My Photo

« Hope | Main | Classy »

October 24, 2008

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515c2369e2010535b9bf9d970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Boot Murtha:

Comments

I saw Murtha once on CSPAN -- he was giving a press conference on something having to do with Iraq, and he started talking about vets he'd visited at Walter Reed, and it was really impressive. (This was a pretty down-market press conference; one of the many things I see because I tend to watch CSPAN randomly while eating dinner.) He was just outraged and furious, in exactly the sort of way you'd want someone to be outraged and furious when he had been visiting wounded soldiers at Walter Reed. On that occasion, at least, he was a real mensch.

That said: yes, he seems to be corrupt, and that's just wrong, especially since it's defense corruption. I want us to be better than that. Especially, as you say, from the leadership.

i should have mentioned his visits to see wounded soldiers (something he apparently does all the time). That's definitely a mark in his favor.

It's less to do with him per se, than it is a feeling that he gets a long leash from pelosi. and then he bullies the rank and file.

that said, the house leadership is set up to be a dictatorship, so bullying is part of it. but pelosi at least bullies for good policies. he bullies for his defense contractor contributors. that has enormous domestic and foreign policy implications.

publius -

I occasionally had to deal with Murtha's power (never directly with him, just staff) when I worked for one of those bloated defense contractors in the early Nineties (in fairness to myself and that employer, I was trying to replace an especially bloated program near and dear to a big employer in his district with a somewhat less bloated program; not that my employer wouldn't defend its own bloated programs). The general view among us parasites was that Murtha was in the top 10% for process corruption but not the top 1%.

On the other hand, as you note there are some good things to say about Murtha too. Could you quickly enlighten me about the redeeming features of Mollohan and/or Jefferson? I seem to have missed those, but then I haven't followed either career closely, and indeed neither is in a leadership position.

If all you want is to endorse a Republican, there's always whoever is running against that schmuck Mahoney in Florida, or whatever Republican, if any, is running against Dollar Bill Jefferson in Louisiana. But, yeah, it looks like the Dems are set to win big enough that it's not necessary to fight tooth and nail for every last Dem, no matter how repugnant they are, because they are vital to holding off Republican control. I'm not well informed about Murtha in particular, but it certainly sounds like his record in office isn't exactly glorious, however much I treasure his early and vociferous switch on Iraq. Still, does endorsing the defeat of Murtha, or for that matter of Mahoney or Jefferson, really count as endorsing a Republican's candidacy? Are there no Repibpicans we can affirmatively support with something approaching enthusiasm in their own right? I'm a bit fond of that southern Congressman who came up with the whole "Freedom Fries" silliness but later turned against the Iraq war and appeared to show some real thoughtfulness on the subject of war and jingoism - but as my failure to remember his name or even his state (Georgia? Alabama?) can tell you, I'm not exactly obsessed with his virtues and singing his praises.

A clarification: "Repibpicans" should have been "Republicans"; the error resulted from a combination of a touchscreen keypad and an abject failure to proofread, and was not intended to convey any disrespect.

i honestly don't know the real story of Mollohan. it could be really bad. i just don't know. jefferson, however, speaks for itself -- he should have gone a long time ago

Now is not the time to dump Murtha. His defeat this cycle would be ascribed to his comments about his district, and not to corruption or to his over-indulgence of the military-industrial complex.

I assume that his district contains people who are NOT rednecks and racists -- and those people probably applauded when Murtha "insulted" their racist neighbors. If they vote Murtha out, I won't cry about it. But I'd rather he be defeated (and be seen to be defeated) for the reasons Publius raises -- say, in the 2010 primary by a better Democrat.

--TP

Warren -

You mean Walter Jones, North Carolina. He's kind of a born again paleo - to his credit he a) has indeed seen the error of his ways on Iraq and AFAICT sincerely repented; and b) voted to hold Bolten and Miers in contempt over their stonewalling in the US Attys firing investigation.

BTW the other two Rs to vote for the resolution were Ron Paul and Wayne Gilchrest; kinda too bad Gilchrest didn't run in the general as an Indy (Gilchrest for the Eastern Shore), but at least Gilchrest and several of his people are actively campaigning for the Dem candidate Kratovil.

publius -

What Tony P. said.

I bring up Jefferson and Mollohan because you didn't see fit to consider endorsing a Repub in either of those cases, which as AFAICT are both more clearcut and more egregious than Murtha.

I don't think as highly of Pelosi as you apparently do - which is OK, reasoned disagreement is fine - but would you agree that she missed an opportunity for a - dare I say it - Sister Souljah moment of seriously taking on corruption by not throwing Jefferson rather further under the bus, e.g. even at this late date by throwing some serious support behind Helena Moreno, who came in second in the Oct 4 Dem primary and faces Jefferson in the 11/4 runoff?

