My dreams were consumed by Obama´s speech last night. Watching the news shows today, my dreams were reiterated. This throbbing, throbbing vision of his speech kept tugging at me. What was it, what was it that was tugging at me? This afternoon it hit me. First, here are some excerpts from his speech that I kept re-living:"This election had many firsts and many stories that will be told for generations. But one thats on my mind tonight is about a woman who cast her ballot in Atlanta. Shes a lot like the millions of others who stood in line to make their voice heard in this election except for one thing - Ann Nixon Cooper is 106 years old. She was born just a generation past slavery; a time when there were no cars on the road or planes in the sky; when someone like her couldnt vote for two reasons - because she was a woman and because of the color of her skin.
And tonight, I think about all that shes seen throughout her century in America - the heartache and the hope; the struggle and the progress; the times we were told that we cant, and the people who pressed on with that American creed: Yes we can. At a time when womens voices were silenced and their hopes dismissed, she lived to see them stand up and speak out and reach for the ballot. Yes we can. When there was despair in the dust bowl and depression across the land, she saw a nation conquer fear itself with a New Deal, new jobs and a new sense of common purpose. Yes we can. When the bombs fell on our harbor and tyranny threatened the world, she was there to witness a generation rise to greatness and a democracy was saved. Yes we can. She was there for the buses in Montgomery, the hoses in Birmingham, a bridge in Selma, and a preacher from Atlanta who told a people that We Shall Overcome. Yes we can. A man touched down on the moon, a wall came down in Berlin, a world was connected by our own science and imagination. And this year, in this election, she touched her finger to a screen, and cast her vote, because after 106 years in America, through the best of times and the darkest of hours, she knows how America can change. Yes we can. America, we have come so far. We have seen so much. But there is so much more to do. So tonight, let us ask ourselves - if our children should live to see the next century; if my daughters should be so lucky to live as long as Ann Nixon Cooper, what change will they see? What progress will we have made? This is our chance to answer that call. This is our moment. This is our time - to put our people back to work and open doors of opportunity for our kids; to restore prosperity and promote the cause of peace; to reclaim the American Dream and reaffirm that fundamental truth - that out of many, we are one; that while we breathe, we hope, and where we are met with cynicism, and doubt, and those who tell us that we cant, we will respond with that timeless creed that sums up the spirit of a people: Yes We Can! Thank you, God bless you, and may God Bless the United States of America."
And tonight, I think about all that shes seen throughout her century in America - the heartache and the hope; the struggle and the progress; the times we were told that we cant, and the people who pressed on with that American creed: Yes we can. At a time when womens voices were silenced and their hopes dismissed, she lived to see them stand up and speak out and reach for the ballot. Yes we can. When there was despair in the dust bowl and depression across the land, she saw a nation conquer fear itself with a New Deal, new jobs and a new sense of common purpose. Yes we can. When the bombs fell on our harbor and tyranny threatened the world, she was there to witness a generation rise to greatness and a democracy was saved. Yes we can. She was there for the buses in Montgomery, the hoses in Birmingham, a bridge in Selma, and a preacher from Atlanta who told a people that We Shall Overcome. Yes we can. A man touched down on the moon, a wall came down in Berlin, a world was connected by our own science and imagination. And this year, in this election, she touched her finger to a screen, and cast her vote, because after 106 years in America, through the best of times and the darkest of hours, she knows how America can change. Yes we can. America, we have come so far. We have seen so much. But there is so much more to do. So tonight, let us ask ourselves - if our children should live to see the next century; if my daughters should be so lucky to live as long as Ann Nixon Cooper, what change will they see? What progress will we have made? This is our chance to answer that call. This is our moment. This is our time - to put our people back to work and open doors of opportunity for our kids; to restore prosperity and promote the cause of peace; to reclaim the American Dream and reaffirm that fundamental truth - that out of many, we are one; that while we breathe, we hope, and where we are met with cynicism, and doubt, and those who tell us that we cant, we will respond with that timeless creed that sums up the spirit of a people: Yes We Can! Thank you, God bless you, and may God Bless the United States of America."
I started crying when I heard these words. They were my father´s words. YES, We Can! He often said to me, "This country is so great, you can do anything you set your mind to. Skin Color doesn´t matter! With a good education, you can, yes you CAN!" Barack was repeating my father´s words to me, the words I have often repeated to my children, to my nieces and nephews, and to my grandchildren! We live in the best country in the World! YES WE CAN be anything we set our minds to! Yes our children and grandchildren CAN aspire to be the PRESIDENT of the United States of America!! YES!!! WE CAN!!
