Jackson Free Press

Even as John McCain said this week that Palin asked for no earmarks as governor, The Wall Street Journal that she, indeed, asked for $453 million in projects:

Last week, Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain said his running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, hadn't sought earmarks or special-interest spending from Congress, presenting her as a fiscal conservative. But state records show Gov. Palin has asked U.S. taxpayers to fund $453 million in specific Alaska projects over the past two years. These projects include more than $130 million in federal funds that would benefit Alaska's fishing industry and an additional $9 million to help Alaska oil companies. She also has sought $4.5 million to upgrade an airport on a Bering Sea island that has a year-round population of less than 100.

Sen. McCain has made the battle against earmarks and wasteful spending a centerpiece of his campaign. He has never sought earmarks for his state of Arizona and vows to veto pork-barrel spending bills that come to his desk as president, saying these projects should go through normal budget review. And he derides the argument that states often make: that they're funding important projects.

"If they're worthy projects they can be authorized and appropriated in a New York minute," he explained on his campaign bus earlier this year, before Gov. Palin joined the ticket. "If they're worthy projects I know they'd be funded."

During an appearance Friday on ABC's "The View," Sen. McCain said Gov. Palin shared his views, and hasn't sought congressional earmarks. "Not as governor she hasn't," he said.

Previous Commentsshow

It's really hard to believe that McCain is stooping so low as to just lie directly to the camera. Doesn't he know that the American people aren't this stupid? He used to be so much bigger than this, back before he sold out to Rovian style politics. Even Rove said on FOX yesterday that his dishonest ads about Obama have gone too far. I mean, sputter.

DonnaLadd

Sep 15 2008

To hear Karl Rove say that...Houston, there really is a problem. This thing is going to backfire. I'm just waiting for the shoe to really drop.

golden eagle

Sep 15 2008

Well - Karl seemed loathe to admit it, constantly qualifying it by stating that both candidates had "perhaps gone a step too far". It has become hard to deny though. My instincts tell me that the McCain strategy is designed not to win but rather to not lose real bad. McCain already had the economic conservatives because at the end of the day his policies are the same corporate welfare that the Republican party has pushed the last 8 years. He chose Palin to consolidate the part of his base which was estranged from him for moral objections and now is planning to lie to the faces of every rural American who either doesn't get the news or doesn't trust the news.

daniel johnson

Sep 15 2008

As Wall Street tanked today, McCain repeated his mantra that "the fundamentals of our econnomy are strong." He seems really out of touch, and confused about everything he says right now. I feel compassion for him, but it is downright scary to think of someone making these kinds of gaffes anywhere near the White House.

DonnaLadd

Sep 15 2008

Tell that to the number of people who lost their jobs and/or investments because of Wall Street's shenanigans. Not only is Lehman Brothers in trouble, so is AIG and Merrill Lynch!

golden eagle

Sep 15 2008

Liar-gate is now officially leading the news cycle. Even FOX News is turning on him for all the lies. And the economy is right behind the lying stories. It might not be McCain's week.

DonnaLadd

Sep 16 2008

Merrill Lynch was bought by Bank of America. It is my understanding that Lehman Brothers will bite the dust and Bush is saying, "No more." The only problem with that is the domino effect. We might as well start learning "Chinglish". LOL! On a more serious note, if China pulls the financial plug, we are doomed! McCain said as recent as yesterday, "The economy is structually sound."

justjess

Sep 16 2008

I can't say enough that Palin and McCain have the complexion for the protection and connection. It doesn't matter how inadequate or how dishonest they are. All will be forgiven and overlooked by most other whites. If you can have the horrible past this country has had yet decieve yourself into thinking the past hasn't affected, effected, infected, shaped and driven your thinking and preferences then you can be deceived into believing anything. It's a damn shame Barack is having to cerebrate and walk the water like Jesus did in order to have a fair shot. Of course, I know well what happened to Jesus and know what will happen again should he return without all power in his hands.

