Sara Palin

The only stupid questions are those unasked!
Post Reply
WhatsUp
Posts: 992
Joined: Mon Jul 31, 2006 11:19 am
Location: Twin Cities

Sara Palin

Post by WhatsUp » Thu Oct 23, 2008 11:37 pm

If Sara Palin was a democrat, she would have been the poster child for their causes - working mom, highly accomplished, smart, tough, balancing work and family life, achieving more than men, blah, blah, blah ...

However, because of her conservative views and her party affiliation, those who are for women's rights throw her under the bus. By the way, she is more accomplished the Hillary Clinton and she didn't depend on her husband to get where she is.

What do you think of Sara Palin? Are those who are laughing at her and bashing her holding double standards?

dorajar
Posts: 3870
Joined: Tue Aug 29, 2006 2:35 pm
Location: Minneapolis

Post by dorajar » Fri Oct 24, 2008 7:06 am

What!?!? No, no, no, no, no.

"More accomplished than Hillary Clinton"? In what universe? In what sense? Hillary Clinton has met with heads of state, worked on and understood complex national and international policy issues, been elected senator of one of the most populous states in the union, worked across the aisle with Republicans to draft and push through legislation that affects all Americans, and run a historic presidential campaign. What has Sarah Palin done? She was on the PTA, served as Mayor of a tiny city in the wilderness, and has been governor for a very brief time. She's never even been abroad. The McCain campaign plucked her from obscurity and plopped her on the national stage with no preparation, causing her to embarrass herself and us on national television over and over. There's no comparison. Sarah Palin was a political ploy by those who thought breasts were the only qualification feminists were looking for in their candidate. They forgot another few critical components--actually being PRO-female rights (pro-choice, not charging rape victims for their rape kits, etc.) and just basic competence.

The idea that women should vote for a candidate just because she's a woman is absurd and insulting.

thrice
Posts: 14147
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 10:28 am

Post by thrice » Fri Oct 24, 2008 7:45 am

I was initially excited by the selection of Palin, primarily due to her reputation for guts in standing up to the oil interests that corrupted politics in Alaska.

That enthusiasm has faded. Her inexperience in foreign affairs is troubling, although Barack Obama shares the same shortcoming. She seems unaware of the heavy scrutiny of every statement that she is making, which leads more experienced politicians to weigh their words carefully knowing they will be broadcast on a world stage. Her personal baggage in the form of the state trooper episode and her daughter's pregnancy were potential time bombs that should have been caught in the vetting stage. There were other female running mate candidates available who were less colorful, but far more experienced and qualified. Unfortunately, they also weren't appealing to the hardrock conservative types that were sulking on the sidelines, as hard right conservatives distained McCain because he did not fit their criterion as a conservative in many respects.

Certainly some criticism of her has been partisan and selective. Her clothing shopping and travel? All within the law, just barely. But if people were aware of how enthusiastically politicians snap up freebies and billing expenses to others, this wouldn't lift an eyebrow. These are people who spend most of their waking moments trying to get other people to give them money. Troopergate? Elected officials fire appointed people all the time if they fail to bow to the elected's wishes. That's a non-story, unless you're held up to national media scrutiny. Palin made dangerous enemies in both parties by confronting Alaskan corruption, and they're eagerly feeding the attacks. Obama has done virtually nothing, and compliantly played ball with the Illinois machine, so he's offended no one. A cautionary tale to those politicians who would choose to rock the boat and stand up to powerful entrenched interests.

By contrast, the media's examination of Obama's history and credentials has been extremely gentle and less than aggressive. He's never been the Chief Executive of anything, so never had the opportunity to make executive decisions that would be his responsibility alone, as opposed to just one of many voting on legislation. We don't know what his personal judgment is really like. Ideology aside, Obama will be a much more exciting candidate for them to report on than McCain would be, and that grabs eyeballs the media desperately needs to survive.