Tonight, on Fox News, Mort Kondracke on Brit Hume´s Grapevine blamed McCain´s loss on the Republican party, "Republicans are turning into the "Old White Peoples party. I saw ALL White Faces! We have to change to be more inclusive of other ethnicities!" I heard these same words on MSNBC and on CNN, but it struck home when I heard it on Fox News and on Brit Hume´s newscast. I saw McCain´s audience and supporters and I knew Kondracke was right. I kept these thoughts to myself, but Kondracke said them out loud!!
On my blog I often say we have evolved to a multi racial, multi cultural society, and I am constantly chastised by the ANTIs and the right wingers saying, "No! It ain´t so!" But it IS so! We are evolving. Last night I also heard a pundit say, "There is no such thing as Mayberry!" I swear, everyone reads my Blog!! (BTW, my reports tell me I have increased to over 12,ooo viewers a month! Thank you!)
We should be MORE Inclusive! We are all EQUAL!!! We are an evolving Society!!
Si Se Puede! Yes WE CAN Achieve the American Dream!!
Posts
57 comments:
It's funny that when Delores Huerta said those words there was nothing from you, now all of a sudden, Obama is the one who brought this to light in your eyes? C'mon Dee, enough with Obama is the Messiah, the Savoiur of our country. Until he actually changes anything for the better, he is nothing more than a mere politician who said alot of things and promised many more.
President Obama began his process last night, in his victory speech, when he noted that restoring the country's health might take more than a term. In the next few weeks, he should go well beyond this:
* The deficit will be more than $1 trillion a year for several years
* The country needs a massive new fiscal stimulus
* The housing market will continue to decline through at least 2010
* Interest rates and taxes will eventually have to rise (after the economy stabilizes)
* Weak corporations have to be allowed to fail
* Millions of homeowners will lose their house
* Unemployment will probably rise to 10%
* The government simply cannot "bail the country out" -- not because it lacks the will, but because it lacks the power
* Keeping the country safe from Terrorism
In short, Obama needs to acknowledge reality, erring on the side of overstating the problems and challenges, and he needs to prepare the country for several tough years. Because if he doesn't, within six months of his taking office, the country will have forgotten all about the prior administration and will instead be blaming everything on him.
I think that is what Joe Arpaio also said during his successful bid for re-election. He probably also celebrated the defeat of prop. 202 in AZ, leaving in place one of the strongest anti-illegal statutes in the country. Bravisimo!
Dee, what I've noticed about your commenters is that they are mostly antis. And particularly vocal and persistent antis at that. Just don't get the idea that most Americans feel like they do. They don't. Your antis are louder about it because they see that their time has passed. They've even managed to drive most pro- commenters like me away out of sheer aggravation. It's their m.o.
(Sorry, Dee, I'm feeling kind of grumpy tonight.)
This new time is ours, all of ours, a time for all Americans, not just for some Americans.
And I say this as a white male who grew up in the farm towns and suburbs of the reddest of the red states--texas and utah. But I'm only 30, and I can see that the future of this country belongs to everyone in it, not just the ones who look like me.
So antis, rage away--things are changing whether you like it or not ...
You might be surprised Yave, look to the state ballots that passed, look at Arpaio. Look at what Obama is in for when he takes over office. Until he actually changes anything for the better, he is nothing more than a mere politician who said a lot of things and promised many more.
You have only HOPE, hope that things will change. We all have that to some degree, but until they do, it stays the same.
What are you going to do IF Obama renege's on his promises? How are you then going to feel?
Speaking of Obama's promises. I found this observation on another forum. The member stated that he had seen an interview conducted by Wolf Blitzer with Obama just recently and he was asked to prioritize the 5 issues that he would be dealing with once he is sworn in. The issues were the economy, healthcare, education, energy and immigration. Obama prioritized them as Wolf had asked but refused to even prioritize immigration at all and in fact totally ignored that issue even though Wolf had it on his list. Maybe Obama isn't the savior to Latinos that they had thought?
I found this comment from another blog very realistic. It explains many things, to both sides.
Black Canseco wrote:
“I feel like the Universe has granted us one hell of a “Do-Over” card. What we do with it is up to all of us.”
And therein lies the rub.
Obama’s election isn’t reparations. It’s not payback. And it’s not a license to pretend that the past never happened or is so far out of view that it’s irrelevant nor should it be an excuse to pretend that the future is so close that the present isn’t worth acknowledging.
I’m a black male, from chicago, african heritage, muslim name. I’m educated. no prison record… the crap i’ve seen in my life related to racial inequities i wouldn’t wish on anyone. only my parents saw worse and only their parents saw worse than them.
