Redstate

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com

And failed miserably. We hated the McCain that pandered to Robertson. We hated the McCain that pandered to the angry right. We didn't recognize that McCain. And his campaign imploded. It was only after he found his maverick voice that we fell in love with him again. He knows better than repeat that mistake.

____________________________________________
The revolution will not be televised. 1965

force a bill that at best was citizenship on the cheap down our throats with Sen. Kennedy.

McCain will be the GOP nominee but it will have been through an almost perfect storm of imperfect candidates splitting the conservative votes, an incredibly incompetent campaign by the other moderate who would've drained votes, the fact that McCain had been left for dead which means no one really paid attention to him until early December, a primary calendar which front-loaded the demographics in which McCain does well, and his being able to take advantage of primary rule changes (WTAs) designed to help his chief moderate rival.

It had virtually nothing to do with him attempting to placate the 'angry right'.

"All that need be done for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

probably the best way to put the situation this year:

an almost perfect storm of imperfect candidates splitting the conservative votes

this unfold the last 2 months. It was like living in an alternate universe. I told Mrs. Burke yesterday that it almost feels like it was divinely ordained for someone who was disdained by so much of the party to win our nomination. If anyone would have ever told me that the GOP would ever nominate a candidate who never won even a plurality of self-identified conservative and very conservative voters, I would have counseled self-commitment into a mental institution.

Now I just have to figure out what/why 'the Big Guy' set this all up this way :-)

"All that need be done for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

That conservatives and republicans (I know...they aren't mutually exclusive) have been very lazy in the grass roots efforts. I liken it very much to the St. Louis Cardinals last year. Sure, they won the series in 06, but they had depleted their farm clubs in trades over the last decade. They had no depth to their system. When people got hurt (or macaca'd themselves) we had no real strong replacements to take the field.

Additionally, I think it was going to be a bad year for Rs. I'm sure many of the more conservative candidates stayed out for this reason. They may have been strong conservatives, but not the best at conveying the reasons for conservatism. We may like someones positions, but if they talk over the peoples heads (i.e. Newt) then they won't gain much traction in the general.

I was content to write an occasional letter to Bush or my representatives but didn't get riled until the Meiers nomination came up and then McCain-Kennedy pushed me into ballistic mode. But for 5 years I was 'preoccupied'.

No more! This whole McCain thing was a major wake-up call for me, and I suspect many who share my values. A stark reminder that "Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom" and "all that need be done for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." (wait a minute, I think I've heard that last one somewhere before :-)

"All that need be done for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

I'm encouraged that more people in my generation (us youngsters) seem to be actually engaged in the process. Maybe all of the rancor over the last eight years is getting the young folk to come into the mix earlier.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com

"All that need be done for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

The "angry right" of which I am a proud member is the base of our party. His "placating" of the "angry right" angered mainstream media folks and liberal pundits, not conservatives. I am very wary of him, but he took a good first step with the CPAC humility he showed. I hope the media attacks him relentlessly now, because it will only serve our interests and Senator McCain's to draw us closer together.

I've noticed that CNN has already done a hit piece about the Keating 5. If they keep this up, Senator McCain will be singing every praise of conservatism he can and rejecting outright his past less than conservative stances. That's what I pray for anyway, how about the rest of you?

America stands for bold colors!
Tim Schieferecke

and he will be shocked by it, after being the darling of the media for so long. We can also expect a lot of fifth column stuff between now and the election, as pseudo-conservatives do their very best to sow unrest in the Republican ranks.

At C-PAC he talked the talk, we will have to wait for the campaign trail to see if he walks the walk. I suspect he will try very hard.

I've always been interested in human nature, and think it's only natural that Senator McCain will turn on his past fair weather media friends when they turn on him. His propensity towards vindictiveness will be our conservative serendipity once he directs it towards the new targets of the present. So mainstream media, bring it on! Do your worst!

