Sarah Palin under attack for nominating a true conservative for Alaska's AG

[theeedude]

Good to see republicans are still in denial, going to be a minority party for a very long time.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Maybe you are mistaken that Karl orchestrated McCains campaign?!?!?!?!?

And maybe not.

Mehlman, Rove boost McCain campaign

By DAVID PAUL KUHN | 3/8/08 7:08 AM EDT

John McCain is getting much more than President Bush's endorsement and fundraising help for his campaign. He?s getting Bush's staff.

It?s no secret that Steve Schmidt, Bush?s attack dog in the 2004 election, and Mark McKinnon, the president?s media strategist, are performing similar functions for McCain now.

John McCain is getting much more than President Bush's endorsement and fundraising help for his campaign. He?s getting Bush's staff.

It?s no secret that Steve Schmidt, Bush?s attack dog in the 2004 election, and Mark McKinnon, the president?s media strategist, are performing similar functions for McCain now.

But other big-name Bushies are lining up to boost McCain, too.

Ken Mehlman, who ran Bush?s 2004 campaign, is now serving as an unpaid, outside adviser to the Arizona Republican. Karl Rove, the president?s top political hand since his Texas days, recently gave money to McCain and soon after had a private conversation with the senator. A top McCain adviser said both Mehlman and Rove are now informally advising the campaign. Rove refused to detail his conversation with McCain.

The list could grow longer. Dan Bartlett, formerly a top aide in the Bush White House, and Sara Taylor, the erstwhile Bush political adviser, said they are eager to provide any assistance and advice possible to McCain.
.
.
(continues)

Karl Rove doesn't take a leak without ulterior motives. :roll:

 

[Genx87]

That is from March of last year and at best claims he is an informal advisor. Later articles including Rove himself claims he was doing little advising.

I think it is painfully clear he had little to do with McCains campaign because of how McCains campaign was run.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Good to see republicans are still in denial, going to be a minority party for a very long time.

Thats what the Republicans were saying 8 years ago, or even 4 years ago. Things change.. Quickly. Hell, even democrats themselves 4 years ago were saying they were dead as a party after losing to Bush again.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Genx, you are doing a good job of stating your case without falling into the "typical" conservative mantra.

I would like to point out what I think are two glaring statements of yours that are inaccurate:

1. Dixecrats are a relic from the 1940's and didnt gain much traction. Most of the prominent members remained democrats to the end.

Ultimately, the Dixiecrat movement paved the way for the rise of the modern Republican Party in the South. Many former Dixiecrat supporters eventually became Republicans, as was highlighted by Strom Thurmond's conversion in the 1960s.

2. Of course the saddest part imo is the black community is now lockstep with a party that imo doesnt have their best interest in mind.

To think that either party has any person's best interest in mind that isn't a major campaign donor is pretty naive. It doesn't matter if the black segment follows the Repubs or the Dems, they are still going to be left at the back of the bus until they are a majority in the law making process.

Which brings me to a funny observation...we are almost like South Africa. A white minority that is the ruling class.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Genx, you are doing a good job of stating your case without falling into the "typical" conservative mantra.

I would like to point out what I think are two glaring statements of yours that are inaccurate:

1. Dixecrats are a relic from the 1940's and didnt gain much traction. Most of the prominent members remained democrats to the end.

Ultimately, the Dixiecrat movement paved the way for the rise of the modern Republican Party in the South. Many former Dixiecrat supporters eventually became Republicans, as was highlighted by Strom Thurmond's conversion in the 1960s.

2. Of course the saddest part imo is the black community is now lockstep with a party that imo doesnt have their best interest in mind.

To think that either party has any person's best interest in mind that isn't a major campaign donor is pretty naive. It doesn't matter if the black segment follows the Repubs or the Dems, they are still going to be left at the back of the bus until they are a majority in the law making process.

Which brings me to a funny observation...we are almost like South Africa. A white minority that is the ruling class.

Not that it matters much, when did the demographic happen that caused blacks to outnumber whites?

Regardless, these are pretty serious accusations. When you call a man hurtful things it warrants substantial proof.

Has anyone a news transcript of this fellow saying these things, or is this a report about people saying that he said them?

If he in fact did what the OP claims, then he needs to be called on it and not hold public office.

Then again if not, the OP owes us an explanation and an apology.

