Jackson Free Press

For conservatives, and people who support limited government, this week feels wrong. Fifty-three percent of the American public has chosen a man whose campaign for "change" has felt to the remaining 47 percent more like a return to the old failed ways of Jimmy Carter and Democrats of the past. Time will tell.

It is time to start looking toward how we will stand for freedom in the wake of inevitable government expansion and media bias, and how we will make efforts to win in 2010.

Barack Obama won last week because throughout the campaign his speeches inspired hope—the way Reagan's did. And though it pains me to say the names of those two men in the same sentence, Obama used the Reagan strategy of excellent and hopeful communication combined with an emphasis on individual achievement: "Yes, we can."

Conservatives must focus on the message that though Obama's rhetoric says "Yes, we can," his policies say "No, we can't." Though Obama campaigned on change, his policies are a re-hash of the failed policies not just of Carter and Hillary Clinton, but of European leaders whose health-care systems and economies are teetering at the edge of the abyss, and were it not for American aid, would have been overrun by the Soviets in the 1970s.

This vote was by no means a landslide. Though it may first seem that way in the electoral college, Obama only achieved 53 percent of the vote. In the House and Senate, our losses were primarily among liberal or moderate Republicans. All this while conservative and libertarian ballot initiatives passed in state elections—even in California.

Tuesday may have been a loss for the Republican Party, but it was not a loss for Republican principles.

Under the Carter administration, the Misery Index (percent unemployment plus percent inflation) reached an all-time high of 22 percent. Higher taxes mean the wealthy, the ones who provide the majority of jobs, are not able to hire as many people. High taxes, particularly on businesses and the upper tax bracket, limit their investment potential and thus their ability to create new jobs. Obama's tax plan will return us to the highest individual tax rate since Carter. This is not change, but more of the failed policies of the past.

Obama's health-care plan is akin to the failed "Hillarycare" of the '90s. Socialized programs in Europe have stifled medical development and research, eroded the condition and cleanliness of British hospitals, and are already being rejected by the Netherlands, Germany and Sweden in favor of privatization. In hospitals throughout the EU, cost-cutting and politicization of medical decisions has not resulted in a universal heath-care system but a mismanaged and substandard system that denies innovative treatments to patients. This is not change, but more failed policies.

Conservative ideology is about change, change that starts with the individual, not the government. Conservative ideology and policies promote innovation because they promote individual achievement. Compare the 15 Nobel Prizes in medicine awarded in the past 10 years to American researchers to the seven awarded to foreign scientists. The expense of American health care provides money for research and encourages competition among service providers. The free-market American system has brought more research money and, thus, more innovations. The free market brings progress, it brings hope, it brings change.

Let us take a stand and show that the true hope for America lies not with government action but with government reduction and individual action.

Conservatives and libertarians must find a leader able to articulate these politics of hope as Reagan did—one who leaves the concept of being a "moderate" behind and doesn't feel the need to water down our beliefs. Instead, we should show America that liberty and the free market are the progressive, moral, hopeful and successful values that have made this country strong.

We must seek a leader with the strength of character to stand up to Obama and the harmful, big government ideas he and his liberal companions in Congress have already put forth and surely will continue to advocate. In our search for national unity after a vitriolic election, we should not resign ourselves to harmful policies. Our patriotism demands that we stand in opposition to the growth of government. Unity does not mean giving in to Obama's political demands. Unity means standing as Americans for American values.

More than 57 million Americans voted against Obama and his policies last week. Our job is not to stand with unity beside Obama and policies we know to be wrong, but to stand up for what is right, for what over 57 million Americans said was right.

As we look toward the congressional elections of 2010—or sooner for some local and statewide elections—conservatives must remember that we do not win elections by compromising our beliefs but by standing by them. We should take a lesson from Obama's playbook—and that of our hero Ronald Reagan—and preach the hope that is America.

Remember: Republicans survived Jimmy Carter, and gave us Ronald Reagan. Republicans survived Bill Clinton, and gave us Newt Gingrich. Now is the time to regroup and refocus ourselves as we did after 1976 and 1992. Now is the time to draw the line against government waste, government growth and government corruption.

As Obama's "Yes, we can" turns into "No, you can't," let us be there to pick up the mantle of the rhetoric and match it with policies that ring true: No, the government can't. Yes, you can.

Amile Wilson is the creative director of PIPPIN & MAX Entertainment, and a new columnist for the JFP.

Previous Commentsshow

Welcome Amile. Thanks for writing this. I can't say I believe a word of it. It's well-written even if mostly propaganda and make-believe. Perhaps you can bring back some of the conservatives to the site who ran off when their party and policies became so obviously a fraud and hoax. Drawing a line against something your party took to a level no one else ever dreamed of is quite unlikely. I'd like to see the granddaddy ole party make a valiant effort though at recreating themselves against overwhelming proof of what it really is. The present administration is the undisputed proof of what the republican party and supporters are. Bush didn't vote himself into office twice. Conservatives and republicans did! What beliefs? I know you don't mean small government, fiscal responsibility, necessary wars, honesty, integrity, family values, et al. No one is dumb enough at this point to believe a republican or conservative believes in these things. Do I need to names congressmen, senators, harlots, bagmen, co-conspirators, purchasers, et al, to make the point to the contray? Or is the reocrd clear? Isn't it ironic you can foresee so much failure and fault in Obama's policies even before he starts the job, but not see that conservatives and republicans have no real standing in America, at this point. When you preach one thing and do the complete opposite without any consequences or punishment, clearly you have no standing or position to argue. It pains me too to hear Reagan's name mentioned in the same sentence with Obama's too. Obama stands for unity, togetherness, peace, real freedom, good will, progress for all, health care for all, and spreading goodwill among nations. Reagan stood for regression, depression, and race hatred. No wonder he's universally hated in some communities. Obama's "yes we can" was a clarion call for the good people of America to take back the country from the evil corporatist and unfettered capitalists that were selling all mankind to feed their greedy impulses and needs to conquer the free world through force, trickery and deceit. How has the free market in Africa, Russia, South America, Asia and so many other places helped those countries other than making the rich richer and catapulting the masses into extreme or worse poverty. No wonder so many countries now hate and refuse to rely on our policies and benevolence at this point. As a result of the policies of conservatives and republicans mostly for the last 20 years or so no one with any sense trusts them anymore. I'm sorry that I didn't have time to read your colunm as closely as I would like to have. When I get time I'll read more closely and comment further. My apologies for not being able to write with your skills. I think I can hang though.

Walt

Nov 12 2008

Walt-the-welcome-wagon. Thanks for not getting personal with our new conservative columnist, Walt. Let's welcome a marketplace of fact-based, respectful ideas from every direction. ;-) And to everyone else: Challenge as you will, but be nice to each other as I'm sure you will. Carry on.

DonnaLadd

Nov 12 2008

The greatest disservice the Republican Party has performed has been to devalue information in the marketplace. The media are reduced to pundits of the opposition. Polls are meaningless collections of numbers. Talking points become viewpoints and the average citizen is asked to listen only to their politicians and AM radio. The occasional conspiratorial email casts even darker shadows. i wonder how many of that 57 million who voted for John McCain believe that we now have a Muslim terrorist for a President. How many of them believe that he relishes the downfall of the American family because it subordinates them to the government allowing him to shift greater and greater power to the government. (Limbaugh presses this meme to no end.) The truth is that the American people are moving beyond that. i have not always been a Democrat. This year however was the first year that a party had a platform and a candidate that i entirely agreed with. Barack Obama reflects the philosophy of a more pragmatic America, an America that the Democratic Party reflects in a variety of demographics and ideologies all with common goals, different approaches, and the willingness to work together. He emphasizes personal responsibility and recognizes that our government is made up of the People. He believes that when the government moves it should move to assist the free flow of trade; both economic and intellectual. The government should move to protect trust in the myriad of relationships which make a strong community; both social and economic. And finally, the government should move to protect the common resources, cultural and terrestrial, which define our Nation in its myriad beauty. Barack Obama's health care plan has never resembled a European-styled socialized medicine. Barack Obama has said that any citizen may keep their current coverage and doctor - nothing changes for those who are comfortable. For those who are not happy or who do not currently have insurance, he will allow them to buy into a plan similar or identical to a government employee insurance program. Overall he will work to require insurance companies to reduce premiums and he will also ensure that no one can be denied health care. Republicans often chant that you don't want the government between you and your doctor but the American people are screaming for government to please temper the insurance company. One of the problems with "staying the course" on the Republican strategy of old is that the people of our nation have seen it in action. They have seen how deregulation plays out in regards to the environment, financial systems and product/food quality safe guards. They have experienced prolonged war/nation-building with undefined victory and changing justifications. They have watched the concentration of executive power, dismissing of habeus corpus, insistence on torture... i admit that who the Republicans have become does not resemble the William F. Buckleys who really give it "validity" - that you are trying to sell us on the idea of harkening back to ideals that once defined the Republican Party. i would argue that America is growing beyond even that platform though. Trickle-down economics is a myth which was not borne out by experiment. Your calls to "individual achievement" fall flat when that phrase stands for protecting the interests of those blessed enough to have become successful. You ask people to stand together to say that our power lies not in government action but in individual action...but i ask you - What is government action if not the standing together of people - the actions of the community - the Voice of the People? When the Republican Party becomes popular on the idea that government is ineffective and then they seek to prove it through their destruction of our society by dismantling regulatory agencies, demonizing consumers and employees who would challenge wrongful actions on the part of corporations, pre-emptively invading another country on false pretenses, legalizing torture, abandoning citizens in the wake of a natural disaster, and so on...well, i have little pity for their state of affairs. The Republicans who are left most likely agree with Obama but have not yet explored his record. The bottom line is that if you look into Obama's background and political philosophies (which despite conservative assertions are pretty widely available) you find a man interested in listening to all sides of an argument, a man who is purposeful and moderate, a man who understands that the government is people acting as People. A man who insists that America respect the dignity of work again. That the American government respect it's people.

daniel johnson

Nov 13 2008

Fantastic Daniel. I don't even need to say anymore. Hopefully, our good ole republicans who formerly tried to dominate this site will return and chime in in an effort to counter us, but the truth is hard or impossible to counter. Surely, they won't leave Amile twisting in the wind by himself else they be coward undeserving of claiming the same membership. The government is often the only neutralizer or protecter between us (the hardworking and scrapping people) and greedy, immoral and rich people and corporations. I'm quite surprised anyone still believes in the trickle down effect or unfettered or unregulated capitalism. All true success stories were borne of a mixture of capitalism and socialism or something other than unfettered capitalism. What the republicans gave us was the trick-down effect. Don't worry Donna. You know I like smart, talented and courageous people. They make us all grow. It's the crying wolves without real alternatives that unnerves me.

Walt

Nov 13 2008

The conservatives need to begin by becoming consistent. We live in a 24/7 news cycle now in which people notice contradictions more --- especially the hyper partisan activist base of the Dems. For instance, the cry that 53% is not a mandate sounds like sour grapes when our current president declared a mandate in 2001 after not even getting a majority of the vote. It seems disconcertingly 1984ish, "More is less, war is peace!" The writer says we are going back to the tax rates under Jimmy Carter. Where does this come from. Repeatedly, the president-elect has stated he wants to simply roll back the tax cuts for the top five percent that should never have been doled out in war time and go back to the tax rates that existed under Bill Clinton during a time of great prosperity. I wish the writer would provide some links or references about the woeful state of health care everywhere but here where it is so great that even Pat Buchanon said on *Morning Joe* this very morning that it places our companies at a competitive disadvantage compared to companies in other countries that are not burdened by such an inefficient health care system. If you are to the right of Pat Buchanon, you may need some lucky charms to win another race. The Republican Party must become reality-based in order to become effective again! Forget that. Stay just the way you are. Oh, and don't forget to nominate Sarah Palin in 2012! Yes you can. The writer touts Nobel Prizes and magical free markets but may have missed the fact that the Nobel winner in economics, Paul Krugman, is one of the foremost critics of conservative laissez faire free market philosophy and that Alan Greenspan, another former laissez faire stalwart, recently apologized, recanted and admitted that he had been wrong about his assumption of a near magical (my saracasm) ability of free markets to regulate themselves. We found out that there is no wizard behind the curtain --- only a poor confused Alan Greenspan and a decimated economy! Alas, but it is the working poor who suffer the consequences. For some reason this reminds me of the rant that Dennis Green went into after the Cardinals lost a game to the Bears in which they had a big lead --- "They are who we thought they are! We had 'em where we wanted 'em. We let 'em off the hook." Yes we are an abrupt change from the destructive divisiveness of the last fourteen years. Yes we can. Yes we will.