America stands for bold colors!
Tim Schieferecke

multiple apostasies from conservatism was the result of feeling unfairly attacked and abandoned by Republicans in 2000. He's always been noted for not suffering gladly those he believes to be fools. I've often wondered if this almost seeming obsession to flip off the base wasn't his way of saying "you didn't need me, I don't need you.

What that brought him was the fawning adulation of the MSM who delight in nothing better than a Republican sticking it to other Republicans.

The silver lining in the cloud that I'm praying for is that John will be so incensed that those who praised him are now villifying him that he will return to the John McCain I voted for, worked for, and walked the streets for in the 80s & 90s. At least that's what I pray for.

Time will tell!

"All that need be done for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

But their is one lesson to be learned in this campaign: Be Yourself.

Don't try to be all things to all the people.

The Republican party is a coalition. No one person can represent everyone.

____________________________________________
The revolution will not be televised. 1965

I believe he stopped getting donations, and nearly had his campaign go bankrupt on or about the time Harry Reid offered up his "Clay Pidgeon Special", and Lindsey Graham was calling all of the opponents of McCain-Kennedy bigots.

"I believe we must adjourn this meeting to some other place." - The last recorded words of Adam Smith.

and then again we might not. But we CERTAINLY have two Carters determined to take office -- and the country cannot afford either one of them.

He has to clean up the state of Louisiana

"Do not yield. Do not flinch. Stand up. Stand up with our President and fight. We're Americans. We're Americans, and we'll never surrender. They will."-John McCain
McCain/Rudy 08-kill the terrorists and punch the hippies.

of LA politics be long enough to clean up the state?

Barbour! Newt...and yes, Jindal

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com

Tim Schieferecke

You also have to think that they can't get elected without the mess.

______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Any of those picks would have to undo a carter sized mess. Whats more in order to make it worthwhile they would have to be unelectable without the mess in the first place.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Sanford.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com

Founder and contributor to The Minority Report and Editor for The Hinzsight Report

I don't know about the rest of you, but there's nothing I hate worse than a wussy politician caught up in the nuance of modern p.c. America. When Senator DeMint stood up to the illegal immigration debacle and the Berkley issue and said "make my day" I knew we had a world class heavyweight champion in the making for our conservative field. I see big things for the good Senator, but suggest he get a Governorship under his belt first.

America stands for bold colors!
Tim Schieferecke

We don't have one.

Reagan was clearly on the scene in 1976. He was a conservative icon even before Carter. The conservative movement may not have realized just how bad Carter could be.

And really, conservatives didn't "throw" 1976. Ford nearly won that election, and I think the general wisdom is that the great middle in America took out their Watergate disgust and the Nixon pardon on him. I don't believe it was conservatives that stopped Ford.

But even if that's so, everybody knew Reagan was going to be back in 1980 whether Ford won or not. This year? We didn't have a really viable "solid conservative" in the race at all. And the only people we can expect to see again in 4 or 8 years are Romney (who still needs to convince us that he IS a conservative, let alone a really solid one) and Huckabee (who is probably the anti-thesis of a great conservative). We have no obvious contender the way the movement had coming out of the 1976 contests. We do not have a Reagan ready to run again in 4 years. What if we "throw" this one on the idea that we'll get a Reagan, and all we get is another Dole or Ford (a moderate)?

The Carter/Reagan meme is taking on the status of KnownFact - as if the only thing that vaulted Reagan to the nomination (not necessarily the Presidency) was the horrors of the Carter Administration. It wasn't true then, and it won't be true now either.

No one totally of the conservative movement got anywhere close to the support Ronald Reagan got in '76.

"I believe we must adjourn this meeting to some other place." - The last recorded words of Adam Smith.

------------
~ Beth ~

Carter was and remains a total disaster IMHO, I lived through that nightmare and have no desire to repeat it.

when discussing past presidents. I might detest former President Clinton, but it is unbecoming to dishonor the office by not showing the respect for the office.

