My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer
Second: You can make a tax deductible contribution via VDARE by clicking here. (Paypal and credit cards accepted, including recurring "subscription" donations.) UPDATE: Don't try this at the moment.
Third: send money via the Paypal-like Google Wallet to my Gmail address (that's isteveslrATgmail.com -- replace the AT with a @). (Non-tax deductible.)
Here's the Google Wallet FAQ. From it: "You will need to have (or sign up for) Google Wallet to send or receive money. If you have ever purchased anything on Google Play, then you most likely already have a Google Wallet. If you do not yet have a Google Wallet, don’t worry, the process is simple: go to wallet.google.com and follow the steps." You probably already have a Google ID and password, which Google Wallet uses, so signing up Wallet is pretty painless.
You can put money into your Google Wallet Balance from your bank account and send it with no service fee.
Or you can send money via credit card (Visa, MasterCard, AmEx, Discover) with the industry-standard 2.9% fee. (You don't need to put money into your Google Wallet Balance to do this.)
Google Wallet works from both a website and a smartphone app (Android and iPhone -- the Google Wallet app is currently available only in the U.S., but the Google Wallet website can be used in 160 countries).
Or, once you sign up with Google Wallet, you can simply send money via credit card, bank transfer, or Wallet Balance as an attachment from Google's free Gmail email service. Here's how to do it.
(Non-tax deductible.)
Fourth: if you have a Wells Fargo bank account, you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Wells Fargo SurePay. Just tell WF SurePay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). (Non-tax deductible.)
Fifth: if you have a Chase bank account (or, theoretically,other bank accounts), you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Chase QuickPay (FAQ). Just tell Chase QuickPay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address (steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). If Chase asks for the name on my account, it's Steven Sailer with an n at the end of Steven. (Non-tax deductible.)
Posts
45 comments:
Obama is also does poorly among Catholics. I got this from InsideCatholic.com.
In Connecticut, Obama lost Catholics to Clinton 37 percent to 59 percent; Massachusetts, 35 percent to 62 percent; Illinois, his home state, 49 percent to 51 percent; California, 37 percent to 54 percent; New Jersey, 28 percent to 69 percent; Florida, 22 percent to 63 percent; Maryland, 45 percent to 48 percent.
His bad showing in Massachusetts is not only a Deval Patrick thing, it's a Catholic thing.
Obama does well in states that don't have Scots-Irish or Catholics, states with Lutherans or transplanted New England people.
Steve: you know I've been boosting a Webb VP pick for quite some time, for all the obvious reasons. My read of Webb's recent behavior is that he's interested - he's denying interest in exactly the way you'd deny interest if you were really interested.
We have very little insight, though, into how Obama might go about picking a VP. I am very short the idea that he would (or should) pick Clinton. Picking Webb would take a great deal of self-confidence on Obama's part, because Webb has a high opinion of himself and doesn't hold his tongue. That's probably an argument in favor of picking him; Obama likes looking like he's self-confident, and picking Webb would say: I'm not worried about being able to handle a guy like Webb.
As for what Rev. Wright would say: how much evidence do we have that Obama thinks about his legacy in these terms? Obama is a rather solipsistic individual. My guess is he's a very long way, psychologically, from thinking "who will come after me?"
Jim Webb and his first wife (white) got a divorce. His second wife is Vietnamese.
(BTW, He still supports the Vietnam war and appears to have a bit of yellow fever.)
If Jim Webb were to be the VP nominee, you'd see three non-whites up there on the podium in the Dem. convention in August.
Ain't gonna happen.
The VP office seems like a death sentence politically, so I would hate to see Webb put there.
Also, I think the VP needs to be more background - Webb might be to high profile.
Still, Webb does make sense demographically and his military history would also be a plus for the ticket.
don't forget webb's wife - the hot asian woman factor. now that's the kind of diversity i could get behind.
Remember what Dave Chappelle said? The first black president better have a Mexican as VP.
