HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » M Kitt » Journal
Page: 1

M Kitt

Profile Information

Name: Really?
Gender: Do not display
Hometown: California
Home country: USA
Current location: So-Cal
Member since: Fri Apr 5, 2013, 10:18 AM
Number of posts: 208

About Me

Former military, I enjoy commentary as should be made apparent by my posts ;-)

Journal Archives

Fundamentalist Evangelicals: Experts by their own declaration, especially regarding Tolerance

Fundamentalist Evangelicals OBVIOUSLY know what's best for the rest of us, aren't the least bit hesitant about stating that ENDLESSLY to anyone who'll listen. As most of us are already apparently aware.

Yet many of those same Evangelicals have what we (the tolerant sectarians) recognize to be twisted values, they'll quote Jesus and the New testament ONLY to the extent that it aligns with their NEW IMPROVED value system, a system that's morphed well outside of the new testament framework.

An IMPROVED value system that without hesitation decries Wealth to be "Godly", and Immense Wealth to be representative of the "Blessings and Approval" implied by that.

Doesn't matter where the money came from, right? Cumulative Wealth is the equivalent of "Absolution" for that purpose under these rules


Right Wing Fundamentalists assure us that current supporters of Jesus needn’t REALLY follow his example, their worldly wealth should NOT be given over to the poor, for instance, since under current Evangelical Fundamentalist standards Excessive Wealth among church members (AND Church Leadership) represents APPROVAL from and by God.

Thus TAXES are (by WingNut logic) an imposition equivalent to giving money to the poor, can’t have THAT, can we?

Because $ are of greater importance than GOD (or people), Greed is Good to paraphrase

And by current Fundamentalist standards, Immense Wealth is GODLY.


Militant Evangelicals (Santorum Et Al) speak out of "Both sides of their mouths" as the saying goes.


And don't hesitate to use the religious faith of others in support of their own Political Ambitions.


With the rest of us paying the hidden "Costs" of those opportunistic, cynical manipulations.

Even in terms of lives lost, regarding limitless Middle East war ventures.


And let's not forget the lives we've already allowed to be wasted.


Credit Due for Failed GOP Policies


Even today, just lately, I've heard flippant remarks trying to defend the GOP record, comments about how George W. Bush compared to President Clinton, promoting the bumper sticker mentality that "W never lied".

Being the party of supposed "Integrity" and "Family Values", Conservatives, hope you're speaking figuratively when you try to defend the record of W/Cheney Incorporated, with such firm FAITH and conviction.

Apparently engaging in unnecessary, pre-emptive WAR is an acceptable part of that party platform, doesn't conflict with their ideals of personal and National integrity.

Morality must be quite flexible, subject to "Wishful Thinking" at that edge of the universe, not that I agree with or even begin to understand that level of sustained confusion/hypocrisy.

But just for fun, how about a short review of the past several years, the ones governed by George W. and Dick Cheney.

Several Belated Credits for GOP Supporters:

Remember the discussion before US wiretapping became publicly known, George W on national television stating that "constitutional protections are in place"?

In fact they'd already waived those requirements to protect the corporate reps. that cooperated. Electronic surveillance measures were well underway, 4th amendment protections had long since been breached.

Public privacy had actually been compromised well before FISA court approval had eventually been waived, while "Constitutional Protections were in place" according to George. That would fit the definition of a "Disingenuous Statement" in legal parlance, no court review necessary

The process continued without FISA review or approval, not LEGALLY, of course.

Cooperative companies would eventually be protected, you understand. Permission would be granted by government agencies (Homeland/National Security) after the fact, while the process itself continued.

Meanwhile, the FISA court review system was certainly NOT in place, would not be for several years. Oversight of the wiretap "process" had become CONDITIONAL at that time and would remain so for the foreseeable future.
Thanks to "RetroActive" immunity.

Careful, it's a PDF!


Thanks George, Dick! Who needs the 4th amendment, right?

What about treatment of POWs?

What other assertions were made by George, Cheney, and their illustrious staff? Under the general classification of Disingenuous or Improper declarations, I mean, in order to mislead the public.