For some reason, it is more difficult when discussing former president Carter.

elevating liberalism to a Constitutionally required ideology.

It's not as though anyone were suggesting throwing people who do not believe into jail, or anything.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com

After a re-read, I see my error. Thanks

Your claim depends on using the alternative definition of as recession that was created by the NBER - which unsurprisingly then gets to decide when recessions begin and end. The usual definition of "recession" is two consecutive quarters of negative economic growth.

By that definition I'm not sure that the period in question was a recession at all, just a very low point - there never were two consecutive negative growth quarters in that period.

Even if we assume the NBER is correct, what does it mean for a recession to have started? The elements that go into a recession don't move at the drop of a dime. For most economic measures there is a period of slowdown or decline before you hit a "critical point" and call things a "recession." So, even using their numbers, the slowdown that resulted in the recession was starting well before March 2001 (under Clinton). Bush's policies - specifically tax relief was probably the reason why the NBER says that said recession (as they define it) ended in November 2001 and didn't last longer.

The definition that NBER uses really focuses on when business activity starts to fall from a "peak." That seems rather unhelpful since by that definition an economy growing at 2% a year that just happened to follow a period of 5-6% growth would be classified as a "recession" even though the economy was still growing (albeit slower).

The main point of the post is that Republicans will always get blamed for a recession and never get credit for a recovery. There is ample proof that, if you only saw the media coverage you would assume that nothing economically good happens under a Republican administration, and a Democrat can do nothing wrong.

So I'll keep this simple and quick - the pop-defintion of two consecutive quarters of negative growth has never been the accpeted definition of macroeconomic recession. The problem in defining a recession is not trivial and it cna be debate until the cows come home, so (outside of people who politicize eveything around) the NBER is seen as the official arbiter of the business cycle.

To be honest, the distinction between just before and just after the peak is pretty meaningless from a real economic perpsectice - it is all academic anyway. What bugs me is creating our own definition for political purposes, I'd like to think we can be honest at some point and acknowledge that president's don't drive business cycles - it is neither Clinton's nor Bush's recession or growth, it belongs to all economic actors.

And can do nothing to ameliorate one in progress ?

Or is the above just meant to back away from prior statements and be a non statement in itself ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

That of all the many factors that contribute to the ups and downs of the business cycle, with few exceptions, the impact of Presdient's policy and actions is not a particular important one.

I also would note that the chances that a president will take deliberate actions that ameliorate a recession in progress is near zero - the time lag in detecting the recession, creating a policy, putting it into the economy and letting it work through the economy nearly guarantees it will miss its mark.

The president has little or no effect on economic activity.

Even if he could have an effect he wouldn't be able to do so till it was too late.

Is that what you are trying to say ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Hoover told businesses not to fire their workers and during the FDR yrs, business had no idea what whim FDR was going to follow when targeting regulations, taxes, etc, etc.

Presidents can absolutely make things worse...

www.fairtax.org
Sick of Government Expansion? libertarian-Minded Republican? Check This Out... Republican Liberty Caucus!!!
www.rlc.org http://www.republicanliberty.org/

By eliminating impediments to business.

I just wanted a clear statement of what was being talked about.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

www.fairtax.org
Sick of Government Expansion? libertarian-Minded Republican? Check This Out... Republican Liberty Caucus!!!
www.rlc.org http://www.republicanliberty.org/

Yes, most of the time the President's economic policy has minimal impact on the macroeconomy. Of course there are a few notable exceptions in history, but they are notable because they are the exception.

And when it comes to targeted impact in a narrow tiemframe (like say an economic stimulus package to get us out of recession), absolutely the odds of them doing anything meaningful before it is too late is near zero.

To abate the recession of 2000 were an exception ?

Clinton's failure to have the enforcement agencies act in their regulatory role did what ?

Reagan's tax cuts and defense build up did what ?

Nixon's wage and price control's did what ?

