Announcement and Third Party Musings

Technical


Writing



Super


Man

Introducing

Technical Editing/Writing

I wanted to take a moment to introduce my two agencies offering services. The first is, of course, my technical writing firm. I have not built the Website yet, but basically I am offering the service already. I have gathered a team of writers, and we will do any kind of editing or writing, technical and otherwise. You can contact me with projects via this blog, and in the near future I'll have a Website for the service.

Super Man

My second agency has a blog already. This is my Super Man Agency. See the link at the top right of this blog now. I ran this business twice before, once in California and once in Israel, and it was a runaway success both times. This time, though, I want to follow through and make it big.

This is a service whereby I will do anything for you, at your home or office, that is legal.




It is designed to offer unusual or creative solutions to needs and problems, but we'll also do mundane things. I or a member of my staff will go anywhere and do anything that you need.

Examples

The Unusual

We went into a cult and retrieved a boy for his family.
We hired actors to eat at a restaurant the day a buyer was visiting.
We researched a business's competitor onsite to help our client improve his business.

The Ordinary

We arranged to pick up a doggie's poop on a daily basis.
We mowed the lawn of a lady who was afraid of getting robbed by the local help.
We ran errands for an executive.

There You Go

Editing and writing on the one hand, and a service to help you with your special needs.

My Political Comments for the Day

I've watched several political shows this week, including a memorable one on CNBC, where the Republican Party has been written off as dead. Indeed the polls are quite bleak. It looks like it will be the year of the Third Party. One poll shows that folks want a 3rd party more than they want the ones in power now.

I wouldn't mind forming a third party myself. Of course, I wouldn't be the presidential candidate for it. Rather, I'd be a stand-in, until we chose someone to represent us—much like Ross Perot did some years back. If we couldn't settle on a candidate we'd like who'd run, we'd call our party None of the Above, giving Americans a chance to vote for a non-candidate. Who knows? Given the atmosphere lately, None of the Above might win.

Don't worry, I'm just kidding with all this. Well, I'm half-serious, let's say. I still am a conservative and favor the Republican Party. I'm just joining in on the fun, and giving a tongue-in-cheek warning to Republicans that they'd better start representing conservatives, or people like me will form a third, a fourth, and a fifth party.

Anyway, it's an idea.

Peace.

Rock

(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)


Click here to get a button link to this blog:

<br /><br /><a href="http://truthrock.blogspot.com/"><img src="http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/668/cooltext38806293hm4.gif" alt="Truth—The No Spin Politically Incorrect Zone"></a><br /><br /> <br /><br />

Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site!


Subscribe to my feed
                                          

Join or Surf Rock's Political Blog Ring. Both Liberals and Conservatives are Welcome.

Regular Technorati Tags for this blog: politics, political, politically incorrect, no spin, conservative, Republican, right wing, liberal, Democrat, left wing, leftist, democracy, election, peace, war, George W. Bush, editorial, opinion, news, current affairs, media, television, television, Hollywood, books, culture, society, religion, God, fundamentalism, Christian, Catholic, Muslim, Jew, Israel, Palestine, blog, truth

Whom Do You Love?

The Recent Polls and What They Suggest

P
olls and

erceptions

The '08 Presidential Election

In the most recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll,54% of Americans are inclined to vote for a Democrat for president in the next election; while 31% say they favor a Republican.




Still, in the most recent Quinnipiac University Poll, when the specific candidates are pitted against each other, the story changes.

Rudy Giuliani 44%, Hillary Clinton 45%
John McCain 42%, Hillary Clinton 44%
Fred Thompson 39%, Hillary Clinton 46%

A similar picture manifests with Barack Obama.

Rudy Giuliani 42%, Barack Obama 42%
John McCain 41%, Barack Obama 43%
Fred Thompson 34%, Barack Obama 46%

Presidential Approval Rating

In the most recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, 29% of the American people approve of the overall job President Bush is doing in office, while 66% disapprove. This is a drop of six points since April, and it represents his lowest mark ever on this question in the NBC/Journal poll.

Democratic pollster Jay Campbell, attributes this decline to Republicans. Back in April, 75 percent of Republicans approved of Bush’s job performance, compared with 21 percent who disapproved. Now, only 62 percent of Republicans approve, versus 32 percent who disapprove.

Congress

In the most recent AP-Ipsos poll,

WASHINGTON - People think the Democratic-led Congress is doing just as dreary a job as President Bush, following four months of bitter political standoffs that have seen little progress on Iraq and a host of domestic issues.

The survey found only 35 percent approve of how Congress is handling its job, down 5 percentage points in a month. That gives lawmakers the same bleak approval rating as Bush, who has been mired at about that level since last fall, including his dip to a record low for the AP-Ipsos poll of 32 percent last January.

In another measure of popular discontent, the survey found that 71 percent say the country is on the wrong track - about even with the 73 percent who said so last May, the worst level since the AP-Ipsos poll began in December 2003.

What about Nancy Pelosi? The same AP-Ispsos poll found that:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is a more popular figure than the president and her colleagues on Capitol Hill, though she faces a gender gap in which significantly more women than men support her.

Pelosi's overall approval of 45 percent stood 10 points higher than Bush's and Congress'.

She was seen favorably by 52 percent of women, but only 39 percent of men. While whites are closely split about her, minorities approve of her job by a 15-point margin.

The War in Iraq

In the most recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll, 28 % of the American people approve of the way Bush is handling the war in Iraq, while 68% disapprove.

Illegal Immigration

A new Washington Post-ABC poll and follow-up interviews found that:

click to show/hide the rest of the post

Americans remain divided and uncertain about how best to deal with the estimated 12 million people living illegally in the United States.

More than half of those surveyed said illegal immigrants hurt the country more than help it, an opinion voiced by seven in 10 Republicans and about half of Democrats.

