# Barack the Magic Negro'-gate



## Big Don (Jan 1, 2009)

[FONT=Palatino, Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=+2]Barack the Magic Negro'-gate[/SIZE][/FONT]
[SIZE=-1]Posted: January 01, 2009
1:00 am Eastern
Larry Elder
WorldNetDaily
Excerpt:

[/SIZE] 
   This is how the whole thing started.  
David Ehrenstein, a writer who happens to be black and liberal, wrote an opinion piece in March 2007 in the Los Angeles Times called "Obama the 'Magic Negro.'" 
He argued that whites, according to sociologists, stereotype blacks as "dangerous." But whites consider Obama accessible, likeable and "benign." This, according to Ehrenstein, explains Obama's "crossover" appeal. 
The article insults a) Obama, by virtually ignoring his effectiveness as a candidate, b) whites, by accusing them of voting for Obama merely to assuage their own guilt and c) Sidney Poitier, the brilliant, groundbreaking actor, for ascribing his success to whites who find him safe and nonthreatening. 
The article produced virtually no outcry.  
Conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh then aired a song parody  set to the music of "Puff the Magic Dragon"  called "Barack the Magic Negro." Referring to the Times article, an Al Sharpton-like "singer" called Obama inauthentically black. Why, complained the singer, should white folks vote for Obama rather than a true black man "from the hood" like  me. 
Chip Saltsman, a candidate for chairman of the Republican National Committee, sent the song on a CD with 40 other songs, in a Christmas mailer to committee members. Doesn't the mailer, asked several cable news programs, expose the Republicans  yet again  for their tone deafness on the issue of race? CNN host Anderson Cooper asked about the term "Negro." Isn't it pejorative? 

End Excerpt
Quoted for emphasis:
David Ehrenstein, a writer who happens to be *black* and *liberal*, wrote an opinion piece in March 2007 in the Los Angeles Times called* "Obama the 'Magic Negro.'" 
*
If you haven't heard the song, you should, it is hilarious, and so obviously a jab at Sharpton, hearing the song you cannot draw the conclusions the left is trying to draw for you.
Read the full column. Elder makes some very nice points that some of you will NOT like. But, like gravity, just because you don't like them...
Here, Rush explains the song PARODY to a caller


----------



## elder999 (Jan 1, 2009)

Big Don said:


> David Ehrenstein, a writer who happens to be *black* and *liberal*, wrote an opinion piece in March 2007 in the Los Angeles Times called* "Obama the 'Magic Negro.'"*


 
And, I should add, Mr. Ehrenstein isn't exactly a fan of Barack Obama. IN any case, _his_ piece, found here, was really more about a cultural phenomenon-and one that may or may not be genuine, at that-than it was about Barack Obama, though he was certainly the catalyst. I say that Mr. Ehrenstein is no fan of Barack Obama, in part because of his take on this alleged cultural phenomenon, and in part because he is a _gay activist_, and continues to have some genuine issues with Mr. Obama in this regard. In any case, the original piece in the LA Times wasn't insulting to white voters, Barack Obama or anyone else-contrary to what Mr. Elders alleges the piece from the OP. 

It was a bit of fluff cultural commentary. It was just silly.



Big Don said:


> If you haven't heard the song, you should, it is hilarious, and so obviously a jab at Sharpton, hearing the song you cannot draw the conclusions the left is trying to draw for you.
> Read the full column. Elder makes some very nice points that some of you will NOT like. But, like gravity, just because you don't like them...
> Here, Rush explains the song PARODY to a caller


 
Sure, the song is funny. As parodies go, it's a bit mean spirited, and quite low-brow, but it's completely appropriate for Mr. Limbaugh's program, and the median aggregate mental capabilities of his target audience. :lol: 

In other words, it was written so that not-very intelligent, resentful amd mean spirited people could have something to laugh at.
_It's just silly._

It is, however, inappropriate for the Republican party to use it in the fashion in which they did. They're allegedly trying to get blacks to join the party and vote Republican in larger numbers, _and this simply isn't the way to do it._ It was stupid, and strategically short-sighted. It should come as no surprise that some were offended, considering the source -and you didn't hear any outcry when Rush ran it, because it's about what you expect from him. The inclusion of the song on a Christmas greeting CD from the RNC was not very smart, and inappropriate, but mostly, well-mostly _it was just silly._

Mr. Elder's points aren't even relevant  to any modern issue facing either party or white or black America today. The inclusion of a "history lesson" on the racial demographics and history of each party in this case is not only irrelevant to the issue at hand-_it's just silly._

And, I should add that almost all the fuss over this is coming from the media, and the Republicans. There has been no response or request for an apology from Obama, or the Democratic National Committee. I'm fairly certain that they feel about the same as I do about the whole thing.

_It's just silly._ :lfao:


----------



## DavidCC (Jan 2, 2009)

seems to demonstrate some of the reasons the GOP is failing.. near-sighted focus on what they believe is their core audience


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 2, 2009)

I found about 4 different variants on Youtube.  Cute, bad, offensive, boring, etc.  
People need to realize, there's nothing really Magic about Obama.  He won an election, he did so by a respectable margin, but he didn't landslide, he didn't destroy his opponent, no "messages" were sent, etc.   He's yet another young and charismatic man who managed to win an election. 

But, it's not a "miracle".


----------



## Twin Fist (Jan 2, 2009)

the GOP is hardly failing.

This presidential election was STILL close in numbers, despite having a press corps 100% in the tank for the dems, having an economic crisis, MANUFACTURED by dems, a month before the election and a candidate that REFUSED to play hard ball with the enemy.