Kennedy's tax cut's had what effect ?

Somehow History refutes your thesis.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

First, I was talking to the president's impact not the fed's - i do think the fed can have important impact inthe short term on the economy and business cycles.

That said - the 2001 stimulus did nothing to help with the recession

Reagan's defense build up probably did have a large impact - but is that part of economic policy, or to put anotehr way was that its intention? The tax cuts I'm not so sure did much of anything - as opposed to Kennedy's which probably did.

Nixon's price controls certainly did - a collosal mistake.

Clinton's regulatory laxity did not cause a recesseion or change the inevitable end of the dot com bubble - that was the natural flow of bubbles, much like the current recession (or near recession) was not because of anything Bush did, may have some links to Greenspan and certainly was driven by the needed rationalizaiton of real estate speculation and over-valuation of risk management innovations.

______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

...the 2001 tax cuts had nothing to do with anything, and we would have gotten out of the "recession" (as defined by the NBER) in November 2001 all by ourselves?

Economic policy - the stuff that Congress and the President implement - most certainly impacts the economy. Whether the effects are beneficial or not, or exactly when they hit the economy are subject to debate. I tend to agree that lag the occurs with economic policy makes it less than ideal, but I spent 4 years getting a degree in economics and never once heard anybody argue that it has NO effect on the business cycle.

We absolutely would have seen the recession end in November with or without the rebate checks in 2001 (ok, maybe december...).

You are right, economic policy has some impact, but its impact is unimportant compared to the other, non-goverment drivers of the economy. That is why I don't se any measurable impact on the macroeconom - and I too studied econ for 4+ years and have seen plent of economic papers demonstrate the relative impact of fiscal policy ebing far less than the imagination of the pres and politicians.

and why we cannot support him. When he slept with Feingold in their campaign finance 'reform', McCain single handedly brought on the huge fund raising dominance by Dems. If people who tend to have a little more cash to support GOP candidates are muzzeled, then do we really have a democracy anymore.

the Dems winning in 2006 and sizable $$$ advantage right now is mostly to be pinned on the shoulders of John McCain. Can we really support someone who gives so freely to Democrat causes?

the Dems winning in 2006 and sizable $$$ advantage right now is mostly to be pinned on the shoulders of John McCain.

Name one regualtion that prevents a rich Republican from starting his own 527. The Dems are choosing to give their money and therefore buying victory. They working harder, they are giving more, and even when they don't toally agree with their party's candidate on everything, they never stab him/her in the back to pretend they are standing on principal.

"I believe we must adjourn this meeting to some other place." - The last recorded words of Adam Smith.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com

I too have read 'The Forgotten Man', and Hoover was definitely the overcontrolling initial source of the problem. Whereas the global recession subsided in most of the rest of the world after 2-3 years, FDR kept it going here for 10-11 with his overcontrol of the economy. I wish they would correct the history books, because FDR was one of our very worst Presidents of all time, and the effects of his presidency are still being payed for to this day. I have said many, many things negative about Senator McCain in the past, but no more. Clinton and/or Obama remind me so much of FDR it sends chills down my spine. They must be defeated at all costs!

America stands for bold colors!
Tim Schieferecke

but unlike the '20s, '30s and even '60s the left/socialists/communists now own the academic institutions as well. at one time it was only the colleges, but now our kindergarten children are being fed socialist pap -- and at that age they soak it up like sponges.

We need a serious conservative revolution to turn back this socialist tide.

"Where I stand does not depend on where I'm standing." Fred D. Thompson

that is the reason my (sigh) support for him is so lukewarm. In fact, if you have been around very long, you will notice that within the past week I have been accused by at least one RS poster of having MDS (McCain Derangement Syndrome).

I absolutely love it when a partisan supporter of one candidate sees any and all criticism of that candidate as deranged. HEAR THAT HUCKABOTS?