His defeat this cycle would be ascribed to his comments about his district, and not to corruption

I see your point about the optics, but at a deeper level I think making obnoxious remarks about voters and corruption are not as distinct a set of issues as it may appear.

It seems to me that there is likely to be an organic relationship between the attitude that allows a Congressman to crassly insult his/her constituents and corruption. Both of them strike me as being a product of an entitlement mentality and a failure to think of one's office as a public trust and a privilege rather than a right. Somebody who really shoots their mouth off like that seems to have forgotten who the office they are occupying really belongs to.

I don't know if it is fair to apply this frame to Murtha or not, since I'm not very familiar with the context in which his remarks were made.

But if his remarks are not being taken grossly out of context, then I think it is time for him to retire and I agree with the thrust of publius' commentary - the Dems need to do some housecleaning and this isn't a bad place to start. The House leadership should not be in the hands of somebody who has a dangerously oversized entitlement mentality, and allowing that situation to continue is begging for trouble down the road, of the sort which Gingrich and co. were able to leverage into taking over Congress back in 1994. I'd rather not see that bit of history repeat itself.

It seems to me that there is likely to be an organic relationship between the attitude that allows a Congressman to crassly insult his/her constituents and corruption.

Fair point, except for a quibble about the meaning of "constituents". In one sense, Murtha's constitutents are all the residents of his district; in another sense, they are those who voted for him in the past. It's possible, I suppose, that Murtha's meaning was that he himself owes his seat to redneck racists, but he's obviously not kowtowing to their racism in any interpretation of his words I can imagine. That kind of arrogance is not something I can wholeheartedly condemn.

--TP

When that day comes, a minority Bill of Rights would come in handy (and would more likely be honored, given that it was adopted "against interest" by the majority party).

You really believe that or is this just wishful thinking?

Yeah, I have to second Edmund. The GOP would be very happy to get a minority bill of rights, but if you think it'd last five minutes after they regained the majority, you haven't been paying attention over the past couple of decades. You're counting on what, their sense of fairness? Honesty? Honor?

I'm a bit fond of that southern Congressman who came up with the whole "Freedom Fries" silliness but later turned against the Iraq war

That's Walter B Jones, third district in North Carolina.

I can probably count on one hand the number of points of policy where Jones and I would agree. But he's a good guy and a good Congressman.

Murtha:

I have no opinion as to whether Murtha should be tossed out or not. Ultimately that's up to the folks that live in his district.

Here is what he said about western PA and racism:

"There is no question that western Pennsylvania is a racist area."

I've been to western PA and there are a lot of people there who don't like blacks, and will either refuse, or find it very difficult, to vote for Obama, because he's black.

You could easily say the same thing about the state of New Hampshire, large areas of the city of Boston, NYC, or Philadelphia, and any of 1,000 other places in this country.

In other words, he was stating a plain fact.

It was an inelegant and impolitic thing to say, and maybe it will cost him his seat. But I don't see that it was inaccurate, and in the context of this election cycle it was sure as hell relevant.

If he's corrupt and abuses his office, kick him out. But racism is one of the bigger elephants in our national room, and things won't get much better unless we can talk about it frankly.

Most folks in Congress couldn't get away with it, so they won't try. Maybe Murtha can, and if so, I'm happy to see him do so.

Yeah, I have to second Edmund.

Thirded.

Thanks -

Me too. Unless the GOP leadership and membership in Congress is completely replaced by the time they get back into power, I expect they'll go straight back to the kinds of things they've been doing since AT LEAST when Gingrich took power.

Already, the Pentagon has announced plans to bully the next President into accepting an $450 billion spending increase.

The Pentagon needs to STFU and do what their told.

their => they're

if i was president, i'd shrink the pentagon's budget by 3/5s - turn it into a triangle.

and then i'd learn geometry.

Publius:

Here is an article on Mollohan's ethics issue.

Murtha has done some good things but he is also on shaky ethical ground, from ABSCAM to funneling earmarks back to constituents.

I firmly believe that as a rule, pols are more likely to become corrupted by process the longer they stay in DC and strongly support term limits for members of Congress. On those grounds alone, Murtha losing his seat is fine.

Murtha is probably a good example of what the future of politics looks like. As the Republican party collapses, the real elections will occur in the Democratic primary and the general elections will be a moot exercise.

Short of the once in an election cycle ouster of an incumbent like what happen when Donna Edwards beat Albert Winn, most Congressmen will be able to stay around for decades until they retire or run for higher office.

So unless there is someone like Donna Edwards who will run against Murtha in the Democratic primary, Rep. Murtha will be able to continue with his pork barreling and political gaffes.

Unlike a lot of other Dems, he stuck his neck out at a time when sticking his neck out mattered. And he’s become a hated figure on the conservative blogosphere for his efforts.

