RSSDem Senator Joe Lieberman Backs Republican John McCain … “The Democratic Party today was not the party it was in 2000″
Joe Lieberman calls it as it is …
Who really thinks that Barack Obama can bridge the gap between the two parties? No one, not even Democratic Senators in their own party. Joe Lieberman backs John McCain and says … this is the the same Democratic part from 2000. When todays Democratic attack Joe Lieberman, ask yourself why they had no issue with him in 2000? When todays Democrats attack John McCain, ask yourself why they begged, pleaded and wished he was John Kerry’s VP running mate in 2004?
Well, I say that the Democratic Party changed.
The Democratic Party today was not the party it was in 2000. It’s not the Bill Clinton-Al Gore party, which was strong internationalists, strong on defense, pro-trade, pro-reform in our domestic government. It’s been effectively taken over by a small group on the left of the party that is protectionist, isolationist and basically will –and very, very hyperpartisan. So it pains me.
I’m a Democrat who came to the party in the era of President John F. Kennedy. It’s a strange turn of the road when I find among the candidates running this year that the one, in my opinion, closest to the Kennedy legacy, the John F. Kennedy legacy, is John S. McCain.
From the Gateway Pundit, Joe Lieberman Blasts Hyper-Partisan, Isolationist Democrats Joe Lieberman Blasts Hyper-Partisan, Isolationist Democrats
As Red State says, It’s No Longer Your Father’s Democratic Party
Posted March 31, 2008 by Scared Monkeys Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Politics, Presidential Election 2008 | 33 comments |
If you liked this post, you may also like these:
Comments
33 Responses to “Dem Senator Joe Lieberman Backs Republican John McCain … “The Democratic Party today was not the party it was in 2000″”
Leave a Reply
You guys are kidding right??? This from Joementum? If he’s unhappy with the dems – then get the he** out of the party… But really? The Dems are hyperpartisan? Protectionist? Last I remember, it was the republicans who have been accusing everyone who does not think tlike they do of being traitors, and emplying incredibly divisive campaign tactics in the last two elections in an effort to split the populace. It’s Mr. Bush who seems to forget that he is supposed to be working for the whole country, not just social conservatives and rich investors. You guys have no sense of irony whatsoever.
Lieberman’s whining about the democratic party is a pathetic attempt to appear the victim…
Lieberman is the one who believes that Israel’s interests should take primacy over the united state’s interests vis-a-vis the war in Iraq and aggression towards Iran.
You wingers can have ‘em… we don’t want someone who would sellout his domestic policy positions and a sane foreign policy for the sake of Israel’s interests.
And for you bozos who cry antisemitism whenever Israel is mentioned: you can replace “Israel” with any country you want, and I’d feel the same way. It has nothing to do with anti semitism.
Who are we supposed to reach out to…that 27% of the population that have been fellated by the current administration and republican senate and see any attempt at improving the country as an islamofascist assault. Screw them, lets see if they can truly stand on their own as they claim…I bet they whine like babies as soon as the tax dollars they steal get shut down!
I used to live in AZ and somewhat respected McCain. Fifteen years ago!! Now he is just another old whore, willing to kiss Baghdad Bush’s ring.
Right-wingers hate America so much they have become so contrarian that they are incapable of making any decisions that help our nation.
Take Baghdad Bush, in eight years he has done nothing, NOT ONE THING that has help the USA, only damage. He should be tried for treason and shot.
McCain risks the same fate.
I thought that Lieberman had been re-elected as an independent, and that he was no longer a Democrat, at least not formally. Maybe I’m wrong.
Does he think it is the same party as it was in 2005 or 2006 when he said he was going to work to make sure that a Democratic Majority took over Congress and a Democrat took the White House?
Guess not.
“No one, not even Democratic Senators in their own party.”
Right. Except that Lieberman is independent (actually a member of the “Connecticut For Lieberman” party) and is not, in fact, plural. So let’s re-write that:
“No one, (except Kennedy, Kerry, Casey and many more democratic senators), not even a single “Conecticut for Lieberman” Senator, who caucused with Democrats.”
It doesn’t make sense anymore? We’re you trying to be snarky or are you just that far out of the loop?
It is really good that it is not your father’s
Democratic
Party, because they were kinda sucky back then.
#1 divisive campaign tactics? You mean like the Hillabeast and Obama?
When todays Democratic attack Joe Lieberman, ask yourself why they had no issue with him in 2000? [sic]
You must be kidding. Ok, you are kidding.