A slim majority believe in creating a pathway to citizenship, with younger people and Democrats far more open to the idea than Republicans and those over 55.

State of the Republican Party

Since I favor Republicans at this time in history, this all represents a big mess for me. Everything seems to be going wrong for conservatives at the same time, and at warp speed and with irreversible momentum.

I know some of my readers think highly of Bush, and that 62% of Republicans still approve of the job he is doing. I am not one of these. I continue to admire his doggedness in the War in Iraq, and for the highly effective War on Terror he has waged. For these, I believe President Bush deserves our everlasting thanks.

I am also happy with him over the economy. He has kept our taxes low, and enabled an expansion to continue in the middle of a major war.

On the other hand, I continue to fault him for the politically correct way he is waging the War in Iraq, with his restrictive rules of engagement. I also don't think he has been expert in his handling of other cultures in the Middle East. Mostly, I believe, he continues to try to be a "nice guy," not realizing that what is needed is firmness and ruthlessness, much as we mustered in World War II. I am also unhappy with his amnesty plan for illegals.

Most of all, I am dissatisfied with him over his inability to lead our country to see what he sees concerning the necessity for the Iraq War, and for his vision for the Middle East. He is content to continue to "do the right things" as he perceives them, without understanding that he must also become a great communicator and salesman, despite his shortcomings in this area.

click to hide most of this post

What Lies Ahead?

If things continue as they are now, Republicans will lose some of their base. They can't afford this. It is still possible for one of the attractive Republican candidates to defeat Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, but even if this happens, Congress will slide even more left than it is now, barring a major shift.

What this means is, look out for your pocketbooks; short the stock market; be ready to join the religion of environmental extremism; expect to lose the War on Terror, for now; and forget about a peaceful Middle East.

Ideally, we'd have some candidate with a world vision that can help shape a more peaceful world. I don't see that candidate yet. Hopefully, someone will be imbued with wisdom and start thinking about the future of the world rather than the next election. I will vote for that person. My suggestion for him or her is, fine—win your primary. Then, however, get serious and start acting presidential. If you can get away with acting presidential even now, do it. Should you still win your primary, you'll have an edge on gravitas over the rest of the candidates in the final election.

Who Has the Potential to be a Great Leader?

Which candidates do have it in them to grow into this presidential persona? I believe they are Clinton, Obama, McCain, Giuliani, and Thompson. Clinton and Obama, of course, have the biggest challenge with this—as they are true liberals, and the world does not need liberal solutions at this time. Yet, Clinton could do it, if she allows herself to grow. Obama could do it if he listens to his innate intelligence, ignoring his poll numbers to an extent.

What about Romney? I doubt he'd have the flexibility to see the world as it really is, but I may be wrong. We'll see. He is, after all, a presidential candidate who would present a pretty face to the world, backed by a high level of intelligence and communication skills.

There, the gauntlet is laid. Who will pick it up?

Rock

(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)


Click here to get a button link to this blog:

<br /><br /><a href="http://truthrock.blogspot.com/"><img src="http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/668/cooltext38806293hm4.gif" alt="Truth—The No Spin Politically Incorrect Zone"></a><br /><br /> <br /><br />

Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site!


Subscribe to my feed
                                          

Join or Surf Rock's Political Blog Ring. Both Liberals and Conservatives are Welcome.

Technorati Tags for this post: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney, Republican, Democrat, Democratic, Polls, 2008 Election, Conservative, Liberal

Regular Technorati Tags for this blog: politics, political, politically incorrect, no spin, conservative, Republican, right wing, liberal, Democrat, left wing, leftist, democracy, election, peace, war, George W. Bush, editorial, opinion, news, current affairs, media, television, television, Hollywood, books, culture, society, religion, God, fundamentalism, Christian, Catholic, Muslim, Jew, Israel, Palestine, blog, truth

Left and Right Turns

The Political Pendulum

The

Right Stuff

Veering Left

The country veering most left at this time in history is Venezuela, with Hugo Chavez going forward with his goal of a "classless society." All the Marxists are cheering him as he nationalizes oil companies and banks, and forces other companies into agreements that will guarantee social benefits. On the one hand, his goals are quite noble. He seems like he is truly trying to help the people (as much as any dictator can and still fill his own pockets). On the other hand, he is outright stealing from companies that came in with agreements and contracts which he has now nullified. The question is, who in the future will invest in Venezuela? If you owned a private company, would you gamble your hard won assets on whether Hugo will honor any agreement you sign with him?

Just as with Castro, Mr. Chavez will find that stealing from companies now will make him a hero short term, but will deprive the people of millions of dollars in the long run. The growth of his country will suffer due to his bad relations with the world.

Marxism has been tried, Mr. Chavez, and it doesn't work.

Veering Right

One of the countries that is veering right at this time is, surprise, surprise—France! I can't believe it. The French have elected a conservative over a socialist, Nikolas Sarkozy. He is going to get tough on immigration, be kind to business, and try to lower taxes. Let's move to France! In addition, he wants to improve relations with the United States.

Don't be surprised, also, if another country known for leftism veers right in the coming years. Fidel Castro is rumored to be in his last days on earth. His brother, Raul, appears to be much more friendly to Western nations, and to capitalism. What will Hugo say? Cuba will explode with growth if this shift happens.

France and Cuba veering right? Are we living in a dream?

Veering Left

Sadly, while France and Cuba might be heading in a positive direction, we, the United States of America, are one of the countries veering left. On the rise are the Marxists of the Democratic Party.

The Debates

I watched both the Democratic and Republican debates. The Democrats all admitted they will raise taxes, increase regulations, force the color green on the world, and decrease world security by marginalizing the war on terror. I could barely force myself to watch. Yet, the country seems dead set on electing one of them.

