Liberals - Kerry

John Kerry better get back on the pander-horse double-quick and ride him like a real cowboy. Democrats in Ohio (see Rasmussen) are nervous. They’re warning black voters not to get “Bush-whacked” (so clever, aren’t they?):

If Ohio is a battleground state in this year’s presidential election, these are some of the foot soldiers. Their mission is to maximize black voter turnout on Nov. 2 — a mission that will likely decide the Democrats’ chances of taking Ohio.

“The African-American vote in Ohio is tremendously important,” said Bill Lynch, deputy national campaign manager for the Kerry-John Edwards team. “If we don’t get strong turnout, we don’t win” the state.

This will be particularly true if the race is close.

“He is not going to win on the black vote alone; but the only way Kerry is going to win is if he has good black voter turnout,” said David Bositis, senior political analyst at the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies in Washington, D.C.

The issue is not whether black voters, who have historically voted Democratic, will back Kerry.

In the 2000 election, about 90 percent of black voters cast their ballots for Democratic candidate Al Gore, exit polls showed. And a recent Plain Dealer poll shows Kerry with an equally commanding lead over President Bush among Ohio’s black voters.

“The election for many African-Americans is not between Kerry and Bush, but voting for Kerry or staying at home,” said Meryl Johnson, first vice president of the Cleveland Teachers Union, which has endorsed Kerry.

While 58 percent of Ohio voters cast ballots in 2000, the turnout was lower — 54 percent — among eligible black voters, according to census data. About 500,000 black Ohioans voted in the election; another 100,000 who were registered to vote sat out.

My advice to John Kerry: If you want to bring black voters to the polls, less war talk, more race talk, i.e., Section 8 housing and conservatives-are-racists.

Also see Ohio poll.

{ 39 comments }

Racist — One who holds the belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.

For the past week or so, I’ve been trying to ignore the fact that John Kerry is an elitist race panderer who’s going to get a lot of black votes. I’m disgusted by his racial and racist rhetoric, and the black people who vote for him deserve whatever slop he dishes out.

From his political Scripture reading in black churches to his speeches touting government programs, this rich man’s contempt for true black progress makes me ill.

In my view, white liberals betray their true feelings about the black race as soon as they open their mouths. My blood boils whenever I hear one of their ilk mentioning blacks and government programs in the same conversation. Blacks and dependency go hand in hand, you see, especially to men like Kerry. (Warning: long rant below)

[click to continue…]

{ 59 comments }

He habitually misquotes and misinterprets Scripture to sucker black congregants into believing he’s “religious,” he’s the dependent of a fabulously rich, bored woman, yet at the same time, tries to convince the naive and unmotivated that money and profit are evil and high taxes are good.

He’s got a certain group of people (which I believe is only a tiny minority) thinking that George Bush and other white conservatives want to suppress their votes. He’s a hypocrite and possibly a liar whose message changes with his audience. He’s a lackluster figure who inspires no one.

He protested the Vietnam war and ran on an anti-war-America-is-evil platform. This former protestor now wants to command the kind of men he despised. He’s surrounded by people who oppose national defense, yet they applaud his time in the killing fields.

While running for president he realized people felt safer with George Bush around, so like a shape shifter he dredges up his service in a war he hated and pulls out old pictures of men he once spat on. Suddenly he’s the proud “reporting for duty” veteran who saluted “Old Glory” on a lackluster and staged national stage.

Europeans, who the rest of us couldn’t care less about, love him, as do terrorists. While he and they are salivating for a victory, we wait patiently until this nightmare of an election season is over.

What if the unthinkable, dare I say implausible, were to happen? What if we wake up on November 3 and John Kerry is president of the United States?

[click to continue…]

{ 58 comments }

{ 17 comments }

When FOX news sued Al Franken last year, I was a little embarrassed to be a conservative. Franken’s book, Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right, was about to come out, and FOX decided to sue because the title contained the words “fair and balanced.”

