Dear Democrats
Posted January 29th, 2008 by Da King
I have to ask you a favor.
Following last night's State Of The Union speech, I found myself wondering what Barack Obama's opinion of the speech would be. I couldn't have cared less what Hillary or John Edwards thought, or Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid for that matter, because I knew all they would do is criticize, criticize, criticize, and use the speech as an opportunity for partisan gain, but I was wondering what the man who allegedly transcends political barriers thought. Obama is an intriguing fellow, even to a true blue (or red) fiscal conservative like myself.
And lo and behold, the first words I heard from Barack Obama about the State Of The Union speech were complimentary toward Mr. Bush. Knock me over with a feather. I haven't heard a Democrat say anything favorable toward Bush for so long, at first I thought I heard Obama wrong. I've become so used to listening to liberals whose entire political belief system seems to consist of contradicting everything Bush says or does, that I was certain I must have heard Obama wrong.
But there he was, starting off by praising Bush for his work on AIDS, praising Bush for expanding veterans benefits, admitting that the surge has reduced violence in Iraq, calling for Democrats to be as fiscally responsible as any conservative would be. This IS rather new. Not everything Obama said was a big pat on the back for Bush, of course. Obama called Bush's economic plans nothing but warmed over cut and paste policies from the past, and he said the US must end it's occupation of Iraq for political reconciliation to occur in that country.
I'm no Democrat, but Obama is the fresh voice in that party. There is an opportunity there, even though I'm going to be dead set against most of Obama's economic policies. So, I'm asking all you Democratic primary voters to do me a favor (since you all like me so much), and kick those nasty Clintons to the curb for once and for all. I think you Dems are finally starting to see the same things in the Clintons that the rest of us saw 10-15 years ago. They are nothing but power-seeking slime merchants. They are liars. I'm glad y'all are finally starting to catch up. I cannot stomach 4-8 more years of Billary in my face. If Billary is the nominee, I don't think the Democrats will win the presidency, regardless of what the polls say right now. The Republicans are going to hit you with such an assault against Clintonista sins if you pick them that you won't believe it. We are going to rehash a lot of the Clinton ugliness of the 90's, and I'd really like to NOT go there again. I didn't care for it the first time. I sure don't want to relive it. Bubba denigrated the presidency then, and he's still denigrating it with his embarassing outbursts on the campaign trail now. Let it be over.
Select Barack Obama as your nominee. I'll still most likely vote against him, but at least I'd regain an iota of respect for the Democratic party. And Dems, if you select Obama as your nominee, you might actually WIN THE ELECTION ! He's not a stiff like Al Gore. He's not a traitor like John Kerry. He's not a scumbag like Bill Clinton. For once, you'd actually have a candidate that wouldn't need to have his record hidden, spun, rinsed, and recycled by the liberal media to have even a shred of credibility. Gosh, Dems, you could actually try the truth for a change in a national election ! Okay, maybe I've overstated things here. I know a liberal can't actually tell the truth in an election, or he'd never get more than 20% of the vote, but at least you'd have a candidate who could appear to be telling the truth, and who maybe might even believe what he's saying to boot. Give it a shot, Dems. For me.
Oh, and calm your fears about the race issue. America doesn't really care. Only you morons do, along with the stupid media, who will sensationalize anything for a buck. Identity politics is part and parcel of the liberal mindset. The rest of us moved past that stuff long ago. We hope y'all will catch up with us on that as well. Why is it you call yourselves 'progressives' again ? Doesn't seem to fit.
——————————————————————————————-
Correction - In a former post, I actually defended the Clintons against what I thought were unfounded accusations of the Clintons playing the race card. The problem with my analysis was, THE CLINTONS KEPT RIGHT ON PLAYING THE RACE CARD. Oops, my bad. Thanks to all of you who disagreed with me on that issue (and it was almost all of you). You were right. I underestimated the Clintons underhandedness. What was I thinking ?
January 29th, 2008 at 8:30 am
"Oh, and calm your fears about the race issue. America doesn't really care. Only you morons do, along with the stupid media, who will sensationalize anything for a buck."
Not quite, King. Becasue of over two generations of being brainwashed into the cult of victimhood by the Dims & the libs, the majority of blacks buy into identity politics far, far more than anyone else. This is not going to change for quite some time. [And the Dims are now trying to similarly infect Hispanics with that disease, too. Gotta love those Dims.]
