Sunday, February 17, 2008

Hillary, if you’re not the lead dog the view never changes.

The Clintons never cease to amaze. For months, during which she enjoyed large national polling leads, Hillary publicly endorsed the very proper, if unpopular, denial of national convention delegates to Michigan and Florida for disregarding party rules and moving their primaries into January.

Now, the Clintons have completely changed their position. Hillary surrogates are all over the airwaves demanding that Florida and Michigan delegates be seated at the national convention, based on the existing results of course. The fact that such a change of position is manifestly self-serving and hypocritical isn’t even the worst of it. No, following the new Clinton position requires a return to the days of yore when Bill defined federal fundraising, perjury, and obstruction of justice statutes as merely inconvenient rules to be changed or disregarded they impaired the Clinton’s greater personal good.

Moreover, Hillary’s new position seems to conveniently fit her status as the underdog. While the race is far from over, Hillary now trails nationally. The Drama of Obama has swept eight primaries in a row. Hillary is pulling out of Wisconsin on Monday, providing a daunting, if not dreadful, omen for her Badger State supporters during the crucial 72 hours before Tuesday’s Wisconsin primary.

Even as you read these words Hillary envisions having to enter and sit behind George and George and Bill for the rest of her life. Bummer.


Art A Layman said...


Oh my gracious! You may have hit on the elusive, deep rooted cause of all our political woes; politicians that change positions.

My, my! What a find! What a profound, inciteful discovery!

Should you not be on someone's ballot for something beyond political analyst of the week?

One looks to blogs for insight, even seldom insightful conservative blogs. When one runs across a blog which is constantly stating the obvious, which continues to restate that which is well known political fact, one can get exasperated.

Would that there were a blog exam; it is highly unlikely you would have passed on your first try, especially with high marks.

You keep on thinking Butch.

Have a great day!

The Real Sporer said...

Art, buddy, if I'm Butch does that make you the Sundance Kid?

You understand, of course, that the ceaseless stream of personal attacks you direct at me and other Rs only proves my point that liberals are united only by a mindless hatred of conservatives and traditional American values, traditions and cultural norms.

You, my friend, are the internet proof that it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak (or in your case, write) and remove all doubt.

Art A Layman said...


Will gladly accept the moniker of the Sundance Kid. He could draw(think) faster than Butch.

When you made your plea on Robert Reich's blog for liberals to join the sophisticated dialogue at The Real Sporer, one wouldn't have expected to see so much vulgar, fatuous diatribe from the commenters.

Even more surprising is the ad hominem, that which you so thoroughly denounced in an earlier response, invective woven throughout your various pronouncements.

I do not hate anyone. I have an extreme distaste for conservative thought, or more accurately, the lack thereof. I find it absurd that conservatives think that they get to imperially define "traditional American values, traditions and cultural norms".

As a movement you are of late descent. American values and cultural norms existed long before your ilk came on the scene and historically "greed" was not one of those values/norms until your entrance on the stage.

One can only hope that you "strut and fret your hour upon the stage and then are heard no more", for yours truly is "...a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
signifying nothing.

KenRichards said...


You must realize, of course, that you sound strikingly like Klein given your endless attacks on Ted and the manner of those attacks. If you're just a mindless liberal idiot and not Klein, do you care to explain the latest fiasco in NYC where Hillary Democrats tried to steal that election? In some areas populated almost exclusively by Blacks Obama got ZERO votes until paper recounts proved he actually won those districts.

Hillary now wants Michigan and Florida to count since she doesn't have a back up plan if she doesn't win this election so cheating will be the order of the day in the Democratic Party once again.

Kind of makes you wonder why the Republicans have so few problems with cheating until they get in the general and then it seems they get accused of it by the Democrats who are known to cheat in their own primaries.

Answer us how the Republicans don't cheat until the general but the Democrats can cheat before the general but not after?

ghost of vince foster said...

NEVER underestimate what the Clintons will do to gain/maintain power.

Art A Layman said...


I guess since Klein came before me on this site I have to accept that I'm like Klein, according to the superior wisdom of those visiting this site. In my mind I tend to think of it as Klein is like me.

