Are Democrats actually the Party of racism and sexism?

[96Qowner]

For a very long time Democrats have been touting themselves as the Party of minorities and women. They say Republicans are racists, because they don't tend to offer preference to Blacks and oppose Affirmative Action. They say Republicans are sexist because they don't favor preferential treatment for women or actively work for women's causes and oppose Roe v Wade.

Yet ... this year the Democrats have nominated a Presidential candidate purely because he's African American and are busy heaping scorn on a Republican woman because she'd have to neglect her family in order to be VP.

Republicans, meanwhile have appointed Powell, a Black man, and Rice, a Black woman, as Sec of State. Republicans have now nominated Palin for VP, something Democrats are opposing vehemently.

To Democrats a minority is valued if he identifies himself as a minority and works for minority causes. To Democrats a woman is valued if she identifies herself as a woman and actively works for women's causes. They value people according to their gender and race.

Republicans have been electing and appointing minorities and women whose reputation and claim to fame are NOT based on their gender or race.

So, who are the racists and sexists? Can't you hold a important position without prostletizing for your own narrow-minded, personal cause? Does Rice "claim" to be Black or a woman? Does Palin "claim" to be a woman? Did Powell "claim" to be Black? How 'bout Ferraro, the only woman Democrats have ever run for VP. As I recall, she definitely worked for women's causes and made much out of being a woman. Hillary? She's made a career out of being a woman. And Obama? When he started his campaign last year, I was very impressed that he didn't "claim" to be a Black man. But as we learned more, we learned that he was ALL Black man during his years in Illinois.

It's ... disconcerting, harsh. I'm starting to think that Democrats view people through racist and sexist glasses, brought to mind after watching the Democratic Party operatives trash Palin in such a despicable manner. Susan Estrich, of all people, complained about it last night.

Look out, Democrats, your Party is in the process of destroying all its credibility on race and gender issues.

[Jesda]

<- PITY ME I AM BROWN!

/dnc platform

[wingFeather]

Look out, Democrats, your Party is in the process of destroying all its credibility on race and gender issues.

This is something I've been aware of for a long time, and why I find the attacks from the Democratic cult so absurd. Carter, Clinton (especially with his involvement with Monica... actions against his marriage). I am amazed, however, that they've been able to fool so many people for so long... and recruit new members.

[Jimefam]

If that were the case jesse jackson would have been the nominee in 88. To say that barack obama was nominated because he was black is laughable and completely without merit as is typical of your posts. What are you basing this on? what poll did you see of barack obama supporters claiming there reason was he is black?

[96Qowner]

Ok, deny it all you wish.

Claim that a white freshman Senator from Illinois with no accomplishments would have beaten Hillary or Biden or any other white candidate.

Claim that being biracial has nothing to do with Obama's popularity.

Claim that he is a phenomenon, NOT because of his race, but because he's been so effective as a freshman Senator.

Typical of my posts? Huh? Clearly, you haven't read my posts. Maybe you're thinking of telco or Bob.

[wingFeather]

what poll did you see of barack obama supporters claiming there reason was he is black?

It is self-evident that nobody would publicly admit to voting because of race. However, you can tell that it is the #2 reason (right under party afiliation) that people vote for him. This can be demonstrated on most internet forums when you speak up & let people know you're not voting for him. The most popular response is... "you're racist!!!" Now, why would that be a response if race wasn't on their minds?

a white freshman Senator from Illinois with no accomplishments would have beaten Hillary or Biden or any other white candidate.

+1 If that we're possible, we would have seen it in 2008...

[rn79870]

Yet ... this year the Democrats have nominated a Presidential candidate purely because he's African American and are busy heaping scorn on a Republican woman because she'd have to neglect her family in order to be VP.

That is one of the more ridiculous statements I've read anywhere on the net regarding why Obama was selected. I don't suppose that came from a random fact generator did it?

Republicans, meanwhile have appointed Powell, a Black man, and Rice, a Black woman, as Sec of State. Republicans have now nominated Palin for VP, something Democrats are opposing vehemently.