With the Scots-Irish McCain being the GOP nominee, Obama will not win the Scots-Irish vote, even with Webb on the ticket. In Obama's world of identity politics, he's dream running mate would be a hispanic, catholic woman from a purple state. No names come to mind.
I would think far less of Webb, if he agreed to be on the ticket.
The media makes a big deal about who is selected to be the running mate, despite the fact that the vice president is pretty inconsequential while in office. Of course they might eventually be their party's candidate, like Al Gore or GBI was. Or they might not be, like Dan Quayle or Dick Cheney.
Balancing the ticket may be important to party officials and stalwarts (i.e., people who make their living in government, or hope someday to do so). I'm not sure however that ordinary voters give a damn. Not really.
oh my.
How about the Obama-Wright ticket?
Obama doesn't have a Scots-Irish problem. They can go to hell (or McCain) as far as Obama is concerned.
This is the election year of arrogance wherein the elites and MSM have handpicked a crop of candidates (McCain, Hillary and Obama) so that public opinion can be completely ignored on key issues like enforcing boarders, affirmative action, financial industry government welfare, getting out of senseless military adventures like Iraq or Africa, etc.
I don't see any candidate selecting a VP that holds any promise of giving voters even the hope of choice in any of these key issues.
Difference without a distinction.
"On the other hand, the idea that Barack Obama might put Jim Webb on the path to being President someday is pretty funny"
Hmm, depends how you look at it. In Born Fighting, Webb suggests that, basically, Scots-Irish whites should gang up with blacks against the white Yankee elite. I guess the problem for Obama is that culturally he *is* a white Yankee elite, which gives him a vested interest in keeping the likes of Webb down. I don't know though; New York senator Charles Schumer apparently mentored Webb in his run for the Senate, and Schumer seems pretty smart.
Do you think when Rev Wright says that "white folks' greed runs a world in need", he's thinking of Appalachian-Americans shopping at Walmart? Obviously a lot of Scots-Irish do think so, hence Clinton's trashing Obama all across the Upper South. These are people who don't have that much, who worked hard for what they've got, and who are not inclined to listen to messages about how they don't deserve it and should give it back in the cause of Climate Change, Third World Poverty, or whatever.
Hmm. I do know that putting Webb (or I guess Hillary Clinton) on the V-P ticket is pretty much Obama's only chance of getting my wife's vote, and she's a pretty typical Tennessee Democrat.
The author of Born Fighting together with the author of Dreams of My Father--an interesting combination. It's impressive that Webb could write a book praising the importance of his white ethnic group and still get elected to high office as a Democrat.
On the other hand, the idea that Barack Obama might put Jim Webb on the path to being President someday is pretty funny...
Why might that be?
Jim Webb could do a lot for Obama, but ultimately Webb is too ambitious and would shove him aside. Can you imagine the two working together? Could the long-winded, ponderous Obama's pride tolerate repeated intrusions into his spotlight by a feisty, sharp engaging fellow like Webb?
I would love to see Webb take on McCain. That would really make my day, but alas, this is McCain's last shot at greatness.
On the other hand, the idea that Barack Obama might put Jim Webb on the path to being President someday is pretty funny,
Why? You really for one second believe Obama buys into any of Wright's nonsense? Obama is an ambitious politician first and foremost, he'll do what it takes to get elected, and putting Webb on the ticket is what it takes.
Given Webb's feelings about Vietnam, the Scots-Irish, etc., McCain would be the politician Webb would least want to take on due to own personal feelings of admiration and kinship. Add in the way some in Obama's core constituency have been attacking McCain and his ancestor's military service and Webb would have to swallow a tough, bitter pill to accept veep. I don't think he'll be asked, though. It would be smart politics, but the far left has been voicing lately that they want a more Strickland type figure: someone seen as a working class hero, but not of the "backwards" Scots-Irish variety.
No. Obama won't solve his problem with Webb. Who has limited appeal since he's a Dem proposing things working/middle class people don't care about (save the Polar Bears) or hate (Affirmative Action).
Webb isn't a savior. That he's unusual in Dem politics stands out as Dem's "So Long White Boy" strategy (title of a piece in the Atlantic Monthly by a Dem Strategist).