Walt

Sep 16 2008

On a more serious note, if China pulls the financial plug, we are doomed! I agree. That's been a risk we've had for years, even during the Clinton administration. But if you look at the economies of our lenders, they aren't any more solvent. Calling in our debts at a time when our economy seems to be melting down will only throw their economies into chaos as well.

Jeff Lucas

Sep 16 2008

Baquan, when you get a chance be sure to buy and read "Faces At The Bottom Of The Well, The Permanence of Racism" by professor Derrick Bell, a brillant law professor at NYU Law School and formely Harvard Law School. He's a recognized expert on race and he could care less whether whites agree with him.

Walt

Sep 16 2008

If you haven't read this piece, it's quite something...WashPost columnist (and previous McCain supporter) taking McCain down. Hard.. His opportunistic and irresponsible choice of Sarah Palin as his political heir -- the person in whose hands he would leave the country -- is a form of personal treason, a betrayal of all he once stood for. Palin, no matter what her other attributes, is shockingly unprepared to become president. McCain knows that. He means to win, which is all right; he means to win at all costs, which is not.

Todd Stauffer

Sep 16 2008

Also Baquan I know well how painful and hurtful racism is, but I'm not the one to stay calm, ignore the hurt and simply pray things will get better while others continue to prey on us. I'll fight, curse, stratch and do whatever it takes to hurt and destroy racist after racist. I will never respect such evil. I'll leave the respecting of them to those black republicans, weak-kneed and scared blacks, and those well-liked yet want-to-be-accepted independent negroes. I don't believe the devil can be converted so I rarely try.

Walt

Sep 16 2008

That's an amazing column by Cohen. I mean, what does McCain expect with this parade of simply blatant lies? It's like Gary Hart daring the media to catch him cheating with the floozy–it's not like it was hard, and it brought him down. These lies are not good from anyone–but somene who got this far because he used to be a "straight talker" is just too much–including for fans like Richard Cohen. That column is a very passionate expression of the betrayal that long-time McCain supporters (not just partisans who want a Republican to win) feel about his chain of lies. It's very sad. The history books won't be kind to him.

DonnaLadd

Sep 16 2008

"But if you look at the economies of our lenders, they aren't any more solvent. Calling in our debts at a time when our economy seems to be melting down will only throw their economies into chaos as well." Jeff, that is simply not true in the case of China. China is SUPER SOLVENT. Russia sits on a mound of cash also. Another set of large foreign debt holders are in the middle east. They are SUPER SOLVENT. They can buy this state. The Saudis and Chinese are sitting on tons of cash and they may not think like us. We are always making the mistake of thinking that people in other countries think like us. Surprise! They have different ways. They may not want our freedoms! They may just want a piece of the rock!

FreeClif

Sep 16 2008

Good article here..... http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/09/the_political_lying_game.html Of course it'll be challenging for anyone here to read...

eagle1

Sep 16 2008

It is a predictably weak article. It does not address the lie that she did not seek earmarks that McBush repeated on the view. It does not address the lie they spread that Obama wanted to teach "comprehensive sex ed" to five year-olds. The word in the bill was "age-appropriate" and it was to teach them to be wary of predators. Even KARL ROVE can admit McBush is a lying liar.

FreeClif

Sep 16 2008

The Bushes (as Jessie called them) aren't the only things we need to say away from. Eagle droppings, like other bird droppings are just as debilitating and destructive when you don't move out of the way of them. We've been inoculated though. Bring us all you got.