As far as New York and it's questionable voting results: First of all, those were preliminary vote totals and were not going to be the official tallies, as we have subsequently seen. Secondly, it takes somewhat of a stretch to believe that Hillary, more likely her minions, had a hand in micromanaging every voting district, even in New York city. The Obama folks even acknowledge that it was likely human error.

We Dems are not always real bright but surely if we were going to intentionally "cheat" with the numbers, those running districts would know better than to record -0- votes for any one of the leading candidates. Since the official tally produced different results it does cast doubt that there was any chicanery going on. Though I sometimes sound like a Shakespearean scholar (I'm not,)it seems to me that this is "much ado about nothing".

We do know that voter fraud of one kind or another appears rampant on the national stage. If true, it surely has it's roots at the district level. Does this phenomenon never happen in Reps primaries; who knows? The absence of any published reports would imply not, but, on the other hand, you Reps are much more adept at deviousness and "cheating" so perhaps it's under the radar. You guys certainly prove better at it in general elections.

The Fla/Mich fiasco? It is the nature of politics that you seek advantage wherever it can be found; it is seldom a pretty game. I doubt there are very many, current protestations not withstanding, that really believed that the DNC would not seat or count delegates from those two states. Am sure, given recent primary history, the assumption was that a clear nominee, likely Hillary, would have surfaced after Iowa, NH, and SC and that later agreeing to acknowledge Fla/Mich delegates and votes would have no effect on the final choice. It is extremely stupid to take any action that could impact voter turnout, especially in Fla, which could carry over to the general election. The DNC invoked this punishment in an attempt to influence the Fla legislature not to move up their voting date. Fla called their bluff.

One could make a strong argument that the central political party leadership has no business trying to micromanage the primary schedule. It is dark in most parts of the country at varying times and darkness can lead to stepping in something untoward.

That Hillary now seeks to take advantage of a scenario that was likely planned at the outset should be called "cheating" is typical anti-Clinton propaganda, an exercise which the right has finetuned. One man's "cheating" is another's smart politics.

In Fla, all the major candidates were on the ballot and none campaigned there, so it is hard to suggest that any one candidate had a particular advantage. Eventually counting those delegates/votes seems not that much of a stretch. Mich does present a different problem since Hillary was the only leading candidate on the ballot. Prima facie, this represents an unfair advantage. Is it really? Is it perhaps a strategic error on the part of the other leading candidates? Elections, at all levels, are often lost due to strategic error.

I don't know of any empirical evidence that suggests that Dems never "cheat" in general elections - 1960 Chicago still looms in the memories of we semi-older folks, sweetly. It is unfortunate that we can't, especially by now, have free and fair elections across the nation. Alas, it is still a work in progress. Frequently, from both party's perspectives, the "cheating" is less a grand national conspiracy than the result of overzealous local political hacks.

As for Ted (sporie) he would appear a big boy, capable of defending himself, yet his followers here seem bent on protecting him. His postings frequently appear as the rantings of an uneducated, illiterate, minimalist mind, notwithstanding his fancy words. He, on the one hand, decries ad hominem attacks, a reasonable expectation from a lawyer, and then turns around and uses that verbal tool in most all his comments deriding Dems - we of the better way. To that extent he deserves to be engaged, up to and including derision.

KenRichards said...


I think you need a publisher given the length of your last post. Long winded responses combined with incessant attacks were the calling cards of Dr. Klein. Additionally, you appeared the exact moment he disappeared following his absolute drumming at the hands of both Iowa and New Hampshire voters. Although you have an elitist attitude with your responses that alone proves nothing since many liberal pseudo intellectuals share that trait with Klein so you get a pass on that one. Yet, it bears mentioning elitist attitudes are rare among Iowa’s Democrats so it means you probably come from New York or some other liberal Mecca.

Final thought - I am sure TRS doesn’t care if you attack him using logic or facts but it seems you only comment when there’s an opportunity to launch a personal attack on TRS. Do you have points to make that don’t involve smearing TRS? Are you capable of sticking to the topic of discussion in a coherent manner?

Art A Layman said...

ken richards:

A fine response, albeit sprinkled with bits of "smearing" here and there. One would guess that directing personal attacks at me is merely tit-for-tat and I have no problem with that. I do not need legions of defenders.

If you read much of the diatribe in the comments on this site; that, which supposedly passes for "intellectual" thought, one could question whether "sticking to the topic of discussion" has much value here.

