A "racial threat" to the Democrat National Committe?
5-2-08
I came across an interesting press release today by the black organization named the "color of change". It was targeted directly at the Democrat National Committee Chairman Howard Dean and other top Democrats. Clearly this election among most black Democrats is strictly about race. It looks like race is being used as a weapon by black Obama supporters to yield the results they want. So much for theory that the "best person" should get the Democrat Nomination. I found this statement in the letter very interesting.
"It would also give your seal of approval to an "electability" strategy executed by stoking race-based fear and division among voters. We expect that from the Republicans; we fight them on it every year. But now the leadership of the Democratic Party is poised to cosign this strategy of division and disenfranchisement"
Leave it to a bunch of clueless lemmings to still not figure it out. What the heck, its only been forty years and counting? Maybe the "ColorofChange" should ask the voters in Florida and Michigan about what TRUE "disenfranchised"feels like. The disinfranchisement was not committed by the Republican Party but by their fellow Democrats. Ignorance is bliss to liberals, I should have remembered that fact. but it becomes mildly annoying to people like myself and other logical thinking people having to deal with their ignorance. They want to talk about "race based fear and division", but these hypocrites are threatening to use race to divide the Democrat Party if they don't get their way. When will blacks with this mindset come to the conclusion that they are their own worst enemy? Oh well, whats another twenty years or more.
I came across an interesting press release today by the black organization named the "color of change". It was targeted directly at the Democrat National Committee Chairman Howard Dean and other top Democrats. Clearly this election among most black Democrats is strictly about race. It looks like race is being used as a weapon by black Obama supporters to yield the results they want. So much for theory that the "best person" should get the Democrat Nomination. I found this statement in the letter very interesting.
"It would also give your seal of approval to an "electability" strategy executed by stoking race-based fear and division among voters. We expect that from the Republicans; we fight them on it every year. But now the leadership of the Democratic Party is poised to cosign this strategy of division and disenfranchisement"
Leave it to a bunch of clueless lemmings to still not figure it out. What the heck, its only been forty years and counting? Maybe the "ColorofChange" should ask the voters in Florida and Michigan about what TRUE "disenfranchised"feels like. The disinfranchisement was not committed by the Republican Party but by their fellow Democrats. Ignorance is bliss to liberals, I should have remembered that fact. but it becomes mildly annoying to people like myself and other logical thinking people having to deal with their ignorance. They want to talk about "race based fear and division", but these hypocrites are threatening to use race to divide the Democrat Party if they don't get their way. When will blacks with this mindset come to the conclusion that they are their own worst enemy? Oh well, whats another twenty years or more.
posted by Alpha Conservative Male at 6:38 PM
16 Comments:
"Color of Change" better hope that Obama does not lose his lead in the primary, or it will look that much more foolish with its threat.
One of my friends lives in MI. I was shocked to find out that the parties penalized states that moved their elections early. I never figured out why they would do that. At least the Republicans allowed 1/2 of the delegates (I believe). To think that the Democrats did not allow any to sit during the convention is amazing to me. They have created this madness so at this point it appears that the super-delegates will decide the nomination. Again they set up another system that appears that the will of the people could be overridden by these people. I understand that the idea is that the best person should be picked. I also understand that the person with the most votes and the most qualified candidate may not be the same person. What if the super-delegates feel that Clinton is the best candidate?
It will be interesting to see how many people have lied to pollsters about who will vote for Obama. If he really loses I think we will all know for sure that (1) the polls are a waste of time (MHO) or (2) people are lying about voting for him so they will not appear as racists.
This is a sad day for politics.
Pamela,
Here is the funny deal. I live in the state of Florida, which is one of the states I see from what I read in the news Obama would have lost bad had he ran in this state.
So if people are going to complain Obama gets chafted by Democrats presently, they are going to have to consider Hiliary is getting raw deal with Florida (not that I feel sorry for her since she is foolish enough to go along with not counting Florida votes in the first place, dued to apparent overconfidence on her part).
thuyen tran"Color of Change" better hope that Obama does not lose his lead in the primary, or it will look that much more foolish with its threat"
I hope Obama does lose the nomination thuyen tran for that very reason. I can sse it all now. Groups like Color of Change, the NAACP, the New Black Panathers, the Nation of Islam and other radical black groups protesting at the Democrat National Convention along with the addition very ticked off disinfranchied voters and delegates from Michigan and Florida. My mouth is watering just thinking about it. I guess what happens Tuesday will determine if this dream will come a reality.
