Text 36554, 124 rader
Skriven 2006-08-11 15:53:08 av BOB KLAHN (0:0/0)
     Kommentar till en text av ROY WITT
Ärende: CELEBRATION!
====================
 ...

 RW> This reminds me. It seems that the liberals in CT and the
 RW> liberal party have rejected a very good Senator because he
 RW> dared to agree that we needed to be in Iraq and that he's

 Well, that was dumb. Lieberman was rejected for kissing up to
 Bush.

 Whatever else Leiberman did, he helped inflict 4 more years of
 Bush on this country. He now claims he opposes Bush down the
 line, but only agrees with him on Iraq. On that basis he backed
 Bush against his own party. For that alone he deserves to be
 rejected. The damage Bush has done to this country will last a
 long time beyond his term in office.

 OTOH, believing we need to be in Iraq is a valid basis for
 rejecting a candidate, regardless of party. If the electorate
 find that to be an erroneous belief, they should reject the
 holder. For that matter, it is quite possible to believe we need
 to be in Iraq, and still reject someone who holds the same
 belief, if you feel he supports truly stupid policies and
 incompetent execution of those policies.

 See, even those most fervently in favor of staying in Iraq could
 reasonabley conclude that the Bush administration was truly
 incompentent in their conduct of the war. Remember, Nixon
 opposed LBJ on the Vietnam war, not on whether we should be
 there, but on how it should be done.

 Same for Goldwater, who was more hawkish than LBJ by far.

 The Bush administration was guilty of more than launching a war
 under false pretenses, they are guilty of extreme stupidity in
 how they did it.

 IOW, they did the wrong thing, and they did the wrong thing the
 wrong way.

 RW> also a jew, which the Democratic party has demonstrated
 RW> these past few weeks as being anti-semetic...so much for

 And that is a lie. What is truly funny is that you can't see
 that Jews tend to vote Democratic even though republicans make
 the most noise about supporting Israel. Now this is a case of
 you seem to think you know what is best for those Jews, how
 they shoud think, better than they do. You think American Jews
 are either too stupid to understand where their best interests
 lie, or what is the right thing to do.

 RW> their November hopes and their 2008 presidental hopes. Now
 RW> all they need to do is wake up the black party members to
 RW> their liberal parties racist use of them.

 You mean as opposed to the pure racism found on the right?

 Funny that the republicans seem to consider every black
 elected official or administrator they can line up as some kinda
 new leader of the black community. Yet they can't seem to hang
 on to any of them. Powell considers his service in the Bush
 administration a blot on his record. That and he was treated
 like a figure head all the time anyway. Seems every other time
 he took a significant position related to being secretary of
 state Condi Rice undercut him and reversed his stand.

 Whenever republicans get a black member of the house or the
 senate they seem to focus attention on him, making him the Token
 Black Republican. Are there any black republicans in congress
 right now? Or was JC Watts the last one? I recall he was the
 focus of so much republican attention, then he left and seems to
 have pretty much disappeared. Even with a committee chairmanship
 he apparently thought being a republican wasn't worth the
 trouble. Oh, just looked it up, it wasn't even a govt
 charimanship the republicans gave him, but a party office.

 Also found the National Review Online still calling Watts a
 "republican star" even though he left office years ago. Shows
 how few black republicans of any significance there are.

 The govt has a list of blacks in congress, found it on the web.
 It's on the Senate website. Watts was the third republican in
 the house in the 20th century. There was one in the Senate. He
 left in 1979. There is quite a list of democrats in the house,
 and two in the Senate.

 Also found a website called the Reagan Review. This one was
 right on topic to this discussion. What I found was a commentary
 on how repubicans should do more to draw black voters. The main
 part of the article was on a DVD being cirulated to remind
 republicans that the republican party once was the party of
 civil rights.

 Once was is a significant phrasing.

 The video had a compilation of republican efforts supporting
 civil rights. Every republican effort he could name was before
 WW2.

 The best the republicans can offer the black community is the
 opportunity to join the republican party that doesn't serve
 their interests so they can help shape the party so it will
 serve their interests. Which is rather stupid, if you think
 about it. Join your enemy who is harming your community and add
 your vote to strengthen their ability to harm your community so
 you can hope to stop them from harming your community someday,
 when they defeat the other party that actually does want to help
 your community.

  Now that is dumb.

 Have you noticed how democrats win the support of Blacks and
 Jews and other minorities with policies, while republicans try
 to win the support of minorities solely by shouting "plantation"
 and "racist" and "anti-semite".

 Seems Christian republicans think they are better at spoting
 anti-semites than Jews are. Jews appear to disagree... mostly.


BOB KLAHN bob.klahn@sev.org   http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

... Republican on race: Listing the failings of blacks to a white audience.
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
 * Origin: Try Our Web Based QWK: DOCSPLACE.ORG (1:123/140)