 

[SirStev0]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Craig234
Since the civil rights bills, the Republicans have been the party that has bad policies for blacks, compared to the democrats.

Yeah, the myth of the self-perpetuating welfare state is a horrible Republican creation...

I'm a partisan hack with no useful input.

Fixed.

He def out did your little snippet at him and that was the only retort you could give? Kinda pathetic, don't you think?

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: SirStev0

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Craig234
Since the civil rights bills, the Republicans have been the party that has bad policies for blacks, compared to the democrats.

Yeah, the myth of the self-perpetuating welfare state is a horrible Republican creation...

I'm a partisan hack with no useful input.

Fixed.

He def out did your little snippet at him and that was the only retort you could give? Kinda pathetic, don't you think?

Oh, so the welfare state is smashing success eh? Been down the projects lately to see your handiwork?

 

[MotF Bane]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Genx87

Maybe you are mistaken that Karl orchestrated McCains campaign?!?!?!?!?

And maybe not.

Mehlman, Rove boost McCain campaign

By DAVID PAUL KUHN | 3/8/08 7:08 AM EDT

John McCain is getting much more than President Bush's endorsement and fundraising help for his campaign. He?s getting Bush's staff.

It?s no secret that Steve Schmidt, Bush?s attack dog in the 2004 election, and Mark McKinnon, the president?s media strategist, are performing similar functions for McCain now.

John McCain is getting much more than President Bush's endorsement and fundraising help for his campaign. He?s getting Bush's staff.

It?s no secret that Steve Schmidt, Bush?s attack dog in the 2004 election, and Mark McKinnon, the president?s media strategist, are performing similar functions for McCain now.

But other big-name Bushies are lining up to boost McCain, too.

Ken Mehlman, who ran Bush?s 2004 campaign, is now serving as an unpaid, outside adviser to the Arizona Republican. Karl Rove, the president?s top political hand since his Texas days, recently gave money to McCain and soon after had a private conversation with the senator. A top McCain adviser said both Mehlman and Rove are now informally advising the campaign. Rove refused to detail his conversation with McCain.

The list could grow longer. Dan Bartlett, formerly a top aide in the Bush White House, and Sara Taylor, the erstwhile Bush political adviser, said they are eager to provide any assistance and advice possible to McCain.
.
.
(continues)

Karl Rove doesn't take a leak without ulterior motives. :roll:

Does he spin that leak? :Q

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Genx, you are doing a good job of stating your case without falling into the "typical" conservative mantra.

I would like to point out what I think are two glaring statements of yours that are inaccurate:

1. Dixecrats are a relic from the 1940's and didnt gain much traction. Most of the prominent members remained democrats to the end.

Ultimately, the Dixiecrat movement paved the way for the rise of the modern Republican Party in the South. Many former Dixiecrat supporters eventually became Republicans, as was highlighted by Strom Thurmond's conversion in the 1960s.

2. Of course the saddest part imo is the black community is now lockstep with a party that imo doesnt have their best interest in mind.

To think that either party has any person's best interest in mind that isn't a major campaign donor is pretty naive. It doesn't matter if the black segment follows the Repubs or the Dems, they are still going to be left at the back of the bus until they are a majority in the law making process.

Which brings me to a funny observation...we are almost like South Africa. A white minority that is the ruling class.

Go look at the list of the actual dixiecrats. Only a few turned republican at the end of their careers. Majority remained democrats. People seem to link the southern strategy with dixcrats when there was nearly 30 years difference between the two.

What I meant by best interest is as a platform they sell the black community on govt dependence which has been disasterous for that community. But they have no alternative due to republicans giving up on them 35 years ago.

I can agree it can kind of look like South Africa except whites are still the majority here

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Good to see republicans are still in denial, going to be a minority party for a very long time.

Just keep telling yourself that. Personally I don't think Obama is going to live up to what has been promised by his hype machine. Take the spin on this pirate/hostage thing. He had a few teenage pirates shot to save an American life and the media is pouring it on about how "decisive" he acted. Did he have any other options? Hell no.

 

[bctbct]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: senseamp
Good to see republicans are still in denial, going to be a minority party for a very long time.