Wait, I know, the "rendition" they claimed to be completely within legal requirements but that had to take place outside of the Geneva Conventions, derived from standards that were used to convict prison guards during the Nuremberg trials after WW2.

Removal of constitutional protections under "Homeland Security" and "Patriot Act" provisions (see above!), removal of Geneva Conventions protections to allow for prisoner "Rendition" tactics, all for our own good, right?

We the public were being "protected" by those policy changes, without our approval or consent, of course.


In our own supposed best interests, right? Not that many of us would have agreed with those methods, which were implemented well before that information was leaked to the public.

So public approval of rendition obviously wasn't necessary or desired as far as that administration was concerned. Like so many other Bush policy decisions.

Members of the former Bush presidential staff also have standing warrants against them for war crimes in several other countries for policies ranging from preemptive war to "rendition", neither of which has ever before been U.S. policy in the history of this nation.


WAR Policy and further GOP Deception:

George and his staff made several misleading pronouncements before we invaded Iraq.

Foremost were continuous "Conflations" regarding Saddam Hussein and supposed involvement with 9-11.

If you review white house statements preceding our Iraq invasion Bin Laden was continually mentioned in the same sentence as Saddam Hussein, as was 9-11. No actual connection, no evidence or justification, just the impression given.

Reinforced across several weeks like some extended repetitious drone, phrased to be a call to war by design.

As recently reviewed by Rachel Maddow.


Supported by threats of "Mushroom Clouds" and press releases that implied absolute proof beyond our reach, we the public.

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised" ~George Bush~
March 17, 2003

Evidence not available to the public, yet conclusive, because of "Gathered Intelligence", right?

Classified beyond our level of access, protected in the interest of National Security. Evidence that simply did not exist.

But these were just preliminary tactics, preparation for the invasion to follow.

Onward to glorious WAR!

Further deception from that administration?

OK. What about nationally televised statements by George, Dick, and Condoleeza a few weeks before we crossed the Iraqi border about how "war is a decision of last resort". Implying that we were prepared for a war should that be necessary, that we were not planning to attack, not eager to engage in one.

But BBC "Downing Street" documents leaked from official sources (not denied by Britain or Tony Blair) have surfaced saying that Bush was planning to invade months before that.

Per these reviews and referenced documents, inconclusive evidence against Saddam Hussein was in fact being contrived to fit the "Policy of War", since substantial WMD "intelligence" couldn't be legitimately produced.


Just ask Valerie Plame or her husband Joe Wilson. Maybe "Scooter" Libby could fill you in about WMD "Evidence" being contrived to fit plans for war.


Thanks Again George! You too, Dick.

More about the LEGEND of Grover Norquist


But What motivates Grover, Really?

(NOTE: Posted prior to 2012 Election)

As generally known, when questioned about taxes Grover Norquist aligns with official media released Republican Statements. He supports the "Party Line", that the GOP is denying tax revenue to public programs in compliance with a supposed "Oath of Honor" taken under pretense of Loyalty to their party.

Think that's reasonable?



Nope. What motivates the TeaPublicans isn’t lofty ideals, they’re concerned (obsessively!) with Campaign Finance, of course. They're trying to assure future resources, "Super PAC" and related Corporate financial support.



More importantly, they’re concerned (obsessively!) with the prospect of securing reliable resources of Future Campaign Finance, of course, not those presently under control of Norquist.

They're trying to definatively ASSURE future (as yet unrealized, unlimited) "Super PAC" and related financial support that's not yet been committed by those vast untapped resources provided for under Citizens United.

Accomplished by refusing to cooperate with ANY programs relying on Tax Revenue, depriving *We The People* of jobs and critical infrastructure while providing a *Tax Free Future* for the Corporations at our expense.

In effect depriving these programs of funding or destroying them ENTIRELY in exchange for Campaign contributions (Quid Pro Quo), and that behavior is Entirely Acceptable in our current political climate! Just ask Rick Scott, Scott Walker, or any of the other TeaPublican policy supporters.

They've sold the Trust we've given them (IE Oath of Office) to the highest bidder, they're now wholly owned, functionally reliant Corporate tools. The "Oath to Norquist" we're all familiar with simply assures complete cooperation with this all consuming Agenda. NO Exceptions to towing the TeaPublican party line will be tolerated.