A lot of Democrats came out against the Iraq war, but Murtha earned particular ire because he said the Haditha Marines killed in "cold blood" before the investigation was complete. That would explain why Murtha was slapped with a defamation lawsuit. I'd expect that type of behavior from angry, anti-military bloggers hanging around Democratic Underground but not a congressman.

I became a non-Democrat the day I heard Pelosi was pushing Murtha for majority leader. That was something like November 14th, 2006.

I agree with you that Murtha should go for the reasons you mentioned, but does anyone think his departure will really reduce defense corruption? The problem isn't that Murtha is a crook per se, it is that there is an obscene amount of money and power in the defense establishment and that power corrupts.

Maybe dropping Murtha will produce an opening for passing legislation that reduces the incentives for future defense corruption, but I'm skeptical. Murtha is a symptom of a larger set of problems, and while I love curing me some symptoms, I don't labor under the illusion that the disease won't produce more later.

My only — only — ambivalence is that Murtha showed some real courage on the war. Unlike a lot of other Dems, he stuck his neck out at a time when sticking his neck out mattered.

I think Murtha got way too much credit for this. Unlike Murtha, who voted for war on Iraq in October 2002, a majority of Democrats in the House (though not, of course, in the Senate, which the Dems controlled at the time) were against the war from the start. These are the Congresspeople who deserve some real credit. Unlike Murtha, they voted the right way when it actually could have mattered.

And some of them were--and are--even against the kind of bloated military budgets that are one of the foundations of our political elites' bipartisan commitment to solving the world's problems with violence (to a hammer, everything looks like a nail).

It was extremely unfortunate that the antiwar movement rallied to Murtha as much as they did (seeing as he didn't have an epiphany about his core commitment to that bloated military). I wouldn't mind seeing him go at all, though of course his GOP opponent would likely be just as bad, if not worse, on these issues.


a quibble about the meaning of "constituents". In one sense, Murtha's constitutents are all the residents of his district; in another sense, they are those who voted for him in the past.

My understanding of "constituents" is that it is most emphatically the latter definition (everybody in his district), not the former (only the people who voted for him), but I've been wrong before.

On the other hand I seem to recall a Presidential candidate recently having something to say about this question at a national level.

oops - I swapped "latter" and "former" in that last comment. Hopefully it was clear anyway.

Cleaning up politics is like changing the litter box. It's interesting to follow the begrudged rationale...yeah, he's done bad things, but... I remember when John Belushi died and Dan Ackroyd commented shortly thereafter that Belushi was a good man, just a bad boy. I guess every district in every state has to decide who they want representing them, and it looks like that is going to happen again all over our country. It's good to see a little of acknowledgement of a bad apple - a glimmer of hope that we're mostly after the greater good of our country and it's citizens.

put me in the "good riddance" column.

I just find it bizarre that a man who calls out (some) constituents for being racist will be rejected by them *because they recognize themselves in the description* since they are already voting against Obama because they are racists. So I'm not sure I think its really some kind of cosmic justice--more like some of Murtha's voters walking away from him because they are angry with the dems for offering them the hideous choice of voting for the dems and a black guy simultaneously. In other words, Murtha's getting the backlash from the resentful white racist vote that has previously gone to him because he was a conservative white dem. Its not really because of something he did, and its not refreshing, and he won't be replaced with something better.

aimai

I want to second superdestroyer's point.

Starting thirty some years ago the Republican party leaders set out to make the US a one party stae at the national level. They almost succeeded in making themsleves the one paerty. They either did not foresee or didn't care about the type of corruption which is almost unaviodable in one party systems: they lack of a feedback loop to contgrol behavior.

It appears that the Republicans have succeededin making the US a one party stae at the national level, but the paety is the Deomncrats. AS Murtha and Dollar Bill and a few others show Deomcrats can succumb to corruption, too. Too many years in power will vvedry likely mean too many corrupt Deomcrats.

SO getting rid of Murthat is like getting rid og Maloney and the awful Representative who lost his primary fight to Deborah Price: it shows that there is a feedback loop and that Deomcrats do have standards for out team.

It is also a little thought test for me: if I lived in Murtha's district, how bad would he have to be before I'd vote for a Republican?

I don't think that the racist rednecks remark would do it, but the pork-barrles for the military could.

I want to second superdestroyer's point.

Not really necessary, since superdestroyer will second and third and 497th it himself, here and on other blogs. It's the only comment he ever makes, and he's been making it for months, if not years at this point.

What evidence is there that Murtha is in "real danger"? A single poll that showed him up by only 5? There are several Democratic incumbents, like Mahoney and Lampson, who are in danger, but as far as I can tell none of the political analysts have ever rated Murtha's race as anything other than "safe Democrat". I think it takes more than one gaffe to defeat an incumbent who's so entrenched and whose district is pretty Democratic in a year that's looking to be a very good one for Democrats.