Just keep telling yourself that. Personally I don't think Obama is going to live up to what has been promised by his hype machine. Take the spin on this pirate/hostage thing. He had a few teenage pirates shot to save an American life and the media is pouring it on about how "decisive" he acted. Did he have any other options? Hell no.

Bush would have rounded up every combatant fish in the area and sent them to gitmo. Obama on the other hand "had a few teenage pirates shot to save an American life"

I know it will be hard for your Bush guys to get used to calm cool and collective responses.

 

[aphex]

Until some more concrete sources come out about this, I don't believe it. Its seems a bit too over the top to me.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Genx87
A party that was founded in 1854 on anti-slavery activism has its roots in hating blacks eh?

More comedy from Phokus. Why do I feel like Phokus's definition of roots changes based on what kind of idiotic argument he is making? Lets forget the decades of terribad racism by the democrats because their roots are from the mid 70s right? lmao.

Yeah, we're talking about modern conservativism, silly

Yesterday's dixiecrats are today's republicans.

Which way do you want it? The parties roots or what it has evolved into today?

Dixecrats are a relic from the 1940's and didnt gain much traction. Most of the prominent members remained democrats to the end.

....this modern party has no true roots with the original. They only go back as far as the hijacking by the Dixiecrats. you can't be that daft.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: SirStev0

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Craig234
Since the civil rights bills, the Republicans have been the party that has bad policies for blacks, compared to the democrats.

Yeah, the myth of the self-perpetuating welfare state is a horrible Republican creation...

I'm a partisan hack with no useful input.

Fixed.

He def out did your little snippet at him and that was the only retort you could give? Kinda pathetic, don't you think?

Oh, so the welfare state is smashing success eh? Been down the projects lately to see your handiwork?

I appreciate SirStev0 speaking truth to the worst poster in the forum (the previous holder of the title was replaced some time ago).

Boberfett, of course, is the author of his own unintended truth:

"I'm a partisan hack with no useful input."

As for 'the self-perpetuating welfare state', were we speaking with a normal person instead of Boberfett, we'd have a rational discussion. We'd get facts, ask good questions, evaluate the actual effects, the history, the alternatives, weight the good and the bad and reachsome conclusions. But since it it him, the proper response is the response for someone willfully ignorant who has no interest in the trtuh and is its enemy.

So we don't need to go into the many studies showing the real effects of welfare, the theory of how welfare is a cheap investment by society in its workforce that has structural unemployment built in to supply cheap labor apart from its humanitarian purposes, the fact of how most welfare is used as designed for those transitions, increasing the productivity of th epeople who use it, the fact that the 'Great Society' created a permanent reduction in those below the poverty line by one third, the simple fact that before our efforts to help the poor the US situation was the opposite of his rosy predictions of how welfare hurts people, filled with terrible poverty and suffering, the history of 'welfare reform' that has already crippled the programs, the issue of how African Americans' suffering a century of racism directly led to the bulk of the problems they face leading to their disproportionate use of welfare matching their disproportionate poverty, as we slowly work to move to a more equal playing field, or even the admitted mistakes and imperfections liberals have admitted. We don't need to talk about any of that any more than we need to give a pig singing lessons.

Too bad for Boberfett there's no 'welfare' for posts, so we could give him a hand out more rewarding for his pathetic post than he has earned.

But we can show it's his own lack of effort leaving him so poor in ignorance, as he ignores suggested reading like Barbara Ehrenreich's "Nickled and Dimed".

But I'll post a short commentary by her to help clean the fumed from his posting:

Between 1998 and 2000, I went to three different cities, and tried to support myself on the wages I could earn as an entry-level worker. I waited tables, I cleaned the toilets of the rich, I fed Alzheimers patients in a nursing home, I sorted stock at Wal-Mart. All these were difficult, exhausting jobs, and it made me understand what a serious mistake our nation made with welfare reform.

The theory behind welfare reform was that there was something really wrong with welfare: They were psychologically damaged ?lazy, demoralized · and they are that way because of welfare, that welfare causes poverty, some people said.

Never mind that most people on welfare of course, were busy raising children and working on and off whenever they could, the new law just says everybody has to get off of welfare and into the workforce, to sink or swim. This hasn't worked out too well.

The math just doesn't work. The average woman coming off of welfare since 1996 earns $7/hour, that's $280/week before taxes, and you can't support children on that, or even one person.

I know because I tried it. And no matter how carefully I pinched pennies I couldn't get my wages to cover basic expenses..Like rent, at least $500/month plus utilities, like transportation to and from work, at least $60/month, and then if you are a working parent, you have hundreds of dollars a month in childcare expenses. Now if there's one thing that's really demoralizing, it's working hard and not making enough to live on.

Here's a simple theory of poverty: It's not a psychological condition. It is, above all ? a consequence of shamefully low wages and lack of opportunity for anything else.

In one poll, 94% of Americans said that they believe, if you work, you should make enough to live on. This is a notion that is basic to American values, I'd even say it's part of our social contract. Now we have to make it a reality.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
1. Dixecrats are a relic from the 1940's and didnt gain much traction. Most of the prominent members remained democrats to the end.

Ultimately, the Dixiecrat movement paved the way for the rise of the modern Republican Party in the South. Many former Dixiecrat supporters eventually became Republicans, as was highlighted by Strom Thurmond's conversion in the 1960s.

Go look at the list of the actual dixiecrats. Only a few turned republican at the end of their careers. Majority remained democrats. People seem to link the southern strategy with dixcrats when there was nearly 30 years difference between the two.

The term 'the Solid South' referred to how the South was reliably democratic in the era I mentioned, from the en of the civil war until the civil rights bills passed, but starting to break up with Truman's civil rights efforts. The south had been reliably democratic to oppose Republican policies favoring blacks from the beginning of the party's anti-slavery and 14th amendment support, until the Democrats became the party of justice for blacks.

The term 'Dixiecrat' can be taken in the more literal narrow sense to refer to the actual Dixiecrat Party opposing the Truman civil rights efforts, or in the broader sense to refer to the racist south during the period they were 'the Solid South'. The term is pretty useless in the narrow sense, and the more relevant fact is the longer history of souther politicians.

Wikipedia did a nice writeup of 'the Solid South' and Dixiecrats, excerpt:

Solid South refers to the electoral support of the Southern United States for the Democratic Party candidates for nearly a century from 1877, the end of the Reconstruction, to 1964, during the middle of the Civil Rights era.

Democrats won by large margins in the South in every presidential election from 1876 to 1948 except for 1928, when candidate Al Smith, a Catholic and a New Yorker, ran on the Democratic ticket; even in that election, the divided South provided Smith with nearly three-fourths of his electoral votes. Beginning in about 1950, the national Democratic Party's support of the civil rights movement significantly reduced Southern support for the Democratic Party and allowed the Republican Party to make gains in the South by way of its "Southern strategy". Today, the South is considered a stronghold of the Republican Party. Political scientists have often cited a southernization of politics following the fall of the Solid South.

The "Solid South" began to erode when Democratic President Harry S. Truman began supporting the civil rights movement. His policies, combined with the adoption of a civil rights plank in the 1948 Democratic platform, prompted many Southerners to walk out of the Democratic National Convention and form the Dixiecrat Party. This splinter party played a significant role in the 1948 election; the Dixiecrat candidate, Strom Thurmond, carried Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina. In the elections of 1952 and 1956, the popular Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower carried several border southern states, with especially strong showings in the new suburbs. In 1956, Eisenhower also carried Louisiana, becoming the first Republican to win the state since Rutherford B. Hayes in 1876, but the rest of the Deep South was still the bastion for Eisenhower's Democratic opponent, Adlai Stevenson.

In the 1960 election, the Democratic nominee, John F. Kennedy, continued his party's tradition of selecting a Southerner as the vice presidential candidate (in this case, Senator Lyndon B. Johnson of Texas). Kennedy, however, supported civil rights. In October 1960, when Martin Luther King, Jr. was arrested at a peaceful sit-in in Atlanta, Georgia, Kennedy placed a sympathetic phone call to King's wife, Coretta Scott King, and Robert Kennedy helped secure King's release. King expressed his appreciation for these calls. Although King himself made no endorsement, his father, who had previously endorsed Republican Richard Nixon, switched his support to Kennedy.

Due to these and other events, the Democrats lost ground with white voters in the South. The 1960 election was the first in which a Republican presidential candidate received electoral votes in the South while losing nationally. Nixon carried Virginia, Tennessee, and Florida. In addition, slates of unpledged electors, representing Democratic segregationists, won the election in Mississippi and Alabama.