McCain was no better than fifth on my dance card when this election cycle began. Unfortunately, my number one not only didn't hunt, he couldn't dance either. So, as chaff fell by the wayside, we find ourself left with Sen McCain.

The point of my above post was to point out that sitting out and waiting for four years is not a credible option.

Yesterday was yesterday, today is today. I had a road to Damascus moment when Romney pulled out. McCain has very fertile ground to sow, and I believe he may be able to do it with a little negative treatment from the drive-bys.

America stands for bold colors!

Tim Schieferecke

his efforts to repeal the AMT and lower corporate tax rates? Or that you'll oppose his efforts to prosecute the war on terror? Or his efforts to reduce spending and reform entitlements?

At least admit that you're pushing a load manure when you talk about "RINO policies" as if his entire history has been some great affront. You don't like a select few of his positions - and by all means, make your sentiment known when those issues arise - but stop peddling the tripe that everything McCain stands for is somehow out of the mainstream.

I'm not sure it would be worth the four years of utter destruction that either Hillary or Obama would inflict on this nation, to wait for him.

We have to view EVERY election as critical -- and this one most certainly is.

Arguments that the party "needs a time in wilderness" to "purge and purify itself" are both dangerous and political garbage.

Imagine what would have happened after 198o, after Carter, if we'd have had no transformational conservative like Reagan to step in and right the ship. Now, when the times allows for fewer mistakes (as you've described), we cannot afford a Hillary or Obama. What we do now is critical to the future.

that you did not actually have to live during the Carter administration. Even if McCain is only right 50% of the time, he beats an executive that is wrong 90% of the time.

Friends help you move. Real friends help you move bodies...

My preference is to not care about being able to have "bragging rights." I want what's best for the country. This isn't a game--there are actual LIVES that depend on having the right Commander in Chief in place. There are LIVES that depend on having a common sense foreign policy, rather than one of appeasement and litigation.

You say we're already getting four years of destruction. Really? Well, I can't predict the future, but I CAN predict this:
Worst case scenario with President McCain:
1. Sandra Day O'Connor clones as new Supreme Court justices.
2. Continued presence in Iraq.
3. Vetoed big-spending bills being overridden.
4. McCain's immigration plan (secure the border first, I should note).

Almost guaranteed scenario with President Hillobama:
1. Ruth Bader Ginsburg clones as new Supreme Court justices.
2. Run away! Run away! and turn Iraq over to Al Qaeda and the Mahdi militia.
3. Spending that will make the Republican spending look frugal, including a godforsaken health care program guaranteed to bankrupt not only the Treasury, but also the quality of American healthcare.
4. Hillary's or Obama's immigration plan (Obama likes drivers licenses for illegals, and Hillary's gonna owe paybacks for all the Hispanic Democrat votes).

I dunno, dude. Seems like your logic is failing. That is, unless you just want the Dems to make Change! that will bankrupt America at home and abroad, just so you can say "nyah nyah, look what the libs did!" But hey, you'll still be able to brag about YOUR ideological purity! Yay you!

------------
~ Beth ~

the long-term consequence of a Hillobama withdrawal and subsequent chaos in Iraq is that someday there will be a next time. A Next time when the US needs an ally. That ally will look at history; first Vietnam, now Iraq, and will say, PASS.

We will never be trusted again, by anyone.

And that's not counting Republicans and independents, who hate this Obama-sponsored measure even more.

http://guntotingliberal.com/?p=2088

to illegal immigrants? She was never clear.

You know, if we were to do what some on the left want, and stop calling the "illegals" in favor of "undocumented," giving them a drivers license would give them both the veneer of legality and a document. We could then call them: "Documented drivers with social security numbers."