Obama has done well where there's lots of white yuppies organized by communist-type organizations backed by Saudi Money, the Moveons, Code Pinks, etc. in small caucus states. Or places where it's hipster central, enough to override everyone else like Portland OR or Seattle WA.
Obama has made statement after statement suggesting he's going after MORE of the hipster vote to the exclusion of every other white voter. Hence his words that we can't drive our SUVs as much as we want, eat as much as we want (!!!) or have our AC set at 72 "and have other countries be OK with that."
That's directly pointed at hipster class envy and hatred that ordinary people can have nice things too. That people who make middle income or lower have to bow and scrape to their betters and what foreign despots or whipped up mobs tell them they can have.
A more deliberate attempt to enrage Jacksonians could hardly be imagined, Obama did it all by himself. He's full in Messiah-mode, thinking he can do no wrong and is annointed by the Media.
He'll probably choose Patrick or Paterson to seal the hipster deal. Maybe Barney Frank. [First gay VP nominee]. Because for Obama, it's all about being "cool" and riding that as far as it will take him. [If Webb is smart he'll ride out the Obama-cool wave, distance himself from the idiocy gripping the Dem Party, which is likely to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.]
Jim Webb and his first wife (white) got a divorce. His second wife is Vietnamese.
Make that his third wife is Vietnamese. Webb has a sort of hillbilly attitude with respect to monogamy as well. I can imagine him saying about his current Dragon Lady, though, "my wife, I think I'll keep this one."
Hillary is probably picking up some of the the white-Catholic and Scots-Irish/Appalachians. That is, the white blue collar or Country Western. Hillary is also a nationalist, the opposite of Obama's internationalism.
Obama is a puppet. His comments on Iran are a great example of major major flip flopping. It's probably not too wrong to guess someone has some major dirty on him and is or will use it to good effect.
McCain? As much as I like his personality, he is still a running dog for Bush's Mideast Holy Roller cadre.
This country is splitting at the seams for this election, and it's not going to be pretty. Add that to summer economic hardships and it's going to be a rough election year. Hillary might even try running independent and pick up those disenfranchised blue collar whites who are sick of being used and scorned.
Unfortunately, it could be that Black Jesus will win and have an unfortunate term of office. In which case, even more rumbling dissent verging on chaos. Blacks might find out that they are not the only people who can riot.
The ultimate running mate for Obama would be Gov. Ted Strickland of Ohio, who hails from the Appalachian part of the state. He enjoys high approval ratings, and would easily deliver the state and perhaps nearby Kentucky and WV as well. His credibility with the trade unions would secure Michigan and Pennsylvania as well. Strickland is also much less devious and self serving than Webb.
As a prominent Hillary supporter, he could also bring back her voters into his fold. I think this another aspect that people must look at. The Vice Presidential nominee may have to come from the Hillary wing to unite the two bitterly divided factions.
Unfortunately, he's a little too self serving. He's stated emphatically that he's not interested, and even used that line about "if nominated, I will not run , if elected..." That's unfortunate for Obama.
Jonathan: Why? You really for one second believe Obama buys into any of Wright's nonsense?
I'm curious - if you don't judge a man by his own autobiography, and if you don't judge him by his speeches, and if you don't judge him by a twenty year record of association [to include a marriage, two child baptisms, multiple Trumpet magazine covers, personalized campaign prayer services, and ~$50,000 in donations], then how in the world do you go about determining what he buys into and what he doesn't buy into?
Do you just roll a dice and guess?
Or is that man simply functioning as your own personal Rorschach test [onto which you project yourself]?
By the way, this is not a rhetorical or facetious question: I'm honestly curious how you arrive at a conclusion like this.
I agree with Martin. I'm skeptical as to whether the VP pick really influences the average voter's choice.
Obama/Webb seems to be a dream ticket for alot of pundits and from my armchair perspective it's probably as likely as any pairing, but I have no idea if it will happen. One issue though: I've never really read Webb's writings, but I've skimmed them and heard others discuss them. Supposedly some of his op-eds and writing reek of Confederate nostalgia. I wonder if the black Obama will want to get very close to the chest thumping Southern-oriented Webb.