McCain could have easily won IF:
1- he played hard ball with obama's associations and judgement
2- he played hardball with naming the dems responsible for the housing debacle
3- he played hardball with the press
4- he played hardball with and pointed out that the dems have controlled congress for the last 2 years before the election
4- he played hardball and reminded everyone that the surge WORKED, and Obama was against it
see a trend here?


this election was no rout of the republican party, it was closer to a set up job on a candidate that wasnt willing to FIGHT for it.


----------



## DavidCC (Jan 2, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> the GOP is hardly failing.
> 
> This presidential election was STILL close in numbers, despite having a press corps 100% in the tank for the dems, having an economic crisis, MANUFACTURED by dems, a month before the election and a candidate that REFUSED to play hard ball with the enemy.
> 
> ...


 
so why did the GOP field such a weak candidate? IMHO myopic focus on their core membership.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Jan 2, 2009)

Oh, I'm sorry, were you still operating under the quaint assumption that the voters were still the ones who picked who wins and loses an election? I would find it very hard to believe, given how things played out, that the winner and loser weren't scripted.

They all have the same bosses.


----------



## tellner (Jan 2, 2009)

All I can say is "Stay classy, Republicans. So far you're keeping in character."


----------



## Big Don (Jan 2, 2009)

DavidCC said:


> so why did the GOP field such a weak candidate? IMHO myopic focus on their core membership.


I doubt that, the GOP's core hates John McCain.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 3, 2009)

DavidCC said:


> so why did the GOP field such a weak candidate? IMHO myopic focus on their core membership.


 By all winds of politics the Democratic Party SHOULD have been able to run the DNC janitor and win this election.....8 years of the Republicans in power, unpopular conflict, economic problems......the Republicans weren't going to lose because the Republicans are finished as a party, they were going to lose because the pendumlum swings toward the other direction naturally in times like this......and fielding such a mediocre candidate could be viewed as a mistake......or it could be viewed as not wasting a better candidate on an election that's doomed to failure!

There was nothing spectacular about Obama's showing.....in fact, i'd be concerned if I were the DNC about only winning by 9 million votes......during large portions of this race McCain the mediocre candidate was neck and neck with Obama.  Obama BETTER have some magic over the next 4 years, because he promised an awful lot!


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 3, 2009)

tellner said:


> All I can say is "Stay classy, Republicans. So far you're keeping in character."


 Not that the DNC has any kind of lock on 'Classy' behavior......in fact, the DNC and it's proxies are so notoriously unclassy that it's no real story when something like this flies out from the left. 

Limbaugh intended the very reaction he got....a bunch of knee-jerks from folks thinking 'GOTCHYA YOU SOB!' and declaring this proof of Limbaugh's racism......only to get the inevitable deflation when confronted by the reality that it's a parody of the LA Times......in that sense it was BRILLIANT!  And worked quite well.


----------



## Gordon Nore (Jan 3, 2009)

tellner said:


> All I can say is "Stay classy, Republicans. So far you're keeping in character."



The part about this story that I'm unclear about is this quote from the WorldNetDaily piece from the opening thread:



> Chip Saltsman, a candidate for chairman of the Republican National Committee, sent the song on a CD with 40 other songs, in a Christmas mailer to committee members.



I get the sense that Saltsman, not necessarily the RNC, is responsible for distributing this to committee members. Why did he send it at all? _The LA Times_ piece by David Ehrenstein became the excuse (not the inspiration) for Limbaugh's little musical parody, written by Paul Shanklin, an excuse to bandy about the word _Negro_. Saltsman's piece describes more benign cenematic images of the "Magic Negro," as a non-threatening, almost asexual persona that comes to the aid of white protragonists. The article, which I'd give a "C," focuses on pop culture examples and doesn't really have any political legs. 

The song parody itself was -- and I agree very much with Elder's comments -- "low-brow," maybe a notch or two above a "coon joke." As an aside, I remember many years ago when Limbaugh briefly had a syndicated televsion show in addition to his radio broadcasts. In the early episodes, Limbaugh used a split-screen effect, where half the picture would show prominent African-American women like Betty Shabazz or Joycelen Elders, with Limbaugh on the other half of the screen making faces, clearly making fun of the way they speak.

Now, as for Limbaugh himself, I love the quote in the OP where he's explaining the song to a listener who objects to the use of the word _Negro_.



> CALLER:  Okay.  Yeah, so that was my question there.  You know, I feel like as a country that we should definitely be propelling forward, and this generation, and bringing light to the rest of this world.
> 
> RUSH:  Well, I can tell you think the term negro is inappropriate, that it's old hat and shouldn't be used, that it's divisive and this sort of thing, and you may have a point, *but remember what we do on this program. We illustrate absurdity by being absurd,* and the other element of this is that Sharpton has been quoted in the New York Post as being jealous that Obama is getting all this support as a black presidential candidate.  Remember, Joe Biden said, "Hey, we got the first clean, articulate, intelligent black guy running for president."  How do you think this makes Sharpton feel?  He's run for president twice.  How do you think it's going to make the Reverend Jackson feel?  So the story was that there's a little jealousy out there.  So, these two things just fit together. It was like a harmonic convergence here on this, Uriah. Now that you know the context and the details, let's listen together to Al Sharpton and "Barack the Magic Negro."



So when did Limbaugh develop all this sympathy for Sharpton and Jackson? Nah, the cut and thrust of this is that Limbaugh gets to use the lamest excuse in the world. _It's ok for me to promote the use of the word Negro, because I hear a black person say it._

The story itself is silly. Mr Obama has shown no signs of distress, and Limbaugh has been caught in the act of being himself.


