Time.com's Cox: It's "strange" that Dems "represent[] the mainstream American values"
On the February 2 edition of MSNBC News Live, during a conversation with host Joe Scarborough about congressional opposition to an Iraq troop increase, Time.com Washington editor Ana Marie Cox asserted that it is "strange" that "[i]t's Democrats that are really representing the mainstream American values right now, which is a strong disapproval for the surge." Cox also observed that "Americans largely disapprove of this surge."
In a recent post, Cox referred to Media Matters for America as humorless. Needless to say, we were not amused.
From the February 2 edition of MSNBC News Live:
SCARBOROUGH: Ana, it seems like the world has turned -- the political world has turned 180 degrees. From 2002 through 2006, it was the Republicans that always stood shoulder-to-shoulder, and it was the Democrats who were always fighting each other.
Now, things have switched. Democrats are shoulder-to-shoulder, and Republicans are fighting each other in a way that I never saw Democrats fight each other, accusing each other of being traitors or being extreme. Let's talk about that.
COX: Democrats can be awfully tough on each other, but, yes, I think that there is nothing like a war to get people to sort of look at the very bare facts that they have in front of them and to really draw lines between themselves.
I think it's really amazing that on the Hill right now, you have -- what? -- I think six or seven different kinds of resolutions about this troop surge. They range from -- sort of, on the surface -- they range from the, perhaps, the best-case scenario for Bush but unlikely to happen, a vote in favor of it -- a resolution proposing support for the troops -- and then you have people voting to pull out.
It turns out that if you look at the middle ground between those two poles, the middle ground is not something like what [Sen. John] Warner [R-VA] offers. The middle ground, if you look at what Americans want -- Americans largely disapprove of this surge.
And, so actually, again, like this is something strange, I think, too. It's Democrats that are really representing the mainstream American values right now, which is a strong disapproval for the surge.
I guess it is nice that someone on a network recognized that Dems represent mainstream American values. It is, however, sad that even that acknowledgement had to be couched as "it's strange".
"It's Democrats that are really representing the mainstream American values right now"
Ah, I see. LOL Ever since the neo-cons have been in power, America has moved to the right (read: the right-wing religious extremists have annointed themselves as "representing" American values).
The democrats have ALWAYS represented mainstream American values. It's just that the right-wing neo-con political machinary is broken right now.
Always entertaining to see news pundits realize the obvious but still get it wrong somehow.
Yes!! That's why everytime a ballot initiative is on the ballot, conservative issues win.
The reason why Democrats won was: (1) "Macacca;" (2) "Ohio corruption;" (3) and the fact that Bush lost all respect from Conservatives (He didn't veto one spending bill, he opened the border, he tied our troops hands, our debt is increasing).
I hate to break it to you. But, Republicans lost, Democrats didn't win. A dead man could have beaten the Republicans.
it just must kill you to know that democrats, who represent everyone BUT white neolithic troglodytes, are about to commit another "first" and run either a woman, or black man, or heck, maybe both! - for president of the US. How come y'all can't find anything but a pasty white lunatic to represent America?
Here are all the black Republicans I could find...
CaliforniaAlban Isaac Niles - Judge, Superior Court
ColoradoEd Jones - Senator District 11
FloridaJennifer Carroll - Representative District 13Art Graham - Council member District 13, JacksonvilleGlorious Johnson - Council member-at-Large, JacksonvilleElizabeth Wade - Chair of City Council, Riviera BeachEsther Berry - Commissioner, City of South BayDavid O. Archie - Vice-Mayor, Tarpon SpringsGow B. Fields - Commissioner, Lakeland
GeorgiaWillie Talton - Representative District 145Melvin Everson - Representative District 106Ralph Moore - Mayor, Union City
IowaLeon Mosley - Supervisor, Black Hawk County
IndianaMichael Cunegin II - Council member, Fort WayneIsaac Randolph - City-County Council member, IndianapolisCurtis Hill - Prosecuting Attorney of Elkart County
MassachusettsFrank G. Cousins, Jr. - Sheriff, Essex County
MarylandMichael S. Steele - Lieutenant Governor
MichiganBill Hardiman - Senator District 29
MississippiYvonne Brown - Mayor, Tchula, Maurice Fulton Lucas - Mayor, Renova
MissouriSherman Parker - Representative District 12
North CarolinaVernon Robinson - Alderman, Winston SalemPearl Burris-Floyd - Commissioner, Gaston County
New JerseyTheresa Brown - Freeholder, Burlington County
New MexicoJane E. Powdrell-Culbert - Representative District 44
NevadaLynette Boggs McDonald - Council member, Las VegasMaurice Washington - Senator District 2
New YorkJoseph Davis - Supervisor, Town of PoughkeepsieMarquette L. Floyd - Justice, Supreme CourtJoan B. Johnson - Clerk, IslipJoseph K. West - Judge, County Court, Westchester County
North CarolinaThomas A. Stith, Councilmember, City of Durham
OhioJ. Kenneth Blackwell - Secretary of StateJeanette Bradley - TreasurerClara Pugh - Vice-Mayor Forest ParkLee Espirit - Councilman, XeniaRichard Atkinson - Councilman, YoungstownBob Fountain - Councilman, PainsvilleJeff Harris - Councilman, NewarkWilliam Richardson - Councilman, WaynesburgVirgil Brown Jr. - Cuyahoga County School BoardKim Brown - Judge, Domestic Relations, Franklin CountyGuy Reese - Judge, Common Pleas, Franklin CountyDwayne Maynard - Judge, Municipal Court, Franklin CountyJames Greene - Judge, Municipal Court, Franklin CountyKim Wilson Burke - Judge, Common Pleas, Hamilton CountyKendal Coes - Judge, Municipal Court, Hamilton CountyJohn West - Judge, Common Pleas, Hamilton CountyJohn Burlew - Judge, Municipal Court, Hamilton CountyWilliam Littlejohn - Judge, Municipal Court, Montgomery CountyJames Cannon - Judge, Municipal Court, DaytonMelba D. Marsh - Judge, Court of Common Pleas, Hamilton CountyAlice O. McCollum- Judge, Municipal Court, DaytonDonald K. McLaurin - Mayor, Trotwood
OklahomaCharles L. Owens - Judge, District Court
OregonJackie Winters - Senator District 10
PennsylvaniaHorace A. Davenport - Senior Judge, Court of Common Pleas, Montgomery CountyRichelle Reid - Council member, MiddletownRobert Reid - Mayor, MiddletownRobert A. Wright - Senior Judge, Court of Common Pleas, Delaware County Robert C. Wright - Judge, Court of Common Pleas, Delaware CountyFrances Pierce - Register of Wills, Montgomery CountyGarrett Page - Treasurer, Montgomery County
South CarolinaTimothy E. Scott - Council member, Charleston CountyStarletta Hairston, Beaufort County Councilwoman
TennesseeGeorge H. Brown, Jr. - Judge, Circuit CourtDaryl K. Hubbard - Court Clerk, City Court, Jackson
TexasWallace Jefferson - Justice, State Supreme CourtGwen Morrison - Trustee, Tarrant County Junior CollegeDale Wainwright - Justice, State Supreme CourtMichael L. Williams - Chair, Railroad CommissionGregory Parker, Commissioner, Comal CountyBobbie J, Mitchell, Commissioner, Denton CountyKen Bryant, Trustee, Fort Bend County
Dr. Robin Armstrong, Vice Chairman, Republican Party of Texas
VermontRandy Brock - State Auditor
VirginiaJohn E. Gordon - Supervisor, Hanover County-South AnnaRudolph Harmon, Sr. - Council member, BurkevilleOctavia L. Johnson - Sheriff, RoanokeGabe A. Morgan - Sheriff, Newport NewsGlendell Hill - Sheriff, Prince William CountyC. E. "Cliff" Hayes, Jr., Councilman, City of Chesapeake
U.S. Virgin IslandsLawrence Boschulte - Member, Board of ElectionsReuben Fenton - Member, Board of Elections
WisconsinDavid A. Clarke Jr. - Sheriff, Milwaukee County
Oh sorry, these only count the ones who were elected.
