Despite GOP's nominations record, Babbin claimed Dems are too "racist" and "sexist" to "take a risk" on a black man and a woman on ticket
SUMMARY: Human Events editor Jed Babbin asserted that Sen. Barack Obama would not choose Sen. Hillary Clinton as his vice presidential running mate because the Democrats "don't want to have both a black man and a woman on the same ticket for one reason: They are so racist and so sexist. They'll take a risk on one; they won't take a risk on two." Babbin made his statement despite the fact that every presidential and vice presidential nominee in the Republican Party's history has been a white male, and this year's presumptive presidential nominee does not break that pattern.
On the June 3 broadcast of Talk Radio Network's The Laura Ingraham Program, guest host and Human Events editor Jed Babbin asserted that Sen. Barack Obama would not choose Sen. Hillary Clinton as his vice presidential running mate because "inherently, there's a fundamental problem for the Democrats. They don't want to have both a black man and a woman on the same ticket for one reason: They are so racist and so sexist. They'll take a risk on one; they won't take a risk on two." Babbin directed this criticism at the Democratic Party -- a party that, unlike the GOP, has previously nominated a woman to be vice president -- despite the fact that every presidential and vice presidential nominee in the Republican Party's history has been a white male, and this year's presumptive presidential nominee, Sen. John McCain, does not break that pattern.
Later on the program, Babbin falsely asserted that "when [Obama] votes against things like the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, that shows really where he's really coming from." In fact, Obama did not vote for or against FISA, because he did not serve in the U.S. Senate at the time it was passed. FISA, which Congress passed in 1978, established the federal government's underlying statutory authority to eavesdrop on the communications of suspected terrorists. Rather, Obama voted in 2007 against revisions to FISA under the Protect America Act, which, among other things, expanded the government's authority to eavesdrop on Americans' domestic-to-foreign communications without a warrant.
From the June 3 broadcast of Talk Radio Network's The Laura Ingraham Program:
CALLER: Yes. I think that Barry Obama -- he's led no committees. The majority of votes -- he's -- have been "present," and I believe that he once again will choose the path of least resistance. I think that he will ask Hillary to be VP, and I think that Hillary knows that he has no intestinal fortitude and that she and Bill will be able to run all over him.
BABBIN: Really?
CALLER: How that'll play with Hillary supporters? I don't know.
BABBIN: Wow. You know, for one reason, I don't think you're right on this, Rebecca. You know -- I don't think, number one, that Mr. Obama is going to be so silly that he would try to move the Clinton regime into his own White House. The second reason is, I think, you know, inherently, there's a fundamental problem for the Democrats. They don't want to have both a black man and a woman on the same ticket for one reason: They are so racist and so sexist. They'll take a risk on one; they won't take a risk on two. Jed Babbin for Laura Ingraham.
[...]
GOV. BOBBY JINDAL (R-LA): The second concern I've got about the senator is I really do believe he represents the very liberal wing of his party. I think we still live in a conservative state -- a moderate-to-conservative state. I consider myself a conservative. And I don't -- you know -- I think once people look at his voting record -- I hope the media starts to ask him to just name a few examples when Senator Obama disagreed with his own party. You know --
BABBIN: Well, he's --
JINDAL: -- when did he think that the party had gone to the left too far? When was the time he thought it was time to bring them over to the right? I can't think of one example.
BABBIN: No, I can't think of any. And, you know, when he votes against things like the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, that shows really where he's coming from. But let's -- let me ask you the couple of practical questions. I know the answer to it, but I gotta ask: Would you like to be Mr. McCain's running mate?
Pretty substancial pile of garbage Mr(?) Babbin. He brought up the present votes dutifly. I give it three and a half flamingstones from space.
Mr Jindal has been brought up as a running mate before. By all means. If the GOP has the balls to put up a Euraisian Indian as McClutter's running mate, I'd deeply applaud them and then vote democratic.
If the party were "so racist and so sexist" then Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama would have both had to drop out in January.
I happen to KNOW, through a nameless source, that Barack Obama attended a sermon by a transgender Eskimo fundamentalist wack-o preacher who claimed (screaming, of course) that Jews do not eat non-kosher blubber. "This is a INSULT to all Eskimos!"
His church is called "The Holy Whale Bone Tabernackle of the Blessit Penguin". Have we heard Obama disavow these remarks? We have NOT! (I just sent Bill O a tape.)
"The GOP doesn't want the blacks to vote for them, they want them to work for them. They appoint a few and then tell the world "look how non racist I am! I put three n-i-double guh-er's in my cabinet! I bet the Democrats can't match that!"