By virtue of timing I shall forever be thought a reincarnation, damn!

Actually I came from Ohio and live in NC, neither would be considered liberal bastions.

I enjoy blogging. I do write a lot of words. I am not steeped in the science of sound bite debate. I love to have fun with blogging but have written volumes in attempts to elucidate. A little dig here and there is one of the few vices left to someone of my age.

When the presentation of argument or assertion gives rise to a fair, reasoned debate I relish the game. When, on the other hand, it is offered with vitriolic, inane words and phrases, often devoid of any logical pretense, posed merely to excite the fatuous masses appearing here, an in-kind response seems appropriate.

TRS posted the invitation requesting we libs join in the fray. I doubt he was expecting a raft of commentary shouting, yea verily! Should his sensitivities be such that he would prefer I not darken his hallowed halls, I can live with that.

Your final statement puzzles me. Perhaps I do not understand "coherent" but I thought I had addressed the questions and comments you raised. I thought I had done it coherently with only a smattering of sarcasm. Given no reference to those answers in your response I can only guess that I failed. Unless, of course, your purposes were less about dialogue and more about ridicule. Maybe you were acting the prosecuter for TRS, subtly attempting to unmask the ghost of Klein past.

KenRichards said...

It is comforting to find out you are not Klein but your timing was awful considering Klein had long posts most of which attacked Ted personally.

Thanks for filling us in on your whereabouts as your manner and style did not fit the Iowa Democratic mold.

If you can stick to topics of discussion rather than attacking TRS I am sure your points will be better taken.

Art A Layman said...

ken richards:

I am so glad that y'all can now sleep better at night. I was very concerned that I had upset the regulars here with the appearance of being someone's alter ego, or worse, his evil twin.

Am not sure my manner and style fit any particular Democratic mold. It has never been my desire to be typecast.

It is highly unlikely that my points will be better taken on this or any other conservative blog site. It seldom seems the nature of conservatives to step back and absorb the possibility that a more liberal viewpoint might have merit. Conservatives tend to operate from the standpoint that their ideology is somehow akin to biblical prophecy; that to entertain a contrary view would be sacrilege.

When TRS and his disciples here begin to exhibit an understanding that most issues are shades of gray rather than black and white, right and wrong, and commence to present those issues from an objective stance as opposed to a rant geared to pander to the non-thinking, then, perhaps, a contrary view can be proffered without any accompanying disdain.

Until then; let the games begin!

If verbosity is a sin I'm in big trouble.

The Real Sporer said...

Art, dude, are you possibly a little paranoid?

There are no prosecuters here. Hell's bells man, I worked the other side of the street.

Art A Layman said...


Oft those who toil in the defense of mankind secretly desire to represent the "people" in the neverending quest for truth and justice.

ken apparently was seeking assurances that I was not, in fact, Klein. His interests, seemingly directed in your defense, focused on assuring the illiterates here that I posed less a threat than that nemesis who instills fear and trepidation amongst your followers. Since he argued as if he represented, "we" the people of the TRS blog, his stance was more that of prosecutor than defense attorney.

Not intending to further injure your sensibilities, you were not the subject of my comment. It is not, however, a surprise that you would be confused.

KenRichards said...


Does “nemesis” mean any of the following: pest, annoy, dementia, psychosis, or delusion? If so, you’ve got the correct word for Klein otherwise use the other words listed above and you’ve got it.

It is not just the TRS blog rejecting Klein and while you seem to relish the reference I can assure you he had the same effect on every blog he visited. A quick check on the internet shows his reception with the New York Times and the Des Moines Register was no different than on TRS.

Klein was like a spoiled child repeatedly shouting "ice cream" at the top of his lungs in the hope his parents give in while a hundred people within earshot suffer. Anyone wanting to be taken seriously should consider sticking to topics of discussion rather than silly personal attacks as the only way to get attention. Try strong arguments my friend and we’ll take you seriously. There are Democrats who use this forum and I’ve witnessed fantastic debates that challenged all involved.

Art A Layman said...


I did not come to bury Klein, nor to praise him. Although one could posit that any person who invokes such vitriol from conservatives can't be all bad.

I have posted arguments, seemingly strong, at least to me, and have recieved little but fatuous retorts. Again, that is not a problem for me. I get a hearty laugh out of much that poses as logic here, to say nothing of challenging debate.

