Posted on 03/17/2008 5:37:36 AM PDT by IrishMike
For months, Democrats were just thrilled with their choices. Now they can't even stand to sit together.
For the past five years, a group of friends, mostly military wives or retired government workers, have been meeting for lunch at an Italian restaurant called Amici's in a strip mall in Stafford, Va. All Democrats, they don't come just for the wood-fired pizza or $8.99 lunch buffet. They come to talk about their beloved party. But lately, the air has chilled in the Tuscan-themed room.
At the lunch after Clinton's loss in Virginia, Alicia Knight, 49, a Hillary supporter, came in late. The only spare chair was between two Obama supporters, both old friends of Knight's. "I was so angry, I didn't want to sit between them, so I sat by myself at another table," she says. "It's become like the cold war: in order to maintain the relationship, you don't talk to each other." Recently, the Clinton and Obama groups began lunching separately. "We couldn't take the bashing, the smirkiness of the Obama fans," says Linda Berkoff, 63.
It's unclear exactly when the primaries stopped being a joyous occasion for the Democrats. But as the weeks have ground on, the intensity between Democrats who disagree has calcified, the vitriol grown fiercer. According to exit polling in the Texas primary, 91 percent of Clinton supporters said they would be dissatisfied with Obama as the nominee; 87 percent of Obama fans said they would be dissatisfied with Clinton. Nationally, a quarter of those who back Clinton say they'd vote for John McCain if Obama won the nomination (while just 10 percent of Obama supporters would do the same if he lost).
(Excerpt) Read more at newsweek.com ...
My prediction is if Hillary wins, black voters will stay home in droves. They won't jump to McCain, but they won't vote.
OTOH, I think a lot of independent or moderate women who might be tempted to vote for Hillary would switch to McCain if Obama gets it.
So, I think the poll results are probably accurate. It's fascinating to watch the Dims consume their candidates with identity politics. I guess it was to be expected since they've marginalized their adults, like Lieberman.
To convince us that he is not the disciple of a hate-mongering racist, Obama tries to convince us that he is completely ignorant of facts staring him in the face / incapable of judging the character of his mentor over the last 20 years. Either way, Obama is not presidential material.
When Hitlery steals this thing you can bet on blacks rioting in the streets. It may set blacks back many years and will certainly ruin the Democratic party in the short run (...hopefully).
That is what the Democrats and blacks gets for supporting the Clinton’s all these years. The Clinton’s are poison. They managed to divide the country and now will divide their own party.
I wonder how many Democrats would like a chance to revisit their impeachment vote? Gore would have likely been re-elected in 2000 and 2004.
By the way, IrishMike, Happy St. Paddy’s Day! ;-)
While I basically agree with you, I am also strongly of the opinion that the Democrats are doing what they know to be a lie to dominate the Congress and win the Presidency.
I remember a reporter around the time of the Bush Sr Presidency. He asked a number of questions of Congressmen (all anonymous) whether, after four years of the Reagan Presidency, they were now firm believers that tax cuts help the economy and increase employment; that reducing business taxes to zero would stimulate business and increase tax receipts; that eliminating the death tax would be fair; that eliminating capital gains taxes would stimulate business further; and that allowing businesses to expense capital investments in the year the investment was made, and not spreading it out over 3, 10, 20 years, would be a huge boon to business.
A huge majority of the Democrats interviewed said privately, not for attribution, that they agreed. But they all avowed that to say so publicly would be political suicide, and refused to ever acknowledge such publicly.
I think we remain in this same position today. Dems want political power so badly that they will say things detrimental to the American economy, and American security, so as to win office. Not only for tax policy, but for negotiating with terrorists (rather than killing them); handouts to voters (healthcare, college, bonuses for babies); reducing defense budgets (thereby reducing our security); giving amnesty to illegals.
I wish it was true that all Dems were just stupid morons, like the most prominent examples in their party -- Patty Murray and Dick Durban being most notable. But I honestly believe that they are deliberately duplicitous.
Dr. Martin Luther King was a Republican.
Aw geez. Don’t go spreading the truth. You’ll get us in trouble. /sarcasm>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
What really blows their mind is telling them that Abe Lincoln was the first REPUBLICAN president. They like to pretend he was a Democrat.