Another common thought is Barry will pick a woman to appease the feminists. Think Gov. Sebelius or Gov. Napolitano.
-Vanilla Thunder
The idea is that a veep candidate can't help the ticket but can hurt it.
Webb clearly has McCain's temper, but can't hold it in in public as well as McCain can. It'll take just one blast, and Webb becomes a liability.
Webb used George Allen's middle name (Felix) a lot during his campaign. What sauce for the Felix is sauce for the Hussein.
Anyhow if he did pick Webb we could have one election time debate as the 2 of them debate gun-control, one of them saying we should have strict controls and the other saying its fine to hand a gun to your buddy and its okay if he misuses it.
I think Obama will pick some harmless dull but popular white progressive guy,as uncontroversial as u can get.The VP is good for one thing only:winning a doubtful state. So it will be a guy from a big state where Obammy is not too popular. Prob a southerner or a midwesterner,from Ohio or Pennsylvania. He-the VP- will prob keep his distance from Michelle!!
"On the other hand, the idea that Barack Obama might put Jim Webb on the path to being President someday is pretty funny"
Dear Baby Boomers,
This is a superb opportunity for you to make up for several decades of poor public policy choices and explain to my Ritalin addled Baby Bust brain the necessary context for which this might be funny. Black guy opening doors for hillbilly white guy? Is that it?
Yours,
Dude who you totally better not be depending on to pay your pension.
Webb has about 17% odds according to the prediction markets, slightly higher than Hillary.
What’s so great about Jim Webb? He is wobbly on illegal immigration (votes yes on the latest amnesty bill, ultimately no in the one during the summer), supports affirmative action ‘if it’s extended to poor whites’ and votes against Photo ID:s. Americans for better immigration give Webb a immigration score of C-, the same as Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins.
I guess people are sick of Republicans and desperate to delude themselves into thinking there must be SOME Democrats who don’t s**k.
In the end of the day Jim Webb has become a partisan leftist who hasn’t met an entitlement program he didn’t want to expand, and who at best votes like a moderate Republican on immigration and race issues. Just because he yells and looks angry, carries guns and plays tough we are supposed to love him as some sort of principled conservative?
I rather Obama win and try (another) clean liberal experiment the public can evaluate after 4 years than have Jim Webb fool people about his core politics based on superficial characteristics.
Even those who like his opposition towards starting the war can’t have been particularly impressed by Webb’s response since 2006. What constructive proposal he offered? Watching Webb talk about the Surge is just painful, the guy is in denial. Last May the US had 126 casualties in Iraq, as of 21st of May this year it was 14. Webb is one of the Democrats who still denies the surge was the right thing, and instead calls for magical solutions like “aggressive diplomacy”, as if begging your enemies will make them change their national interest.
Opposing the war 5 years after it started is not relevant, no matter how aggressively you do it, unless you have a time machine. There is no more reason to be impressed with Webb predicting failure and proposing certain defeat in 2006-2007 than by Rumsfeld following bad policy in 2004-2005.
Concerned: Jim Webb and his first wife (white) got a divorce. His second wife is Vietnamese.
Mrow: don't forget webb's wife - the hot asian woman factor.
According to Wikipedia, Webb is currently on his third wife.
It sounds like his private life is a real mess:
His first marriage was to Anne Arundel county council member Barbara Samorajczyk. He has one daughter, Amy, with her. His second marriage was to health-care lobbyist Jo Ann Krukar, who also assisted in his 2006 Senate campaign. With her, he has three children: Sarah, Jimmy, and Julia... He is now married to Vietnamese-American securities and corporate lawyer Hong Le Webb... Hong Le and Webb have one child together, Georgia LeAnh, born 2006. Hong Le also has a daughter, Emily Nguyen, from a previous marriage...
To the best of my knowledge, Ronald Reagan is the only president who was divorced [and remarried], and I can't think of any divorced/remarried Vice Presidents.
