Showing posts with label Democratic Party. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Democratic Party. Show all posts

Wednesday, May 05, 2010

Twilight of the old party system?

Belmont Club » That’s the Way You Do It
The situation in which Britain finds itself is so dire that the Governor of the Bank of England told an American economist that whichever party won the current general election it would be “out of power for a whole generation because of how tough the fiscal austerity will have to be.” David Cameron may find, immediately after taking control of the ship of state that he has been promoted to the captaincy of the Titanic.
That makes me feel a bit better about watching the UK election results tomorrow.

In the meantime, you might be interested in Adam K's analysis of how, in an America where the political center has all but been abandoned, politics is becoming a fight in which each of the two major parties seeks to destroy its rival in order to institute some new kind of political center and debate on new terms. However, the more a party is expressly aware of and publicly vocal about its desire to destroy the other party, the less successful it can be. Adam thus looks for the political issues that, if fought seriously, may nonetheless have the pragmatic effect of destroying the "criminal cult" that is today's Democratic Party.

Wednesday, June 10, 2009

For What it's Worth...

We elected a Democratic Party president recently in the expectation that he would be a better president than George W. Bush. But, really, that's not why we elected Obama. We elected him because we had a chance to make history and feel really cool about it: electing the first "Black" president. What might we get? A Democrat.

Hic locus est ubi mors gaudet succurrere vitae.

"Let conversation cease. Let laughter flee. This is the place where death delights to help the living."

Ben-Peter Terpstra, "
Obama-first mayors lead 14 of 15 most dangerous cities," American Thinker. June 10, 2009

When Mayor Giuliani, the feisty Italian-American Republican took charge of New York, he meant business. Crime went down, down, down.

Alas, today's big city mayor is more likely to be a soft-on-crime Democrat.

What do I mean? When Forbes magazine listed the 15 most dangerous cities in America - the political class ignored one embarrassingly obvious fact. Yes: 14 of the 15 mayors leading America's most dangerous cities are Obama-first leaders.

Here's the beef:

No. 15 Philadelphia, Pa. Mayor Michael Anthony "Mike" Nutter (Democrat)

No. 14 Charlotte, N.C. Mayor Patrick "Pat" McCrory (Republican)

No. 13 West Palm Beach, Fla. Mayor Lois J. Lois J. Frankel (Democrat)

No. 12 Baton Rouge, La. Mayor-President Melvin "Kip" Holden (Democrat)

No. 11 New Orleans, La. Mayor Clarence Ray Nagin, Jr. (Democrat)

No. 10 Baltimore, Md. Mayor Sheila Ann Dixon (Democrat)

No. 9 Nashville, Tenn. Mayor Karl Foster Dean (Democrat)

No. 8 Charleston, S.C. Mayor Joseph P. Riley, Jr. (Democrat)

No. 7 Little Rock, Ark. Mayor Mark Stodola (Democrat)

No. 6 Orlando, Fla. Mayor John Hugh "Buddy" Dyer (Democrat)

No. 5 Stockton, Calif. Mayor Ann Johnston (Democrat)

No. 4 Las Vegas, Nev. Mayor Oscar Baylin Goodman (Democrat)

No. 3 Miami, Fla. Mayor Manny Diaz ("Independent,"Obama-first voter and 2008 DNC speaker)

No. 2 Memphis, Tenn. Mayor Willie W. Herenton (Democrat)

No. 1 Detroit, Mich. Mayor David Bing (Democrat)
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/06/obamafirst_mayors_lead_14_of_1.html

Cities with Democratic Party mayors. Is it good or bad or just the moon in Virgo? Let's take a seat and watch the show.


American Thinker comment, Posted by: Mac Fuller. June 10, 11:37 AM

EVIDENCE:
This information can be found in U.S. Census Bureau, 2006 American Community Survey, published in August 2007, and was widely reported upon in August, September, and October 2008 prior to the presidential election.

POVERTY IN MAJOR U.S. CITIES -- TOP 10.

