 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ... From: katlaughing Date: 13 Mar 08 - 01:40 PM McCain called Parsley a great "spiritual advisor." Scroll down and watch the video, esp. from about 2:05 on: Click Here. That's some advisor he's chosen. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ... From: PoppaGator Date: 13 Mar 08 - 01:39 PM I've been supporting Obama all along, and still (so far) view him as the best alternative, but I'm very disappointed and concerned about what we've recently learned about his pastor. I would have thought he was a smart enough politician to disassociate himself from such a divisive personality. Chicago is a big city; I'm sure there are many other parishes to which he could have redirected his allegiance, perhaps even within the UCC denomination, whose leadership would have better represented his true spiritual values ~ assuming (as we'd all like to believe) that Rev. Wright does not. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ... From: Peace Date: 13 Mar 08 - 01:27 PM "Farrakhan's Support For Obama? Hugely Controversial. Hagee's Backing Of McCain? No Problem. By Eric Kleefeld - February 28, 2008, 5:11PM Barack Obama was questioned at Tuesday night's debate by Tim Russert and Hillary Clinton about repudiating Louis Farrakhan's endorsement — which Obama said was unsolicited — in the strongest terms possible. He was repeatedly badgered by Russert, and was forced to disown Farrakhan over and over again. The very next day, John McCain appeared onstage in Texas with Pastor John Hagee, an influential activist in the Christian Zionist movement. Hagee's comments about world affairs can make Farrakhan seem pedestrian at times: He eagerly awaits the Armageddon, considers the Catholic Church to be the Anti-Christ, and has said that Jews brought their own persecution upon themselves. But when it came to McCain's rather controversial backer, the press hardly batted an eye. Seems like a pretty clear double standard, right? Some readers might remember Hagee from this video put out last year by Max Blumenthal, from Hagee's Christians United For Israel conference. During the event, Hagee proclaimed that the United States must consider a preemptive strike on Iran, and also said that Jews had been responsible for their persecution throughout history because of a failure to properly accept God: Blumenthal only scratched the surface here — Hagee is a colorful character, to say the least. More available after the jump. Very much like Farrakhan, Hagee has regularly made remarks about current events and other religions that many would find alarming. But unlike Farrakhan, he has never truly faced the scrutiny of the mainstream press, and major politicians like Joe Lieberman and John McCain have freely associated with him. In 2006, Hagee laid out his views on eschatology in a book called Jerusalem Countdown, in which he claimed that sources had told him a year earlier about world events to come — and amazingly enough, all those predictions had come true over the past year. Next on the agenda, according to his March 2006 interview in Human Events: Israel would go to war with Iran before May 2006. And from there, Hagee eagerly anticipated an all-out world war against Iran and Russia, followed by the Second Coming. On the right, Bill Donohue of the Catholic League is objecting Hagee's extremist writings, particularly his denunciations of the Catholic Church. For example, Donohue pointed to instances in which Hagee has referred to the Catholic Church as, "The Great Whore," an "apostate church," the "anti-Christ," and a "false cult system." Is Tim Russert going to repeat any of that to McCain, in the same way he read out Farrakhan's "gutter religion" line about Jews? "Senator Obama has repudiated the endorsement of Louis Farrakhan, another bigot," Donohue wrote. "McCain should follow suit and retract his embrace of Hagee." So here's the question: Will the same media outlets who have hammered Barack Obama about Louis Farrakhan's uninvited endorsement now ask John McCain to denounce and reject the support of John Hagee, which was actually sought and publicly accepted?" Neat article I felt was worth posting to this thread. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ... From: pdq Date: 13 Mar 08 - 01:09 PM Rev. John Hagee may have some vile things to say, but he lives in Texas. He has no direct association with McCain. Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Jr., is Obama's personal spiritual leader. Obama has been going to Wright's church and listening to Wright's hatred for various people, Jews in particular, for many years. If he did not agree with the man, Obama could walk out. He never has. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ... From: Amos Date: 13 Mar 08 - 12:55 PM PDQ, I am terribly sorry, but this is kneejerk bullshit. It is predicated on the notion that an individual equals his church equals its pastor equals some demagog his pastor likes. None of which is in the least bit true. A man does not equal his church. Nor should his church have any bearing on the merit of his ideas or his performance in a public arena; at least, in this country. If it does so, it is because of people who engage int his kind of sloppy linkage between things, saying that things should be associated in fear and fog when they should not be at all, given the least effort and mental clarity. A church does not equal its pastor. People just do not work that way. Painting these pictures of "automatic association" in order to make generalized, sweeping assertions of danger, evil, treachery, or other lurking threats is just panicmongering foolishness, and beneath you. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ... From: pdq Date: 13 Mar 08 - 12:49 PM Obama's Farrakhan TestBy Richard Cohen Tuesday, January 15, 2008 "Barack Obama is a member of Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ. Its minister, and Obama's spiritual adviser, is the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. In 1982, the church launched Trumpet Newsmagazine; Wright's daughters serve as publisher and executive editor. Every year, the magazine makes awards in various categories. Last year, it gave the Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Trumpeter Award to a man it said 'truly epitomized greatness.' That man is Louis Farrakhan. ' Maybe for Wright and some others, Farrakhan 'epitomized greatness.' For most Americans, though, Farrakhan epitomizes racism, particularly in the form of anti-Semitism. Over the years, he has compiled an awesome record of offensive statements, even denigrating the Holocaust by falsely attributing it to Jewish cooperation with Hitler -- 'They helped him get the Third Reich on the road.' His history is a rancid stew of lies. It's important to state right off that nothing in Obama's record suggests he harbors anti-Semitic views or agrees with Wright when it comes to Farrakhan. Instead, as Obama's top campaign aide, David Axelrod, points out, Obama often has said that he and his minister sometimes disagree. Farrakhan, Axelrod told me, is one of those instances. Fine. But where I differ with Axelrod and, I assume, Obama is that praise for an anti-Semitic demagogue is not a minor difference or an intrachurch issue. The Obama camp takes the view that its candidate, now that he has been told about the award, is under no obligation to speak out on the Farrakhan matter. It was not Obama's church that made the award but a magazine. This is a distinction without much of a difference. And given who the parishioner is, the obligation to speak out is all the greater. He could be the next American president. Where is his sense of outrage? Any praise of Farrakhan heightens the prestige of the leader of the Nation of Islam. For good reasons and bad, he is already admired in portions of the black community, sometimes for his efforts to rehabilitate criminals. His anti-Semitism is either not considered relevant or is shared, particularly his false insistence that Jews have played an inordinate role in victimizing African Americans. In this, Farrakhan stands history on its head. It was Jews who disproportionately marched for civil rights and, in Mississippi, died for that cause. Farrakhan and, in effect, Wright, despoil the graves of Michael Schwerner, Andrew Goodman and, of course, their black colleague James Chaney. I can even see how someone, maybe even Obama, could dismiss Farrakhan as a pest, a silly man pushing a silly cause that poses no real threat to the Jewish community. Still, history tells us that anti-Semitism is not to be trifled with. It is a botulism of the mind. The Obama and Clinton campaigns are involved in a tasteless tussle over the legacy of Martin Luther King Jr. What is clear from rereading King's celebrated 'I Have a Dream' speech of Aug. 28, 1963, is how inclusive that dream was -- 'all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, 'Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!' ' This, though, is not Farrakhan's dream. He has vilified whites and singled out Jews to blame for crimes large and small, either committed by others as well or not at all. (A dominant role in the slave trade, for instance.) He has talked of Jewish conspiracies to set a media line for the whole nation. He has reviled Jews in a manner that brings Hitler to mind. And yet Wright heaped praise on Farrakhan. According to Trumpet, he applauded his 'depth of analysis when it comes to the racial ills of this nation.' He praised 'his integrity and honesty.' He called him 'an unforgettable force, a catalyst for change and a religious leader who is sincere about his faith and his purpose.' These are the words of a man who prayed with Obama just before the Illinois senator announced his run for the presidency. Will he pray with him just before his inaugural? I don't for a moment think that Obama shares Wright's views on Farrakhan. But the rap on Obama is that he is a fog of a man. We know little about him, and, for all my admiration of him, I wonder about his mettle. The New York Times recently reported on Obama's penchant while serving in the Illinois legislature for merely voting 'present' when faced with some tough issues. Farrakhan, in a strictly political sense, may be a tough issue for him. This time, though, 'present' will not do." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ... From: Amos Date: 13 Mar 08 - 12:14 PM FEar and hate go hand in hand. The politics of fear-mongering are ancient in our history, and they work to the shame of thinking humans. Because for fear mongering to work, all that is needed is for individuals to succumb to it, giving up their powers of reasons, differentiation, their ability to see clearly, their power over data, and give in to the low-grade, low-quality emotionalism. The consequence of buying fear from those who sell it are the placing of self into bondage; there is no-one who is as throoughly enslaved as the person who is chained up by fear. Craven slavery is much more common than often noticed, because it is acheived by the hypnotic drumming of PR machines and terrifying generalizations about how dangerous the world is. This is very economical; you do not have to buy chains and whips to enslave people using fear, because, once you strike the right buttons, the individuals provide their own chains, and include woeful, willing subordination and compliance into the package. Here;s what we really have to fear, and it is only two things: fear-mongers and fear itself. The invitation to hate is also an invitation to fear. We would do well to decline both. These bonds are much easier to fight back against than swords and chains. You can drop your sculls, and walk out of the galley-hold, anytime. The masters of your fear are phantoms, and like all phantoms, they will vanish when you say boo to them. We have nothing to fear but fear itself. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ... From: katlaughing Date: 13 Mar 08 - 11:24 AM hate filled speech LMAO...that's rich, really, really rich! And you hope to have credibility? LOL! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ... From: Amos Date: 13 Mar 08 - 09:55 AM McCain's actual spiritual adviser is a rabid anti-Islamist. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ... From: Bobert Date: 13 Mar 08 - 09:47 AM Seems that Amos and kat ain't got the ***hate market*** captured, G.G.... You certainly come across as having yer fair share of it yerself... But then agian, you will say that I do and then Amos will say he doesn'y and then you will say he does and blah, blah, blah... Labelin' folks as "haters" is old school... It's Bush/Rove tactics... It doesn't make anyone's positions more credible but less so... That's why many of us like Obama... He's beyond that polorization mentality... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ... From: GUEST,Guest Date: 13 Mar 08 - 06:22 AM I doubt McCain will lose a large bloc of anyone over this, because it is a tempest in a teapot. Now that we are in a horse race lull, the media is going running after anyone who says any stupid thing, and claims to be 'endorsing' a candidate. Next thing you know, the MSM will be quoting Amos and katlaughing for their 'expert' views on the race, and their hate filled speech against anyone who isn't on 'their' side. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ... From: katlaughing Date: 13 Mar 08 - 12:29 AM Ho-hum, attack instead of debate and cite... Parsley, who refers to himself as a "Christocrat," is no stranger to controversy. In 2007, the grassroots organization he founded, the Center for Moral Clarity, called for prosecuting people who commit adultery. In January, he compared Planned Parenthood to Nazis. In the past Parsley's church has been accused of engaging in pro-Republican partisan activities in violation of its tax-exempt status. Why would McCain court Parsley? He has long had trouble figuring out how to deal with Christian fundamentalists, an important bloc for the Republican Party. During his 2000 presidential bid, he referred to Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell as "agents of intolerance." But six years later, as he readied himself for another White House run, McCain repudiated that remark. More recently, his campaign hit a rough patch when he accepted the endorsement of the Reverend John Hagee, a Texas televangelist who has called the Catholic Church "the great whore" and a "false cult system." After the Catholic League protested and called on McCain to renounce Hagee's support, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee praised Hagee's spiritual leadership and support of Israel and said that "when [Hagee] endorses me, it does not mean that I embrace everything that he stands for or believes in." After being further criticized for his Hagee connection, McCain backed off slightly, saying, "I repudiate any comments that are made, including Pastor Hagee's, if they are anti-Catholic or offensive to Catholics." But McCain did not renounce Hagee's endorsement. Click for MORE Oh, and McCain rejects what Hagee said, but then defends him that his words were taken out of