I don’t want to see Barack Obama reduced to another trophy in the America’s so-cool case right next to Motown, Jay-Z, Oprah, Bill Cosby, Michael Jordan, MLK, Jr. and Chris Rock. And i fear, that’s where this is already headed.
Barack Obama ran a post racial race aka (my race/people are only as relevant as our ability to transcend and “get over it”). Obama ran a race with almost no mention of: the prison industry complex, racial inequities in education, hypocritical foreign policy that pledges undying allegiance to Israel and European nations while condescending to if not outright-ignoring nations of color (Jamaica, Haiti, sub-sarahan Africa) almost across the board. (Granted Darfur got a random mention, but little more.)
Obama ran a campaign where the sum total of his inner-city agenda consisted of coming to my church in Chicago on Mothers’ Day last year and telling black men to raise their kids and turn the TV off.
i could go on, but lets not get ahead of ourselves.
Yave,
I agree with you.
Times are changing. Many people do not want to acknowledge the truth, like many of the ANTI commenters here.
Some people are recognizing it however, even on the Republican side of the table.
Yes Obama´s words were very inspring and very similar to my Dad´s. They were very touching.
What was more compelling however were Mort Kondracke´s words on Brit Hume´s show on Fox News. He acknowledged the failure of the Republicans was their refusal to change from the 1950s mentality to the multi ethnic society we are all living in. When he acknowledged the Republicans, McCain supporters, the people in his audience, had turned into "the Old White People´s party" Kondracke was sharing the truth and he said it out loud. Every head at Brit´s round table nodded. They too acknowledged it.
Times are changing and this is the evolution, the revolution, the reality of today, of now, of why Obama won, and why WE, my friend, why WE have won too!
Ulty, Liquid,
Arpaio may have won the election in Maricopa county but his win is the anomaly vs the wins of other elected officials this election year. As a local pundit said about their county "we still live in the backward cactus patch of Maricopa County."
Arpaio is just an old dinosaur, long past his time of relevancy.
As the pundit said, "The only scintilla of promise for justice in this benighted county is that a new Obama administration will eventually mean a new U.S. Attorney for Arizona. And a Democrat in that position might be willing to go after Arpaio on charges of corruption, abuse of power, or racial profiling."
Sandra,
Here is what you keep missing. As I said in my post, the broader issue is Obama won! The very fact he won tells us that all of us, any of us, ANY of our children CAN be President or aspire to our dreams. The multi racial society we live in promises this American Dream to ALL of us!
Immigration is one issue, an Important issue, but one issue, not the only issue. I believe he will be a good President and will work on all the issues, especially the Economy, Healthcare and getting a resolution to the War.
And what exactly is the 'truth', Dee? Obama has said many things to lead those to believe in change, what exactly is he going to change. I head you read his words carefully and understand the meanings behind what he says, as the surprise may end in your lap.
Where you and yours tend to fail, Dee, is by looking at this as a Democrat vs Republican situation, it is quite far from that.
In regards to Immigration, might I suggest looking to a Chertoff briefing and then re-reading what it was Pelosi said just last week. Try putting two and two together from that.
Obama's expectations by 'yours' are going to fail one by one, slowly and over time, it won't be until many years after Obama is out of office before anybody sees what he has done, then his judgment shall be made.
As for the anomaly.... look to CA, AZ,FL, and AR, Gay Marriage failed in all 4. AA ends in 2 states. MO now has Official English. The 5 seats taken by the Dems in the Senate, Conservative Dems not Liberal. Many, Many ballots show the outcome of the states and the desires in direction the country is headed.
I'm with you on this Dee. Just as you've inspired me to get a blog of my own, I'm inspired by Obama's words. I'm not blind to the problems the country faces; I don't look as Obama as some sort of Messiah, he is our leader. He is also the next POTUS, and a multi-cultural one at that, and some can't stand that. It doesn't solve the worlds problems, it doesn't solve the problems with race in this country, but it is certainly a step in the right direction. Aside from the numerous positive things about the next POTUS that have nothing to do with his skin, there's nothing any ANTI can say that would take away from this historical moment.
Dave, aka robles
Obama winning just tells us that for the last 8 years we have had a bad Republican Administration, that is all! The Democrats have had their bad Administrations in the past to. It is like a revolving door. The Repubs screw up and then a Dem wins the presidency and vice versa. That has been the history of politics since our country was founded. You are reading way too much into this election. It should have nothing to do with race. I wouldn't doubt that in the coming years that the Republicans would have a black candidate also.