How come y'all can't find anything but a pasty white lunatic to represent America? - Snoopy
I'll wait for you to take back your statements.
not taking back anything. Who is your presidential candidate? got one? I was pretty clear up front that we were talking about "first's" as in first president or VP. What do ya got besides pasty white closet racists to run for the most important office in the land? Ya know, the one that as kids, we hear "anyone can be president"? That one?
So, let me get this straight, I should force a black person to run who doesn't want to?
In case you didn't realize, they need to run first. It is their choice, then we vote for them in a primary. According to Biden, anyway, the Democrats have never had a clean articulate black candidate anyway. So, according to him, this the the first Black Candidate that can win.
Back to my point.....
Many people have asked Condi to run, but she refused.
Many have asked Powell to run, he refused too.
Moreover, maybe you should look at the History of the Democrat party. Other than the civil rights act, what else have they done for minorities.
Even Kennedy voted against Title VII before he became President.
You just wish that Republicans were racists so it would match your world view....sad, sad, sad.
not even close...
why don't you ask yourself why a black man doesn't want to run as a republican rather than try to cover it over with "why force a black man to run as a republican when he doesn't want to?" And the Dem's have done far more for the blacks this century than the republicans ever did.
Oh, I forget. Y'all think affirmative action is racist. Heaven forbid that we have a program in place to give minorities a chance at being recognized for their skills in a climate that does not appreciate the fact that anyone who looks different is capable of exceeding.
No people don't want to run for President for the same reason I don't want to run for President - I don't want the responsibiliy.
Second, many black people don't support affirmative action. Most don't need it because they are capable to make it on their own. Moreover, it creates the stigma that they need the help, when they don't.
The American people have always been anxious to know what they shall do with us. Gen. Banks was distressed with solicitude as to what he should do with the Negro. Everybody has asked the question, and they learned to ask it early of the abolitionists, "What shall we do with the Negro?" I have had but one answer from the beginning. Do nothing with us! Your doing with us has already played the mischief with us. Do nothing with us! If the apples will not remain on the tree of their own strength, if they are wormeaten at the core, if they are early ripe and disposed to fall, let them fall! I am not for tying or fastening them on the tree in any way, except by nature's plan, and if they will not stay there, let them fall. And if the Negro cannot stand on his own legs, let him fall also. All I ask is, give him a chance to stand on his own legs! Let him alone! If you see him on his way to school, let him alone, don't disturb him! If you see him going to the dinner table at a hotel, let him go! If you see him going to the ballot- box, let him alone, don't disturb him! [Applause.] If you see him going into a work-shop, just let him alone,--your interference is doing him a positive injury. Gen. Banks' "preparation" is of a piece with this attempt to prop up the Negro. Let him fall if he cannot stand alone! If the Negro cannot live by the line of eternal justice, so beautifully pictured to you in the illustration used by Mr. Phillips, the fault will not be yours, it will be his who made the Negro, and established that line for his government. [Applause.] Let him live or die by that.
-Frederick Douglass
FDR: Internment Camps
Hugo Black: Member of KKK
Robert Byrd: Member of KKK
Ernest Hollings: Segregationist
The complete list of the 21 Democrats who opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 includes Senators:
Hill and Sparkman of Alabama - Fulbright and McClellan of Arkansas - Holland and Smathers of Florida - Russell and Talmadge of Georgia - Ellender and Long of Louisiana - Eastland and Stennis of Mississippi - Ervin and Jordan of North Carolina - Johnston and Thurmond of South Carolina - Gore Sr. and Walters of Tennessee - H. Byrd and Robertson of Virginia - R. Byrd of West Virginia
Democrat opposition to the Civil Rights Act was substantial enough to literally split the party in two. A whopping 40% of the House Democrats VOTED AGAINST the Civil Rights Act, while 80% of Republicans SUPPORTED it.
Republican support in the Senate was even higher. Similar trends occurred with the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which was supported by 82% of House Republicans and 94% of Senate Republicans. The same Democrat standard bearers took their normal racists stances, this time with Senator Fulbright leading the opposition effort.
It took the hard work of Republican Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen and Republican Whip Thomas Kuchel to pass the Civil Rights Act (Dirksen was presented a civil rights accomplishment award for the year by the head of the NAACP in recognition of his efforts). Upon breaking the Democrat filibuster of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Republican Dirksen took to the Senate floor and exclaimed "The time has come for equality of opportunity in sharing in government, in education, and in employment. It will not be stayed or denied. It is here!" (Full text of speech). Sadly, Democrats and revisionist historians have all but forgotten (and intentionally so) that it was Republican Dirksen, not the divided Democrats, who made the Civil Rights Act a reality. Dirksen also broke the Democrat filibuster of the 1957 Civil Rights Act that was signed by Republican President Eisenhower.
Outside of Congress, the three most notorious opponents of school integration were all Democrats: - Orval Faubus, Democrat Governor of Arkansas and one of Bill Clinton's political heroes - George Wallace, Democrat Governor of Alabama - Lester Maddox, Democrat Governor of Georgia
The most famous of the school desegregation standoffs involved Governor Faubus. Democrat Faubus used police and state forces to block the integration of a high school in Little Rock, Arkansas. The standoff was settled and the school was integrated only after the intervention of Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower.
I'm waiting for your next absurd statement. Let's go.
LDOREN, you will lose the argument by letting facts get in the way of emotion.
Oscar there is a a big portion of the story that Ldorien is intentionally omitting from his historical timeline. Throughout history their have been philosophical changes that occur among the political parties. Southern Whites were Democrats and they made up a substantial portion of the Democratic party prior to 196, and to say they they were CONSERVATIVE on race issues is to put it mildly. Feelings about race and civil rights issues broke down along regional lines and not party affiliation, but when Democrats incoporated the advocation of equal rights as a platform item, Southern Democrats got all pissy and went and joined the Republican party, becuse their racist attitudes were welcomed in the so called big tent. If Ldorien were beiing intellectually honest he would have included this in his history of Republican-Democratic party dynamics. I wonder why he didn't?
Democrat opposition to the Civil Rights Act was substantial enough to literally split the party in two. A whopping 40% of the House Democrats VOTED AGAINST the Civil Rights Act, while 80% of Republicans SUPPORTED it.
