of them ever described their service in terms of grinning at the chance to go kill bad guys. These are people I respect, and they are all committed to the idea that the lives of soldiers are valuable and should be risked only when all other options are exhausted.
There is absolutely no shame in being known as a 'reluctant warrior'. If you think there is, please, by all means, stop being so reluctant and go risk your life for your country on the field of battle.
In Iraq, I've been told, guys would drive up to the base perimeter, pile out, unload their mortar, fire it, pile back in the truck and drive away. Our forces, meanwhile, had to wait for the mortar to detonate before they could return fire. My son guarded a missile site with an rifle - an unloaded rifle! That is a good example of what happens when armed forces are led by 'reluctant warriors.' Stupidity.
What you are describing is prudence, not reluctance. Powell is not a coward. He is just not a good leader nor a wise leader. He has no credibility among the GOP, nor should he have - he is a turncoat.
Those who fight and are not reluctant are called savages.
Lieberman is not a member of the Democratic Party (and in a great turn of events, isn't even a member of the party he created. Several people joined the party and voted Lieberman out, and according to the by-laws, Lieberman has no legal standing to sue for reinstatement). Lieberman is a supposed Independent. How independent he truly is remains to be seen.
WHY? For expressing HIS opinions?
It's seems that Republicans only want people who totally and completely agree what whatever Limbo and other blowhards say. No INDIVIDUAL thought needed, just stick your nose in the a** of the sheep in front of you and keep walking.
Since 1994, Republicans have been smelling the a** in front of them, showing absolutely ZERO leadership qualities.
My father used to say 'Don't be a follower, be a leader. You keep following and you'll fall off a cliff'. You Republicans ought to try it.......Wait, don't take that advise. Keep right on following
Republicans don't hace a problem with racism. It's what they're selling. Their problem is, nobody is buying.
.
Race card noodles - not sticking
Radical liberal card noodles - not sticking
Anti-American card noodles - not sticking
Socialist card noodles - not sticking
We'll be attacked again fear card noodles - sticks for 30 seconds, then falls flat
Next they will try: God told me the Democrats are working for the devil noodles - still cooking in the pot of lost hopes!
Unfortunately, you are one of the confused Neoclowns who think the plural of "hearsay anecdote" is "data."
Without racism, gops go the way of the whigs.
Oh, right, you CAN'T. That's the problem with you my friend. You have a field of strawman.
by zamfir273114 (April 09, 2007 9:19 pm ET)
...I want racial quotas in basketball so that there is an equal number of non-black athletes. Am I going to get any of those things? Didn't think so.
by zamfir273114 (April 09, 2007 11:33 pm ET)
People are still people. When people talk before they think, they can say stupid and derogatory things. To cite every incidence as "racism" is overreaching.
by zamfir273114 (August 05, 2008 9:14 pm ET)
Savage has a point. Every neighborhood that illegals have migrated to has gone down the tubes. My birthplace of Van Nuys, CA is like "little Mexico" now. Shootings, rapings, pillaging, drive-by's, grafiti, prostitution, drugs, (you know, all the things that go along with the Mexican-illegal population. Even the African-American neighborhoods are in awe!
by zamfir273114 (August 05, 2008 9:27 pm ET)
Then why is it that every one of these Mexican populated areas crime-ridden? Really, all P.C. aside, can you tell me why the real estate prices decrease in these areas? One more thing, why are the prisons filled with Mexicans? P.C. aside. See, nothing ever gets done because everybody is afraid to talk about these things.
by zamfir273114 (February 15, 2008 12:38 am ET)
I don't have to agree with someone in order to value free speech. Sure, Imus et. Al. say some nasty comments; however, unless you can diminish his listenership or his value, your barking up the wrong tree. If Hillary were black, you could resort to using Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton. Unfortunately, they only come running when black folk are ridiculed. Hmm, that seems a little "racist" in and of itself.
by zamfir273114 (February 14, 2008 6:35 pm ET)
That is Mr. Hussein's, I mean Obama's, name. Coulter only speaks what millions of American's think. The American people have a right to know who they are voting for. Barack Hussein Obama.