On another subject, I’d love to hear your thoughts on all the “campaign finance reform” McCain has been given credit for in the media; focusing primarily on what has been accomplished and why he got involved in this in the first place (hint: he was a major corrupt part of the Savings and Loan scandal during Reagan’s term – i.e. a real dirty bastard and hypocrite). Thanks in advance.
LIEBERMAN in 2000? Apart from the fact that indeed a lot of dems had issues with Lieberman in 2000, his record since then has been to endorse a war policy that 2/3rds of the nation abhors. So, yeah, and DUH, dems have significantly changed their minds about Lieberman. He has actually LEFT the democratic party and lied to his voters that he would support a democratic candidate in 2008. You’re welcome to him.
My oh my oh my…..
This post has brought out the angry democrats that suffer from Bush Derangement Syndrome.
Lieberman gets it…unlike Hillary and Obama that pander for votes by supporting race baiters, code pink, Cindy Sheehan, and other left wing groups…Lieberman knows that change is made incrementally, and made over time. McCain won’t pander for votes. McCain will give his honest opinion (and in case your memory is short…McCain has been the media darling and the darling of those suffering of Bush Derangement Syndrome for voting his opinion or objecting to what he felt was bad policy).
Now Lieberman and McCain are evil because they actually make their decisions based on grounded judgement rather than emotion that sounds good coming out of the mouth and makes one feel good when saying it…but is totally impossible in the real world?
The party of hate and anger is clearly the democrat party. They hate ‘the rich’, they hate ‘business owners’, they hate ‘white people’, they hate ‘the military’, they hate ‘corporations…and the Man’, and they hate ‘Republicans’.
As a libertarian who has friends on both sides…I can say that Republicans don’t ‘hate’ like Democrats ‘hate’. Republicans will disagree with democrats and will provide rational arguements for their disagreement.
Stop the hate…stop the anger. Roll up your sleeves and come up with a plan rather than ‘hate baiting’.
MD
Minnesota Dad –
The original post is so laughably wrong that it’s hardly worth responding to. And yet people try to correct the record, and you call them haters.
“why they had no issue with him in 2000?”
Gore’s selection of Lieberman as his running mate in 2000 was not universally acclaimed by Democrats. Many, if not most, Democrats viewed it as a cynical ploy to appeal to independents and conservatives, and as a back-handed slap against Bill Clinton.
“ask yourself why they begged, pleaded and wished he was John Kerry’s VP running mate in 2004?”
Huh? This simply did not happen. What on earth are you talking about? Seriously, what the hell are you talking about? This never happened.
“No one, not even Democratic Senators in their own party.”
As others have noted, Joe Lieberman is no longer a Democrat. And even if he was, he is only one person. Even if he was still a Democrat, the whole premise of this blog post would fall apart, because Lieberman is only one Senator, and hardly representative of all Democrats.
Actually, on further review, the whole post doesn’t make any sense at all, and it’s a waste of time to try to make sense of it.
Oh, and about the so-called Bush Derangement Syndrome? Krauthammer coined that phrase, and conservatives like you latched on to it, to rationalize Bush’s failures. What you call “BDS” and by association label as irrational behavior is actually honest citizens “daring” to criticize the actions of a dangerously ineffective and renegade president. Questioning the incompetence and the reckless manner in which this president has lied us into an unnecessary war and who is trying to subvert the constitution is good citizenship, not “derangement.”
Minnesota Dad, where is the hate? I have put up with six and a half years of Republicans blaming Democrats for September 11th, lying us into an unnecessary war, calling me a traitor because I dared question the actions of an administration determined to subvert the Constitution. Who are the haters?
And emotion? Answer me this — a knee-jerk reaction to circle the wagons after September 11, to vilify all Arabs and Muslims, to turn on fellow (Democratic) Americans, to call anyone who opposes or questions the Bush administration a traitor, you tell me who is governing on emotion?
MD – you must be a pro-war libertarian.
How’s that moral and philosophical quandary going?
Actually yoyo….
Libertarians believe in minimal federal government in our lives. They believe what the founding fathers believed the federal government should do – establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, and provide for the common defense. Nowhere were they to be involved in federal boondoggles like education, arts, etc — these were to be the responsibility of the states…send the money to the states and let them figure out how to best use it rather than having millions of bureaucrats mandate what is best for someone in some small midwest town.
As a result, we have politicians that spend their time promising pork (and yes, both Republicans and Democrats are guilty here) to their constituents rather than doing the core jobs that the founding fathers wanted done. Washington DC lost its focus around 1965 and has never been the same.
I am no hawk…but I also am rational enough to understand the importance of the United States being in the Middle East and that being there not only satisfies providing for the common defense…but ensuring domestic tranquility long term.
MD
anyone who doubts that the democrat party has crossed into the gutter need only venture over to the democratunderground site for a few minutes. the leftist anti-american hate spewed speaks volumes.
the best thing lieberman ever did was to run as an independent.
but Minn Dad – a conservative foreign policy and a libertarian domestic policy are contradictory philosophies.
You can’t deny that we now live in a country in which the President, on his own initiative, has the omnipotent power to send the nation into war against any country on earth, especially given that the war on terror extends all over the globe. The President, the CIA, and the military have the power to take any suspected terrorist — foreigner or American — into custody and torture, abuse, and execute him without due process of law and trial by jury. The President and the NSA have the power to wiretap telephones and monitor emails without a judicially issued warrant. The President, the CIA, and the military have the power to send missiles into cars and drop bombs into buildings anywhere in the world, including right here in the United States, in their attempt to win the war on terror. And to top it off, the President wields the power to ignore any constitutional or legislative restraints on his power as a “wartime” commander in chief.
Right or wrong, it is what it is.
Seriously…how can any of the powers now wielded by the President, the CIA, and the military be reconciled with the principles of a free society, especially from the libertarian standpoint?
Yoyo,
Its called providing for the common defense. I tend to feel that there are people in this world that would not hesitate to chop my head off if they had the opportunity. Not because I am American, not because I am western…but because I do not follow their religious teachings.
I believe much as the Christian/Catholic churches rewrote their religions (Old Testament to New) and their visions…there are some religions that still need to rewrite theirs for the world to be a better place. That and keeping oil flowing from the Persian Gulf area are priorities for our government in providing for the common defense of our country.
Let’s get real for a second. Even though the President has all of these powers that you feel he has…is there any other country in the world you would rather live in? And if so…why aren’t you there?
Britain? France? Netherlands? Sweden? All have a terrible problem with growing Islamic fanaticism. Life may be good today… but won’t be good tomorrow. Enjoy your kebabs now!
China, Russia, Cuba….you want to talk about scary government intruding on your life?
Aruba, Columbia,Venezuala…Crime ridden hell holes ruled by drug mobs and corrupt government officials on the take?
Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan…You must worship at this mosque or find you will be missing your head one day?
Most African countries….bad dictators and poverty?
Canada??? Canada wouldn’t be bad…but one has to realize that the US is a gift to Canada as we buy their goods, provide them protection (you don’t see a huge Canadian military budget because they don’t need it…they have us to protect them).
I guess Australia or New Zealand wouldn’t be too bad either.
I could go on…but, even though we aren’t perfect in how we operate…our rights and lives are better than just about anywhere on the planet. My libertarian side is much more concerned with our lives being dictated out of Washington by government officials who keep expanding beyond the founding fathers’ constitution (yes, this would include GWB’s drug bill that he put through a few years ago) rather than government officials monitoring overseas phone calls and emails.
MD
Minnesota Dad –
If you want to see a federal boondoggle, I direct you to the war in Iraq.
With all due respect, you are an authoritarian, not a libertarian.
Because of your fear of Islamic terrorism, you are willing to invest a dangerous amount of power in one single person in an effort to make you feel safer. And these efforts run counter to the Constitution (the signing statements, the loss of habeas corpus, giving the power to declare war to the President, etc.) that a libertarian supposedly reveres.
Answer these questions honestly: will you be as satisfied with this too-powerful, unconstitutional President in 2009 if he or she is a Democrat? Would you have been as supportive of the “global war on terror” the past six and a half years if Gore had won in 2000? Would you have forgiven President Gore if September 11th had happened during his presidency?
I’m sure you are familiar with this quote: “He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither.” While Islamic terrorism is a serious threat, is it really so serious that is is worth fundamentally changing our country and damaging our democracy?
Don’t you see that if we compromise on the values of freedom and liberty — the values placed in our Constitution by our founding fathers — then we actually let the terrorists win? How ironic that you claim to honor the libertarian values of our founding fathers at the same time you advocate subverting the Constitution they crafted, while investing too much unaccountable power in a single person, the very conditions under which our founding fathers felt it necessary to declare independence?