Republicans having conservative values has nothing to do with any multi-ethnic society or that they aren't being inclusive of them. It is just that the more multi-ethnic we become the more the Democrats will be supported because of their liberal, socialist, goverment give-a-way programs. Minorities like that! It is they that are turning away from the Republican party because of that (not because the Republican party is racist or non-inclusive of minorities) and not the other way around as being implied here. Republicans are not more racist or non-inclusive than the Democrats are. "Old white people" are of the old school of morality and working for what they get instead of government handouts. This is a bad thing?
It amazes me how some people in here can't see things for what they actually are.
Words are fine, but actions speak louder than words. Until he actually changes anything for the better, he is nothing more than a mere politician who said a lot of things and promised many more.
Obama is not multi-cultural, he is multi-racial. Nobody is trying to take anything away from Obama, The only things any of us have stated is that expectations may fall short of Obama's 4 years. The question is whats going to be the feelings of all those that voted for him if he does not live up to his expectations.
sandra said: It should have nothing to do with race.
Yes, just like race should be one of a set of characterististics in criminal profiling, which isn't the case in racial profiling. I agree with you, to an extent. The country was ready for a democratic president. And our new POTUS happens to be black, or mixed race. But he represents a change. He is also a black or mixed race POTUS.
Your argument is similar to people saying that they are not racist because they are color-blind. Blacks and minorities don't want color blindness, we want people to see and accept us for more than just our color. That was never been the case in our election of US Presidents. You cannot deny or change the fact that blacks and other minorities are empowered by our new POTUS being elected. Maybe it doesn't mean the same thing for you as a white person, but I feel it. Others feel it too.
liquidmicro,
I agree with you, actions speak louder than words. He was the candidate where I thought his actions spoke louder than his words. He is the candidate that I feel will give me and us what he says he will give me and us.
To doubt a candidate is normal. Anyone in his position is faced with so much ahead. To think that there won't be letdowns is naive.
I don't doubt that he will make errors, but I'd rather see him make errors than the other guy.
Obama is not multicultural, he is multiracial. Ok. He stands for a more multicultural world. He's also the only candidate this time to say the word 'gay'. to say 'asian' in his acceptance speech. But more importantly, the context is that we are all just AMERICANS. I see him as someone who can unite the country in all it's separate parts, better than the other guy. I never said he was perfect.
With the economy in the tank, with joblessness going to 10% or more and retail, services and construction taking a big hit, do you really think Obama is going to rush to legalize 10-20 illegal immigrants who will compete for the remaining unskilled labor jobs with citizens?
Be logical.
"He was the candidate where I thought his actions spoke louder than his words."
What actions would those be, voting for the bailout? or visiting Gramma before her passing? Throwing Gramma and Aunti under the bus during his campaign?
As far as 'doubting' him, I don't. What I do doubt is that he will live up to his expectations, his words, based off his actions during his campaign.
"I see him as someone who can unite the country in all it's separate parts, better than the other guy."
I don't think anybody would disagree with that statement. Obama may be better in certain instances than McCain, and vice versa, they both had strong points opposite each other. I was a soldier, I have family who are still in the military, my preferences aren't the same as yours. My priorities are different, this can be related to differences of opinion. I'm just not sure Obama will be better for the world with his worldly ideals. Isreal, Iraq, and Syria come to mind right away.
"Obama is going to rush to legalize 10-20 illegal immigrants who will compete for the remaining unskilled labor jobs with citizens?"
Anon,
I don't know who you are directing this to, but I don't think Obama wil "rush to legalize 10-20 illegal immigrants..." I think he will prioritize actions to reflect what needs to be changed in our society and country, including CIR. I wouldn't simplify things to say that the 10-20 illegal immigrants will compete for jobs with citizens either, because that is not all there is to CIR.
something from a reader of Andrew Sullivan:
“A great deal has been made about this election being a referendum on George Bush but I think it runs much deeper than partisan politics. This election is about inspiring segments of the population that have long eschewed politics because they felt alienated by the system. It’s a living demonstration to children of all colors and ethnicities that America truly is the land of opportunity and that if they work hard there is no limit to what they can achieve. It’s an opportunity to strike back at the politics of personal destruction, xenophobia and anti-intellectualism.”
Dave,
You are mixing apples with oranges here. What does electing a black president have to do with criminal profiling? No one should vote or not vote for a president based on their race or skin color. That is racism to me. As far as criminal profiling goes, if law enforcement has a description of a law breaker it only makes sense that they would question people who fit that description.
I don't understand that with the election of Obama that anyone should feel empowered by it because of his race. Are you saying that he will be biased for minorities? I certainly hope not!