- ldoren1626 / Friday February 2, 2007 09:17:28 PM EST
When the Civil Rights Act was voted on, the Democrats had almost an eighty seat advantage in the House and the Senate was 67 to 33 in favor of Democrats. In the House almost all of the Northern Democrats voted in favor of the legislation (145-9) while most of the Southern Democrats rejected it (87-7). Most Northern republicans voted in favor of the legislation (138-24) while all southern republican rejected it (10-0). You get similarly statistics with the Senate. After the vote a lot of southern Democrats left the party w/ their bigoted views and became republicans. The Democrats no longer had that overwhelming advantage in Congress.Reposting the tiny print:
When the Civil Rights Act was voted on, the Democrats had almost an eighty seat advantage in the House and the Senate was 67 to 33 in favor of Democrats. In the House almost all of the Northern Democrats voted in favor of the legislation (145-9) while most of the Southern Democrats rejected it (87-7). Most Northern republicans voted in favor of the legislation (138-24) while all southern republican rejected it (10-0). You get similarly statistics with the Senate. After the vote a lot of southern Democrats left the party w/ their bigoted views and became republicans. The Democrats no longer had that overwhelming advantage in Congress.Reposting one last time:
When the Civil Rights Act was voted on, the Democrats had almost and 80 seat advantage in the House and the Senate was divided 67/33 in favor of Democrats. In the house almost all of the Northern Democrats voted in favor of the legislation (145 - 9) while most of the Southern Democrats rejected it (87 - 7). Most Northern republicans voted in favor of the legislation (138 - 24) while most Southern republicans rejected it (10 - 0). There were similar statistics in the Senate. After the vote a lot of Southern Democrats left the party with their bigoted views and became republicans. The Democrats no longer had these overwhelming advantages in Congress.
That's "DemocratIC," Mr./Ms. Illiterate.
LDorien:
..and what do they all have in common? They were racist conservative Democrats and now all the racist conservtive Democrats have become racist conservative Republicans. This happened around 1965ish when right thinking leaders had the good decent sense to enforce constitutional protection of equal rights for Black people. Oh yeah that's when the switch occured. Blacks became devout Democrats and the racists that couldn't phathom how people they believed were inferior tto them would be granted the same legal rights. They viewed this as a travesty as did the RNC evidently so at the urging of the RNC those un reformed racists cast their lots with the Republican Party who swore to uphold the truth of their supremecy. THE END!
Ldoren1626 -
There's a word that's commonly used when a person presents the work of someone else as his own, without attribution. It's an ugly word describing an ugly act.
Have you ever heard of plagiarism?
you are that smart, eh?
you obviously have proof to back that statement up. I'm just surprised to learn that most blacks don't support affirmative action because they know that in today's political climate they will be considered for a job based upon their skills more than upon their skin color. Wow, that's gotta explain why your party had such an overwhelming support from the black population last election...
That is the best argument you have for everything I posted? You are not worth debating.
To qualify: I stated, "[M]any black people don't support affirmative action."
This is a true statement.
prove it. the polls don't support your statement. show me a majority viewpoint that proves your point.
What the hell are you talking about? How about you leave your home and go talk to black people.
Moreover, did you even read the speech by Frederick Douglass??
Did you even read what I posted about the Democrats??
Why don't you respond to what I wrote??
You are pathetic....you come back with...."Give me the polls."
I live among those people.
your home must be nice though. golden arches and all...
Nope, don't live at McDonalds.
look, the thing I don't see from you is recognition that parties change. Republicans did have the minority rights in mind - during the late 1800's. Then WW1 and WWII came along, and what happened? 2nd class citizen? back of the bus? Yeah, the democrats only have the last 40 years to look back upon for promoting minority rights. You don't seem or want to recognize that republicans stopped doing it 40 years ago. We would be foolish to think that the party, vs. the representative, will always promote minority best interests. But tell you what - republicans have done nothing to counter democratic efforts to do so.
For the love of God....READ my posts you ignorant loser.
"will always promote minority best interests"
Yes, this is liberal arrogance. YOU always know what is best for everyone.
LDOREN:
You believe you have the "FACTS" to show Republicans are the real friends of people of color, while the Democrats are condescending and "bad" for race relations.
You think you have rhetorically proven your point (quite arrogantly, in fact).
Yet, isn't it the REALITY that black folks reliably vote Democrat, and Republican candidates cannot usually hope for a Black turnout voting for them in a percentage higher than single digit?
What is your explanation for this disconnect? If your analysis of race relations is CORRECT, then Republicans should be getting 80+ % of the black vote. How do you explain that reality does not conform to your view, which you feel you have documented to a certainty?
Blacks did vote republican (80 to 90 percent) up until the republican Great Depression where they began to switch their allegiance. By 1960 nearly all blacks were Democrats. Maybe Ldoren thinks were still living in the 1920s.
all you've done is post 100+ year old dreams, loser. you are a troll of the worst kind. we are done, loser.
A little history: Until the Civil Rights Legislation was enacted during Lyndon Johnsons second term, the Democratic party in the South were called the "Dixiecrats" and it embraced Strom Thurmond, Trent Lott, and other segregrationists. Since the objects of segregrationist policies were blacks, the black folks supported the Republican party which was less hostile to black interests. After the Dems passed civil rights, the blacks switched to the Democratic party which was in favor of equal rights. The Dixicrats then switched to the Republican party. Refer to Nixon's "Southern Strategy" This is a condensed version of the change in party positions in this period but I think that it will be supported by history books covering the period 1950-1975.
by the way, you are still avoiding my statement. Republicans have yet to bring forward either a minority or woman or - hey - even gay! to run for president based upon their skills vs their background. I can bat back and forth all night long on semantics, but rest assured, you have nothing to offer on the presiding statement of the day. must be hard hoping that your party of choice may run a minority or woman candidate to your liking after you are dead.
Abe Lincoln was gay.
Was he out?
I'll bet you a million dollars 99.9% of the American public at that time had no idea. Which means your point is moot. Not to mention the Republican Party of 1860 is not the Republican party of today. Or even 1968, right after they accepted with open arms all of the racist Dixiecrats into their midst.
I suggest you read all of my posts from start to finish. Here are some of the points that I made:
(1) The idea the most Republicans are racists is false; (2) The idea that Republicans don't elect black leaders is false; (3) the idea that Republicans don't support black candidates is false; (4) the idea that Republicans don't support minority candidates is false; (5) the idea that Democrats are the party that support minorities is false; (6) Democrats have blood on their hands in the worse times of our history; (7) Democrats like Biden demonstrate the liberal hypocracy; (8) Frederick Douglass would not have supported Affirmative Action; (9) many black americans don't support Affirmative Action either.
But...you won't read my posts...you'll just make pointless comments.
you have done none of the sort. all you did was say in the past it was so. Most of the republicans you talk about are now democrats. most of the democrats you talk about are now republicans. Frederick Douglas has been dead for 100+ years, assuming he would never change his mind is assinine. I guess you think the thousands who came after him saying otherwise count for nothing.
Who fliped, Robert Byrd?....no wait...he didn't either.
Who fliped, Robert Byrd?....no wait...he didn't either.
- ldoren1626 / Friday February 2, 2007 11:01:49 PM EST
Byrd was given a choice of either to relinquish his ways or to join the republican party where those views now flourished. Byrd chose the former.