TeaPublicans (of course) deny that any coercion or impropriety is taking place, Republicans have NOT been intimidated into cooperation with the Right Wing Agenda, Of Course Not


Other Long Term Strategy Goals?

If we take into account the influence of our current election cycle, Tax Denial is an easily explained tactic. Under GOP policy our country cannot be allowed to substantially recover before the 2012 election, economic growth won't be allowed to reflect positive credit to President Obama even if impending *Catastrophic Economic Failure* is the alternative. Right Wing measures of Austerity are closely related, those proposals support and sustain intended (related) Denial of Economic Growth.

As always, Republicans place their own political interests ahead of National Economic Stability, the rest of us aren't much of a consideration compared to the Corporate Loyalty nurtured by current GOP Leadership.

Right Wing Media support for policies of Tax Attrition

Under "Official" GOP media supported contention, policies of Tax Revenue Denial and resulting negative impact on our economy and effected Public Programs are NECESSARY, period, no further discussion required. Speaks for itself, right?
Because it's simply the "Right Thing to do" once you've sold out to Corporate Constituents

Tax Attrition and resulting Enforced Impoverishment continue to be carried out in the guise of supposed (unnecessary, contrived) Deficit Reduction.

THAT'S what's best for America! Right? Depriving ALL social programs of funding is the GOLD STANDARD for GOP policy, Mr. Norquist understands that very well

We should ALL pause for a moment to appreciate the service provided by this Outstanding Patriot, this Pillar of Freedom and Exceptionalism!

Grover "The Hero" under GOP Dogma

No, Mr. Norquist is NOT enforcing an unspoken imperative in support of Tax Subsidies resulting in huge windfall profits for the wealthiest 1% of Americans across the last decades.

Cooperative GOP House and Senate members are IN FACT stout defenders of Liberty, Patriotic officeholders who're bound by Honor and Integrity, who've simply decided to do what's Best for America, right?

By cutting or removing completely those Public Programs supporting the poorest, least secure Americans. Thereby enabling the sustained Corporate Tax Cuts we've all become familiar with How could anyone be confused about what motivates these Heroic Freedom Fighters?

They're NOT "Corporate Shills" who've completely SOLD OUT to Monied Interests, who've sold their Oath of Office to the Highest Bidder, NOPE.
Not even Mitt Romney



The “Affluent” are well aware that political payoffs (AKA Bribes AKA Legalized Corruption) are MUCH less expensive than paying taxes.
They’ll continue to feed the GOP political machine as much as necessary to keep their tax deferred “subsidies” and other loopholes courtesy of Lobbyist Influence.

And they’re obviously well aware that our current bad economy represents an OPPORTUNITY to further increase the rift between the “Affluent” and the rest of us.

Meanwhile, Union Representation is under continuous attack NATIONALLY, yet another opportunity for the Corporate Interests to reduce the stability and political influence of “Middle America”, IE the ragged remains of the Middle Class.

Business as usual for the Corporate GOP.



Interested in becoming a GOP Corporate Tool?

Being funded by compromised resources while holding an elected position, taking Tainted campaign money tied to obvious (Blatant!) conflict of interest issues? That's Just Fine!

Because the GOP says so, in pursuit of their agenda supportive of the richest 1% of Americans, who then (by way of Reciprocation) fund cooperative Republican Politicos with resulting HUGE campaign finance resources provided for under Citizens United.

In cooperation with the current Reicht Wing majority SCOTUS which continues to control our Electoral AND Judicial systems, based on nothing more than the (contrived) rhetorically based, arbitrary opinions of those justices without further legal justification.

And related Policies of Austerity enforced under current Republican Leadership are ALSO just fine, they don't threaten the integrity of our entire Social Contract, nope. Proposed Austerity Measures are absolutely NECESSARY to support Tax Subsidies that would otherwise be denied to deserving Corporate Interests

And why not? For instance, why would anyone actually rely on Food Stamps, Right TeaPublicans? Or Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Unemployment Insurance, Retirement Benefits, they're all just so much weight on our shoulders, we the Deserving Moneyed Elite. Right?