No, none of that. I'll vote for McCain.

it is considered bad form to look be bigoted around here.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com

for me?
How in the world is it bigoted to use Barack Hussein Obama?
That is the man's name. His parents gave it to him. Why is using it bigoted?
It's just like Hillary Rodham Clinton, George Herbert Walker Bush, Ronald Wilson Reagan, etc.....
I frankly do not see why the directors/editors/moderators/commenters, etc get all in a snit over this.

right or wrong, it is seen as suggesting that he is NOT a Christian and that he might have Islamic roots. It suggests that we here are bigoted toward Muslims.

The man's father is from Africa!
He chose to name his son that for a reason. Why? I don't know, but he did.
How do we know whether he is or isn't a Christian and why should that matter?
How in the world is it an attack on Muslims to call him by his name?
God forbid, if he should win this election, he will be inaugurated as Barack Hussien Obama. Encyclopedias, history books, etc...will use it.

It will read-
44th President of the United States-
Barack Hussein Obama

And then they will list him as the first African American president even though he is half white. Simply because if he wasn't half African American, he would be an irrelevant senator from Illinois. But I digress...that is a topic for another discussion.

Gawd, I hate this process more each day.

as a crass cheap shot illusion to Saddam. We look silly using it.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com

him Obama either since it rhymes with Osama.
Let's just call him Barry so he looks like a clean cut mainstream American whose parents had the unfortunate lineage to have a last name that rhymes with a worldwide known terrorist and who chose to give him a middle name that happens to belong to Muslim-nation dictator.
Gawd! I hate this!

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com

out the absurdity in all of this.
We most certainly do use middle names from time to time.
Hillary Rodham Clinton case in point.
Does that make us sexist? No.
And I have seen John Sidney McCain III on the news several times this week.
So why not Barack Hussien Obama?
Because we fold like a cheap deck of cards not to appear racist when all you are doing is using a man's given name.
No more, no less.
You will not convince me otherwise on this.

the role of my former wives and many girlfriends and say

listen to me

I have used the Rodham name, and for a radio talk show, its cute, but it is meant and seen as a kind of silly shot at the person.

as is Hussein

and yes 17, you will be convinced of what my point is

I'll let the new PC Dave defend his point

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com

Spelling out his whole name, or his initials, is fine. HRC and BHO have a symmetry, for example.

But initialing his first name and spelling out his middle name has only one purpose, and we don't want it done here.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

We need Hillary on the other side because she is extremely polarizing. Folks that can't bring themselves to vote for McCain will still show up to vote for their US Rep. and Senator and probably McCain too. Obama has the ability to appeal to libs in a general sense and his specifics won't even be thought of. Most folks aren't that engaged in understanding politics (90% are in fact mentally retarded when it comes to politics). You are assuming that most folks pay attention to politics, most don't. If Obama is on the lib ticket, fewer right leaning fence sitters will show up, and you can take that to the bank.

America stands for bold colors!
Tim Schieferecke

I think Obama has a lot of liabilities as well. The problem with Obama is that every single attack on issues becomes ex post facto a racial attack.

If he selects Karl Marx as his running mate, we will be accused of being racists if we point out how radical that makes him. The GOOD part of an Obama candidacy is the fact, (and I will probably enjoy the wrath of GC for this), there are WAY more racists in the Dem Party than in the Republican Party, and so a lot of Dems will simply stay home if he heads the ticket. Not as many who will sit it out of Hillary is the nominee, but some.

As unpopular as, (we are told) the Iraq War might be, I cannot believe the American public, even those who are educated by Jon Stewart or Steven Cobert, will vote to LOSE.

chicken wrath at any moment!

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com

and the tendency of otherwise rational adults to meekly avoid any confrontation with him because it somehow implies you're a racist if you do cannot be overlooked. David, you are spot on with your Karl Marx analogy. My mother in law is an Obama supporter. When I asked her what she liked about him specifically, she couldn't come up with anything but generalized platitudes. She got very angry with me when I suggested that she might want to do a little research before coming into my house and extolling his virtues. She called me a racist in front of my son though I never made mention of anything to do with race. This is a very, very Alice In Wonderland-like world we live in today. Even though my son has two wonderful friends from Africa that are in my house multiple times per week and even though she knows I am raising him to be colorblind to race, she still had the audacity to call me a racist because I disagreed with a presidential candidate's positions.