The parties' positions on civil rights continued to evolve in the run up to the 1964 election. The Democratic candidate, Johnson, who had become president after Kennedy's assassination, spared no effort to win passage of a strong Civil Rights Act. After signing the landmark legislation, Johnson said to his aide, Bill Moyers, "I think we just delivered the South to the Republican Party for a long time to come."[2] In contrast, Johnson's Republican opponent, Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona, voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, believing it gave too much power to the federal government (Goldwater did in fact support civil rights in general; for example the 1957 and 1960 Civil Rights Acts as well as the 24th Amendment banning the poll tax).

That November, Johnson won a landslide electoral victory, and the Republicans suffered significant losses in Congress. Goldwater, however, besides carrying his home state of Arizona, carried the deep South: the South had switched parties for the first time. Prior to 1956, the region had almost always provided the only victories for Democratic challengers to popular Republican incumbent presidents. Now, however, the South had provided a Republican challenger with electoral victories against a popular Democratic incumbent.


The "Southern Strategy" and the end of the Solid South

In the 1968 election, the Republican candidate, Richard Nixon, saw this trend and capitalized on it with his "Southern strategy." The new method of campaigning was designed to appeal to white Southerners who were more conservative and more segregationist than the national Democratic Party. As a result of the strategy, the Democratic candidate, Hubert Humphrey, was almost shut out in the South; he only carried Texas. The rest of the region was divided between Nixon and the American Independent Party candidate George C. Wallace, the governor of Alabama, who had gained fame for opposing integration. Nationwide, Nixon won a decisive Electoral College victory, although he received only a plurality of the popular vote.

After Nixon's landslide re-election in 1972, the election of Jimmy Carter, a southern governor, gave Democrats a short-lived comeback in the South (winning every state in the Old Confederacy except for Virginia, which was narrowly lost) in 1976, but in his unsuccessful re-election bid, the only Southern states he won were his native state of Georgia and West Virginia. The year 1976 was the last year a Democratic presidential candidate won a majority of Southern electoral votes.

 

[BoberFett]

Blah blah blah, you type a lot and say very little Craig. Carry on, ignorant little man.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01

Originally posted by: Genx87
Which way do you want it? The parties roots or what it has evolved into today?

lol. I think you just admitted republicans hate blacks

No but I will admit their reputation among the black community is poor through many of their strategies. Hating is a strong word and I dont see many if any republican politicians outright stating they hate blacks.

The Southern strategy looks terrible I will admit.

Of course the saddest part imo is the black community is now lockstep with a party that imo doesnt have their best interest in mind. But where do they turn? They have a Republican party that is happy to ignore them and a Democrat party that wants to keep them where they are to ensure votes.

I don't necessarily think the republican leadership is itself racist, but they certainly used strategies that were made to appear more favorable to the racist southern whites by showing they would help 'them' and not help or even hurt the blacks.

That's true even of today (see Karl Rove)

Maybe you are mistaken that Karl orchestrated McCains campaign?!?!?!?!?
Karl gained Bush 45% of the Latino vote by pandering to their needs and campaigning hard in their areas. Karl understood Republicans cant be an all white party. McCains campaign staff was clueless and it showed in that demographic.

Actually i was referring to Rove and his 2000 push poll against McCain

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: bctbct

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: senseamp
Good to see republicans are still in denial, going to be a minority party for a very long time.

Just keep telling yourself that. Personally I don't think Obama is going to live up to what has been promised by his hype machine. Take the spin on this pirate/hostage thing. He had a few teenage pirates shot to save an American life and the media is pouring it on about how "decisive" he acted. Did he have any other options? Hell no.

Bush would have rounded up every combatant fish in the area and sent them to gitmo. Obama on the other hand "had a few teenage pirates shot to save an American life"

I know it will be hard for your Bush guys to get used to calm cool and collective responses.

Me, a Bush guy?? LOL, that's funny. Guess again.

 

[Craig234]

Response to the forum's worst poster, Boberfett, removed.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Response to the forum's worst poster, Boberfett, removed.

Being called the worst poster by you is a badge of honor. There is nobody here more blindly partisan and full of bad ideas than you.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Enough of the name calling.

Purposfully signed,
Hayabusa Rider- Anandtech Senior moderator.