I thought the whole thing was stupid and brought unnecessary and unneeded press to Franken and his liberal cohorts. See this Washington Post (registration req.) story for background.

In a developing story on the Drudge Report, John Kerry’s band of legal thugs is “asking” Regnery Publishing to withdraw the book that exposes him as a liar. What a gaggle of idiots. (I try not to call people “idiots”, but it’s Friday and I feel like doing it.)

I think it’s just as dumb for John Kerry to try to ban the book. Why? Because it’s giving the book and his lies unnecessary press. Either answer the charges (with specifics, not generalizations) or ignore the book. In the words of someone I “know”, Kerry whines, cries, but does not answer.

Besides, even if Regnery withdrew the book, Kerry’s still got problems with his ever-changing war stories. Good grief. At least Bill Clinton was slick, John. Learn from your great savior!

When Michael Moore’s trash came out, the RNC didn’t sic a bunch of slick lawyers on the pitiful, desperate, overreaching liberals, did they? The generously-proportioned Moore is still raking in the dough. Liberal dupes.

Articles referring to Kerry’s lies: Kerry should show records and Swiftee John O’Neill Speaks Out on Kerry’s False Claims.

Blogs For Bush, Patriot Paradox, Ramblings’ Journal and Evangelical Outpost weigh in.

By the way, Michelle Malkin will be on Rush Limbaugh in the 1 o’clock hour. She’ll talk about her treatment last night by Chris Matthews on Hardball. Michelle’s blog is being overrun. You may not be able to access it for a while.

Update (6:50 p.m.): It’s getting really muddy. Kerry goes crying to the Federal Election Commission.

(Hat tip: Ramblings’ Journal)

Update II (8/21): Unfortunately, the GOP also cries.

{ 37 comments }

This is what’s known as an “unnecessary lie”:

“What does it mean when Mary Ann Knowles, a woman with breast cancer I met in New Hampshire, had to keep working day after day right through her chemotherapy, no matter how sick she felt, because she was terrified of losing her family’s health insurance? America can do better. And help is on the way….” [John Kerry said]

Mary Ann Knowles did not have to work through her chemotherapy for fear of losing her health insurance. Employed by Elderhostel, the Boston-based non-profit travel organization for people 55 and older, Mary Ann had 26 weeks of paid disability at her disposal. More was available for a long-term illness. She did not have to work through her chemotherapy. She chose to.

Knowles would have lost some income had she taken the disability leave, said her husband, who is unemployed. But she would not have lost her health insurance, as Kerry has repeatedly misstated.

Bill Clinton used to lie unnecessarily, too (remember his story about witnessing church burnings as a child?).

{ 13 comments }

Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…

Or something like that. John Kerry, if elected panderer…I mean president…promises his socialist constituents that he’ll pick a Federal Communications Commission chairman who’ll not only select owners of broadcast outlets, but he’ll pick them based on skin color.

Kerry needs to pull out a copy of the U.S. Constitution, dust it off and flip through it. He’ll discover that he promises a lot of things the government has no business being involved in. Why, oh why, would any “minority” vote for a man who thinks they need government handouts and intervention from cradle to grave? Where’s the pride? The dignity?

(Hat tip: Michael Williams and Discriminations)

{ 19 comments }

John Kerry emerges from his post-Reagan-funeral hiatus with sound bites and promises…to spend more of your money!

He was visiting his buddy (guy in the tan suit) in Chicago yesterday and offered up more of the same fixing-the-educational-system hype and reached out to “minorities” with the rich v. poor routine.

Kerry ranted about doing away with “tax cuts for the rich”, which we’re supposed to assume will pay for all his new educational programs. He proposes a big-government spending trap called the “National Education Trust Fund.” According to his campaign web site:

John Kerry believes it is time to stop sending mandates from Washington to school districts without providing the resources needed to carry them out. Kerry will make a new deal on education — if Washington is going to mandate accountability for our schools, then the funding should be mandatory. Kerry is proposing a “National Education Trust Fund” to make sure that, for the first time ever, the federal government meets its obligation to fully fund our education priorities.