Minnesota Dad-
Is it a principle of limited government to take control of women’s medical decisions? Is it a principle of limited government to get involved in family disputes on the floor of congress to score political points with religious nuts? Is it a principle of limited government to prevent states like California from changing their own environmental laws due to conservative ideology? It seems to me that the only “rights” that conservatives and libertarians hold dear anymore is the the right to money… the only time they get upset is when someone touches their god given investments – but actual rights? like the right to dissent? The right to live in a country where I don;t have to worry about my phone being tapped and my Email being read? Privacy? Those are all disposable in the name of “security” which is an illusion at best.
Skeptical,
Keep drinking the Kool Aid.
So, do you think if a Democrat is elected in 2008 that the first thing they will do is reverse all of these ‘powers’. Me thinks not…me thinks they would expand them.
The pendulum will swing back over time, but since 9/11, the pendulum of protection is where things are at and need to be. If I had to place a bet on who will ultimately take the steps to swing the pendulum back….my money would go on a Republican.
The Democrats could have moved for impeachment a long time ago for all of these grave ‘powers’ Bush has had and supposedly abused. Democrats know their comments against these ‘powers’ are all hollow and are done to stir up their base…But where’s the beef? Where’s the impeachment?
Ain’t happening…because the arguements are hollow.
MD
DS,
I am friends with a lot of ‘old money’ liberals up here in the Northstar state. I am also friends with a lot of Republicans.
You use the old and worn out line that all Republicans care about is their wallets. I can assure you that the Republicans are more generous with donating money, volunteering their time, etc. to causes they support than the ‘old money’ liberals.
I can also assure you that when it comes to increasing property taxes it is always the liberals who state there should be more taxes but are first in line at the assessors office to bitch about the ever increasing taxes on their personal place.
The hypocrisy of Democrats runs way, way beyond the hypocrisy of Republicans. Sorry…but my view from the independant middle.
MD
Minnesota Dad-
If you care about more than your wallet… then stop voting like you do. Actions speak louder than words. Donate to charity all you like – it won’t change my opinion of a political philosophy whose bedrock principle is essentially keep your hands off my money. A few people bitching about their homeowners taxes going up (due to inflated home valuations) does not a party full of hypocrites make.
Maybe less people would need to rely on charity if the “libertarians (what a joke)” and republicans had not run what was a decent middle class economy into the ground over the last 8 years while enriching the bank accounts of the alreadt extremely well off. Hey what investment firm will Bush bail out next? I guess socialism is only OK for the rich… Who’s a hypocrite?
DS…Do you really think that Obama or Clinton will change things? Heck no…McCain was the media and Democrats darling for the past five years…now he is the antichrist.
Clinton is one of the biggest phonies US politics has ever seen and Obama’s relationship with race baiters will doom him in the national election.
Your anger is perking a little too high today.
Minnesota Dad –
“So, do you think if a Democrat is elected in 2008 that the first thing they will do is reverse all of these ‘powers’. Me thinks not…me thinks they would expand them.”
I hope the Democrats would, but I’m afraid that they won’t. Not necessarily because they will have the same paranoid, authoritarian mindset as the current Republican administration, but because the Washington bureaucracy is slow to change. Also, it it may be difficult for any future president, no matter the party, to voluntarily relinquish control of some of these new powers. That’s the concern! Don’t you see how your argument, your weak partisan swipe at the Democrats, supports my argument?
These changes occurred under a Republican president, and you think a Republican will correct it in the future? Don’t you realize that Bush has described this “war on terror” as never-ending? That McCain says that we need to stay in Iraq for the next 100 years? The Republicans are laying the groundwork for an endless fearful terror state? When will it end? How long will be in this “danger”? When will it be safe to reverse these changes, if they were even necessary to begin with?
These changes are fundamentally unconstitutional and dangerous, and yet you are willing to weaken the Constitution because you are afraid of terrorists. It would have been possible for Bush to do the necessary counter-terrorist activities since September 11th without subverting the Constitution and the judicial system. The existing FISA laws and other legal frameworks would have allowed it, if Bush was willing to treat Congress and the Judiciary as co-equal branches of government. So I think these changes had little to do with actual security; rather, the security issue was used as cover.
And yes, I do think that the Democrats in Congress are complicit in these failures. But the fact that they were cowed into submission by a hyper-partisan, “patriotic” media and Republican-dominated political system does not mean these arguments are hollow. Sir, protecting the Constitution and restoring the balance of powers in the government as envisioned by the founding fathers that you purport to revere are not “hollow.”
And whether or not there are impeachment proceedings is irrelevant to whether the abuses happened, and has nothing to do with whether the issues are “hollow.” You only have to look at the partisan impeachment of Clinton to see an example of how political and irrelevant of governance impeachment has become.
Any one else notice how much more coherent the comments here are than the original post?
The voters kicked joe out of the Democratic party and the same thing is in store for the other Bush enablers.
What I don’t understand is this. People make the statement about Dems being so out of touch. But don’t the people agree with the Dems or at least their rhetoric on most of the big stuff?
Aren’t most people against Torture?
Don’t most people want a timeline for leaving Iraq?
Don’t most people want national healthcare of some sort?
Don’t most people want some sort of help for individuals with sub prime mortgages?
Don’t most people, while disliking abortion, want it to remain legal?
I mean, on what issues is the Dem party “out of touch”? Lieberman seems to advocate a position on Iraq that’s held by like 30% of America and claims that the Dems who agree with the other 70% are out of touch. How?
Dandaman,
Leadership is not a popularity contest. Polls are not how you LEAD a government. They are biased – oftentimes done with what are known as ‘leading questions’, questions written to slant the results in the way the pollster wants them to appear.
Read a poll done by the Christian Science Monitor and you know it will be biased towards Republicans. Read a poll by Time Magazine or Newsweek, and you know it will have a Democrat slant.
Most people – Republicans and Democrats – want all of those things you mention. When you come up with a machine that prints money…let’s put in place national healthcare.
Once we master that money printer technology…let’s give everyone homes…let’s pay off everyone’s mortgage whether it is subprime or conventional. Because I can assure you, both Republicans and Democrats would love to have free housing.
Most people are against torture…however, if your son was serving in Iraq and a ‘humane’ level of ‘torture’ called waterboarding was available…and that information gleaned from a terrorist insurgent would save your son’s life…would you be in favor of a ‘humane’ level of torture? or would you say it would be OK for your son to die so that you could maintain your principles? Most people in that circumstance would say….bring on the waterboards.
While I think abortions are poor planning by individuals and morally wrong…it is up to each individual to look at their moral compass and figure out what is right. I do not believe that there should be ANY government funding for abortions…period. Those that think it is a ‘women’s right to choose’ should mail their personal checks (or maybe their tax refund checks!)to the local Planned Parenthood to fund abortions.
Again, your comments are what makes people say Democrats are out of touch. They make you feel good when you state them, but when you boil them into the gray areas of practicality….they are unpracticable.
Finally, while we are at it….how many Democrats that post here have written the IRS demanding that they not send you your Tax Refund/Rebate Check that every American is receiving this year? Are you going to send them a letter with your return?
MD
Its called providing for the common defense. I tend to feel that there are people in this world that would not hesitate to chop my head off if they had the opportunity. Not because I am American, not because I am western…but because I do not follow their religious teachings.
It’s called neo-con fear mongering. It’s called not understanding that our previous Mideast policy is exactly why people like you feel like we need to be there forever, and don’t recognize that this is a never ending cycle – only making things more dangerous here at home as well as abroad for Americans.
A true libertarian would be dead set against permanently garrisoning the planet, extraordinary rendition, torture (more than just waterboarding – look up extreme sensory deprivation and ECT for starters), the shredding of constitutional rights here at home, and borrowing huge sums of money from a communist country (China anyone?) to fund it all.
All because a group of SAUDI ARABIANS (who by the way didn’t exactly fit the Islamofacist stereotype based on accounts of their lifestyles) killed 3000 people. I worry more about being eavesdropped upon, arrested without cause, tortured and murdered by the CIA than I do about getting my head cut off. Oh, by the way – care to produce any statistics on how many westerners have had their heads cut off by Islamofacists? I can think of one, maybe two.
Certainly fewer than the number of people being detained and tortured without a trial that have died in our network of illegal prisons around the world.
MD,
You sure seem to be full of Coulterish anecdotes and memes about the inherent goodness of Republicans and supposed hypocrisy of Democrats. Of course even Ann “adam’s apple” Coulter admits that the current edition of the Republican party is the party of hypocrisy. Heck, they’re proud of it.
I made too much money last year so I don’t have to worry about the “stimulus” check, and I question whether this strategy will do any good anyway. But yes, I would most certainly ask that they keep it as long as it isn’t being spent on the debacle in Iraq. This coming from a true independent, not an authoritarian apologist like yourself.