Bottom line is that John McCain realized that he needed to hit a home run with his VP selection, knowing that he was running with the millstone of Bush around his neck. Selecting Palin played to a number of voting blocs- evangelicals, women, outdoors people, gun enthusiasts, anti-tax and small government fans, domestic energy boosters, and others. It also hoped to appeal to bitter Hillary fans. Unfortunately, instead of the Rookie of the Year, McCain got Delmon Young.

McCain will likely lose this election, and Palin's missteps will be a part of that. But before Palin bashers start dancing on her grave, they should seriously consider what is ahead. Barack Obama is also woefully inexperienced and is promising things that he cannot possibly deliver, although his heart is in the right place in many respects. Time may reveal that his ties to the incredibly corrupt Chicago political machine are much closer than he presently admits. We had best pray that he assembles an experienced cabinet that will keep him on the road and avoid major missteps while he grows into the job. Unfortunately, the next president will face major problems that have been brewing for decades, and the necessary solutions are certain to please no one if he has the guts to impliment them.

Simply blaming everything on the guy who came before you just won't cut it. We need courage and vision in our leadership. Let's hope we get it.
Last edited by thrice on Fri Oct 24, 2008 11:09 am, edited 1 time in total.

dorajar
Posts: 3870
Joined: Tue Aug 29, 2006 2:35 pm
Location: Minneapolis

Post by dorajar » Fri Oct 24, 2008 8:15 am

thrice wrote:
By contrast, the media's examination of Obama's history and credentials has been extremely gentle and less than aggressive. He's never been the Chief Executive of anything, so never had the opportunity to make executive decisions that would be his responsibility alone, as opposed to just one of many voting on legislation.
The same could be said of McCain. But I think it's safe to say most reasonable people would be more comfortable with either McCain or Obama in the oval office than Palin. *shudder*

WhatsUp
Posts: 992
Joined: Mon Jul 31, 2006 11:19 am
Location: Twin Cities

Post by WhatsUp » Fri Oct 24, 2008 8:15 am

dorajar wrote:The idea that women should vote for a candidate just because she's a woman is absurd and insulting.
It is not about women voting for women. It is unfair for those who are for women's rights all of sudden abandom all they are for and attack Sara Palin simply because she from a different party? It makes you question whether feminists are truly for women's rights or for something else.

dorajar
Posts: 3870
Joined: Tue Aug 29, 2006 2:35 pm
Location: Minneapolis

Post by dorajar » Fri Oct 24, 2008 8:30 am

WhatsUp wrote:It is unfair for those who are for women's rights all of sudden abandom all they are for and attack Sara Palin simply because she from a different party? It makes you question whether feminists are truly for women's rights or for something else.
Do you understand what "women's rights" are, WhatsUp? "Women's rights" does not mean that we should support all women in their quest for power, money, prestige, etc. with no regard to their qualifications. "Women's rights" means that women should have equal opportunity, be treated with respect equal to that of men, and have their basic human rights ensured--a right to privacy, a right to decide for themselves what to do with their own bodies and pregnancies, a right to physical safety and protection by the law from abusers, even if they are family members or husbands, a right to education, etc. Sarah Palin is a mind-boggling mockery of many of these tenets. She's impressive in some ways--she's clearly got spunk and the strength of her convictions. But she's also comically unprepared intellectually and experientially for the position she's been nominated for, so she has not earned the respect her supporters demand she get. "Women's rights" does not mean that you automatically get respect by virtue of being female. It means that you have the same opportunity to earn it as a male does. Sarah Palin hasn't earned it. So to say that women who don't support her are anti-women's rights is a gross distortion of what that term means. It's downright ignorant and ridiculous.

And let's take a look at Palin's record on women's rights. She has charged rape victims for their own rape kits. She is severely anti-choice, to the point of believing that it should be illegal for a 14 year old girl who was raped by her father to get an abortion. These things couldn't be farther from the beliefs and values held by feminists. The fact that she has breasts has nothing to do with the fact that she's atrocious on women's rights, beyond being a cruel irony.