I don't know if the American people are ready for a VP who has led as stormy a personal life as Webb [and, quite frankly, all politics aside, that kind of familial instability ought to be eyebrow-raising].
Obama should pick Kathleen Sebelius as VP. She's a popular white catholic female governor from Kansas.
Webb is a cool guy. He would be very interesting as VP. However he is on record 5/22/2000, WSJ, "Taking on the Status of Quotas" as calling affirmative action "state sponsored racism." Somehow I think the O-man and Michelle would not go for that kind of thinking in their White House.
The Obama-Webb podium group picture would be the depiction of our elites' dream: an America where whites are only one of the many races in the 'Propositional' Nation.
Re: Obama has a Catholic problem, too.
I'm beginning to wonder if what Obama really has is a Celtic problem. He did well in midwestern states that have high German populations and which are split pretty evenly between Lutherans and Catholics. Definitely worth a closer look to see what the data says.
People like Webb because he's a realist in an age of Romanticism. Another thing that takes the bloom off the rose to add to the litany tino brought up: he has a worse voting record on abortion than Ted Kennedy and John Kerry. The other moderate Dems from red states have the best voting records for their party, so it really stands out that the most famous moderate Dem has voted 0% with the NRLC's positions and is to the left of Kennedy.
tino:
"There is no more reason to be impressed with Webb predicting failure and proposing certain defeat in 2006-2007"
Heh. Webb has, famously, been against the war since before it started. Here's him in March 2003:
http://www.jameswebb.com/articles/nytimes/iraqwarugly.htm
anon:
"Supposedly some of his op-eds and writing reek of Confederate nostalgia"
No, he's the opposite of a Margaret Mitchell style Confederate romantic. His view is that the Scots-Irish Appalachians had no stake in the slave system (no plantation agriculture in the mountains) and were mislead into the war. He's certainly against the Gramscian Left's Nazification of the Confederacy though.
So where does the Kennedy family fall in the Scots-Irish vs. Yankee elites dichotomy?
Hey Steve, check out the NYT article on Jews who don't trust Obama. It's frickin' hilarious. This guy is going to lose, BIG.
For someone who allegedly has an animus against Obama, you certainly give him a hell of a lot of good ideas.
The previous one was that he should tell the country, "I used to be a hard-core angry Wright-head...but then I had children, and everything changed."
Now you're telling him to put Webb on the ticket as First-Attender-of-State-Funerals.
If you were on the Obama campaign, I would consider you the most dangerous man in America.
anon:
"So where does the Kennedy family fall in the Scots-Irish vs. Yankee elites dichotomy?"
I've no idea what Webb thinks of them. 'Born Fighting' has an Irish tricolor on it though, rather than an Ulster Red Hand, so I doubt he has any animus against Irish Catholics and Irish-Americans like the Kennedys.
In his own way, Webb is as romantic as they come.
Some people really are pragmatic and ruthless and some people are romantic about it.
Those commenters who think Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland is an option should forget it. Right now the Ohio Attorney General's Office is in complete disarray, and there are all sorts of scandals brewing. The AG Mark Dann just resigned, and sexual-harrassment suits are still in the works. Strickland probably didn't have anything to do with this except for nominating a poor choice for AG. But it does make him a far less likely choice.
Simon:
I know he opposed it from the beginning. But that’s also the point: he is stuck on a now useless position “I oppose the war”, and has not been able to constructively adjust to the new really.
Given that the US is in the war and that there are no time machines, how do you want to proceed? I Webb is one of the Democrats who just re-iterates his position “I am against the war”. How does that help?
McCain, for all his flaws, had the correct focus: How does the US pursue the best possible strategy given the position we are in?
Let me than repeat my points: Advocating the failed policies of 2004-2005 was harmful to the country, and should be considered a huge minus on anyone’s political credibility.
Foreign policy leaders who in 2006-2007 advocating surrender and opposed the surge were equally wrong and potentially equally harmful to the country, and should also lose credibility.
Webb belongs to the later group, and is really one of the worst, in terms of not being able to adjust his position to the new debate, not “should the US go to war”, but “how to you maximize the outcome given the present situation”.