Actually, with a couple exceptions, the most reasonable and cogent postings I have read here come from Democrats or at least non hard core conservatives.

I enjoy mixing in invective, even, at times, ad hominem, with my posts, serious or not. It is my style and it gives me pleasure; ergo, Epicurean would suggest it is good.

Should I feel compelled to respond in a strictly serious way I will do that. Since the decision is up to me and I hold little hope that it will be met in-kind, I shall limit that sort of response.

Surely you have been reading the posts at TRS much longer than I and I will take your word that there have been fantastic debates. I have yet to see that phenomenon, so pardon me for continuing my skepticism.

When you peruse most of sporie's posts, those that commence the dialogue here, it is hard to find many that begin to exhibit strong arguments devoid of "silly personal attacks". They generally represent the pandering that conservatives wallow in.

Even you, in your attempt at meaningful dialogue, cannot resist the little dig, the obscure jab, here and there.

O judgement! thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason.

KenRichards said...

What else can I say to that but carry on and it is always good to have a liberal around to explain why Democrats do what they do. The coming days and months will be really interesting with Hillary seeking to steal an election.

Not to be outdone by Hillary's cheating Obama shouts the words change, move forward, new direction, a new day, and progress without explaining what the heck he means. He actually said all of the words in one sentence after yesterday's victory so he's not even pretending to give details. PDDs (Punch Drunk Democrats) faint at his mere appearance while those still able to control themselves never ask him what the heck he plans to change if elected. Meanwhile his wife tells the world she's never been proud to be an American until yesterday. I look forward to your responses especially when the Democratic Party starts to divide along various racial, gender and special interest lines as I suspect it may if Hillary refuses to quit.

Art A Layman said...


Well shit! I did it again.

I have always puzzled as to whether conservatives were just to dense to get it or whether they just don't listen. One of the problems in adopting a sound bite mentality is that you tend to read and hear in that same mode.

No doubt the media, mainstream or not, relish in reporting out of context statements to keep the pot stirred. One can only guess that it all boils down to profits, via audience, via ratings. I, one who is a news junkie, continually marvel at the playing and replaying and repeating and rediscussing the same nonissue over and over and over again. All day long, or week, or until a new twang enters the scene.

Read the entire context of Mrs. Obama's statement before parroting that which you've heard on the news.

I can't disagree with your painting of Obama. He certainly is an orator par exellence, he can come across as all wind and no storm. One can best hold fast to our greatest presidents who were all inspiring speakers. Lincoln comes to mind.

It may be better to have an inspirational leader who struggles with solutions than to have a completely inept leader, who can neither inspire nor solve. I'll let you figure out the which current president leader fits the latter description.

Your constant allusion to Hillary's stealing the election exhibits your tendency to secure your mindset from the prattle of the news media. The incessant harping of her thirst for power, the belittling because she isn't as much an inspirational speaker as Obama. The unending analysis of where her campaign went wrong. All just plain bullshit, spoken by pundits, who seem to somehow think that tearing her down has a direct correlation to building them up.

She is a bright, competent lady who would make a very good president. Of course given our current president as a comparison, hell, I'd make a very good president.

We Dems are skating on thin ice. Even a casual observer would have to admit that we could be in for some dicy breakdowns within the party. My hunch is that we will be better off if she does refuse to quit. Dependent on Texas, Ohio and PA we could likely go to the convention without a clear delegate winner and it's possible that a final decision, albeit a treacherous one, might be handled more amicably within the convention. I guess it's a price we have to pay for having so many really strong candidates at the outset.

You Pubs had it easier. You had but one genuine candidate in the whole field from the get-go. Early on McCain might have been viewed differently but his "Straight Talk Express" developed peyronies disease and he became just one more, "What do you want me to stand for?" candidate. Huckabee ends up the only genuine article. But then he is scary with his belief that the Book of Genesis was the real founding document of the Constitution.

I do fear that a general election that even Dennis Kucinich could have walked away with has now turned into a real battle. You guys have helped us out though by choosing McCain who may have trouble getting a majority of the Rep vote.

More later, I'm sure.

KenRichards said...