No wonder. The Republicans were pro-business, but lacked vigor. They were not as passionate as they should have been either about Iraq or the war on terror, with the possible exception of McCain. They appeared meek and back to cowering in Panderland. All of them paid homage to Ronald Reagan, but there wasn't a Ronald among them. The only thing they appeared passionate about was religion. Pardon me, but I don't think faith is the issue. I don't want a president who is pastor-in-chief. I want someone passionate about winning the war on terror, and helping capitalism live and thrive. Let's keep church and state separate.

The Sad State of the Right

Fire in the Belly

I'm not even impressed with Newt anymore. He is "waiting," before he decides whether to run, and on the talk shows he sounds so green he could be Al Gore's brother. I'm not happy with Fred Thompson either, the great conservative hero. He's not in the fight yet either. Like Newt, he's "waiting."

A president needs fire in the belly. If you're not absolutely sure you're the man, or woman, then don't bother running. The U.S. will never elect Newt now. He's demonstrated he doesn't want it badly enough. I doubt they'll choose Thompson either. He's too late, cancer or no cancer.

Weak

Especially weak on the dais was Rudy Giuliani. He still is the frontrunner, but he'd better turn in better performances than this debate if he wants to win. He must come across as a giant, not as a meek defender of his pro-choice views. He's got to get back to the lion he was post 9/11.

A Fair Performance

McCain gave the best account of himself among the Republicans. He had some fire and he distinguished himself with his zeal on the War in Iraq.

Presidential Aura

Looking for the Glow

I try to look for the presidential aura in candidates, and I'm not sure I see it yet in anyone. I cringe when I imagine Hillary back in the White House. I don't see Obama ready yet to make sophisticated decisions. My stomach turns when I think of demagogue Edwards as president.

Yet, I don't see the presidential aura surrounding any Republicans either. I pray they start connecting to their personal power and the supremacy of truth. It can still happen.

Seeking a Leader

It's still early, but I'm looking for a leader that can stop this country's disastrous lurch to the left.

Thank God for France. Vive la France!

Rock

(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)


Click here to get a button link to this blog:

<br /><br /><a href="http://truthrock.blogspot.com/"><img src="http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/668/cooltext38806293hm4.gif" alt="Truth—The No Spin Politically Incorrect Zone"></a><br /><br /> <br /><br />

Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site!


Subscribe to my feed
                                          

Join or Surf Rock's Political Blog Ring. Both Liberals and Conservatives are Welcome.

Technorati Tags for this post: leftist, right-wing, Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, Raul Castro, Marxism, Socialism, Republican Debate, Democratic Debate, John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, Newt Gingrich, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Barack Obama, Nikolas Sarkozy

Regular Technorati Tags for this blog: politics, political, politically incorrect, no spin, conservative, Republican, right wing, liberal, Democrat, left wing, leftist, democracy, election, peace, war, George W. Bush, editorial, opinion, news, current affairs, media, television, television, Hollywood, books, culture, society, religion, God, fundamentalism, Christian, Catholic, Muslim, Jew, Israel, Palestine, blog, truth

Comment Post: Based on Republicans versus Democrats on Race Issues

Comment Post




This is what I'll call a Comment Post. It is not a true post, as it is more informal. It elevates a comment, or a comment exchange between a reader and myself, into a post. It can give prominence to an extended or astute comment. I'll be using these occasionally on Tuesday through Sunday's, as I post on Mondays now.

The following is a comment exchange between paz y amour and myself on Friday's post, Republicans versus Democrats on Race Issues.

The Comment Exchange

Paz, thank you so much for your comments. You said:

I wasn't arguing the historical merits of Democrat/Republican help to the causes of Black progression, I was saying that the perception of Republicans is not popular in the Black community as a whole and giving the historical elements that give rise to that sentiment. I'm not saying one is better than the other- in fact, they're more alike than ever before in history!

Interesting point. My goal, as you know, is to counter wrong perceptions. The perception that Republicans are anti-Black now is wrong. The idea that both parties are the same on this issue is wrong. I've stated my case in my comments in the post. I can't state it any better. I still think there is a qualitative difference between the pandering Democrats and the homage to Blacks given by Bush, in the form of real power.

click to show/hide the rest of the post

"Paz, every time a White Democrat goes into a Black church or speaks to a Black audience and agrees with the audience that there is widespread racism against Blacks...this is pandering and enabling"

How is this any different than a "conservative" politician speaking in front of a Evangelist Christian audience and saying that there are wide-spread anti-Christian activities, the government is anti-family values and gays shouldn't be able to get married. Isn't THAT what the audience would want to hear in order for them to support that lawmaker seeking election? Politicians of both sides pander to get support- that's what they do BEST. Isn't that how Bush and A LOT of Republicans got elected in 2000/2004- pandering to jaded religious conservatives? In fact I would argue that the folks in office who DON'T pander are vastly in the minority.

You have a point here. Bush does pander. When I've seen him do it I've cringed. Yet, he genuinely likes Blacks too, and he's proven it. Again, he's given them real power. As far as issues like anti-Christian activities, anti-family values, and gays not being able to be married, yes, these are wedge issues. The Republicans do use them when they are in trouble in elections. They did it in 2006 and it didn't work. The idea that all politicians pander might be true for most politicians, but we can always hope for a true leader. I don't see one at present.

I've noticed more Black republican strategists and spokespeople on CNN and Fox "news" over the past few years. Could giving Republicans more color on television be perceived as gratuitous pandering? Maybe.

How cynical, paz. This means that FOX can never win in your eyes. Whites can never win. If you ignore Blacks you are racist. If you include them you're racist. Give me a break. Again, this is the liberal tendency, whether you classify yourself as liberal or not, to place so much emphasis on motive. Forget motives. You can't read people's minds. Pay attention to their behaviors. If they include Blacks, be happy, no matter the motivation.