City and State / Percentage of People Below Poverty Level / "Leadership"

1. Detroit , MI 32.5% #1 on poverty rate list. Has not elected a Republican mayor since 1961.

2. Buffalo , NY 29.9% #2 on list, and hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1954.

3. Cincinnati , OH 27.8% #3 on the poverty list. No elected Republican since 1984.

4. Cleveland , OH 27.0% #4 on the poverty list. No elected Republican since 1989.

5. Miami , FL 26.9% #5 on the poverty list. Has NEVER had a Republican mayor.

6. St. Louis , MO 26.8% #6 on the poverty list. No elected Republican since 1949.

7. El Paso , TX 26.4% #7 on the poverty list. Has NEVER had a Republican mayor.

8. Milwaukee , WI 26.2% #8 on the poverty list. No elected Republican since 1908.

9. Philadelphia , PA 25.1% #9 on the poverty list. No elected Republican since 1952.

10. Newark , NJ 24.2% #10 on the poverty list. No elected Republican since 1907.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/06/obamafirst_mayors_lead_14_of_1.html
How cool is it that we have as president a Democrat Super-Mayor?

There's something happening here
What it is ain't exactly clear
There's a man with a gun over there
Telling me
I've got to beware

Chorus:
Think it's time we
STOP! Hey
What's that sound
Everybody look what's going down ...

http://www.lyricsdownload.com/crosby-stills-and-nash-for-what-it-s-worth-lyrics.html

Tuesday, September 23, 2008

Brother, Can You Spare Some Change

I've had occasion to do a lot of thinking about the subject of personal initiative lately. Since it's on my mind anyway, maybe that's why I feel I keep encountering more of it than usual in my news reading.

You might have heard about this story, from a few weeks ago...

An Illinois Girl Scout troop leader took some initiative to teach her 2nd-grade girls about the current US Presidential election. She contacted both campaigns to ask for some free materials, like buttons or signs, to give to the 7-year olds as learning aids.

John McCain's campaign responded immediately, sending her several campaign stickers and signs. But the Obama campaign..?
The troop leader said she called Obama's Chicago campaign headquarters and explained why she needed the curios. Walsh said she was directed to Obama's Web site—where she could buy all the buttons and posters she wanted. On the Web, a packet of 50 stickers that say "Obama '08" goes for $5; a yard sign is $8. "Got Hope?" bumper stickers are $3 each, or two for $5.

Walsh found the prices a bit exorbitant her small group. She said she asked Obama's campaign worker again if she could get a few items for free. She pointed out that McCain's camp had agreed to send a box and, well, her 12-member Scout troop runs on a very small budget.

Walsh said the woman at Obama's headquarters put her on hold. After a few minutes, she returned with the same answer. The woman told her that she sympathized, but the Obama campaign needs every penny it can get, Walsh said. "She said, 'We're up against the machine and we just can't hand anything out for free,' " Walsh said. "She was very nice . . . but I wasn't getting anything.

She did eventually get something, to be honest; when the media started to report on the cold shoulder the scout leader had initially received, the embarrassed Obama campaign showered her with more than she asked for, right down to a personal letter from The One, Himself. Apparently it was all a terrible mistake.

It's interesting to note what happened, or should I say, what didn't happen, at the Democratic election headquarters during that fateful phone call.

1) The person who took the call apparently didn't think ahead and ponder the potential public relations consequences of her uncharitable response. A campaign that had succeeded in raising over $55 million in the month of August alone can't afford to spare ten bucks worth of pins and posters, for girl scouts? The campaign worker didn't think, "Won't the average voter think we're stingy unless we help the girl scout troup?" Doesn't the staffer believe in long-term thinking, that actions may have consequences?

2) The person who took the call brings the problem to her supervisor. Now, maybe it was or maybe it wasn't the official policy of the staff to honor all requests like this one for small donations of free stuff. Let's say the supervisor was sincere and he truly believed that it wasn't part of their policy to help people like this girl scout troup leader; why doesn't that supervisor simply say to himself, "You know, the stuff that we're being asked for only costs about $10 or $20, why don't I just pay for this out of my own pocket. My bosses will never know about it, but it would make the candidate look good if his supporters behave charitably... maybe I should just help her myself." Yet that didn't happen.

3) The person who took the call is told by her supervisor not to give a single penny's worth of free stuff to the caller. Why doesn't she then say to herself, "You know, maybe I can just send the campaign trinkets myself... I'm not making very much working here, but if I take up a quick collection from my pals on these phone banks, we should easily come up with enough to make a difference for these kids... it might mean one less coffee today, or tomorrow, but it's for a good cause, plus it will make the campaign look good...I can gather that stuff on my next lunch hour." That initiative didn't materialize, either; it didn't occur to her to take matters into her own hands and try and make a difference.

Today I read of another display of personal initiative. Columnist Dinesh D'souza had established a fund to collect donations for Barack Obama's half-starving half-brother in Kenya. He's raised $1,000 in contributions, and is adding an extra grand of his own money to that amount:

Here are the facts about George Obama. He’s in his twenties. He lives in a slum in a hut. He wants to become a mechanic but doesn’t have the money. He reports that he gets by on a dollar a month. ... He said when people notice he has the same name as Barack Obama, he denies they are related because he is “ashamed.” The Democratic presidential candidate, who made $4 million last year, hasn’t lifted a finger to help his half-brother.
...
I specifically asked people to send gifts of $5, $10 and $25. The reason is that even a relatively modest sum by American standards is a considerable sum by Kenyan standards. George Obama has said that he is living on a dollar a month. This seems an impossible sum to survive on, so I checked the poverty line in Kenya. According to United Nations estimates, it’s around $100 a year. By this measure, our little fund has provided for George for 20 years. Alternatively, George can move out of his 6 foot-by-10-foot hut and into a more comfortable dwelling. He can also get the training he needs to become a mechanic.

The Kenya newspaper The Daily Nation is outraged at the existence of the George Obama Compassion Fund, and in an opinion piece published over the weekend, they lash out at D'souza for yet another "low" in the US Presidential election. The writer (who is an editor for the United Nations) points to Obama's first of two autobiographies for evidence that he is not self-centered, and that he has room in his heart for others... room enough for everyone:

[Senator Obama] understands that the condition of being poor is not a crime, as some Republicans would have us believe.

But it is a result of global and national forces, which he is seeking to change, not just for the sake of young men like George (whose only fault, he writes, was that he was “born on the wrong side of our father’s cloven world”), but for all the world’s underprivileged people, who remain silent and ashamed of who they are because the world tells them they will never be good enough.

...Obama dared to think of family as all those, regardless of race, tribe or nation, who are committed to a particular “moral course”.

He sees himself not just as someone who can uplift the lives of his immediate family or the people of the US, but as someone who puts the world on a path where not just his half-brother George will have a chance to improve his life and expect justice, but where everyone on this planet will have a reason to hope for a better world.

... He realised early on his career that gaining individual power for himself was futile because “without power for the group, a group larger even, than an extended family, our success always threatened to leave others behind. And perhaps it was that fact that left me so unsettled – the fact that even here, in Africa, the same maddening patterns held sway; that no-one here could tell me what my blood ties demanded or how those demands could be reconciled with some larger idea of human association.”

So it doesn't occur to the man running as the Democratic party's Presidential Candidate that he could spare a hundred dollars and change his half-brother's life for the better, for a while? Must it be total change, for everyone, or else no change, for anyone? Why not spare some change, for some... for one?

Maybe Senator Obama believes in all-or-nothing absolutes, and wants to wait until he's in a position to help every single person before he begins helping any one person. Fortunately, not every American is paralyzed by such deferment of personal initiative. Thankfully for George Obama, and the uncountable millions of others like him around the world whose stories we rarely hear about, some Americans can imagine what it's like to live in a tragic and flawed world, and believe not just in good and bad, they also believe in better and worse... in progress.

These Americans have the hope that they can be agents of change, helping one life at a time, one chance at a time, instead of every life all at once, forevermore, with just one chance... Americans like this donor to the George Obama Compassion Fund:

"I wish I had a brother, or even a step-brother. George is not my relative and not my race or religion but I still want to contribute to his welfare."

Tuesday, September 02, 2008

Anarchist Sand-bagging

By chance, I just finished rereading Georges Sorel, Reflections on Violence. "Georges Sorel's Reflections on Violence (1908) remains a controversial text to this day. It unashamedly advocates the use of violence as a means of putting an end to the corrupt politics of bourgeois democracy and of bringing down capitalism. It is both dangerous and fascinating, of enduring importance and interest to all those concerned about the nature of modern politics." So we read at Amazon.com. Below we read a comment from an "anarchist" supporter. Today a gang of anarchists dropped bags of cement from an over-pass on busses heading to the Republican Convention:

Anarchism is a peace movement. We are expressing outrage at your violent republican agenda. You don't want violence? Then don't advocate it at home and in Iraq you republican idiots. What is a sand bag against flanks of cops with guns and pepper spray and night sticks or against the violence which we are protesting? The near 100,000 documented civilian deaths in Iraq and the un-documentable thousands of civilian deaths in Afghanistan? For what? Your dirty oil money. Modern republican philosophy which driven by Ayn Randian right wing libertarianism, by the way,is a violent terrible form of idiotic self destructive anarchism.
10:56 PM
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/09/bus-attack-in-st-paul-anarchists-attack.html

WELCOME TO MINNESOTA!

Anarchists in St. Paul attacked RNC busses today in route to the Excel Center.
The anarchists and Leftists knew when the busses would be heading to the convention and were waiting for them.
They nearly killed us!

The anarchists and antiwar nuts were protesting on top of the interstate overpasses earlier in the day.

Later when the GOP busses started to take delegates from Minneapolis to St. Paul the anarchists started throwing sandbags and cement bags at the busses.
Unreal.

The bus I was riding was hit with cement bags that the anarchists were throwing off the overpasses down on the interstate. The anarchists missed the bus in front of us and nailed our bus with a direct hit.

The police had us slow down and then sent us under the interstate overpass when we were attacked.
There were several women and senior citizens on the bus.

More at Gateway Pundit.

A little later, a busload of Cub Scouts were en route to the convention, where they were to present the colors to open the convention. A group of protesters--liberals, Obama supporters, or whatever--blocked the road, surrounded the bus, and attacked it, rocking the bus back and forth, denting and scratching the sides, and generally terrifying the children trapped inside. The left-wing protesters attacked a number of buses in the same way, but there is something especially despicable about attacking a group of Cub Scouts.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/09/021387.php

Cub Scouts. They would be boys from six to ten or so. I was a cub scout. I passed on the dropping sandbags on busses. Go figure. No, Sarah Palin wasn't my mother, I just kind of figured it out on my own.

"Cub Scouting is for boys in the first through fifth grades. The programs offer boys participation in family-centered activities, community service, and camping. Boys belong to a den, usually a group of six to eight boys. The dens form a pack that meets monthly."

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761560564/boy_scouts.html

I can see that many people wouldn't have a clue about being a cub scout. I am dismayed and disgusted by commentators who assume that "anarchists" are "right-wing." Show me the Conservative here:

Mikhail Bakunin
Peter Kropotikin
Alexander Nechaev
Pierre Prudhon
Georges Sorel
And let's not forget everybodies' favorites:
The Narodniki

One might wonder why I seem to know far more about anarchism than does the average anarchist. Maybe it shows in that when I sand-bag people I don't use sand-bags. If you look at the names above you might get a sense of why the Leftards are freaking out about Sarah Palin. Compare her to Bernadine Dohrn and Bill Ayers, friends of Osama Barka.

Wednesday, February 13, 2008

Barack Obama: Who let the dogs out?


Cobb: The Beginning of the End of Multiculturalism is an interesting prediction of the collapse of the Democratic party, with the now widespread revelation that the Democrats' multiculturalism has just been a form of subtle racism:
We don't often think of Barack Obama as a creation of the Democrat Machine, and it's really stunning to know that we haven't. But he is indeed the petard upon which Democrats have tried to hoist Republicans since his arrival on the scene. But where did he come from, really? The Democrats have given Obama an inch and he has taken a mile. With his recent four state sweep, the Clintons are really stumbling to keep up. Plus, Obama is pulling in more money. Who let the dogs out? This is the deep trouble in the Left that is forcing them to grapple with two attributes they have invested so much meaning and value in, race and gender. It's going to make their heads explode

RattlerGator has brought to my attention something about the Boomers' inability to get over their own roots, where the most significant moral chit was 'marching with Dr King'. I mean really, how scary is that? It is probably one of the last best significant things your garden variety white person could do of moral significance by virtue of the color of their skin. We, on the other hand, merely had to succeed against the odds - which is a lifetime endeavor. A march some Sunday weekend? Ha! It's like me saying 'I shook Barney Frank's hand!'. That may have been hugely significant in breaking the cultural barriers of the 50s, but then again, the 50s weren't all that retarded and lots and lots of Boomers were doing the same thing. The rewards of doing the adolescent rebellious yet moral thing against a regressive background of racist parenting should only count so much, and yet the Clintons of the world have been banking on it for decades.

