Historical Repetition
January 27th 2008 17:55
It seems that John Edwards isn't able to learn from his own past, much less the historical evidence that the rest of us understand. In other words, uh... Mr. Edwards? It happened again!
I saw on the news this morning that Barak Hussein Obama won a decisive victory in South Carolina. He also got the support of Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg. It seems that John Edwards can't even carry his home state (as he couldn't in his run for Vice-President with John Kerry. Kerry went to Viet Nam, you know!) If a man can't get a majority of votes in his home state, maybe he should learn something...? But obviously not Edwards.
Hillary, in spite of pandering and condescending like crazy, couldn't even come close to Obama in the final analysis. Big shocker there, huh, folks? Obama came in first while Hillary and Edwards were a "distant third and fourth, respectively." So who was second? Undecided or write-ins for somebody's dog? Doesn't sound like the "favorite son" thing, does it?
Even parading his sick wife in front of the cameras to defend him hasn't worked for John Edwards. Will he be following Dennis Kucinich's lead and dropping out?
On the subject of Barak Hussein Obama, what are his chances of being the Democrat nominee? Seriously, folks. The dems/libs have such a sterling tradition of race baiting, what are his chances? He's the first strong black candidate and is outdistancing Billary on both votes and contributions (he got more than half a million dollars immediately after winning South Carolina!) Will the Democrats allow him to carry their banner all the way? Most of the "people of color" that they so honor are kept down to the lower echelons of the party. Vernon Jordan is an exception. They love Jessee Jackson and Al Sharpton, but not enough to let them win anything substancial. They endlessly parade the fact that Bill Clinton was the "first black president" because of his lowly beginnings and poor conduct in the Oval Office. When the libs/dems use a black person for their rallying point, they always make a huge issue of how much they love the "colored folks" and seldom mention the actual value of the individual. Their record on racial matters is dismal (to say the least), especially in the historical sense. They fought AGAINST civil rights and weren't very happy with Lyndon Johnson when he passed the Civil Rights Bill in spite of them. Now they want to take credit for being responsible for the current situation between the races.
That may be true, you know. It was the libs/dems that decided black people weren't capable of taking care of themselves so they initiated extra measures to "help" them. Things like welfare (geting rid of black fathers so that the black mothers required more children to make enough money to live) and "quotas" because they can't have only qualified people applying for schools and jobs. They forced bussing so that white kids got to attend black schools and recieve a lesser education, instead of forcing ALL schools to meet higher standards. They tried to force "Ebonics" to become a "new language" rather than insisting that all students learn English.
In the world of the libs/dems, playing the race card is the name of the game, right up to the last hand. Then they come up with something to get out of their own rhetoriuc and have things the way they want them. It wouldn't surprise me if Obama continued to do well, while Billary lags in the poles and votes, then at the last possible minute, she offers him the Vice Presidential spot to keep him in line and push herself further forward. Imagine a ticket with Billary and Obama (in that order!) The libs/dems would drool themselves to the polls in record numbers, eager to cast their votes for the first female/black ticket. Tragically, they might even win.
Results and substance aren't nearly as important to the libs/dems as the "feel good" politics of race and gender. Neither of the two is qualified to be president. Both have ultra liberal "agendas" which are remarkably unspecific.
Watch out folks, they could surprise us and run against McCain (the most agressively liberal Republican around) and actually win.
I saw on the news this morning that Barak Hussein Obama won a decisive victory in South Carolina. He also got the support of Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg. It seems that John Edwards can't even carry his home state (as he couldn't in his run for Vice-President with John Kerry. Kerry went to Viet Nam, you know!) If a man can't get a majority of votes in his home state, maybe he should learn something...? But obviously not Edwards.
Hillary, in spite of pandering and condescending like crazy, couldn't even come close to Obama in the final analysis. Big shocker there, huh, folks? Obama came in first while Hillary and Edwards were a "distant third and fourth, respectively." So who was second? Undecided or write-ins for somebody's dog? Doesn't sound like the "favorite son" thing, does it?
Even parading his sick wife in front of the cameras to defend him hasn't worked for John Edwards. Will he be following Dennis Kucinich's lead and dropping out?
On the subject of Barak Hussein Obama, what are his chances of being the Democrat nominee? Seriously, folks. The dems/libs have such a sterling tradition of race baiting, what are his chances? He's the first strong black candidate and is outdistancing Billary on both votes and contributions (he got more than half a million dollars immediately after winning South Carolina!) Will the Democrats allow him to carry their banner all the way? Most of the "people of color" that they so honor are kept down to the lower echelons of the party. Vernon Jordan is an exception. They love Jessee Jackson and Al Sharpton, but not enough to let them win anything substancial. They endlessly parade the fact that Bill Clinton was the "first black president" because of his lowly beginnings and poor conduct in the Oval Office. When the libs/dems use a black person for their rallying point, they always make a huge issue of how much they love the "colored folks" and seldom mention the actual value of the individual. Their record on racial matters is dismal (to say the least), especially in the historical sense. They fought AGAINST civil rights and weren't very happy with Lyndon Johnson when he passed the Civil Rights Bill in spite of them. Now they want to take credit for being responsible for the current situation between the races.
That may be true, you know. It was the libs/dems that decided black people weren't capable of taking care of themselves so they initiated extra measures to "help" them. Things like welfare (geting rid of black fathers so that the black mothers required more children to make enough money to live) and "quotas" because they can't have only qualified people applying for schools and jobs. They forced bussing so that white kids got to attend black schools and recieve a lesser education, instead of forcing ALL schools to meet higher standards. They tried to force "Ebonics" to become a "new language" rather than insisting that all students learn English.
In the world of the libs/dems, playing the race card is the name of the game, right up to the last hand. Then they come up with something to get out of their own rhetoriuc and have things the way they want them. It wouldn't surprise me if Obama continued to do well, while Billary lags in the poles and votes, then at the last possible minute, she offers him the Vice Presidential spot to keep him in line and push herself further forward. Imagine a ticket with Billary and Obama (in that order!) The libs/dems would drool themselves to the polls in record numbers, eager to cast their votes for the first female/black ticket. Tragically, they might even win.
Results and substance aren't nearly as important to the libs/dems as the "feel good" politics of race and gender. Neither of the two is qualified to be president. Both have ultra liberal "agendas" which are remarkably unspecific.
Watch out folks, they could surprise us and run against McCain (the most agressively liberal Republican around) and actually win.
| 42 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