Pandering means doing or saying things just to gain favor, while abandoning core values. If you are anti-Black and you honor Blacks, who cares? If this is the way they "pander" then pray for more pandering! Destructive pandering is when a politician says to Blacks, "You haven't a chance to succeed in this racist society," gaining votes, but causing real psychological harm to his audience.

You cannot ever watch FOX news and find any concrete evidence of any anti-Black sentiment. In fact, they are very inclusive. To accuse them of pandering by having Blacks on the program is absurd, and an example of reaching to find discrimination. A real paranoia.

"Historically, the Republican Party was founded on an anti-slavery platform, as opposed to the slave-holding and pro-slavery Democrats."

And historically, Black people overwhelmingly supported Republicans- that is until the late 30's when most overwhelmingly shifted to the Democratic party, due in large part to the lack of REAL social change since Reconstruction and feelings of political abandonment. Democrats as a whole weren't opposed to civil rights as you claim- you're referring to the so-called racist Dixiecrats of the 50's who were "democrats" by name, but didn't embrace the ideals of their noble predecessors. They obviously had NO support from Black folks. And just a side note, the most vehement Dixiecrat Strom Thurmond became a (gasp) Republican in 1964-right in the heart of the civil rights movement. I'm sure that helped bring Black people back into the Republican folds.

I disagree with your facts and conclusions. See my post comments. You ignore many of the points I brought up. You label Democrats who were racists as "Dixiecrats." Yes, that's what they were called, but they were registered Democrats, and racists. Period. You can't just disown them from the party. While the Northern Republicans fought the Civil War to free the slaves, Blacks after the Civil War won seats in legislatures and statehouses, and these Blacks were removed, and the election laws were changed. By whom? By Democrats.

Hey, the Dems have Rob Byrd (among others), the Repubs have George Allen (among others)...

You compare Robert Byrd's leadership in the Ku Klux Klan with George Allen's faux pax? How insulting, and how absurd.

"Again, "trickle-down Reaganomics" did work, as evidenced in the Clinton years"

As your reliable Wikipedia says, Reagan's economic success is still being debated (just like global warming, no?). All I know is that when Black people talk of the 80's, not much positive is said about it. I can agree that Clinton may have benefited from Reagan's policies, but the perception is that Black prosperity was hindered in the 80's, not helped.

Again, wrong perceptions are what I am fighting.

By the way, if you haven't noticed, Wikepedia veers far left. It is not reliable in its politics; it is dead wrong. Every article has a leftist slant. So, I never trust its conclusions. However, it is pretty good on facts. So, when it concludes something like, "global warming is caused by human pollution," they are in the hysteria, cuckoo, twilight zone. But, when they say that the earth has been warming, a fact, I trust them.

"Katrina.... This was not a race thing, paz. This was an incompetence thing."

Grand ole Katrina. I didn't say that Bush's incompetence was racially based, I was saying the PERCEPTION is that it was and another "example" of Republicans not caring about the welfare of Black people. Regardless, it's hard for be to believe that if Beverly Hills had been flooded that it would have taken almost a week for help to arrive- hmmm....

Bush took the same time to respond in Mississippi. You don't hear about any Bush "racism" in Mississippi, though, because that state had a competent governor and local governments that did not have busses left unused. The equally incompetent Mayor and Governor of Louisiana pass unscathed with your criticism. Are they racist?

"Lincoln, Eisenhower, and Bush are three presidents who have made great contributions to Black advancement."

2 out of 3 aren't bad. It's hard to say what contribution Bush has had on Black advancement. Yes he has high ranking Black members of his cabinet- some of the smartest people in US government I might add, but don't you think it's a bit too early to tell how it will effect Blacks in the future?

Appointing Blacks to high office can't hurt. Plus, the perception that he is racist, if anyone believes this, is absurd.

I know how much you love the guy, but we'll be able to judge in say 20 years, but not now.

I don't love the guy. Sarge Charlie loves him, and I understand why he does. I am personally disappointed in him. He is too much a panderer for my taste, too much of a "good guy" in Iraq, and has given away our country with his immigration policies. I like him because of his War on Terror, and invading Iraq, and keeping taxes low. Otherwise, he is a leftist or a panderer, and an ineffective communicator.

click to hide most of this post

"Republicans have the best record, on everything from civil rights to economics, that can lift the Blacks into the middle class."

Another debatable point. It seems that each "good" leader with regard to race has made good decisions based on their predecessors- FDR-Truman-Eisenhower-JFK-LBJ etc. Are Republicans really the "best" or is it your bias? I can readily admit that growing up in a house that voted for Democrats has caused me to look less favorably at Repubs, BUT I will vote for anyone if I like their politics better than the next person- thus bucking the "perception" of republicans. I don't believe either of them have Black interests at heart, regardless of what they say.

Respectfully, I believe Republicans are sincere in their caring for Blacks, while Democrats are using them to gain votes. Again, you put Whites, and Republicans, in no-win situations. If they ignore Blacks or do them harm, they are racists. If they do good things for Blacks, they are still racists, because of what is in their hearts, according to you. They can't win, and that's not fair, paz.

Rock

Republicans versus Democrats on Race Issues

Bigotry

An African-American Viewpoint on the Republican Party versus a Compassionate Conservative White's Response

Once again, I am indebted to paz y amour, from the wonderful blog the path, for an extensive comment that shows deep consideration on his part. It is a well-thought-out treatise on how Blacks feel about the Republican Party, a response to yesterday's post, Shoulda Been Biden His Time, about Senator Joe Biden's unfortunate and unintentionally racist but revealing remarks about Senator Barack Obama.