Tim Schieferecke

process.
Call me silly, but the likes of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have made it so that ANY time a white person doesn't fall into line with the cult of personality that is Obama, we are going to be called a racist. Sick, that's what it is.

You would have thought I signed up to join Robert Byrd in the KKK when I say that I'm voting for McCain. Interestingly enough, McCain gives a better response than Romney, who I was originally supporting. But not supporting the "first Black candidate with a real shot at winning" has made me have to go to war politically speaking several times in this process.

"Do not yield. Do not flinch. Stand up. Stand up with our President and fight. We're Americans. We're Americans, and we'll never surrender. They will."-John McCain
McCain/Rudy 08-kill the terrorists and punch the hippies.

America stands for bold colors!

Tim Schieferecke

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com

"Do not yield. Do not flinch. Stand up. Stand up with our President and fight. We're Americans. We're Americans, and we'll never surrender. They will."-John McCain
McCain/Rudy 08-kill the terrorists and punch the hippies.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com

Martin Luther King would be disgusted with what Al and Jesse have done with his legacy. I believe in his content of character instead of color of skin speech to the very essence of my soul. I hope someday that more people will wake up to the fact that it's ok to take a bold stance against an ideological opponent who happens to be of a different skin color, gender or whatever. Race simply doesn't matter to me and shouldn't to anyone who is colorblind.

America stands for bold colors!
Tim Schieferecke

http://gamecock.townhall.com/g/b5adfcb2-9a05-4797-80ba-67b385534486

Achieve King's dream with equal treatment
Saturday, January 20, 2007 8:51 AM

Originally published January 16, 2007 in The Charlotte Observer.

Achieve King's dream with equal treatment
Misguided liberal policies assume blacks are inferior victims
MIKE DEVINE
Special to the Observer

"Daddy, why would somebody want to shoot a preacher?"

That was a precocious little boy's first reaction upon seeing the headline of The Spartanburg Herald announcing the assassination of the 39-year-old leader of the civil rights movement, Martin Luther King Jr.

No holiday cries out for a progress report more than the one President Ronald Reagan signed into law in 1983 and that America celebrated yesterday. Where do we stand nearly 39 years after King's death on April 4, 1968?

Brandon Woolfolk, a 23-year-old African American junior at UNC Charlotte presently working as a hotel clerk, told me last week that "One change is that back then blacks feared whites. Today, they fear other blacks."

Dewey Tullis, a life-long educator and prominent black member of the Spartanburg County Democratic Party, told The Wall Street Journal before last fall's election he was supporting the Republican running for South Carolina's top education post because, "Frankly, I'm tired of seeing our young black men graduate high school without knowing how to read and write."

One main reason for these disturbing assessments: the well-intentioned but misguided liberal policies implemented immediately after the race-based "Jim Crow" laws were abolished. New race-based laws were passed, old non-race-based laws were misinterpreted by liberal judges, and new welfare policies kicked the black father out of the house and made Uncle Sam daddy.

Character building a priority

By contrast, King's dream was that people be judged based, not on skin color, but rather on the content of their character. There is hope, however.The Charlotte-Mecklenburg African American Agenda conference earlier this month, whose agenda "priorities" could have been written by whites, shows that more and more blacks get it and are about the business of character building. Event organizers even invited as a featured speaker National Public Radio correspondent and Fox News commentator Juan Williams, author of "Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America -- and What We Can Do About It."

Now, what about Caucasians?

I became active in the Democratic Party mainly due to my disdain for the racism I saw in the 1970s. Happily, I watched most of the Republican racism melt under the weight of King's mainstream American and Judeo-Christian moral arguments. Unhappily, I watched disturbing pathologies develop within my party and its members.