Yeah, they put in the anti-Black Negro conservative right wing racist Condoleeza Rice, and Rice has unbridled HATRED for MLK! Rice called MLK and other civil rights leaders "troublemakers who upset the good white people of the South" in a 2001 interview with the Washington Post. Black Commentator.com, Issue 84 http://www.blackcommentator.com has this pointed out in their archives.
The dis-likes of Rice, along with Racist Bush's former black cabinet henchpeople, except for Colin Powell, also agreed 100% with Trent Lott's 2002 call for reinstating racial segregation.
Also, in that same year of 2002, Racist Republican U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama called a white civil rights lawyer in his state a race traitor for representing blacks in civil rights cases. Rice, along with Rod Paige, and Alphonso Jackson, and the rest of Racisy Bush's Negro cabinet henchpeople, agreed 100% with Sessions' comments, too.
"The right-wing slime machine will lie to no end in an effort to portray the Democratic Party as the enemy of black people. It's much easier to do that than for the GOP to start acting like they want blacks to vote for them."
African-American Professor Michael Fauntroy http://www.michaelfauntroy.com excellently points out why Black voters reject Republicans in his book "Republicans And The Black Vote". Here are 3 other reasons not listed in Fauntroy's book, but they are just as true, and just as significatn.
1. The Republicans are the party that refuses to do interviews with the African-American News Media.
2. The Republicans are the party that currently rejects invitations to appear on black talk radio programs on black talk radio stations.
3. The Republicans are the party that either rejects invitations to appear at, or makes overtly reluctant, racist, rude, and offensive appearances at, the conventions of the major Afirican-American Professional Organizations, like the National Association of Black Jorunalists, the National Bar Association (an organization of African-American Lawyers and Judges), and the National Black MBA Association.
I usually drive through downtown St. Paul on my way home. There was no way I was going to attempt that today. The line to get in to see Obama's victory speech tonight at the Xcel Center tonight wrapped twice around the center and far down the street. I'm watching news coverage on the local station now. The X is packed and there are throngs still out on the street. This is Minnesota, so they're pretty controlled and well-behaved, but they are excited.
Babbin is full of crap. I simply can't yet see the Republican Party bringing themselves to rally behind a woman or a black of either gender. At least, not yet. Yet, here we are in the Democratic Party. All of those white male candidates got bumped off, in large part by white voters.
He's giving a pretty good speech.
Hey BILLJ,
You confirmed to me on what I guessed at earlier tonite to my wife that the XCel Center was going to be a full house + 5-10 thousand standing or sitting in their cars around outside.......
Anyone catch McBoring's speech earlier...... how many were there to cheer him on.... 200 maybe 250?
It may not be written on the wall just yet...... but I for one will stand here now and predict that Barack Obama doesn't just become #44 in Nov..... he does it by a landslide victory that might just rival or beat Reagans victory in 84!
Only this time...... the people voting will know that their guy won't be full of crap in just wanting to simply be elected!
On a side note.... I think that Hillary Clinton would be better served as the Democratic Majority leader in the Senate as opposed to being the VP..... she has been vocal for universal health care..... she would have more power to do something about in the Senate than she would as VP..... but that's just my observation.
According to the firemarshalls via CNN, there were 20,000 inside and another 10-15,000 outside. History was made tonight.
OPEN,
The largest venue in America is the Colliseum in LA....right? Holds about 103,000 or so
Though it might not occur by Nov..... I would be willing to bet that Obama could fill that stadium and still have several thousand standing around outside..... I, the wife, and three kids would certainly be of them!
Maybe some of the fire that has been lite in many people's belly is a direct result of 8 years of Bush and 12 years of Republicans in control of congress..... but I do believe that Obama could do it regardless!
I for one will stand here now and predict that Barack Obama doesn't just become #44 in Nov..... he does it by a landslide victory that might just rival or beat Reagans victory in 84! - CaptFoster2
I'd love to think so, but I think that's pretty over-the-top optimism. I think there's a larger core of Republican and independent voters who could never bring themselves to vote for Obama, for whatever reasons (wink, wink) than there were Democrats who couldn't vote for Reagan. Also, there are a significant number of states that have higher concentrations of those core voters, taking those states almost entirely off the table. Of course, many of those would have been off for Clinton or virtually any other Democratic candidate, anyway.
I agree about H Clinton. I don't think her talents are well-suited to the office of VP. I think she could have been a good President, but the next best place for her talents is Majority leader. She could ride herd over the Senate as well as it could ever be done.