Since you seem to imply that white people are not color blind (racists) then how do you explain the huge white vote for Obama by whites? I guess you think that Democrat whites are not racists but Republican whites are? What took the Democrats so long to get a black person on their presidential ticket? I don't believe for a moment that either party wouldn't have had one before if there had been a well qualified candidate that they felt would put a win in their pockets. Obama obviously fit the bill this time around.
sandra,
I thought for a second of not posting the racial profiling comment, just cuz it's not the strongest example of what I was trying to convey. And I thought that you might think I thought there was a relation to the pres. election. There isn't. What I am trying to say is that he isn't voted into office simply because of his race. He is beyond race. But we are not color blind. We do view him as a black man (mixed race man), and that factors into looking at the total picture of the person we decided to vote, just as criminal profiling is the right thing to do, which takes into account the suspects race, among other characteristics, not like racial profiling, which limits are view to just a suspects race. Get it? apples and Oranges, maybe. As I said, the example wasn't the most obvious for the point I'm trying to make.
Since you seem to imply that white people are not color blind (racists) then how do you explain the huge white vote for Obama by whites?
i'm not implying anything of the sort. some people maybe, but not 'white people' and definitely not limited by party.
I don't understand that with the election of Obama that anyone should feel empowered by it because of his race.
i can't explain why I'm empowered but I am, (maybe you just have to be non-white) and not because I think he will put minorities first. His speech states this very clearly. We are all just ONE United States of America!
What took the Democrats so long to get a black person on their presidential ticket?
Exactly! Part of what I conveyed in my blog on how I felt on election night, (which I don't expect that you should've read it, btw, I'm just saying...) is that I felt a little resentment that this wasn't something that happened sooner, in either party. As liquidmicro pointed out for another post, there have been lots of past candidates, but none made it this far. Why not? I'm sad that just two generations ago, black people had separate drinking fountains and were expected to give up their seats to white asses on buses. I'm happy and grateful for the advancement of people of color, but I'm scratching my head wondering what takes us so long in this country to...progress. There are similarities with how we view gay people in this country also.
Liquid,
The truth I was referencing is we are a multi racial, ever evolving society.
Sara Palin was WRONG with her "Real America" comments.
At least SHE admitted her mistake!
Liquid,
Why do Republicans want to control marriages. Their support of the ANTI Gay Marriage laws are ridiculous.
Dave-Robles,
You are right!!!
Dave said...
.. there's nothing any ANTI can say that would take away from this historical moment.
Sandra,
You make so many ASSUMptions!!!
YOU are WRONG! Minorities, particularly Latinos, WORK!! Most welfare is collected by non minorities, but that is besides the point. We need to be more INCLUSIVE and ACCEPT ALL CITIZENS as Americans!
Where do you get your ASSUMptions. Wait, I know. You make them up.
BTW, since you do not like social programs, please ask your grandmother to give back her social security check each month.
sandra said...
Obama winning just tells us that for the last 8 years we have had a bad Republican Administration, that is all! The Democrats have had their bad Administrations in the past to. It is like a revolving door. The Repubs screw up and then a Dem wins the presidency and vice versa. That has been the history of politics since our country was founded. You are reading way too much into this election. It should have nothing to do with race. I wouldn't doubt that in the coming years that the Republicans would have a black candidate also.
Republicans having conservative values has nothing to do with any multi-ethnic society or that they aren't being inclusive of them. It is just that the more multi-ethnic we become the more the Democrats will be supported because of their liberal, socialist, goverment give-a-way programs. Minorities like that! It is they that are turning away from the Republican party because of that (not because the Republican party is racist or non-inclusive of minorities) and not the other way around as being implied here. Republicans are not more racist or non-inclusive than the Democrats are. "Old white people" are of the old school of morality and working for what they get instead of government handouts. This is a bad thing?
Liquid,
I just heard someone say, Obama is not stupid, not angry, not phony, and doesnt cheat on his wife.
They were comparing him to current and previous presidents.
BTW, talk about throwing people under the bus, the McCain campaign is literally throwing Palin and all of her clothes under the bus today! McCains staff are saying she didnt know Africa was a country and didnt know the countries in North America. (guess we dodged a major mistake)
What´s up with that! No one cares about her. All they are doing is trying to cast blame. Why are they doing it!!
Dave,
I love this! It is so true! Thank you for sharing!
Dave said...
something from a reader of Andrew Sullivan:
“A great deal has been made about this election being a referendum on George Bush but I think it runs much deeper than partisan politics. This election is about inspiring segments of the population that have long eschewed politics because they felt alienated by the system. It’s a living demonstration to children of all colors and ethnicities that America truly is the land of opportunity and that if they work hard there is no limit to what they can achieve. It’s an opportunity to strike back at the politics of personal destruction, xenophobia and anti-intellectualism.”