"Women's rights" means that we are able to look past gender to a person's qualifications, judgment, ability, and intellect, and judge them not on the color of their skin (or the shape of their genitals) but by the content of their character. And the content of Palin's character is nothing I'd ever want to see close to the White House in 1,000 years. And anyone who says that my disliking of her is somehow sexist does not understand what that word means.

WhatsUp
Posts: 992
Joined: Mon Jul 31, 2006 11:19 am
Location: Twin Cities

Post by WhatsUp » Fri Oct 24, 2008 8:42 am

dorajar wrote:"Women's rights" means that women should have equal opportunity.
Say if someone says that women can't be as successful as men, would you use Sara Palin as an example to argue against that or would you feel embarassed to associate women in general with Sara Palin? I think that is where the double standards come in for feminists.

dorajar
Posts: 3870
Joined: Tue Aug 29, 2006 2:35 pm
Location: Minneapolis

Post by dorajar » Fri Oct 24, 2008 8:49 am

WhatsUp wrote:
dorajar wrote:"Women's rights" means that women should have equal opportunity.
Say if someone says that women can't be as successful as men, would you use Sara Palin as an example to argue against that or would you feel embarassed to associate women in general with Sara Palin? I think that is where the double standards come in for feminists.
I'd have plenty to say to someone who says that women can't be as successful as men without referring to Sarah Palin at all.

WhatsUp
Posts: 992
Joined: Mon Jul 31, 2006 11:19 am
Location: Twin Cities

Post by WhatsUp » Fri Oct 24, 2008 9:17 am

dorajar wrote: I'd have plenty to say to someone who says that women can't be as successful as men without referring to Sarah Palin at all.
How many governors are women? In a male-dominated world, Sara Palin stands out. Are you proud of her for what she has accomplished or are you embarassed because of her political viewpoints? Would you like to see more women holding high offices like Sara Palin or would you like to see more women who share your viewpoints hold high offices?

dorajar
Posts: 3870
Joined: Tue Aug 29, 2006 2:35 pm
Location: Minneapolis

Post by dorajar » Fri Oct 24, 2008 9:28 am

Up to the point of her governorship of Alaska, yes, I would say that while I disagree with just about all of her politics and viewpoints, I'm happy that her being female was never an obstacle to her achievements. HOWEVER, at this point, I think her being female was the predominant reason she was chosen as McCain's running mate, not because of her accomplishments or qualifications, but as an excuse to simultaneously wrest away disgruntled Hillary supporters and cry "sexism" whenever anyone criticizes or questions her intellect, experience, and ability. It's a set back for women, not an advancement, because it is a cynical exploitation of all that women have fought to achieve so far. Before this, Palin's achievements were her own, and god bless her. But the McCain-Palin campaign is a manipulative charade, and yes, I think it's a shameful thing. It would be like if Obama had lost the primary, so McCain picked a high school drop out, African-American running mate with an IQ of 15 who believes that we should bring back slavery, then called everyone who doesn't support him racist.

thrice
Posts: 14147
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 10:28 am

Post by thrice » Fri Oct 24, 2008 10:30 am

As loathe as I am to agree with Geraldine Ferraro, she was correct in noting that a white guy with Barack Obama's thin resume would never have been a serious contender for the Democratic nomination for president. Not that it justifies Palin's elevation, but it is a relevant comparison.

History is full of lucky surprises. Obama first won election to the US Senate because his Republican opponent was destroyed by a divorce court sex scandal, and he ran against a last minute replacement fringe candidate thrown into the race. This time around, the Dems had the perfect storm: a Republican party with an incumbent president whose approval ratings are approaching single digits, a GOP in disarray with a power struggle between moderates and extreme elements, single issue interest blocs and a preoccupation with social issues, and the opportunity to nominate a popular, charismatic, well spoken minority man whose name isn't Hillary Clinton.