It really is hard to imagine how some of them could be as stupid as they act! If they really are that stupid how do they manage to get dressed in the morning?
Oh. There's another level way beyond Lincoln. You should read some of the Democrat newspapers from the 1860s. You think we had racial hatred in the 1960s? Ha!
So was Harry Blackmun. So is David Souter.
King may technically have been a Republican, because it was probably impossible for a black to register as a Democrat in Georgia in those days. But it's a non-starter to try to make the case that King believed in Republican principles. He did not. He was a socialist. He supported the enemy in the Vietnam War. If he were alive today, he'd be calling Bush a fascist and supporting Hugo Chavez. After King's death, Coretta King became a fixture at Democratic conventions. His allies (Jesse Jackson, John Lewis...) became Democratic Party regulars.
Blacks aren't going to vote Republican today because of the Democratic Party's anti-black attitudes decades ago. It's a waste of time dwelling on it. Blacks know that the Democratic Party today panders to them. Expecting them to vote Republican today because of the anti-black actions of the Democrats decades ago is like expecting southern whites to vote Democrat today because General Sherman and the Carpetbaggers were Republicans.
I'm not disputing your history on this, but it seems to be a daily routine here for good, decent folks like yourself to expect blacks to flock to the GOP because some Democrat was a klansman 87 years ago. Not gonna happen.
Happy St. Paddy’s Day!
.
.
.
.
Thank You
She probably thinks we have a democracy.
King ran voter registration drives. He could register however he wanted to... He didn't support the enemy in Vietnam, but he did not support the war. And like JFK, King had a lot more in common with today's conservatives than he would ever have with today's whacked out liberals.
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45a/058.html
You have to remember that JFK and MLK were cut down in their prime. Liberalism has advanced incrementally over the past few decades. It drags our nation further to the left each year, with the result that liberals from a few decades ago seem downright conservative in comparison. Ted Kennedy opposed abortion, for example, in 1971, but within a couple of years he was pushing abortion-on-demand, and a few years after that he was calling pro-lifers anti-woman extremists. Al Gore in 1988 wouldn't have endorsed same-sex “marriage” or “civil unions”, yet every Democrat candidate this year has endorsed them. Had Ted Kennedy passed away in 1972, no doubt there would be people here promoting him as a pro-lifer. Had Gore passed away in 1989, we'd have people here holding him up as a model of family values. But they didn't pass away. They lived and today they're openly advocating abortion and homosexuality.
MLK & JFK were as liberal as was politically feasible in their time. No one could have gotten elected or earned any public support by supporting race quotas or open anti-white demagoguery back then. Recall that during the debate over the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Hubert Humphrey famously declared that he would eat the entire congressional record if the bill ever led to quotas or reverse discrimination against whites. By the 1970s, he had changed his tune and was openly advocating quotas as the only way to enforce the Civil Rights Act.
Were MLK & JFK alive today, in their old age they'd be screaming from the rooftops for race quotas, open borders, the homosexual agenda, wholesale abortion-on-demand, and a dozen other things they would never have dared to support circa 1963 or 1968.
You make a good case - - up to a point. With politicians, you might be right - they are known for a mentality that puts finger to the wind to see which way it's blowing.
But politicians are "men of action" not men of thought - and following the way the wind blows - in many strange ways and wonderful ways - works for politics and democracies.
But MLK was a man of thought - he wasn't a politician. In '64 much of the civil rights community was moving past him. SNCC, CORE, the Panthers, etc were "moving on to the next level". Even Jesse Jackson was seen as an embarrassment back then - Uncle Tomish to say the least. Of course those young angry and impatient young people could never have given birth to the modern civil rights movement. That took a man with the mind like the one MLK had...
I heard MLK give a speech in 1964 - he had given his "I have a Dream" speech in Washington, and later came to Chicago and gave what I thought at the time was the same speech. It wasn't.
What he had done was take the part of the speech everyone was quoting and talking about from the Washington speech and made the whole speech about what his dream was. It was eloquent. It was beautiful. At some point I realized I was crying - and looked around and noticed hundreds of other people were also crying.
And so, I believe you are wrong. MLK didn't even change with the movement as it was unfolding at the time... Maybe someday someone will find notes on the Chicago speech and you'll see what I'm talking about.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.