Since paz so well communicates one point of view, I am again elevating a paz comment to a post. This time, though, I am including my comments as part of the post, since I am so passionately opposed to paz' view on this. Where does the truth lie? I believe it lies with my viewpoint. Paz believes it lies with his.

Please be advised, while paz' arguments are well presented, he was unaware that I would be posting them. I have his permission from the past to use his comments, when warranted, as posts. Still, he did not have the time in his comments to research, and he therefore is at somewhat of a disadvantage to me. So, this duel is unfair. With time and preparation, paz could have offered further points to advance his thesis, and counter mine. Therefore, don't look upon it as who won or lost the debate. Rather, view it as an expression of two opposing points of view, and learn from both sides.

After all, we're dealing not just with facts, but also with feelings, perceptions, and apperceptions.

Paz on How African-Americans Feel About the Republican Party

Rock's Counter Arguments

The Oops Comment

Ah, the power of the "oops" comment. Apparently your president isn't the only one who says stupid things. I agree that comments like this are unspoken thoughts that slip out from time to time and speak volumes about how some rich White (undercover)racist politicians feel about minorities-





Forgive me paz, but Bush is not just "my" president, he is also "your" president.

It's good, though, that we agree on the nature of Senator Biden's comment.

Ignorance or Racism?

and I loved your line about them being "marveled when they just show up". So true, at least that is how it comes out. As usual, I have to disagree though with your view that it's a demogoguing Democrat issue when in fact it's evidence of individual ignorance- NOT widespread racism on the part of the democrats.

Paz, every time a White Democrat goes into a Black church or speaks to a Black audience and agrees with the audience that there is widespread racism against Blacks, or accepts the plea for a bigger welfare state, or trumpets the view that cops are prejudiced against Blacks, this is pandering and enabling. I realize that Bush has the same tendency, but Democrats on the whole use this strategy as a mainstay.

click to show/hide the rest of the post

Republicans versus Democrats on Pandering

I would argue that Republicans are just as likely as Democrats to have a pandering racist attitude- however your disdain for Dems will surely bias you from seeing that.

My disdain for Dems is based on example after example. Yes, there are Republicans who do this too, but fewer by far.

The True History and Present Reality

Black people have traditionally been distrustful of politicians, regardless of party. You feel that Dems "demagogue" Black people but the point you're missing is that the Republican party offers (and has historically offered) little or no rational alternative. All the recent scandals that have plagued Republicans haven't helped!

Historically, the Republican Party was founded on an anti-slavery platform, as opposed to the slave-holding and pro-slavery Democrats. The rational alternatives now that Republicans offer are: a rising middle class thanks to Bush's tax cuts; the highest level of Black home ownership in history; African-American cabinet members, government appointees, a Supreme Court Justice, and a drive for African-American party membership and power. These are not just talk, but real action.

As far as the scandals go, I concede your point on this issue.

Black Advancement: Greater under Republicans or Democrats?

Consider that over the last century, the U.S. presidents who presided over periods of great strides in Black history were ALL Democrats. FDR- when Blacks were allowed into the military as equals for the first time, LBJ when Blacks gained LEGAL social/political equality, and Clinton when Blacks FINALLY gained economic equality. Black folks LOVE Bill Clinton because so many moved into the middle class bracket during those 8 years. Whatever their motivation for bringing about social change for African Americans, Democrats as a party have been perceived as having a HUGE positive impact on the lives of Black people in this country. The same can't be said for their Republican counterparts- not in the least.

How about the U.S. president who made the greatest stride of all for Blacks, Abraham Lincoln? Blacks love Clinton for their moving into the middle class, when in reality it was Reagan lowering taxes that was responsible for the Clinton prosperity. Yes, Clinton didn't muck it up, like so many Democrats have, so I give him credit for this, but it was Reagan that led to the rise. Under Bush, there are more African-American homeowners than at any time in history, with the biggest African-American middle class in history.

Eisenhower

Think about the Eisenhower days when Black soldiers went to
Korea thinking it would help with social change only to return as second-class citizens under segregation and Jim Crow.

Soldiers sent by Eisenhower to protect Black students in Little Rock, Arkansas, 1957

Au contraire. The worst of the bigotry and segregation at that time occurred in the South, under universal Democratic Party rule. Eisenhower inherited FDR and Truman's policies on the armed forces, and also the Black soldiers' treatment when they returned from war. Much of the Korean War was under Truman. Eisenhower was not happy with the treatment of Blacks. He took action. Eisenhower was the first modern president to pass and enforce civil rights legislation.Under this Republican president, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its historic Brown vs. the Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483, on May 17, 1954. The decision declared all laws establishing segregated schools to be unconstitutional, and it called for the desegregation of all schools in the nation. Eisenhower sent U.S. troops to enforce the Supreme Courts' historic decision. Opposing Eisenhower was Orval Eugene Faubus (7 January 1910–14 December 1994), a six-term Democratic Governor of Arkansas, infamous for his 1957 stand against integration of Little Rock, Arkansas, schools in defiance of U.S. Supreme Court rulings

Eisenhower also took steps to end segregation in federal jurisdiction, and hired African-Americans to work at the White House. Growing awareness of racial injustice in the South prompted the Eisenhower administration to draft legislation leading to the Civil Rights Act of 1957, the first civil rights legislation enacted in the United States since Reconstruction. The new law was a building block for the sweeping Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the 1965 Voting Rights Act. LBJ was the beneficiary of Eisenhower's groundbreaking work.

Reagan

Think about the Reagan days when "trickle-down Reaganomics" basically kept Blacks OUT of the Middle Class.

Again, "trickle-down Reaganomics" did work, as evidenced in the Clinton years, when Clinton, unlike past Democrats, did not dismantle the Reagan Revolution, and in fact was distinctly conservative on economics, much like Republicans. Clinton, you remember, enacted welfare reform, a Republican idea.

