Liberty and Justice for All!

According to Bayou Buzz, LAGOP Executive Director Matt Parker (Jindal’s homeschooled homeboy’s  brother in law) stated this about Mary Landrieu and her failure to respond to Nagin’s endorsement of Barack Obama:

Today’s endorsement raises more questions than answers.  In a press release announcing today’s endorsement, Nagin cited ‘Obama’s advocacy for the people of

Louisianaand working men and women across the county’ and specifically his work to address the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.   Does Mary Landrieu disagree with Nagin?  Why won’t Landrieu stand up and let Louisianans know why she won’t endorse Obama?”

Say what?!?!?! Mabye Landrieu doesn’t want to take sides. Maybe Landrieu would be happy voting for either of the two Democrats against John 100 years in Iraq McCain. Maybe Landrieu figures that she can be silent in a race where the presumptive Republican nominee didn’t get the most votes in the Republican primary. Maybe Mary Landrieu didn’t feel that she needed to make an anouncement over an endorsement by someone else. Or maybe, just maybe, Mary Landrieu doesn’t feel the need to answer to the head of the party who is trying to unseat her. I would at least go with the last one, though others may be valid as well.

This is just a silly question raised by Matt Parker. Now, is he the voice of Cartman? Or is that Trey Stone? See, I got the names mixed up and even those are better questions than the brainchild of Homeschool’s brother in law.

The idea that Nagin’s endorsement raises more questions than it answers is absurd. I guess the Republicans set the bar low when they chose their executive director.

Because our idiot President distracted us from the people who caused 9/11 to people that had nothing to do with 9/11, Al Queda has gained back some of its pre-9/11 capabilities.

Here is a question to those people who chose Bush again in 2004. What happened to Republicans being the party that would be more likely to protect us from terrorism? It seems to me that by distracting us from the actual problem, President Bush has done NOTHING to make us any more safer from “turrists”. Are you happy with your choice now?

It is abundantly clear that the Republican middle east policy has failed. Vote for another one in the name of security and you are an idiot. Period.

According to T-P:

Google, the dominant Web search engine, and YouTube, the online video platform, are proposing the forum with the major party presidential candidates be held Sept. 18 at the Ernest N. Morial Convention Center, just after the parties complete their conventions in late August and early September. It would be eight days before the first scheduled presidential commission debate in Oxford, Miss.

Good for them, great for us, and what candidate would say “no”?

And yes, it is still called the “Ernest N. Morial Convention Center“, even if advertising material also includes the name of our city. One thing that Marc Moral never understood… the City of New Orleans is more important than the Morial family.

Much has been said about Obama’s former pastor and his comments about America and white people. Those comments should not be excused (and Obama denounced them). However, if Wright was white, and he spoke badly about gay people in his church, how much outrage would there be? How many hateful things are said by clergy in white, extremist, evangelical churches about homosexuals? How many of those offended by the words of Wright will agree with (or even cheer for) the anti-gay statements made in their own church? Isn’t it hypocritical of someone to be offended at the same thing they are guilty of supporting?

Just sayin

I cannot cite who said this because the person who posted it on another forum did not cite it as well. I am sure the author, whoever he is, would not mind the argument in support of Obama not leaving his church or abandoning his pastor to be spread on the net:

Obama could have distanced himself from his Mother and Grandmother. I know too many individuals who have done that very thing… for lesser issues.

This is, obviously (to me), not Obama’s style, rhetoric, or history.

Apparently, from what I understand, all of Obama’s life he has resisted the temptations he may have experienced to distance himself from those with whom he disagrees and instead he continues to interact with them in ways that help bridge any political and religious (and other) gaps that may exist between Obama and others with whom he interacts.

His relationship with his minister, obviously (to me), reflects this outlook Obama has regarding human relationships. His failing to alienate himself from his minister, and his church, due to some important and profound differences in their outlook, is consistent with his beliefs that our differences are not nearly as important as are our shared goals.

Obama has been consistently preaching this idea for a long time… ever since I have been watching him. Why should it be a surprise or a shock to me, or to anyone else, that he practices what he preaches, even when it comes to his Church and his Minister?

Had Obama decided to separate himself from his church and his minister, that would have been behavior that is, obviously (to me), antithetical to his message and the way he has conducted his life heretofore.

If Obama had separated himself from his church and his minister, that would render his message of unity, tolerance, and understanding, nothing less than rank hypocrisy on his part.

There is the also the argument that i have been making in that we are not blaming people who have not left the Catholic Church even though the clergy has shown a history of tolerating child molesters. Why havn’t they left? Well, because they still believe in the core beliefs of the church even though some of the people in charge have done things they do not agree with. And as the argument above states, they also find the common ground shared instead of focusing on the differences.

Perhaps if more people looked at the common ground that they share instead of the differences we would be in a much better place.

I had heard this once before, but again the Florida Democrats are claiming that the reason why their primary was held before it was supposed to because the Republican controlled legislature gave them no choice. On the issue of a re-vote:

A party-run primary or caucus has been ruled out, and it’s simply not possible for the state to hold another election, even if the Party were to pay for it. Republican Speaker of the Florida House Marco Rubio refuses to even consider that option.