Walt

Sep 16 2008

That's not a challenging piece at all, eagle1. It's clearly a weak attempt to justify McCain and Palin's lie. To wit: The facts betray a more equitable story. And it starts with Sarah Palin's assertion that she said "thanks, but no thanks" to the infamous "Bridge to Nowhere" and opposed earmarks. That is an elastic political truth. Technically, she did stop the project after initially supporting it. She has taken earmarks -- even lobbied for them while mayor of Wasilla, Alaska. As governor of Alaska, though, Palin also vetoed more than 300 wasteful projects and made an attempt to reform the process. Her record on earmarks is mixed, but by any measure, it's far superior to either of the Democratic candidates' records. Notice how quickly the author skates past these lies. The bolded sentenced is the only defense to Palin and McCain saying repeatedly that she told Congress "no" on the Bridge to Nowhere -- even though she wasn't even elected when they pulled funding. What fools are we? They can't just make a statement like that without supporting it. That's the same thing McCain and Palin are doing. Then the earmarks point: Comparing earmark support is a valid discussion point, but that's not what McCain-Palin are doing. They are saying repeatedly that she asked for none as governor. She used her line-item veto, as most governors do, but that does not obscure the fact that she asked for half a billion (right?) in earmarks as governor, although McCain said she asked for none. He has been a "reformer" against earmarks, and he has chosen the earmark queen as his running mate. And they're both repeating fantastical lies about it. That is the issue, my friend, and that article simply brings home the point of how hard it is to defend their lies on this, as the Wall Street Journal, and FOX News and even Karl Rove are doing. They went down the wrong path, and now they're pilling lie upon lie to keep from admitting that they're lying. It takes massively poor judgment to play that game with the American people and the media, even the conservative ones. They've created a very challenging bed for themselves, no doubt.

DonnaLadd

Sep 16 2008

David Brooks is joining the parade of conservative thinkers (George Will, Charles Krauthammer, David Frum, Ross Douthat, Andrew Sullivan) bailing on McCain-Palin. I'd quibble with his point that Palin could/would "destroy a corrupt establishment" (maybe one that isn't benefitting her and Todd), but otherwise he's right on here. He writes: In the current Weekly Standard, Steven Hayward argues that the nation's founders wanted uncertified citizens to hold the highest offices in the land. They did not believe in a separate class of professional executives. They wanted rough and rooted people like Palin. I would have more sympathy for this view if I hadn't just lived through the last eight years. For if the Bush administration was anything, it was the anti-establishment attitude put into executive practice. And the problem with this attitude is that, especially in his first term, it made Bush inept at governance. It turns out that governance, the creation and execution of policy, is hard. It requires acquired skills. Most of all, it requires prudence. What is prudence? It is the ability to grasp the unique pattern of a specific situation. It is the ability to absorb the vast flow of information and still discern the essential current of events -- the things that go together and the things that will never go together. It is the ability to engage in complex deliberations and feel which arguments have the most weight. How is prudence acquired? Through experience. The prudent leader possesses a repertoire of events, through personal involvement or the study of history, and can apply those models to current circumstances to judge what is important and what is not, who can be persuaded and who can't, what has worked and what hasn't. Experienced leaders can certainly blunder if their minds have rigidified (see: Rumsfeld, Donald), but the records of leaders without long experience and prudence is not good. As George Will pointed out, the founders used the word "experience" 91 times in the Federalist Papers. Democracy is not average people selecting average leaders. It is average people with the wisdom to select the best prepared. Sarah Palin has many virtues. If you wanted someone to destroy a corrupt establishment, she'd be your woman. But the constructive act of governance is another matter. She has not been engaged in national issues, does not have a repertoire of historic patterns and, like President Bush, she seems to compensate for her lack of experience with brashness and excessive decisiveness.

DonnaLadd

Sep 16 2008

What would Palen do to an establishment that bore, enabled her and her future depends on though? Probably nothing. Also the piece doesn't talk about Palin's marginal at best intelligence to handle complex matters, as if intelligence doesn't matter in a globally growing complex world, after 8 years of George Bush. She ain't no Einstein. She another Bush but doesn't know it yet. The other problem I have with this piece is that Bush and team never intended to create and execute any policies that were in the best interest of the people. The intent all along was to take advantage of all the hate against the Clintons to win the election then turn back the New Deal, Civil Rights and enrich their friends and coroprations. In other words, elevate corporations thru private funds if possible and deregualte and enable them like never before, and cut out social programs or spending. The devil's work at its best, if you ask me. Look where it all took us - further back than even Ronald Reagan envisioned, and to a climate where racism is out in the open and is as thick as the current at Niagra Falls. I admit I don't know if I'm supposed to be happy or sad about this part.

Walt

Sep 16 2008

How would you know anything about Sarah Palin's intellect?

QB

Sep 16 2008

I watched her on television and she reminds me of you!

Walt

Sep 16 2008

Palin can follow a pre-planned script and dish it out well like she did in her acceptance speech against Obama. But she can't take the same as is evidenced by her decision to campaign without being open and available to any questions that aren't pre-planned, pre-selected and staged, and by her attempt to blame the media for asking her undesired or tough questions. Moreover, I believe her intelligence is reflected by repeating the same old script nearly word for word everytime she speaks. These kind of people lack great cognition, cerebration, acumen and a host of other things that distinguish people. I've seen these low self-esteemed people countless times. In her case I even know why the esteem is so low. We will soon see what intelligence she has during the debates if she's allowed to engage in any.

Walt

Sep 16 2008

Hate to break it to ya Walt but I can apply your entire rant to your Presidential candidate, hollow, no experience, etc. etc. Palin is the vp candidate, remember. It's Obama vs. McCain, let's not forget. I think McCain will destroy Obama in a debate. Like a pundit said, taking the teleprompter away from Obama will be like taking a bottle away from a baby. He faired poorly against Hillary too. On the other hand, I think Biden will destroy Palin. He debates well but sometimes speaks too much. In that debate, Biden will be the only person to hurt Biden. We'll see, should be interesting though. And lastly, I don't necessarily measure intelligence by debates. Some people just don't debate well. It's not necessarily a lack of intelligence. Hannity beats up Colmes on a nightly basis, but honestly, I don't think Colmes is stupid by any means. I disagree with him, but he's no idiot. Hannity just gets his point across more efficiently.

eagle1

Sep 16 2008

Sarah Palin has the burden of proof to show the American public her intellect. Her record doesn't show it. Her academic record implies she couldn't sit still long enough to stay in one school (which makes it hard to get a good edumacation no matter where you go). She failed miserably in her interviews with Charlie Gibson without her script written by Bush's speechwriter. (The one that quoted that white supremacist, by the way; her idea or Bush team's? Does it matter?) Truth is, we all hoped that McCain was a different kind of Republican than the corrupt ones who propped up Bush and mucked up this country so badly over the last eight years. He's proven by his choice of Palin, his unwillingness to depart from failed Bush policies and his own shocking string of lies that he is simply more of the same kind of Republican this country is tired of. And he's pandering to that strain with Palin. This isn't the kinder, smarter Republican Party we'd all like to see. It's the same old and perhaps worse.

DonnaLadd

Sep 16 2008

but I can apply your entire rant to your Presidential candidate, hollow, no experience, etc. etc. Actually, you can't, eagle, not in an honest and intelligent way. Sounds like you watch Hannity and Colmes on a regular basis. Hmmm.

DonnaLadd

Sep 16 2008

Sean Hannity is a proven wingnut (fact not theory) who suggested (like the wingnut that Palin quoted) that a presidential candidate might be assassinated. Whoever listens to him every night...might be a member of the fringe also. I thought of something more harsh to say, but I respect this site.

FreeClif

Sep 16 2008

The Eagle has apparently run out of eagle-droppings. He's now engaging fantasy and make- believe as fodder or sophistry, or is it throwing mere bull chips that has no stickability. That argument is Palin-like. Besides Eagle if Obama had great experience running a state it would limit the lies available to reject him. Frankly i'm happy there is something y'all can use to save face. I'm reminded how pathetic Trent Lott looked when he finally had to admit on BET that he was a racist piece of doo doo. I felt sorry for him because I thought he knew better than to tell the truth with so many people watching. It made the state look bad nothwithstanding his distinguish racist representation for all those years.

Walt

Sep 16 2008

Oh please. Palin has not been running for national office for the past 4 years like Obama. It will take time for her to learn all of the myriad issues that come with such office. No one could be expected to do so in such a short period of time. That doesn't speak to her intellect at all. Walt, your continued ad hominem attacks DO speak to your intellect.

QB

Sep 16 2008

Thanks Fat Harry. Your compliments are alway welcome. No one can accuse you of speed or depth.

Walt

Sep 16 2008

Harry, she's not informed enough to understand the Bush Doctrine. And she doesn't seem interested in the world, except the need to declare "victory" over it. It's very Bushian, in fact, and would hurt our standing in the world. The ad hominem attacks do need to stop. Walt is much smarter than they show him to be; the ones by eagle and others, I can't say, because I don't know them. But they need to stop now if the people making them would care to keep the privilege of posting on the JFP site.

DonnaLadd

Sep 16 2008

You're right. I apologize again. I will try hard to ignore Fat Harry in the future. Please note that I never, ever talk to him other than as a response.

Walt

Sep 16 2008

It seems Alaskans aren't quite as taken with their guv'nor as the GOP would like us to believe. Alaskan blogger Mudflats is on the ground at the Alaska Women Reject Palin rally.

Ronni_Mott

Sep 16 2008

If she doesn't know what the Bush Doctrine is, how can you say she is a Bush clone/follower? Can't have it both ways.

QB

Sep 16 2008

Good grief, Fat Harry, just because she's not up on the terminology doesn't mean she's not part of the pack. Look at her policies, not what she says.

Ronni_Mott

Sep 16 2008

Unfortunately Harry, there are far too many people in this world who don't know what the Bush Doctrine is yet still hold the same belief in justified pre-emptive strikes. Can you really not imagine the sheer number of radical Christian conservatives who mirror Bush's philosophies without knowing anything at all about his policies?

daniel johnson

Sep 16 2008

By that logic, Harry, if I know what the Bush Doctrin is, that makes me a Bushie? Come on. I doubt Bush really knows what the Bush Doctrine was. That doesn't mean he, or she, shouldn't know as the leader/potential leader of the free world.

DonnaLadd

Sep 16 2008

Well, looky here, Sarah Palin's poll numbers are dropping. In fact, her favorability numbers are the lowest among the four presidential and vice-presidential candidates. While I would like to see more than one poll on this, it could be a sign that the novelty is wearing off and now, people want to see Palin stand and deliver on her own two feet, which she hasn't demonstrated to me that she can and also, the controversies surrounding her record and Troopergate are becoming serious causes of concern among her supporters and those she and the Republicans are trying to court for votes.

golden eagle

Sep 16 2008

Here's Erica Jong's lettere to McCain--from Huffington Post http://www.huffingtonpost.com/erica-jong/not-that-stupid-erica-jon_b_126184.html

thevicarofblue

Sep 17 2008

Thanks baquan. The more people who know, the better the outcome for all of us.

Ronni_Mott

Sep 17 2008

Jeff, that is simply not true in the case of China. China is SUPER SOLVENT. Russia sits on a mound of cash also. Another set of large foreign debt holders are in the middle east. They are SUPER SOLVENT. They can buy this state. The Saudis and Chinese are sitting on tons of cash and they may not think like us. All the more reason to cut wasteful gov't spending, reduce foreign military entanglements and pay down what we owe.

Jeff Lucas

Sep 17 2008

China sits on a Trillion dollar surplus: http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/05/14/100024842/index.htm AND we owe 9.6 trillion dollars!: http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/ The group that hates America are those who have nearly destroyed it over the last eight years. Why do they hate our freedoms? Maybe the closet secessionists Palin represents SHOULD get the chance to finish off the union and bring on the end times and rapture deal they long for.

FreeClif

Sep 17 2008

It seems that McCain is might be confused about the location of Spain.

DonnaLadd

Sep 18 2008

En ingles, por favor? I used Babelfish to make a translated page. Not perfect, but here it is.

LatashaWillis

Sep 18 2008

He's 72 and was a pow! He doesn't seem to mind pow, powing against other people since he wants the war to on.

Walt

Sep 18 2008

Baquan, I've seen this one before. Yet people ask me why I think republicans aren't any good or are the devil grandchildren! LOL!

Walt

Sep 18 2008

McCain's blatant lies keep coming. Per Factcheck.org today: There He Goes Again September 18, 2008 McCain ad misrepresents Obama's tax plan. Again. Summary The McCain-Palin campaign has released a new ad that once again distorts Obama's tax plans. * The ad claims Obama will raise taxes on electricity. He hasn't proposed any such tax. Obama does support a cap-and-trade policy that would raise the costs of electricity, but so does McCain. * It falsely claims he would tax home heating oil. Actually, Obama proposed a rebate of up to $1,000 per family to defray increased heating oil costs, funded by what he calls a windfall profits tax on oil companies. * The ad claims that Obama will tax "life savings." In fact, he would increase capital gains and dividends taxes only for couples earning more than $250,000 per year, or singles making $200,000. For the rest, taxes on investments would remain unchanged. The McCain campaign argues in its documentation for this ad that, whatever Obama says he would do, he will eventually be forced to break his promise and raise taxes more broadly to pay for his promised spending programs. That's an opinion they are certainly entitled to express, and to argue for. But their ad doesn't do that. Instead, it simply presents the McCain camp's opinion as a fact, and it fails to alert viewers that its claims are based on what the campaign thinks might happen in the future. Analysis In what has become an ongoing theme, the McCain-Palin campaign has released yet another ad that makes false claims about Barack Obama's tax plan. The ad, which was released on Sept. 18 and which the campaign says will air nationally, claims that Obama will raise income taxes and will tax "life savings, electricity and home heating oil." As we keep saying, Obama says he'll raise income taxes and capital gains taxes only for couples earning more than $250,000 per year or singles making over $200,000. He has proposed no plans to raise taxes on either home heating oil or electricity.

DonnaLadd

Sep 18 2008

Is there any level they won't stoop. All they know are attacks and fear-mongering. They know well this country is full of scared nuts. I wonder why? Could it be that we (America) worry the chickens are due back home to roost.

Walt

Sep 19 2008

AP is reporting on the creepy way the McCain campaign is taking over in Alaska: GOP vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin is effectively turning over questions about her record as Alaska's governor to John McCain's political campaign, part of an ambitious Republican strategy to limit any embarrassing disclosures and carefully shape her image for voters in the rest of the country. Republican efforts include dispatching a former top U.S. terrorism prosecutor from New York, Ed O'Callaghan, to assist Palin's personal lawyer working to derail or delay a pending ethics investigation in Alaska. The probe, known as "Troopergate," is examining whether the governor abused her power by trying to remove her former brother-in-law as a state trooper. O'Callaghan is just part of a cadre of high-powered operatives patrolling Alaska as reporters and Democrats scrutinize every detail of Palin's tenure in government, plus her family and friends. One strategy: Carefully coordinate any information that's released. The McCain campaign is demanding that it become the de facto source for answers about the operations of Alaska's government during the past 20 months. Palin's normal press secretary, for example, now turns away inquiries from any reporter who isn't permanently based in Alaska, referring questions to the presidential campaign. Trouble is, some of McCain operatives only recently have arrived in Alaska and struggle to explain Palin's positions on arcane state issues.

DonnaLadd

Sep 19 2008

Hopefully, Mrs. Sarah Palin, the republican vice-presidential hopeful will see the error in her ways and allow independent people uncover the facts of the investigation and present the information to the public. It is the right thing to do.

Walt

Sep 19 2008

WJTV is doing a web poll asking if you are voting for Barack Obama because he is black. They do not ask if you are voting for McCain-Palin because they are white. They reference Sarah Palin's entire name but do not mention Biden at all. I am offended by what I perceive as racist bias. Is it just me? http://www.wjtv.com/gulfcoastwest/jtv/home.html

FreeClif

Sep 19 2008

I'm with you, Whitley. That's called institutional racism. They don't even know they're doing it, it's so ingrained.

DonnaLadd

Sep 19 2008

The poll also ask if they are voting against Obama because he is black. Isn't that just about asking if they are voting for McCain because he is white?

BubbaT

Sep 19 2008

Bubba, Ethical journalism and the norms for survey methods (I took graduate level research methods) mandate that you would ask the same questions about each candidate. Can you justify why they didn't just ask the same questions? Whenever someone deviates from the obvious path (in this case asking the same about each), then a fair minded person should ask "why not?". Why did they have Sarah Palin's whole name on the poll, but not Bidens? Why didn't they ask if they are voting for Palin/McCain because she is a white woman? Inqiring minds would like to know.

FreeClif

Sep 19 2008

Good questions. Have you asked them?

Jeff Lucas

Sep 19 2008

I didn't watch the interview. But I'm sure Vannity did everything he could to toss softball questions and guide her responses.

Jeff Lucas

Sep 19 2008

At lunch today I sat behind 4 old white ladies (likely in their 60s and 70s) discussing the election. When it appeared I would sit there they looked me over good then paused a few seconds. I hurriedly took my seat and kept working toward next week. A few minutes later, I realized they were discussing the election in codes that soon got out of code. One of them said "I can see her as president and if McCain loses this time she can run and win the next time." Another one said "my daughter said she is voting for Obama, but I told her it's alright to pretned you're voting for Obama but sure when you get in that booth where it counts be sure you vote republican." This is the very reason I regret Obama agreed to come here for a debate, and the reason I have a hard time believing anything but history. I sat there waiting and hoping one would ask me what I though about the election or Palin but they never allowed me to share my unbias and kind opinion on either subject.

Walt

Sep 19 2008

The thing I find so interesting about this race for the presidency is that even if Obama loses for the reason all black folks admit to knowing is possible, we won't be devastated and demoralized like some people think we will. I don't know why so many people think we will be harmed since so many people know the greatest obstacle to Obama's winning. We handled all those other obstacles and grew stronger anyway. After this election, I will know where we stand for sure and can discuss it without reservations or doubts. I already know there shouldn't even be a contest after the last nearly 8 years. But when we're put up against the man for a prize this significant, the past performance or record doesn't matter, and the future is all that counts. Funny and so true! I hope this election teaches all of us a great lesson, especially those blacks who went to those so-called great institutions of learning and were taught everything is fair now and believed it. This makes me think about young family members of mines who went to HBCUs and those other so-called greater schools. Invariably I can tell you which ones will suffer the most mental terrorism and disappointments in life. And if by some miracle voters outside the south go to the polls in large enough numbers and cause Obama to win, we need to get ready for another kind of fallout that will be mentally devastating. I won't talk about it further unless the event occurs. Whitley, Baquan, et al, y'all hold up the bloodstained banner while I'm gone the next 2 weeks. You may read about me in the clarion ledger next week and thereafter. I hope it isn't about me getting my tail kicked in Winona.

Walt

Sep 19 2008

Walt, if you do get beat down in Winona you will be following in the great legacy of Fannie Lou Hamer who was beaten viciously there for trying to be full citizen of this great country that didn't want her except for picking cotton. I'm off the Internets until Sunday. I'm going to the Mississippi Delta Blues and Heritage Festival in G'ville (hope it doesn't rain out).

FreeClif

Sep 19 2008

Whitley, I know the Fannie Lou story. She was non-violent. I ain't though.

Walt

Sep 19 2008