Katrina

Think about a year and a half ago when GWB simply flew over flooded New Orleans and returned to his ranch without doing a thing- while thousands were stranded.

This was not a race thing, paz. This was an incompetence thing. You can't keep pummeling Bush that he is incompetent on a whole host of issues and then suddenly say that he could have been competent on New Orleans but chose not to be because of race.

Republican versus Democratic Track Record with Blacks

In other words, Republican leaders (besides Lincoln of course) have a bad track record as far a Black people are concerned and it's gonna take A LOT to change the negative view. In other words, Dems are the lesser of two evils- and isn't that how we usually vote anyway?

Lincoln, Eisenhower, and Bush are three presidents who have made great contributions to Black advancement. Lincoln freed the slaves and was loved by Blacks. Eisenhower sent in troops to enforce civil rights, and appointed Blacks, for the first time, to positions in government. Bush has appointed more Blacks to positions of high power than any other president, bar none. You have proven my point. You seem blind to these contributions. Why? Because you've heard so often that Republicans are against Blacks. It simply isn't true. It may have been true at one time, just as with Democrats. Dems still have an ex Ku Klux Klan Exalted Cyclops as a Democratic Senator, Robert Byrd.

click to hide most of this post

Trickery, Demagoguery, or Loyalty?

So my dear Rock, you view Black support of the Democrats as a result of severe trickery, when in fact, it's the result of severe loyalty. Though you think the Dems are insulting in their "pandering" of Black people, there is nothing more insulting than the lack of political support Blacks have gotten from Republicans over the years. Will it change? Maybe. But for now, you'll have to continue to wonder why Blacks are "blind" in their support, when in fact, we are not so blind. History is a bit hard to forget....

Paz, you obviously are sincere. I believe, though, that not only does the Republican Party hold the key to the Black middle class for the future, but that history does show a great devotion to civil rights from the Republicans. Yes, it took a long time to develop, but those growing pains are over. In truth, the most virulent bigots in our history have been Democrats, with their pro-slavery stance at the beginning, their support of the Ku Klux Klan after that, their bigotry in the South in the fifties (which Eisenhower fought), and their soft bigotry and pandering now.

My Conclusion

If Blacks want to continue looking to the past, fine—Republicans have the best record, on everything from civil rights to economics, that can lift the Blacks into the middle class. As for the present, just look at the pictures of Bush's previous and present cabinet, and power brokers. Peruse the photos of the Supreme Court. This is unacknowledged groundbreaking advancement on all fronts, under a Republican, again.

Rock

(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)


Click here to get a button link to this blog:

<br /><br /><a href="http://truthrock.blogspot.com/"><img src="http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/668/cooltext38806293hm4.gif" alt="Truth—The No Spin Politically Incorrect Zone"></a><br /><br /> <br /><br />

Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site!


Subscribe to my feed
                                          

Join or Surf Rock's Political Blog Ring. Both Liberals and Conservatives are Welcome.

Technorati Tags for this post:
racism, Ku Klux Klan, Democrat, Republican, Little Rock, Eisenhower, LBJ, FDR, George W. Bush, Joe Biden, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Abraham Lincoln, Reconstruction, Jim Crow, Ronald Reagan, Reaganomics, The Reagan Revolution, Korean War, Civil Rights Movement

Regular Technorati Tags for this blog: politics, political, politically incorrect, no spin, conservative, Republican, right wing, liberal, Democrat, left wing, leftist, democracy, election, peace, war, George W. Bush, editorial, opinion, news, current affairs, media, television, television, Hollywood, books, culture, society, religion, God, fundamentalism, Christian, Catholic, Muslim, Jew, Israel, Palestine, blog, truth

Shoulda Been Biden his Time

Soul
of a liberal

Oops!

Biden Unwraps His Bid for '08 With an Oops! - New York Times: WASHINGTON, Jan. 31, 2007. In an era of meticulous political choreography, the staging of the kickoff for this presidential candidacy could hardly have gone worse.

Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, who announced his candidacy on Wednesday with the hope that he could ride his foreign policy expertise into contention for the Democratic nomination, instead spent the day struggling to explain his description of Senator Barack Obama, the Illinois Democrat running for president, as “the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.”

The remark, published Wednesday in The New York Observer, left Mr. Biden’s campaign struggling to survive its first hours and injected race more directly into the presidential contest. The day ended, appropriately enough for the way politics is practiced now, with Mr. Biden explaining himself to Jon Stewart on Comedy Central’s “The Daily Show.”

Racism

I think a liberal leader has gotten caught for exactly the attitude that is felt but unspoken among their ilk.






The disclaimers are coming hot and heavy that he didn't really mean it the way it sounded. Au contraire. Liberal leaders are the true racists at this time in history. Exactly as Bush has said for years, they harbor in their hearts the soft bigotry of low expectations, patronizing blacks and Hispanics and marveling when they just show up.

click to show/hide the rest of the post

The Obama Halo

I have nothing against Barack Obama. I agree with some of the hype that he is a potential star. And yes, to be honest, as this is what this blog is all about, part of the mystique is that he is black. I yearn for a black candidate that can put an end to the unfair charge that America is still racist. So I find myself rooting for Obama, because he is black, and because he is articulate, and because he has captured the imagination with some charisma, and all this means he has a chance.

I have to watch myself, though. I have this tendency to put a halo around Obama. When I look at his voting record, he is a pure liberal. Liberals are not good for the country at this time. Ergo, Obama would not be good for the country. Still, and I am being dead honest, I sense something more in him, aside from his race, and aside from his ill-chosen liberalism. I detect some common sense in him. Common sense can steer a person away from nonsense. Sometimes, away from the nonsense of his party.