Pouring more money down the drain with promises of “reduced class size” and “higher teacher pay” is passé and trite, so here’s something fresh. The No Excuses project offers real solutions that will require some grunt work:

Across the nation dozens of principals have demonstrated that with effective school leadership children of all income levels can excel. The No Excuses project has identified seven common traits in low-income schools that excel:

1. Principals are free.
2. Principals use measurable goals to foster achievement.
3. Master teachers bring out the best in a faculty.
4. Rigorous and regular testing are used to improve student performance.
5. Achievement is the key to discipline.
6. Principals work with parents to make the home a center of learning.
7. Effort creates ability.

According to the people in the trenches, this is what it will take to properly educate low-income children. It’s not very glamorous and won’t make headlines, but I think it’s the best hope for inner-city schools.

So whenever you hear politicians talking about a “trust fund”, hold on to your wallets. Kerry says he plans to raise our “annual investment” in education from $23.8 billion to about $35 billion.

Good idea. He should start with his wife’s bank account.

Update (10:00pm): I wrote the following in response to a commenter and realized it should have been included in this post:

Me: “[If] you’re implying that No Child Left Behind (NCLB) is an ‘unfunded mandate’ (which most critics do), it’s neither unfunded nor is it a mandate. Education spending has actually increased under Bush (unfortunately), and state budget shortfalls can’t be blamed on the NCLB. States are allowed to opt-out of NCLB. John Kerry touts his ‘trust fund’ based on the unfunded mandate argument. People who don’t know the law or how the budget process works usually fall for such tactics.”

Good Night!

Wealthy, liberal elites like John Kerry know what’s good for the rest of us. While they preach “tolerance” and “diversity”, they live as far away from black people as they can get.

Yet, they want to force their Marxist ideals on everybody else. Their vision of a classless society doesn’t apply to themselves, only to us ordinary folks.

A man living off the hard work of his wife’s first husband wants it to stay that way, make no mistake about that. But career politicians like Kerry study human weakness. Fanning the flames of class envy and playing on black people’s fears of “racist” conservatives are the quickest ways to get a sound bite (besides having sex with an intern in the Oval Office). Given man’s fallen nature, I wouldn’t expect anything more.

On the 50th anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education, this is what the man of the people had to say:

“We have certainly not met the promise of Brown when, in too many parts of our country, our school systems are not separate but equal, they are separate and unequal.”

So why did this hypocrite, like so many of his elitist friends, send his kids to private schools instead of “integrated” government-run schools so he could help fulfill “the promise of Brown“?

“Today, more than ever, we need to renew our commitment to one America.”

Does he mean one race? One class? I won’t touch the “one race” thing, but does “one America” mean he’s ready to give up his wife’s first husband’s fortune so he can be “middle-class” like you and me?

“You cannot promise no child left behind and then pursue policies that leave millions of children behind. Because that promise is a promissory note to all of America’s families that must be paid in full.”

“Promissory note” is code for “your tax dollars will continue to finance bloated, failed social programs that make rich liberals like me feel good about ourselves.”

“We should not delude ourselves into thinking that the work of Brown is done when there are those who still seek, in different ways, to see it undone. To roll back affirmative action to restrict equal rights to undermine the promise of our Constitution.”

Equal justice before the law is more precise than “equal rights”, but liberals talk out of both sides of their mouths whenever they utter “equal rights” in the same context as “affirmative action.” There is nothing affirming about lowered standards, and the only action going on is discrimination, which, under our Constitution, is actionable.

When I ask liberals why they’re voting for John Kerry, the answers usually range from anger over “Bush’s war” in Iraq to those “tax cuts for the rich” to “He is not-Bush.” Nothing, and I mean nothing, positive about John Kerry or his agenda.

