www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-sen03.html is the link to the article and for the record, Alan Keyes is a MD resident. interesting to say the least...:rolleyes:

C'mon E, I'm an Alpha. I know just about everythang.

here's a freebie from me to you...your boy, Obama, will win in November. ;)

The surge of interest in Barack Obama after his speech to the Democratic National Convention is spilling over to a book he wrote a decade ago, with a first edition copy going for $255 on eBay and pre-release orders for a new edition already putting it on best-seller lists. Books Section
USA TODAY

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp..._ot/obama_book

Political: Ran for U.S. Senate out of Maryland in 1988 and 1992, president in 1996 and 2000. Best known for opposition to abortion, homosexual rights and affirmative action.

And they think he can beat Obama??? He's never held office!! I think I need that glass of negro please now.

I'm going to Toys-R-Us and buying one of these babies. That way, whenever I see Dubya, Cheney, or heck, maybe even Sistah Condie, I can shoot at my TV Elvis-style without actually damaging my equipment. :D

CTFU! I may join you.

And BTW, since most people come here, I will post this interesting article on Barack Obama:

An Appeal Beyond Race
By SCOTT L. MALCOMSON

Published: August 1, 2004

ON Tuesday, at about 9 p.m., Barack Obama was an Illinois state
legislator running for the Senate.

A half-hour later, after he had given the keynote address at the
Democratic National Convention, he was the party's hot ticket. Pundits even predicted he would be the first black president.

That's a lot to hang on one speech. But the reaction to his speech
tells you a lot about racial politics in the United States today.

Mr. Obama, 42, was not raised by black parents. His mother, who is white and from Kansas, split with his father, a Kenyan economist, when he was just a toddler. His father returned to Africa - and visited his son just once, when Barack was 10.

Meanwhile, Mr. Obama's mother and her parents raised him, mainly in Hawaii. He did not grow up in a black world and his family had no particular connection to the black experience in America. Yet Mr. Obama had black skin and that made him, like it or not, a black man with a place in the centuries-long story of race in America.

Mr. Obama seems to have realized early on that his situation would present him with some odd and complicated choices. In his memoir, "Dreams From My Father," he writes that he did not talk much about his mother's whiteness because he feared that "by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites" - a shrewd assessment of white people for a 12-year-old, and an even shrewder assessment of himself.

He would, therefore, go in the world as black because he thought it was the right thing to do, and because - it's clear from his book - he loved and missed and was mad at his father.

Not that he was always treated "simply" as an African-American. True, he was pulled up several rungs of the ladder by one of the black political barons in Illinois, Emil Jones Jr. But he also faced
you're-not-black-enough criticism from black rivals.

More important for his Senate race and his new role on the national stage, Mr. Obama's ability to win white votes is what has made him such a rising political figure. In the primary race for Senate, "two of his voters were white for every one that was black, and that makes him a star," said David Bositis of the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, a Washington research group.

Mark Blumenthal, who did polling for one of Mr. Obama's white primary opponents, said, "I don't think voters look at him stereotypically."

When Mr. Blumenthal removed African-Americans and most
college-educated liberals from his sample of Democratic voters, he
still found Mr. Obama's share going to 28 percent from 5 percent in just a few weeks near the end of the campaign. Mr. Bositis noted that Illinois voters have long been more willing than most to elect black officials, but this strong an appeal remains remarkable.

Yet some political analysts have wondered whether white voters don't also find him attractive because, while he is black, he is not the direct product of generations of black life in America: he is not black in the usual way.(ST's note: this has generated a lot of tongue-wagging on some of my other boards.)

In a May article about Mr. Obama in The New Republic, Noam Scheiber wrote, "The power of Obama's exotic background to neutralize race as an issue, combined with his elite education and his credential as the first African-American Harvard Law Review president, made him an African-American candidate who was not stereotypically African-American."

Certainly, Mr. Obama did not, in his convention speech, sound the
familiar notes of African-American politics. He spoke much more as an immigrant, whose father came to the "magical place" of America.

"In no other country on earth is my story possible," he said.

Orlando Patterson, a sociologist at Harvard, said Mr. Obama is part of "a transcending culture" that goes beyond particular identities.

"I see him as in the tradition of Colin Powell, and of a generation
that wants to emphasize American identity rather than racial
identity," Professor Patterson said.

Mr. Obama's immigrant story echoed President Woodrow Wilson's words to a group of immigrants: "If some of us have forgotten what America believed in, you, at any rate, imported in your own hearts a renewal of the belief. If I have in any degree forgotten what America was intended for, I will thank God if you will remind me." (Of course, as a segregationist Wilson did not have people like Mr. Obama's father in mind.)

