Today’s Must Reading
Here’s a sampling from today’s must reads:
First from Salena Zito’s column:
“On the morning of Sept. 11, Rudy Giuliani could not get elected dog catcher, his approval rating was in the basement,” says Democrat strategist Steve McMahon, who worked on Green’s campaign. “One week later, Giuliani shot to a 90 percent approval rating.” Green then went from a 17-point lead over Bloomberg two weeks out to a loss in the closest mayoral election in New York City history. “What happened between those two weeks was the microcosm of how politics has been affected by the events of 9/11,” McMahon says.
Now a sampling from Stltodayonline.com:
Leggette said there are two Democratic parties in St. Louis, one that benefits whites and another that ignores blacks. “At one time, Democrats were a solution for us. I don’t know when that changed or why that changed, but it has,” Leggette told me.
————–
She has no intention of voting for McCaskill’s Republican rival, U.S. Sen. Jim Talent, but, like me, she’s grown bored with the dog and pony show put on when major elections roll around. Democrats show up, throw out the “evil Republican” mantra, ask for black votes, then disappear without ever addressing our socioeconomic concerns or needs.
Democrats raise millions for major campaigns that rarely trickle down to neighborhood committees, like Leggette’s, charged with getting blacks to the polls, she said. It’s a “frustrating” experience, complicated by “clueless” leadership and blacks seeking personal gain. “My community has been affected by benign neglect. Black political leaders only interested in lining their pockets with crumbs ought to get the hell out of the way,” Leggette said.
The world is changing. Democrats don’t own the black vote anymore and 9/11 changed how people view the world. Democrats used to be serious about national security. They aren’t anymore.
Which side would you rather be on?
Technorati Tags: Racial Issues, 9/11, Democrats
Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog
September 10th, 2006 at 7:49 am
[...] Cross-posted at California Conservative Categories: Midterm Elections, Race, 9/11, Democrats | [...]
September 10th, 2006 at 4:58 pm
Cutting and Running
Now, that should have been on today’s list of “must reads,” don’t you think? Given all the talk of cutting and running in Iraq, you’d think that such activity would be high on the list of information that CONservatives would want to get out. Given all the accusations that blame for 9/11 falls to the Clinton administration, you’d think that it would have made the list.
But no.
Why? Because it’s all about how, like Elvis, bin Laden sightings keep cropping up, but there’s no one to investigate. Because George W. Bush cut and ran from Afghanistan so that we could go on a massive misadventure in Iraq.
And despite the collective recognition that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, here we are five years later, bogged down in a country we should never have invaded, and public enemy #1 is still free, at large, and protected by our supposed ally and good friend, Pakistan. Maybe Shrub could pick up the phone and chat Pervy-Perv up about “binny buddy”.
So while our troops — heroes of the highest order — fight and die for no apparent reason, our leadership gets away with letting the most wanted man in the world slip though their fingers. No accountability. Zero. Nobody loses their job. In fact, idiots who can’t manage their way out of a paper bag get the highest civilian award possible.
Must read, indeed.
September 11th, 2006 at 3:43 am
I am sure that StopBush would catch bin Laden in no time had he been president. Back to reality, however, let’s do some counter-point:
Nobody cut and ran in Afghanistan, especially not president Bush. The reason some may get this impression is that the war in Afghanistan has been a huge success. The Taliban government has been overthrown and every week we hear about more terrorists killed. Consequnetly, since liberal news networks don’t report on that front much since there isn’t much in it to stir up controversy. However, the Iraq capaign, which has been less successful, can be used and twisted by the likes of CNN and NYT to blast Bush and conservatives and so is reported on with great vigor.
I would also like to point out that StopBush employs personal attacks instead of supporting his conclusions with facts, which as any logician will tell you, discredits the attacker instead of proving his points. That is why he should not be taken serriously.