I agree Obama is going to win comfortably. It won't be a landslide like Reagan but it should be a 5 point margin. The Electoral vote will be closer based on how the states break down but I don't see how it could go any other way.
I agree. He won't win more than 1 or 2 states (IF ANY) in the Southeast and no more than 1 or 2 Mountain States. He WILL sweep the Northeast and the Pacific States (minus Alaska), and it will come down to the Midwest. And th biggest prize in the MW is Ohio. Ohio. Ohio. Whomever wins Ohio will be the next prez.
Actually here's how I see it playing out:
Give McCain ALL of the Southeast. That’s (AK, AL, FL, GE, KT, LS, MS, NC, OK, SC, TN, TX, VA & WV). That’s 173 Votes. Throw in the Mountain States (AZ, CO, ID, KS, MT, NB, NV, NM, ND, SD, UT, WY) and that gives him 61 more. Add AK’s 3 and he’s got 237 locked in.
Obama will easily with the reminder of the Pacific States (CA, OR, WA) for 77 votes and the Northeast (CT, DE, DC, ME, MD, MA, NH, NY, NJ, PA, RI & VT) for another 117, giving him 194.
So among my “easy to call” states, McCain leads 237 to 194.
Now for the Midwest: IN (11) will go for McCain. IL, MN & WS (41) will go for Obama, and MI (17) is likely. The tally now stands at Obama 252 to McCain 248. This Leaves IO (7), MO (11) and OH (20). If Obama wins OH, it’s all over for McCain. If Obama carries the other two (less likely, but possible) he can win without OH. McCain needs to win OH AND either IO or MO. But I could see McCain winning IO and probably MO as well, so I say that Obama should try to nail down OH. That should be where he spends the most time and $.
(Just a note: OH, MO have gone to the eventual winner in every election since 1964. No other states can claim that. So BOTH states are TRUE battlegrounds. ANYONE can win, and OBAMA must win at least OH.)
There may be some "upsets" in there, but I still think the country remains sufficiently divided along party lines that I think it will be a close election. Obama has a huge advantage over Gore and Kerry though: the Republican's are a lot less popular than they were in 2000 and 2004 and Obama has more enthusiastic support. A lot of Gore's and Kerry's votes were really just votes AGAINST George W. Bush. But more of the votes for Obama will be votes FOR OBAMA.
I disagree. Challenge McCain everywhere. Use an adaptation of Dean's 50-state strategy that worked so well in 2006. Force the RNC to spend money where they don't want to. Be ready to take advantage of missteps by McCain or other Republicans.
I've never been crazy about the policy of "writing off" sections of the country. Of course, that has to be tempered with a degree of realism. Ohio is a high-stakes state because of the math, so it should be emphasized, but making an effort in every state works toward long-range viability everywhere. When a region is disregarded, the party is further weakened in that region. When effort is put into regions where the other party is dominant, it builds or strengthens a foundation for future gains.
Never put all your eggs in limited number of baskets.
OR, to put it another way... Are you telling me, "Do not be the Democratic version of Karl Rove" ? :)
Quite true...... Obama will certainly have the money to work on every state!
What with his 2 million (that will only grow as people get to know him) or so signed up backers of his website.... where he can continuously ask for $20-$25 at a time (up to $2300 per person) all throughout the campaign to Election Day....... to which I have another $2250 to give before I'm done for the year
Howard Dean's 50 state strategy is not just a hopeful dream but a very real reality...... There is no way that the corporate whore machine will be able to compete with this........ the cat is out of the bag for real change and a good size portion of this countries citizens are going to slowly come to realize it as they listen to McSame sound like McBush over the next many months.......
Bruce, your analysis is closer to being right. Obama is likely to win Virginia and North Carolina. Anything more than that would require a major McCain meltdown. Obama is also likely to win Colorado and New Mexico, Nevada's 50-50 right now.
I think Obama will easily get past the issues in Michigan, but both Ohio and Pennsylvania worry me right now.
If Obama selects Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius as his running mate, then maybe both Kansas and/or Nebraska goes up for grabs.
I wouldn't be quite as willing as you to concede FL or NM to McCain. Obama might be able to challenge in a couple of others. On the other side, WI is hard to call and could go the other way, but I don't see it happening this time.
I think IA might be less of a challenge for Obama than you're suggesting, but it doesn't take much to swing a large percentage in a small population state. All of that said, you're right that OH looms large in the picture. WPE Bush didn't win it by much (if he actually did) last time, and life hasn't gotten any better for the state in the last four years. GM just announced a plant closing in OH.