++++
I'm asking all you Democratic primary voters to do me a favor (since you all like me so much), and kick those nasty Clintons to the curb for once and for all. I think you Dems are finally starting to see the same things in the Clintons that the rest of us saw 10-15 years ago. "
1. The odds are that Obama will NOT prevail in the primaries against the Clinton machine.
2. Who are you kidding appealing to the better angels of the Dims to vote against the Clintons. For your information, King, the Dims ALWAYS knew what the Clintons were; they just didn't care. Again King, there are precious few redeeming groups in the Democratic coalition. Don't expect anything good from them — including B. Hussein Obama.
3. King, you're getting sappy here. An objective view shows Hussein Omama is more liberal than even Comrade Hillary — albeit more "likable." And don't forget, Obama is in the pocket of American-hater, George Soros.
January 29th, 2008 at 8:42 am
Now that you are all for comity, Da King, would you please vow to not start your blogs with terms like "Defeatocrats" (1/25/08) and "you morons" (1/29/08)?
Good morning.
January 29th, 2008 at 8:59 am
Tom,
Absolutly NOT.
January 29th, 2008 at 9:05 am
Vince,
I think we are making the same point regarding identity politics. It's only the Democrats who play it. Since the vast majority of blacks have bought into the Democrats plantation mentality, they practice the same politics. I was speaking about the rest of us as the people who don't care whether Obama is black or not, with the rest of us being the non-liberal Democrats.
Yes, Obama is very liberal, and I've tried to highlight that previously to warn people away. I'm just sick to death of all things Clinton, and I'm tired of seeing their mugs all over the tv set, particularly Bill's.
January 29th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
In the Karl Rove era of 21st century conservative messaging, the Republicans decided that they needed to cleave off a few more voter groups because they had an agenda that only benefited a minority of voters in America. The Republicans told their white supremacist, Tim McVeigh, faction to tone it down so that they could cleave off "black religious voters" from the Democratic caucus. They toned down the Jew-hating rhetoric, dumped the remnants of anti-Catholic hatred, and started to woo the "Hispanics".
The Republicans still needed someone to hate and motivate their voters, so they emphasized how much they hate gay people with again outlawing gay marriage (after they already had the Defense of Marriage Act). In Ohio and many other "swing states", they put anti-gay-marriage initiatives on the ballot. Abortion and a crusading "hate the Moslems" message was also featured.
In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, Bush's approval ratings plunged to an abysmal 2% among black voters.
What were you saying about "plantation mentality", Da King?
January 29th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
I stumbled across your blog after reading the new Ohio Politics blog and read a few of your posts. Just curious if my hunch is close. You strike me as one that was a card caring liberal and believed in the solutions the liberals espoused for the ills of society. But as time passed you realized while the goals were admirable the route the liberals were taking just wasnt working. Then the epiphany came to you. The liberal solutions not only were innefective but usually resulted in the opposite of the intended consequence. It is a sad day when one realizes that while a belief may make us feel good it often is the wrong one.
P.S. it must be so satisfying to be the object of the non-judgmental compasionate liberals such as Tom Says.
January 29th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
Here's what Obama said about Bush's SOTU. Not what King said he said, but that's okay….
"Tonight’s State of the Union was full of the same empty rhetoric the American people have come to expect from this President. We heard President Bush say he’d do something to cut down on special interest earmarks, but we know these earmarks have skyrocketed under his administration.
We heard the President say he wants to make tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans permanent, when we know that at a time of war and economic hardship, the last thing we need is a permanent tax cut for Americans who don’t need them and weren’t even asking for them. What we need is a middle class tax cut, and that’s exactly what I will provide as President.
We heard the President say he has a stimulus plan to boost our economy, but we know his plan leaves out seniors and fails to expand unemployment insurance, and we know it was George Bush’s Washington that let the banks and financial institutions run amok, and take our economy down this dangerous road. What we need to do now is put more money in the pockets of workers and seniors, and expand unemployment insurance for more people and more time. And I have a plan that to do just that.
And finally, tonight we heard President Bush say that the surge in Iraq is working, when we know that’s just not true. Yes, our valiant soldiers have helped reduce the violence. Five soldiers gave their lives today in this cause, and we mourn their loss and pray for their families."