Obama may turn out to be a fine president, and I hope he does. It's just undeniable that he was incredibly lucky, and that race was a major factor in his success.

nomnnice
Posts: 655
Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Minneapolis

Post by nomnnice » Fri Oct 24, 2008 11:49 am

Hey, WhatsUp...I take it you're not voting for Obama, right?

What've you got against men, eh? If you truly supported men's rights, you would vote for Obama. Because he's a man. Or black people. You must not like black people, either. Or people from Illinois. Or community organizers. Or parents. He's all those things, so you must be against all that if you're not voting for him. Right?

Give me a break.

Sarah Palin is a woman. Yes, that's true. But, she opposes a woman's right to choose and charged rape victims in her state for their rape kits.

Just because she has a vagina doesn't mean she's been very kind to them.

And just because she's a woman doesn't mean that all women must vote for her in order to prove their allegiance to women's rights. Not only is that assumption completely ridiculous, but it's also incredibly sexist.

And ridiculous. Did I mention that?

dorajar
Posts: 3870
Joined: Tue Aug 29, 2006 2:35 pm
Location: Minneapolis

Post by dorajar » Fri Oct 24, 2008 12:00 pm

thrice wrote:It's just undeniable that he was incredibly lucky, and that race was a major factor in his success.
Really? This is undeniable? Gosh, many people think that his success is happening in spite of his race. Me, I think it's thankfully been as close to a non-issue as possible. I think we're seeing that the majority of Americans are capable of looking past a person's packaging to the content. Obama has inspired millions of Americans, and while his race makes his amazing success doubly astounding and inspirational, I don't believe it's a major factor either way for most Americans in and of itself.

thrice
Posts: 14147
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 10:28 am

Post by thrice » Fri Oct 24, 2008 12:06 pm

Actually I've been pleasantly surprised that the racist reaction has been as subdued as it has been so far, relatively speaking.

Sure, there are a number of people who are making a fair evaluation of the candidates, race regardless. A number, too, who would vote for a chipmunk if it wasn't Republican. A large number.

Then there are the progressive whites who will congratulate themselves for their open mindedness in voting for a black guy and brag about it at wine and cheese parties. That's not a small number. That's how Keith X. Ellison got elected in a predominately white district, despite his considerable personal baggage and ample history of hate rhetoric.

Add to that the black Obama vote, which will approach 99%. That's a pretty big number, if they show up.

Add to that the youth vote, which is delighted to elect a young, hip looking dude instead of a white haired senior citizen. Not race, but definitely a demographic preference.



Add them up, and you've got a win. Race does matter- a lot- when you're probably looking at a margin under 10%.

dorajar
Posts: 3870
Joined: Tue Aug 29, 2006 2:35 pm
Location: Minneapolis

Post by dorajar » Fri Oct 24, 2008 12:17 pm

Fine. Then throw in the whatever-it-is percentage of people who won't vote for him because he's black. They're out there too. I'd say they cancel out the self-congratulatory crowd you refer to, and we're left with the majority of people voting for him because they think he's the most qualified candidate.

It's not "affirmative action" every time an African-American makes an impressive achievement, you know.

thrice
Posts: 14147
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 10:28 am

Post by thrice » Fri Oct 24, 2008 12:21 pm

Don't really think they cancel out, Dora. The open and closeted racists would very likely be in the voting bloc that would not vote for any liberal or Democratic candidate, so those votes were goners before Obama ever thought of running. My focus is on people who can be swayed. Extreme liberals and conservatives are spent money, and you're not going to change their minds by changing the names of the characters.

nomnnice
Posts: 655
Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Minneapolis

Post by nomnnice » Fri Oct 24, 2008 12:23 pm

thrice wrote:That's how Keith X. Ellison got elected in a predominately white district, despite his considerable personal baggage and ample history of hate rhetoric.
Your comments are not only racist but religiously intolerant.

Knock it off.

Keith M. Ellison got elected in a predominately Democratic district, and his race and religion had nothing to do with it.