context? How can one take " "The Great Whore, an apostate church, the anti-Christ,and a false cult system." out of context?" What McCain has said, so far: "Well, obviously I repudiate any comments that are anti-Semitic or anti-Catholic, racist, any other," McCain said. "And I condemn them and I condemn those words that Pastor Hagee apparently — that Pastor Hagee wrote. I will say that he said that his words were taken out of context, he defends his position. I hope that maybe you'd give him a chance to respond." He can't make up his mind about any of them. Eight years ago he was condemning the evangelicals. By courting them so much, now, he will lose a large bloc of Catholic voters who had supported him. Q, I disagree: McCain is an abortion-rights foe but his failure to support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage and backing of embryonic stem-cell research are among the political heresies that some conservative evangelicals cannot forgive him for. With the influential James Dobson, the founder of the conservative advocacy group Focus on the Family, already saying he will not vote for McCain, analysts say evangelical turnout -- or lack thereof -- could be key on November 4. "It's possible that the lack of enthusiasm for McCain could lead to a lower turnout among evangelicals in the fall," said Scott Keeter of the Pew Research Center. That scenario could tilt the election in favor of the Democrats as Republicans have come to rely heavily on an evangelical community energized to get out and vote by its opposition to abortion rights and gay rights. More from HERE. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ... From: Jack the Sailor Date: 12 Mar 08 - 11:42 PM pdq, Check this out, Hagee and McCain on the same stage and McCain saying that he is very proud of the endorsement. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULeBsdSGZx4 >>>Louis Farrakhan wholeheartedly endorsed Obama and he is the biggest racist, anti-semite there is. Can you support Obama standing right next to Farrakhan?<<< Stranger can you show us a picture of Obama standing next to Farrakhan during or since the endorsement? Check the URL I just posted. McCain and Hagee, thick as thieves. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ... From: Amos Date: 12 Mar 08 - 11:30 PM Yeah, well Stranger Guest Guest, screw you too. How's that? You are so far off the mark you are barking at your tonsils. Oh, I'm sorry. Was that hateful? Can't imagine what got into me. Tsk, I must be really losing it. So solly. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ... From: artbrooks Date: 12 Mar 08 - 11:28 PM It is unfortunate that Senator McCain didn't come right out and reject Mr. Hagee's endorsement. What he did say is, ""We've had a dignified campaign, and I repudiate any comments that are made, including Pastor Hagee's, if they are anti-Catholic or offensive to Catholics. I sent two of my children to Catholic school. I categorically reject and repudiate any statement that was made that was anti-Catholic, both in intent and nature. I categorically reject it, and I repudiate it." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ... From: GUEST,Stranger Date: 12 Mar 08 - 10:48 PM Amos, don't be a hypocrite like Spitzer. You have been about hate here for years. Obama says many things properly. If you believe everything, you are quite naive. Farrakhan has a big following. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ... From: Amos Date: 12 Mar 08 - 10:43 PM "The McCain/Hagee story picks up steam (Updated below - Update II - Update III) The McCain/Hagee story is growing, though still not as much as it ought to. My new friends from the Catholic League emailed earlier to advise that Bill Donohue was being interviewed for tonight's program of The Situation Room on CNN. Blogs at The Washington Post and ABC News today covered the growing scandal from the anti-Catholic bigotry perspective, with the latter actually featuring the unbelievably inflammatory You Clip -- found by Ann Althouse, which I posted yesterday and which is now being distributed by the Catholic League -- of a shirt-sleeved Pastor Hagee spewing the creepiest, most hateful bile imaginable about Catholicism ("This is the Great Whore of Revelation 17")." Excerpted from this site. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ... From: pdq Date: 12 Mar 08 - 10:40 PM "That will be nothing compared to the idiot McCain actively sought an endorsement from...a nutbag named John Hagee. This anti-Semitic, anti-Catholic pastor..." Care to give even one shred of evidence that McCain actively sought this guy's support, or are you just making up the facts as you go along, as usual. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ... From: Amos Date: 12 Mar 08 - 10:33 PM Stranger, you're missing the point. George Bush endorsed John McCain, too. Obama has made it clear he condemns Farrakhans insanities. Why did you leave that part out of your little hate bullet? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ... From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 12 Mar 08 - 10:15 PM Hagee is a smart weasel who knows how to play on the fears of the common folk and has built a fortune from them. He has many followers in Texas who will listen to him and politicians spurn his support at their own risk. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ... From: GUEST,Stranger Date: 12 Mar 08 - 10:12 PM Louis Farrakhan wholeheartedly endorsed Obama and he is the biggest racist, anti-semite there is. Can you support Obama standing right next to Farrakhan? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ... From: Amos Date: 12 Mar 08 - 10:09 PM I am aware of how desperately the slimers and sangers and slanderers and defamers will turn to to try and make nothig out of a good human being. I have seen it before, and heard all the justifications, and as far as I am concerned it is thinly disguised insanity. We get very small doses of it here, with the sarcasm and the sniping, but its nothing compared to the wild, where they will tear a man limb from limb on any excuse they can find --even if doing so harms the larger community. That's pretty osycho, you ask me. Gigi, you are confusing me with someone else, probably your father. I have my point of view, and I express it as clearly as I can. I rail against covert and slanderous knockings, but then, being human, I sometimes give in to writing them myself. I ain't no saint, just a guy with a big mouth, but I do not require that people agree with me. I do expect them tto think clearly and say what it is they have to say plainly. Just pure bias on my part, I guess. Sorry if it disgruntles you, but I never promised to gruntle you anyway. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ... From: katlaughing Date: 12 Mar 08 - 09:59 PM That will be nothing compared to the idiot McCain actively sought an endorsement from: John McCain recently sought and embraced the endorsement of a nutbag named John Hagee. This anti-Semitic, anti-Catholic pastor can be seen in a great YouTube video going over an illustration of "the beast" (which I think represents something bad) as if it were a diagram of an atom. He believes Katrina destroyed New Orleans because of a gay-pride march, and that the Pope is the "anti-Christ." There's more on all three candidates and religion in the same excellent op/ed piece at the Vail Trail. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ... From: Riginslinger Date: 12 Mar 08 - 09:33 PM Frankly, I think Amos is a lot more objective than that. I just don't think he's taking into account all of the snare traps that have already been set for Obama. I just watched a few minutes of "Hannity and Colmes"--I know, I know--but they were running a tape of Obama's ex-preacher telling a bunch of followers how awful Bill Clinton was for having a relationship with Monica. I think folks are going to see this preacher as a raving maniac, and associate Obama with the preacher. I'm sure that's the image they're trying to project. And they haven't really even gotten started yet. As soon as they are certain that Obama is the nominee, it's going to be like the USS Missouri shooting at a mouse. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ... From: katlaughing Date: 12 Mar 08 - 09:32 PM Oh, and I thought that was YOUR gig, gg. While all of you naysayers, handwringers, and dire predictors are looking backwards, the rest of us are looking ahead, with Obama and hope, we are looking at something other than what is in the past and believing in something better than that past. Where you put your energy is what you create...think about it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ... From: GUEST,Guest Date: 12 Mar 08 - 09:10 PM No, you have that wrong Barry. Amos believes every thread is a thread to tell you why you should agree with him, and vote for his man. Note his use of the term 'correct principles' rather than 'principles I agree with' and you get the gist of it. Amos knows what is correct. If you don't agree with him, according to his logic, then you must be wrong. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ... From: Barry Finn Date: 12 Mar 08 - 06:49 PM Well The thread was about the Dems winning not which dem is best suited for the job. That's a thread in it's self Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ... From: Amos Date: 12 Mar 08 - 06:43 PM What matters, as far as I am concerned, is finding and supporting an individual who retains a percentage of sanity, equability, and emotional stability, and a sense of human judgement, historical perspective, and constitutional values. Barack Obama has all of these. In respect of his character, his learning, and his sense of correct priorities and importances, he is far better a proposition for pulling the nation out of Mister Bush's depression than either John McCain or Hillary, and orders of magnitude better than the cretinous incumbent. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ... From: Barry Finn Date: 12 Mar 08 - 06:35 PM Reguardless, come November, the country well be well into a depression over the resession, the housing free fall, the cost of the war even if in it's short sighted memory it's forgotten about the war itself. Add to that the declinning employment & the Repubs will this time shoulder all the blame & rightfully so. So they can do whatever they want but come November they'll be kissing either a black ass or a female's ass. As far as I'm concerned they can kiss both, preferably the female's ass first & then get out of town so that the counrty can get back to breathing. Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ... From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 12 Mar 08 - 06:15 PM Can't remember what the predictions were for the last ten elections (40 years), but win or lose the Democrats have proven ineffective in promoting their objectives in the Congress. Unfortunately they end up cutting their own throats. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ... From: GUEST,JTS Date: 12 Mar 08 - 06:04 PM From Slag >>You will vote Party above everything. It matters not the banner bearer, only the banner. << You Republicans gave 14% of the vote in Mississippi to Mike Huckabee a week after he had given up the race. Considering that Romney and Huckabee togrther got about 70 % of the vote in the Red States they contested, you will be lucky to get half your members out to vote in November, if you don't have Mrs. William Jefferson Clinton to run against. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ... From: Slag Date: 12 Mar 08 - 05:43 PM Not to worry. You Dems will do what you always do and the Republicans are learning, s-l-o-w-l-y leaning from you. You will vote Party above everything. It matters not the banner bearer, only the banner. Keep you doubts and your misgivings INHOUSE! Chin up and keep the chant going! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ... From: artbrooks Date: 12 Mar 08 - 05:30 PM 40 years of being the underdog in National Elections? In the last 40 years (since 1968), the US has had 28 years of Republican presidents and 12 years of Democratic presidents, 22 years of a Democratic majority in the Senate with 14 years of Republican control and 4 years of tie, and 28 years of Democratic control of the House to 12 years of Republican control. Please tell us what you mean by "underdog"? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ... From: GUEST,Voice Of Truth Date: 12 Mar 08 - 04:08 PM You couldn't be more wrong. But whose payroll are you on? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ... From: katlaughing Date: 12 Mar 08 - 04:00 PM And, I suspect, the GOP paid you to post this kind of defeatist crap ad nauseum throughout the internet. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ... From: GUEST,Voice Of Truth Date: 12 Mar 08 - 03:55 PM Once again I stand by my assetion that Obama will lose the election for the Democrats if he receives the nomination- which is not yet determined, so Hillary bashers may not want to lick their chops just yet. I fear that the Democrats will consider their losing streak ad infinitum in Presidential elections for two main reasons: The Democratic Party is just in a shambles. They don't know how to win; often seems as if they don't care anymore. When you watch the process of the Republicans picking their candidate, you get a feeling that they are TALKING to each other..and they are talking about how to get ELECTED. The Democrats seem to consistently pick and back weak candidates, like Obama, who as another poster said, may be a good candidate in 8 years but not now- Demcrats exhibit a great lack of wisdom and cohesion when it comes to trying to have any success at winning this national office. After 40 years of being the underdog in National Elections, it seems the spirit, and even the true character, of the Democratic Party is on the wane, if not totally beaten. One wonders if it will even survive or be replaced by a one party system; or perhaps a two party system of Republicans and an even further to the right alternative party. 2. The Republicans and right wing seems to have taken a choke hold on this nation. Some of it is dirty tricks, fixing elections and forcing Dems out of office for the same (or lesser) offenses that their own politicos indulge in. The media also seems to be at the command of the right wing; once the ideas of JFK and FDR, even Jimmy Carter, seemed to have resonance in this nation- an American dream that INCLUDED the poor, the disenfranchised, the vulnerable, a country that, like the Statue of Libery, was willing to embrace and support many different types of people. Now the "Greed is Good" mentality that festered during the Nixon and Reagan years seems to have become a new, albiet grotesque Bible of how to run a country. Not only are the ideas of former great Democratic statesmen considered a liberal anethema to the general media and populace, at this point even the thoughts of an man like Eisehower (who was aghast at the disgraceful treatment of Native Americans, and warned about the power of military industrial complex) would sound like