I have yet to hear or read a coherent argument why anyone who is not white and rich (and living in California, Massachusetts or Manhattan) would vote for an elitist, aloof, race-pandering opportunist like John Kerry.

But I’m a patient woman. I’ll wait until I’m 80 if I have to. But that’s it!

It’s time for John Kerry to pay the piper. “Minorities” want those favors cashed in and they want them now. “Some Blacks and Hispanics Criticize Kerry on Outreach” (registration req.). From the New York Times:

For weeks, Senator John Kerry savored a Democratic Party that was unified in rallying behind his presidential candidacy. But in recent days, influential black and Hispanic political leaders whom the campaign had counted on for support have been openly complaining that Mr. Kerry’s organization lacks diversity and is failing to appeal directly to minority voters….

While Mr. Kerry, whose home state, Massachusetts, is 7 percent Hispanic and 5 percent black, has active support from black members of Congress, some veteran African-American leaders have struggled to find a foothold in his campaign. Even some black officials who called a reporter to offer their perspective at the campaign behest said Mr. Kerry had work to do.

This is a never-ending problem with Democrats. By pandering to blacks with accusations of “exclusive” and “intolerant” leveled at Republicans, they often set themselves up for hard-to-deliver, tangible promises rather than mere philosophical ones that Kerry seems so fond of.

Let’s see if this filthy rich, aloof social liberal will put his wife’s husband’s money where his mouth is (I’m tired of blogging about Kerry and it’s only April) and hire all the black folks he can find!

In my opinion, I think he should hire who he wants to hire, but if he wants that minority vote…

Old stuff:

“Kerry’s inner circle lacks color”
“Black Voters Align With Democrats Against Bush”
“Kerry’s Problem with Black Voters”
“Black voters overwhelmingly favor Kerry”
“Cummings may help Kerry with black voters”

This is boring. I need to blog about something other than Kerry and black people.

What idealistic dreamers we are when we’re young! John Kerry once claimed he threw away the medals he earned in the Vietnam War in “protest.” Now he says he didn’t and blames the vast right wing conspiracy for spreading “fiction.”

But now he’s been caught on tape telling the truth…or a lie?

“I gave back, I can’t remember, 6, 7, 8, 9 medals,” Kerry said in an interview on a Washington, D.C. news program on WRC-TV’s called Viewpoints on November 6, 1971, according to a tape obtained by ABCNEWS.

Unfortunately for him, he’s left a verifiable trail of lies.

Throughout his presidential campaign, Kerry has denied that he threw away any of his 11 medals during an anti-war protest in April, 1971.

His campaign Web site calls it a “right wing fiction” and a smear. And in an interview with ABCNEWS’ Peter Jennings last December, he said it was a “myth.”

But Kerry’s own words convict him. In 1971 he said he threw away the medals. In 1984 he said the medals he threw away were actually someone else’s. In 1988, Kerry said he threw away his ribbons but not his medals. In 1996, he said he didn’t throw away his ribbons, either.

But George Bush is the liar, right?

Update: Kerry “explains” on Good Morning America (Drudge Report).

Update II: It seems that in 1996, Kerry did say he threw out his ribbons. I misread the article. I’m confused by the different versions of the story. What can I say?

Newsweek poses it as a question, but what they mean is “Kerry is totally lame.”

For months the media have been making much ado about nothing: John Kerry. Are they finally weary of trying to make Kerry’s campaign seem exciting?

He’s been called flat, stiff, wooden, lackluster and bereft of ideas. His motto is “Vote for me because I’m Not-George-Bush.” Ever since Kerry emerged as the frontrunner of his party, the newspapers, magazines and news anchors have puffed him up into something he’s not. Now they’re struggling to explain why he’s still trailing President Bush.

In story after story under headline after breathless headline, Kerry is crafted into a dynamic statesman as the media attempt in vain to prop him up. Well, it seems some have had enough.

I read with delight an article by Howard Fineman, who writes for Newsweek and covered such issues as “the rise of the religious right.”

[click to continue…]