I have to go shower now after reading those bulls--t comments of yours.

dorajar
Posts: 3870
Joined: Tue Aug 29, 2006 2:35 pm
Location: Minneapolis

Post by dorajar » Fri Oct 24, 2008 12:27 pm

thrice wrote:Don't really think they cancel out, Dora.
Well this theory of yours is pure conjecture, which I happen to disagree with. You're just deciding which blocks of people feel which way and which ones matter and which don't. And I'm not convinced you have access to some national barometer of people's motives that the rest of us don't. So if it makes you feel better to believe that Obama only won (and he will, Inshallah) because he's black, or mainly because he's black, have at it. Won't change my mind or my perception of him as one of the most transformational figures in recent political history, and not because of the color of his skin.

thrice
Posts: 14147
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 10:28 am

Post by thrice » Fri Oct 24, 2008 1:42 pm

I think you're very much misreading and making value judgements on my comments, Dora.

These campaigns are going to spend a billion dollars on this election. I won't claim to be proficient at it, but the fact is that the campaign braintrusts sit around in rooms and make decisions as to how they're going to spend their resources. They determine which voter blocks are safe, which ones are a waste of time, and which ones can be swayed either way.

The hardcores are something of a waste. Straight ticket Republicans and Democrats are going to vote reliably unless something unusual really alienates them. Conservative and liberal labels tend to fall in line with those respective groups. Since anti-black racists are not usually encountered in the liberal/Democratic camp, it's logical to assume those votes were never worth pursuing- nor would they have been worth pursuing for HRC, either. Passionate single issue voters on things like war, abortion, gay rights, etc. will also fall reliably into one camp or the other.

That's why I focus on what is left over. Many black voters historically haven't bothered to show up at the polls, as they felt they were not a part of the discussion. That assumption has been discarded in this election, and as I saw on CNN at lunchtime, black folks are lined up around the block to vote early in Florida and elsewhere. There are millions of potential votes there, and 99% of them are going for Obama. Nothing wrong with that. If I had a choice between two candidates and one had a style and a life experience that resonated better with me than the other, I'd cast a vote for them.

The youth vote (assuming they show up) is always going to favor a younger, more vibrant candidate than an older one. I think it's a universal assumption among the young throughout history that older folks are slow witted, slow moving, and out of it, and the young are action oriented "doers". They're excited and vicariously empowered by seeing someone they see as their own in power.

So that leaves the middle. Get a favorable split there, along with the other "in pocket" groups above, and you're in business.

This isn't personal, Dora. This is the bidness of politics. If Al Gore or John Kerry had successfully galvanized youth or minorities the way Obama has, George Bush would be digging turnips in Crawford. They lost their elections by very small margins. As a famous coach was recently quoted as saying, "if the whole game rests on a referee's call, you didn't play very well".

Credit to Obama for his accomplishments, and the great potential he has. Being on the right side of luck is just one more thing that helped. That's not a criticism or minimization, just a fact.

dorajar
Posts: 3870
Joined: Tue Aug 29, 2006 2:35 pm
Location: Minneapolis

Post by dorajar » Fri Oct 24, 2008 1:48 pm

thrice wrote:
Credit to Obama for his accomplishments, and the great potential he has. Being on the right side of luck is just one more thing that helped. That's not a criticism or minimization, just a fact.
OK, that's what I needed to hear. Thanks.

thrice
Posts: 14147
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 10:28 am

Post by thrice » Fri Oct 24, 2008 10:31 pm

nomnnice wrote:
thrice wrote:That's how Keith X. Ellison got elected in a predominately white district, despite his considerable personal baggage and ample history of hate rhetoric.
Your comments are not only racist but religiously intolerant.

Knock it off.

Keith M. Ellison got elected in a predominately Democratic district, and his race and religion had nothing to do with it.