RE: Flip the Ticket, and Communicate, Communicate, Communicate!
Dear DNC Leadership:
Please seat Michigan as the voters designated for Hillary and “uncommitted” for Obama but nothing short of 58% - 42%, respectively. I understand some penalty to Michigan with its Democratic leadership may be in order but nothing severe or anything that would further disenfranchise voters. I think a 50% delegate seating is bordering the extreme, but 75% is acceptable. The voters were at the mercy of their leadership even if Democratic. Please seat Florida at 100% as designated by the millions of voters. In this case, the voters of this state should not be penalized to any extent for the wrongdoings of their Republican governor.
In all fairness, it was Obama’s and Edwards’ choices to remove their names from the ballot in Michigan . It’s not coincidental that neither Obama nor Edwards chose to do this again in Florida in a contest occurring just a week later. I find it very disconcerting, however, that well after Edwards dropped out the race, his name continued to appear on tickets in states where Hillary was expected to win, i.e. West Virginia and Kentucky but not in Obama country like Oregon . Furthermore, I do not buy into excuses that the candidates did not campaign in Michigan or Florida . This is the modern age. People get their news from a variety of sources. Try using another excuse, especially with the successful grassroots, ground operation of the Obama campaign. That’s campaigning with or without media regardless of what you label it.
Flip the ticket. The only way to win the general election is the have Hillary on top of the ticket with Obama as VP. He can get his “on the job training” then and possibly give the Party a total of 16 years in the White House. Obama continues to lag in must have, key voter blocks, some of which he has isolated and ignored completely. This site is a good reference to see how the candidates look against McCain. It is http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Clinton/Maps/May22.html. In match-ups against McCain, Hillary is much, much stronger. Obama and McCain are essentially competing for many of the same swing states. This will not work come November, and Republicans already know Obama will be viewed as “damaged goods” to many competing voters.
On a separate but related matter, the entire process of primaries versus caucuses along with the delegate dilemmas must be revamped after the general election. It is tired, flawed, and broken beyond words. It truly saddens me that Democratic leadership did nothing to address these issues over the last seven and a half years. That’s not leadership. That’s ignorant and pathetic!
Below is my coauthored letter entitled, “Beef With Media, Superdelegates, and Some Grizzle, Too!,” which was distributed in mass over the last two election primary cycles. Please consider the important information within, particularly the parts referring to the Presidential election of 2000 and how it was stolen by the “other Party” from Democrats. This is exactly what the media, superdelegates, and Democratic leadership have been doing throughout the process to the American people. Is this the legacy for which the Democratic Party wants to be remembered? If so, please, by all means, do nothing. The Party will remain too divided seize a moment which is ours in 2008! And, in elections to come will almost be dissolved to be a major player.
“This election must not continue to be, and should have never been, about race nor gender. The current contests need to be about who is the strongest candidate for the Democratic Party. Almost all media pundits and political players are saying the Democrats cannot take the election away from the first viable African American candidate. This is driving us ape s*$t, and we are absolutely positive we are not alone!
Neither Senator Obama nor Senator Clinton will reach the magic number of 2,025 pledged delegates in any scenario without superdelegates’ votes. Equally important to note is the fact that this is the first time the Party has ever had two candidates in a race so close in which neither will win the nomination by contests alone. This is history in the making for the Party and for current Party rules. The rules state that superdelegates need to vote their conscience, by any metric measure of electability. Superdelegates are not required to vote for the candidate who has won the most delegates or the most contests to date (Obama’s campaign argument) just as they are not required to vote for the candidate who wins the popular vote (Hillary’s campaign argument). We cannot underscore enough how important it is to communicate the uniqueness of this particular situation plainly and clearly to the American people. Democratic leadership, like Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi, have negligently failed in their communicating current Party nomination rules clearly and in full to voters and media alike.