In citing Thomas Jefferson's opening words on equality from the
Declaration of Independence, Mr. Obama also broke the mold;
African-American politicians have not cited those words without
sarcasm and qualification for many years, if ever.

Rather than positioning him within a black tradition, Mr. Obama's
speech evoked, through his and his family's varied races, trades and professions, a diversity that aims at unity.

His biography gave him a credibility no one else could have: he was able to identify with the poor and the Arab-American, with immigrants, with African-Americans. In other contexts, he has identified with
white farmers - people like his mother's family.

Most people can find something to identify with in Barack Obama, and he can find something to identify with in them. We have never had a politician quite like this.

It may be a paradox, but only someone this rare could be so universal.

I will not be watching the Republican convention for what? I've experienced more than once the effect of their so called policies toward education and employment. When Regan was in office jobs were tight and thus the same thing with Bush, all they are for is tax breaks for the wealthy. They can not relate to the average american especially African Americans, I wish I could have gone to Yale and gone to Law School and been Governor of Texas what are my chances of doing that-- as An African American Female --next to none! I know more about being President then Bush does. That's why I've decided to go with Kerry, at least he's sympathetic to those who don't happen to be born wealthy and who still earn their money the good old-fashioned American way-work - if your lucky enough to find it here in America! Something is wrong when I as an educated African American Women can't get a break- I pray for some Affirmative Action- because I haven't seen any for me -employment wise! Level the playing field Mr. Bush! GO TO JOHNKERRY.COM if your ready for a change! Lord, I would hate to see four more years of this!

speaking of Barak Obama, he now has competition in the form of Alan Keyes. Alan Keyes, a non-IL resident who spoke against Hillary Rodham Clinton in her run for the NY Senate as a non-resident. Alan Keyes, a professional "runner" who has yet to win an election.
this oughta be interesting:rolleyes: :confused: :mad:

He probably is just cannon fodder. If Obama's that popular and if he's going to win, I can't see the Illinois GOP putting up a more promising candidate against Obama. I did see an interesting article in one of the Chicago papers that said Keyes could f*** up what was described as a moderate suburban coalition that some GOPers were doing thre.

I saw a (fake) bumpersticker on a website that said:

KEYES 2004
You're gonna be voting for a black guy anyway.

I about died. :D

The Daily Bushism
 

This is priceless. Spoken at the Unity 2004 (Minority journalists) conference:

We actually misnamed the war on terror, it ought to be the struggle against ideological extremists who do not believe in free societies who happen to use terror as a weapon to try to shake the conscience of the free world. - GWB

Oh and another goody - when asked what he thought about tribal sovereignty for Native Americans in the 21st century, that man in DC said this:

Tribal sovereignty means that, it's sovereign. You're a -- you've been given sovereignty, and you're viewed as a sovereign entity. And, therefore, the relationship between the federal government and tribes is one between sovereign entities.

The full transcript is here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0040806-1.html

As someone once said, vote early, and vote often! ;)

I feel what the original author is saying here, but somewhere in the back of my squirrelly little brain, this reads like "there are black people, and there are (insert N-word)." I admit it's a stretch, but it's the same argument that people -- bigoted people -- use to talk about the differences between black immigrants and black Americans.

It's been said on other forums, but...

I really think Keyes is just running to get some of his ideas out there; much like candidates like Dennis Kucinich was doing in the presidential election. It's a way to try to bring issues to light and possibly affect legislation.

More power to him, but this still looks like a runaway for Obama.

I think your "squirrely little brain" (LOL) is on to something and although it may be a stretch, I think that could be true. Years ago, I read this book called Hard Living on Clay Street for one of my college classes, and the subjects, who were Caucasian, referred to the difference between "good colored" :rolleyes: and insert n-words.

KSigkid,

i believe that's true. so much so that if Keyes actually did win, for the first time after several tries, i think his eyes would bug out of his head upon hearing the announcement and his mind would be like, "so what h#% do i do now?" he's prepared to discuss why he thinks America is going to Hell but not prepared to work to keep us from going there:rolleyes:

ttt

I'm sorry, but I about died laughing at the title of this thread! The RNC...racial diversity? BWAHAHA!

I feel an oil and water analogy coming on.

CTFU! CTFU!

You are not alone on that!

But hey, there are all of two black republicans out there, right?

