Tuesday, September 09, 2008
Sen. Barack Obama and Kwame Kilpatrick
"I want to, first of all, acknowledge your great mayor, Kwame Kilpatrick. Who has been on the front lines doing an outstanding job of gathering together the leadership at every level in Detroit to bring about the kind of renaissance that all of us anticipate for this great city. He is a leader, not just here in Detroit, not just in Michigan, but all across the country people look to him. We know that he is going to be doing astounding things for many years to come. I'm grateful to call him a friend and a colleague and I'm looking forward to a lengthy collaboration in terms of making sure that Detroit does well in the future." (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At Detroit Economic Club, 5/7/07)
Saturday, August 23, 2008
Obama Picks Biden: The Office & Subtle Propaganda
Senator Biden was born in Scranton, Pennsylvania and if you don't see an immediate rock star campaign opportunity for our young Peter "Obama" Parker you seriously do not grasp the down and dirty nature of politics. The youth vote in this election will be a significant key to victory and they are currently behind Obama 56% to 35% according to a recent July 23- Aug 3 Gallup Poll. Consider the following annecdotal information from Alloy Media Marketing:
"It's Obama who claims the Presidency among college students -- winning the
popular vote and doubling his support from last year with almost half of the
college vote at 43%. When Hillary was still running she garnered 18% of
the college vote with McCain at 21%. Where will Hillary's 18% go?" http://www.harrisinteractive.com/NEWS/newsletters/clientnews/2008_Alloy.pdf
In fact, most of the Obama rock star image is driven by 18-30 year olds. Many of these young kids are heading back to college to continue campaigining for Obama. But the big question is will they vote and will they get others to vote?
The popularity of The Office among those 18-29 year olds is staggering. The Office has won a Golden Globe, Emmy and a Peabody Award. In the fourth-season the show received it's highest ratings with 9.67 million viewers and a series-high of a 5.1 in the key 18–49 age group. This is the same demographic that Obama is going to need to win the Whitehouse.
According to recent polling data from Rasmu (Aug 19) there is weak Democratic edge over McCain (46%-41%) in Biden's home state, Pennsylvania. It is within the margin of error. Biden will help solidify Pennsylvania's 21 EVs and lay the framework to subtly influence college students.
You read it here first!
Thursday, August 21, 2008
The Democrats' Missing History
By JEFFREY LORD
August 13, 2008
As Democrats prepare to nominate Sen. Barack Obama to be the first black president, the Democratic National Committee and its chairman, Howard Dean, have whitewashed the party's horrific and lengthy record of racism. The omission is in the section of the DNC Web site that describes the party's history. The missing history raises the obvious question of whether the Democrats, unable or simply unwilling to put their party on record as taking direct responsibility for one of the worst racial crimes of the ages, will be able to run a campaign free of the racial animosities it has regularly brought both to American presidential campaigns and American political and social life in general.
What else to make of the official party history as presented by the DNC on its Web site? It is a history so sanitized of historical reality it makes Stalin look like David McCullough.
The DNC Web site section labeled "Party History," linked here, is in fact scrubbed clean of the not-so-little dirty secret that fueled Democrats' political successes for over a century and a half and made American life a hell on earth for black Americans. Literally, the DNC official history, which begins with the creation of the party in 1800, gets to the creation of the DNC itself in 1848 and then--poof!--the next sentence says: "As the 19th Century came to a close, the American electorate changed more and more rapidly." It quickly heads into a riff on poor immigrants coming to America.
In a stroke, 52 years of Democratic history vanishes. Disappeared faster than the truth in the Clinton administration. Why would this be? Allow me to sketch in a few facts from those missing 52 years. For that matter, lets add in the facts from the party history before and after those 52 years, since they aren't mentioned by the Democrats' National Committee either.
* * *
So what's missing?
• There is no reference to the number of Democratic Party platforms supporting slavery. There were six from 1840 through 1860.
• There is no reference to the number of Democratic presidents who owned slaves. There were seven from 1800 through 1861
• There is no reference to the number of Democratic Party platforms that either supported segregation outright or were silent on the subject. There were 20, from 1868 through 1948.