Take Away the Halo

Let's put it this way. I desperately don't want a liberal to win the presidency in '08. I fear our country is veering fast towards socialism and a crippling weakness in the face of terrorism and other threats. But if a liberal has to win, then I'd fear Obama less than any other Democrat who has a chance in this race. Even taking away the halo, Obama has something solid about him.

Advice for White Liberals

I have some advice for liberal whites, though, and this is good for the rest of us too. The best way to honor African-Americans, or Hispanics for that matter, is to treat them as your equals. Don't patronize them. Catch yourself when you want to surround them with halos, good or bad; which means treating them with discrimination, positive or negative. Both are dehumanizing.

Treating people as equals means being honest with them, and judging them fairly. Obama, for example, needs to be considered on the content of his character, by his words, and by his deeds. I'll give you an example of what I mean. My opinion of him as a presidential candidate is that he doesn't have the heft yet to be president. He is bright and articulate, and I'd love that in a president, but he needs to understand the world more. I wouldn't trust him yet with Iraq.

Of course, I wouldn't trust any Democrat with Iraq except Joe Lieberman.

Still, my earlier statement stands. If I have to trust a liberal with Iraq, other than Lieberman, I fear Obama less than the others, because of his common sense, and his ability to learn quickly.

Democrat equals Demagogue

Democrats have chosen, over the last fifty or so years, not only to patronize blacks, but to demagogue them. This means they communicate with them by playing to their fears. The underlying assumption is that blacks are not bright enough to see through this. Unfortunately, the strategy has worked. Blacks vote overwhelmingly Democratic. What a crock. The party that uses them has gained their confidence. The party that preaches what could lift them up, the Republicans, is scorned.

click to hide most of this post

Bring on the Gaffs!

One day, through gaffs like Biden's, maybe blacks will see through the Democratic hypocrisy, and realize that a good economy, effective policing, a strong defense, and family values are good for them, as opposed to the welfare state that Democrats promise.

Biden did us a favor. He allowed us to look into the soul of the white liberal.

Disclaimer

There probably are a small number of true progressives and true classical liberals among the Democratic and leftist leaders of today. This post of course does not apply to them. They represent an honest disagreement with the right, unlike the corrupt demagoguery of the mainstream Democratic Party leadership.

Plus, I realize that not all liberal leaders are racists; and that those who are racists do not see themselves as such. Their racism is hidden even to themselves, and it is a racism without malice. It is just as harmful, though, as deliberate persecution.

Rock

(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)


Click here to get a button link to this blog:

<br /><br /><a href="http://truthrock.blogspot.com/"><img src="http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/668/cooltext38806293hm4.gif" alt="Truth—The No Spin Politically Incorrect Zone"></a><br /><br /> <br /><br />

Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site!


Subscribe to my feed
                                          

Join or Surf Rock's Political Blog Ring. Both Liberals and Conservatives are Welcome.

Technorati Tags for this post: Joe Biden, Democrat, liberal, conservative, racism, Barack Obama, the soft bigotry of low expectations, George W. Bush, progressives, classical liberalism

Regular Technorati Tags for this blog: politics, political, politically incorrect, no spin, conservative, Republican, right wing, liberal, Democrat, left wing, leftist, democracy, election, peace, war, George W. Bush, editorial, opinion, news, current affairs, media, television, television, Hollywood, books, culture, society, religion, God, fundamentalism, Christian, Catholic, Muslim, Jew, Israel, Palestine, blog, truth

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

Demcratic
control

Pax Democratia

I'm hoping for sanity in government. Common sense. Like many conservatives, I am dismayed that Democrats have taken control of Congress. On the other hand, I am not opposed to anything any Democrat might do to bring us good governance.

It is way too early to judge Democrats in their new role. However, I just want to mention that I sense some good and some bad in what they are doing.

The Iraq War

With regard to Iraq, they are demagoging the War, which was my worst fear.





By doing this, in my opinion, they are playing with the lives of American soldiers and citizens, and they ought to be voted out of office just for this alone. Even Hillary now is against the surge, when several Democrats had called for a surge for months. It is so obviously political, and some Republicans are lining up beside them. It is disgraceful.

Reforming Congress

On the other hand, some attempts at reforming Congress, initiated by Democrats, appear genuine:

Lobbying, Earmarks, Line-Item Veto

Senate Passes Vast Ethics Overhaul: By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK, Published: January 19, 2007.

WASHINGTON. The Senate on Thursday overwhelmingly passed sweeping changes to ethics and lobbying rules, overcoming bipartisan reluctance to ban many of the favors that lobbyists do for lawmakers and to illuminate the shadowy legislative practice of earmarking money for special projects.

The Senate's action makes the start of the 110th Congress a watershed moment in the history of K Street and Capitol Hill. Interpreting the results of the Nov. 7 election as a reaction to corruption scandals when Congress was under Republican control, the Senate has joined the House in adopting broad new rules that go beyond the proposals Republicans introduced last year, the ones that Democrats campaigned on, or the extensive changes House Democrats recently passed.

Congress will be voting on the line-item veto next week, proposed by Republicans, when they discuss a raise in the Minimum Wage. The line-item veto would be a great step forward in eliminating corruption.

Legislating Fairness

One bad reform that the Democrats are attempting, for the umpteenth time, is the Fairness Doctrine. Read about this doctrine here: NOW with David Brancaccio. Politics & Economy. What Happened to Fairness? | PBS: "History of the Fairness Doctrine"

The effect of it will be an attack on talk radio, which is mostly conservative, forcing them to be "fair" by requiring response time for every conservative viewpoint put forth. What this really means is that the Democrats can't compete in the free market of ideas on talk radio, as in the recent failure of Air America, and so must rely on legislation to get airtime.

It's funny how the Democrats see such an imbalance in the presentation of ideas on talk radio, but fail to recognize the opposite imbalance with the major news media on TV. The Republican response to the left-wing bias of American TV networks is to compete where it is possible, on cable news—and once again, when the free market prevails, conservatives rule, as with FOX News.