McCain may not be the prototype arch Conservative but he's a real deal war hero. Furthermore, an African American friend of mine who was a HUGE Hillary supporter 9 months ago told me he's supporting McCain today demostrating McCain steals Democratic voters after all. I suspect Obama's mistaken belief he can out fund raise McCain will be put to the test in the general as Republicans will finally open the checkbooks to make sure far left Liberal doesn't take the White House. Obama's made only two pledges so far and he's quickly breaking them which shows you the danger of making stupid pledges if nothing else.

KenRichards said...

Another little gem about Hillary's attempted theft of this election comes from Bloomberg.

February 19, 2008 -- Mayor Bloomberg charged yesterday that "fraud" was behind the unofficial results in the New York Democratic presidential primary that produced zero votes for Barack Obama in some districts.

"If you want to call it significant undercounting, I guess that's a euphemism for fraud," said the mayor.

Unofficial tallies on election night gave Obama no votes in 78 out of more than 6,000 election districts.

KenRichards said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
KenRichards said...

Michelle Obama's "finally proud to be an American" statement generated an interesting, if not hate filled, response to Michelle Malkin.

KenRichards said...

Whether Michelle Obama's statement was taken out of context or simply misunderstood is a legitimate question but it cannot be denied many African Americans have an intense hatred of other races and deep suspicion of the "establishment" at every turn.

As much as I detest the racial implications of Mrs. Obama’s gaffe which gave us insight into her view of our country; I still prefer a racist to a feminist if those are the choices. Of course, McCain has no axe to grind nor does he view White Men as the source of all evil. I'm voting McCain!!!!!

Art A Layman said...


I have not read the article from your link, nor am I inclined to, since to me it is a non story.

These were unofficial results. What's the big deal?

We are all aware that Mayors of New York city, ex or current, tend a bit toward the, shall we say, eccentric. Bloomberg often makes statements of pander that say little and prove nothing.

Is this the best you conservatives have?

KenRichards said...


Any thoughts as to letter sent to Michelle Malkin by an Obama supporter? Any response at all to the resentment African Americans have to every other race in America? Michelle Obama's statement certainly touched a nerve don't you think?

Art A Layman said...


I applaud McCain's honorable service to our country. I have always found good reason to admire him. Having been a maverick/rebel all my life I have relished in his defiance of the myopic conservative view.

I am extremely disappointed in his recent backtracking, flip flopping as it were. I understand the political game; the process that forces admirable men to become panderers; to become ass kissing wimps, to secure the support needed to win. My understanding renders me little solace when viewing someone I considered above the fray as he commences to lie down and wallow with those who little appreciate a man, clearly of their political bent, who has the guts to stand on principle and act on those principles, regardless their universal acceptance.

I thought Giulianni totally inept at being president but I did admire his refusal to bend on his social leanings. He, of course, becomes merely a footnote in the history of the 2008 campaign but he walks away with some honor for holding fast.

McCain seems to have strategically set out to out-Romney, Romney.

As to your friend; his decision clearly points out that conservatives have no toehold on idiocy.

I really like Obama. I do really believe that he can be a great leader. I am not sure that now is the time that will prove that assertion. He often seems naive, seeming to fail to see the longer term implications of his pronouncements. I have to agree that it was foolish for him to have made the finance pledge. I'm sure at the time it appeared potentially beneficial to him to lock in his opponent's options, maybe he even considered it a nonissue, depending on how realistically he viewed his chances. In politics, however, it's always best to keep all options open. A lesson one would have thought he was familiar with.

On the other hand, innocence as a politician, may not be an entirely bad thing.

Art A Layman said...


My initial response to the letter to Michelle Malkin was: Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?

Wow! The letter writer will not be on anyone's short list for Secretary of State. Venting can be a form of release. I prefer a somewhat more subtle approach, but then, "to each his own".

That there is pent up hostility among many blacks is a surprise to you? That they all may not seek Jesus's admonition to turn the other cheek seems unusual to you?

It is easy for we white folks to look upon black disdain as their failing. We, from our vaunted castle on high, can look down and castigate and condemn all those who appear unappreciative of all that we have allowed them to secure and attain.

If one is not black, or another minority, there is no way to truly sense the frustration; the struggles; the barriers that they might feel everyday. It matters not at all whether this is real or perceived. Their's is a journey, the realities of which, we whites cannot fathom.