I read your comments, but you're ignoring that the Republican party of today is the party of Katrina, the Southern Strategy, gay marriage ban amendments proposed to the Constitution, and no members in the Congressional Black Caucus (only 3 Republicans in it's history). These things mean a lot more in the national public eye than some judge elected in San Diego. You want to change that perception? Don't lecture me with these numbers, change the leadership of the party, where Trent Lott, Mr. "man woman OR minority" "Things would be a lot better if we'd elected Strom Thurmond" just got put back in the minority whip position, and Dick Cheney can't even stand up and tell Wolf Blitzer that James Dobson should shut up about his daughter, just that he's "out of line" with a reasonable question. Cowards, hypocrites and and power hungry exclusionists. Don't blame me for the bad PR your party gets, when You elect them.
pete,
you're wasting your time expecting logical discourse from this troll. He probably buys into that argument that Obama isn't a "true" black man because his mom is white and his dad is from Kenya.
I know, snoop, I don't typically like to give trolls who just want to bash you over the head with their rhetoric, butr sometimes I can't help myself.
Gotta go clean the catbox, anyway.
Shut up Snoopy:
Pete did exactly what I wanted. He made a thoughtful, well-reasoned, articulate argument.
Pete, nice work.
However, while I may have been wasting my time trying to argue with Snoopy. Bush has had more black member on his staff than any President in history.
But, overall, after my long debate.... I personally will never consider race or gender as a factor for voting. I will look at their policies and my feelings on whether they are a good leader.
shut up? You never proved anything. All you did was dredge up 40+ or more year old crap and made the assumption that it still sticks. Both parties changed. The one you are defending no longer supports your claims. The one you are denigrating no longer acts as you claim. I challenge you to show one example of me saying otherwise...
"Bush has had more black member on his staff than any President in history."
-----
Nope. That hoinor goes to Bill Clinton. You could look it up if you really wanted to see the facts instead of cutting and pasting speeches from people who have been dead for more than a century.
You could also keep calling people stupid for seeing through your attempts at deflections, but that is merely projection on your part. Almost all trolls do that, and you do not deviate from the standard behavior.
That should be "honor," of course. LDoren may not recognize it because of the nature of his posts.
" That hoinor goes to Bill Clinton. You could look it up if you really wanted to see the facts "
I tried to find that info but couldn't. Can you supply a link to back up what you are declaring as fact?
OK try this one
http://media.www.thehilltoponline.com/media/storage/paper590/news/2002/10/29/Editorials/Black.Hall.Of.Fame.Not.So.Black.Anymore-309515.shtml?sourcedomain=www.thehilltoponline.com&MIIHost=media.collegepublisher.com
To disagree with the induction of Clinton into the Arkansas Black Hall of Fame is not to take anything away from the contributions that Bill Clinton has made for Black people. He has taken an active stance on the AIDS crisis in Africa, and he had the most Blacks in cabinet than any other President.
And by the way, nice dodge of my point. Abe Lincoln wasn't out, but you couldn't admit it, could you?
"I suggest you read all of my posts from start to finish."
-----
Including the 150 year old speeches you cut and pasted which do nothing to advance your argument and show you have no idea what you are talking about?
I did read them. They are irrelevant, and you are still a know-nothing troll.
Interesting you say that. There is a little thing called the Superbowl and the 2 head coaches are black. Lovey Smith coach for da'Bears recently stated without the NFLs version of affirmative action he wouldn't have received the oppurtunity to be a head coach at all. He is just one person, but one that many black kids are looking up to. Until the proportion of blacks to whites evens out regarding poverty, incarceration and wages, we still need affirmative action and I don't belive you for a second that you know what most blacks want.
and...
big deal, that list looks real nice except for the fact that about 95% of them are your LOCAL runs. How many senators again? something like less than 4%? how many congressmen again? That's what I'm talkin' bout. y'all to this day won't run someone on even a semi national level unless you can gaurantee a victory in your "southern" strategy. Gotta find a - say the word with me - ni - nig- nigg - that whitey can vote for.
must be killing y'all to find that one in a million who is part of the 5% that vote republican, eh?
There were several black candidates that ran for Congress...they didn't win.
What do you want me to do, get you to vote for a black candidate?
no, just bring one forward who wants to run, is willing to run as a conservative, and want's to do more for the country as a whole vs. promote the minority right wing phony republican christian point of view. a moderate, too much for you?
DOREN and other Conservatives really crack me up when they claim credit for Civil Rights Bills passed by Republicans from long ago who were behaving like Democrats. When Lincoln freed the slaves he was acting like a Liberal. When LBJ passed all his Civil Rights Bills he actually was a Democratic President. When Ike acted like a Liberal on Civil Rights his party was mad as hell at him.
But hey, that was long ago in Doren’s time. I’m from the church of what’s happening now. Right now as we speak. To do that is very easy. All you have to do is Google (Republican + Racial), and that’s all you need to know. You don’t have to read any of DOREN’s boring, book length comments about the long gone past. DOREN is the loser. Doren is the ignorant one, not Snoopy. Doren is still living in the past.
Doren says Democrat Party and I say:
REPUBLICAN’T PARTY
It’s their own bad racial history that awards them with the well deserved treatment from news outlets concerning racial issues. Just Google 2 words ... (Republican + Racial)...and then to be fair, Google ... ( Democratic + Racial). That’s all you need to see why the Republicants feet are held to the fire more than “Democrats” Doren.
Ken Mehlman, the Republican National Committee chairman and George W. Bush’s 2004 campaign manager, apologized recently for what he called “past” Republican Party practices of using racially divisive tactics to win elections. Yet Doren has no apologies forthcoming.
Sam I Am
ALSO...
The reason Bush has so many blacks on board is because he wants to change the bad racial reputation of the Republicants. I agree with Bush on that and on his Immigration Plan. All else is a big train wreck.
livepage.apple.comMehlman Apology
Have a good day Doren. - Sam I Am
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-07-14-GOP-racial-politics_x.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-07-14-GOP-racial-politics_x.htm
SNOOPY:
The Republicans went HARD for "redistricting", and gerrymandering the states they controlled to where NATIONAL offices had as great a Republican bias as possible. Newt Gingrich's district, for example, was almost 100% rich white folks.
The downside to this effort was that blacks and minorities, as much as possible, had to be herded into single small districts. Lump them together, and then marginalize their overall impact on state and national elections. With this formulation, the LOCAL elections in those marginalized districts would not surprisingly go to minority candidates. THESE are the "victories" that Doren touts ... the unavoidable unintended consequence of racist gerrymandering by the Republicans.
I notice you didn't mention any Black Republican Senators.
Oh, yeah, that's because there aren't any and there haven't been any for quite a long time.
" I notice you didn't mention any Black Republican Senators. "
How many black democrat senators are there? Did you know there have been 5 black senators throughout US history? 3 republican and 2 democrat. But, since democrats don't count history then you are one up in the count. ONE! Out of how many democrats?
We would have had one in Tennessee if your right wing white racists hadn't used the blonde ho to stereotype Harold Ford.
" We would have had "
Oh, we get to count the "almost got in" too? I'm sure the republicans have had a few who "almost got in" recently. How about we stick with what's actually REAL?
I found this photo of all the black members of Congress currently serving as republicans.
Oh god, I just snorted my milk through my nose!
Classic. My wife and I laughed for 10 minutes my wife laughed so hard she was crying.