Subverting the Will of the People

Democrats have this propensity to try and subvert the will of the people in all kinds of spheres. When the public doesn't want gay marriage, for example, Democrats impose it with activist judges. When the public clamors for conservative talk radio, Democrats begin prattling on about "fairness."

Conclusions

I'd give the Democrats mixed reviews so far.

They are an utter disgrace when it comes to the War on Terror and the War in Iraq.

They are pushing some needed reforms with lobbying, financial disclosures, and earmarks. If they do this fairly and accept the line-item veto, they can significantly improve Washington ethics for generations to come.

They are again trying to squelch free speech and impose fascist-like control over broadcasting by reintroducing the Fairness Doctrine.

I hope the American people get educated on these issues and give the appropriate feedback to Democrats for these actions; some praise, and some criticism. Of course, the Dems ought to be voted out of office next time for their behavior on the War on Terror and the War in Iraq, but we'll see.

Rock

(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)


Click here to get a button link to this blog:

<br /><br /><a href="http://truthrock.blogspot.com/"><img src="http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/668/cooltext38806293hm4.gif" alt="Truth—The No Spin Politically Incorrect Zone"></a><br /><br /> <br /><br />

Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site!


Subscribe to my feed
                                          

Join or Surf Rock's Political Blog Ring. Both Liberals and Conservatives are Welcome.

Technorati Tags for this post: Democrat, Republican, Lobbying, Earmarks, Fairness Doctrine, Line-Item Veto, War on Terror, Iraq War, ethics, talk radio, liberal bias, conservative bias

Regular Technorati Tags for this blog: politics, political, politically incorrect, no spin, conservative, Republican, right wing, liberal, Democrat, left wing, leftist, democracy, election, peace, war, George W. Bush, editorial, opinion, news, current affairs, media, television, television, Hollywood, books, culture, society, religion, God, fundamentalism, Christian, Catholic, Muslim, Jew, Israel, Palestine, blog, truth

Scoundrel-osity

D

emagogue:

A leader who obtains power by means of impassioned appeals to the emotions and prejudices of the populace.

Demagoguery:

(from Greek demos, "people", and agogos, "leading") refers to a political strategy for obtaining and gaining political power by appealing to the popular prejudices, fears, and expectations of the public — typically via impassioned rhetoric and propaganda, and often using nationalistic or populist themes.

P

olitical Opportunism:

A political style of aiming to increase one's political influence at almost any price, or a political style which involves seizing every and any opportunity to extend one's political influence, whenever such opportunities arise.

Troop Surge for an Unpopular War

Sixty percent of Americans, apparently, do not approve of sending additional troops into Iraq. Concomitantly with this,several Democrats who had been weeks ago clamoring for Bush to fight a more effective war, now are saying they won't support a surge in troop levels.




I am sometimes disappointed in my fellow Americans. I don't think that enough of them realize the importance of winning the war in Iraq. They just want the problem to go away.

Demagoging Iraq

I am more than disappointed in some of the Democrats, and Republicans, who are talking of not funding the surge. They claim they support the troops, yet it can hardly be supportive to deny our troops extra help in fighting the war.

Can you be against a troop surge and still be a person of integrity? Yes, of course, if you really believe in your heart that we should just get out of Iraq now. The problem I have is not with these true believers in withdrawal; rather, I have a problem with those who are just tired of Iraq, unaware of its importance, or who are looking for political opportunity. It's quite a coincidence that several politicians are suddenly getting so vocal against the war at the same time that Bush's poll numbers are down, and when the American people seem to be disapproving of the war. It smacks of political opportunism and demagoguery of the worst sort. The victims of it are the soldiers in Iraq, and the American people, who will be less safe if we lose the war.

Integrity, Spinelessness, Scoundrel-osity and Evil

I think in a time of war if you vote according to the most recent polls, instead of voting according to what you think the troops need, that you are a scoundrel. I think in the case of some politicians, like Edward Kennedy, that the man is just pure evil. He sees the American people want the troops out, and now all of a sudden he becomes very visible in fighting for just that. He doesn't give a fig about our soldiers, nor about America. He has only one goal, that the Republicans be humiliated and that the Democrats expand their power. He is a despicable man.

Democrats remain split in their approach to Iraq, which gives me some hope for the party. They got their Blue Dogs elected, and some of them, along with the notorious Nancy Pelosi and other realists-for-the-moment, seem to be leaning towards acting responsibly with regard to the war. I personally will be grateful to her and others like her for this sign of character. I will not forgive, nor forget, the Democrats and Republicans who are demagoging Iraq, and showing a lack of spine.

Edward Kennedy will go down in my history as the Benedict Arnold of his family.

Rock

(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)


Click here to get a button link to this blog:

<br /><br /><a href="http://truthrock.blogspot.com/"><img src="http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/668/cooltext38806293hm4.gif" alt="Truth—The No Spin Politically Incorrect Zone"></a><br /><br /> <br /><br />

Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site!


Subscribe to my feed
                                          

Join or Surf Rock's Political Blog Ring. Both Liberals and Conservatives are Welcome.

Technorati Tags for this post: demagogue, demagoguery, political opportunism, Nancy Pelosi, Edward Kennedy, demagogy, Iraq War, troop surge, troop withdrawal, Benedict Arnold, Blue Dog Democrats

Regular Technorati Tags for this blog: politics, political, politically incorrect, no spin, conservative, Republican, right wing, liberal, Democrat, left wing, leftist, democracy, election, peace, war, George W. Bush, editorial, opinion, news, current affairs, media, television, television, Hollywood, books, culture, society, religion, God, fundamentalism, Christian, Catholic, Muslim, Jew, Israel, Palestine, blog, truth