Then there are the wildcards. Will McCain have a temper meltdown somewhere along the line? Will his health come into play? Will someone actually come up with a genuine Chicago scandal for Obama? What affect would a terrorist attack have? Where will gas prices go? I think it looks good for Obama, but it's going to be one of the most interesting elections of my lifetime.
Oh, there are wild cards to be sure, but I'm not planning on any of them going our way. I'm playing it safe. As for the states you mentioned:
FL is full of old, white people. That's where they all go after all. So give it to Johnny Mac. He fits right in.
WI - Went for Kerry, Gore, Clinton (twice) and Dukakis. Give it to Obama.
NM - Went for Clinton twice and Gore, so anything is possible. I gave it to McCain to play it safe. WV is similar - they supported Clinton twice and Dukakis. So if Obama wants to go after a "purple" state in "blue" territory, those two are good bets. (NM more so than WV.)
IA - Iowa IS tough to call, but of the three states that are really up for grabs (IO, MO, OH) I just see IO as the most conservative. (More white, more bible-belt, less rust-belt / union than OH or MO.) So again, playing it safe, I'm more likely to give it to McCain. (They did go for Dukakis though, so like I said: It's up for grabs.)
I'm probably giving McCain a lot more credit that most people here will, but I never want to understimate the opposition. You know the smear maching will be out in force, and almost all the muck they threw in the past stuck to Kerry and Gore. You never know if they'll hit on something (like Rev Wright) that will resonate with voters. I hope not. But I am assuming that McCain will run a tough and comeptant campaign. He may be more Bob Dole than Ronald Reagan, but I want to paint the rosiest picture possible for McCain before predicting a win for my man, the Honorable Junior Senator from Illinois, Barack H. Obama.
As he was listing off his right-wing promises to the audience at the Conservative Political Action Conference, John McCain said he would continue to “seek the counsel of my fellow conservatives.” For Human Events editor Jed Babbin, that isn’t enough: “This is vintage McCain. He promises to hear, not to listen. He promises to seek counsel, but not to respect it. … That is less than we require of our leaders. We require them to adhere to our basic principles, and that those principles be the basis for their decisions.”
I was driving to work this morning, and tuned in Laura Ingraham for my wake-up wingnut chuckle. Merry Xmas , it was Jed Babbin filling in, and I heard this bit.
The righty am radio clowns seem to be really desperately appealing to the bottom-feeders. What segment of the American voting population actually bites on this? The party whose front-runners were a black man and a woman are too racist and sexist to put them up against Grampy?
Granted, the pragmatic side of the Dem. leadership may consider problems with running an Obama/Clinton ticket. They still need the middle-of-the-road centrist voter;that is, the least sexist and racist element of the group that may lean Republican.In other words, the most racist and sexist group of those who lean left.
Hi-larious!
Colonel.....
Add to that thought that the right-wing rumor mongering not so long ago was that McCain might pick Condi Rice to split the black vote.....
I suppose its still possible, but I highly doubt it...... McSame has no chance and the right-wing knows it..... they also know that the core they rely on are mainly a racist and sexist bunch..... Condi would be a double wammy....
Capt, In re: Babbin... Here in Pittsburgh, the Ingraham show from the previous day is on in the AM on AM Radio.. Just happened to tune in today and heard this guy. Never heard of him so I thought maybe, just maybe, a thinker would appear. Nope, just another wannabe. Todays Ingraham show will now be on at 3:00 pm. I'll wait until tomorrow to get another laugh.
The funniest thing is that after listening to the above crap and another segment with a guy from the WSJ, it is amazing how wrong these bums really can be. The WSJ reporter claimed that Clinton was going to win Montana. Imagine listening to this after the election was over. So, my idea is this: All dittoheads and other followers of Hannity, O'Reilly etc. should be forced to listen to replays of the previous days' shows to see how gullible and foolish they have become. And for Philib and PC, after the D's destroy the Republan party in November, you will be forced into Mandatory Listening Classes to be indoctrinated into reality.
All the dittoheads, Levinites, Hannitized, etc. are guilty of plagiarism. They have no original thoughts whatsoever so they steal from their masters at any opportunity.
Like one dude I know who refers to the NY Times as 'The NY Slimes'. Gee, wanna take a guess as to who his master may be?
"My son listens to Limbaugh and what comes out of his mouth as " opinions ' is actualluy word by word account what is said in those shows. Guess they repeat lines as if these people are rap stars . My other son said he lost his critical thinking skills. Maybe these right wing radio personalities are actually dangerous people to intellectual property."
Maybe? DEFINITELY is a more accurate term.