Sandra,
Here is what you are missing. Let me give you an example. Think of a country club excluding minorities and women. This happened frequently in the pre 90s.
Even though the exclusionary laws changed, the country club continues to be exclusively white male until they sign up their first minority-female member. Until the first one is finally accepted, it is not reality.
Look what happened to Tiger Woods a few years ago when he golfed at one of these type of clubs. Until the change occurs it is not real.
Now that a minority has ascended the ranks to President, we all know anyone of any color can achieve this goal.
This IS the American Dream!
sandra said...
I don't understand that with the election of Obama that anyone should feel empowered by it because of his race. Are you saying that he will be biased for minorities? I certainly hope not!
"Sara Palin was WRONG with her "Real America" comments.
At least SHE admitted her mistake!"
The discussion is not about Palin, so why bring her into it.
"Dee said...
Liquid,
Why do Republicans want to control marriages. Their support of the ANTI Gay Marriage laws are ridiculous."
CA and FL are Democratic states. The will of the people are the ones who want to control Gay Marriage. You confuse again the two parties, its not about party.
" Dee said...
Sandra,
You make so many ASSUMptions!!!
YOU are WRONG! Minorities, particularly Latinos, WORK!! Most welfare is collected by non minorities, but that is besides the point. We need to be more INCLUSIVE and ACCEPT ALL CITIZENS as Americans!
Where do you get your ASSUMptions. Wait, I know. You make them up.
BTW, since you do not like social programs, please ask your grandmother to give back her social security check each month."
This is ignorant on your part, Dee. You fail to comprehend the argument Sandra made while Dave understood it and answered intelligently.
"Dee said...
Liquid,
I just heard someone say, Obama is not stupid, not angry, not phony, and doesnt cheat on his wife.
They were comparing him to current and previous presidents."
SO WHAT!!! This was not brought up into any of the discussion. More HOT AIR from you!!!
It is a well known fact that the Democratic party is for bigger government and raising taxes to support social programs (government handouts). It is also a fact that most minorities are Democrats for those very reasons. I didn't make up what is the well known truth.
No need for sarcastic remarks in your "civil" blog. Those on SS have earned it and payed into it, it isn't a handout!
I support the right for gays or any other Americans to live the way they want to but I do not support gay marriage. Marriage as described by God's word is between a man and a woman. The Republican party stands for those conservative, traditional values.
Sandra,
Well known, by whom?
It is NOT a FACT.
PROVE IT!!
Otherwise take it back!
sandra said...
(government handouts). It is also a fact that most minorities are Democrats for those very reasons. I didn't make up what is the well known truth.
Liquid,
You are reducing yourself to one angry zealot.
I am allowed to bring up new topics on my blog.
Sheeessh!!
Liquidmicro said...
SO WHAT!!! This was not brought up into any of the discussion. More HOT AIR from you!!!
"Dee said...
Liquid,
You are reducing yourself to one angry zealot."
Poor, poor , pathetic, Dee. You had nothing for the discussion that was going on so you try to introduce your anger by throwing in Palin. The only one here who is angry is you. Your straw man argument holds no water. You brought in NO new topic, only hatred towards Palin.
"Why do Republicans want to control marriages. Their support of the ANTI Gay Marriage laws are ridiculous?"
It isn't a matter of Republican vs. Democrat. It is traditionalists vs. secular progressives.
Did you know that African Americans, who vote overwhlemingly Democratic, voted in the vast majority AGAINST gay marriage in California? And so did over half of Hispanics who also vote overwhelmingly Democratic.
The Catholic church also advocates for economic justice, but is against gay marriage.
There are many Democrats who are liberals on economic issues, but more socially conservative. People don't have to march in lock step with the secular-progressive agenda.
Here is another factor you might want to mull over: gay "marriage" is not accepted in any society or culture whether African, Arab/Middle Eastern, Asian, Eastern European, or Latin American. In fact, in Middle Eastern countries, gays are sometimes sentenced to death. Gays from Mexico come to the U.S. asking for asylum as there is so much discrimination against them there. Only in Western Europe, the U.S., Canada, and Australia is there any acceptance of the gay lifestyle on any level.
Christa just smashed the nail on the head. Now lets see if Dee understands the difference, since she is a toe the line hack.
The Democratic Party is the party of big government and entitlements; it is also the party of labor unions.
Many poor and working class people want government programs to assist them; such as, Section 8 housing, WIC, Food Stamps, Medicaide, etc. Therefore, many poor and working class Americans of all races vote Democratic as it is considered the party of the "working class." It has nothing to do with race or with Republicans "excluding" minorities.