Those who've invested in these programs (HOW many decades? YOU FOOL!) can just wither up and blow away under TeaPublican dictates, in fact, current Reicht Wing legislation will ASSURE this.

Additionally, Denial of Tax Revenue to programs supportive of the poorest segment of our economy isn't VILE or DESTRUCTIVE, NO!

It's actually PATRIOTIC under current GOP doctrine to reduce and/or cancel Medicaid supplements, Food Stamps, WIC, Head Start, Homeless Shelters, poverty support programs of ALL types.

All done under a fervor of Patriotic Posturing centered around (unnecessary, contrived) DEFICIT REDUCTION.
Which makes that Agenda Completely Legitimate. Of Course!

On the related topic of Campaign Finance Corruption:



Why would anyone need a NEW retirement benefits package? Because the one you've been paying into is being raided by Corporate Austerity Legislation!

WAR Ambitions persist under GOP Policy

Carlyle Group, Mideast Oil, Echos in the Current Economy


Hey Conservatives, are you still reflexively defensive about our failed Mid-East war ventures?

Is your knee-jerk reaction to comments about "Shrub" George W's ruinous damage to our National Prestige STILL a ludicrous tirade about how Saddam Hussein MAY have had WMDs, how the trillions of $ wasted on invasion and occupation were WORTHWHILE, dammit!

Thousands of lost US troops, endless local Iraqi/Afghan civilian casualties, WORTHWHILE, right?

But actions taken by the "Shrub" George W./Cheney administration (Et Al) and their prevailing affects TODAY, should be given further consideration. Our current economy may be the LEAST resulting damage of Neoconservative war ambitions.

And those ambitions remain, apparently unaffected by our current national condition.


If the George W administration hadn't spent the $ for Iraq/Afghanistan "Off the Budget" largely without congressional oversight we wouldn't have had to borrow our way into our current debt to China (and several other countries) and wouldn't still be dumping $ from the U.S. treasury into that monument to "War Profiteering". Supposing that pre-emptive fiasco were justified in the first place.


George Bush maintained Clinton's "Most Favored Nation" trade status with the Chinese while borrowing HUGELY against them to finance middle east war ventures taken on during that administration.

This "convenient" relationship with China also undermined our job market, "Shrub" maintained our uncontrolled marketing of Chinese goods in a concession of our debt, in fact this "flooding" of our market displaced U.S. industry with manufactured goods that often didn't meet our safety standards and ultimately cost industry workers many jobs.

What a nice benefit for the international Corporatists:

Deprive U.S. workers of jobs tied to productivity, write off the debt to China in exchange for what COULD have been U.S. jobs, all the while benefiting HUGELY on the War Profits side and establishing petroleum distribution futures in Iraq. (Petroleum ambitions that haven't panned out, since National support for that conflict has failed miserably across the years).

And finally deny ALL spending on U.S. social programs as "unaffordable" because of the huge cumulative debt brought about by a war the RIGHT WING dragged the rest of us into, use this sustained debt as rationale for denial of possible health care reform. Our current failed economy reflects that debt, along with market (Wall Street, 401K related) enormous losses, combined with affects of general sustained Deregulation policies and the housing bubble meltdown.

All of this at the expense of critical programs like HEALTH CARE that the right wing would like to starve to death.

Kudos to George W and Cheney, War Incorporated.

Wait, I know. Let's follow GOP pretense and blame NeoCon war ambitions on a RELIGION. Islam, more specifically.


Bet HE would like to lecture the rest of us about religion too

In fact, for those not paying attention, he's actually been doing the Faux News lecture circuit with his daughter, financed by the GOP, informing the rest of us what a GOOD thing pre-emptive war supported by Rendition is.

Cheney is no doubt fully aware that hypocrisy is the TRUE faith of the GOP (AKA Sanctimony), too bad the rest of you haven't a clue. You serve his purpose very well.

Instead of admitting to their pretense of morality, the GOP leadership continually rants about Liberals to provide cover for their actions, misdirection of their own foolish party members being the intent.

Republican Talking Heads know enough to never admit this, tho

Limbaugh, Beck, Savage, Coulter, O'Reilly, they're all well aware of their own hypocrisy, how could they possibly NOT be?