Quoting the words of 2 African-American talk radio hosts, Clifford Kelley of WVON-AM 1690 in Chicago correctly called Rush a "dope fiend", and Ambrose I. Lane Senior http://www.weourselves.org correctly called Rush a right wing criminal.
Colonel.....
"Add to that thought that the right-wing rumor mongering not so long ago was that McCain might pick Condi Rice to split the black vote..... I suppose its still possible, but I highly doubt it......
McSame has no chance and the right-wing knows it..... they also know that the core they rely on are mainly a racist and sexist bunch..... Condi would be a double wammy...."
Capt, don't worry about that. Listen to the black talk radio circles, whether it's WVON-AM 1690 out of Chicago http://www.wvon.com, or "The Black Eagle" Joe Madison http://www.joemadison.com or Warren Ballantine http://www.thetruthfighters.com on Radio One's the national black talk radio network THE POWER on XM 169, Condoleeza Rice is even MORE hated on black talk radio than white conservative Republicans like McCain, Bush, Romney, Lott, Sessions, etc. Rice and Clarence Thomas are both tied for the most hated blacks on black talk radio.
Not only has Rice been one of the lead imperialist henchpeople in Liar Bush's lie-based war that most blacks oppsed and black talk radio gave their 100% opposition to, Rice has allegedly denounced MLK and other civil rights leaders as troublemakers who upset the good white people of the South, and Rice agreed with Trent Lott's 2002 pro-segregation comments.
Colonel, you deserve some hazard pay for having to listen to lying fascist racist theocratic white supremacist right wing talk radio. I can only tolerate 2 seconds of that verbal diahherra know as right wing talk radio.
Hearing right wing racists like Babbit (Laura Ingraham is the same kind of right wing racisty, the only difference is that Ingraham is right wing racist Republican hate hag) call the Democrats racist, even though their racist Republican Party refuses to do interviews with the African-American News Media, even though their racist Republican Party rejects invitations to appear on black talk radio (Former Republican Party chairman Ken Mehlman refused to appear on black talk radio host Joe Madison's show on THE POWER in 2005), and racist Republicans mostly reject invitations to appear at the conventions of the major African-American professional organizations, is beyond absurd.
I should also note that the dis-likes of several anti-black right wing racist "black"/Negro conservatives also associate with present day white supremacists themselves. Ward "Con Man" Connerly has and seeks out associations with the KKK and the Council of Conservative Citizens, Walter Williams is a a friend and political ally of right wing white supremacist Jared Taylor and Taylor's right wing white supremacist group American Renaissance, and the anti-black Negro conservative Jesse Lee Peterson is a friend and political ally of right wing white supremacist Glenn spencer and Spencer's right wing white supremacist group The National Alliance.
L<et me just say. "HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!"
Good one. The DEM'S are too racists and sexist. I love it! Who was that (in my post in the Applebee's thread) replaied by saying that the Pub's take there own weaknesses and try to project them onto the opponent? Is there any more blatant example of that this this pile of tripe?
This idiot should have been laughed of the stage.
I think "Rebecca" is the same GOP parrot "Lisa" that called into Rush's show (see Rush Limbaugh thread).
GOP Talking Point No. 587 - Obama's senate votes were mostly "present."
Illinois Senate, some.
US Senate, not.
You beat me to it, Easy! It's amazing how UNIFORMED the average conservative voter is. (The WEALTHY conservatives, on the other hand, are very well informed, and they realize that they need to make sure that no one else is!)
"You beat me to it, Easy! It's amazing how UNIFORMED the average conservative voter is. (The WEALTHY conservatives, on the other hand, are very well informed, and they realize that they need to make sure that no one else is!)"
Absolutely true. What's even MORE amazing, and in many ways, more TRAGIC, and also more OUTRAGEOUS, is that ALL of the right wing conservative voters CHOOSE to be uninformed!
I think of one of these willfully ignorant/willfully uninformed conservative voter that called in to "The Black Eagle" Joe Madison's radio show http://www.joemadison.com and this evil fascist racist sorry excuse for a person told Madison that he chooses not to learn about the Islamic religion. Madison justifiably, and deservedly, BLASTED this right wing conservative for his willful ignorance, and his willful bigotry!
"I think "Rebecca" is the same GOP parrot "Lisa" that called into Rush's show (see Rush Limbaugh thread).
GOP Talking Point No. 587 - Obama's senate votes were mostly "present.""
Maybe the GOP's getting their talking points from the Hill-Bot Clintonistas. BOTH the Republican lemmings AND the Clinton lemmings have told these and/or other lies about Obama.