Again, a swing and a miss. you don't suppose Powell was actually qualified for the job do you, I mean he was the highest ranking officer in the military for a while. Not an easy position to obtain for any man.The Dems actually don't oppose Palin. They totally support her appointment.

To Democrats a minority is valued if he identifies himself as a minority and works for minority causes. To Democrats a woman is valued if she identifies herself as a woman and actively works for women's causes. They value people according to their gender and race.

Again, a ridiculous assumption on your part, and of course, without any authority to back it up.

Republicans have been electing and appointing minorities and women whose reputation and claim to fame are NOT based on their gender or race.

You want a list of dems doing the same? Another uninformed statement.

So, who are the racists and sexists? Can't you hold a important position without prostletizing for your own narrow-minded, personal cause? Does Rice "claim" to be Black or a woman? Does Palin "claim" to be a woman? Did Powell "claim" to be Black? How 'bout Ferraro, the only woman Democrats have ever run for VP. As I recall, she definitely worked for women's causes and made much out of being a woman. Hillary? She's made a career out of being a woman. And Obama? When he started his campaign last year, I was very impressed that he didn't "claim" to be a Black man. But as we learned more, we learned that he was ALL Black man during his years in Illinois.

Hint. Many people are color blind in this day and age. Many people look to the man/woman and his/her deeds and judge that person based on that information.

Playing the race card is an ignorant thing to do in 2008. It appears that this is what you are doing. I hope I'm wrong.

It's ... disconcerting, harsh. I'm starting to think that Democrats view people through racist and sexist glasses, brought to mind after watching the Democratic Party operatives trash Palin in such a despicable manner. Susan Estrich, of all people, complained about it last night.

Trashing is a strong word. Pointing out facts, well documented facts is not trashing, it's appropriately examining a candidate.

Look out, Democrats, your Party is in the process of destroying all its credibility on race and gender issues.

Race and gender issues are not part of the Democratic platform. Women's rights, equal opportunity etc. are national issues and as such are part of that platform. But oh wait, they are in the Republican platform to one degree or another too.

[Marenta]

Barak is black. He has no experience, and the only missive he has is the fact that he can walk on water, cure diseases, and turn water into wine.

Frankly, if the Dems wanted to win, the should've put Hilary on the ticket. But, they didn't. They couldn't. Heaven forbid if you win the presidency because you have a black man and white woman in office together. Screw who the white woman's husband is, screw the fact that he screwed in the same office that Obama wants to win, and screw the fact that he lied about it. I don't think nonpartisan person exists, and the most biased seem to be collecting in the Dem party.

Anyway, back to the original topic. Reps are non-biased, I just want to see an equal part of that non-bias be spread to the Dems as well.

Playing the race card is an ignorant thing to do in 2008. It appears that this is what you are doing. I hope I'm wrong.

Affirmative Action, much?

[rn79870]

It is self-evident that nobody would publicly admit to voting because of race. However, you can tell that it is the #2 reason (right under party afiliation) that people vote for him. This can be demonstrated on most internet forums when you speak up & let people know you're not voting for him. The most popular response is... "you're racist!!!" Now, why would that be a response if race wasn't on their minds?

+1 If that we're possible, we would have seen it in 2008...

The #2 reason. From your random fact generator? Perhaps if you preface that with "in my opinion, it is the #2 reason." At least that would make your position much more clear.

[rn79870]

.Anyway, back to the original topic. Reps are non-biased, I just want to see an equal part of that non-bias be spread to the Dems as well.

Affirmative Action, much?

Reps are non bias? Are you saying the Dems are the ones raising the race issue, 'cause I haven't seen that. Perhaps you forget that the dems are the first party to have a female VP candidate. That's bias too?

[Marenta]

Reps are non bias? Are you saying the Dems are the ones raising the race issue, 'cause I haven't seen that. Perhaps you forget that the dems are the first party to have a female VP candidate. That's bias too?

If that's the case, then how come they didn't put Hilarity as the VP or P candidate? It would have for sure given them the win.

[Jesda]

If that's the case, then how come they didn't put Hilarity as the VP or P candidate? It would have for sure given them the win.

Barack is bitter.

