We're Having A Party
Posted June 2nd, 2008 by Da King
It was a wacky weekend for the party of D, that allegedly stands for Democratic. Many votes were cast that won't count, and many other votes were counted that were not cast. We all should have seen this coming the moment they made Howard Dean the head of the Democratic National Committee (DNC). To everybody I've ever spoken with about Howie (who always seems angry for no apparent reason) - Told you so.
In sunday's primary in Puerto Rico, Hillary Clinton trounced Barack Obama, capturing 68% of the vote to Obama's 32%. The win earned Hillary 38 delegates to Obama's 17.
Unfortunately for Mrs. Clinton, those 38 earned delegates in Puerto Rico were trumped by the DNC's awarding of 59 unearned Michigan delegates to Barack Obama on saturday. The party of D operatives were congratulating themselves for their Solomonic wisdom all over the news shows yesterday, but it must be noted for the record, NOBODY IN MICHIGAN VOTED FOR BARACK OBAMA. Sooo, how do you get 59 elected delegates without receiving any votes ? Why, you belong to the party of D, that allegedly stands for Democratic, that's how. John Edwards, Dennis Kucinich, and the other party of D nominees should be po'ed, because they deserved those 59 delegates every bit as much as Barack Obama did. Some deserved them more.
In the face of heated criticism, the DNC Outlaws Bylaws Committee made other compromises on saturday as well. They seated Florida's delegates in addition to the imaginary Michigan election they held in their minds, and then they decided the 2.3 million Florida and Michigan votes would count as half votes. This move at least brought those states in line with the DNC's own internal rules, though not in line with any Constitutional principle, except maybe that old revoked one about slaves counting as 3/5's of a person. Keep trying Florida and Michigan. Who knows, maybe one day you'll be real citizens. At least the 3/5ths compromise had the nobler goal of ending slavery behind it. The party of D was on the wrong side of the slavery debate when it counted too. Btw, did you know that Barack Obama is the first black man to EVER become a Senator in the party of D, the oldest political party in the country ? Yes, it is so. The Republican party, founded in 1854 by Abe Lincoln, elected it's first black man to the Senate, Hiram Rhodes Revels, in 1870. Just an interesting historical tidbit.
During the DNC's debate over whether to count millions of votes on saturday, one heckler repeatedly asked what I'll call THE QUESTION OF THE YEAR, before he was escorted out of the building by security. The question was :
HOW CAN YOU CALL YOURSELVES THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IF YOU DON'T COUNT THE VOTES ?
Indeed. How, exactly ?
Speaking of counting the vote and real citizens, let's return to Puerto Rico for a minute. Puerto Rico is a U.S. Territory. Puerto Ricans are U.S. citizens. They fight in our military. Nearly 70 have died in Afghanistan and Iraq. Puerto Ricans can vote in U.S. elections if they live on the mainland, but they can't vote in U.S. elections if they live on the island. They can vote in the primaries, but not the general election. Puerto Ricans live in this bizarre American colonial netherworld. Without getting into whether Puerto Rico should become a state, remain a colony, or become independent, I recommend this: As long as Puerto Ricans are U.S. citiizens, they should receive the full right to vote. I've already had my fill of votes not counting in this election cycle. I remain astonished that all it takes to suppress millions of American votes is some shenanigans from a handful of misguided politicians. We have to be better than that. The party of D can take all their wailing and gnashing of teeth over the Bush/Gore election of 2000 and stick it where the sun don't shine. They have forfeited the right to complain about anything.
Seeing as how the Democratic party is no longer democratic, I propose America has a contest to rename the Democrats into something more appropriate. I suggest the "Oxymoron party", or maybe the "Revisionist party".