Obama's success to date has to have given many of them hope. Not hope for a better America, per se, the Obama campaign slogan, but hope for a better opportunity for all of them to achieve their dreams, their aspirations. Any derogation of "their" candidate that tears at that hope is likely to generate a fierce response. This is compounded when the object of that derogation is the wife of, rather than Obama himself.

Regardless our ethnicity, defending women is viewed as a moral imperative. They are, rightfully or wrongfully, pictured as innocent, frail, unaccustomed to the toughness of a man's world (perhaps Hillary notwithstanding). Any attack on a woman participant in any endeavor, especially if she appears to be there simply aiding her husband or family, seems on its face, unfair.

Men have been killed for casting aspersions on others wives throughout history. A rash, emotional rant, possibly driven by many other residual frustrations, seems pale in comparison. I saw no words or phrases in the letter that I have not seen or spoken before.

Michelle Obama's statement was likely a poor choice of words. In public speaking, one is always looking for phrases that move, not just inspire, but words that wake people up, causing them to pay attention. In this quest, turns of phrases are often employed which backfire. A wake up call for some is a sleep deterent for others.

We cannot know what hurdles Michelle Obama may have had to overcome to achieve all that she has accomplished; and that is much, to her credit. She may have frequently faced rejection or resistance on her climb. Those inhibitors might have been, real or perceived, based on her ethnicity. If that be the case, then perhaps her pride in her country is indeed tainted by those experiences. In that sense maybe her statement was less semantic error.

Whether merely a rhetorical mistake or a some Freudian release, it was not of the significance that our ever vigilant press wants to make of it. Of course you conservatives want to jump on it, for it's fodder, it makes political hay. During elections it is manna from heaven. That, my friend, is politics. It is an unfortunate reality but a reality nonetheless.

A white man or woman, making a similar gaffe, though fodder, would not draw nearly the same response because the ethnic issue would not be a part of the equation.

Thank God we live in a country where everyone is free to vent their frustrations. Thank God too, that the venting is not limited to non four letter words. As long as we can keep the venting to words, we're all the better for it.

Racially we have come a long way. We still have far to go. Just as racist feelings exist in many white folks, it can be no surprise that they exist in many blacks as well.

As to blacks feelings about other races: I can only guess that it may be based on a perception that blacks see themselves as deserving of at least second place behind white supremacy. When other ethnicities seem to usurp that position there is further disdain.

Art A Layman said...


I'm sure the McCain campaign will be sending a thank you letter, if not cash, to the Serbian government.

KenRichards said...


Nobody will ever accuse you of not answering the question but does it have to come in book form with chapters?

Your basic argument for Michelle Obama is that anyone who is not African American has no business questioning them (on anything I presume). I reject that argument as one of the great flaws of American Liberal thought as it allows illogical, selfish, and angry people a way to lash out at everyone without consequence. Charles Barkley's book "Who's Afraid of the Big Black Man" was one of the best refutations of this argument I've read.

I have many friends married to Black women who share this hatred of white people (yes, even though they married a white man). Many of these women see racism in everything they encounter while their white husbands fail to see it. The lesson is people can be taught to feel disadvanted and reverse racism is just as destructive in the long run. I think the Democratic Party is racist for allowing this to continue.

Art A Layman said...


I write books, sorry. I try to give complete answers to questions; answers that reveal most of my thoughts on a subject. It is my style; it is my shortcoming, perhaps.

I am not suggesting that anyone not question anyone. I don't have a problem with questioning. I have a problem with attacking, smearing, especially when, more than likely, it was a semantic error of misjudgment.

I feel the same whether the object of derision is black, white or green. I do believe, as I stated, that there is baggage that many black people carry which the rest of us cannot fully comprehend. This does not suggest that we ignore what they say or do but it is something we should remain cognizant of.

To assert that her statement was poorly worded or to question whether she meant it as literally true is not unreasonable. To make it a story in the press, on the airwaves, on the blogs, ad nauseam, with a subtle, but real, implication that Michelle Obama hates her country is over reaction and defamatory. Further, I believe that before we condemn anyone for their words we do have to consider what might motivate those words.

America is a great compassionate nation and we should all love our country. In actions, we have done much that we should not be proud of. You love your kids; you are not always proud of them.