a left wing stark raving socialist to the people who control the airwaves. Perhaps someday the better instincts of this nation will resound again, but I fear it is not in this election. And I suspect, not even in our lifetimes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ... From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 12 Mar 08 - 03:38 PM Votes and delegates have to be in the right places for a candidate to be valid if there is no outright winner. Votes in places like Mississippi are worrying- Clinton got 70% of the white vote (60% female), Obama got 90% of the black vote. The state has 26% African Americans. Can the white male vote be salvaged when they voted in low numbers in the Demo primary (40%) or had voted in the Republican primary? In how many states do women prefer Clinton over Obama, and how will this translate into votes in the election- if Obama is selected as the candidate, will these women vote for him or stay home? The superdelegates will be faced with many such questions if neither candidate has sufficient votes to carry the Convention. They may stand aside to let a floor vote or two take place. A floor fight can change many things. Delegates are not held to their pledge on later votes- the leaders of the delegations may argue for a vote change. It would then be up to the superdelegates to direct the Convention delegates to the best candidate to oppose McCain. Voting so far in the primaries indicate that he will be strong in many states and not easy to derail. I don't always agree with G-G, but his conclusion is hard to argue with. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ... From: Amos Date: 12 Mar 08 - 03:30 PM LOL!!! Sounds like you got the rule down but missed the concept there, brother Jack!!! :D (My question about Carnegie was addressed to Gigi. I think she would really enjoy the book.) A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ... From: Jack the Sailor Date: 12 Mar 08 - 02:31 PM I remember that book Amos. I did the course too. I especially remember the part where if you go into a man's office and see a picture of a sailboat you are supposed to talk about the sea. My problem is that when I see a picture of a horse I remember my experience with horses and tend to talk about manure. It doesn't work! What am I doing wrong? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ... From: Jack the Sailor Date: 12 Mar 08 - 02:23 PM Guest, guest, you seem to be buying Mrs. Clinton's alternate to reality hook line and sinker. Obama is leading in primary delegates, in caucus delegates, in popular vote and most importantly in pledged delegates. His lead in democratically elected, pledged delegates is all but mathematically insurmountable. Mrs. Clinton cannot win without a miracle or without pulling a fast one. Mrs. Clinton squeaking out a victory over Obama in Ohio is not an indicator of how either would do against McCain. The primary election was fought over NAFTA. McCain totally supports NAFTA. There will be a completely different dynamic in the general election. If she ahd won real victories in Texas and Ohio, she would have come away with more than 11 delegates. The Democrats have had record turnouts in virtually every primary contest. The super delegates need to look at that and harness it for the general campaign. If there is a "brokered deal" at the convention that overturns the wishes of the majority of voters and especially if it disenfranchises all of those young voters and African American voters who have turned out in droved for Obama, then the general election is going to come down to McCain and Mrs. Clinton duking it out in purple states over who can garner the most votes from middle aged and old white women. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ... From: Amos Date: 12 Mar 08 - 02:06 PM Your clarity is most entertaining, Gigi, and your overweening certainty is quite impressive, if not wholly persuasive. If you look at my remarks in context you will see I was responding to a question earlier int he thread, not projecting the actual methods that will be used. So you were just a hair quick on the ole trigger there. But hell, it's an easy error to make, I've done it scores of times, so no hard feelings. Did you ever read that old Dale Carnegie classic about "How to Win Friends and Influence People", BTW? An oldy but a goody. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ... From: GUEST,Guest Date: 12 Mar 08 - 01:57 PM Amos, if you are a Democrat why in god's name are you so clueless as to what the Democratic party rules are for a brokered convention? It is going to be a brokered convention, like it or not. Why? Neither candidate has enough delegates to win outright. The superdelegates WILL decide it, and some of their rationale will be what is best for the party. But for the most part, the superdelegates will decide who is the best candidate to go forward against their Republican opponent in November. That decision will be made based upon who won what. A large part of that what will include who won the states that Dems can count on, who won the states that could go either way but are a must have for Dems to win in November. At the bottom of the list will be states the Republicans are expected to carry, regardless of who Democratic nominee is. That's how they do it. Will there be a floor fight? If one or the other candidate doesn't drop out, yes. What will the floor fight be about? It will be about whether to seat the delegates from Florida or Michigan, or how the votes from those states will be factored in. Will there be a backroom deal to choose the next Democratic presidential candidate. If neither of them withdraws, yes. End of story. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ... From: Amos Date: 12 Mar 08 - 01:45 PM He's tough enough, Ted; he just doesn't take people into the guttersniping arena on trivial, or knee-jerk political, grounds. Why not? Doesn't he want to, you know, win? Well, he does, but he wants to win at a better game. That's the difference between them in some respects; Hil's claws come out unnecessarily, and it makes her look as though it is winning first with her, and the quality of the game an afterthought. When you lie down with pigs, you stand up smelling of slops; and when you scrap with rabid badgers at their own level, you look pretty rabid. But the mission of that office is not street fighting. We do not need a President who can jump into any battle that comes along; rather, we need one who tries and succeeds at making battles sublimate into diplomatic evolution and a quest for better solutions, even though willing to put on the gloves when the case is unavoidable. This is the difference between Pearl Harbor and the invasion of Iraq. I suspect it is also the difference between HRC and BHO. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ... From: M.Ted Date: 12 Mar 08 - 12:35 PM After the "Beltway Primaries", Obama finally took a definitive lead, and it looked like it was all over for Hilary--but he couldn't knock her out, and that says as much about him as it does about her. As a person, for good or ill, Hilary is aggressive, persistent, and tenacious. She doesn't let up, and she doesn't lose her focus. Obama isn't as tough--but he needs to be if he's going up against McCain-- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ... From: GUEST,JTS Date: 12 Mar 08 - 11:18 AM If Obama goes into the convention with more than a hundred pledged delegates than Mrs. Bill Clinton and the "superdelegates" over turn that, then the Democrats will lose the election. The superdelegates have to think of the party. If they are going to use their votes to overturn the will of the people, they had better have a damned good reason. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ... From: Peace Date: 12 Mar 08 - 09:58 AM Obama is gonna be the next president. Hope y'all can find something you like about him before he's in. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ... From: Amos Date: 12 Mar 08 - 09:54 AM Several alternatives come to mind. One is to count total popular votes. One is to take as candidate whoever has the most delegates plus superdelegates. I suppose you could resort to applauseometers in a pinch. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ... From: GUEST,Guest Date: 12 Mar 08 - 08:04 AM Well, the media would like to have a brawl, instead of just a floor fight, which wasn't all that uncommon in the 20th century, but thanks to brainwashing of the electorate, people seem to now view as an impossibility because it isn't 'nice' to criticize one's opponent. The process the Obamamaniacs keep whining about is a process set up by the party. Don't like it? Well then, make a few billion and buy some change--the way it REALLY gets done. Obama has more than enough chump change to buy his way in. What he won't have when he gets to Denver is enough delegates. And neither will Clinton. So let's say it is a stalemate when they reach Denver. Obama wins everything except PA, and enough delegates to put him over the top. Clinton wins all the big states, is within 100-200 delegates of Obama, and doesn't have enough delegates to put her over the top. Who should get the nod then? What is everyone proposing to broker this deal, because it is NOT going to come down to the number of states won, or the popular vote this year. So instead of being a bunch of prissy whiners--what is your solution to the Dem conundrum people? Give it to Obama, because he is nicer than Clinton (you say) and makes people in red states the Dems won't win in November feel good? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ... From: John Hardly Date: 12 Mar 08 - 06:27 AM BWL, terrific analysis. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ... From: akenaton Date: 12 Mar 08 - 04:05 AM Going from past results, "wit" is not a requirement in a US presidential candidate. Why do you accept this charade?..........Its almost unbelievable. The people who contribute to this forum appear to be intelligent and sincere....in general. Why are you not all demanding a REAL alternative? |