[wingFeather]

The #2 reason. From your random fact generator? Perhaps if you preface that with "in my opinion, it is the #2 reason." At least that would make your position much more clear.

Yes, correct. I will restate my message:

From my personal discussions with Obamanites, affirmative action seems to be their #2 justification for electing such a man. Scientifically, we cannot know with absolute certainty the motivations of people. Even polls cannot tell you the truth, only which checkbox the participant wishes to excel.

IMHO, Obamanites are also voting for him out of fear of blacks across the country rioting if he loses. Kind of like a Rodney King reaction. This opinion is based on many discussions with Obamanites.

End of line.

[szh]

If that's the case, then how come they didn't put Hilarity as the VP or P candidate? It would have for sure given them the win.

Because, the Clintons (yes, I mean plural) did not, and probably still do not, really like him at all.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITI....html

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITI....html

http://www.iht.com/articles/20...n.php

http://www.nydailynews.com/new....html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new....html

It got very personal.

Z

[wingFeather]

If that's the case, then how come they didn't put Hilarity as the VP or P candidate? It would have for sure given them the win.

Because, in my opinion, based on speeches & on Obama's demeanor, he is "getting back" at her, rather than doing what is right for this country. He is good at that, and it was a topic at the RNC...

[Jimefam]

Ok, deny it all you wish.

Claim that a white freshman Senator from Illinois with no accomplishments would have beaten Hillary or Biden or any other white candidate.

Claim that being biracial has nothing to do with Obama's popularity.

Claim that he is a phenomenon, NOT because of his race, but because he's been so effective as a freshman Senator.

Typical of my posts? Huh? Clearly, you haven't read my posts. Maybe you're thinking of telco or Bob.

As I said zero facts . But okay lets look at your "Proof". Biden or any other candidate besides obama had zero chance of defeating hillary. She rightfully should have won this election if not for her campaign getting to comfortable and not setting up organizations in every state as obama did. When he won the first election in Iowa he got the moment and never reliquished it. The problem with hillary was she had been in the public spotlight to long and people in that position carry alot of baggage. It was a very close even though she was playing catch up after her slow start.

He is so popular and is a phenomenon for the same reason JFK was, He is young, charasmatic and relatively inexperienced which to many people mean that he hasn't been corrupted by the same old ideas and party politics. He is an excellent orator, the night of his speech even all the republicans on this board and elsewhere were praising him for it. And he gives those kind of speeches all the time. It is very inspiring. But this is pointless to point out you and many people on this board have already made up your minds about both candidates and are interested only in the soap opera aspect of the race. Pathetic

[rn79870]

IMHO, Obamanites are also voting for him out of fear of blacks across the country rioting if he loses. Kind of like a Rodney King reaction. This opinion is based on many discussions with Obamanites.

End of line.

You realize of course, that a large percentage of Obama's following are voting for him because they see the last 8 years as a dismal failure by the republican party and they don't want any more of the same? I've never heard anything fear of a riot comments from any of the Obama supporters I've talked to.

[wingFeather]

you and many people on this board have already made up your minds

Ouch!!!

In my opinion, it is FAR from pathetic to have a running conclusion at this point in time. We're getting close to an election, and I like to have months of thought and research under my belt by now. Besides, Obama is a quick study for those who aren't bound to the Democratic party. What you consider inspiring oratory skills, many people consider slick political lies.

PS - How's that Evo doing?

[wingFeather]

a large percentage of Obama's following are voting for him because they see the last 8 years as a dismal failure by the republican party and they don't want any more of the same?

Well, right there is proof of the narrow minds who support Obama. They hate Bush, and they ignorantly believe that somehow McCain & Palin will be the "mcsame" just because they're Republicans.

That is as bad as saying Obama is JFK junior messiah allah... because they were both Democrats.

That is as bad as saying Nissan is FAIL because they made the (insert your least fav model here).

[The Wicker Man]

Barack is bitter.

Michelle was the reason Hillary didnt get to be VP. They cant stand each other.

[rn79870]

Well, right there is proof of the narrow minds who support Obama. They hate Bush, and they ignorantly believe that somehow McCain & Palin will be the "mcsame" just because they're Republicans..