----------



## Marginal (Jan 3, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> the GOP is hardly failing.
> 
> This presidential election was STILL close in numbers, despite having a press corps 100% in the tank for the dems, having an economic crisis, MANUFACTURED by dems, a month before the election and a candidate that REFUSED to play hard ball with the enemy.
> 
> ...


If he hadn't pandered to a useless base by picking Palin. 
If he hadn't sung "Bomb bomb bomb Iran...."
If he hadn't picked up Rove for his campaign...


----------



## Big Don (Jan 3, 2009)

Marginal said:


> If he hadn't pandered to a useless base by picking Palin.
> If he hadn't sung "Bomb bomb bomb Iran...."
> If he hadn't picked up Rove for his campaign...


If he hadn't spent the ten years prior to his campaign pissing off the Republican base...
If he hadn't outraged the Republican base by sponsoring a bill that would have given amnesty to illegals...
Picking Palin is the only thing that got him as many conservative votes as he did. 
The only one's rooting for McCain during the primaries were the media and the democrats, the ones who saw he'd be an easy target.


----------



## Marginal (Jan 3, 2009)

Big Don said:


> Picking Palin is the only thing that got him as many conservative votes as he did.


Moral conservatives perhaps. She alienated everyone else. 

I truly dearly hope she sticks around for 2012.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jan 3, 2009)

marginal, I get it. You are a partisan, you cant or wont say ANYTHING good about ANYONE on the other side, and while that makes me sad for you, I get it

people LOVED Palin, for the same reason people loved Bush in 2000.

they are both regular people, that the common man can relate to.

that is the same reason ironically that the liberals loath them both.

A person cant see themselves as the "elite" if they are _too common_. And liberals love to think they are the elite.....

Palin was a genius choice, everyone BUT hardcore liberal partisans loved the gal.

Be carefull what you wish for, give that lady 4 years with some smart handlers, and she will kick your obamasiah's *** in 2012


----------



## Marginal (Jan 3, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> people LOVED Palin, for the same reason people loved Bush in 2000.
> 
> they are both regular people, that the common man can relate to.


Does that guff about me being a partisan mean you're not supposed to be a partisan, tf? 

The only thing I see is an unreasoning fear of electing someone perceived as smarter than the voter. (Which is flat out moronic. Someone capable of leading, not someone capable of being led should be in the higest office.)

The common man best relates to a pampered rich kid? 

The common man relates to a woman who hangs around with witch doctors, and unapologetically grifts city and state offices as well as the GOP itself? (She comes off as a younger version of Blago.) 

These ain't the heady bootstrappy stories of self made people that are supposed to be held so dearly by the common man. 

The elite label is such a load. Bush *is* an Elite. The only reason it's wheeled out is in the event that one candidate is perceived as educated while the other appears dumber than a bag of hammers. 

I'd be perfectly willing to vote for a Republican candidate if they came across as thoughtful and/or intelligent. Once they roll out the "hur hur hur", I'm gone.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jan 3, 2009)

the funny part is, everything you JUST said is the exact opposite of reality.

And no, I am not  a partisan. I have voted for dems, and for independants (voted for perot, TWICE)

I dont believe for one second that you have EVER voted for a conservative. Your head would explode first.

The common man isnt afraid of someone smarter than they are, but they dont have much tolerance for someone talking DOWN to them, such as "we know better what to do with your money than you do, so we are gonna raise your taxes, trust us, we're smarter than you" a hallmark liberal posistion (translated from politico to english)

Bush doesnt come across as a pampered rich guy. he comes across like your next door nieghbor. Mine anyway, dont know about yours...

And every single BS accusation you libs hurled at Sarah palin failed, was proven false and/or misleading, and showed JUST how scared of her you were.

because people LOVED her

You can sit around at your cocktail parties and tell yourselves that she alianated people, but it is just mental masturbation

people LOVED her. The people. She is a totally 100% self made person. She wasnt born rich, she didnt attend an ivy league school, yet she won a mayorship, then a state goveners office. All while taking on corruption in her own party. That is simply the facts. Lie to yourself all you want, but that way lies defeat and humiliation.

you guys lost in 2000 and 2004 because you underestimated the other side. Do yourself a favor and dont do it again in 2012. Just because someone has a little accent that annoys you, doenst mean he or she is stupid and not to be taken seriously.


But, to get back to the topic, the parody song is totally right in one respect, you KNOW sharpton and Jackson are seriously pissed about the Obama win, aside from the fact he pulled off something they couldnt, he has effectivly put them out of work.

No one can cry about the man holding them down NOW.


----------



## Marginal (Jan 4, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> I dont believe for one second that you have EVER voted for a conservative. Your head would explode first.


Believe what you like. 



> The common man isnt afraid of someone smarter than they are, but they dont have much tolerance for someone talking DOWN to them, such as "we know better what to do with your money than you do, so we are gonna raise your taxes, trust us, we're smarter than you" a hallmark liberal posistion (translated from politico to english)


Eh. Not much different than, "We've got to protect the rich, because we might be rich someday." (All while grinding away at some go nowhere job.)



> Bush doesnt come across as a pampered rich guy. he comes across like your next door nieghbor. Mine anyway, dont know about yours...


Bush IS a pampered rich guy. Doesn't really matter how he comes across. That is the fact of his existence. 



> And every single BS accusation you libs hurled at Sarah palin failed, was proven false and/or misleading, and showed JUST how scared of her you were.


I dunno. That's an awful a lot of smoke. 