I have to go shower now after reading those bulls--t comments of yours.
Scratching my head over the racist accusation. Where you got the religious intolerance out of that is similarly mysterious. If you doubt that Ellison's district is predominantly Caucasian, I suggest you review the census data for it. Do grant you that I erred in referring to him as Keith X. Ellison- a name he formerly used. His given name is Keith Maurice Ellison, but he has used the names Keith X. Ellison, Keith E. Hakim, and Keith Ellison-Mohammed in the past. If there was any intent to highlight religious preference in those assumed names, it was his.

WhatsUp
Posts: 992
Joined: Mon Jul 31, 2006 11:19 am
Location: Twin Cities

Post by WhatsUp » Fri Oct 24, 2008 11:00 pm

dorajar wrote: It would be like if Obama had lost the primary, so McCain picked a high school drop out, African-American running mate with an IQ of 15 who believes that we should bring back slavery, then called everyone who doesn't support him racist.
Wow, you realy think Sara Palin is that stupid with a 2-digit IQ? Just because she got ambushed by some few sleazy reporters like Charles Gibson and Katie Couric? If she is not qualified to be the VP, who is? Bill Clinton said no one could ever be ready to be the president. Same goes for the VP.

I think the democrats are NOT willing to take a good look of the qualifications of anyone who isn't one them. That is okay, but it is so unfair to bash someone who they would otherwise admire or worship.

By the way, if Hillary doesn't carry Bill's last name, she is absolutely nobody and she would have become nobody.

WhatsUp
Posts: 992
Joined: Mon Jul 31, 2006 11:19 am
Location: Twin Cities

Post by WhatsUp » Fri Oct 24, 2008 11:09 pm

nomnnice wrote:
thrice wrote:That's how Keith X. Ellison got elected in a predominately white district, despite his considerable personal baggage and ample history of hate rhetoric.
Your comments are not only racist but religiously intolerant.
I think the one who is truly religiously intolerant is Keith Ellison. Have you heard his comments about Christians and how he provoked his Muslim brothers to teach the Christians a lesson?

dorajar
Posts: 3870
Joined: Tue Aug 29, 2006 2:35 pm
Location: Minneapolis

Post by dorajar » Sat Oct 25, 2008 10:13 am

WhatsUp wrote:
dorajar wrote: It would be like if Obama had lost the primary, so McCain picked a high school drop out, African-American running mate with an IQ of 15 who believes that we should bring back slavery, then called everyone who doesn't support him racist.
Wow, you realy think Sara Palin is that stupid with a 2-digit IQ? Just because she got ambushed by some few sleazy reporters like Charles Gibson and Katie Couric? If she is not qualified to be the VP, who is? Bill Clinton said no one could ever be ready to be the president. Same goes for the VP.

I think the democrats are NOT willing to take a good look of the qualifications of anyone who isn't one them. That is okay, but it is so unfair to bash someone who they would otherwise admire or worship.

By the way, if Hillary doesn't carry Bill's last name, she is absolutely nobody and she would have become nobody.
First of all, you're spelling her name wrong. If you respect her that much, you should probably get her name right--"Sarah."

And the comparisons to Hillary have got to stop. Think what you will about Hillary or her politics, but she is responsible for her own accomplishments. Plenty of men have tried to get their talentless wives and girlfriends roles in shows and movies, but it never works (and they never go on to stardom) unless they've got the chops to pull it off. There is just no way Hillary could have come as far as she did and accomplished all she had if she had nothing going for her but her husband's last name. She is a wickedly smart, very well-versed politician with immense talent and gravitas. I didn't vote for her in the primaries, but I understand why so many millions did.