The pay is VERY good, and they won't be admitting to their pretense any time soon, if ever.


Muslims are STILL a Conservative target in the USA and across the globe, they remain a scapegoat for our (former?) ambitions of Mid-East aggression, and current Politics can be easily tied into that tendency. In fact, why not paint Liberals/Dems with the same broad brush?

After all, we Liberals HAVE been supportive of Muslims, right? One in particular. At least it's convenient to have him Portrayed as being Islamic, for purposes of endless focused derision from the right wing.


Part of the larger effort, the right wing campaign to propagandize the citizenry.

"I'll tell you who should be tortured and killed at Guantanamo - every filthy Democrat in the U.S. Congress." - Sean Hannity

"To fight only the al-Qaeda scum is to miss the terrorist network operating within our own borders... Who are these traitors? Every rotten radical left-winger in this country, that's who." - Michael Savage

"Liberalism is the greatest threat this country faces." - Rush Limbaugh

"It is not a stretch to say that MoveOn is the new Klan." - Bill O'Reilly

"I'm thinking about killing Michael Moore, and I'm wondering if I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it. No, I think I could." - Glenn Beck

"We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too." - Ann Coulter

Oh well. Liberals and Progressives have always been pointed to as being the dregs of society by Conservatives, and under current GOP doctrine we're also apparently Traitors.

Guilt by association, Sympathizers with the "Godless Terrorist" Islamic scapegoats to the extent that we don't support WingNut religious intolerance, won't buckle under the pressure of GOP/Right Wing "All Muslims are responsible for 9-11" propaganda.


There's always been a question of WHICH islamics we should berate, persecute, and deride, right?

What about the royal family, house of Saud? Shouldn't we focus some (belated) attention on THEIR involvement with Middle East terrorism?

George W and his dad were closely connected to them thru the Carlyle group and many other mutual Petroleum/Finance interests, probably still maintain them but officially split off the ties in late 2001. Carlyle thru KBR/Halliburton still contracted for construction in Iraq, tho. Highly profitable.


Apparently President Obama would be perfectly acceptable to you intolerant, persistently bigoted "TeaBaggers" if he were even remotely related to the Saudis, and not nearly so dark in terms of skin pigment, of course.

So if President Barack H. Obama WERE an Islamic and a Saudi that would make it OK, right?

And after the towers came down on 9-11, when George W "Shrub" allowed members of the royal family and all associated parties to board otherwise unauthorized flights out of the U.S., that was OK too, right? Without even detaining them for information, hmmm. That's puzzling.


Including family members of Osama Bin Laden, Shafiq bin Laden was in fact in a meeting with the Carlyle group on the morning of 9-11, some say with Poppy Bush but that's never been proven. James Baker was at that meeting, tho. And he's recently defended the Saudis against a TRILLION $ lawsuit brought about by families of 9-11 survivors.


Since neither the Saudis or W did anything wrong at that time by Neocon reasoning, what that situation called for was a scapegoat, could it perhaps have been Saddam Hussein?

Come on Conservatives. Fill me in as to what REALLY happened.

Herman Cain, GOP Tool by choice, Apologist by Political Design

A Short Review:

(NOTE: First posted before the 2012 Presidential Election)

The following was posted before Herman Cain's self-destructive spiral of absurd behavior, in and out of the public eye, brought about an end to his candidacy, while he still maintained some tenuous possibility of success.

Media exposure of his history of abusive behavior toward female co-workers proved to be the "Final Straw", rendering the possibility of winning national support as Primary Candidate yet another "Absurdity", at best a subject of somewhat humorous disdain.

As we're all by now aware

But there are lessons to be learned from the process involved, the vast GOP political machine that brought about the Cain ticket deserves a second look, if only for purposes of defining the vaunted Republican Values brought to bear in that tribute to NATIONALLY BROADCAST "Absurdity".

GOP values and implied integrity of those candidates (lack of, essentially) deserve further review in the context of our current election cycle, with Mitt Romney now bearing the cross of that prevailing "Carnival" atmosphere.

Let's give him the deserved credit of having participated in that process, and he should bear his share of responsibility for it


Republicans are playing the same old HACK, they're accusing Libs/Dems of classic Right Wing race-based tactics, methods promoted and applied across the decades.