> You can sit around at your cocktail parties and tell yourselves that she alianated people, but it is just mental masturbation


George Will's efforts, not mine. 



> people LOVED her. The people. She is a totally 100% self made person. She wasnt born rich, she didnt attend an ivy league school, yet she won a mayorship, then a state goveners office. All while taking on corruption in her own party. That is simply the facts. Lie to yourself all you want, but that way lies defeat and humiliation.


Bush went to an Ivy league school. Bush was born rich. 

Obama worked to get into an Ivy league school. He's the legendary bootstrappy guy you all claim to hold as an ideal. Heck, Bill Clinton's a better example than Bush or Palin too in terms of self production. 



> Just because someone has a little accent that annoys you, doenst mean he or she is stupid and not to be taken seriously.


Meh. She'll be impeached by then. 




> But, to get back to the topic, the parody song is totally right in one respect, you KNOW sharpton and Jackson are seriously pissed about the Obama win, aside from the fact he pulled off something they couldnt, he has effectivly put them out of work.


By appealing to the common man more successfully than an old rich white dude did.


----------



## jarrod (Jan 4, 2009)

i just want to throw in that, as a moderate, palin scared the hell out of me.  i didn't vote for obama because the 2nd amendment is important enough to me to lose my vote if a candidate doesn't support it.  i didn't like that both candidates supported the bailout because it flies in the face of capitalism & fiscal conservativism.  so i'm not speaking as someone coming from the far left here.

any chance mccain had of winning my support went out the window when he selected palin.  she does come off as down to earth, & i'm sure she would make a fine neighbor.  but she had little experience, is married to a succesionist & spoke in support of that group, & said that the iraqi war was a task appointed to us from god.  anytime a politician starts citing god as a source of authority, i get twitchy.  & it's not because i'm not a christian.  if you look at the bible, the rulers that god worked through weren't exactly benevolent (herod, the pharoahs, etc).  

above that, she's an airhead.  i can kind of understand choking on national tv & not being able to name a single newspaper or news magazine.  but not naming one when you graduated with a degree in communications & journalism is a bit much.  really, nothing about her inspired any faith in her ability to lead.  for my end, it has nothing to do with elitism & everything to do with not believing she is competent, informed, or capable.  

just my $.02,

jf


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 4, 2009)

jarrod said:


> i just want to throw in that, as a moderate, palin scared the hell out of me.  i didn't vote for obama because the 2nd amendment is important enough to me to lose my vote if a candidate doesn't support it.  i didn't like that both candidates supported the bailout because it flies in the face of capitalism & fiscal conservativism.  so i'm not speaking as someone coming from the far left here.
> 
> any chance mccain had of winning my support went out the window when he selected palin.  she does come off as down to earth, & i'm sure she would make a fine neighbor.  but she had little experience, is married to a succesionist & spoke in support of that group, & said that the iraqi war was a task appointed to us from god.  anytime a politician starts citing god as a source of authority, i get twitchy.  & it's not because i'm not a christian.  if you look at the bible, the rulers that god worked through weren't exactly benevolent (herod, the pharoahs, etc).
> 
> ...


 Palin's experience was more extensive than Barry's.......so those attacking Palin based on her experience have to do some real logical gymnastics to argue their support for Barry.

A lot lies began flying around as soon as Palin was announced......I wouldn't just buy all the campaign BS hook, line and sinker.

And let me make clear......I don't represent the religious right......i'm agnostic myself.  But I don't buy in to the Dimocratic Underground/Daily Kook demonization either of those candidates who do actually believe in god.

This isn't directed at you, as you clearly aren't expressing a support for Barry......but I find a great hypocrisy in Barry fans who deride Palin's lack of experience......as opposed to their junior Senator from Chicago who's only PAST experience is a vague reference to 'Community Organizing'......and as to pointing to Palin's husband, and the nebulous tied to a decade and a half dead Alaska seperatist......that's humorous given Barry's long relationships with racist anti-government types, one of whom was his pastor and religious adviser of 20 years, who is quite clear in his black liberation theology views.

That having been said......I would have voted Libertarian if that party had enough support that it wouldn't be throwing the election to the leftists.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 4, 2009)

Marginal said:


> Moral conservatives perhaps. She alienated everyone else.
> 
> I truly dearly hope she sticks around for 2012.


 She may.....but I doubt Papa Doc Barrack is going to be sticking around past 2012 though. 

Jimmy Carter's second term in progress as of January 20.


----------



## jarrod (Jan 4, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> Palin's experience was more extensive than Barry's.......so those attacking Palin based on her experience have to do some real logical gymnastics to argue their support for Barry.
> 
> A lot lies began flying around as soon as Palin was announced......I wouldn't just buy all the campaign BS hook, line and sinker.


 
like i said, obama wasn't the candidate for me either.  but it was kind of b.s. for mccain to call o obama on experience then select palin.  iirc, the repubs started the whole experience critique.  less than two years as gov. of alaska doesn't qualify her for much.

as for the other stuff, it's pretty well documented.

here's the war & god comment, for instance.





 
jf


----------



## Carol (Jan 4, 2009)

Given Caroline Kennedy's impending nomination to be the next NY senator, it would appear that inexperience is only a criticism of Republican candidates. 

Of course, if Sen. McCain had chosen a more experienced running mate such as Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME), she may have been dismissed as "another beltway insider".  