Then, during my five years in Atlanta before moving to the Queen City, I experienced what I call a "conservative epiphany," in large part due to the covertly racist behavior of fellow liberal Democrats in their treatment of blacks as inferior victim dependents and their overt disdain for the Christian faith that inspired King.

Radio talk show host Dennis Prager recently described being shown a video of people reacting to a talk show organized by a firm that specializes in analyzing such shows for their producers. Prager noticed that the carefully chosen panel included no blacks. The firm explained that in their previous experience they discovered that after a black person gave their opinion about a show, white people would rarely offer differing opinions for fear of being deemed racist.

This condescending and misplaced white guilt and fear of the Political Correctness Police must end.

Face down the PC crowd

I don't remember Daddy's answer to his eldest son's innocent inquiry some 39 years ago, but there is nothing I better remember than the way he lived his life. Dad employed the non-race-based Golden Rule found in Matthew's Gospel as he coached some of the first racially integrated little league baseball teams in my hometown and insisted that blacks employed with him at Southern Railway be held to the same standards as whites.

King based his civil rights message largely on that New Testament passage, which admonishes us to do unto others as we would have them do unto us, as well as the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, which acknowledge equality before our Creator and require equal treatment under the law.

Quite simply, whites must stop treating blacks as inferiors, and muster the courage to face down the PC crowd to make King's dream more of a reality.

Mike

DeVine

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Observer community columnist Mike DeVine is vice president of Intequity Inc., a Charlotte-based marketing firm, and blogs as "Gamecock" at http://gamecock.townhall.com, Race42008.com and Redstate.com. Write him c/o The Observer, P.O. Box 30308, Charlotte, NC 28230-0308, or at mikedevinelaw@yahoo.com.

This is Gamecock's first column in, and as a freelance columnist to the Main Stream Media after 5 years as Legal editor for The Champion DeKalb County(Ga) legal organ weekly newspaper in Decatur/Metro Atlanta and three years as a blogger.

Link to Observer Column: http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observer/news/16468980.htm?template=content...

"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com

but hey, I still love ya, GC

In a manly sort of way.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com

who was it that edited that first piece into shape?

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com

Jackson made this the way of the world. see this

http://gamecock.townhall.com/g/b5adfcb2-9a05-4797-80ba-67b385534486

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com

Otherwise they wouldn't kowtow to him every time they want someone on race. They are products of his generation, Jesse lays out white guilt and they eat up every bite of it.

"Do not yield. Do not flinch. Stand up. Stand up with our President and fight. We're Americans. We're Americans, and we'll never surrender. They will."-John McCain
McCain/Rudy 08-kill the terrorists and punch the hippies.

greatly for this.
Barry is a far left socialist, communist sympathizer and he is going to set this country back at least 20 years in terms of race relations, sell us out on the worldwide stage, and skew the cultural foundation of this country to the far left for at least 30 years when he picks three more Ruth Bader Ginsburgs to the SCOTUS. And, he will decimate our military and ensure that lower and middle class families are never able to acquire capital wealth.
But, God forbid, let's not point any of this out lest we be called racist.
ACK!!!

to force him to deal with why he changed to being called Barack and tie it to that vile black nationalist minister of his church.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com

John Gibson on Fox had a gag going this fall with every time Obama's name would be spoken a take off of the Aflac duck would make a statement. I'll spare repeating it, and I think Gibson dumped it, but it was funny only for a while.

______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !

would be called a racist.
How dare you challenge that.
Do you not even see my point?
ACK!

be challenged, not mine

I am the silly middle name guy

Dave is the PC lib

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com

We would appreciate it if you would stop initialing Obama's first name and spelling out his middle name. You make refer to him as Senator Barack Obama, Senator Obama, Barack Obama, or Obama.

It is frowned upon by the moderators to write his name as you did here. Don't do it anymore.

Thank you for your cooperation,

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater