Friday, January 11, 2008

Hoisted on their own petard.

One of the greatest, and least grounded, myths in American politics is the Democrat belief in racial integration, assimilation and reconciliation. The cynicism of the Democrat politics of racial pandering has never been better illustrated than by Bill and Hill as they rush to out Peron Evita herself.

We all know the blather about Bill Clinton being America’s first black President. Well, apparently Bill is trading his NAACP card for the role of First Laddy. The Clinton campaign has apparently kicked off a race war in the Democrat primary with
a series of, unusual, statements from Bill, Hillary and their supporters.

Although I’ve always wondered how the Governor of Arkansas who made Confederate Flag Day a state holiday became America’s first black President, I have to say those who live by race baiting sometimes politically die by race baiting.


wimpyVO2max said...

Bah, the whole Clinton-disrespected-MLK thing is a tempest in a teapot. In the end it doesn't matter because Clinton or Obama will win the Presidency.

Republicans who put all of their eggs in McCain's basket do so at their peril. McCain is one hell of a flip-flopper, more so than Sen. Kerry. McCain has so many reversals on his record we Democrats will have a field day.

McCain said Bush tax cuts bad, then he said they are good. McCain says Iraq war bad, then he says it's good. First he was pro-choice, now he's pro-life. He said torture bad, now he says it can be used.

Mister McCain the Weather Vane -- always points where the wind blows.

Good luck, GOPers. You'll need it.

KenRichards said...

A man shouted through an opening in the wall that his wife was illegal.

"No woman is illegal," Clinton said, to cheers.

So a self proclaimed feminist who surrounds herself with feminist advisors and considers men to be necessary evils (like her wandering husband)makes a statement that no wman can be illegal. What about men? As for the whole Black thing it just may be apparent Hillary doesn't have a high regard for Black men after all. Don't Democrats get it yet, Hillary doesn't like men and that includes BLACK MEN TOO.

KenRichards said...

On the flipside, Hillary did shed a public tear for a million dead Rwandans while her husband remained silent and ineffective. The lesson is Hillary cares a lot about women who could vote for her including illegal immigrant women. As for men she cares as little as possible and I predict she will be less than gracious to Barak Obama in the coming weeks. Hopefully Black men will see through this woman. We shall see...

KenRichards said...

Correction. Hillary DID NOT shed a tear for the Rwandans!

Art A Layman said...

Having proved themselves as inept at governing, we now find the Reps turning to armchair psychology. True to their nature they employ the same vitriolic, hate-filled, sound bite rhetoric to denigrate all and any things Democratic.

Of course much of that inane vitriol is directed at the Clintons. Bill Clinton - whose presidential performance Reps seem to have annointed as the foundation of good government since they compare every result of the Bush administration against it - is, as usual the main focus of their analysis (read as overt ranting). Then true to their illogical logic, they attack Hillary Clinton as having no qualifications, of being nothing more than one of those wives of. This despite the fact that she sacrificed what could have been a promising career to stand by her man. To be a wife and mother and supporter of her husband in what should be seen as a perfect example of those "family values" the Reps hold so dear.

All this while presenting the lamest group of potential presidential candidates, perhaps, in history. Outside of John McCain, who I agree is doing his share of flip-flopping, there is very little real character in the rest of the field. True, Ron Paul seems a man of conviction but much like Dennis Kucinich on the Dem side, he often appears alien to the real world.

One of the primary talents a good psychologist must have is the ability to listen. Reps usually can't stop ranting long enough to employ that skill, or, maybe they just don't have it.

Anonymous said...

Hillary's Karl Rove, Sidney Blumenthal, was arrested for aggravated DWI on the eve of the NH primary.

How come that just made the news today and not when it happened?

Why hasn't Hillary fired Sidney?

Anonymous said...

Let's not forget the real history. It was republicans that passed the civil rights act - not democrats.

Al Gore's father fillibustered it and W's grandfather was a co-sponsor.

LBJ had almost NOTHING to do with it.

The Clintons dismissed MLK jr and barely involved. Blacks are legitimately pissed. I'm pissed too.

Maybe Hillary should re read King's letter from the Birmingham jail for some perspective.

Bill Clinton publicly declares William Fulbright as his hero. William Fulbright was an avowed segregationist. Just what is it that Bill admires about Fulbright?

Anonymous said...

So, Hillary is willing to break up illegal immigrant families by keeping the woman, but sending the man home?

Hillary's plan divides families!

The Real Sporer said...

Art-buddy you certainly demonstrate the Democrat/liberal affection for alternate history as somehow having the same factual value as real history.

We don't know what Hillary could have done on her own. We know she could flunk the bar exam (not four or five times like Ted Kennedy) and even TRS passed with a high score the first time. How genius could she be?

Otherwise, she's been Mrs. Bill Clinton in every other phase of her life?

As for the family life, most women would have dumped a cheater and a liar like Bill unless:

1. they are financially or socially so dependent on the husband that they have to endure the most humiliating treatment possible;

2. they are weak and psychologically dependent on the humiliator;

3. they are emotionally uninvolved with the husbad and are using the husband in their own machiavellian plan-or perhaps a joint plan?

I don't know your age or maritial status Artie but if you have reached middle age, and especially if you are married, you know I'm right. By the way, my opinions are formed on the basis of 22 years in the divorce field so to speak.

hillary and bill clinton are closet racists said...

The republican party was born in Iowa. It was formed with the goal of eliminating slavery. Abraham Lincoln was our first canidate.

The democrats were the party of slavery.

The civil war was really a war between the democrats and the republicans. '

Thank GOD for blacks, that the Republicans won the Civil War and set them free, as they always held they should be. It's the Pro-life thing we care about.

Republicans in the South fought the Jim Crow laws that Democrats created and fought to sustain.

It was Democrats who were beating the marchers and other pro-life demonstrators who fought with their lives to get the civil rights act passed and to reform the South.

It was Democrats in Congress who fought passage. It was Republican Everett Dirksen who led the fight to pass it.

Go read the history. If you think there is fighting in Congress now, go read what it was like during these legislative sessions.

Oh, and by the way, Republicans led the charge to give Women the right to vote too, NOT democrats.

It all stems from our undelying philosophy that all men are created equal - blacks, whites, women, men, and the unborn.

Clintons are showing that the democrat party has always been the home of racism and it continues to be.

First Black President? We have never ever understood that.

He passed Confederate Flag Day???

First Black President???????

mccain is not a conservative. he's a liberal said...

Mark Levin has a great article reminding us of the McCain crimes against Republicans. Before we get too carried away on McCain, let's remember what else comes with him.

McCain-Feingold — the most brazen frontal assault on political speech since Buckley v. Valeo.

McCain-Kennedy — the most far-reaching amnesty program in American history.

McCain-Lieberman — the most onerous and intrusive attack on American industry — through reporting, regulating, and taxing authority of greenhouse gases — in American history.

McCain-Kennedy-Edwards — the biggest boon to the trial bar since the tobacco settlement, under the rubric of a patients’ bill of rights.

McCain-Reimportantion of Drugs — a significant blow to pharmaceutical research and development, not to mention consumer safety (hey Rudy, pay attention, see link).

those tax cuts are set to expire in 2010. hey club for growth - whos the tax hiker? mccain is said...

And McCain’s stated opposition to the Bush 2001 and 2003 tax cuts was largely based on socialist, class-warfare rhetoric — tax cuts for the rich, not for the middle class.

The public record is full of these statements. Today, he recalls only his insistence on accompanying spending cuts.

mccain cannot be trusted on judges. mccain is not a conservative said...

McCain also led the Gang of 14, which prevented the Republican leadership in the Senate from mounting a rule change that would have ended the systematic use (actual and threatened) of the filibuster to prevent majority approval of judicial nominees.

mccain is soft on national security. he's more concerned about rights for terrorists than for us said...

And then there’s the McCain defense record.

His supporters point to essentially one policy strength, McCain’s early support for a surge and counterinsurgency.

It has now evolved into McCain taking credit for forcing the president to adopt General David Petreaus’s strategy.

Where’s the evidence to support such a claim?

Moreover, Iraq is an important battle in our war against the Islamo-fascist threat. But the war is a global war, and it most certainly includes the continental United States, which, after all, was struck on 9/11.

How does McCain fare in that regard?

McCain-ACLU — the unprecedented granting of due-process rights to unlawful enemy combatants (terrorists).

McCain has repeatedly called for the immediate closing of Guantanamo Bay and the introduction of al-Qaeda terrorists into our own prisons — despite the legal rights they would immediately gain and the burdens of managing such a dangerous population.

where was the leadership here? he was busy compromising with d's on judges and fighting r's said...

While McCain proudly and repeatedly points to his battles with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who had to rebuild the U.S. military and fight a complex war, where was McCain in the lead-up to the war — when the military was being dangerously downsized by the Clinton administration and McCain’s friend, former Secretary of Defense Bill Cohen?

Where was McCain when the CIA was in desperate need of attention?

Also, McCain was apparently in the dark about al-Qaeda like most of Washington, despite a decade of warnings.

Ken Hoyle said...

Let's go back to the one where it states LBJ had nothing to do with Civil Rights. Now there's a hot one. Almost as good as that shit heel Klein only getting 19 votes in New Hampshire.

Jesus H Christ, Ted! How is it that idiots seem drawn to this web site like moths to a naked bulb at midnight?

Art A Layman said...

The real sporer:

Most lawyers schooled in reasonable man theory would accept the premise that given her credentials coming out of college and the success she has enjoyed in the Senate, Hillary exhibits sufficient talent to have had a fair probability of a successful career in her own right. Is it debatable? Certainly. Is it deniable? Nada.