January 29th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
Hey, Tom wake up.
The GOP did not put the Defense of Marriage on the ballot in Ohio that the homosexuals found so upsetting. It was done by private initiative. And it passed by wide margin, glad to say.
In the same way, private citizen Ward Connely should have initiatives on the ballot in five states this year to ban the immoral & unconstitutional practice of affirmative action [quotas] in those states. Connerly succeeded in Michigan, California and a number of other states in the recent past, and he should succeed again in 2008.
January 29th, 2008 at 8:07 pm
Yes, Vince, we all know it was private initiative that got a worthless and unnecessary defense of marriage act on the ballot. And, Yes, Vince, we also know that it was Karl Rove's idea. He'd used it before. At least even you can admit that, can't you? Tom's absolutely right. And so is da king. The only chance the Repukicans have is if Mrs. Clinton is the nominee. Only then will the right wing nut jobs come out in full force, only to vote against her, since even most repukicans cannot stomach any of their own nominees. If Mr. Obama wins the Presidency, Vince, may I offer my services in helping you move out of the country?
January 30th, 2008 at 8:39 am
Dear "Civics-challenged" Vince Foster:
The Defense of Marriage Act was a federal act from 1996: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act
The hate-the-gays/anti-gay-marriage initiative was a Karl Rove nightmare initiative on the ballot in Ohio in 2004.
There is a distinction between your two hateful, divisive Republican "legislative efforts".
I saw PBS NOW on Friday night. Deacons at several Southern Baptist churches have fired several of the hateful "preachers" who spewed venomous sermons against the gays every Sunday for the last decade. The deacons wanted a new preacher who would preach about addressing poverty in their community and, get this, climate protection! Oh, happy day!
***
NOW interviewed John Green, senior fellow with the Pew Forum on Religion and professor of political science at the University of Akron, about the "new generation" of evangelicals:
http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/404/evangelicals-politics.html
***
The old preacher is now holding church in a rented room in a motel on the outskirts of town.
January 30th, 2008 at 8:55 am
"Vince, may I offer my services in helping you move out of the country?"
No, chief, you got me mixed up with the liberal pukes who throw hissy fits when they lose an election and threaten — but unfortuantely don't actually follow through — on moving out of the country.
Furthermore, I doubt you'd be competent enough to even move a living room chair from one room to the next. You're the type who would look for the government to do it for you.
+++
"we all know it was private initiative that got a worthless and unnecessary defense of marriage act on the ballot."
1. Judging what he wrote, Tom obvously doesn't know that the Defense of Marriage Act was done by was private initiative — just like he's probably unaware that Ward Conelly's highly successful anti-quota efforts are non-GOP initiatives. [Say, how would you Akron Dims vote on an initiative to ban racial quotas & affirmative action in state policy if it was on the ballot here in November?]
2. The Defense of Marrage initiative was far from worthless. It prevented homosexuals from perverting the institution of marriage, and that in-and-of itself is gold. And the great majority of Ohioans agree.
[Based on antidotal information, I have to conclude that homosexuals acted more, shall we say, manly than the typical liberal in carrying out their threat to leave an state after losing a big election. About six months after Ohio overwhelmingly passed its Defense of Marrage ballot initiative, my wife's hairdresser sashayed down to Miami, Fla... and stayed there. And that's the truth.]
+++
News flash: The odds are still very good that Comrade Hillary will be the Dim presidential nominee — not B. Hussein Obama. And this is highly appropriate as the Comrade best epitomizes you Dims.
But the good news is that as personally loathsome as Hillary is, she would be less damaging to the country that Obama.
+++
Gee, we're getting to the point here, King, where some of your Dim devotees are maybe strating to screwing up enough courage to actually say which Dim they actually prefer as their nominee. Saints be prasied!
January 30th, 2008 at 10:45 am
Da King did Vince Foster no favor: Da King posted my account of how DOMA was different from the Ohio 2004 initiative after Vince Foster repeated his unhinged claim that DOMA *was* the Ohio 2004 initiative. Vince is really embarassing himself, and I don't mean his atrocious spelling.
January 30th, 2008 at 11:48 am
Rev,
Thanks for indicating I was telling lies when I wasn't, you old fact twister. Obama's SOTU response was his response right after the SOTU, AT THE TIME I WROTE MY ARTICLE. It was a short response, which I drew from. Obviously, he added his more partisan spin later for political effect for the meat eaters like yourself. I told the truth.
