Showing posts with label political history. Show all posts
Showing posts with label political history. Show all posts

Thursday, May 19, 2016

Two For One Sale...

...I'm old enough to remember the first go-round of Bill & Hillary and despite voting for Bill in 1996 (I was only 17 in 1992; couldn't vote for him then) still ain't getting me to vote for that orange-skinned sonuvabitch Trump, though.

Monday, November 30, 2015

The Myth Of The Southern Strategy

If there isn't a more damnable lie in American politics than the myth of the Southern Strategy, I can't think of one...neither can Powerline Blog's Steven Hayward, whose 2013 article on the subject still ranks as the go-to article for debunking the myth.

Now, did some politically nasty fellows used the shifting political sands of the 1950's & 1960's to switch parties and political allegiances? Yeah, most likely...but as Hayward points out,
The point of all this is not to deny that Richard Nixon may have invited some nasty fellows into his political bed. The point is that the GOP finally became the region’s dominant party in the least racist phase of the South’s entire history, and it got that way by attracting most of its votes from the region’s growing and confident communities—not its declining and fearful ones. The myth’s shrillest proponents are as reluctant to admit this as they are to concede that most Republicans genuinely believe that a color-blind society lies down the road of individual choice and dynamic change, not down the road of state regulation and unequal treatment before the law. The truly tenacious prejudices here are the mythmakers’.(Powerline Blog)

Friday, July 3, 2015

Pin The Tail On The Donkey: The Racist History Of The Democrat Party

Quoting: The Dems want to pin the Confederate Flag, KKK, Great Depression, urban decay, and harsh marriage laws on the GOP... pin the tale on the Donkey instead!

....remind me again which party's the racist one? Oh, that's right: it was the Democrat Party!

Wednesday, May 20, 2015

Attacking The GOP As Old & White Doesn't Work Anymore

Quoting PJ MediaJoe Biden & Hillary Clinton make a good pair of grandparents, but not a good set of youthful Pres. candidates. Check out Rubio or Jindal's ages & ancestry.

For all the crap that gets thrown at the GOP, this one makes virtually no sense whatsoever; over the past few decades, the Republicans have been the ones who've become more diverse, not the Democrats...the trick for the GOP has been to do so while keeping united on core Republican values and not kowtowing to groupthink and the ever-increasing Democrat need to shoehorn people into groups and ignore our individuality as human beings.

Just something to think about in political terms, my friends.

Obama Official Blames Democrat Policies For Baltimore, Ferguson, Etc.,...

Isn't it refreshing to hear a top Justice Dept. official say something honest for once?
Vanita Gupta, head of the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, told a lawyers group in Colorado that slavery and Jim Crow were responsible for the Ferguson and Baltimore riots.
... ... ...
Let’s start with the first question and consider the source of the mistrust. Mistrust can’t be explained away as the kneejerk reaction of the ill-informed or the hyperbolic. It’s in part the product of historical awareness about the role that police have played in enforcing and perpetuating slavery, the Black Codes, lynchings and Jim Crow segregation. (Gay Patriot via. PJ Media)
She's right, but what she didn't add to the above is that it was her own party, the Democratic Party, that instituted those policies over the course of American history. After all, as Human Events points out, it was their party that created those policies...yet, if you listen to the media major-domos, you'd swear it was the Republican Party at fault for these things; its' as if no one remembers history or the past - or both.

Just remember: its' the Democrats' fault for Baltimore and Ferguson and we need to make them own it, at every opportunity; there is no reason on this earth for people to meekly accept that things as they stand are the best they can hope for...and the sooner we can help people escape the plantation that is the Democrat Party, the better off America will ultimately be.

Thursday, January 22, 2015

What Gives, Grey Lady?