I noticed you failed to mention that between 1881 and 1967 the senate was devoid of black representation. It also speaks volumes that since 1929 of the 90 black congressmen voted into office only three were republicans. Imagine that, 3% of all the blacks serving congress since 1929...
" I noticed you failed to mention that between 1881 and 1967 the senate was devoid of black representation. "
Yeah, did you notice that there were no democrat ones also?
ldoren,
You must have an out-dated list.
You forgot Deval Patrick, Governor of Massachusetts.
BTW I've known Frank Cousins[Sheriff, Essex County] for over 20 years. Good guy. Not important to this discussion, but just figured I'd tell ya.
oops...sorry you're only listing Republicans...my bad...must be getting sleepy...need coffee...ignore my above post.
That is interesting.
I just love the "Liberal World View" - Republicans/Conservatives want everyone to starve, hate black people and minorities, hate homosexuals, are uneducated, and only support the rich.
It is funny when you meet people who actually believe it too...It is better though when you can prove them wrong.
I just love the "Liberal World View" - Republicans/Conservatives want everyone to starve, hate black people and minorities, hate homosexuals, are uneducated, and only support the rich.
- ldoren1626 / Friday February 2, 2007 08:36:57 PM EST
You disagree with that assessment?
The only thing you proved is an arrogant ignorance. You have proved yourself to be wrong and that's about it. You've twisted history to fit your ideology. That's a pattern among cons. You can't possibly be wrong can you? You have all the answers and we're just schmucks right?
Cons are master manipulators.
Whoa... the Mayor of Trotwood, OH is a black Republican? The Registrar of Wills in Montgomery County, PA is a black Republican? How did the white liberal media miss this black Republican revolution sweeping the nation?!?!
Please tell me you just downloaded this list... I can't bear to think of you calling every county and municipality in this nation of 300 million to find the handful of black Republicans out there.
And sheriffs too. I wonder how many potential offices of that sort there are in total and what percentage of them are black republicans.
My first thought on looking at that list was "what? no dogcatchers??"
Oh, come on.
That ridiculous list sort of makes the point that you're arguing against.
One (1) African-American in Michigan elected as a Republican? One (1) in New Jersey?
Somebody who was cynical could probably draw some grim conclusions about the Republican party successfully running African-American candidates for sheriffs of Milwaukee County, WI, and Essex County, MA. Other than that, what's the point of the list?
There's a good book written by Michael K. Fauntroy "Blacks and the Republican Party" that is one of the best histories of the Black vote in this nation. As far as Black elected officials there is not ONE Black Republican in national elected office. Not one. When the Republicans controlled congress all major committees were headed by white males but now there are five Blacks that head major committees, several women and a Jewish brother. If that isn't inclusion what is? Ken Melman and the Repubs talk a good game when it comes to inclusion but when the time comes to put up or shut up they go limp.
Interesting.
"Yes!! That's why everytime a ballot initiative is on the ballot, conservative issues win."Minumim wage increase.South Dakota = Pro choice.
South Dakota Bans abortion in most cases...maybe you missed that.
Affirmative Action, Gay Marriage, Border Control. These all went to Conservatives.
Maybe you missed this...http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2006/SD/2006-11-08-abortion-ban_x.htm
They just passed a law in SD banning abortion except for Rape and Incest. You need a court order.
So, what do you want me to see by your article? 45% of the people want to ban all abortions EVEN if there is Rape or Incest.
Even that's too extreme for me. I'm against abortion in late 2nd to third-trimester...Other than that, I don't care.
I'm simply saying that your statement about conservative issues always winning is inaccurate. Yes, some conservative issues won. Some liberal issues won as well.
I guess we can pretty much define "conservative mainstream issue" as one that takes away rights under the constitution, huh? Otherwise, why would all these ballots be necessary to amend various state constitutions?
Not the side I'd wanna be on.
While I believe there is a right to privacy in the Constitution implicit in the 4th Amendment.....
Where is the Constitutional right to have an Abortion?
Have you ever read Roe v. Wade?
The reasoning behind it is absurd or so many levels.
Even liberals have been cited saying it was poorly reasoned.
what constitutional right is there for the government to dictate what an individual does or does not do? The government provided the mold, the law provides the details. I couldn't care less anymore about your wishes because y'all were not willing to compromise. You had your run, now sit back and enjoy the @ss f*cking you gave for the last 10 years. When we are done getting even, give us a ring and we MAY talk to you like you talked to us. In the meantime, enjoy!
Um...Government can make infanticide illegal. If you kill a baby in the third-trimester, when the baby could live in an incubator, that is murder.
Second, you libs are now in control, and what do we get...a "nonbinding" resolution. And barely passing the minimum wage bill.
I'm impressed with your ability to get the Country Going with your agenda.
that's in the constitution??? I thought you were a strict constructionist...
It is in the 10th Amendment.
they had incubators when the 10th amendment was written? Wowsers. America must have advanced farther than I thought during the 1800's.
HAHAHAHA. are how old are you? Have I been debating a 14-year-old all this time?
The 10th Amendment means the States can pass any laws that don't Usurp the Federal Gov't or violate the Constitution.
So, the States, can ban Murder...which they do. Maybe you should know your argument before you say stupid things.
nah, I'm just lowering my level of discourse to meet the troll I am responding to. You aren't capable of debating on an adult level.
Really - you assert that I'm a strict constructionist because it doesn't say anything in the constitution about murder?
Maybe you should go back to civics class....of course it doesn't.
That is for the States to create....along with abortion laws.
You don't seem to understand the Constitution. The Xth amendment does leave to the states what the constitution doesn't cover. However the reason state's can't make laws making abortion illegal is because this is covered by the Constitution. As you pointed out, the IVth Amendment and a right to privacy prohibits state government from invading someone's personal life and making medical decisions for them.
Abortion is horrible. People have different reasons for having them, the woorld is a hard and dangerous place. And it's not for the government to decide when life begins. And the Constitution rightly prevents the governement in making law that so violates a person's privacy. Can you imagine? The government says that you will have that baby, the circumstances don't matter! That's totalitarian and no better than the Chinese Government forcing women to have abortions.
Your last paragraph could be the cut and pasted in an argument supporting killing your children, beating your wife, or other horrible acts, nevertheless, the state gov'ts can still pass laws bannign that conduct.
So, back to the abortion argument.
Believe it or not, I happen to believe abortion should be legal in the 1st and early 2nd trimester. But, to argue that the state Gov'ts have no ability to ban abortion is just incorrect.
" nah, I'm just lowering my level of discourse to meet the troll I am responding to. "
I think you are the troll. You haven't had a decent response to any arguement made. Most of your responses are personal insults and diversionary. Which I have seen to be a popular tactic of debate by almost every liberal poster here. When facts are provided you discount them as hogwash, failing to give facts to back your statements. Perhaps YOU (as the troll) should leave this post for others to continue.
I think it's pretty clear who is and has been behaving like a troll from the start on this particular post and PC you've been very troll like in previous posts.
The problem is that many people cannot have a rational conversation about politics without being insulting. I think both of you are actually getting the response that your looking for and your coming to a "liberal" website with the intent to disrupt conversation or just to be rude...
What reponse would you expect with the way your frame your comments and points? What type of reponse would I get on a conservative or christian blog if I started out my argument with "conservatives are mentally ill and greedy, but listen to what I have to say about X" or "The bible is a fairy tail, but this is what I think about this "X"
The fact that either of you expect to be treated with anything other then scorn is pretty humorous.
"HAHAHAHA. are how old are you? Have I been debating a 14-year-old all this time?"
-----
I guess the fact that the average 14-year-old will post with more maturity than you is frightening to you.
BUT, South Dakota conservative tried to ammend the constitution to BAN ALL ABORTIONS, but the measure failed.
I rest my case!
You really live in your own little world dont you? Whatever it takes to get you through the night. I live in Arizona where the conservative sponsered Gay marriage amendemt LOST. I lived in California for a long time and watched TONS of rightwing inspired intitives lost. Pull that fantasy bubble tight around you and make sure no REALITY accidentally enters your little world. Here is a little bit of reality for you when republicans lose DEMS DO WIN
The tributary is now larger than "the mainstream". For whatever reason, there are more Dems in the House than Reps.
When the filthy and insane Rethuglicans lose, America wins. That is a fact. Your internet(s) meltdown is proof of that. The right is the innate party of irrational emotions and factually challenged mooks.
Like, oh my gawd!! The country is like, so tired of all this war stuff and what not! How can these dudes be so like, BOGUS!! Why can't it be like three years ago when the President dude told us we where invading the Iraq area and everyone was like, "Hey bud, let's party!" Anti-war dudes are such a far out intense bummer!!
So someone in the mainstream media recognizes the majority of Americans do not support a surge. Well, duh...
LDOREN, this is my problem with so-called "Republican politics" -- you simplify the arguement to the point of being ridiculous. 1) See, Repubs like to believe that the Va election swung on "macaca" and nothing else -- there were several weaknesses in Allen that were able to be exploited by the Webb camp, that, when coupled with the "macaca" gaffe allowed Webb to win. It was a statement like Kerry's "voted for before I voted against" that the Republicans played to the hilt when it worked FOR them, then blamed when it worked against them. 2) I am not certain what "Ohio corruption" you could be referring to, except the kind that stole Bush the election in '04. 3) I somewhat agree with, but if the Repub congress hadn't been a total rubber-stamp, some of this could have been averted. I will agree that the Repubs did their fair share to lose, but the Dems have lived up to their promises so far, and if they continue to do so I see another Blue tide in '08
When talking about Jane Fonda, Webb stated quote, "I wouldn't go across the street to see her slit her wrist."
If you are looking at some other reason why the Dems won in VA, well, Webb is a Conservative.
There's Dr.Pepper all over my monitor and my nose hurts.
You make me laugh.
If all these Democrats won because they were conservatives, why didn't the voters just elect the far more conservative Republicans in the race?
If you can find me the cut-spending, defend the border, lower the debt, lower the taxes, tough on crime, no earmark, conservative, who ran in last election, please let me know...
I'm waiting....
Bottom line is Dems won. They won with more conservative candidates like Webb where appropriate and outright liberals lke Sherrod Brown and where appropriate. Even outright socialist Bernie Sanders won a Senate seat, your delusion that there is any evidence for some conservative juggernaut or that the GOP didnt win because they are not conservative enough is pure fantasy.
Dear Doren:
The perverted Republicans LOST. Get over it. And stop with the mental gymanastics, the Polish Logic and Fake Outrage tricks don't work anymore.
You would think that people who voted for Duhbya would be so ashamed of putting a moron in the White House who started and lost a war (over the objections of most of America and the world) that you would keep your mouth shut for a dozen years.
If Webb is a conservative, then doesn't that put to rest the notion that the "Daily Kos Wing," which enthusiastically supported his candidacy, is some sort of cohort of far-lefties who want ideologically purity in the party?
Webb may be conservative for a DEMOCRAT but he is more progressive than the troglydite Allen who he beat. You have no point.
SOLON:
Be kind. Doren seems well pleased that Democrats won, because the winning candidates were "Conservative". He sees this as a WIN for himself and his ideology.
What is the harm in letting Doren be HAPPY about the outcome of the election of 2006? Hell, he'll be DELIGHTED in '08, and what's the harm?
You are so right Tex. What was I thinking? Good call
Keep dreaming your dreamy dreams. He's a full-on class warrior, commie Democrat. He said (in the WSJ no less):
Tell me, do you just not think about what you type before you type it, or do you just hope you won't get caught?
A tried and true way to buy votes:crucify the rich. A popular tactic, pretty much gets the dependable bedrock left vote, then work on other themes for the swing vote. But don't forget the bedrock vote and what it wants to hear.
John Edwards' house has 28,000 square feet. But he's one of us commoners, yessir. It's a long list of elite who purport to be lookin' out for the little guy. Oldest story ever told.
Edwards doesnt claim to be a 'commoner' whatever that might mean in todays America. He doesnt pretend he isnt rich. That doesnt mean he cant care about the plight of the poor, or economic policies that hurt them anymore than not being a minority doesnt mean you cant care about civil rights for minorities. You make no point.
Not that Val was even talking about John Edwards. Maybe Edwards speaks to working class folk so well because he knows what it takes to lift oneself up by the bootstraps and make something of oneself. Edwards knows that those who benefit most from the commons are morally obligated to support the commons to a greater degree.
He knows that when hard working people stumble under the massive debts we are forced to assume in order to pay the high cost of healthcare, education and housing that the entire benevolent society benefits greatly by picking one another back up.
I know you are not trying to make some contrast and comparison argument that somehow Bush and Cheney are more in tune with the common man.... or are you?
Ldoren, if you are befuddled by the lack of merit of our arguments it may be because you only respond to people who've insulted you directly. Why not respond to the other posters who refraining from that who do offer good points that go to the heart of your argument?
Answer: Because cons ignore what conflicts with their narrow world view. It's the only way their ideology makes sense.
The humankind world seems "strange" when you're a stranger to it, people seem wicked when you're out of touch.
The "strange" that the world looks, is due to rightists having a brain neuropathy where the cortex connections to the 'midbrain' organs, either has not matured, or matured demented, or lacks perfusion of synapses. Results of such 'off kilter' brain growth include personality and psychological imbalances, especially regarding fears and fear of death where the unbalance is a matter of excessive fear, unreasoned and irrational, (because the 'fear centers' never got 'hooked up with' the rational and reasoning areas of the cortex).
<a href="[link to 72.14.253.104] Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition researched and documented rightist personality abnormalities.</a> Two years ago. Maybe you didn't hear about it.
It says, rightists are trying as best they can to cognize the sensory world around us, but their 'truster' doesn't work and their 'fear-brain chemistry' overworks, or some combination of the two.
To them, they don't (<i>can't</i>) see why normal 'mainstream values' Americans are NOT <i>terrified</i> out of our minds. It's the way normal people look from the point of view someone who is irrationally afraid of heights or spiders or closed space -- they think normal is "strange."
I'm sorry...this is just the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Cite a real study if you want to support an argument.
That study is for real. If you want to go further, read the book "Bush on the Couch". A respected psychiatrist had done a study on W and based on his assessment, he's certifiable. But then again, most people have figured that out.