Superdelegates (like former DNC Chairman Joe Andrew and “super tool” Bill Richardson) need to stop making this election about their own self-interests. These individuals have a social, political, and moral responsibility to uphold the Democratic nomination process and to not deprive American voters of their voice. As the race stands now, superdelegates making declarations are miserably failing the American people in which they are called to represent and serve. By “feeling a need” to declare for either Obama or Hillary prematurely, superdelegates are derailing democracy. The Democratic Party, along with most “liberal” media, are blatantly— even defiantly— forcing Obama’s win. Both are anointing him before the democratic process has played out by saying that he has “won” and there’s no way for Clinton to “catch up.” On this track, the nomination process will have been, in effect, “hijacked” and “stolen” by the same Party who cried foul in Florida in 2000.
Again, neither candidate has “won” if either candidate does not reach the magic number of 2,025. Neither candidate will have the nomination “taken away” from them if superdelegates, and the media, do their jobs and allow the process to organically unfold. The media has a responsibility to clearly report the Party rules on how superdelegates vote for a candidate when neither has reached the 2,025 pledged delegates required to secure the nomination.
In our opinions, as a Democrat and as an Independent, Hillary Rodham Clinton is the strongest, most experienced, and most electable candidate for the Democratic Party. Even though Hillary has shown “testicular fortitude,” the media-left, as well as many superdelegates, are insistent on coddling a neutered Obama all the way to the nominee finish line. This process must play out naturally by letting all voters decide for themselves which candidate is best suited to be our nominee, without influence from superdelegates or the media. Otherwise, both campaigns and the Party run an extremely high risk of disenfranchising several large and crucial voter blocks, thereby handing the election to the good Senator from Arizona . On a personal note, we are over ultra-leftist media adamantly influencing the race with bias or for ratings, and we consider ourselves to the left! We are equally tired of selfish superdelegates forcing the natural course of democracy for ambition and a moment in the spotlight.
This is repugnant. This is un-American. This is not democracy.
Regardless of your preferred candidate, help save democracy! If you agree with the basic theme and argument positioned in this message, feel free to add your name to this list. Share it with your friends, family and media, and post it as it grows. We have! America , it's time to take a stand up and be heard in the name of democracy!
Sincerely,
Just some of many disenfranchised Americans
Scott AmerICAN, TX
James AmerICAN, CO
INSERT YOUR NAME HERE”
For someone who allegedly has an animus against Obama, you certainly give him a hell of a lot of good ideas. The previous one was that he should tell the country, "I used to be a hard-core angry Wright-head...but then I had children, and everything changed."
If you were on the Obama campaign, I would consider you the most dangerous man in America
Why was that such a great idea? He'd have had to explain why it took him 9 years after his daughter's birth (and a big politically damaging brouhaha) to come to his sense "for the sake of his children."
Thanks for the correction on number of Webb wives. Further proof of unelectability. He strikes me as volatile. Not a good character trait in a Veep.
The NY Times article on Jews was hilarious. It made Jews look as if they had a mean IQ of 70. They must have pull-quoted the dumbest Jews in Christendom. I think it's a Jewish plot to make Jews seem normal.
tino:
"Given that the US is in the war and that there are no time machines, how do you want to proceed?"
If it were up to me: Make peace with Iran (the US made peace with Libya, an even more evil country); withdraw US forces from Iraq and, with Iran, support a Shia-led Iraqi government in stabilising the country. Our real enemies are the Saudis & the Muslim Brotherhood; Iran-Syria-Hezbollah-Shia Iraq provide a useful counterweight.
In reality of course the US govt is heavily infiltrated by the Muslim Brotherhood's US front organisations, and the US oligarch class are in the pockets of the Saudis, so this is not likely to happen.
Democratic party is discrediting itself in a major, major way. It is removing all doubt in people's minds that it is an elitist coalition. The Republicans have similar lurking problems that might someday discredit them among heartland Americans.
Hillary right now is building a coalition of working class whites who favor a nationally contained state that takes care of its own, and is enough of a b-word to think about running as a third party candidate.
Whether she can win the Presidency this time around or not, the Dem/Repub system stands to lose out big time. It has happened before. Just ask the Whigs.
Post a Comment