If anyone saw any coverage. I felt as though they were trying to keep the camera on someone of color. :confused:

As far as the topic of the thread goes, my local paper had that as a headline, so I said...GC: Why not? :p

i watched some of it last night. i saw the folks of color, thanks to the camera folks:p i'm trying to stick w/it for the rest of the week but i don't know...it's not terribly exciting...:rolleyes:
and now for today's Bushism...the "war on terrorism may not be won". so, why are we to support this military exercise in futility? enquiring minds want to know...:(

I noticed that too. I 've been watching snippets of the speeches and listening to the commentary on what Republicans have said about Democrats. I personally wish they would stick to the issues and stop bashing. I thought it was interesting that they would have a Democrat speak out against Kerry. Don't know what that was all about.

Lynn Swann, ex-NFLer will speak today.

I think Donnie McClurken was to address the body this week.

Zell Miller? Zell, an outgoing senator from Georgia, is making a personal name for himself as the Demo who bucked national Demos and voted for the war.

Remember, Ron Reagan, son of the late president, was featured at the DNC. So I guess the GOP thought turnabout was fair play.

And of course GOP's gonna bash. It's just politics.

So only the Republicans are bashing??:confused:

This week...yes. :p

My comments were in reference to the RNC. So I am talking about Republicans. Never said anything about them being the only ones.

I love reading the posts in here..yall really crack me up LOL

Back to topic
 

Andrew Sullivan, conservative blogger, rips Zig-Zag Zell a new one:

THE MILLER MOMENT: Zell Miller's address will, I think, go down as a critical moment in this campaign, and maybe in the history of the Republican party. I kept thinking of the contrast with the Democrats' keynote speaker, Barack Obama, a post-racial, smiling, expansive young American, speaking about national unity and uplift. Then you see Zell Miller, his face rigid with anger, his eyes blazing with years of frustration as his Dixiecrat vision became slowly eclipsed among the Democrats. Remember who this man is: once a proud supporter of racial segregation, a man who lambasted LBJ for selling his soul to the negroes. His speech tonight was in this vein, a classic Dixiecrat speech, jammed with bald lies, straw men, and hateful rhetoric. As an immigrant to this country and as someone who has been to many Southern states and enjoyed astonishing hospitality and warmth and sophistication, I long dismissed some of the Northern stereotypes about the South. But Miller did his best to revive them. The man's speech was not merely crude; it added whole universes to the word crude.

Rhetorical Differences Between the Conventions
 

The NY Times put together a little graphic that shows the difference between the speeches delivered at the DNC and the RNC - if you want an encapsulated version of each party's platform, this is probably the best one I've seen: http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/...0902_words.gif

(need a NYTimes login? http://www.bugmenot.com, enter http://www.nytimes as the address)

Re: Back to topic
 

I saw excerpts of Miller's speech (dude, try de-caf). Just 3 years ago he was propping Kerry during his Senate race vs. Weld. ...so wtf? I view quasi-party switchers (which I consider Miller) with a high degree of suspicion anyway.

the D/R propaganda conventions are now safely put away, so it's on to the debates....

Put your money where your mouth is
 

Well put it out in the open. Why don't you tell us why you support Dumbya and Cheney. :cool: :cool:

Re: Re: Back to topic
 

Yup, now hopefully we see the meat of these guys' issues and such. I didn't catch a lot of the conventions because they were propaganda, and served to firm up a lot of the base. Now, it's time to hit the center for Kerry.
Zigzag Zell just is weird. He's not running for re-election, so maybe that's why he hasn't officially switched parties.

BTW, AfAm moderate Denise Majette, who took out Cynthia McKinney in Congress a couple of years ago, is running for Miller's Senate seat. She's facing Johnny Isakson (sp?) who beat ultraconservative GOP AfAm Herman Cain.

During W's speech, the Mr. and I counted the plans on people of color. It was insane. They found all 5 black people there and kept on showing them. :rolleyes:

"How low can ya go..."
 

this article makes me wonder just how far the GOP will go to keep the White House:mad: this scare tactic is appalling...:mad::mad::mad:

Cheney ties election result to chance of terror attack

USA Today

Jill Lawrence and Richard Benedetto

USATODAY
The presidential campaign spiked to a new level of rhetorical heat Tuesday

when Vice President Cheney warned that a vote for Democrat John Kerry could

bring terrorist attacks on the USA.

Speaking to supporters in Des Moines, Cheney called it “absolutely

essential” that on Election Day voters “make the right choice. Because if we make the

wrong choice, then the danger is that we'll get hit again, and we'll be hit in

a way that will be devastating.”