On the issue of following the rules:

“The rules are the rules.” Unfortunately, the rules did not apply to Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina when they, too, violated the DNC calendar by moving from their assigned dates.

So if certain states violated the rules and have their delegates count then Florida should absolutely have theirs count as well, especially if the reason why they lost their vote is because the Republican controlled legislature controlled the date.

On the issue of race he stated:

“But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races,”

I couldn’t have said it better myself. There are people today who got attacked by dogs, who got hit with fire hoses, who had to sit at the back of the bus. To expect them to not be angry over the past failures of our country is absurd. And while the conclusions that some reach that are based on that anger are sometimes wrong, that doesn’t make the anger any less justified.

“But we do need to remind ourselves that so many of the disparities that exist in the African-American community today can be directly traced to inequalities passed on from an earlier generation that suffered under the brutal legacy of slavery and Jim Crow.”

Exactly.

In response to a question on why Barack Obama is the front-runner, she said:

If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman [of any color] he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept

Again, Democrats need to invest in people who will help them say things the right way. First of all, there is no way to claim to know what position the mythical “white Barack Obama” would be in if he was running for President. As a caller to WWL rightly said this afternoon, it is highly possible that the mythical ”white Barack Obama” would have already locked up the nomination since there are still, unfortunately, some people who still look at race when walking into the voting booth.

What Ferraro should have said, and what I think she meant, was that Barack Obama has been successful in many states because of his race. The polling numbers clearly show that voters who are black are coming out to vote and a super-majority of them are voting for Obama. Clearly, Obama is doing well in Southern States where a large percentage of the Democratic Party are Black. His success in those races have enabled him to obtain and retain the lead. So his race may very well have HELPED.

However, her assumption that those voters would not have come out in support of the mythical “white Barack Obama” is clearly flawed because there is no way to know what voters who are Black may have done. Barack Obama is an exceptional person and I feel that he would likely be a star in the party if he was blue.

Obama’s response shows he really doesn’t understand what she was saying.

If you were to get a handbook on what’s the path to the presidency, I don’t think that the handbook would start by saying, ‘Be an African American named Barack Obama.’ I don’t think that would be generally considered an advantage, and it certainly wasn’t when I was running for the United States Senate or the presidency

Of course such a handbook would not say that. However, it would be foolish for anyone to claim that Obama’s race has not helped him. It is just also foolish to claim that Obama would not be in the lead if he was another race, or a woman.

And where do we get that handbook…..

According to a report by truthout, the Democrats believe they have a shot to give a Democratic President a 60 vote, filibuster proof, Senate. This will be the first time since Carter that such a Senate would exist. This would mean that the Democrats would have to get 10 new Democratic Senators. Someone in the article stated that 60 would be the target and that only 9 seats will be needed. However, on issues pertaining to the war, I believe Joe Lieberman would aid the filibuster of legislation he disagrees with. So if we want a truly filibuster proof Senate, we need 10 new Democrats. Here is a map of the seats that are up for grabs, the darkest red states have two Senate races.

Now lets look at the Obama electoral map and the Clinton electoral map.

Obama has the lead in WA/NM/CO/WI/VA/ME/NH and is very close in TX. 

Clinton has the lead in NM/WI/ME.

Assuming that the Democrats can hold on to their red state senators, a Hillary campaign may help the Democrats gain 3 seats. However, an Obama campaign may be able to gain 7 (or possibly even 8) seats. This, of course, doesn’t take into consideration the strength of the Democratic candidate in those races. It only takes into consideration the coattails that someone may be able to ride if a particular candidate is the Democratic nominee.

The bottom line is that most likely, the Democrats will probably not be able to get a 60 vote majority in the Senate. However, I do applaud people in the party for aiming high. Getting 54-57 seats would be nothing to sneeze at. However, in aiming high, we need to make sure we do not lose any seats. The Republican goal of gaining 2 seats is much more modest than our goal of getting 60. I would hate to see us shoot for the stars and in doing so cause the Senate to turn Republican for our next Democratic President.

The threat of terrorist attacks has been used by this administration to justify its actions and to win their 2004 election with fear. Now that McCain is the presumptive nominee for the Republican Party, is it any surprise that a new terrorist threat has been revealed?

[Air Force Gen. Gene Renuart, chief of the U.S. Northern Command] did, however, repeat his assertion — which he first made in July — that he believes there are al-Qaida cells or sympathizers within the United States.

President Bush, in a speech Thursday, also said the United States remained under threat from terrorists.

Bush will continue to discuss the terrorist threats that face our country to try and scare us. McCain will use the same scare tactics to try and convince people to vote for him. However, while they try and scare us, they reveal the fact that the threat still exists despite their actions. So what I want to know is this. When will the American public stop thinking “oh no, the terrorists are going to get us if we elect a Democrat” and start thinking “wow, this Republican Administration is incapable of eliminating the terrorist threat and perhaps we need to elect a Democrat to try something different”.

Albert Einstein stated that to repeat the same thing over and over again and expect different results is the definition of insanity. Believing that Republicans can eliminate the terrorist threat after 7 years of failure is also insanity.