Of course that would have subjected all of us to several news cycles of bad kneeslapping jokes about how the state of Maine has a "Senator Snowe"


----------



## Big Don (Jan 4, 2009)

Carol Kaur said:


> Given Caroline Kennedy's impending nomination to be the next NY senator, it would appear that inexperience is only a criticism of Republican candidates.
> 
> Of course, if Sen. McCain had chosen a more experienced running mate such as Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME), she may have been dismissed as "another beltway insider".
> 
> Of course that would have subjected all of us to several news cycles of bad kneeslapping jokes about how the state of Maine has a "Senator Snowe"


Snowe would have been a less surprising choice than Palin, just because a whole lot of republicans see both of them as RINO's


----------



## Big Don (Jan 4, 2009)

jarrod said:


> as for the other stuff, it's pretty well documented.
> here's the war & god comment, for instance.
> 
> 
> ...


Oh. You are another one of those...
You hate and deride Republicans like Palin, Bush and Ashcroft when they make religious statements, because they actually believe in following the tenets of their religion. Yet, when Ted Kennedy, who professes to be Roman Catholic and yet, divorced and remarried, that is A-OK, because using religion to get votes is different than actually believing. Or when Obama is, for TWO DECADES a member of a black church whose pastor says nice little things like "God Damn America" that has no bearing on Obama, because no one expects democrats/liberals to believe in or to try to live up to the tenets of their religion. But, boy oh boy, let a Christian Republican stumble and fall and you are all over them like stink on ****... Bill Clinton had Jesse Jackson for his spiritual adviser during the Monica Lewinski incident, and only republicans found a minister who in his adultery fathered a child, counselling a President whose adultery was open and notorious, funny.


----------



## jarrod (Jan 4, 2009)

Big Don said:


> Oh. You are another one of those...
> You hate and deride Republicans like Palin, Bush and Ashcroft when they make religious statements, because they actually believe in following the tenets of their religion. Yet, when Ted Kennedy, who professes to be Roman Catholic and yet, divorced and remarried, that is A-OK, because using religion to get votes is different than actually believing. Or when Obama is, for TWO DECADES a member of a black church whose pastor says nice little things like "God Damn America" that has no bearing on Obama, because no one expects democrats/liberals to believe in or to try to live up to the tenets of their religion. But, boy oh boy, let a Christian Republican stumble and fall and you are all over them like stink on ****... Bill Clinton had Jesse Jackson for his spiritual adviser during the Monica Lewinski incident, and only republicans found a minister who in his adultery fathered a child, counselling a President whose adultery was open and notorious, funny.


 
try again don.

i was very critical of clinton during the lewinski debacle, & i'm very critical of political pandering on any level, religious included.  

lol at "believe in following the tenents of their religion".  yeah jesus was a big fan of war.  people are absolutely free to follow the tenents of their religion as far as i'm concerned.  they are not entitled to lead this nation by the tenents of their religion, however.

jf


----------



## jarrod (Jan 4, 2009)

you know don, it's not always useful to categorize people so narrowly as "one of these" or "one of those".  there are all kinds of in betweens, & i think that's what lost this election for the republican party.  i like my church & state seperate, period.  it's just as big an issue to me as 2nd amendment rights.

jf


----------



## Twin Fist (Jan 4, 2009)

well, you may be right jarrod, but you are a victim of  apress crorps that flat out lied to you,.

niether Palin nor McCain EVER, as in NEVER NOT EVEN ONCE tried to enact law based on thier religious views.

that little tidbit was never covered, but the Palin comment about god and war sure was.....

you claim to be an open minded guy, so clearly you were a victim of propaganda carried out by a 100% partisan press


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Jan 4, 2009)

Stupid press.


----------



## Marginal (Jan 4, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> She may.....but I doubt Papa Doc Barrack is going to be sticking around past 2012 though.
> 
> Jimmy Carter's second term in progress as of January 20.


It'll be funny if you're right. By then, you'll have no guns, and will be living in communal housing to boot. (The unisex paper toga only law of 2010 will further enhance our environmentalism and combat global warming.) The terrorists will also apparently have taken over the parts of the country that refused to go communist, so I'm not sure how we'll manage elections in that environment.


----------



## Carol (Jan 4, 2009)

Warning: rant ahead  

IMO The McCain campaign failed for deeper reasons than personal likes/dislikes.   

*2004:  The GOP had the better, more organized campaign*
When President Bush ran for reelection in 2004 he was running heavily on a platform of defense and security...which, alone, may not have been enough for him to score the 270 electoral votes needed for re-election.  With the nation still digesting the impact of gay marriage being legalized in Massachusetts, Karl Rove put a lot of outreach efforts in to states that had gay marriage issues on the ballot in an attempt to bring out religious conservatives that typically vote Republican.   

*2008:  The Democrats had the better, more organized campaign*
The McCain campaign copped the same strategy and failed.  Our military gains in the Middle East meant Sen. McCain's message about defense was met with voters thinkking "It's the economy, stuipid".  The gay marriage issue was still one of controversy, but the shock value has worn off.  This was met with an Obama campaign that spoke more to the economic concerns, with talk of increasing the regulation of corporation and rolling back the "Bush tax cuts for the rich."    The message was enough to inspire a lot of volunteers.  For the 6-8 weeks before the election, there were Obama supporters literally coming to my door to canvas and campaign (even when they were told they were not welcome).


Which...coming back to the topic of the thread....brings me to why I didn't like the song.   When listiening to the Rush Limbaugh show in 1998, Rush was talking about the importance of being positive about issues.  He was essentially lambasting some gloom-n-doom lib'ruls about sticking to and their "America sucks" message.  In his commentary, he said "Optimistic people get more done than pessimistic people."   I stopped what I was doing at that moment and put that quote up on my office wall.   Which...is why the parody (and its CD) falls flat.   The CD smacks of self-indulgent hand-wringing rather than the strong, proudly positive messages espoused by Limbaugh et. al. a decade ago.  