Cheney's remarks overshadowed accusatory exchanges by Kerry and President

Bush over Iraq and drew a response from North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, Kerry's

running mate.

“Dick Cheney's scare tactics crossed the line today,” he said. Protecting

America from “vicious terrorists” is not a partisan issue, and Cheney and Bush

ought to know that, Edwards said.

Cheney said the nation under a Kerry presidency could “fall back into a

pre-9/11 mind-set,” which he described as viewing terrorist attacks as “just

criminal acts” and the nation as “not really at war.”

Kerry, a fourth-term Massachusetts senator, Vietnam combat veteran and former

prosecutor, often says America is at war and maintains he could fight a more

effective war on terrorism than Bush. Today he planned to spotlight what he

calls Bush's wrong decisions on Iraq with a speech at the Cincinnati Museum

Center at Union Terminal, the same place Bush made the case for war in October

2002.

At the time, Bush argued that Saddam Hussein had to be ousted because he was

“harboring terrorists” and had weapons of mass destruction. Stockpiles of such

weapons have not been found. The bipartisan 9/11 Commission found no

cooperative relationship between Saddam and al-Qaeda.

“The truth is, there are terrorists there that were not there before we went

in” to Iraq, Kerry said Tuesday at a town meeting in Greensboro, N.C. But

Bush, campaigning in Lee's Summit, Mo., said that “we were right to make America

safer by removing Saddam Hussein from power.”

Even as Bush and Kerry visit battleground states and express concern about

voters without jobs or health care, the Iraq war remains at the forefront.

Voters ask about it, and the candidates use it against each other: Bush to cast

doubt on Kerry's consistency, Kerry to cast doubt on Bush's judgment.

In Lee's Summit, the president drew chuckles from a crowd of 5,000 when he

said that Kerry “woke up yesterday morning with yet another new position, and

this one is not even his own. It is that of his onetime rival Howard Dean.”

The president said Kerry “even used the same words Howard Dean used back when

he supposedly disagreed with him.” Bush said invading Iraq was the right

thing to do “no matter how many times Sen. Kerry flip-flops.”

Kerry said this week that Iraq is “the wrong war in the wrong place at the

wrong time.” Dean made a similar remark in February 2003, a month before the

invasion.

In May 2003, Kerry was asked whether it was the right move at the right time.

“I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity, but

I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein,” he said,

reflecting the belief at the time that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

Kerry voted to authorize the war in 2002 but urged Bush to proceed slowly and

give diplomacy a chance to work. On Tuesday he claimed that Bush's wrong

decisions at every step have cost American lives and, so far, $200 billion. “He

chose the date of the start of this war,” Kerry told several hundred fans at the

Greensboro town meeting. “And he chose for America to go it alone. And today

all of America is paying this price.”

If anybody saw Farenheit, they know that we were warned that this would be the next step. When I heard this Trash this morning it made me wonder if Bush and Cheney had actually seen the movie and are playing into it hoping that the rest of us are JUST THAT STUPID. My question is in another 4 years if this fool is re-elected, are we going to be at risk of an attak or is that just now?

If this fool is re-elected...I will seriously consider moving to Canada for a few years. The only thing George "Dubya" is good at is being the DUMBEST PRESIDENT IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD...EVER.

There...I said it.

USA Today in today's issue has an article on Bush and his non-service. i do hope folks will heed all the new info out on him. this isn't that Swift Boat stuff, this is real...

Guard commander's memos criticize Bush
By Dave Moniz and Jim Drinkard, USA TODAYWASHINGTON — President Bush's commander in the Texas Air National Guard concluded that Bush was failing to meet standards for fighter pilots, but the commander felt pressure from superiors to "sugar coat" his judgments, according to newly disclosed documents.George W. Bush in the cockpit of an F-102 during his service in the Texas Air National Guard.
Austin-American Statesman
The memos, obtained by USA TODAY and also reported Wednesday on the CBS program 60 Minutes, reveal that Bush's commander, Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, was critical of Bush's performance as a pilot in the latter years of his Vietnam-era Guard career. Killian cited Bush for "failure to perform" to Air Force and Air National Guard standards and called for him to be replaced "with a more seasoned pilot."
The conclusions by Killian, who died in 1984, show Bush's performance declining between his 1971 pilot evaluation, which was glowing, and the time in 1972 when records show he began failing to show up for duty and failed to take a medical exam that was required for him to keep flying.

click on link or cut and paste to read more...

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...rd-memos_x.htm

pretty much!