Republicans want smaller government, less social programs, low taxes, more personal responsibility. They argue that lower taxes on business enable those businesses to create more jobs enabling people to work instead of depending on government.
The lowest 40% income earners in this country pay no income taxes; therefore, they do not care if taxes are raised to pay for more government programs from which they will benefit.
Higher earners pay the lion's share of the income taxes in this country and so it is natural that they would want smaller government and more careful spending with their tax dollars.
Some people, even though they have lower incomes, are ideologically opposed to big government as our Founding Fathers wanted limited government, less government interference, and more personal freedom and corresponding responsibility. Conversely, some high income liberals want big government quasi-Socialist government.
Personally, I would like to see a complete change in our tax system so that politicians could no longer "buy" votes by promising all kinds of entitlements and government programs and to cut down on the influence of lobbyists. Of course, that is one reason that serious tax reform will probably never happen.
At any rate, Republicans are very open to "people of color" and there are some up-and-coming non-whites in the Republican party to watch for in the coming years.
Wow, you guys seem to be attacking one another a lot here....
Christa,
Thank you. That was a clear, concise explanation.
Welcome to my blog! I hope you come back often and help us work through some of these issues.
Christa said...
"Why do Republicans want to control marriages. Their support of the ANTI Gay Marriage laws are ridiculous?"
It isn't a matter of Republican vs. Democrat. It is traditionalists vs. secular progressives.
Liquid,
You might want to learn a lesson from Christa. She provided a coherent, concise explanation and never once reverted to name calling.
Liquidmicro said...
Christa just smashed the nail on the head. Now lets see if Dee understands the difference, since she is a toe the line hack.
Liquidmicro said...
Poor, poor , pathetic, Dee.
Kimberly,
Welcome.
Many of my commenters have been with me for some time and we do tend to bicker. My blog would be like combining the members of Kos and Drudge into one forum. While we bicker, we do refrain from using profanity, as per our blog rules.
Kimberly said...
Wow, you guys seem to be attacking one another a lot here....
I shouldn't have expected you to research anything to come up with the answer, I should have provided it for you. I told you not to look at it as a Dem vs Repub situation. Mods vs Pros, Libs vs Cons, Trad vs Secul. there are many variations to look at. These are all different levels of personal beliefs.
Christa,
Good descriptions.
Four responses to your comments:
I read that the richest 1 percent of Americans possess more than the combined wealth of the bottom ninety percent and will soon grow to 95%. So when you say your comment below, it doesnt seem their numbers are sufficient enough to counter the larger population´s votes.
When I look at McCain´s audience, I did not see many of the wealthy. They appeared to be non-minority traditionalists.
Granted we are seeing more and more minority Republican pundits on the news shows, but they were not represented in McCain´s audiences.
While I do agree with your definitions for Republican, Democrat, the actual members of the parties, especially in this last election, did not necessarily fit the model.
Sandra said...
Higher earners pay the lion's share of the income taxes in this country and so it is natural that they would want smaller government and more careful spending with their tax dollars.
Dee, people vote a certain way for a variety of reasons. Some are well though out and some not. Some people are very informed as to the issues and some are not. Some vote based on logic and some vote based on emotional response to a candidate. Some people vote primarily on economic issues, some for national security issues, some on social/cultural issues. Some vote ideology and some vote their personal interests. So it is really hard to make people fit into a box.
There is no doubt that the top 5% of the income earners in this country pay the majority of taxes and that the bottom 40% pay virtually none. I will try to provide a chart which shows this clearly later.
Many very wealthy liberals voted for Obama; many of these people believe ideologically that the government should take money from those who are successful and redistribute it to those who, for any reason, are not. Technically they are not voting their own interests.
Conversely, as I said, some people who make very little are ideologically opposed to income redistributon, do not feel it is what our Founding Fathers intended, and therefore vote against it. Technically, they are voting against their own financial interests; although, it can be argued that many of these people have aspirations to someday be successful themselves and do not wish to go to a more Socialistic economic system. They feel that in the long run, the redistributive model slows down the economy and threatens their long term prospects for increased prosperity.
Here is an excellent report which contains detailed information on who is really paying the taxes in this country.
As you will see, we are becoming a country in which people who pay little or no taxes are increasingly being able to vote themselves more social programs paid for by a shrinking minority of tax payers.
Although the incomes of the top earners has risen, so has their tax burden. That will only increase when the tax cuts expire. This report explains in detail the tax picture.
We are already operating in an astronomical deficit.
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=14434
Christa,
A chart would be helpful. Thank you.
Christa said...
There is no doubt that the top 5% of the income earners in this country pay the majority of taxes and that the bottom 40% pay virtually none. I will try to provide a chart which shows this clearly later.