End rant.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jan 4, 2009)

since the person singing the song is supposed to be Sharpton, i think it wins Carol.


----------



## Carol (Jan 4, 2009)

Yeah I know its supposed to be Sharpton...and I get that its a jab at how someone with a strong, positive message defeats the victimhood-style politics of Sharpton et. al.   But there was an overall undercurrent to the CD that I found a bit depressing.  

Enough negative talk from me though.   I'd rather practice what I preach.


----------



## jarrod (Jan 4, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> well, you may be right jarrod, but you are a victim of apress crorps that flat out lied to you,.
> 
> niether Palin nor McCain EVER, as in NEVER NOT EVEN ONCE tried to enact law based on thier religious views.
> 
> ...


 
i'm not going on what the press said, i'm going on what palin said.  "iraq is a task appointed to us by god".  that's not what god told me.  

jf


----------



## Big Don (Jan 4, 2009)

jarrod said:


> i'm not going on what the press said, i'm going on what palin said.  "iraq is a task appointed to us by god".  that's not what god told me.
> 
> jf


Way to totally ignore what he said, and the point!


----------



## jarrod (Jan 5, 2009)

Big Don said:


> Way to totally ignore what he said, and the point!


 
swing & a miss!

thanks for playing don.

be sure to turn in your losing ticket for the second chance drawing!

:roflmao:

i guess i have a hard time taking your criticism of deflection super-serious, for some odd reason...

jf


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 5, 2009)

jarrod said:


> like i said, obama wasn't the candidate for me either.  but it was kind of b.s. for mccain to call o obama on experience then select palin.  iirc, the repubs started the whole experience critique.  less than two years as gov. of alaska doesn't qualify her for much.
> 
> as for the other stuff, it's pretty well documented.
> 
> ...


 Certainly the PRESIDENT needs more experience than his vice-president.....so the hypocrisy is more imaginary than anything else. 

If Barry had been running for VICE-PRESIDENT you might have had a point.....but historically there are many vice-presidents with no experience as such......so the REVERSE is actually the truth.....it's ASININE for the DEMOCRATS to hit Palin on 'experience' when she's running as VP, and has at least as much experience as their candidate for top man.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 5, 2009)

Carol Kaur said:


> Given Caroline Kennedy's impending nomination to be the next NY senator, it would appear that inexperience is only a criticism of Republican candidates.
> 
> Of course, if Sen. McCain had chosen a more experienced running mate such as Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME), she may have been dismissed as "another beltway insider".
> 
> Of course that would have subjected all of us to several news cycles of bad kneeslapping jokes about how the state of Maine has a "Senator Snowe"


Experience only matters when it's a Republican without any.  If the Republican has PLENTY of experience, say....like John McCain, then 'youth and freshness' are what matters.

I take offense less that the Democrats use those arguments, as it should be expected that they will say what is necessary to win.....what I take exception to is people actually believing it!


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 5, 2009)

jarrod said:


> try again don.
> 
> i was very critical of clinton during the lewinski debacle, & i'm very critical of political pandering on any level, religious included.
> 
> ...


 Unless that religion is 'socialism' of course. 

I firmly believe that the left despises the religious right because they rightfully see it as a competing religion!


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 5, 2009)

Marginal said:


> It'll be funny if you're right. By then, you'll have no guns, and will be living in communal housing to boot. (The unisex paper toga only law of 2010 will further enhance our environmentalism and combat global warming.) The terrorists will also apparently have taken over the parts of the country that refused to go communist, so I'm not sure how we'll manage elections in that environment.


 Oh, there'll be guns......and terrorists......but in true leftist fashion, Obama will have turned HIS attention toward 'the enemy within'.....so it'll be American citizens who are declared 'terrorists'.

Get ready for more American children 'saved from abuse' by being burned alive in their own compounds.


----------



## elder999 (Jan 5, 2009)

Big Don said:


> Oh. You are another one of those...
> You hate and deride Republicans like Palin, Bush and Ashcroft when they make religious statements, because they actually believe in following the tenets of their religion.


 
They may have _believed_ they were following the tenets of their religion, but Bush's actions of Ashcroft's support of them certainly weren't Christian.

There is not one Bush policy or ideology that cannot be found to be contrary to basic Chrisian tenets and scripture:

Bush&#8217;s budget and tax policies reward the rich;they do not show compassion for poor families. (Matthew 25:35-40, Isaiah 10:1-2)

Bush&#8217;s policies did not protect the earth;they serve corporate interests that damage it. (Genesis 2:15, Psalm 24:1) 

Bush&#8217;s policies pursued "wars of choice" , and do not respect international law and cooperation in responding to real global threats. (Matthew 5:9)

Bush may well not have told the truth in justifying war and in other foreign and domestic policies. (John 8:32) 

Bush confused the roles of God, church, and nation and saw evil only in our enemies but never in our own policies. (Matthew 6:33, Proverbs 8:12-13 )

His positions on weapons of mass destruction, HIV/AIDS-and other pandemics-and genocide around the world did not obey the biblical injunction to choose life. (Deuteronomy 30:19)

And, Don't forget, _WWJT?_ 

_*W*ho *W*ould *J*esus *T*orture?_ :lfao:


----------



## jarrod (Jan 5, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> Experience only matters when it's a Republican without any. If the Republican has PLENTY of experience, say....like John McCain, then 'youth and freshness' are what matters.
> 
> I take offense less that the Democrats use those arguments, as it should be expected that they will say what is necessary to win.....what I take exception to is people actually believing it!