FreeClif

Nov 13 2008

Brillant, Whitley. We gonna have to become much more dumber than we are in order to draw in some more republicans for a sparring match in living color. With all the money from corporations and rich people and all the intellectual prowess from think tanks and universities they lay claim to, you think they would be tearing us poor Democrats apart on policies. There is room for them in the Democratic party but they could never accept our leaders. "When the funk hits the fan they go to running!"

Walt

Nov 13 2008

Ladd, Thanks for not publishing my earlier "snide" comment on Republians and "the not so intellectually gifted". Now, that's what I call "editing to your values" The quality and thought provoking sincerity of the comments you have posted compel me to offer my apologies to this publication. Although I can't say I won't try "it" again, I will now think long and hard before submitting another "bigot byte" If you choose not to post this apology, at least send me an email forgiving my transgression. Please? Smile!

FrankMickens

Nov 13 2008

OK, I'm behind here. Doing other things. Are you being sincere or sarcastic, Casual? Someone clue me in. ;-) If you're sincere, thank you. We're trying to have passionate, yet respectful dialogue here. What that means is all sides get mad at me about moderating toward that end. But it's worth it to me to get past all the mud-slinging.

DonnaLadd

Nov 13 2008

Amile, Welcome to the thinking man's blog here at JFP. To further welcome you, I quote Ronald Reagan's quote of an old Russian proverb. "Trust, but verify" You said: "Conservatives must focus on the message that though Obama's rhetoric says "Yes, we can," his policies say "No, we can't." Though Obama campaigned on change, his policies are a re-hash of the failed policies not just of Carter and Hillary Clinton, but of European leaders whose HEALTH CARE SYSTEMS and economies are teetering at the edge of the abyss, and were it not for American aid, would have been overrun by the Soviets in the 1970s." FYI: UNICEF says the US health system ranks 20th out of the top 21 Industrialized nations. http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/008803.html PS: The CIA, that's the US Central Intelligence Agency, says the US healthcare system ranks 42nd. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/download/ Trust me!

FrankMickens

Nov 13 2008

Ladd, I was being serious. Good job.

FrankMickens

Nov 13 2008

Thanks, Casual. You and some others are living proof that I moderate "both sides," eh? ;-) And would be "thinking people's blog."

DonnaLadd

Nov 13 2008

I'd like the hear Amile's logic behind the "back to Jimmy Carter" level taxation. Obama has clearly stated that he's for allowing the top two brackets of the Bush tax code to sunset.

Todd Stauffer

Nov 13 2008

My head might explode: I agree with Pat Buchanan (Too Often GOP Stood Mute):http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/other-views/story/768800.html He implies they have not learned anything.

FreeClif

Nov 13 2008

More a__ whippings have to occur ad infinitum before they learn anything for they're clearly the party without a conscience, soul, moral center, or any righteous inclinations. Winning and losing is all they understand. I'm reminded of the time the people finally realized Satan was indeed Satan. Once discovered, Satan didn't deny who and what he was, and instead said, "I am Satan, so what?" I take this to mean, like Satan, they believe without reservation or equivocation in all they've done over the course of the last 20 years or so and will remain true to their satanic call and purpose and not change anything.

Walt

Nov 13 2008

Agree with Todd. What's behind the "Jimmy Carter" assertion. It brings to mind the faulty meme that went around about Carter and the CRA causing the economic meltdown. It's one thing to say something like that, and quite another to prove it.

DonnaLadd

Nov 13 2008

I'm not going to wade too deep into this discussion, suffice to say I agree with the responses by daniel and Whitley, but I would like to commend the jfp for publishing an alternative viewpoint. I've had the good fortune of working with Amile; from this experience I am aware of his own ability to compromise and find common ground. Hopefully this is something we will all be able to do over the next four years (I'm dreaming of eight). In order to find that common ground we probably all need to be more objective when looking at the history of our parties. I am continually surprised by the accolades Reagan receives, and pointing out Newt as a positive result seems ridiculous to me. But maybe I too suffer from this rose-colored hindsight when I think of the Clinton years. I hope one day we all look back on this presidency with pride despite party differences.

Roy Adkins

Nov 14 2008

The Clinton years were good years, no doubt, by any objective standard, though not perfect. I feel sorry for any one who Newt "the grim and grisly reaper" Gingrish can impress. After all, he wanted Bill Clinton impeached and flogged for adultery while having his ladies on the side at the same time, and, most of all, he authored the Contract on America. He didn't stay around to help execute the ecomomy and people but his cohorts, disciples and friends did no less. I hope we can some day recover from Newt, Bush, Cheney, Reagan, et al. Newt is an high order republican and is as guilty of fleeing reality as any other republican.

Walt

Nov 14 2008

my parents (lifelong Republicans who crossed over and voted Obama this time around) said they made more money in the stock market during Clinton's administration than they did in any time since

Izzy

Nov 14 2008

Dear Amile Wilson, Please talk to me as if I am a second grader. Where have you been, politically, during the last eight years? You said that the Republican Party must become "Reality Based in order to become effective again." What period are you talking about? It is interesting that George Bush and his 8 years were not mentioned in your historical account of where American was and the things you must look for now that Barack Obama will be sworn in as President. If Newt Gingrich was such a powerful leader, what happened to his political career? Do you really know Gingrich's Washington history? The 12 billion dollars we are spending monthly in Iraq could take care of many things Obama has on his "to-do" list. Your article was totally void of anything to do with the illegal, unethical, misled and misguided war in Iraq: Just a friendly reminder, this war was cooked up by Bush,Chaney, et al. Can you imagine the number of young men and women who have died because of Republican greed and blatant lies? Think about it: There were no weapons of mass destruction and Bush knew it. Please, I beg of you, explain to me why Bush led us into war and now the only finger that points is in the direction of President Elect, Barack Obama. Your article reinforces the idea of "the individual." This concept only represents the one person who takes the credit: It takes many hands to pick cotton.

justjess

Nov 14 2008

I'm gonna have to become more careful in my description of republicans if Laurel's parents are life-long republicans. Tell them I said hello Laurel and I'm so glad to learn they exist. Colin Powell at last is not alone as the lone good republican.

Walt

Nov 14 2008

I will, Walt, they will get a kick out of that. Dad read Obama's book & like it a lot. Their friends are mad at them but they feel their party has been, in their words, "hijacked by the religious right."

Izzy

Nov 14 2008

Thanks, Laurel. I know what you mean. Those religious right people (with leaders like Haggard, Aldridge, Dobson, Faldwell, et al,) is almost enough to make a person flee church. I said before I'm beginning to feel as comfortable with the Klan as with them. At least I know the klans intentions for me and I can act accordingly. Those religious right folks will argue one thing while doing a completely different one when no one is looking. I don't trust them. Thank God I know that all preachers, churches and leaders aren't like them. One Jim Jones, probably a republican, is enough for a life time. Frankly, I believe the Lord will understand why so many of us ran from those nuts. I wasn't so convinced we needed separation of state and church until I found out about the evangelicals.

Walt

Nov 14 2008

The religious right are only interested in a theocracy. They found a way to convince some people that God and Jesus are Republicans and anyone who feels differently is going to H-E-double hockey sticks. They'll go to any lengths to accomplish that. Hopefully, the younger people will not let that happen.

golden eagle

Nov 14 2008

A Catholic priest in South Carolina says all you Obama supporters ARE going to hell in hand basket unless you confess your sin and repent your low down Obama loving ways: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081113/ap_on_re_us/obama_catholics HA HA. These types give religion a bad name. I guess that is why Jesus had that evil habit of dining with all those sinners...he wanted them to have a good meal before going off to hell? Fortunately, a majority of Catholics did not buy into the right wing priests and bishops. I saw somewhere a quote (maybe on kos) that Bishops vote Republican and nuns vote Democratic. If so, then I guess Obama got the nun and nun sympathizer vote since surveys showed a majority of Catholics voted for Obama.

FreeClif

Nov 14 2008

I'd hate to add such hyperbole, since I've been at the JFP for 6 months, but I'll just go out on a limb here and say that this is probably the most exciting thing to happen to the Jackson Free Press' opinion pages in a long time. Amile, I hope you continue writing this column regularly. Not only will it's inevitable popularity sooth your ego, but the Jackson Free Press, and the greater community as a whole, will be a better place to hear the other side of the arguement. Some time in the near future, can you tell me who you think that next Republican is? Is it Palin? Man up and commit to someone I think that would be cool.

bryan doyle

Nov 14 2008

I was off the grid today, but great conversation. I'm excited about Amile's column because he is capable to disagreeing without being disagreeable. (In fact, just the opposite.) I've looked for a long time here for a conservative columnist who is willing to provide factcheck info and not resort to ad hominem to try to "argue" a point. You'd be surprised how hard that has been to find. That said, I've rejected fact-deficient, ad hominem arguments on the left, too, so it cuts both ways. Also, until this election, or really the campaign, I felt strongly that progressive views had been vastly underrepresented in this community and were under attack in the nation. Being "alternative" by filling progressive voids was urgent. After the recent election, not nearly as much. I also firmly believe that the Republican Party is going to change dramatically due to necessity. Perhaps respectful dialogue will help that happen in a good way. No

DonnaLadd

Nov 14 2008

Fake News reports that the Catholic diocese in South Carolina repudiated the actions of the priest who stated that Obama supporters should not take communion until after repenting: http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/11/14/catholic-priest-pummeling-obama-voters/ First Alan Greenspan repudiates magical free markets, the Catholic diocese repudiates a right wing priest and I heard CNN report this morning that the Republican governor of Florida has repudiated the Republican's emphasis on divisive social issues over *pocket book* concerns. This is interesting stuff and great karma after Obama had to reject AND repudiate so many --- from people who shared the same city (like Farrakhan) to people who lived in his neighborhood and asked him over for coffee. This has been the year of rejection and repudiation! At least it became bipartisan. Hopefully, we are all learning something.