Pamela"At least the Republicans allowed 1/2 of the delegates (I believe"
Pamela, I think the Republicans allow all of their delegates to be seated regardless of moving up their primary date.
pamela "It will be interesting to see how many people have lied to pollsters about who will vote for Obama. If he really loses I think we will all know for sure that (1) the polls are a waste of time (MHO) or (2) people are lying about voting for him so they will not appear as racists
That ccould be the case pamela.According to the "polls" 75% of white democrats have voted for Hillary and about 95% of blacks are voting for Obama. It will be interesting to see what percentage of the white vote that voted for Hillary actually crosses over to support Obama. Obama couldn't win the big states due to Hillary's high concentration of white democrat voters, and without those voters Obama doesn't stand a chance of winning in November. I thought about trying to break that news to liberals, but then again let them figure that out the hard way in November.
pamela "This is a sad day for politics"
I agree pamela, and nobody could ever have imagined that this mess of a situation would have turned out the way it has just 12 monthes ago.
CB you would probably know better than I since you are a member of the local Republican Party. I heard that the Republicans would only allow 1/2 of the delegates to be seated. If indeed they do allow them to be seated that will be nice.
What is the reason to penalize the delegates for moving their primary dates? It just seems like something needs to change there. Why should the same states feel like their votes do not count because they are further down the line because of their primary? I guess I was shocked to see this was the process at least for the Democrats. I really do not understand the theory of punishing states for moving their primary.
TT I totally agree with you. From my understanding the theory is supposed to be that the super-delegates are supposed to pick the best choice. Considering that both Democrats want to implement views that I think are harmful to the nation, especially dealing in the economic and moral realms, I would choose Hilary over Obama hands down. It will be interesting if somehow the super-delegates do choose her. I know that it is being announced that some of them are switching their allegience to Obama. It just really appears that they could possibly be doing it just to kiss up to him because they think he will win.
I would like someone to explain to me exactly how they work and how they are picked. I just heard about them during this election cycle. I believe I heard that this is a recent concoction also. I feel like I'm learning about the election process for the first time.
I'm glad the chickens are coming to roost.
Hopefully this will bury the myth about Democrats being about unity and tolerance.
I bet most whites claim to pull the lever for Obama because they don't wanna be considered racist even if they think he won't do a good job running this country.
However principled individuals both black and white wouldn't vote for Obama based on his skin color.
I find him to be a moral wart and I wouldn't even sneeze in direction.
My question to blacks is would they vote for Mr. Obama if he is white instead of black?
Well I know I wouldn't for him whether he is black or white because his policies disgust me and so do his associates!
The only difference between Obama and Mrs. Clinton is that she is a white female and he is a black man and no Johnny McLame isn't an improvement by a long shot!
pamela"What is the reason to penalize the delegates for moving their primary dates"
I'll have to check on that pamela. The best answer I can give off hand is that both parties want to maintain the integrity of the early voting states such as Iowa, New Hampshire, North Carolina. I can see why other states might want to have their day in the spotlight during the primarys, but that can't be the case because there are so many states. It's a catch twenty two Pamela.
chilerkle"I'm glad the chickens are coming to roost.
Hopefully this will bury the myth about Democrats being about unity and tolerance"
Democrats are about "unity" and "tolerance"? I still burst out laughing when Democrats say that with a straight face chilerkle. Democrats who normally claim to be so tolerannta are most of the time the mosted closed minded, intolerant people in this country. For some reason the mere thought that a black person can think as an individual and think opposite of the Democrat platform and liberal ideology really gets under their skin. A Democrat liberal's idea of "diversity" is similar to the borg collective.
chilerkle"However principled individuals both black and white wouldn't vote for Obama based on his skin color"
The people who have and will vote for Obama based on race can't even realize how hypocritical they truely are. White and black liberals are trying to used the premise that if a white person doesn't vote for Obama, he or she has to be a "racist", yet the main reasony why black and white liberals are voting for Obama is because of his skin color. To top it all off, Obama supporters don't know from one day to the next, where Obama stands on any issue.
chilerkle" My question to blacks is would they vote for Mr. Obama if he is white instead of black"
If Barack Obama was a registred Republican, the love affair with Obama woiuld be over in a heart beat and they would THEN and only then would they ignore the color of his skin chilerkle.
chilerkle"The only difference between Obama and Mrs. Clinton is that she is a white female and he is a black man and no Johnny McLame isn't an improvement by a long shot!"
It's depressing for sure chilerkle. Whoever wins in November, we are the ones who are going to ultimately lose. The next four years aren't going to be pretty thats for sure.
"It's depressing for sure chilerkle. Whoever wins in November, we are the ones who are going to ultimately lose. The next four years aren't going to be pretty thats for sure."