 
point taken. still, i look at the v.p.'s experience a little more closely when the top man is a 74 year old cancer survivor. but yes, obama's experience leaves a lot to be desired. nevertheless, he's elected & i'm willing to let the man be in office for a few days before i start tearing him down. 



sgtmac_46 said:


> Unless that religion is 'socialism' of course.
> 
> I firmly believe that the left despises the religious right because they rightfully see it as a competing religion!


 
i see the far left as a bunch of elitist over-spenders trying to tell me how to live, as opposed to the far right which is a bunch of religious fundies trying to tell me how to live. 

furthermore, both sides show near-equal socialist tendencies so far as i can tell.  the bailouts are as socialist as it comes  

like i've said before, these issues really aren't so simple as left vs. right. the great tragedy is that the powers that be have everyone thinking that it is.  

jf


----------



## jarrod (Jan 5, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> Oh, there'll be guns......and terrorists......but in true leftist fashion, Obama will have turned HIS attention toward 'the enemy within'.....so it'll be American citizens who are declared 'terrorists'.
> 
> Get ready for more American children 'saved from abuse' by being burned alive in their own compounds.


 
right you are...sadly bush laid the groundwork for this to be done with the patriot act.  roving wire taps & no legal rights for enemy combatants in the war on terror...leaves a pretty frightening range of power for any future adminstration that chooses to target "the enemy within"

jf


----------



## Twin Fist (Jan 5, 2009)

wrong again elder, Bush spent more on african AIDS than any other president

the tax cuts created jobs, and boosted the economy, thats being pretty nice to the poor

as far as that genocide rap goes, i guess saving muslims in bosnia (clinton) is ok, yet saving kurds in Iraq is not ok, somehow?

you are playing fast and loose again elder, when you are smart enough to know better.

i suspect you are just playing devil's advocate to try and stir things up again


----------



## Twin Fist (Jan 5, 2009)

my point jarrod is that never as in not even ONCE had either Palin or McCain tried to make thier religious beliefs into LAW

THAT is the point.

and maybe god didnt tell you the war in iraq was your duty to him

so what?

you wernt in charge. You think God has to give the same message to everyone?

thats pretty damned presumptous............



jarrod said:


> i'm not going on what the press said, i'm going on what palin said.  "iraq is a task appointed to us by god".  that's not what god told me.
> 
> jf


----------



## elder999 (Jan 5, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> my point jarrod is that never as in not even ONCE had either Palin or McCain tried to make thier religious beliefs into LAW......


 

Well, she did proclaim a Christian Heritage Week :lol:

Actually, her record on abortion kind of supports what you're saying-Alaska actually liberalized their abortion laws on her watch.


----------



## Carol (Jan 5, 2009)

She personally supports a ban on gay marriage, but ended up voting against a ban on gay marriage for Alaska because she found it to be unconstitutional.


----------



## jarrod (Jan 5, 2009)

lol, twin fist, i love you man.

jf


----------



## jarrod (Jan 5, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> my point jarrod is that never as in not even ONCE had either Palin or McCain tried to make thier religious beliefs into LAW
> 
> THAT is the point.
> 
> ...


 
so what?  so god told ME that he didn't want this war, & what he tells me is the truth!  are you calling god a liar?  talk about presumptuous.

no, palin never tried to pass a law based on religious beliefs.  you don't need to pass a law to continue an unjust war.  i'm not comfortable with her potentially governing based on what she thought god told her, since i KNOW for a fact god didn't say that!

jf


----------



## Twin Fist (Jan 5, 2009)

jarrod said:


> since i KNOW for a fact god didn't say that!
> 
> jf


 
maybe not to *YOU*


----------



## elder999 (Jan 5, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> wrong again elder, Bush spent more on african AIDS than any other president


 
Actually, on the one hand, you're quite right-this is one part of his "legacy" that's nothing but positive. On the other hand, his insistence upon "abstinence only" sex-ed in*our* country, and cutting of funding for programs that get condoms to kids is hardly supportive of HIV prevention.




Twin Fist said:


> the tax cuts created jobs, and boosted the economy, thats being pretty nice to the poor


 
Ri-ght. I suppose that's why we have the highest unemployment rate in more than 25 years....

The Bush administration and Congress have scaled back programs that aid the poor to help pay for $600 billion in tax breaks that went primarily to those who earn more than $288,800 a year. 

To offset the loss of the tax revenue, the administration has amassed record federal deficits and trimmed social spending.The affected programs &#8212; job training, housing, higher education and an array of social services &#8212; provide safety nets for the poor. Many programs are critical elements in welfare-to-work initiatives and were already badly underfunded.

A six-month Detroit News investigation showed that as a result of the withering government assistance, working poor and destitute Americans are increasingly likely to be placed on waiting lists for help, receive reduced services, or be denied service entirely. 

The News, after interviewing scores of people across the United States and examining thousands of pages of federal and state financial records, determined the loss of services cost many poor Americans more money than they saved from the tax cuts. 




Twin Fist said:


> as far as that genocide rap goes, i guess saving muslims in bosnia (clinton) is ok, yet saving kurds in Iraq is not ok, somehow?


 
One could probably argue that his father was responsible for the Kurdish genocide in Iraq-not to mention that there was no genocide taking place when he invaded.