And I'm sure americans are extremely grateful to Mr. Obama for desiring to raise their taxes. Obama says we need a middle class tax cut, well, Bush gave us that, but what we really need is a tax cut that will enable our businesses to become more competitive, to provide good jobs for americans, which in turn will spark a good economy, which will benefit THE ENTIRE COUNTRY, not your mythical few. Mr. Obama, just like all the other wrongheaded liberal class warrior wealth redistributors, would never do that in a million years, and thus will never fix what ails us. All his type will provide us is a national welfare state (but one with a marginally lower CO2 content, maybe). We also need to stop out-of-control government spending at the federal level. Do you think Mr. Obama will accomplish that ??? No, I don't think so either.
I agree with Obama about the earmarks, and I might even agree with him that we'll need extended unemployment insurance, because it appears the liberals are going to take over government, with no conservative voice to reign in their insane suicidal economic policies. Think Carter administration. Say goodbye to jobs. Say hello to stagflation. Say hello to poverty. Yeah, we'll need that unemployment insurance. No wonder the Senate wants to tack that onto the phony stimulus package. Imagine this economy, already on shaky ground, deeply in debt, with a tsunami of future unfunded liabilities on the way, and then add tons of new liberal spending and taxes to it. Can you say 'CRASH' ? It's The Perfect Storm, coming to a town near you in january 2009.
January 30th, 2008 at 11:59 am
Way to go, Tom ! What a perfect example of angry liberal bigotry and demonization, saying Republicans are nothing but racist, jew-haters. Have you told Condi Rice or Alan Greenspan about this ? I love those displays of liberal tolerance and open-mindedness. How's about we go out and kick some Conservy butt, Tom ? I'll bring the gun, since you probably don't believe in the 2nd amendment.
January 30th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
Fred,
Do I know you ? You gave a fairly accurate representation of my political journey. As a teenager in the late 60's and a college student in the early 70's, I was steeped in the inherent liberal propaganda. The first president I ever voted for was McGovern. I grew up admiring JFK (and still do). After college and out in the real world, liberalism began to unravel for me, because liberalism isn't rooted in liberty. It's rooted in pitting one against the other. By the Carter administration, I realized it wouldn't work. The Reagan administration showed what would work. The constant drumbeat of liberalism that is pounded into our heads by the schools and the media (especially the media of the old days, where the conservative voice was rarely heard) takes some effort to overcome. It's like being de-programmed.
January 30th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
Isn't it something, King, that we followed such matching patterns concerning liberalism? I voted before you got to but I managed to make Johnson the last Democrat I voted for. In 1972 I told myself that if the Dems nominated McGovern they were automaticallty giving my vote to whoever the Republicans nominated and sure enough I voted or Nixon and have never found a Democrat since that time that I could vote for.
I think I can even manage to go along with Hugh Hewitt when he said yesterday that he could vote for McCain over any Democrat becauuse the nation could probably survive him for 4 years. Now nobody wants McCain less that Hewitt, and I might add, me, but I sure will vote for him instead of a social thinking Dem. We can survive him but I am not sure we can survive any of the Dem candidates, especially if the Dems manage to keep control of both houses of Congress.
I wondered when reading Fred if I didn't know him but since he knows you so well from Ohio politics, I guess not.
January 30th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
Rev Red, I heard Obama say those things that King mentioned and then next morning I heard him say the things you mentioned. I wonder if he wasn't talking to the Dem leadership that morning and the people who will have to elect him that night. He did say what both of you said and there was a really good reason for it all. I would say that he was sure that most people would forget what he said that night since most politicians think we are all unable to remember what they said from one time to another. In other words, they think we are all ignorant.
January 30th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
[quote Da King]Way to go, Tom ! What a perfect example of angry liberal bigotry and demonization, saying Republicans are nothing but racist, jew-haters. Have you told Condi Rice or Alan Greenspan about this ? …machismo deleted… [/quote]
No. Go back and read what I said.
The 20th century Republicans got their energy from the "Michigan Militia / Tim McVeigh" message of hating blacks and Jews". I remember the Klan rally in downtown Cleveland when Mike White was the mayor.