Actually, we look to McCain's voting record (scarse as it has been) in congress and see that he has supported Bush over 90% of the time.

In fact, offering this as evidence of my claim,...

The Gallup/USA Today poll found that 68% of voters said they were concerned when asked whether they thought McCain would pursue "policies that are too similar to what George W. Bush has pursued." Of those polled, 49% said they were "very concerned."

If that many people are concerned about what they see as more of the same, there must be something to that claim.

[wingFeather]

Actually, we look to McCain's voting record (scarse as it has been) in congress and see that he has supported Bush over 90% of the time.

Oh gosh, if Bush was for it... then it MUST have been bad!!! Shame on McCain for voting for bad things!

But seriously, this means little when you consider that Obama voted (for example) against the war, but is now flopping on that vote. So that would align him as making choices similar to Bush... the "warmonger"! So Obama is black Bush 2.0 by that logic.

If Bush is for good things, and McCain is for good things, then YES their votes will align. It doesn't mean they will run the country the same for four years.

But it does mean that Obama voted "present" more times than I care to think about when I pay his salary every April

[smockers83]

You realize of course, that a large percentage of Obama's following are voting for him because they see the last 8 years as a dismal failure by the republican party and they don't want any more of the same?

Isn't that what happened two years ago? Now look where we're at.

The Republicans were the ones who freed the slaves back in 1865.

Affirmative action has been gotten rid of in Democratic states (something I actually support).

Democrats have always claimed to be the party for minorities, the middle class, and what not, but I've never believed it. For example, the middle class. Tax policies are that they reduce taxes on them, however they increase taxes on businesses which forces businesses to cut back on jobs that middle class people fill, which is something Obama wants to do. There are paradoxes in his tax plan and the so called Democratic ideals.

[srellim234]

McCain's adherence to a shared conservative or social ideal with another individual (in this case, the current President) is not the issue. He shares SOME common philosophies with the President. So what?

McCain's abdication of his duties as a Senator, failing to shw up for the majority of votes, IS an issue. The sme applies to Obama.

McCain-Palin, on the surface, looks very much like more of the same when you base it on actions, not rhetoric.

McCain is not even close to the maverick he was in 2000. Lobbyists high up in the McCain campaign as advisors. McCain confused as to which Muslim groups are really the people we are fighting. Hot temper.

Palin's actions, not words, that support earmarks, bigger government, higher taxes, redistribution of wealth and mismanagement of projects.

I can easily see where people might be afraid of McCain-Palin as being "more of the same", whether or not the perception is correct or incorrect.

[rn79870]

Oh gosh, if Bush was for it... then it MUST have been bad!!! Shame on McCain for voting for bad things!

Yes, that's how 68% of the people polled felt. I assume you feel the majority is wrong in their opinion.

[wingFeather]

I assume you feel the majority is wrong in their opinion.

It would appear so, when it comes to these anti-Bush polls

[0wn3r]

yes

just like affirmative action / equal opportunity employers.

[/thread]

[mtcookson]

Actually, we look to McCain's voting record (scarse as it has been)

Eh?? Scarce??

McCain's time in the Senate:Total votes cast - 5,263Total votes missed - 797Percent missed - 13.7%

(The highest number of votes missed were in election years 2000 and 2008 being 198 and 399 respectively. That is nearly 75% of his missed votes meaning he didn't miss a whole lot while not running for President).

Anyway... I'd hardly call 5,263 votes "scarce".

[wingFeather]

I'd hardly call 5,263 votes "scarce".

OWNED!!! ...and I bet that they weren't "present" votes like Obama pushes.

[szh]

Eh?? Scarce??

McCain's time in the Senate:Total votes cast - 5,263Total votes missed - 797Percent missed - 13.7%

(The highest number of votes missed were in election years 2000 and 2008 being 198 and 399 respectively. That is nearly 75% of his missed votes meaning he didn't miss a whole lot while not running for President).

Anyway... I'd hardly call 5,263 votes "scarce".

Interesting! What are Obama's numbers?

Z