Congrats on your passing the bar with a high score on your first try. From that and your writings one might posit that the old adage about test takers has some merit…lol. I have known many bright, successful people who have never taken any professional exam so I’m not sure what that’s worth. One might suggest that passing the bar with a high score to become a successful divorce attorney is, at best, circumspect.

To my point! You take your fanciful knowledge of the law, coupled with your involvement in divorce cases, assumedly involving quite of bit of philandering, and convert yourself to an armchair psychiatrist to delve deeply into the motivations and feelings of those misbegotten souls who have graced your “couch”. Thereby you become an expert on the rationales for all behaviors of those faced with this kind of dilemma. Surely a cheating husband or wife is devastating. It is humiliating enough if it’s private; but public, oh my!

Could it be that love has something to do with it? Could it be that while recognized as a failing; a weakness in character, it is not perceived as a violation worth destroying multiple lives over? Could it be viewed as a private decision? Could it be that the public nature, in this instance, should not be sufficient to alter one’s own values of the situation? Could it be that, while risky behavior, it is not akin to murder or child molestation or wife beating and therefore is better handled through love and understanding? Could there be elements from your delineation at play? Surely. Are we to be the final judges of whether any of those elements are, in and of themselves, reasonable for not taking divorce actions?

I don’t know your religious beliefs – I am as areligious as they come – but most of you diehard conservatives cling to your religion as the driving force to being. Given that, where in common religious teachings is it taught that violations of vows are equalized by additional violations of vows? I believe, somewhere in the bible, it talks about not judging until you have walked in another’s shoes.

Perhaps, until you take the Medical Boards and maybe pass with a high score, you should confine yourself to negotiating divorce settlements and leave the behavioral judgments to a higher authority.

By the way sporie, I am beyond middle age and have been married for 44 years. During those years I have known many friends and associates who, for lack of a better term, were less than faithful. I have also often known much of the personal thinking that surrounded those deviations from the norm. That thinking might go beyond your exposure to the reasons for your client’s actions. At the time you get involved, the emotions are running high and the explanations are usually defensive or offensive in nature. Maybe, if you’re nervous about the Medical Boards, a pastoral certificate would suffice.

Can understand your immersion into politics, am guilty myself, but it is after all college basketball season; change the channel!

KenRichards said...


You clearly don't know much about Ted based on your guesses and observations. I don't feel like going down the line as to you errors but suffice it to say they are almost as long as your book length post.

Anonymous said...

art - Are you familiar with the concept of projection? Wow. How revealing of your inner naked soul does your writing achieve.

Are you trying to chanel Dylan or someone of the era?

Art A Layman said...


I have looked inward and seen my "inner naked soul" and it ain't pretty. Am not bright enough to channel anyone, but thanks.

Anonymous said...

Oh Good Lord, "art a layman" the next Mark Klein?

Art A Layman said...

Oh my, what a pleasure to be in the company of such enlightened, reasonable folks.

Have at it guys, I have thick skin.

Buddy said...

I am beginning to believe Art a Layman is the latest personality of Mark (19 votes in NH) Klein. So much for getting rid of the loon.

Art A Layman said...

I am not nearly as accomplished as Dr. Klein.

I do agree with his underlying philosophy for running though.

Sounds like he should be running as a Dem but he probably looked at the buffoons running on the Rep side and felt he'd have a better chance.

Anonymous said...

Holy cow! Doc Klein is back as Art a Layman. What a jerk.

Art A Layman said...


If I'm a jerk, I've certainly found the right home. I should fit right in with the rest of you inane, fatuous commenters.

Anonymous said...

Listen freakin Klein. Nobody likes you and you are now transitioning to the point of truly pissing us off. Why not die of a heart attack to spare us the rantings? You lost in Iowa without getting a single vote. You got less than twenty votes in New Hampshire and we can assume you probably registered yourself and voted at least twice as well as your lapdog.

Get a grip and realize you blew a bunch of money and got nothing for it. We can't stand you and if you fell off the Earth tomorrow nobody would notice.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, Klein is a POS and I hope he gets a clue from the way he was completely ignored by everyone in the Primaries. The smart money is he can't accept things and will instead blame TRS for all his woes. Art is Klein's latest personality among many.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, Klein is a POS and I hope he gets a clue from the way he was completely ignored by everyone in the Primaries. The smart money is he can't accept things and will instead blame TRS for all his woes. Art is Klein's latest personality among many.

Art A Layman said...

Apparently anonymous was so enchanted by the brilliance of his comment that he posted it twice.

Anonymous but can't stand Klein said...

That numbskull Klein has such wonderful powers of observation. His latest attempt to be relevant following his non-performance in every primary and Caucus is just a laughable as his name change.

Art A Layman said...


I do not know Dr. Klein, nor do I know much about what he stands for. It would appear though that he is actively pursuing taking actions, no matter how unsuccessfully, and for that he deserves at least more credit than we, who sit at our computers and share our nonsense with the blogging world.

Don't take yourself so seriously. You're offering nothing worth the effort.