And comparing her to Palin is silly. Hillary worked her way up--served with honor in the Senate, working across the aisle, and drafting important legislation. She launched her own campaign and worked her way up through the primaries, earning every vote she got. Sarah Palin was plucked from relative obscurity and plopped onto the national stage in the last stage of the game with no preparation (hence her inability to give an interview without sounding like a moron, and the need to spend $150K to dress her up like Politician Barbie) and through no effort of her own. She was thrust into the limelight--she did not walk there deliberately of her own volition and by her own effort and talent. If she had, she'd have a lot more of my respect, even if I disagreed with her politics as much as I do. I disagree with McCain too, and I hate the way he's running his campaign, but I do acknowledge that he deserves his party's nomination and earned it and might not be a total disaster for the universe if he were to land in the oval office.

praecorloth
Posts: 1812
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 4:34 pm
Location: Robbinsdale, MN

Post by praecorloth » Sat Oct 25, 2008 4:07 pm

WhatsUp wrote: Wow, you realy think Sara Palin is that stupid with a 2-digit IQ? Just because she got ambushed by some few sleazy reporters like Charles Gibson and Katie Couric?
I didn't see the interview with Gibson, but I did see the interview with Couric. That wasn't an ambush. That was Couric interviewing an idiot. Plain and simple.

nomnnice
Posts: 655
Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Minneapolis

Post by nomnnice » Mon Oct 27, 2008 10:51 am

thrice wrote:If you doubt that Ellison's district is predominantly Caucasian, I suggest you review the census data for it.
I don't doubt that the district is primarily Caucasian, but I do doubt that race has anything to do with his election. His district - my district - is quite progressive, and I know this may be really hard for you to grasp, thrice, but I have this crazy notion that people in our district are mostly color blind. Your attempt to associate his election - or anyone's - to the perception of that candidate in terms of one's race shows quite a bit about how you think about things, and I can't say it's very flattering.

WhatsUp wrote:Have you heard his comments about Christians and how he provoked his Muslim brothers to teach the Christians a lesson?
Nope. Give me a link and I'll take a look.

thrice
Posts: 14147
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 10:28 am

Post by thrice » Mon Oct 27, 2008 11:27 am

"I don't doubt that the district is primarily Caucasian, but I do doubt that race has anything to do with his election. His district - my district - is quite progressive, and I know this may be really hard for you to grasp, thrice, but I have this crazy notion that people in our district are mostly color blind. Your attempt to associate his election - or anyone's - to the perception of that candidate in terms of one's race shows quite a bit about how you think about things, and I can't say it's very flattering." -NoMN

I've got a pretty thick skin, NoMN, so I'll survive criticism about how I think about things.
I'm also quite willing to share why I do come to certain conclusions. This isn't an issue of anonymous demographics. These are people both running and voting.

I've been observing Keith Ellison with keen interest for many years. I can say without reservation that he is the most angry and hate filled public official I have ever seen elected in Minnesota. His opponents in his first election did a miserable job of informing voters on Ellison's past history and documented statements regarding race relations. His Muslim religion per se is not an issue to me, although his past alliance with Louis Farrahkan and his hate-filled, anti-Semetic Nation of Islam is extremely germane to evaluating Ellison's value system. Particularly relevant, because Ellison lied through his teeth in minimizing both the depth and length of his association with this hate group. When David Duke ran for public office, he tried to minimize and disavow his past membership in the KKK, but there are some associations so extreme that you can't live them down. Ellison was much more successful in burying his past association with hateful extremists than Duke was.

Louis Farrakhan Quotes:
http://www.adl.org/special_reports/farr ... _words.asp

Ellison's History With Nation of Islam (and other thugs):
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/P ... 4obcsx.asp

Keith Ellison and Barack Obama are both black men. Both will likely carry Ellison's congressional district easily in November. That's pretty much the extent of the similarity between them. Keith Ellison is no Barack Obama. The objective of Obama is to unite Americans to a common purpose and destiny. Ellison has been cynically exploiting racial animosity for a living for decades.

It's my opinion that white voters were either uninformed or in denial about Ellison's outspoken hostility toward Caucasians that is well documented. If they were ignorant when they voted for him, they were hoodwinked. If they knew of it and voted for him anyway, they are fools.