I am voting for Chuck Baldwin.
I see Constitution Party this era as somewhat like Liberty Party in pre-Civil War era. Maybe make enough noise for Republicans to pay attention.
I would really like to know about the delegate logic. I'm not sure if it is so much that they want the limelight or if they feel their vote never determines who is the nominee. In many cases a candidate gets enough of the pledged delegates long before some of the states vote. For example McCain has enough pledged delegates to win the Republican nomination. I think there are two or three states that have their primaries today. Why does it even matter how they vote other than to determine who the seated delegates will vote for? Their votes will make no difference at all in the outcome. I would think each state wants to feel like they had a part in determining the nominee. At this point any state that voted later than the time where McCain got the pledged delegates had no real input in the selection process. I would also think that those in other states that would have liked to vote for other candidates never get the chance to because their primary is scheduled at a later date. Maybe other candidates would have stayed in the race longer if these other states voted earlier. It just seems unfair to have the same states voting early in the primary season. They get an advantage that the states that vote later never get. This was glaring to me because of the number of candidates that we had (over 20 at one point). To penalize them because they wanted a better chance to vote for the person they wanted to seems wrong to me.
As I have stated I feel like I'm learning about the election process anew. This is amazing.
Chilerkle asks; "My question to blacks is would they vote for Mr. Obama if he is white instead of black?"
I'm Black...can I answer that question?
Hmmmmm....lets see if Obama was white...would I vote for him...hmmmm? No....probably not.
I'd vote for Hillary though...if she were a White man! I'd vote for Mccain if he were a Black woman... Hell, sometimes I wish I were Asian...
If I was an Arab conservative, would you vote for me?
Pamela, the Democrats have a different system than the Republicans do.
They enacted changes after 1968 that created these "Super Delegates" (political insiders and elected officials) who CAN elect a different candidate than the one who won the popular vote and the greatest number of pledged delegates.
Super-delegates were supposed to supply some Establishment stability to the nominating process.
Before 1972, Democratic Party Bosses, like Chicago's Mayor Richard Daley controlled the nomination process.
But in early 1970’s, the Democratic Party’s rules were reformed to open the process to grass-roots activists, women, and ethnic minorities.
Sen. George McGovern, the leading anti-Vietnam war liberal, won the 1972 nomination. McGovern turned out to be a disaster as a presidential candidate, winning only one state and the District of Columbia.
So without reverting to the days of party bosses like Buckley, the Democrats decided to guarantee that elected officials would have a bigger voice in the nomination.
That's why the Democrats have the spectre of the Super Delegates possibly controlling the outcome of THIS Primary Season, while the Republicans do not, as they don't have such a system.
CB, Thanks for the info about the Democratic party's delegate process and what provoked the change. Things are getting more interesting by the day. I really wonder if they will seat the delegates in FL and MI. There is so much reporting about that.
"I really wonder if they will seat the delegates in FL and MI. There is so much reporting about that." (Pamela)
<
<
I can't see them seating those delegates Pamela, especially after they made it clear from the start that they wouldn't count due to those states moving thier Primary dates up, against Party wishes.
Clinton "won" those two states, but Obama didn't even compete in them!
It wouldn't be fair to seat them now and it's probably too late for a re-vote. They could've done so earlier and Clinton said she'd have spilt the cost with the Obama campaign, but there was no reason for the Obama campaign to go along with that.
Clinton felt she was heir to the Demnocratic nomination, but Obama was able to take advantage of her very high negatives, even among Democrats.
In the general election Barack Obama has TWO major problems, (1) he's set himself as a far Left candidate to win the Democratic nomination, but that will work against him in a Center-Right country and (2) the Jerry Wright, Bill Ayers connections have hurt him even among Democrats, as his showings post the Wright flap have shown.
That doesn't mean McCain is any kind of favorite, as many of his own stances are not well received by many Republicans.
It probably all bodes well for a very close race this November.
I totally agree that it would not be right for them to seat the delegates. It will show the entire country that they will bend the rules to get an advantage. For a group that swears that they take the moral high road compared to Republicans they cannot afford to look like they are as slimy as they really are.
With Bob Barr entering the race it is getting even more interesting. I'm wiling to make a gentleman's bet that he gets more votes than Nadar. I have no idea how much he will get.
This is amazing.
"I totally agree that it would not be right for them to seat the delegates." (Pamela)
They really can't.
The rules were set. Obama followed them, Hillary didn't...the delegates from those two states were clearly to be excluded according to the Dem's own rules.
I can't see them going back on that now, especially since Barack Obama didn't even run in FL and didn't campaign in either state.
Post a Comment
<< Home