IE we're being accused of "Playing the Race Card" in support of the current President.

Toward that end, the GOP less "Fringe" center saw Herman Cain as an opportunity to dismiss the displays of intolerant Right Wing Fringe behavior we've all become familiar with, to distance themselves from those "Fringers" by promoting a minority candidate in the GOP primary.

For the express purpose of convincing the public that the Republican party has lately become "Inclusive".

But those of us who're inclined toward Historic perspective know better, we're not convinced of recent inclusive behavior.

Especially since non-minority GOP candidates have a long history of supporting those intolerant *Fringers* when they're running for local office, particularly concerning elections in Red States where the "Southern Strategy" STILL prevails, tho perhaps less blatantly than in times past.

And we mainstream "Moderate Voters" are supposed to forget history, we're supposed to forget all context and perspective as tho the Republican party is completely blameless for those *Race-Based* historical tactics along with recent "Dog Whistle" coded messages across the media since this President has been in office.

Think the Birther, Anti-Immigrant, Anti-Islamic, “Black Man in the White House” crazies have already vented out? Think they were just screeching that loudly across the last election cycle because of Mid-term Election Anxiety?

If so you’re apparently not nearly cynical enough to appreciate where WingNut aggression can lead. Watch what happens as the 2012 election nears, you’ve not NEARLY seen how far the “Fringe Right” can push their rants.

So a review of recent Right Wing "TeaPublican" legislation is in order, right? Let's take a look at what they've promoted across the last election cycle related to long standing policies of "Inequity".

***Starting with Arizona SB1070.***

Righties won’t admit that this less than NEW State legislation in Arizona was completely unnecessary, SB1070 was designed to be a political tool in support of the GOP agenda, the general goal being influence of Arizona local conservative voters by promoting false "Reform Measures" against immigrant workers, of course.

Enforcement of existing Federal laws would have made this hugely flawed legislation entirely unnecessary, and debate continues as to whether SB1070 is at all legitimate given that it conflicts with standing Federal Regulations.

Enforcement of National Federal Laws in Arizona (Hiring Practices) would require that Corporate interests be deprived of an unregulated cheap labor force, which of course would lead to compliance with MINIMUM WAGE standards and encourage the possibility of a Union-Based work force to fill the undocumented labor worker void, something those Corporate interests have no intention of allowing.

Neither will Local Arizona GOP organizers who know where their campaign money comes from, the above mentioned Corporate Constituents.

***What about Birth Right?***

TeaPublicans would never actually TRY to repeal the 14th amendment, they’re just using that POSSIBILITY as yet another political tool to rally support of the right wing "Fringe" base.

But several GOP Senators have vocally supported repeal of that amendment to promote their supposed "Illegal Immigrant" political postures while voicing alarm about the (contrived) looming threat of "Anchor Babies".

The intent being to provide "Red Meat" for the GOP "Red Neck" base.


Proposing repeal of that amendment as a further "Reform" measure that targets "Illegals" (Undocumented Workers, actually), encouraging the "Racial Profiling" behavior we've come to recognize as acceptable among the Conservatives.

***More examples of improper targeting of minorities?***

Senator Rand Paul states that he’d not REALLY like to repeal the last 50 years of Anti-Discrimination policies and supporting legislation in the United States, only certain parts of it

Specifically, the parts that prevent private business from engaging in discrimination practices.


Which serves to identify Senator Paul as supportive of "Regressive" political ideals, attracts them to vote in support of his cause.

Eventually “Jim Crow” law could easily “Rise Again” in Southern states, thanks to the GOP Right Wing fringe.

***There are many further examples of improper Republican activities, but let's review just one more.***

Meanwhile, legislation’s been introduced to “Rewrite History” in Texas, Louisiana, and several other states. Otherwise known as Revisionist History that would “Downplay” if not exclude (among other things) our history of near genocide and complete displacement of Native Americans and exclude any possible culpability of White/European Ancestry citizens.


As well as revising historical references to slavery and later (related) discrimination, and several other forms of institutionalized bigotry carried forward by U.S. History.