21st century Republicans get their energy from hating gays, Moslems, and, sad to say, Mexicans. I have been following the presidential campaign and only John McCain is not a Mexican hater. He seems to be succeeding despite that because Rudy Giuliani is a sleazeball and Mitt Romney is a stuffed shirt.
This was all documented by Michelle Goldberg, who reported the 2004 election in Ohio for http://www.salon.com
http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2006/05/12/goldberg/index_np.html
January 30th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
"I remember the Klan rally in downtown Cleveland when Mike White was the mayor."
Was the senior Dim "statesman" of the senate, Robert (KKK) Byrd of West Virginia, there in his sheet & hood?
How about that other Dim KKKer, Harry Truman. Oh no, that Klansman was dead by then; he couldn't make it to the Cleveland rally.
January 30th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
Vince, anytime you want to go toe to toe on intelligence let me know. And why is it that you want us to tell you who we are voting for? What do you care, since whomever that person is will send us to hell anyway? I haven't seen da king make an endorsement yet, and it's his blog. By the way, who are you voting for? And who are you going to get to read your ballot for you?
And how is that gay marriage should have been on the ballot in Ohio when it was already banned? Explain that one to me. Try to stick to the facts. Yes, we get it, you are a good name caller. So is my 7-year old niece.
January 30th, 2008 at 6:47 pm
Roy,
You can add me to that list of people that don't want McCain to be president. I made a blog thread about it. I'm afraid I might have to end up holding my nose and voting for him though, because a semi-liberal like McCain is better than the real thing, plus there might be one or more Supreme Court seats to fill that could have repercussions for a generation or more.
Fred responded to me on another thread, and he said he didn't know me, so he sure made a good guess about my political journey, which is similar to yours, just off by a few years.
January 30th, 2008 at 7:06 pm
Tom,
First you tell me I have it wrong about you calling Republicans racist jew haters, and then, you repeat the charge all over again, adding Mexicans and Muslims to the Republi-hate list. LOL. You're a scream.
It sure was a shame that they executed my good friend Timothy McVeigh, wasn't it ? I've heard some ridiculous rants in my time, but that crap about McVeigh and the militias was precious. Is that what the loons are peddling over on DailyKos or somewhere similar these days, or did you come up with that on your own ?
Hater, your comments are nothing but bigoted ignorance worthy of the KKK itself, and that salon.com article is a waste of space. I wonder how it is that we haven't instituted that christian theocracy yet, when we have a born-again president ? I guess Bush just forgot to do that during his 7 years to date, eh ? You'll be waiting a very long time waiting on the christians to impose their religious rule in this country. It won't ever happen, or even come close to happening. The only thing the christians want is the same right to have a voice as everyone else in the country. That is their right.
And nobody hates Muslims or Mexicans. It's terrorism and illegals we have a problem with, but I guess context and perspective aren't your strong suit, not to mention laws.
January 30th, 2008 at 7:08 pm
da truth,
since it looks like McCain is going to be the nominee of the Republican party, and the only one that could defeat him is Romney, I'm endorsing Romney as of now.
January 31st, 2008 at 10:30 am
King, you know those of us over here want McCain…..
January 31st, 2008 at 11:11 am
"Vince, anytime you want to go toe to toe on intelligence let me know."
Rave on. Loon, rave on. Your inferiority complex — which is understandable — is showing.
But keep flopping down the Yellow Brick Road, "da Truth." The Great Oz might take pity on you someday and give you the brain you so desperately need.
Boy, now wouldn’t that be something? Your friends & family wouldn't recognize you then. But hey, at least you'd be able to think, somewhat anyway. You'd still need to be educated but at least with a brain you'd begin to have a fighting chance at learning.
January 31st, 2008 at 5:07 pm
Voodoo economics AND intolerance in the same comment stream.
Good one.
February 1st, 2008 at 8:14 am
da truth,
If I was on your side, I'd probably want McCain too.
Which is why I don't
February 2nd, 2008 at 9:56 pm
Dang it, King, cmon, vote for McCain…..please!
February 3rd, 2008 at 8:12 am
No way am I voting for McCain in the Ohio primary, but I might end up voting for him in november. How depressing. Maybe I'll just vote Libertarian instead (but that would only help Clinton/Obama). Gaack. Trapped like a rat.