Twin Fist said:


> you are playing fast and loose again elder, when you are smart enough to know better.
> 
> i suspect you are just playing devil's advocate to try and stir things up again


 
Not "stirring things up," just pointing out that, contrary to what Big Don posted, Bush's policies aren't in alignment with Biblical teachings. _By your acts,He will know you..._ and all that...:lfao:


----------



## elder999 (Jan 5, 2009)

VBack on topic, though-this was a very dumb thing for him to do:



> Chip Saltsman's CD gift containing a parody song called "Barack the Magic Negro" may have upped the candidate's profile in the coming Republican National Committee chairmanship race but the attention may not be the kind or amount Saltsman needs.
> 
> The former Tennessee Republican Party chairman drew considerable focus to himself after the gift, with its controversial song, was first reported by news media, but much of it was critical.
> 
> *Saltsman showed he doesn't have "what it takes" to expand the party by reaching out to black and Hispanic voters, Republican strategist Margaret Hoover told FOXNews.com.*


 
As seen here from Fox News


One has to wonder as well, which of the people it was that received the CD and leaked it to the press....


----------



## celtic_crippler (Jan 5, 2009)

I didn't realize "God" actually was on record as supporting a candidate, the war in Iraq, or anything else for that matter.

I mean...do we have it on DVD, CD, DVR, VOD...anything? Pardon me for not taking your word for it, but I'd prefer to hear the gospel straight from the horses mouth. 

...and...I don't know about the rest of you...but...if/when my leaders start following ANY voice they hear only in their head..well...I say it's time they checked into a padded cell. 

Anyway..O-Back on O-Topic....

"Magic Negro" is just childish and a reflection of just how far we haven't come as a species it ain't even funny. What's Biden supposed to be then? The Mystic Cracka'? I'm far from PC, but this is ridiculous.


----------



## elder999 (Jan 5, 2009)

celtic_crippler said:


> I didn't realize "God" actually was on record as supporting a candidate, the war in Iraq, or anything else for that matter..


 
Contrast:



> Sir, my concern is not whether God is on our side; my greatest concern is to be on God's side, for God is always right *Abraham Lincoln*


 
Compare:



> *God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them." --George W. Bush **Ha'aretz**,*
> 
> the New York Times reported Bush as saying, "''Events aren't moved by blind change and chance''..., but by ''the hand of a just and faithful God.'' From the outset he has been convinced that his presidency is part of a divine plan, even telling a friend while he was governor of Texas, *''I believe God wants me to run for president.''*


----------



## Marginal (Jan 5, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> Get ready for more American children 'saved from abuse' by being burned alive in their own compounds.


There's a reason they're called "Kids on fire" I guess. 

(Really though, if you don't want to die in a fire, don't pour gas on your head then play with a Zippo. Pretty simple.)


----------



## Empty Hands (Jan 6, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> Palin was a genius choice, everyone BUT hardcore liberal partisans loved the gal.



As usual, your opinions are blessedly free of actual empirical backing. Even in October she had a 44/49 favorable/unfavorable rating.  I guess half of America are now hardcore liberal partisans.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jan 6, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> Papa Doc Barrack



Seriously? _Seriously_? This makes the Bush/Hitler stuff look rational in comparison.  

The dictator of Haiti?  _Seriously?_


----------



## Twin Fist (Jan 6, 2009)

Empty Hands said:


> As usual, your opinions are blessedly free of actual empirical backing. Even in October she had a 44/49 favorable/unfavorable rating.  I guess half of America are now hardcore liberal partisans.



and that poll was from......?

thats right, the MSM, who were so busy....giving Obama the Lewinsky that they lied, omitted, failed to do thier job, however you want to put it, they flat out LIED about anything and everything related to the campaign.

even IF the poll is accurate, all it proves is how well the midia was lying to the public


----------



## elder999 (Jan 6, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> and that poll was from......?
> 
> thats right, the MSM, who were so busy....


 
Not quite.



> The Center is an *independent* opinion research group that studies attitudes toward the press, politics and public policy issues. We are best known for regular national surveys that measure public attentiveness to major news stories, and for our polling that charts trends in values and fundamental political and social attitudes. Formerly, the Times Mirror Center for the People & the Press (1990-1995), we are now sponsored by The Pew Charitable Trusts and are one of seven projects that make up the Pew Research Center, a nonpartisan "fact tank" that provides information on the issues, attitudes and trends shaping America and the world.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jan 6, 2009)

I guess you missed this part Elder:



Twin Fist said:


> even IF the poll is accurate, all it proves is how well the midia was lying to the public



I allow that the poll might be fairly conducted, and reported, and if so, it proves that the propaganda job the media did for the Obamasiah was very, very effective


----------



## Empty Hands (Jan 6, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> and that poll was from......?
> 
> thats right, the MSM, who were so busy....giving Obama the Lewinsky that they lied, omitted, failed to do thier job, however you want to put it, they flat out LIED about anything and everything related to the campaign.
> 
> even IF the poll is accurate, all it proves is how well the midia was lying to the public



So does this mean that not only hardcore liberal partisans dislike Palin?  I get so confused.

I wish I was as skilled at deflection as you, I would never lose another sparring match.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jan 6, 2009)

it isnt a deflection, its a PARRY

and I stand by my opinion


----------



## jarrod (Jan 7, 2009)

i think it comes down to whether you think the politicians are lying, or the media is lying. personally i think that politicians lie slightly more than the media. 

at any rate, my original point on this thread what that i'm not on the far left, & i never liked palin.  i also don't think i was brainwashed by the media, since my opinion was largely formed based on her actual words within their context.  

remember, it swings both ways.  even though they deny it, limbaugh, hannity, o'reilly, et al are part of "the media" as well.  

jf


----------