===
In other news, Barack Obama quit his church after 20 years, in the wake of more wacked out remarks by that deranged Catholic priest, Pfleger, who said Hillary had a sense of entitlement to the Democratic nomination because she was white. The TUCC congregation ate Pfleger's remarks up. They loved it. Obama has no doubt grown tired of defending every loony racist statement that emanates from TUCC (Trinity Unbelievably Crazy Church), but the question about Obama will not go away. The question is, why did Obama sit there and listen to that nonsense for 20 years ? And Barack, please don't continue to insult our intelligence by saying you never heard that type of language when you were there. You KNOW you did. We KNOW you did. TUCC is based upon Black Liberation Theology, which assumes white oppression. At one time you embraced that church, when it was politically convenient, and now you have removed yourself from it, because it's politically invconvenient. That sounds less like a leader, and more like an opportunist to me, but let's move on. I also want a real discussion of the issues instead of all this stuff about preachers, because it's on the issues that Barack Obama really gets scary.
June 2nd, 2008 at 5:11 am
Da King,
This political season has had a profound affect on me—as someone who never would have even considered considering leaving the Democratic party, I now feel that I truly don't belong with them anymore—not after what transpired at the DNC meet Saturday, not after hearing all the insulting and childish raging against Hillary from the Abomination—nope. I don't belong there anymore–I have been marginalized—I am not a Republican, either, that is for sure, so I guess I must be an Independent now.
As a woman, I am enraged to the hilt at what has occurred and I have always found myself at the head edge of coming trends throughout my life. I am predicting a great fallout, a backlash on this DNC denial of rights to the American people—the Democrats are becoming exactly what they tout themselves not to be—elitist, arrogant snobs who forget who they are supposed to be serving.
Furthermore, I am embarrassed for them and the block within the party that prefers to call themselves "progressive" as opposed to "liberal" that appears to be "regressive" and "aggressive" rather—anything but truly being "progressive" as I understand the term. Take note of the young female constituents of Obama who deny their mothers' accumulated knowledge over the years about this sexist world—these young ladies prefer to capitulate to the man Obama than stand for themselves as females in an environment that dishonors them and their mothers repeatedly. The young ladies sense inside it will be easier to appear appealing to the opposite sex by sticking with the "man" than truly siding with the smarter, more prepared and resolute in her policies and actions Hillary. These young ladies have not learned a thing…yet. They will as they grow older and more mature—the world will not give them a fair shake like they have promised—they, too, will be forgotten, taken for granted, and kept "in their place". Especially after they have to take time out for motherhood and find they are no longer relevant when they try to return.
I cannot believe that the DNC just did what they did. So regressive they have become. I am ashamed of them.
Call me an Independent now.
June 2nd, 2008 at 8:28 am
"King: The party of D operatives were congratulating themselves for their Solomonic wisdom all over the news shows yesterday, but it must be noted for the record, NOBODY IN MICHIGAN VOTED FOR BARACK OBAMA. Sooo, how do you get 59 elected delegates without receiving any votes ?"
Who needs to be on the ballot, King? When Obama speaks, the enthuisiasm cannot be denied. Maybe the Bylaws committee members fainted and couldn't resist reaching this conclusion.
King: "As long as Puerto Ricans are U.S. citiizens, they should receive the full right to vote."
This would make sense to you and I, but I have a feeling it has something to do with a desire to preserve their own independence. The hispanic population has long been admired for their embracement of family values, religion, and culture. These are the very things under attack, in our "melting pot", and one reason they are likely not to jump on board. Aside from white women, white blue-collar votes, and the Jewish population, the messiah has a huge problem with trying to captivate the latino vote.
"King: In other news, Barack Obama quit his church after 20 years, in the wake of more wacked out remarks by that deranged Catholic priest, Pfleger, who said Hillary had a sense of entitlement to the Democratic nomination because she was white."
Again, as in the "famous" Philadelphia speech, he continues to avoid any responsibily for showing such poor judgement. Instead, he cited the media's persistence for scrutinizing everything linked to the church as a reason for quitting. As far as the 200,000 earmarked dollars to Pfleger, chalk it up as just another "honest" mistake.
Call me naive, but this whole black liberation theology has me perplexed. Don't we go to church to seek forgiveness and spiritual enlightenment? These pastors seem to promote the bitterness from within, while allowing society to become the scapegoat for all of one's shortcomings. Now I see why Barack refuses to be held accountable for anything. Trinity has built an empire by keeping people enraged, but does such anger really have a place in the venue of the Lord?