This is the origin of multiculturalism. It is rooted in the basic countercultural idea that Boomer parents (and America by extension) were so incredibly wrong about race and war that they couldn't be morally right about anything. And the exploration (some Sunday march) that a generation of white youth had during the Summer of Love to find that blacks and hispanics and all the other 'others' were actually human destroyed their faith in their parents' American culture. The very humanity of 'others' came as a shock to these poor naifs and they haven't been right since. The problem is that such Boomers have been on stage too long, and their basic reversion to their signature memes, without any appreciation for what the Conservative revolution has long stood for, has left them derailed from the real track of liberty.

The Baby Boom is a market phenomenon. I'm one of that minority of Americans who never thought much of Dustin Hoffman or the Rolling Stones. Quite frankly I've never seen The Graduate and I only know three or four songs by the Stones. When Bill Clinton came rolling around in 1992, I didn't trust him, but I was glad to see the torch of the Presidency finally get to someone within 20 years of my age. Bill Clinton spoke my language and recognized the same parts of America I did, like the Arsenio Hall Show. But this was just a market phenomenon. He never got down to Constitutional purity. He never got down to core principles of America and he did nothing to bring me, or anyone, to a truer conscious patriotism as a citizenship. He never demanded sacrifice, instead he just gave us the flavor we desired. He was all about movement, and in 1992 that's what I wanted to see and hear - movement to a new generation, a Pepsi Generation.

Now it's easy for me to see all that movement was just agitation. If it took triangulation strategies, if it took bombing Serbia, then that was the cost. The point was that he could market us a Cabinet 'that looks like America'. What anybody did in those seats was not our concern, we just knew to let multicultural ethics force us not to look past race and gender. As Clinton took a whack at military policy, we knew he was going for the trifecta of sexual preference as well. He consciously politicized and brought front and center something that wasn't broke and should have been left alone.

We tend to forget the fundamental problem with godless communism which is that it sees human beings as getting their meaning from systems. To to the commie, there is no human soul which endows people with their fundamental value, instead, people get all of their meaning from the social contract. Outside of the system, people don't exist. And therefore the shape of the system defines the shape of the human without which we are supposedly all barbarians. It's easy to see the Civil Rights Movement from that perspective. Before it, blacks were not fully human because the system didn't recognize them. And of course it's also easy to see white humanity as augmented and enhanced due to their conformance to a new system recognizing black humanity. The communist, the socialist, the Marxist all see the human experience as not only being enhanced and affirmed by the System but established by it, and that said system is its only defense. In such a scheme, individuals are just like wild free electrons, not the captured flow of electricity - the only use for electrons. Recognition of a god is just a checkbox, a reason to conflict without the order imposed by the system. Race is another checkbox, gender is another checkbox, and so on. All generating 'natural' conflicts, the conflicts of Boomer parents. Multiculturalism is the ethics through which one should contextualize these essential conflicts according to the Left.

The Democrat's investment in the ethics of multiculturalism enables them to put faces in places and exploit the existential insecurities of so-called 'minorities'. It works, not so much because it satisfies the actual needs of various groups but because it satisfies the ideological desire to suggest that race, gender and preference 'gaps' have been bridged.
[...]
There are only two options, none of which is appetizing for that machine.

They will either disabuse their multicultural agenda by tacking towards the premise that Obama's race should not be considered and that where it counts, his skills and experience are most important. Then they go after him on skills and experience - which is an odd tack considering the other Democrats who were originally in the running many possessing much more skill and experience than the front runners. Or they find a way to marginalize his multicultural value by suggesting some equation like women + hispanics > black. Either way, African American and other voters who pay significant attention to this racial traffic are going to be pissed. The mendacity will be transparent, and that will stick to the Clintons and their Party like glue. A possible third way is to split the difference by offering a joint ticket. In that case, Obama becomes party to the old multicultural ethic and the game continues. But that's really just the first option all over again.

The necessary conflict between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama is going to fracture the party along the multicultural lines that it drew on itself and on America. This is the beginning of the end of multiculturalism.