The lesson is people can be taught to feel disadvanted and reverse racism is just as destructive in the long run. I think the Democratic Party is racist for allowing this to continue.

The real lesson is that we all enter this world innocent. We have no racial instincts at all. Many are taught to hate blacks or any other ethnic group. This hatred, waning as it may be, is not lost on blacks. They are aware of it, they feel it, every minute of everyday of their lives. It is unfair and often manifests itself in direct influence on their lives. That a black parent, living or feeling this hatred, should teach it to her children, in an attempt to steel them from the pain and hurt she expects them to encounter cannot be easily condemned.

Coming to the south I experienced interactions of southerners with blacks and was genuinely shocked at the warmth and respect shown blacks in face to face communications. Then behind closed doors I heard these same warm, feeling southerners, talk about blacks with every ethnic slur and stereotype that we know of, and then some. Most blacks are not dumb, they are often aware of the hypocrisy. If you are not black or other minority you can't appreciate how they truly feel.

I went to live in Fla in 1961. Arriving from the midwest(even though you Iowans don't accept Ohio as midwest) and I was aghast that there were still separate drinking fountains, separate restroom facilities and they were, indeed, forced to sit in the back of buses. We are not that far removed from a time when blacks were considered three fifths a person.

The point is not to exempt them from criticism, certainly not from questioning, but as with all people, of any ethnic/environmental background, try, at least mentally, to walk in their shoes before condemning them.

It is ironic that a conservative, a follower of a group who has manipulated the race issue for their own benefit time and again, would chastise Democrats as the problem. This exceeds all bounds of absurdity.

KenRichards said...


Great response except for the last sentence as Democrats and especially Liberals are doing immense harm by allowing anyone to escape accountability. Let's face it, the Democrats defend welfare and patronize Black voters in an elitest manner which, in my book, is also racist. Keeping people locked in poverty cycles while pretending to help them is not good right? Republicans are a party famous for liberty and freeing the slaves. Republicans were the ones who recognized Blacks as full people and enabled them to be full partners in society and Congress before Democrats devised Jim Crow laws etc.

Art A Layman said...


The Republicans of the era you reference bear no resemblance to the Republicans of "movement conservative".

Sporie had a rant awhile back exclaiming that it was Repubs who heralded the civil rights bill and that Dems sought to defeat it. He, inadvertently, I'm sure, failed to tell his audience that most of those Dems who opposed it were Southern Democrats, those now deeply ensconced in "movement conservative".

I will not maintain that we Dems have not mistreated blacks. We have often sought their votes while directing little in efforts to improve their plight other than welfare. One would think that an Obama presidency might take a different tack.

"Movement conservative's" assuaging of the Southern Dems, bringing them into the fold, was not done in an attempt to improve the plight of blacks either. History notwithstanding, starting with Reagan, "movement conservative" has done nothing more than subtly use race as a tool to keep the South under their wing.

You happen to live in a community that more closely represents the view of our country at its founding. It is primarily an agrarian community, made up of many self reliant, hard working folks. Those of us living in more enlightened communities(just kidding), in urban settings where existence is predicated on jobs, are much less self reliant. Yea, we can mow our lawns, fix our plumbing, grill out, drive our cars in multitudes of other vehicles; we cannot, other than a small garden, provide our own food; we cannot, in times of power outages, heat our homes from nature's abundant resources; we cannot exist without jobs. When, for whatever reason, decent paying jobs are not plentiful, we have nothing to fall back on. In our environment, welfare can be a godsend for many, black and non-black.

The current face of Republicans, our hallowed president, or should that be hollowed, does not appear a beacon to accountability. The Dems approach is not in discounting accountability, it is in mitigating responsibility. Two different sides of the same coin.

KenRichards said...


#1, you don't know very much about me as I have been living overseas for almost seven years now including almost half a year in Africa.

#2, tell yourself any lie you like to explain why Democrats aren't racist but I don't buy it for a second.

Art A Layman said...


#1 True. You allusions to Iowan Democrats implied more currency. Given the overwhelming turnout for the caucuses and the resounding Obama victory, perhaps the Iowan Democratic mold has changed.

Good job though, you got to avoid almost all the Bush years, lucky devil.

#2 Not exactly logical argument; however a closed mind is always a sight to behold.

KenRichards said...