June 3rd, 2008 at 12:12 am
King - you say Obama received votes that shouldn't have counted, and that votes cast for Clinton were not counted, which is all true.
But can you see that the fact Obama was not on the ballot that the election was flawed from the beginning? There were surely a great number people who would have wanted to vote for him in Michigan.
How can you say a flawed election should count (one that was agreed wouldn't count for Dems), but the flawed remedy should not?
The logical flaw is so great that you must recognize it, so why do you keep repeating it?
June 3rd, 2008 at 4:23 am
"As far as the 200,000 earmarked dollars to Pfleger, chalk it up as just another "honest" mistake".
Alex, didn't liberals have a conniption when Bush funded such faith-based ventures ? Why are they quiet as churchmouses when Obama does the same thing ?
June 3rd, 2008 at 4:27 am
David, I absolutely agree with you that Michigan was flawed. I favored a re-vote in Michigan as the fair solution, so I fail to see my logical flaw. The DNC, however, in their infinite wisdom, decided instead to, as I said, hold an imaginary election in their minds, one that awarded Obama 59 delegates based upon NO votes.
June 4th, 2008 at 6:54 am
Alex, didn't liberals have a conniption when Bush funded such faith-based ventures ? Why are they quiet as churchmouses when Obama does the same thing ?
The separation of church and state was deleted from the far-left playbook and religion is now acceptable if it reinforces the anti-American sentiments of it's parishoners.
June 4th, 2008 at 9:15 am
Do you mean "anti-American sentiments" like John Hagee espouses?
June 4th, 2008 at 11:03 am
Alex,
Never mind the Rev. He has Liberal Tourette's Syndrome.
Though as an atheist who thinks religion is a mental disorder, you'd REALLY think the Rev should be jumping all over Obama for his faith-based earmarks.
Which is evidence that you must be right about liberals' reversal on religion. One more example of liberals destroying history in their wake.
Maybe we should call the ACLU and let them know what Obama's up to
June 4th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
If, as you allege, Obama has personally earmarked something faith-based, please give me the source or the link. Seriously.
June 5th, 2008 at 10:25 am
As you wish, Rev. Here's a link through the Chicago tribune. In it you'll find earmark info to this kook's church.
http://weblogs.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/blog/2008/05/obamas_pastor_new_problem_apol.html
June 5th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
First off…the money went for social services provided by Pfleger's parish. Can we agree on that?
If I were a state senator, that's exactly what my constituents would want me to do.
The earmark was open and transparent and Obama didn't get anything out of it. There's no pay to play here.
So you're left with that same old smear by association thing because of Pleger's bodacious style of preaching.
Nothing much to see here….and listen, if there's something for real showing Obama's dirty…I want to see it.
June 5th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
"Social services provided by Pleger's parish."
I'm shocked you'd think this is a good idea, Reverend. What if those social services include counseling pregnant young women on the evils of abortion? It's not a stretch at all.
June 5th, 2008 at 8:34 pm
Unbelievable hypocrisy from the Rev, who is talking out of both sides of his mouth and contradicting his previously held position against faith-based government funding due to the Separation clause.
Hey, no wonder he's an Obama supporter. Barack does that stuff too. "Iran is a tiny country and little threat", "Iran is a grave threat". Make it up as they go along.
June 5th, 2008 at 8:35 pm
larry,
You're right. And abortion is against the tenets of the Catholic church, for whom Pfleger supposedly works.
June 8th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
Obama may be a naive and disingenuous charlatan with Marxist leanings but the biggest red flag on him is quickly becoming his devoted followers.
Many of them seem very quick to drop their basic political morals and beliefs–from that corner we've seen blatant misogyny, the defense of voter disenfranchisement on a mass scale, the constant labeling of whites who don't vote for Obama as ignorant 'Appalachians,' etc., etc. It's fairly disturbing.