• There is no reference to "Jim Crow" as in "Jim Crow laws," nor is there reference to the role Democrats played in creating them. These were the post-Civil War laws passed enthusiastically by Democrats in that pesky 52-year part of the DNC's missing years. These laws segregated public schools, public transportation, restaurants, rest rooms and public places in general (everything from water coolers to beaches). The reason Rosa Parks became famous is that she sat in the "whites only" front section of a bus, the "whites only" designation the direct result of Democrats.
• There is no reference to the formation of the Ku Klux Klan, which, according to Columbia University historian Eric Foner, became "a military force serving the interests of the Democratic Party." Nor is there reference to University of North Carolina historian Allen Trelease's description of the Klan as the "terrorist arm of the Democratic Party."
• There is no reference to the fact Democrats opposed the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments to the Constitution. The 13th banned slavery. The 14th effectively overturned the infamous 1857 Dred Scott decision (made by Democratic pro-slavery Supreme Court justices) by guaranteeing due process and equal protection to former slaves. The 15th gave black Americans the right to vote.
• There is no reference to the fact that Democrats opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1866. It was passed by the Republican Congress over the veto of President Andrew Johnson, who had been a Democrat before joining Lincoln's ticket in 1864. The law was designed to provide blacks with the right to own private property, sign contracts, sue and serve as witnesses in a legal proceeding.
• There is no reference to the Democrats' opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1875. It was passed by a Republican Congress and signed into law by President Ulysses Grant. The law prohibited racial discrimination in public places and public accommodations.
• There is no reference to the Democrats' 1904 platform, which devotes a section to "Sectional and Racial Agitation," claiming the GOP's protests against segregation and the denial of voting rights to blacks sought to "revive the dead and hateful race and sectional animosities in any part of our common country," which in turn "means confusion, distraction of business, and the reopening of wounds now happily healed."
• There is no reference to four Democratic platforms, 1908-20, that are silent on blacks, segregation, lynching and voting rights as racial problems in the country mount. By contrast the GOP platforms of those years specifically address "Rights of the Negro" (1908), oppose lynching (in 1912, 1920, 1924, 1928) and, as the New Deal kicks in, speak out about the dangers of making blacks "wards of the state."
• There is no reference to the Democratic Convention of 1924, known to history as the "Klanbake." The 103-ballot convention was held in Madison Square Garden. Hundreds of delegates were members of the Ku Klux Klan, the Klan so powerful that a plank condemning Klan violence was defeated outright. To celebrate, the Klan staged a rally with 10,000 hooded Klansmen in a field in New Jersey directly across the Hudson from the site of the convention. Attended by hundreds of cheering convention delegates, the rally featured burning crosses and calls for violence against African-Americans and Catholics.
• There is no reference to the fact that it was Democrats who segregated the federal government, at the direction of President Woodrow Wilson upon taking office in 1913. There \is a reference to the fact that President Harry Truman integrated the military after World War II.
• There is reference to the fact that Democrats created the Federal Reserve Board, passed labor and child welfare laws, and created Social Security with Wilson's New Freedom and FDR's New Deal. There is no mention that these programs were created as the result of an agreement to ignore segregation and the lynching of blacks. Neither is there a reference to the thousands of local officials, state legislators, state governors, U.S. congressmen and U.S. senators who were elected as supporters of slavery and then segregation between 1800 and 1965. Nor is there reference to the deal with the devil that left segregation and lynching as a way of life in return for election support for three post-Civil War Democratic presidents, Grover Cleveland, Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt.
• There is no reference that three-fourths of the opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Bill in the U.S. House came from Democrats, or that 80% of the "nay" vote in the Senate came from Democrats. Certainly there is no reference to the fact that the opposition included future Democratic Senate leader Robert Byrd of West Virginia (a former Klan member) and Tennessee Senator Albert Gore Sr., father of Vice President Al Gore.
• Last but certainly not least, there is no reference to the fact that Birmingham, Ala., Public Safety Commissioner Bull Connor, who infamously unleashed dogs and fire hoses on civil rights protestors, was in fact--yes indeed--a member of both the Democratic National Committee and the Ku Klux Klan.