"A respected psychiatrist had done a study"
HAHAHAAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHH
Let me translate - a liberal with an agenda, who hated bush, knew he would get noticed if he could say Bush has a disorder.
LDoren, I am going to say this in a way so your finite mind can understand this. This is not whether or not there is a liberal or conservative agenda, because everyone has an agenda when they get into public office. And you know that. There is no way even you can say that the behaviors and actions that this president has exhibited are what a normal, well adjusted and altruistic person would have. I am not going to rehash everything, but the facts do not lie. There is something deeply disturbing about a person who agrees to hurt and destroy for the sake of profit. And it is not only him, but everyone who agrees with him. This whole administration has serious mental health issues and you know they do. If anybody else did the things that were done to this nation, they would have been rounded up and medicated a long time ago. But instead, he and his crew are running amok. I find it amazing that they can say the things they are saying about the enemy and they act the same way. And then you come up with a post that only confirms what many mental health professionals that have studied the matter closely. Better pick up a book Bucky and study human behavior before you post something that can expose your ignorance.
This is also a common tactic of rightists. Everything that conflicts with their world view must be agenda driven.
Here's a little tid bit. Bush has critics because he makes poor decisions. There may be a handful that exhibit an irrational hatred of Bush but that is not the reason for Bush's failures. Former Nixon councel John Dean wrote a book recently bemoaning what has become of conservatism that included a decades long study on how rightists or cons think as well as liberals or leftists if you prefer. The study shows that cons prefer to follow and do so. They are more prone to group think and a shave tubborn will to disbelieve anything that doesn't work in their ideology. The left is the opposite. We have too many differing views to just follow anyone. Republicks will follow Bush over a cliff. Despite reasonable evidence they will ignore the cliff. They will testily shoot barbs at anyone who warns them about the cliff. They will drag us over with them. You exhibit it here. You've dismissed out of hand a legitimate study by claiming the author must have hated Bush. That's pretty silly when you think about it. To dismiss something in this manner is just juvenile. You can't possibly think that is a reasonable dismissal? Well, I take that back. I bet you do.
Hey, Bing here is an interesting series of articles about right wing athoritarians and the people who follow them. Its a long read but it is pretty informative and close to the authors heart as she is a recovering fundamentalist/authoritarian follower.
[link to dneiwert.blogspot.com]
thank.
I will check this out.
It was a study by academics from Stanford, Berkeley and the U of Maryland how is that not a REAL study?
"Cite a real study if you want to support an argument."
Dear Trolls,
How about a few dozen?
Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition
http://www.wam.umd.edu/~hannahk/conservatism.html
Looks like a real study to me—published in a peer reviewed journal and everything. The real interesting part is the bibliography that alludes to hundreds of other monographs and articles that tend to support their case. If you want to dismiss this you will have to do so on methodological grounds that meet them at their level. And, oh yeah, publishing your own article in this or another peer reviewed journal would help. However the link I provided gets you started by providing links to an article published by critics of the original study with a response by the original authors. Here is a challenge. Find an equal number of articles published in peer reviewed literature that demonstrate the opposite or which credibly dismantle the arguments presented.
Blueneck, thanx for the link. I just glanced at the study and man it is so disturbing. Why hasn't anyone done something to curb the insanity? I think everyone should read this before they vote or even declare themselves conservative.
Of course LDoren will not respond. He's probably busy killing puppies right now. Believing he won all the arguments here handily. Either that he is spinning in circles chanting, "does not compute, does not compute." It's impossible to convert these people or talk them off the ledge. They ignore facts and rational thought. I'm afraid we may have scared him away.
"I'm sorry...this is just the dumbest thing I've ever heard. "
-----
What a coincidence. It's also just the dumbest thing you've ever posted.
That was the most eloquent way of saying that these nutballs are cookoo for cocopuffs! At least there is medical proof that they are literally crazy. We need to do psychological evaluations on everyone before they even think about working in public office.
it just must kill you to know that democrats, who represent everyone BUT white neolithic troglodytes, are about to commit another "first" and run either a woman, or black man, or heck, maybe both! - for president of the US. How come y'all can't find anything but a pasty white lunatic to represent America?
Right, because we all know how well the 1984 campaign went for the Democrats.
For the record, I care about what's between a candidate's ears, not her legs.
And I have a hunch - just a hunch, mind you - that the GOP will run a minority in their VP slot.
let me know how that works out for you. BTW, who is your minority candidate? Gulliani or McCain?
His minority candiddate is either a Tom or an Oreo.
There you have it: The MEDIA "conventional wisdom".
IF Americans agree with Democrats, it's STRANGE. It's an abherration. It's a contradiction, an unthinkable freak event.
The DEFAULT position, according to this rightwing media frame, is that Americans support Republicans in all policies, ideas, and positions. Further, if Americans stray from lock-step support of all things rightwing, it is not because they support Democrats, but only because rightwing elected officials have strayed from being CONSERVATIVE ENOUGH.
Thus, Bush's poll numbers in the toilet is not because he's a total disaster as a president, it's because he didn't lower taxes ENOUGH, he didn't start ENOUGH wars with ENOUGH casualties, he didn't do ENOUGH to strangle rights of free speech, he wasn't ENOUGH of a tyrant. THIS is why his popularity has slipped.
Watch the FRAME, because all commentary is formed by a baseline of these "Conventional Wisdoms" ... which are actually rightwing propaganda and talking points, none TRUE in the real world.
Guys (gals?), I think posting this does sort of back up her claim that you're a tad too serious. Ana has been snarky ever since she came on the scene at Wonkette, and that needs to be taken into account. Anyone who's ever read her stuff knows she's quite liberal.
Besides, I'd really, really like to have sex with her. And Jessica Cutler. ;)
Yeah, good luck with that.
While we're on the subject, AMC looks much better with the longer hair. Much better looking and with a far better rack than Jessica, IMHO.
Being one of the 20 or 30 people who bought and read her book (how's that for snark?), I gotta say that the above post has a point. She's pretty benign. Is this some kind of revenge thing?
Also, you're basing this all on the word strange, which can be interpreted a number of different ways.
Meh. I post on Wonkette on the things I don't take too seriously, and over here on things I think matter. Ana has all sorts of things she believes in strongly, and the current editors do too.
I think a certain reserve from the soap opera of politics is a good thing... however, trivialising something just because it doesn't involve you is not reserved, it's just puerile.
Since it comes from the mouth of the fatuous blogger of Wonkette I don't really care what she has to say. Talk about nobody home.
Just to keep the record straight: a majority of Democrats voted for all the civil rights bills of the Sixties and LBJ actively lobbied for them and ultimately signed them. Even more of the historically small Republican minority voted for them. Right-wing propagandists try to twist things around with awkward constructions like "the Civil Rights Act wouldn't have passed without Republican support." It's a case of misrepresenting the situation with percentages.
---
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_Rights_Act
Senate: 77–19
House: 333–85
Well, now you've done it. You've posted a fact, which will confuse the trolls completely.
It was obvious that a sizable majority of both parties voted for the Civil Rights Act, and only a moron would post otherwise and try to build an entire argument upon lies.
Wait, a troll here did precisely that.
Of course, the Voting Rights Act of 1964 has not a d@mned thing to do with the topic of the thread.