FreeClif

Nov 15 2008

Mark Davis of WBAP Dallas/Fort Worth sat in for Rush Limbaugh on Thursday, Nov. 13th and had an exchange which i thought was indicative of why the Republican Party is shedding supporters in droves. (i tried to get the audio but i refuse to pay Rush for it and couldn't figure out torrent.) On last Thursdays show, Mark Davis had a conversation with a middle aged white male on his construction job site. The man, lets call him Joe the Builder, told Mark that he and his coworkers did not care how much CEO's made and were not interested in getting more than their fair share. Joe told Mark that he and his coworkers were concerned about the fact that they could no longer afford to own homes or support their families. They felt like they were being left in the dust by a government which was unconcerned with their plight. Mark then proceeded to tell Joe that the free market works. He told Joe that perhaps he was not working hard enough or fully exploring his options. He defended corporations rights to move their jobs overseas. Mark essentially told Joe that the hardship he and his coworkers were experiencing was their fault. Joe told him that his arguments for personal responsibility made sense to him, but he still felt uneasy about the philosophy. i suspect a lot of Republicans like Joe are feeling a bit uneasy right now. Mark Davis, Rush Limbaugh, and a large portion of the free market conservative politicos are charging into the future with little regard for working class Americans. These free-marketers believe that corporations have zero responsibility to the people they work for or the nation which allows them the space to conduct their business. What Joe and his friends will slowly realize over the next four years is that government regulation of business is the only way to ensure that corporations are not playing Wild West in the towns and communities across America. Mark Davis doesn't want to talk about tax breaks for moving jobs overseas. He doesn't want to discuss requiring corporations to pay their employees fair wages. He doesn't want to discuss the way corporations pit communities against each other to achieve periods of zero taxation and then leave locales when that agreement is up. He doesn't want to discuss the persistent conservative mantra to regulate less which leads to higher incidence of worker death and injury. He doesn't want to discuss the failure of conservatives to push for comprehensive employer prosecution for hiring non-citizen workers and instead trumpet only border control. ... Before Joe called the show, Mark fielded a question about health care where he actually stated that if you could get government out of the patient/doctor relationship then he believes insurance companies would begin charging less. He actually said that he believed with less government regulation, you would see "fewer bad apples" in the insurance industry. This is counterintuitive to an infinite degree and Joe knows it.

daniel johnson

Nov 15 2008

I gave up on any chance of a tolerant exchange of ideas on this site 3 weeks before the election. I was almost certain that Obama or whoever the Democrats threw up there would win right after Katrina and the horrible handling of the situation in New Orleans. It was wrong not to help and help quickly in that situation no matter who you were. The Republicans should and probably will pay for that huge lack in humanity for a long time. When you look back at how far we have come since 9/11 and the love we all had for each other during that awful time it is very sad that we have this now. Obama is not the 'purple' candidate who has united us in the middle or he would have ended up in with a much higher popular vote. I come to this site because I think it's important to be informed of a lot of different points of view, no matter how radical and extreme they are at times. I think this vote just showed that it was a perfect storm of a vibrant, young, well-spoken, slick politician meeting up with greed on wall street, INDIVIDUAL dumb credit decisions, and an unpopular president at just the right time. McCain did rather well in such a ripe enviroment and you left leaners should learn THAT lesson. Don't get comfortable and don't think that there are not a lot of Americans out there ready and waiting for people to smarten up and see. As in the past, that government is not the answer and socialism in any form is the government for the weak and the followers. We are America and what works in Europe and other more socialist parts of the world will not work here, just as it does not really work anywhere else with any kind of substantial growth. We are needed in this world to be the a-holes, to be the proud and freedom oriented bastards that people love to hate. We are the balance to the other countries that have hardly any freedom or freedom that is defined by what the government lets them have. So go ahead and start the bashing, be offended and pat each other on the back as you gang up on my comments and glory in your 'rightness' and your smug feelings of being better then the 'morons' who don't agree with you. I for one do not think you are wrong. I think you are necessary to balance me and my views. I see some of your points and some of your views as having very good intentions and kind hearted. There is nothing wrong with wanting to fix the worlds ills and wanting to be liberal with love. I for one don't think you can legislate nor should you legislate someone's virtue. We should foster virtue and love for our fellow humans in our homes and in our personal lives. So have fun with this one.

crawdad

Nov 15 2008

Overall, interesting comments, crawdad. I don't think you would find that this site has ever been intolerant of a variety of ideas that are delivered based on facts and with respect of others' views. I do want to point out a couple things you said that belie your talk about tolerance, however, in the spirit of trying to pull you into a good conversation, not push you out. For one: Don't get comfortable and don't think that there are not a lot of Americans out there ready and waiting for people to smarten up and see. As in the past, that government is not the answer and socialism in any form is the government for the weak and the followers. The problem with this kind of statement is that I don't know anyone here, or who was just elected as president, who is pushing socialism. You can't accuse people of stuff like that and then complaint when they are not "tolerant" of being called something they're not. To have a tolerant conversation, do your best to come to the table armed with actual facts and not accusatory labels such as that one. So go ahead and start the bashing, be offended and pat each other on the back as you gang up on my comments and glory in your 'rightness' and your smug feelings of being better then the 'morons' who don't agree with you. Where does that come from? It makes you sound like you're trying to pick a fight instead of talking with people with a wide variety of views. When you come in the door like that—accusing people of being smug in their "rightness—or worse as some others have done, you immediately put everyone else on the defensive when you don't have to do that. You will find some of the most tolerant conversation you will see anywhere on this site precisely because we moderate nastiness on both sides of the aisle so to speak. It's usually people who communicate with nastiness who get upset and start complaining. So try not making assumptions, and be sure that you're not accusing people (including Obama) of falsehoods, and you might just be surprised how tolerant others here will be of diverse views. About the only thing the variety of people here agree on is how annoying trolls can be. Then we gang up on the bullies to keep them from running off the respectful people. Otherwise, though, we're pretty much all over the map with our views.

DonnaLadd

Nov 15 2008

Also, re your point about McCain getting as many votes as he did, I don't think he would have had Obama not been black. Fortunately, that did not stop America from electing him, but the very same person with white skin would likely have gotten even more votes against a Republican considering the condition of that party currently and their screw-ups in the last eight years. I'm very hopeful that the Republican Party remakes itself into something that will contribute to our nation again. In the long arc of history, the party's four dark decades can be just seen as an unfortunate aberration (which would be shorter than the Democrats' ugly pre-1960s history). The change needs to get here. I hope we see at least two parties that don't pander to the darkest elements of human nature within my lifetime. That will be very good for society. And if demographic studies are accurate, the GOP's whole anti-government line isn't going to fly in the near future. If Katrina and 9/11 did anything, it was to convince a whole generation of voters that we need a strong, efficient, compassionate government. That whole shrinking-in-the-bathtub thing is dead for now, God rest its greedy little soul.

DonnaLadd

Nov 15 2008

i can appreciate needing to feign some incredible disagreements with the Democratic Party. With the Republicans facing an immediate history in direct opposition to their own ideals and no real philosophy which can incorporate the realities of the common voter, the only thing better than coming up with real ideas is creating a boogey man. i appreciate your sentiments crawdad, but they lack any substance. Obama is not and never will be a socialist. The Democratic Party has a solid platform which socialists disagree with. As John Stewart so succinctly put it to Bill O'Reilly, "The Democrats want to raise the income tax from 35% to 39%, exactly which percentage makes it socialist?" George Will, David Brooks, Colin Powell, Ron Reagan, and Christopher Buckley would all disagree with the statement that Obama is a radical. Republicans would like to avoid substantive issues and belittle the Democrats with ideas of fawning Liberal love. This will continue to push struggling Americans away. Americans support Obama because they see that the worlds ills stem from a fantastical belief that allowing corporations unfettered control of the marketplace will yield prosperity for all. Alan Greenspan has even apologized for this misguided belief. Yet - Republicans continue to push the meme that deregulation and reduced tax responsibility on our nations highest earners is the best thing they can do to help Joe the Proletariat. Well, Joe the Proletariat has been waiting for money to trickle down for a long time and he has realized that even if it starts to come it will be too late. This is not the wild west the Republican Party would like it to be. Americans tired of businesses hedging on safety and security while the government waits for the American worker to be compensated. America elected a President to protect the sacred trusts that make society work. Republicans can not even demonstrate that they know which trusts those are. i would be very afraid of the movement this election showed in the American electorate. It has shifted to Democrats in the last two elections in increasing numbers. After four years of a successful Obama presidency it will be alot harder to convince your base that he is a secret terrorist socialist.

daniel johnson

Nov 15 2008

"With the Republicans facing an immediate history in direct opposition to their own ideals" Daniel, I think you nailed it in one sentence. That is the reason I could no longer support a Republican administration. I share many conservative ideals with what Republicans say. Problem is... they don't do any of the things they talk about. Ok. Yes, they lower taxes but that's it. Where are the controls on spending? Where is the fiscal responsibility? Most importantly where is the leadership? As far as the comments that have been made about free trade, you can say it does or doesn't work but it would be at least kinda cool to try it. Free trade is not corporate welfare, subsidies and bailouts any more than it's some kind of anything goes wild west shooting match. There has to be freedom on both sides. Freedom for private enterprise to succeed on it's own merits and freedom to fail of it's own greed or mismanagement. It's not a private businesses duty or obligation to provide anything other than the goods or services for which it was established to provide. Free people can come to agreements about what they will or won't purchase or what they will or won't take in compensation for their time or labor. It's no one Else's business. That doesn't mean that anything goes with regard to public safety or safe working conditions. Socialism isn't a tax rate it's the size of the yoke government puts on private business to provide for things outside the scope of what that enterprise was established to do. How's that for radical?

WMartin

Nov 16 2008

A refreshing tone you set WMartin. Thanks for your well thought out response complete with analysis rather than erroneous labels. i think our government officials would need to agree on what they mean be free trade before we dive headlong. Do we mean complete and unfettered business action? This would yield a wild west scenario. We've been in the concrete jungle before and it didn't work out for our citizens (even the children were harmed). Do we mean to eliminate subsidies and tax breaks but to regulate their behavior in regards to employees? This could take care of my main concern - and while i agree with reduction or elimination of subsidies i think targeted tax breaks can incentivize directions the government would like to steer the entire business community and country as a whole. This is true especially when dealing with the need for national coordinated actions. Do we mean to allow other countries to export their goods to us without any tariffs despite the nefarious ways they may find to reduce the costs of their products? This puts responsible businesses at a disadvantage and actually would encourage a race to the lowest moral denominator. Now - i don't really believe that anyone wants to roll back child labor laws or eliminate OSHA, but those are tangential assumptions when people discuss unlimited free markets. The conversation needs to deal with how markets should be free and not just a black and white, freedom non-freedom, debate. i honestly don't think it would be cool to try absolute free trade. Absolute free trade absolutely forces companies to compete without regard for the moral obligations of humanity. Private enterprise should rise or fall on their own merits - but in an integrated society one must realize when a successful business providing great resource to our nation is in danger of failing due to economic mistakes in other sectors. The current example of lack of liquidity in the markets is very revealing in how it has affected many successful businesses. Our small business culture is built on credit and when that dries up through no fault of the small business owner i do think it appropriate for the government to mediate. i must also take issue with the assertion that free people can come to agreements about what they will or won't purchase or what they will or won't take in compensation for their time and labor. Firstly, the Republicans have allowed massive consolidation of industries such as telecommunications and energy over last few decades. This severely limits the options to consumers. Preventing monopolies is a restriction on free markets which must be in place. Citizens also face restrictions on product choice due to geography and income. Citizens in our lowest income neighborhoods often do not have access to grocery stores without extensive bus travel which is not always possible. Citizens do not live in hypothetical realities with limited options to choose from and we can't always blame the citizen for being in their situation. As for people holding businesses accountable for their labor practices rather than the government - i would point to the bloody history our nations industries have in respect to employees organizing to achieve a modicum of respect from their employers. The fact is that jobs are limited - especially now. In that type of climate, the government must set restrictions. The base truth in this is that humans are slaves to need and so must work. They often do not have the luxury to just quit and look for a respectable employer if they are scarce. The government is responsible for security against tyranny and private business has exhibited quite a penchant for tyranny when unfettered by labor law. i think we generally agree on most of these issues. The important thing is to shift the conversation. We do not need to discuss whether to have free markets - the discussion needs to be how they should be free and how they should be restricted. Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and the creation of an egalitarian society.(taken from wikipedia) Being allowed to operate a business in a community is a privilege and comes with responsibility. The government is the manifestation of the will of a people. The people of a community have a right to require businesses locating in them to not destroy their shared environment, they have a right to deny them access to their children in certain circumstances, they have the right to require a base wage and benefit package, they have a right to require them to pay taxes for services they benefit from...and more if deemed appropriate by the people. This is not a radical assertion, but a reasoned approach taking note of the history of private enterprise in America.

daniel johnson

Nov 16 2008

Daniel, my saying it would be cool to at least try it was to say that we haven't. Whether it's Republicans allowing the consolidation of the industries you mention or the robber barons of the last century, those policies are not free market based. Neither are monopolies. I was merely trying to say that we can't blame the free market for our problems because our markets aren't free. As there is no candidate or party espousing a true free market platform it is relegated to the realm of the hypothetical. I think we do agree generally we just arrive there from different views. I don't believe that doing business is any more a privilege than breathing. It is just what people do. There were businesses before governments and cities. Our society is a hybrid between capitalism and socialism. And you're right, the only meaningful debate is how much socialism do we want to inject into our system. I don't believe we have elected a socialist in our new President but we should all recognize that the more we ask government to do for us the closer we get to socialism. Ayn Rand said that a socialist society will always end in a dictatorship. I believe that. "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years." ~Unknown P.S. This is actually my second post as a response. The first disappeared, was much better, destroyed anyone else's arguments and would have resulted in world peace and everlasting harmony between the races had it been able to be read. Thanks JFP.