Reading the DNC's official "Party History" of the Democrats and the race issue and civil rights is not unlike reading "In Through the Looking Glass": " 'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less.' "
Here's this line from the DNC: "With the election of Harry Truman, Democrats began the fight to bring down the final barriers of race . . ." Truman, of course, was elected in 1948, and to his great credit he did in fact, along with then-Minneapolis Mayor Hubert Humphrey, begin to push the Democrats towards a pro-civil-rights stance. This culminated in the passage of the 1960s civil rights laws--legislation that redid what had been done by Republicans a hundred years earlier but undone by the Democrats' support for segregation. But the notion that "Democrats began to bring down the final barriers of race" raises the obvious questions. What were these barriers doing there in the first place? And who exactly was responsible for creating them?
* * *
AS IF TO CONFIRM the "Who, me?" racial psychology behind the DNC Web site, Nancy Pelosi's Democrats passed a House resolution on July 29 sponsored by Tennessee Democrat Steve Cohen. The resolution, passed by voice vote, concludes this way:
Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
(1) acknowledges that slavery is incompatible with the basic founding principles recognized in the Declaration of Independence that all men are created equal;
(2) acknowledges the fundamental injustice, cruelty, brutality, and inhumanity of slavery and Jim Crow;
(3) apologizes to African Americans on behalf of the people of the United States, for the wrongs committed against them and their ancestors who suffered under slavery and Jim Crow; and
(4) expresses its commitment to rectify the lingering consequences of the misdeeds committed against African Americans under slavery and Jim Crow and to stop the occurrence of human rights violations in the future.
What word is missing here?
You got it. The word "Democrat." Never mentioned anywhere. As with the DNC website, all these terrible things--somehow, apparently, it seems, so they keep hearing--happened. Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Cohen and their fellow House Democrats just can't understand how. But, you know, whatever. They are sorry. Really. Are they? Let's take them up on this.
After all those Democratic platforms and conventions that championed slavery and segregation, what do you think the chances are they will use the occasion of Mr. Obama's nomination to have the Democratic platform formally apologize for the active, frequently violent and decidedly official support of the Democratic Party for slavery, segregation, lynching, the Ku Klux Klan and all the rest?
Better yet, do you think they'll pass a resolution promising to use the funds raised from all those Jefferson-Jackson Day fundraisers to pay reparations for slavery? (Did I mention that while the DNC discusses party co-founders Jefferson and Jackson, it neglects to mention that between them the two owned an estimated 360 slaves?)
Will the NAACP and other groups seeking reparations from nongovernment entities for their role in supporting slavery (companies like Aetna, Wachovia and Chase along with educational institutions like Brown University) finally zero in on the prime historical mover behind some of the worst chapters in American history? Will they sue the Democrats?
The Democrats are poised to nominate a black man for president of the United States. But will they apologize for slavery? Will they start paying reparations not from tax dollars but their own dollars for what they have done?
Do they have the guts to publicly admit what serious history records of their deeds? Are they capable of running a campaign without playing the race card as they have played it for the better part of two centuries? Can they even escape the race psychology that has indelibly branded them as America's Party of Race?
Or, when it comes to their own responsibility for race relations in America, will they order up more of what, under the circumstances, is a very appropriate word for the DNC website?
Whitewash.
Mr. Lord is creator, co-founder and CEO of QubeTV, a conservative video site. A Reagan White House political director and author, he writes from Pennsylvania.
Monday, August 18, 2008
Coexist? No chance.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Obama Plays Race Card
Readers, please read the following statement by the Obama camp. The full text of the article can be found here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080731/ap_on_el_pr/obama
"While calling to mind the images of presidents on the nation's paper money
— George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Andrew Jackson and Ulysses S. Grant are on the bills most commonly used — Obama didn't make clear what distinctions he
thinks McCain is likely to raise. Besides being white, they were for the most
part much older than Obama when elected. McCain has not raised Obama's
race as an issue in the campaign; he has said that Obama lacks experience.
When asked by The Associated Press what Obama meant by the comparison,
Obama strategist Robert Gibbs said Thursday morning that the senator was not
referring to race."What Barack Obama was talking about was that he didn't get
here after spending decades in Washington," Gibbs said. "There is nothing more
to this than the fact that he was describing that he was new to the political
scene. He was referring to the fact that he didn't come into the race with the
history of others. It is not about race."
Okay, so let's look at Gibbs' reasoning, "that Obama didn't get here after spending decades in Washington" and how that reasoning relates to the presidents on the U.S. currency.
Let's start with George Washington. First of all, George Washington never spent a day in Washington. In fact, George Washington lived in Mount Vernon, which is in Virginia. Secondly, George Washington did not serve for "decades" either as President, vice president, or within the halls of Congress. So, Mr. Gibbs, let's take George Washington off the table.