One man's opinion, worth no more than the pixels its printed with.

nomnnice
Posts: 655
Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Minneapolis

Post by nomnnice » Mon Oct 27, 2008 3:11 pm

It's quite possible I'm not following, thrice, but please tell me how your link to Farakhan's statements have anything to do with Keith Ellison. I read the second link and have pursued my own research as well, but I don't understand what a bunch of Farakhan quotes has to do with Keith Ellison.

thrice
Posts: 14147
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 10:28 am

Post by thrice » Mon Oct 27, 2008 3:52 pm

Ellison was an enthusiastic fan, supporter and defender of Farrakhan and his ideology, and an avid promoter of paranoid conspiracy theories regarding government persecution of the black community. That has everything to do with Ellison, and there's really no reason to believe that he has changed his core beliefs other than to temper his public speech to make himself appear politically palatable.

John McCain and Barack Obama have been criticized harshly for the words and actions of their supporters and endorsers who hold extreme and divisive beliefs. I don't know that those criticisms have been fair or they should be held accountable for them. But in the case of those two presidential candidates, there are no documented episodes in which they stood elbow to elbow with them on a podium, spewing the same kind of hate vitriol.

In Ellison's case, there are. He was neck deep in it.

According to the second linked article, as recently as 1997, just before he ran for the Minnesota Legislature as Keith X. Ellison, he appeared as a representative for the Nation of Islam and said "We stand by the truth contained in the remarks attributed to [Ms. Jackson], and by her right to express her views without sanction". The remarks in question were quotes from a member of an anti-racism board who said "Jews are among the most racist people I know".

Try as I might, I can only identify two racists in that incident by name.
Jackson and Ellison.

nomnnice
Posts: 655
Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Minneapolis

Post by nomnnice » Mon Oct 27, 2008 4:57 pm

I'm not disagreeing with you, thrice, that your second link brings up some important points that create understandable concern.

What I disagree with is your posting of your first link, which is just quotes from Louis Farakhan. Your second link links Ellison to Farakhan, but your first link doesn't have any place in this discussion.

That's why I was confused.

thrice
Posts: 14147
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 10:28 am

Post by thrice » Tue Oct 28, 2008 1:15 pm

I understand the confusion, and also realize that posting links in the middle of a long post is confusing too. Just thought it would be relevant to show the philosophy that Louis Farrakhan teaches via his quoted words, in light of the generous praise that Ellison has repeatedly heaped on him. I don't think it's unfair to infer that Ellison is quite knowledgeable of Farrakhan's worldview, proudly claimed membership in his organization, and at least for an extended period of years agreed with and defended it publicly.

nomnnice
Posts: 655
Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Minneapolis

Post by nomnnice » Tue Oct 28, 2008 3:04 pm

Well, Norm Coleman used to be a Democrat. People change their minds, and I get a little weary of the intimation that realizing one's misguided thoughts in the past isn't possible.

I'm not saying that Ellison falls into that category, but don't you think it's possible that he's disaligned himself?

thrice
Posts: 14147
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 10:28 am

Post by thrice » Tue Oct 28, 2008 3:24 pm

I honestly can't speak to Ellison's current mindset, NoMN.

The history of his extreme associations goes back, what, to the early 1980's, stretching out to at least 1997? I can believe that he could be smart enough to take the public edge off his commentary. I'm more skeptical that his overall attitude and core beliefs have changed any. An association that long isn't just dabbling.

On a personal note, I encountered Ellison many times on the street years ago, just walking past. Never exchanged a word with him, but I got the vibes of a man aching to punch someone in the mouth. The accounts in the second link you mention suggest to me a man whose worldview reflected that.

Just a technical point here. The Nation of Islam aka Black Muslim is a unique offshoot of Islam. From my understanding, it has little in common with the basic religion of Islam. Ellison now calls himself a Sunni, I believe. Just wondering if he continues to practice with the Nation, or if he has joined a congregation of actual Sunnis, which would be unlikely to include very many Nation members. That's a pretty critical distinction worth settling, due to the extensive baggage and political/social views of the Nation.

By the way, sorry to have strayed so far from the original theme of the thread.

Post Reply