It's no secret nor should it be a surprise, Americans are weary of regressive conservative dogma. As evidenced by the recent elections Americans overwhelmingly reject the irrational, regressive belief that unregulated markets alone have the ability to solve all problems. In the same manner that governmental usurpation of power is constrained by a system of checks and balances, Progressives understand that markets require modest interventions in conjunction with enforced regulations to maintain equal accessibility for all and to protect the affirmation of ethical practices.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Market fundamentalism has failed to produce an economically independent middle class and in fact has widened the gap between the uberwealthy and the working poor. Despite record levels of productivity by American workers corporate fat cats rake in average salaries 419 times greater than that of the workaday Joe. That is patently unfair and most people just want to be dealt with in fairness. Under the dynamics of lassaize-faire capitalism real wages for real people have atrophied to the weakest degree of purchasing strength in our history. Good paying union jobs that used to pay living wages have been downsized, outsourced or automated and replaced by lower paying service industry positions. Why? So we can enhance the numbers coming out of Wall St. instead of nurturing the vibrancy of our neighborhoods.
Now market fundies will, no doubt, assault the Progressive notion of a moral economy as Marxism, Socialism etc. etc. Isn't that just rage induced myopia? There are no legitimate calls for utter Socialism coming from the left, only calls for reform of a 'winner take all' market that punishes those who, for no fault of their own, have fallen behind.
Progressives from Sherrod Brown to Jim Webb won because they understand economic populism. Progressives know the mutual benefit of sharing risk and reward. Progressives understand that living wages and benefits creates a stabilizing middle-class that will drive the expansion of our economy. Progressives know that with a solid social safety net in place American workers are more willing to take risks like changing jobs, starting new businesses and welcoming foreign competition.
This is why it is not so strange that the left understands and represents mainstream American values.
Peace.
bingo my friend. Conservatism, neo or otherwise has failed. The privatization of practically everything and free markets have not and will not solve societies ills or make us stronger. Government is not the problem. Government is a representation of the people. As Bill Clinton once said "you can't say you love your country and hate your government." The government is We the People, unless you consider it to be the enemy and you're running it.
I can't be the only one who finds it strange that Cox has gone so quickly from bosomy blogosphere darling to washed-up cable pundit hack skank.
Man, I am sorry I wasn't around for the mad republican ldoren. Angry, angry young blogger. Maybe it's an inferiority complex with that one. But I love to argue and am sad I missed it.
Anyone with an interest in our fabulous and juicy history knows as our country has grown so have political parties shifted their platforms. That being said, until recently Democrats had such a lock on congress it's a a tad absurd to consider Rebuplicks as have been refelecting main stream values. Republicans like Eisenhower and Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt are emulated and remembered as great presidents becuase they acted like Democrats. The reason I became a Dem, while living in a highly Republick area, was because I saw them as the party of populism. A Republick, Hoover, drove us into a great depression. A Dem FDR pulled us out of it and showed how responsible government could empower the citizenry. Republick's argue that's not the government's job. But is it not in our nation's best interests, is the promise of the Declaration of Independence not an inalianable right for life liberty and the pursuit of happiness? The preamble to our defining document, the Constitution states it's purpose is to promote the general welfare and to provide for the common defence. The government is the solution to society's ills provided it is run correctly and the electorate is well informed. In the late 80s the DNC had lost it's populist roots for corporate ones. We have had an identity crisis since we lost congress in 94 and allowed ourselves to become a party that wanted to defeat Republicks and not on what was best for the country. I became a Democrat because we recognized that race exists, while republicks disingenuiously talk about being color blind. While the leadership may have waffled, most of us who became Dems still believed in what the party had stood for, which did indeed reflect American values. The only evidence you need is the long stretch of running the federal government. Recent elections were awarded to Republicks by an unprecedented and one time only SCOTUS by over ruling the Florida Supreme Court's decision to count all the votes. How's that Xth Amendment working for you there LDoren? We have seen gerry-mandering, (something invented by corrupt Dems long ago I will concede) a corrupt Attorney General in Ohio in 2004 not too mention a succesful campaign that played to the basest of emotions. In the form of divisive, hateful, and bigoted homophobic laws. The republicks do represent a side of America, the darkest side. The side that condones torture and injustice, bigotry and hate. The DemocratIC Party is begining to remember it's populist roots again, so it's no surpise they are now representing the mainstream. Go back under your rocks Republicks.
Bing,
Great post, and it sums up my choice of political affiliation as well. One party's platform better reflects my personal philosophy, and that party is the Democratic Party. It doesn't mean I follow them blindly and when they screw up I let them know. Right now there are only two viable political parties, (which is sad because there should be more) and the system is not perfect and to fully participate in my state, as I want to do and to vote in every election you have to choose a party. I made my choice, and the last 10-12 years of the wing nut take over of the country lets me know I made a damn fine decision. That said The Republican party is either going to moderate or they are going disintegrate and lose many of their members to the growing ranks of political Independents and many like Jim Webb are going to become Democrats. I am sensing a great dissatisfaction with the direction that the Republican Party has taken and the fact that the party has essentially been taken over by extremists of three dominant varieties. The religious right who want some form of theocracy, the neocons who want to dominate the world, and the anti-governmental regulation people like Tom Delay. With all the power they currently wield in the Republican Party it’s going to be tough to get a moderate Republican presidential candidate through the Republican primaries and the person that these groups select probably won’t appeal to the general populace. The RNC has a tough road a head of them.
Right on, Bing. Fantastic post.
We progressives, in planting the seeds of fairness, have a long row to hoe. The weedy overgrowth of authoritarianism, market fundamentalism, bigotry, cronyism and anger have taken deep root in the years that we progressives have left fallow the fields of liberty. One day our whispers will be louder than their screams.
Power to the people!
Hey thanks you two. I've read your posts in the past and appreciate you appreciating what I wrote. Power to the people indeed!
Snoopy,
I'm sure that Ldorien would say the only reason why we didn't support them is that you a great White Liberal master has duped a poor dumb BLack woman like myself who doesn't know what's best for me to stay on your Liberal plantation. He will word it much more eloquently, but's that's what he will say. He will also attempt to marginalize me as nothing but another angry Black woman. That's what conservatives in the vien of Ldorien always try to do to me, but of course I don't allow anyone to marginalize me. I'm a great American like that. (smile)
Lynn,
thanks for your support! And I wouldn't worry much more about this doren fella, I suspect he is just an angry drunk.
I really appreciate the dialouge on this thread and what it shows is the depth and intelligence of the concerned citizens of the world. I almost got to the point that I believed that sense and sensibility was forever gone. Thank God that is not the case. The LDorens of the world prove how sick people have gotten, mentally wise. One has to wonder if global warming has contributed to the deterioration of the mind. As a matter of fact, there should be a study on the effects of pollution on mental state. There has to be a correllation somewhere. Excellent thread to all and let the pubbies meet justice! Crush the Neocons!
How could anyone disagree with the president. What are these people, retarded? Viva war, viva big-oil, viva el system.
But don't scare away Ldoren or any of the righty posters. Not only are they fun, but they remind us that not only is our media screwed up (pretty dangerous), but there are also groups of our fellow Americans who don't realize it.
I would get bored here if it was just the MMFA item, and several posters commenting on that item and it's obvious misinformation.I'd probably get complacent if there weren't some examples of people who don't get it.