Sorry, Dee, here you go. From the Tax Foundation:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/press/show/22652.html
This is easy to read. The top 50% of income earners in the country pay 87% of the taxes. The bottom 50% pay little to no taxes as I previously said.
See the situation we are getting into?
Christa,
I agree. It is hard to put people in a box.
Your comments caused me to think about why I vote as I do. I think many of our ideals are formed in our early years.
For the long time readers of my blog, they know that when I was in elementary school, we studied the Kennedy-Nixon race. We were encouraged to study the backgrounds of both candidates and select a candidate. I selected JFK. I saw him when he visited the city I lived in. I wrote to him and he sent me an autographed picture. When my class voted, of course I voted for him.
My parents also voted for him. My Dad was a strong union supporter plus I think JFK being a Catholic (and so were we) factored into it.
We were all thrilled when he won. We followed his Presidency and were devasted when he was assassinated.
Many of us young people in the sixties believed in the idealogies supported by the Democrats including the Civil Rights Movement, Women´s Rights, Peace. It wasn´t so much about entitlements, it was more about an equal playing field for all.
Christa said...
Dee, people vote a certain way for a variety of reasons. Some are well though out and some not. Some people are very informed as to the issues and some are not. Some vote based on logic and some vote based on emotional response to a candidate. Some people vote primarily on economic issues, some for national security issues, some on social/cultural issues. Some vote ideology and some vote their personal interests. So it is really hard to make people fit into a box.
Sorry, I am at work and rushing to do all of this. I read the chart wrong. I should have said that the top 50% pay almost 97% of the taxes instead of 87%. My bad! But you can clearly read it for yourself Dee I am sure.
Christa,
The other thing you caused me to think about was voting for the candidates/party vs the separate proposals on the ballot.
I think the proposals can fool people. It all depends upon the wording. Many people do not familiarize themselves with the proposals.
I know when I voted there were several proposals and you did not have to vote on them. You could opt just to vote for the candidates. I wonder how many people did that. I wonder how many people were confused by the wording of various proposals.
I want to study this issue a little more. It would seem to me Republicans would want more of these type of issues put on state ballots so they have an easier time passing their views.
Since the gay marriage issue came up on this thread, I thought some might be interested in this exit poll regarding Prop 8 in CA:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=CAI01p1
Well if 100 people were in the California survey, it would mean White Republicans, primarily male (older) voted for the Ban on Gay Marriage although the latino men and women asked in the survey were more in favor than not. And YES, it was mostly Republicans.
YES NO
White men 16 15
white women 15 17
black men 0 0
black women 4 1
latino men 5 3
latino women 6 5
other races 5 4
by Party ID
Dem 12 30
Rep 23 6
Indy 12 16
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=CAI01p1
You still can't get around the fact that 70% of blacks and 53% of Latinos voted against gay marriage.
Since both blacks and Latinos voted overwhelmingly for Democrats, it obviously is an issue that cuts across party lines.
More Republicans are opposed to gay marriage than Democrats, but this is to be expected as secular-progressives are represented in the Democratic Party while most traditionalists are in the Republican party; however, there are Democrats who are also traditionalists as I explained earlier who are more liberal on economic issues and conservative on social issues.
Christa,
The percentages are misleading.
Let me explain why.
My husband, two sons and I voted. I am the only one who voted on proposals. They only voted for the candidates.
When I looked at the exit interview surveys, it said Black Men NA. That means they either didnt vote on the bills or they didnt answer. The number of blacks were 4 out of 100 people asked and 3 of them voted yes. That is hardly a group overpowering the vote.
Your case for Latinos was a little stronger. Out of every 100 surveyed, 19 were latinos and of the 19, 11 said yes.
latino men 5 3
latino women 6 5
This was California. Either they were not being surveyed or they were not voting the proposals, as they choose.
As you page down through the survey, overwhelmingly the vast majority who voted against the bill were older white Republicans.
Christa said...
You still can't get around the fact that 70% of blacks and 53% of Latinos voted against gay marriage.
Since both blacks and Latinos voted overwhelmingly for Democrats, it obviously is an issue that cuts across party lines.
More Republicans are opposed to gay marriage than Democrats, but this is to be expected as secular-progressives are represented in the Democratic Party while most traditionalists are in the Republican party; however, there are Democrats who are also traditionalists as I explained earlier who are more liberal on economic issues and conservative on social issues.
Again, to your point of the 4 black females or 19 Latinos, they may have been Democrat-Liberals who voted for the Ban on Gay marriage due to personal reasons, but their numbers are small.
Post a Comment