WMartin

Nov 16 2008

So much work this last week. I'm trying to save up money for the inevitable fall of the government occurs in the new year...I'M KIDDING. Donna, I can now tell that, in my opinion, the tone has changed here and people aren't out for blood now that Obama has one. But, it got pretty nasty the weeks leading to the election. I stopped coming by for that very reason. I am glad the tone is different. I am not here to start arguments at all but I am here to show a different side to the overwhelming majority here. I just don't have the time to come by on a regular basis with working and paying taxes for those who do come on here all day...KIDDING AGAIN. I do not believe that. I think there are some very hard working democrats and this election really proved that. As for socialism and the label that I am accused of almost throwing on people. No one in thier right mind would come out and say, 'I'M A SOCIALIST AND WE SHOULD BE A SOCIALIST COUNTRY'. That would not work at all. It's like 'maw' and 'paw' used to warn me about as a young man with raging hormones and a brand new driver's license. They would tell me that the devil was not going to come out right and tell you, 'GO OUT AND HAVE AN ORGY AND GET A GIRL OR TWO PREGNANT.' The devil is smart and he would work on you at bits and pieces by having you accept a little sin here and a little sin there. Then work you on up the ladder till the next thing you know it was a shotgun wedding and you were married at 17. Now, I don't believe in old satan and I don't believe that he or she is out to get me. I didn't really believe it back then. But I do know that if I was going to move a country into a dictatorship or into socialism that it would be much smarter, excluding any major event that would push it faster, to make those slow little changes that increased government control and took a bit more money here and there. Slow and steady will always win out against the jerky, suprizing jolts of a sprinter when it comes to long term goals. So I for one will not be lulled and believe that those with power do not want more power. I for one do see that power is the ultimate trip for some and that if they can keep it then they will and they will increase it. If we give those in power too much ease and comfort (bush and the republicans as examples) then they will royally mess with our business and make things bad on us all. As I said last time I don't think you should legislate virtue and I think government should remain as out of the way as possible. Yes, we have the greedy who will take advantage and who need a certain degree of oversight to keep us solid as a country. But,I would rather have the greedy and powerful private citizen any day then the greedy and powerful politician who is backed up by the military and the laws that they can get changed through courts and too much power in all 3 branches. As I said last time, you might not agree with me but you need me and you need people like me because we are the ying to your yang and the salt to your sugar.

crawdad

Nov 16 2008

crawdad;- i like having ya'll around. i don't necessarily need you. The salt to my sugar are the ills of our communities which we both try to right. i just think you have misguided beliefs underlying your policy preferences. i think an anxiety over incremental steps toward socialism should be tempered based on probability. Ascertaining this probability should be based on the policy decisions he has supported - none of which have represented more than conservative changes in percentages. The fact that Bush enacted the largest tax cut in history is the only reason taxes need to be raised. In fact, i think you can rightfully trace our budget spiral to that decision being made blind to the circumstances of our nation. i think you are being paranoid neighbor. Yes, we have the greedy who will take advantage and who need a certain degree of oversight to keep us solid as a country. But,I would rather have the greedy and powerful private citizen any day then the greedy and powerful politician who is backed up by the military and the laws that they can get changed through courts and too much power in all 3 branches. i think we have seen what happens when one party exercises too much control over all three branches and then concentrates even greater power in the executive branch. Thankfully, the people of America have the built in safeguard of being able to overwhelmingly replace them with Democrats. The fact of the matter is that this is not an either or issue. We can effectively regulate against greedy, unethical entrepreneurs while also holding our politicians accountable. America happens to have strong safeguards for its people. Believe in the strength of your government. WMartin - it is true, we've never tried it. i think that my general argument points to the untenable nature of actually achieving such a state. It seems a little bit utopian honestly. An anarchic utopian vision in fact. i actually believe that human beings could achieve psychological, physical, and interpersonal success within an anarchic utopia (which would exist de facto alongside a truly free market). The drawback for me is that i believe it would inevitably be preceded by a long period of chaos and turmoil. Misery which i think can be avoided by a more conciliatory approach between all voices of political philosophy. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. It seems to me that the voters most aware of this possibility are the strongest force against it. i honestly disagree that people inherently want to be supported by their government. i do believe that people have experiences of cooperation on a daily basis and by extension believe that government can be a cooperative force for meeting our common needs. You see this manifest in farming and grocery co-ops. Rural people are aware of the powerful nature of cooperation and see a logical extension of it in local, regional and federal government. P.S. i also lost a post which converged with the ideas of WMartin's lost post so as to manifest a transcendent economic philosophy satisfying the hopes and anxieties of all involved. It even created earners out of the vegetative. (Stock futures, go figure.)

daniel johnson

Nov 16 2008

The idea that people who disagree compensate for each other to create a perfect ying-yang only works if we believe we're living in a perfect world. If we don't, then obviously we aren't. But most people, to borrow a phrase from Jorge Luis Borges, are more important than their opinions. Everybody has value no matter what they believe, and someone who is loving and empathetic in their day to day life will leave a positive imprint on the world that dwarfs the rightness or wrongness of their politics.

Tom Head

Nov 16 2008

Good column BTW, Amile. I hope to see your byline on more of them!

Tom Head

Nov 16 2008

Very good commentary everyone. I lost money on the bet that Amile would be left twisting in the wind by himself. All I can say now is, in my unbias opinion, the Democrats win again. Daniel Johnson should be on Obama's staff or run for office.

Walt

Nov 17 2008

Great post, Amile. Fiscal conservatives have not had much of a voice for the past 8 years. I am with you - individual freedom and responsibility should be articulated by the GOP. Instead, we get the tired retreads of gay marriage and big spending.

QB

Nov 17 2008

But, it got pretty nasty the weeks leading to the election. Our resident satirist Walt notwithstanding, crawdad, smile, I'm not sure I follow. We moderated in those weeks same as the rest of the time. I hope you're not mixing up "different opinion" with "nasty"; they are not the same, and we have always moderated "nasty," not "different opinion." Sadly, there are people all along the political spectrum who don't know the difference. No matter, though: I brought Amile in exactly at this point to try to get past partisanship and into good conversation across partisan and idelogical lines. The country has stopped rewarded the wingnuttiest Republicans, thankfully, so fighting that extremism doesn't have to take as much energy (although we still all need to be vigilant about it and call it out when we see/hear it, as we did hear regularly with Palin's ugly rhetoric). And I agree with every word in Fat Harry's last post; wow! ;-) Thanks, all. Let's keep it up.

DonnaLadd

Nov 17 2008

Crawdad wrote: But I do know that if I was going to move a country into a dictatorship or into socialism that it would be much smarter, excluding any major event that would push it faster, to make those slow little changes that increased government control and took a bit more money here and there. Crawdad, that is not solid logic. Accusing Obama of wanting incremental socialism is the same "reasoning" that leads one to blast American "anchor babies," or to compare Bush with Hitler (due to incremental "fascism" such as spying on Americans, etc.). Otherwise, no one who has seriously studied Obama's beliefs and record would call him a "socalist." It's simply not fact-based. Thus, based on both facts and logic, it's just not a solid argument, and throwing it around will encourage others who have studied him closer to not take you seriously. You will be better served, in this conversation and in being a good citizen in general, to let go of the boogeyman labels like "socialism," until you see actual evidence that it's true. And in general, the nation could use a lesson in what socialism, or communism for that matter, actually is (hint: it's not what they tried to tell us in this state when we were growing up). When you look at Obama through this lens, it's easy to see why the more education someone has, the more likely they are to support Obama. That's not an elitist statement; it is stating the fact that if you don't bother to educate yourself on things like "socialism," then you're much likely to fall prey to lies and demagoguery, even if you're well meaning.

DonnaLadd

Nov 17 2008

To illustrate how gone off or beyond reality many republicans are at this point, days and weeks before the election occurred little white kids were coming home and asking their parents if Obama is going to take all their money, hates whites or is a socialist although neither them nor apparently many southern republicans know what a socialist is. The children aren't expected to know but adults are. How can the intelligent among us have any respect for teachers, party members, principals, party leaders, or parents, et al, who teach or hold these opinions without any facts to support them? Gross ignorance and beloved stupidity are my best guess. These same kind of people who teach and believe these far-fetched lies will ask me why I beleive the south is still largely racist, stupid and beyond transforamtion. I'm always tempted to fall to my knees and ask the Lawd to mark them as exhibit 1.

Walt

Nov 17 2008

In his Times column this weekend, Frank Rich goes head-on at the elephant in the Republican room, pardon the expression: The icing on this rancid cake was the race-baiting of Obama and the immigrant bashing by G.O.P. hopefuls who tried to outdo the nativist fringe candidate Tom Tancredo. Yet Republican denial is unabated. In an interview with Palin the weekend before the election, a conservative Wall Street Journal editorialist asked whether "the G.O.P. doesn't in fact have a perception problem, that it is no longer viewed as a big tent." A perception problem? Hello — how about a reality problem? Yet the G.O.P. really does believe that it's all about perception. That's why its 2000 convention offered a stage full of break dancers and gospel singers, wildly outnumbering the black delegates in the audience. Bush and Karl Rove regarded diversity as a public-relations issue to be finessed with marketing. Round up some black extras! Sell "compassionate conservatism" by posing Bush incessantly with black schoolchildren! Problem solved! The 2004 Bush-Cheney campaign Web site even boasted a "Compassion" archive of photos of Bush with black folk, including Colin Powell. McCain used the same playbook this year, when he headed south to emote over Katrina victims and stock his own Web site with pictures depicting his adventures in black America. He had been a no-show in New Orleans during the six months after the hurricane hit, when his presence might have made a difference. In defeat, the party's thinking remains unchanged. Its leaders once again believe they can bamboozle the public into thinking they're the "party of Lincoln" by pushing forward a few minority front men or women. The reason why they are promoting Palin and the recently elected Indian-American governor of Louisiana, Bobby Jindal, as the party's "future" is not just that they are hard-line social conservatives; they are also the only prominent Republican officeholders under 50 who are not white men. The G.O.P. will have to dip down to a former one-term lieutenant governor of Maryland, Michael Steele, to put a black public face on its national committee. Such window dressing aside, there remains only one Republican idea for reaching out to minority voters: Richard Land, of the Southern Baptist Convention, recommends pandering to socially conservative blacks and Hispanics with yet more hyperventilation about same-sex marriage. Weird though it may be, gays were the sole minority group that actually voted slightly more Republican this year (though still going Democratic by 70 to 27 percent). Pitting blacks and Latinos against them could open up a whole new bloody front in the G.O.P. civil war. It is fitting that the Republican Party is now losing votes due to its southern strategy that worked for a while. It's hard to see a rebirth in the party without a real come-to-Jesus moment in their understanding of the problem with pitting themselves against "the other." The country came out against that full force this year, even some southern states. That will continue, based on younger demographics. The country is, finally, losing patience with race-baiting. If they decide to try to lure the black vote with gay marriage, they will also face a rude awakening. California may have voted for Prop 8, but it also elected Barack Obama.

DonnaLadd

Nov 17 2008

The end of that column is thought-provoking, too: Indeed, the only two "new" ideas that the G.O.P. is pushing in defeat are those they condemn when practiced by Democrats: celebrity and identity politics. Palin's manic post-election publicity tour, which may yet propel her and "the first dude" to "Dancing With the Stars," is almost a parody of the McCain ad likening Obama to Paris and Britney. Anyone who says so is promptly called out for sexism by the P.C. police of the newly "feminist" G.O.P. At the risk of being so reviled, let me point out that in the marathon of Palin interviews last week, the single most revealing exchange had nothing to do with her wardrobe or the "jerks" (as she called them) around McCain. It came instead when Wolf Blitzer of CNN asked for some substance by inviting her to suggest "one or two ideas" that Republicans might have to offer. "Well, a lot of Republican governors have really good ideas for our nation," she responded, without specifying anything except that "it's all about free enterprise and respecting equality." Well, yes, but surely there's some actual new initiative worth mentioning, Blitzer followed up. "Gah!" replied the G.O.P.'s future. "Nothing specific right now!" The good news for Democrats is a post-election Gallup poll finding that while only 45 percent of Americans want to see Palin have a national political future (and 52 percent of Americans do not), 76 percent of Republicans say bring her on. The bad news for Democrats is that these are the exact circumstances that can make Obama cocky and Democrats sloppy. The worse news for the country is that at a time of genuine national peril we actually do need an opposition party that is not brain-dead.

DonnaLadd

Nov 17 2008

Part of what continues to trip up southerners and republicans elsewhere is their strong beliefs in the new father of the confederacy - Ronald "Pagan" Reagan. No doubt, Reagan's true legacy is the comfortability and reappearance without reservation or shame of social and economic inequalities based largely on race. His position on this caused a feeding frenzy for racists (social conservatives as they like to call themselves)formerly afraid to be seen as what they are. They were and are as sick of civil rights and new deal policies as they are of Obama and he hasn't even started the job yet. They're not afraid anymore although there remain an unnecessary propensity to call the disease that largely propels their acts and beliefs something other than what they really are. I could be wrong but I doubt it. Again, I'll argue if republicans weren't practicing knowing inequality based on race, class, sex and culture for the past couple of decades then why is there so much fear of Obama or the likes causing some kind of payback. Most of us blacks are not mired in slavery, we're mired in the last 20 years or so. To top this off, the republican party with Reagan and the Bushes as their leaders found some sell out negroes (notice I didn't capitalize here) like Clarence Thomas, Samuel Pierce and others who were too happy and willing to ignore the truth of the matter about race, racism and obvious inequality just to have a high position. Once this started to happen in greater numbers extreme republicans fooled themselves into thinking they had gotten over racism and social inequality as a disease against humanity without any self evaluation, critical thinking or known involvement. They concluded those blacks who are still claiming and arguing racism and inequality just want more handouts, welfare and governmental baby sitting. I imagine everyone claims(Democrats and republicans)to believe in fiscal responsibility, a balanced budget, only necessary wars, resonsible government. The republican party has shown they don't really believe in these things for 8 years or better, and their constituents voted them back into office anyway vitiating any credible argument that they beleieve in these things.

Walt

Nov 17 2008

Certainly, Reagan put us on the anti-regulation, trickle-down path that has come full circle on the country, and on Republicans, now. There has been a remarkable revisionist view of him, but I suspect the history books will take care of that. That said, he at least had some intellectual curiosity unlike George W. Bush, and now Sarah Palin. So, it's all relative. And, he and his policy advisers indeed perfecting the southern strategy. It was a short-term strategy, and it worked for a while. But it wasn't a moral one.

DonnaLadd

Nov 17 2008

I want to see Palin run for president or some other high republican office. I can see exactly why so many republicans are so overwhelmed with her. She looks alright, wears pretty clothes (when the gop or rnc provides) and she's not burdened down with any great cerebration going on up stairs to change her outdated views, consequently she's free to remembers and practice her teachings about whom to hate, despise and deny full citizenship, civil rights, legal rights, and so on. Republicans couldn't poosibly dislike this.

Walt

Nov 17 2008

There is a Times column on MSNBC's front page talking about how the repugnant party can make a come back too. I don't know if we're referencing the same column or not, but the portion about family values and faith made me chuckle. What family values? Are you talking about the family values of David Vitter, Tom Delay, Ted Stevens, Congressmen Foley (page-stalker), Senator Craig (on the run lover) or whom? Now I believe republican have faith. How else could you do all this repugnant shit and still look people in the face claiming family values and expect to win re-election if you didn't have deep and abiding faith in your party, mankind and some surreal being that I don't know. Actually, upon much contemplation, it isn't faith at all because faith is believing in things you haven't seen. Republicans have played this game for over 2 decades or so without payback or noticeable fall out until now and 2 years ago. I saw Tom Delay on Real Foxxy News or some other show a few days ago espousing his beliefs and hating on Obama. I think Palin and Delay should be the ticket for the repugs in 4 years. Stevens is falling behind in Alaska and Al Frankens hopefully will win in Minnesota.

Walt

Nov 17 2008

Ladd, Why hasn't our new conservative columnist responded to any of the posts? He he just a Clarence Thomas type "marketing personality" created by JFP?

FrankMickens

Nov 17 2008

Well, Casual, we have him locked in the closet without Internet access. ;-) I don't know. He can respond at a time and place of his choosing.

DonnaLadd

Nov 17 2008

Looking at that map that showed the Republicans gaining votes in the Appalachian and Deepest South (ADS)regions, I see an opportunity for Obama to gain these voters respect with an extension of the New Deal. Question: Name the last populist leader who championed the economic issues germain to the disaffeted whites of the previously defined ADS Region? No I don't mean Bilbo: he didn't focus on the economic uplifing of his constituencies. Hint: Blacks had Dr. King and Malcolm X. Mexican's had Cesar Chavez Give Up? "disaffected whites" had FDR. You ask any pre boomer from the ADS region who was their favorite President and most will say FDR, because he bough home the bacon when they really needed it. Obama now has the opportunity to achieve the same popularity of FDR in the ADS region by promoting and supporting, and funding the educational and social services needed to free these "disaffected whites" from the plantation mentality of the coal mine plantations. This would not be pandering for votes..this is meeting the here-to-for neglected economic needs of the only Republican growth population.

FrankMickens

Nov 17 2008

Casual, it seems the republicans prefer to blog on weekends and late nights when we're at home with family practicing real family values or sleeping and can't respond. Sparring or conversing with a republican these days is like sparring with a fighter who runs the whole 15 rounds. We have laid down in the ring, turned our backs, sat on the stool and taken off the gloves, to no vail, sadly. Makes you want to play dirty, hit below the belt or bite an ear off, but I know if we did that they'll just go running claiming to be some kind of victim of a socialist or communist fighter.

Walt

Nov 17 2008

I dunno know, Walt. Tom Head should be rolling out of bed about now. He's the ultimate night owl, and he sure ain't a Republican. ;-) Seriously, the last thing Democrats and Independents such as myself should do now that this election is over is do what many Republicans tried to do over the last 8+ years—get cocky or try to shut down opposing views. We *all* have to work very hard to get others to take the high road and leave the nasty politics behind us. That means calling people out when they repeat falsehoods (like Palin's socalism and "palling with terrorists" scare tactics), but still focus on making the American tent wider and open to (respectful) opposition, and isolate the jerks on the fringes where they belong. I believe we can get there, but it'll take us all. And I agree with you, Casual. Obama (and others) have to *show*, not tell. That's why spending a lot of time playing partisan games is so useless. It's what you do that matters, and Obama will win over all-but-the-most-partisan once he shows them how much they've been lied to about him and his policies.

DonnaLadd

Nov 17 2008

I know Tom isn't a republican. I agree that Obama should try to help everyone, especially the disaffected whites who have voted discriminantly to their peril for a party that uses them only. I'm sure Obama will make great efforts to help them too as any decent leader would. However, I will bet my last piece of bread he could never win over the south, the Delay-types, the Gingrish-types, the Limpbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly and Coulter types, the extreme partisans or very many moderate republicans. Thesee people are free market capitalists who can care less about the masses and they do not operate on common or democratic facts or the truth as shared by the masses of people. Instead they operate on the superiority or white supremacy tip and they dream of and long to turn back the new deal policies of yesteryear, including civil rights, human rights, social equality, race unity, et al. I'm willing to wait and see what they do before arguing this point further, but I'll be reading and practicing my argument as if I'll be arguing my points in a year or two or later. Some new-deal-like policies are just what the doctor ordered to save and give some peoples a chance at living the American dream.

Walt

Nov 17 2008

Walt, I agree with your definition of the "unreachable-economic" Republicans; however, these unreachables represent a very small percentage of the current Republican faithful. The one main issue that the Republican' have to lure the conservative righ is abortion, and I have seen reports that the leadership of the "right to lifers" are seriously looking to join with the "free choicers" to work together to design and provide services that will make abortions a rarity. Somthing about providing education, economic hope and a clear path to economic self sufficiency...duh!

FrankMickens

Nov 17 2008

This says a lot about the Republican turmoil, eh? (Me Heart Telnaes.)

DonnaLadd

Nov 17 2008

Alright Casual I'll take a good look for this.

Walt

Nov 17 2008

I agree with Donna that we shouldn't get cocky or shut down opposing views. Besides, there is nothing I like punching more than a hauling-tail republican or punching bag. I don't see any differecne. At least I have 4 years to punch myself back into shape. Go Palin.

Walt

Nov 17 2008

Very white, very, very, very white. No doubt about that. But it hasn't always been. The Republican Party used to stand for something far better than it has in recent years. And there are well-meaning Republicans, just as there were well-meaning supporters of Frank Melton who were sold a bill of goods. I don't say that to justify anything ugly, but I do believe that we have to try to appeal to the best in people. The darkest elements of the GOP are now isolated together and stand out like sore thumbs. (I can't tell you how many white people have told me since the election about someone they knew making a racist statement about Obama and shocking the hell out of them because they had no idea they were bigots.) The point now is that the Republican Party will fall if it stays the current course, or latches onto a Palin to "redeem" them. That is simple math. America is changing, and the old divisiveness is not going to play any more, and that includes against homosexuals (which has become the new group to hate, per those who desire to hate). I'm hoping we can appeal to the better instincts of some people who have called themselves Republican to speak out against the nastiness, lies and corruption, and remake the party. The country won't do well over the long haul with just one ruling party in power, but a hate-filled GOP is not the alternative, and it will die an ugly death. And it's time that the Culture Wars end. Republicans have sold out to wingnuttery for long enough.

DonnaLadd

Nov 17 2008

Republicans making bigoted or racist remarks about Obama or blacks. I'm shocked! He's our president and deserves so much better. I didn't believe the reports about the number of reports of desired or attempted assassination attempts on Obama. I didn't know republicans noticed, isolated or gave any value to skin color. I didn't think there was anything wrong with pandering to and inviting the klan to join up with you. I thought the republican policies were mere anti-democratic policies that had nothing to do with race at all. I've been told this for over 20 years and had become convinced! You know I always suspected their apparently anti-black policies merely looked anti-black although blacks were willy nilly thrown from jobs and into the unemployment lines. But I must tell you I had begun to think republican policies that violently and psychologically damaged blacks were merely accidental although the accidents kept happening frequently for better than 20 years. I was convinced something superior like states' right, smaller government, personal responsibility, et al, were the only thing republicans cared about. I'm crushed to say the least. I was about to switch over to the grand ole party of make-believe.

Walt

Nov 17 2008

Often I have to talk about race to large captive audiences because of the work that I do. Once I mention race you should see how the room full of people react. I wish I could film and show it more broadly. You should see the objections and rulings that soon transpire, and the anger, grimacing, uneasiness, and number of color changes and expressions that happen almost instantly. I become the racist because I mentioned the elephant in the room. Since I know many of them are going to hate me anyway by the time the matter is finally concluded, I don't bite my tongue during the discussion in as much as I'm allowed to discuss the matter. The persons beyond or over the race matter are glad I mentioned it. Some even tells us of comments they heard racists make during the process. However, rarely will anyone admit they're racist or anti-black. Thank God I can read faces, expressions, comments, body languages, hateful looks, etc..

Walt

Nov 17 2008

Some people on the left are going to be angry with Obama as he tries to rope in moderate Republicans and Democrats with some concessions, but it will lead to some lucidity among some of those who keep moaning studpidity about socialism *that they obviously don't understand the meaning of* IF he can partner with moderate Republicans such as McCain, Specter, the ones from Maine and Hegel on some issues and appoints one or two to important posts. It seems obvious that he is going to make a serious effort to reach out to them so that the incontrovertible wingnut wing of the Republican Party is left to twist in the wind. Maybe they will learn something then.

FreeClif

Nov 17 2008

Whitley, I say, who cares? One reason I like Obama is that it is obvious that he is not going to pander to any party no matter what. Of course, he needs to reach out to moderates and even moderate conservatives, and if the partisan lefties don't like it, so be it. And as for the wingnuts who don't bother to look up the meaning of "socialism" before they start throwing it around, screw 'em. He's going to make a fool out of them and all their doomsday scenarios without trying very hard. And it's their own fault for believing wingnuttery without bothering to check it out. Nothing drives me crazier than hearing someone just repeat stuff without knowing if it's true, and then you challenge them for the source, and they start stuttering. I hope and pray we are going into a more intelligent era of political thought, led by a coalition of people who aren't blind partisans and who challenge Palin-esque dogma and call it out for exactly what it is: appeals to bigotry (talk about an insult). Certainly, that kind of coalition is who elected Obama. Personally, I could give a damn about party. I don't attack or defend a party just because it's a certain party. I both endorse and criticize based on facts and policies. And if the parties flip again, and the Republicans once more become the more progressive party as it used to be, then they will draw more praise from me. Party be damned. All of 'em.

DonnaLadd

Nov 17 2008

Lefties who get upset when Obama acts in moderate ways are suffering from the same mistake the hard right is making when they scream socialist. Neither one of them have looked at the overwhelming evidence that Obama holds a mixture of beliefs which are neither characteristic of the Left or Right. If i had to throw out a quick one for baquan - Obama is an economic conservative who understands the social responsibility of the American government to counterweight tyranny in America. As ladd said, Obama will have no hard time peeling off the remaining non-extremist Republicans by successfully completing his agenda over the next four years. Let's just hope that they don't mistake his successful policies with Socialism and start getting hammer and sickle tattoos. Something funny i don't hear mentioned enough is whether or not John McCain and Sarah Palin made this election a mandate on Socialism. Is Barack Obama's election a sign that American's overwhelming wish for a socialist president?

daniel johnson

Nov 17 2008

Honestly, I don't think enough people took McCain or Palin seriously enough on the "socialism" ploy or just about anything else. They were ridiculous caricatures of candidates by the end. But if Republicans keep pandering to wingnuttery, they will keep alienating people as they did here. It's remarkable that the "base" wants a woman to be their leader who had some of the highest unfavorables we've ever seen in a candidate for one of the two highest offices. The polling was right on otherwise; you have to assume it was there, too. She scared the hell out of people across the spectrum especially for a pocket. And that pocket now wants to make her the leader of the party.

DonnaLadd

Nov 17 2008

Donna writes: "I dunno know, Walt. Tom Head should be rolling out of bed about now. He's the ultimate night owl, and he sure ain't a Republican. ;-)" Bwahaha! Thanks for this. And I agree re the socialism charge. To be honest I don't think that plays well in most of the country because... (a) it's been overused, (b) it reeks of race-baiting and McCarthyism, and (c) it's been 25 years since the Soviets were our biggest problem. But it does still seem to work in some parts of the South, so maybe that was McCain/Palin's last-ditch attempt to keep states like North Carolina and Virginia red? If it was, they blew it.

Tom Head

Nov 18 2008

I hope Whitley, Daniel and Donna are right about moderate republicans, but I'll have to see them respond to success no matter who brings it about to believe it's possible. I've long stopped assuming party is less of a concern to them. How else can you explain the second election of George Bush, and the elections of many republican governors, senators and representatives who still uses the southern strategy as a ploy to divide and win elections. I mean how do you explain this beyond all that cheating in Ohio. Some people choose to make assumptions and extrapolations based on what they hope for, I choose to make them based on the history of a person or group. I'm always glad to see history gets changed for the better, but I'm usually not surprised when it repeats itself over and over again on many occasions. Truth be told I'm probably liberal, conservative and moderate on some matters, but since I have such a low opinion of republicans they think that makes me liberal. I imagine all of us are many things to some degree. Obama would be wise to do most of his dancing with the girl he brought to the prom and helped elect him prom king since the other girls and boys have proven, by and large, they can't be trusted and don't really care for him, no matter the latent smiles, recently opened arms and claims of welcome. Don't get me wrong, I'm not opposed to dancing with the girl(s) or boy(s)who is/are just looking for a better way. Even a crocodile is nice and welcoming when it's in peril or near death, but when it's healthy and most able, it kicks more tail than an angry giant whale. To quote the prophet, actor and rapper Flavor Flav, "You can't trust it."

Walt

Nov 18 2008

Something funny i don't hear mentioned enough is whether or not John McCain and Sarah Palin made this election a mandate on Socialism. Is Barack Obama's election a sign that American's overwhelming wish for a socialist president? Interesting point Daniel, I guess it would depend on if the people who voted for him believed the claims that he is a socialist.

WMartin

Nov 18 2008

Speaking of Obama's creed to unite, it seem the Democratic party is considering keeping Joe "Turncoat" Liberman as a member and furthermore allowing him to keep his chairmanship on the Homeland Security post. How awful to reward treason. I would take back the position, throw him out of the party and give him a swift Negro kick to the backside. Lieberman loves the Democrat(ic) party and Barack like Judas loves Jesus, and he proves it at the Farce on Minnesota. Nontheless, since it looks like the Democrats will see if they can get any mileage out of Lieberman, I hope they treat him like the kid you know ain't really yours and you further know will soon grow up to try and murder you.

Walt

Nov 18 2008

I agree, baquan, that Mississippi is stuck near the bottom on most indicators because we are "led" by politicians who want us to stay stuck in the past, or regress. They do it for personal gain (and for that of the people/companies/industries—can we say tobacco?) that prop them up. Many of our best and brightest leave as a result of being pushed out by these people, and as a result we suffer culturally and economically. It's up to you, me and every other Mississippian who cares about our state to change it. And make no doubt: You can take actions every single day toward that goal. We're seeing progress already, but the arc is long, as Dr. King said. Roll up your sleeves, and believe.

DonnaLadd

Nov 18 2008

To futher comment on Lieberman. Since you know his real daddy is over at the GOP or RNC, you keep a close watch on him, you ration his food and the information he knows about the family, you make him eat with his hands so as to keep all sharp objects away form him, you refuse to teach him to hunt or fish so as to make it harder for him to harm you and to survive without you, and you confine his living quarters so as to limit any damage he can bring to bear against you. If none of this works for any extended period of time, you take the boy behind the woodshed and do what must be done.

Walt

Nov 18 2008

That's the movement we've been pushing and helping build, Baquan, so you're in the right place. ;-) I've seen amazing progress in recent years here, with some setbacks (like people voting for Melton). It's about a community taking responsibility for itself and each other. On crime, for instance, the police and the mayor don't, and can't, "solve" it. When the city figures that out, it will go a lot further toward actually lessening crime. Until then, we'll stay on the same treadmill.

DonnaLadd

Nov 18 2008

MSNBC is now reporting that Joe "The GOP Snitch" Lieberman has retained chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committe post due largely to Obama's request to keep the two-faced dirty dog in the party. To thank the Democrats for keeping him on, Liberman lied repeatedly, more or less, saying he regrets some of th things he's said recently. He reportedly then said, "I wonder what I have to do to get a really big job around here. I ran for vice-president of the Democrats and lost, then I kissed republican booty for 8 years and they lost it all. The Lawd hasn't been real good to ole switching Joe Lieberman."

Walt

Nov 18 2008

Alright, Baquan, you're over the top with the name-calling. If someone called you that, you would be screaming bloody hell, as you should be. Obviously, that part is out.

DonnaLadd

Nov 18 2008

No problem, Baquan. Thanks for having the class to apologize. ;-)

DonnaLadd

Nov 18 2008

The problem Baquan, et al, is that a cookie thief is not unlike a crack addict or vampire who has partaken of the republican nectar - big money, arrogance, high class harlots, spank-me ladies, several houses, big ass boats, lying, stealing, et al. Joe the Snitch has tasted the vampire blood of the republicans which is arguably more addicting than crack cocaine. I saw him drinking excessivley and snorting while at the Farce on Minnesota. Surely, he's going to disappoint Barack and the Democrats for no man can serve two masters, you will love one and hate the other. Barack better have someone watching and ready to threaten and harm Joe the Snitch at all times.

Walt

Nov 18 2008

Baquan black republicans don't do enough to prove their dedication to the cause of republicanism. Nor do they go far enough into the black communities to recruit blacks to their ways of thinking. How grand and statement-making, for lack of a better or real word, it would be if black republicans or white republicans had the gall to join hands and walk down the dark alley-ways of all major inner cities holding signs saying I'm a republican and this is what I espouse or believe in. The reason more blacks haven't become republicans or conservatives is because republicans, black or otherwise, don't come where the real Negroes are to preach the message. The distance, detachment and disconnectedness of televison and radio can't reach the right ones of us. If they would just follow these instructions it wouldn't be long before many of them indeed became real martyrs worthy of the title for their beliefs. I would attend some of their last rites, and rise and say "at last, there are some real martyring black conservatives. God rest their souls."

Walt

Nov 18 2008

Walt wrote . That is the essence of the Obama strategy that was articulated clearly by the Dem from Indiana on the Rachel Maddow show last week. He stated that they don't have anything to lose by giving Lieberman another chance because they can snatch him from that spot anytime they get ready! If he doesn't act right, then Barack will be able to cut him out while appearing to be clearly justified in doing so. If he chopped him at the knees now, Lieberman would get sympathy play (better than no play at all). Now, if Lieberman double crosses him AGAIN, Obama will be able to pull out his sword, cut him off at the knees AND bask in the sympathy due to one who has been wronged not once, but twice --- BRILLIANT. They have Lieberman right where they want him. Obama got a higher percentage of the vote in Connecticut than Lieberman did in his last run. If Lieberman double crosses him a second time he will lose his chairmanship and THEN we will take his Senate seat. He didn't go to Harvard for no reason. I doubt they will see it that way on Daily Kos.

FreeClif

Nov 18 2008

Obama is keeping his Eyes on the Prize. The Prize is not revenge, but change we can believe in. We will not get change without 60 votes we can count on. The math is that Lieberman voted with Obama 90% of the time, probably 100% of the time on domestic issues. So, we can count on him helping us toward 60 at least 90% of the time. That is further incentive to be forgiving. Dean elaborates: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/18/dean-applauds-move-to-kee_n_144667.html *Behold, I am sending you out as sheep in the midst of wolves, so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves*. The serpentine logic in this move is chilling!

FreeClif

Nov 18 2008

Thanks Whitley for Dean's commentary or insight. That Barack Obama is a bad mother shut your mouth. A few minutes ago, I was reading the New York Times and came across a couple of dudes discussing what went wrong with the republican party. The two dudes were Brink Linsey (Cato institute) and David Frum (American Enterprise Institute). They pontificated many things such as (1) the refusal to change with the times because the broke stick dog, Limpbaugh, is telling republicans to hold on to the same old tired refrains, (2) too much anti-intellectualism with the intelligent republicans hauling tail elsewhere, (3) they have lost the center of American society, (4) the country becoming more socially liberal, (5) an upshot of libertarians becoming more attractive, (6) too many perverts, crackheads, crystal meth users, thieves, robbers, etc., (Joe Six Packs and Joe the Plumber notwithstanding, (7) the shat done hit the fan, finally (8) Palin, Dole, Hutchinson, Bay Buchannon, Anne Coulter, Sean Hannity, O'Reilly, Real Foxy News, et al, (7) and last, the Lawd is tired of so much ugliness. All I can say is Amen. Some of this stuff may have derived from my on the scene reporters as well (Tally, Tojo and Scooter Bug).

Walt

Nov 18 2008

Here's the link to Emile's bio and his many qualifications for political analysis (waltz and modern dance skills, athletic physique, and willing to work unpaid, etc.). http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3157803/resume

HardTravelin

Nov 18 2008

Good news in Alaska: Begich's lead is growing over that scoundrel Ted Stevens, now up nearly 2,400 votes. Go Begich; the last thing the country needs is for Palin to get a chance to deposit herself into the Senate. This one should be over tonight. Remarkably, the Dems still have a shot at 60 seats, if Franken should win in the recount (only down about 200 votes) and should Martin pull it out over Chambliss (another scoundrel) in Georgia. I'd hate to be a Georgian in the next couple weeks.

DonnaLadd

Nov 18 2008

Thanks, HardTravelin, for helping prove Amile is real to these dazed and confused Democrats. ;-) Oh, and he's paid.

DonnaLadd

Nov 18 2008

UPDATE: Stevens is toast. He lost by 3,724 votes. Woo, hoo!

DonnaLadd

Nov 18 2008

Fantastic news! So the absolute worst we'll do is 58-42--which with Susan Collins and Arlen Specter almost certainly means a filibuster-proof majority for a lot of Democratic proposals already (such as the ENDA and--crucially--Supreme Court appointments), but two more would be even better, though I have a hard time envisioning Republicans being disciplined enough to bring in every single party senator for a filibuster. I would LOVE to see Al Franken in the U.S. Senate. Never liked his Air America stuff but I loved his Indecision 2000 material and his writing, and it's about time we had a former SNL cast member in Congress. And I've always liked his ideas. Paul Wellstone would smile, I think, at the idea of Al Franken representing his state in the Senate. Martin-Chambliss is the least encouraging of the three as Chambliss has been polling pretty consistently ahead, but it would be nice to see Martin get rid of the guy who won by essentially accusing Max Cleland (who lost three limbs in Vietnam) of being an anti-American al-Qaeda sympathizer.

Tom Head

Nov 18 2008

Corey Booker is THE MAN! Look him up now at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cory_Booker. Joe Lieberman is currently the Senator most beholden to Barack Obama. i'm sure if he doesn't find a way to please his benefactor, he will lose his priviledges. A brilliant move by Obama if you ask me. For all practical purposes, the committee may be under the influence of Obama more than ever with this arrangement. As for Amile ~ i will vouch for him. Regardless of his qualifications for political analysis (i have very little myself on paper), he is a committed member of his community who gives of himself for the greater good. He works with me on the Jackson Arts Collective Steering Committee and has volunteered his time more than once. He'll be a Democrat eventually. ;) (That ones for Amile)

daniel johnson

Nov 18 2008

Ladd, So you mean to tell me the ever silent Amile is the Elvistic re-incarnation of the ever "actorful" Ronald Regan? This new information sheds a new light on the old rhetoric Amile had deined to presnet us with. He's a staunch Republican because he "just wants to be alone!"

FrankMickens

Nov 19 2008

Ladd, Any you pay pay guy? Please, please please tell me I've missed the joke!

FrankMickens

Nov 19 2008

We need Franken in the house to call Limpaugh a big fat drugged-out idiot. We still haven't gotten much republican action on this thread. Sure, a republican will run out of the bushes in the dark of night and hit you while you aren't looking and run back into the swamps to hide. They will even slip a punch or two and run for cover, but they won't stay around or the course when you start hitting back. I think it's something about standing on shaky ground, and they have been standing on shaky ground every since most of the public saw true reality and put them down. We don't have to worry about any comeback from the republicans no more than we do about the dinosaurs returning or Amile responding to any of our commentary. It's kind of like the Mike Tyson and Michael Spinks fight. Michael looked real good until Tyson got in the ring and started throwing punches with bad intentions. Spinks had the look of being knocked out on his face long before he suffered the first blow. Amile, we're ready to rumble. Please respond or submit your next column for devouring. We're chopping at he bits like a fighting dog getting ready to do big business at the Michael Vicks' dog fighting school.

Walt

Nov 19 2008

Lol... that's what we need. A U.S. Senator to call a talk show host names. That should elevate the debate. Maybe we can get a Supreme Court Justice to give someone a noogie on the steps of the courthouse. I'd pay a dollar to see that.

WMartin

Nov 19 2008

Don't count the Republicans out Walt. I think you could end up experiencing one of those horror movie surprises if you do: *What?! Reagan? We thought you were dead! Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!....Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!* I think that being called an Uncle Tom by Bin Laden et. al. will is an excellent credential right now for Barack :-).

FreeClif

Nov 19 2008

Dick Morris argues that it is the Republican President who has led to the government buying interests in major companies (insurance, banking and possibly the auto industry). http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/11/bushs_legacy_european_socialis.html Republicans for Socialism! Who would'a thunk it? I guess if Republicans do it it is free enterprise, but if a Dem does it then it is communism? So, what it is depends on who does it. Sounds like Bill Clinton-like logic to me. What is *is*. Ha Ha. The laughs just keep coming. Republicans would do well to heed this advice from one of their own: http://townhall.com/Columnists/MichaelMedved/2008/11/19/the_dangers_of_premature_obama_bashing

FreeClif

Nov 19 2008

WMartin, Al Franken, like most Democrats, is not going to be a phony like a republican. You know, preach abstinence and fidelity while being the best paying customer at Ms. Wee Wees Whore House, although married and a Deacon and Sunday School Teacher at First Evangelical Church. Lots of people have been called many things by U. S. Senators. The republican party is exhibit 1 for this. Go Democrats. Whitley they won't be back. The south is their only breeding ground nowadays.

Walt

Nov 19 2008

By the way, WMartin, I doubt it would be hard to get Clarence Thomas or Antonio Scalia to do that kind of business on the courthouse steps. If Clarence will do the hambone dance without any command from the repugnant party ain't no telling what he'll do if either George Bush commanded the act or he deemed it helping the party. I don't know what a noogie is, but I assume it some kind of freaky, deaky, republican, sex act.

Walt

Nov 19 2008

Main Entry: Noogie noog·ie Pronunciation: \ˈnu̇-gē\ Function: noun Etymology: origin unknown Date: 1972 : the act of rubbing one's knuckles on a person's head so as to produce a mildly painful sensation

WMartin

Nov 19 2008

My bad.

Walt

Nov 19 2008

Whitley, you are so exactly right. Republican's are more and more leaving fiscal conservatives behind. While it used to be the only home for us. The neo-pubs are making Democrats look like penny pinchers. I was watching some Morning show on CNN Tuesday and the soon-to-be minority whip likened the credit markets to a public utility. Free marketeers they are not. Socialists? They fit the description as much or more than Obama does. No problem Walt, you wouldn't happen to have the address for Ms. Wee wee's would you? ;-)

WMartin

Nov 19 2008

Level-headed fiscal conservatives are a dying, if not extinct breed. They certainly don't seem to exist among the current GOP leaders on Capitol Hill, despite their claims to the contrary.

Jeff Lucas

Nov 19 2008

Al Qaeda's #2 guy has called Barack Obama a "house n*gga"!? What? Man, I could have sworn from the McCainiacs during the campaign that Al Qaeda LOVED Obama...

Jeff Lucas

Nov 19 2008

Sen. Hagel (R) is taking care of calling out the conservative hosts. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/18/hagel-unrestrained-takes_n_144603.html Al Franken wrote the book - he's got bigger fish to fry now.

daniel johnson

Nov 19 2008

This is great Daniel. I said earlier the intelligent people are bolting from the GOP faster than a burglar about to meet a come home early homeowner. Before long the only thing left there will be the crack-heads, sack-heads and tack-heads led by Rusty Limpbaugh, Anne-Can't-Get-A-Man Coulter, Sean Hannity (the father, son and devil) and O'Reilly (tell daddy what you got on, baby). How awful. It's refreshing to see a republican willing to tell it like it is.

Walt

Nov 19 2008

Jeff, it seems that one of Al Qaeda's complaints is that Obama is not Malcolm X and he is not the kind of guy they would like to pal around with. How can you have any fun with a guy who is trying to prove his love for America. They DID endorse McCain. McCain is more like Malcolm X than Barack what with being so angry and mavericky.

FreeClif

Nov 19 2008

Not sure I understand this post. Malcolm X would have hated Al Qaeda and Al Qaeda would have hated Malcolm X. While Malcolm understood the need for violence in self-defense, he was not a terrorist and he certainly would have condemned the indiscriminate targeting of civilians that Al Qaeda does. Malcolm also wasn't much of a theocrat, and the version of Islam he adhered to would not have made him very popular with the Salafists. Sorry for the semi-non sequitur but Malcolm really gets a bad rap. He was a really good radical who was taken from us way too soon.

Tom Head

Nov 19 2008

Would also add that black liberation has NEVER been one of Al Qaeda's priorities. They're a multiracial group, but they preach Saudi cultural supremacy in a way that Malcolm would have found extremely distasteful, particularly Al-Qaeda's virtual deification of a time in the region's history when the trans-Saharan slave trade was at its peak. One would really have to be blind to black history to find Al-Qaeda's vision of a global resurrection of the medieval caliphate appealing from a black liberation POV. And Al-Zawahiri criticizing anybody's street cred as a black man is so comically clueless that I half expect him to end his next tape by telling us that Bart Simpson is sleeping with our wives. This is right up there with Ralph Nader's "Uncle Tom" remark, except that Nader at least has a track record of caring about black civil rights.

Tom Head

Nov 19 2008

I was merely being facetious with the Malcolm X comment. It was a spoof of the Al Qaeda claim that stated Obama was not an authentic African American leader like Malcolm X was. They included a quote from Malcolm X in their propaganda deal. Actually, the quote that they used was from Malcolm before he began to moderate his views and language and was trying to work more closely with some of the leaders of the Civil Rights movement who were the target of his *house negroes* comment that Al Qaeda attempted to play on. I see comedy can be dangerous here :-).

FreeClif

Nov 19 2008

Eek. As you can probably tell, I haven't actually read/heard the Al-Qaeda remarks yet. :P

Tom Head

Nov 20 2008

Re Lieberman: Speaking at the RNC was bad form, but I'd rather have Joe Lieberman in the Democratic caucus than Ronnie Musgrove any day of the week. At least Lieberman is pro-choice, pro-LGBT, pro-civil rights, and believes in at least some concept of separation of church and state. He was wrong on the Iraq War and wrong on Obama-McCain, but personally I'd have let him keep his committee seat and I'm glad the caucus did.

Tom Head

Nov 20 2008

I feel you on Lieberman, but I like the Powell Doctrine of overwhelming force. It will be best to have as many possible fillibuster over ride votes as possible in case someone switches sides on a particular issue. Hence the reason I supported Musgrove even though I didn't agree with some of his positions and past actions or lack of action. He was a supporter of the children's health insurance program expansion and of increased funding for after school programs for low-income families.

FreeClif

Nov 20 2008

Obama called me too asking if I wanted any position or hook-up for helping out on his campaign. I told him I wasn't about to leave the Jackson metro area and was having too much fun performing regular beatdowns on republicans down here to just up and leave. He said just stay the course but if I ever wanted anything just let him know. We also discussed Joe the Snake and we agreed it's alright to keep him on for now.

Walt

Nov 20 2008

Senator Ted "Lil Man" Stevens conceded defeat today. Upon leaving he said to his republican colleagues, " I didn't get all I wanted, but I got all I could. People are watching republicans more nowadays, and it's getting increasingly harder to steal as much stuff as we used to steal in the good ole days. I don't leave you bowed. I leave you as a proud republican having had my hands, feet and head in the cookie jar my entire career while I served in the senate. Some of y'all stole and took a whole lot more than I did, but I neither hate the game nor the player. God bless y'all, good bye and get all you can before it's too late."

Walt

Nov 20 2008

Too funny...I see his colleagues appreciate a real player: He got a standing ovation.

FreeClif

Nov 21 2008

HardTravelin, I have a suggestion for you in presenting a stronger argument. First of all, before posting web links in hopes to degrade the author, double check to be sure that you actually spell the authors' name correctly. Secondly, credibility comes from presenting both sides of the story. You posting a link of A-M-I-L-E's IMDB site and nothing else depicted a sad display of research-negligence and cherry picking on your part. You neglected to mention the following information concerning Mr. Wilson's experience: 1. Field Operations Director for Tate Reeves for Treasurer 2. 2 years as Executive Director of the Mississippi Federation of College Republicans 3. Consultant for local and statewide clients 4. Studied it in college including earning a certificate from Georgetown 5. Has volunteered on numerous campaigns Perhaps you still believe he is unqualified to speak out on political issues? A man who, since 2000, has worked in the political realm does not fit the "unqualified" ticket. If you want to talk about unqualified men though, I am happy to discuss recent politicians who have risen to power with you.

Elizabeth R. Bolton

Nov 30 2008

Elizabeth R. Bolton...all that conservative crap, the failed ideologies, the racism, and the mindless conservative talking points just don't fly anymore. You conservatives and your hero Bush have had their chance for the past 8 years and have brought America almost to it's knees. Thanks to conservatives, neo-cons, republicans and Bush, America is on the verge of economic collapse; we are engaged in lost cause foreign wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; we have been shown to the entire world in photographs and testimony to be a nation operating torture prisons at Guantanamo and Abu Graib with Bush's approval; the Clinton surplus has been squandered and the country is in a massive deficit and melt down; the survivors of Katrina, our own American brothers and sisters, were throw-away people to Bush; the post-911 goodwill was squandered on the Bush lunacy and the entire world is breathing a huge sigh of relief that his days are numbered, that your kind have been totally discredited, and a hopeful new day is dawning. Skip the stridency on behalf of conservatives, Elizabeth. Every conservative should be hanging their head in shame at how thoroughly the Bush years have damaged this nation, damaged our own people, other peoples around the world and our reputation around the world. In other words, shut up; can it; take your conservative ideologies of divisiveness, war, hate, class warfare, racism, and material plunder somewhere else and flush them down where they belong. You lost. Be a patriot now and get behind our new president-elect. Give President Obama and the Democratic Party your full support in the hope that they just might be able to repair some of the damage Bush and conservatives have done to this nation. And if you believe in a God, young Amile and your conservatives should get down on your knees and pray that no Bush, no conservative, and no Republican, will ever get control of the leadership of these United States again until the end of time, or longer. That's all the time I have to waste on you...WE have work to do.

HardTravelin

Dec 1 2008

HardTravelin. It would appear that Biden has instigated a trend among Democrats; "be a patriot, pay higher taxes, "be a patriot, support Obama." Just as an fyi for you, a patriot is someone who is a proud supporter or defender of his or her country and its way of life. I am very proud of my country and I will fight to the death to defend America's way of life. So perhaps reconsider if in the future you feel tempted to accuse my character of lacking patriotism. You made some interesting points and I appreciate your feedback. Something I didn't understand that you said because it sounded kind of vague, was "failed ideologies, the racism, and the mindless conservative talking points"... What failed ideologies? And racism? Elaborate if you can... Careful on the issue of racism though ... You said Republicans are racist but that is just nonsensical and you know it. I mean among many other examples, America's Secretary of State is a black Republican woman! Next. Where do you go to get your information no the war in Iraq? Do you know people in the military? Do you read articles online? Have you been to Iraq? Are you aware that before American troops surged into Iraq they made a list of 15 objectives, and as of now, all but 2 of those objectives have been achieved? I hope you are able to answer yes to at least some of those questions. You are very passionate about these issues and I respect that. I am sure you would agree with me that our nation could do with more passionate individuals. But try not to let your passion turn into anger or sarcasm toward others who disagree with you – that only creates hostility and it really is not very patriotic of you at all. The Clinton surplus: ok, to avoid going into a thousand word essay about the "Clinton Surplus" as you referred to it, I will sum up. Bill Clinton took money from social security and spent it. In doing so he created a false illusion of having extra money to spend, but now thanks to Clinton (not Bush mind you), Americas economy is, as you rightly inferred, on its knees. This is another reason why you need to start talking to people in the military. During times of National crisis, the Mayor has to ask the Governor to ask the President of the United States to call in the National Guard; in that order. During the Katrina ordeal, Mayor Ray Nagin (who happens to be a Democrat), neglected to speak with Barbour, and his silence is the reason for the delay in emergency response for all the victims of the hurricane. Do you know why he waited so long to issue a state of emergency? He was worried about the liability and financial deficit if the city of New Orleans were to shut down hotels and restaurants. So he kept people in the Superdome for days, where rapes and deaths occurred because there were so many people packed in it with nothing to do but wait for him to make the call to the Governor. If you want to blame anyone for the way Hurricane Katrina was handled, Nagin is your man. There was nothing Bush could do but sit on his hands and wait, just like everyone else. You are right about people around the world suffering from the economic crisis America is in. And you can blame the Democrats for it. Are you aware that Congress, for the past several years, has been run by Democrats? Republicans have "brought America almost to its knees" you said ...How so? Economically? Are you aware that Congress has for the past several years been run by Democrats? A large percentage of the people who voted for Obama in the general elections were not even aware of that fact, and most of them who were unaware said had they known Democrats have been calling the shots in Congress, they would not have voted for Obama. As an example, check out this video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-GW3i9hV7Y I would write more but as I am a college student I must return to my homework in preparation for finals. I really do appreciate the debate with you, and I hope you didn't waste too much of your time typing a response to my first message. Within each day time seems to slip past like sand in your hand eh? Take care. Elizabeth

Elizabeth R. Bolton

Dec 11 2008

Elizabeth, You said "HardTravelin, I have a suggestion for you in presenting a stronger argument. I say, "Elizabeth, I have a suggestion for you in presenting a stronger argument." Don't concentrate on spelling so much...its the fact's that are important. Some facts you got wrong: 1) Nagin didn't call Barbour, because Hailey Barbour is not the Guvnor of Louisiana. 2) It takes more than a simple and slim majority to control Congress. A political party cannot "control" Congress unless it has the Presidency and at least a 60% majority in the Senate; or a 2/3's majority in both houses of Congress (High school Civics 101) The Republican minority executed a record number if fillibusters to keep Democrats from getting their programs in place. Democrats didn't, and still don't, control Congress. 3) Whatever shenanigans Clinton used to get his surplus...G. Bush screwed things up so bad he couldn't do the same. 4) Racism plus, or minus (your choice), "Tokinism" still equals Racism. Connie Rice, like Clarence Thomas, in my opinion are just that..tokins presented by the Republicans to show a kinder face. Did you watch the Republican Convention? Where were the latinos, blacks, poor whitws, handicapped, gays, etc. Have you noted their Republcan policies where they summarially cut millions from programs designed to help minorities (including the White poor), while losing billions of dollars of cash sent to Iraq on an airplane? Not to mention the multibillions spent on private contractors who steal and are not prosecuted. 5) Tax increases? If I recall the proposed tax increases will be for people with Gross Adjusted Incomes of over $250,000.00. I assume that you are afraid that your trust fund will lose an additional 10% to taxes. You are rich aren't you? In my opinion, only rich people and fools are Republicians. And I'm sure with your college studies you are certainly not foolish and you understand that the basis of modern economics is every man doing what is in her best interest (i.e. the rational person)..unless of course they are fools, or non-wealthy Republicans. Good luck in bringing your George Bush-ian and John McCain-ian "D" grade up to a Sarah Palin-ian "D+". Study hard---er I apologise in advance for the spelling errors and typos..Hey, I already got my degrees Take care!

FrankMickens

Dec 11 2008

Folks, lose the personal snark. Tis the season to be nice, or get booted. OK, Elizabeth, I'll throw you one fact in response to one of your questions: What failed ideologies? And racism? Elaborate if you can... Careful on the issue of racism though ... You said Republicans are racist but that is just nonsensical and you know it. Actually, the Republican Party has admitted that it used the southern race strategy to get white voters, and former head Ken Muhlman (sp?) even apologized to the NAACP for it. That does not mean that every Republican is "racist," but it does mean that every Republican in recent years was a member of a party that actively engaged a racist strategy to get votes, and went along with it either out of ignorance or because being Republican was more important than not being racist. This is simply fact, and it is probably going to change soon because younger generations are not going to go for it. So far, you are simply repeating Republican talking points. There are some arguments buried in what you're saying, but you're coming across right now as a blind partisan who is not interested in looking at and criticizing the problems in your own party. Most people on this site are not blind partisans, either direction. Thus, when you come on here and say this stuff, it's not going to get you anywhere. I suggest doing some homework and factchecking when you get a chance, and take another pass at conversation. Your post above ain't gonna draw much interesting out of anyone because you haven't given us much to talk about. You need to get your facts straight first.

DonnaLadd

Dec 11 2008

Liz, Bush couldn't assist New Orleans until the mayor asked him to? You must be a comedienne. Ha ha. The economy experienced one our greatest periods of resurgence under Bill Clinton and eight years later it collapses under George W Bush, but it is all Clinton's fault? What ain't ? That is like some sort of SNL skit. Ha ha. Congress, for the past several years, has been run by Democrats? The Democrats got control of the House in January of 2007. They only had a fifty percent share of seats in the Senate, not the super majority needed to actually control the Senate. Republicans will keep losing if you cannot become reality based. Do you believe in some sort of conservative tooth fairy with invisible free market hands?

FreeClif

Dec 11 2008

One more thing I'll ad is how relieved I will be to see that no-class dysfunctional Bush family out of the White House. If I see one more photograph of a Bush daughter falling down drunk as a skunk with her legs in the air, a drink in one hand and a cigarette in the other, or at their arraignment for doing something bimbo-dumb, I'll blow my lunch. Don't get me started on Republican Larry Craig, toe tapping and public restrooms. And have you ever seen the police department mug shots of Noelle Bush after she got busted at a pharmacy with fake oxycontin scripts? Talk about looking dissipated and zonked out! If those are conservative "family values" results I'll stick with being a progressive liberal. The Obama's - Barack, Michelle and their two beautiful daughters - are truly the classic all-American family. They represent the highest ideals of America and the American family. What a great opportunity to have the Obamas as role models and worldwide symbols...after the squalor and degradation of the Bush "conservative family values" booze and torture years.

HardTravelin

Dec 11 2008