Actually, I went overseas out of patriotism and economic necessity and avoiding President Bush was not my intention. Although, I am very displeased he committed a Dr. Faustus by allowed social spending to run wild during just to get Dems to fund the war effort.

KenRichards said...

I stay very involved in certain Iowa politics which is why it seems I am still in Iowa (especially to someone from the outside).

Art A Layman said...


Thanks for your service but don't wrap yourself to tightly in the flag.

Am sure there is a delay in your getting the news of the day, evidenced by your confusion about social spending and Dems funding the war. Dems have only controlled Congress for the past year and there have been no significant social spending bills enacted during that time. Now when the Reps were in charge? That's a different story.

Since Iowa is not far from Kansas which is not far from Oz, I would posit that your political philosophies are consistent with the geography.

KenRichards said...

So you're telling me the Democratic Congress has nothing to do with the budget?

Maybe you'd better head back to Oz yourself at this point.

Art A Layman said...


Budget differences between Dumbya and the Congress have only to do with increases or decreases to various programs. This is peanuts compared to say, Medicare Part D.

To date the Democratically controlled Congress has been impotent when attempting to control Dumbya and his war spending. Dumbya also exhibits little inclination toward being forced to do anything by the Congress.

Much ado about nothing!

Would love to visit Oz but there are too many of you conservatives there to suit me.

KenRichards said...

Try going to a far away island if you don't like Oz.

Art A Layman said...


Nice try, but I would choose an island with internet access so your problem wouldn't be solved.

Noticed earlier you said that you said you went overseas out of patriotism and economic necessity. Queries as very strange bedfellows. Though not absolute, we tend to view patriotic action as being the antithesis of economic necessity.

Tell the Wizard I said hi!

KenRichards said...

And with such a superiority complex it seems more and more likely Art is the very person he claims he is not. What a loser.

Art A Layman said...


Powerful denunciations: superiority complex, loser are the last bastions for those who cannot stand the heat. One would expect more from those professing a corner on wisdom by virtue of their political beliefs.

KenRichards said...

My compliments on finally learning to respond with brevity as it make it so much more interesting for the reader.

And now, for Art's next trick, he will stop acting like a whiny baby and will instead make well reasoned arguments to support his future positions.

Art A Layman said...


For a better perspective on whining perhaps look in the mirror.

The fact that it takes you ten minutes to read a one minute dissertation does suggest a failing in one of us.

The biggest problem with you and sporie and most others here is that you can't recognize a well reasoned argument. Conclusions without valid premises is the stock in trade of the conservative mental vacuum.

KenRichards said...

Sure think Mark

Art A Layman said...


Don't you just hate it when your mind is a blank(could it be all the time for you?).

Next thing you know you'll be jumping on the "Art is gay" bandwagon.

KenRichards said...

Given your warm personality, I doubt anyone gay or straight wants you.

Art A Layman said...


My personality is extremely warm. It's my words that can be cold and cutting.

Doubt that you are on anybody's Miss Congeniality lists.

Anonymous said...

[url=][b]Click here to get VPN service![/b][/url]

[b]Anonymous surfing[/b]
Using our service you'll be fully anonymous in the Internet. Hide your IP address, and nobody will know that strange visitor from Germany ( Great Britain, Estonia and so ), is you.

[b]Full access to network[/b]
You can use any services, access any sites and use any software with us. BitTorrent, Skype, Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, Pocker .. we have no restrictions.

[b]Traffic protection[/b]
Don't worry, from this moment all you data will be protected using 256 bit Blowfish encryption algorithm. Nobody can access your internet data.

[b]Wide variety of countries[/b]
You can choose one of over twenty high speed servers located in different parts of the world, from South America coast to islands in Indian Ocean.

Related keywords:
anonymous surfing review
proxy server vpn
anonymous secure surfing
proxy vpn
anonymous vpn free
internet explorer vpn
vpn dial up
ssl vpn
Traffic protection
anonymous surfing freeware
anonymous surfing software
anonymous surfing vpn
best anonymous browser
surf the web anonymous
best anonymous surfing
anonymizer anonymous surfing review
firefox anonymous surfing
Virtual Private Networks
Free Vpn Client Software
anonymous surfing software
[url=] anonymous surfing software[/url]
[url=] anonymous proxy[/url]
[url=]Buy Cheap Zoloft[/url]