Minnesota Dad, KC
For your mutual reading pleasure:
OBAMA’S DIMESTORE ‘MEIN KAMPF’
April 2, 2008
If characters from “The Hills” were to emote about race, I imagine it would sound like B. Hussein Obama’s autobiography, “Dreams From My Father.”
Has anybody read this book? Inasmuch as the book reveals Obama to be a flabbergasting lunatic, I gather the answer is no. Obama is about to be our next president: You might want to take a peek. If only people had read “Mein Kampf” …
Nearly every page — save the ones dedicated to cataloguing the mundane details of his life — is bristling with anger at some imputed racist incident. The last time I heard this much race-baiting invective I was … in my usual front-row pew, as I am every Sunday morning, at Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago.
Obama tells a story about taking two white friends from the high school basketball team to a “black party.” Despite their deep-seated, unconscious hatred of blacks, the friends readily accepted. At the party, they managed not to scream the N-word, but instead “made some small talk, took a couple of the girls out on the dance floor.”
But with his racial hair-trigger, Obama sensed the whites were not comfortable because “they kept smiling a lot.” And then, in an incident reminiscent of the darkest days of the Jim Crow South … they asked to leave after spending only about an hour at the party! It was practically an etiquette lynching!
So either they hated black people with the hot, hot hate of a thousand suns, or they were athletes who had come to a party late, after a Saturday night basketball game.
In the car on the way home, one of the friends empathizes with Obama, saying: “You know, man, that really taught me something. I mean, I can see how it must be tough for you and Ray sometimes, at school parties … being the only black guys and all.”
And thus Obama felt the cruel lash of racism! He actually writes that his response to his friend’s perfectly lovely remark was: “A part of me wanted to punch him right there.”
Listen, I don’t want anybody telling Obama about Bill Clinton’s “I feel your pain” line.
Wanting to punch his white friend in the stomach was the introductory anecdote to a full-page psychotic rant about living by “the white man’s rules.” (One rule he missed was: “Never punch out your empathetic white friend after dragging him to a crappy all-black party.”)
Obama’s gaseous disquisition on the “white man’s rules” leads to this charming crescendo: “Should you refuse this defeat and lash out at your captors, they would have a name for that, too, a name that could cage you just as good. Paranoid. Militant. Violent. Nigger.”
For those of you in the “When is Obama gonna play the ‘N-word’ card?” pool, the winner is … Page 85! Congratulations!
When his mother expresses concern about Obama’s high school friend being busted for drugs, Obama says he patted his mother’s hand and told her not to worry.
This, too, prompted Obama to share with his readers a life lesson on how to handle white people: “It was usually an effective tactic, another one of those tricks I had learned: People were satisfied so long as you were courteous and smiled and made no sudden moves. They were more than satisfied, they were relieved — such a pleasant surprise to find a well-mannered young black man who didn’t seem angry all the time.”
First of all, I note that this technique seems to be the basis of Obama’s entire presidential campaign. But moreover — he was talking about his own mother! As Obama says: “Any distinction between good and bad whites held negligible meaning.” Say, do you think a white person who said that about blacks would be a leading presidential candidate?
The man is stark bonkersville.
He says the reason black people keep to themselves is that it’s “easier than spending all your time mad or trying to guess whatever it was that white folks were thinking about you.”
Here’s a little inside scoop about white people: We’re not thinking about you. Especially WASPs. We think everybody is inferior, and we are perfectly charming about it.
In college, Obama explains to a girl why he was reading Joseph Conrad’s 1902 classic, “Heart of Darkness”: “I read the book to help me understand just what it is that makes white people so afraid. Their demons. The way ideas get twisted around. I helps me understand how people learn to hate.”
By contrast, Malcolm X’s autobiography “spoke” to Obama. One line in particular “stayed with me,” he says. “He spoke of a wish he’d once had, the wish that the white blood that ran through him, there by an act of violence, might somehow be expunged.”
Forget Rev. Jeremiah Wright — Wright is Booker T. Washington compared to this guy.
Sweet Thang… And you voted for Bush? If this is the standard that you hold a candidate to, how did you not off yourself when the GOP threw that turd against the wall? Obama was top of his class in law school. wrote his autobiography, served his community instead of joining a huge firm for $2.5 mill a year as a partner. Bush was investigated, what, 3 time by the SEC? Ran how many businesses into the ground? Christ, there is no hope for the 27% of you mouthbreathers. None so blind as those who refuse to see.