Say whatever you want about the New York Times, but they're still - in regards to the broadsheets - still considered one of America's resident "papers of record" (along w/the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times and USA Today, among others) why then do they, if they're still one of these "papers of record", still give equal time to a known hate group on its' pages?
There it is again -- like a poke in the eye. 
The front page story in last Saturday's New York Times on the Supreme Court's decision to grant review in four marriage equality cases featured a classic pair of dueling quotes: First, Jon Davidson of Lambda Legal extolling the growing national embrace of equality. And then -- yes -- the usual response lamenting judicial activism from Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, described as "a conservative policy and lobbying group."
No. No. No. FRC is not just another "conservative" political outfit. It is an anti-gay hate group -- so classified by the Southern Poverty Law Center, which is in the business of tracking such things. (Huffington Post Gay Voices)
...and the SPLC back in 2010 had plenty to say about groups such as the Family Research Council, the American Family Association and other affiliated groups in regards to their continued hate towards those of us in the LGBT community...and yet mainstream (or lamestream, depending on the perpsective) media outlets still give these groups airtime? Would we give groups espousing racial, religious or ethnic hatred airtime? Probably not....yet we give anti-gay hate groups airtime. Why? To provide balance?

I'd say more here, but I'm going to let the resident major-domo over at Holy Bullies & Headless Monsters, Alvin McEwen, have the last word here...quoting:
Anti-gay hate groups are treated differently from religious and racial hate groups because I don't think the lgbt community has made a strong enough case to bring these groups out from the aura of legitimacy which they don't deserve. The Southern Poverty Law Center did the important groundwork.  However, that groundwork is not enough. It is up to the lgbt community via our blogs, our news sources, and our journalists to dig deep and bring a lot of things to light. The actions and tactics of groups like the Family Research Council, the American Family Association, etc. go back over 30 years. Subsequently, we are going to have to overturn every stone - the junk science studies, the false testimonies in front of congressional bodies, the distortion of legitimate research, the constant lie after lie which brazenly conjured up false images of gay men dragging innocent children into bathrooms or deliberately infecting folks with AIDS.  All of these things were done, said, or implied by these so-called morality groups, their spokespeople, and  their supporters.  But as long as our community allows this stuff to stay buried, we will never make the media hold these groups accountable.(Holy Bullies & Headless Monsters)

Tuesday, January 20, 2015

And The Designated Survivor For Tonight Is...

Over the years, whenever the President gives an address to Congress, there's usually one member of the president's cabinet - along with a few members of Congress - who are kept away from the Capitol in the event that something happens. They are known as designated survivors and according to NBC News, when the annual political kabuki theatre that is the State of the Union Address takes place tonight, the cabinet's designated survivor is...
The "designated survivor" for tonight's State of the Union is Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx. For security reasons, one member of the president's cabinet is chosen each year to skip the speech at the U.S. Capitol in case of a national security crisis.
Foxx, previously the mayor of Charlotte, NC, has served as Transportation Secretary since July 2013. Last year, Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz was the 'designated survivor.'
Since 2003, two members of each house of Congress have also been absent from the State of the Union speech in case of a security event. (NBC News)
My a student of history, I've tried to imagine just what kind of conversations the president and his (or someday, her) designated survivor might have...would it be anything like this?

Saturday, November 22, 2014

Jeb Bush In 2016?

Though the thought of a Jeb Bush presidential campaign could give elements of the Republican Party collective apoplectic nightmares, its' not a bad idea - as ideas go:
Longtime Clinton adviser Harold Ickes said a Republican presidential ticket of Jeb Bush and Sen. Rob Portman would be tough for Democrats to beat in 2016, the Daily Beast reports.

“A Bush-Portman ticket could doom Democrats in Bush’s native Florida and in Portman’s Ohio… and Bush’s Hispanic support would make Colorado a difficult lift as well.” Said Ickes: “Bush has what appears to be very strong credentials with Hispanics. I’m told he speaks Spanish at home, and I’m told that he actually thinks in Spanish.”(Political Wire)
For what its' worth, I don't think Jeb Bush is going to run - for two reasons: (1)he knows he's unpopular with certain elements of the GOP and would have to acknowledge them (among other things) in order to win the nomination in 2016, and (2)on a philosophical level, do we - and this is a vestige of having been a liberal/progressive for nearly 20 we really want to see a third Bush in the White House?