Nothing “Offensive” there for Minority “People of Color”, right?

***Back to Herman Cain***

But how many rational people think that promoting Herman Cain for the GOP primary is compensation for these "Race-Based" tactics we're all familiar with, used as recently as the last Mid-Term elections?

What’s the prevailing thread in all of the above GOP driven legislation?

How did we arrive at this “Perfect Storm” of right wing policy that specifically targets minorities, that concentrates on people whose skin tone doesn’t meet the definition of “White”?

Coincidentally having a black President in office, right?

What's obvious to most of us is that the GOP supports minority candidates as a "Political Tactic" to the extent that it works AGAINST their Democratic opposition.

Once this Primary election cycle is over Republicans will revert to their tried and true "Redneck" methodology.

***As Posted Recently Elsewhere:***

Regarding the influence of Color on National Elections:

Speculative comments about how many of us may have voted for President Obama based on his color are irrelevant besides being unlikely. Voters would take that into consideration but reasonable people wouldn’t have voted for or against any candidate simply because he or she happened to be black or of ANY particular minority.

"Reasonable People" being equivalent to Libs/Dems, of course, or anyone to the left of Right Wing TeaPublicans, actually

That’s easily recognizable by lack of support for candidates in the GOP who can’t gain traction regardless of their ethnicity, like Herman Cain.

The point being that Herman Cain isn’t a VIABLE candidate for the Presidency regardless of his color, he’s simply not marketable on the National Republican platform because of his lack of appeal to a broad cross-section of voters.

He’s a *Religious Bigot,* for starters, he openly offends most of us who can see beyond the “All Muslims are responsible for 9-11” Right Wing propaganda.

Beyond that, he’s not at all comfortable in front of the media spotlight and *(like Sarah Palin)* is prone to making outrageous statements that embarrass his party management. So, *(like Sarah)* he has to be carefully monitored and reminded to “Stay on Message” or he’ll self-destruct

On the issue of so-called “Race-based Politics”, no well informed self-respecting voter will EVER vote based entirely on color, period.

Which by definition admittedly excludes a large segment of the Right Wing



But in the immediate Campaign Environment, claims of "Race Card" politics in support of our current president are so obviously without merit as to be ridiculous, those claims attempt to simplify and distort what the rest of us recognize to be complex issues into "Bumper Stickers", red herrings useful to Punditry on that edge of the political spectrum.

Desperation is the driving force behind the "Race Based" tactics mentioned above.

Those are serious topics which should NOT be reduced to "Talking Points" among the Republican Party Fringe, they deserve careful review outside of the election process, removed from the framework of impending elections where they are intended to subtract from our Presidential Election efforts (and are conversely diminished by that environment).


Like "Anchor Babies", "Disease Carrying Illegal Immigrants", "Terrorist Mosques", "Welfare Queens", or pretense of Heath Care programs alleged to "Kill the Elderly", we reasonable members of the Public should recognize derivative nonsense when we hear it, commonplace as these complete distortions have become.

BUMPER STICKER mentality engaged on a national scale.

Whatever other Contrived Nonsense the right wing Echo Chamber chooses to inflict on the uninformed Republican Base, let's keep it in context of the above manufactured BS.

Given their record of complete Racial Bias (and/or Abuse) we should understand those claims to be just another distraction produced and approved by the lowest common denominator, GOP Talking Head Punditry.

So, once again, let's Consider the Source and move on. Above referenced Lies and Liars notwithstanding

We have an impending election to win, deserving of our attention. Absurd as the Mitt Romney candidacy has become, it's still a threat to our entire National Integrity.

Post Election Summary:

Since the above post, Romney has proven that failed GOP Candidate Integrity isn't even an issue as far as Right Wing approval is concerned. Thankfully, his loss of the Presidential election shows that National Public Opinion doesn't support those standards of "Integrity" (or lack of).

Apparently the right wing political machine isn't even geared toward Public Approval, that's secondary (unnecessary?) compared to what's considered to be their "Gold Standard" for viable Candidates.

Party Loyalty is the LITMUS of National GOP Support, they're less concerned about ANYTHING else, including US economic recovery.

Just ask Grover Norquist.

Go to Page: 1