Next is Abraham Lincoln. Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States. Before becoming President he was a member of the US House of Representatives where he served for ONE term (not decades). He then served in the Taylor administration. Again, this was not for even a decade, let alone decades. So, Mr. Gibbs, let's take Abraham Lincoln off the table.
Next on the table is Andrew Jackson. Andrew Jackson was the 17th President of the United States. Jackson started his "washington" political career in 1796 as the representative for Tennessee which aquired statehood. He was elected to the Senate in 1797 but he resigned within a year. He then became a judge in 1798 where he served until 1804. It was not until 1821 that he again became a politician when he served as military governor of Florida. He was nominated for President in 1822 and he again returned to the US Senate that year. He resigned from the Senate in 1825. He became President in 1828 and won reelection in 1832. So, Mr. Gibbs, let's do the math. One year House, one year Senate, three years again in the Senate and 8 years President. Now, if we include the presidency Jackson had 13 years in Washington government. But, would Obama really want to count the 8 years of a persons' presidency against them? I doubt it, so that pulls it back to 5 years. Once again, Mr. Gibbs, we have a currency president off the table.
Finally, we have Ulysses S. Grant. Grant was the 18th president of the United States where he served from 1869–1877 another 8 years that we will eventually right off. So what were Grant's decades of politics as a Washington insider? He was the youngest man elected president (46) and inexperienced. His cabinet was fixed on scandal (Black Friday, whiskey ring, Sanborn, and Credit Mobilier). He also faced accusations of anti-semitism. Mr. Gibbs, that is what we got from a no experience president. He had zero experience beyond being a general in the army. So I am sure you'll want Grant off the table.... because to think that Obama is running as a Freshman senator with little to no experience, not even military experience, one only wonders how Grant-like he could be.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
House Apologizes to African-Americans
"The House "apologizes to African-Americans on behalf of the people of the
United States, for the wrongs committed against them and their ancestors who
suffered under slavery and Jim Crow."http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080729/ap_on_go_co/slavery_apology
Cohen is a rank and file democrat according to Govtrack's own analysis who votes 96% of the tie along party lines. He is far left of center.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=412236
He hasn't done anything in the House worth noting. Steve Cohen has sponsored 21 bills since Jan 4, 2007, of which 15 haven't made it out of committee (Average) and 2 were successfully enacted (Average, relative to peers). Cohen has co-sponsored 980 bills during the same time period (Average, relative to peers). [On 4/2/08, the numbers were updated to consider companion bills in the other chamber identified as "identical" by the Congressional Research Service when determining if a bill was enacted or made it past the introduction stage.]
Cohen is facing a challenge from Nikki Tinker, a relative unknown to politics, who took 25% of the Democratic vote in 2006. Cohen has a party line history in congress who is considered by Nancy Pelosi as the "conscience of the freshmen class" of the 110th Congress. He's avidly against the Iraq War. He helped Pelosi gain her seat as House Speaker, hence the help on passing his resolution to cater to his constituency back home. He also sits on the Judiciary Committee and is responsible for blocking so many of Bush's nominees. He is also a huge Obama supporter. Finally, when asked what his biggest role might be in a second term, "But first and foremost, he wants to be instrumental in ending the war in Iraq." Well, I guess ending the war is more important that winning... no wonder he's an Obama fan.
Saturday, July 12, 2008
McCain and Bush are NOT the same.
"These days, Obama assails McCain's position on the issues every chance he
gets. He levels his charges with a commonsense tone and lighthearted touch that
couches the criticism while making his core argument: McCain and President Bush
are the same."
Of course the above quote is political rhetoric and nothing more. It's an appeal to emotion. Obama does not believe McCain and President Bush are the same. I highly doubt this is one of Obama's "core arguments". Why not you ask? Because the argument is a fallacious one and if Obama is everything he claims to be (a new kind of politician) I'd like to believe he would not stoop to such common practices as "guilt by association", "Poisoning the Well", Et cetera.
Of course, I have no problem laying my bias out in plain view... Obama is not a new kind of politician; he's the same kind just carefully packaged and more carefully unwrapped. The paper is from one store, the box is from another, the gift has had its price tag removed, and the gift receipt was accidently misplaced.