I wouldn't mind seeing Murtha go, but I don't think it's going to happen.

I just wanted to give credit if i could.

zI do think that there is a fundzabmental difference in the basic philosophies of the two parties which makes Republcian politicians more likley to be corrupt and to be corrupt in multiple ways (power, money, sex) than Deomcrats. The basic Deomcratic philosohy is that the purpose of govvernment is to serve the common good. The basic Republican philosopy, as demonstrated by the policies which Republican politicianns support, is to serve themselves and their campaign donors. The Deomcrats had a period on near hegemony--the FDR years-- and did not decend to the levels of corruption which the Republicans have xdescended to even in years when they did not have a lock on power: the McCarthy years, Watergate, Iran Contra, nearly every aspect of the Bush/Republican COngress years.

Democrats can go bad but with Republican pliticians corruption seems to more of a recurrent feature than a bug.

In any case, as the saying goes:power dorrupts. Too much power too long can make for a lazy, complacent impervious to feedback representative.

Get rid of Murtha? Absolutely.

If there's any lesson for progressives in the sudden rise and equally rapid decline of the GOP over the past decade, it's the danger of partisan solidarity. There are, within the ranks of House Republicans, any number of representatives who are honest, and devoted to public service. But they were reticent about curbing ethical abuses, much less purging their own ranks, because of Reagan's eleventh commandment. They were also reluctant to buck a President of their own party even when - from budget deficits to civil liberties - the agenda he advanced was diametrically opposed to their own views. Until 2006, they kept their disputes behind closed doors, and made a show of public solidarity.

And oh, did it cost them. It became eminently clear to voters across the country that Congress was not functioning. It was not serving as an effective counterweight against the executive. It was chock-full of corruption. And so voters threw the bums out.

Now, Democrats have to be careful not to repeat the same mistakes. They need to actually enforce ethics rules, to curb abuses, and to hold their members accountable for violations. And, given the inevitability of Democratic control of the executive branch, they need to continue to provide strong oversight. That was the GOP's biggest failure - its apparent inability to oversee an executive branch it controlled. There's no reason that needs to be the case - Harry Truman made his reputation chairing hearings into defense contractor abuses during wartime, despite his party having controlled the executive branch for more than a decade. The federal government has a sprawling bureaucracy, and there's always ample opportunity to ferret out corruption, misfeasance, and malfeasance.

So yeah, I hope Murtha loses. But I really hope that his race will be a wake-up call for Democrats - and that they won't grow too cocky.

TLTIABQ: I was not suggesting that you were "wrong" about the definition of "constituents".

When a congressman declares that "my constituents want X" you can bet that somewhere between a few and almost half of the residents of his district stand ready to say "no! that's why I voted for the other guy." So there's some slack in the usage, if not the dictionary definition, of "constituents".

My point was simply this: Murtha's comments about "the area" did not come out of the clear blue; he was talking about why the black man he supports for President might have a hard time getting votes in western PA. Maybe Murtha's district is such that many people who vote for Murtha will also vote against Obama out of racism. If that's true, Murtha was "insulting" his own constituents under either definition. But I still say that in such a case I can't bring myself to condemn his arrogance.

--TP

Put me down for "good riddance."

How will Obama cut the defense budget with Murtha around? His power threatens to derail a lot of necessary cuts.

Plus the corruption thing, of course.

Ben, no, getting rid of Murtha won't get rid of defense corruption, for sure. It's a perpetual battle, but that doesn't mean it doesn't need waging. It will be a serious temporary improvement, I believe, and that's all we can hope for.

Pelosi's 'tude on corruption deeply disturbs me. I see not the slightest flicker of evidence that she cares about it beyond the minimal amount of appearance necessary. She wanted Murtha for majority leader, and showed no signs of caring about Jefferson until public pressure arose. For a woman who arrived in power via the CORRUPTION issue, that's particularly disturbing. She seems at best marginally better than the GOP to me. Our Congressional reps could well be tossed out in two years over, hmm, CORRUPTION.

Pelosi may be on the right side, but she also seems slow to me to deliver important bills (notably several medical issues like mental care insurance) because she doesn't work well with others.

Yeah, publius, right now would be a great time to swap Jack Murtha for Bill Russell. Why wait when it's clear that Congress urgently needs more security-statist, war-supporting, anti-abortion, homophobic, racist, "death tax" repealing, industry-deregulating, commie-hating, Malkin-loving, dolchstoss-pushing far right whackjobs who "take the war on terror personally" to acquire incumbency?

That's sure to work out better for all of us than crappy leadership spending another hundred mil or so worth of pork in PA.

Supporting links available on request for anybody who can't be bothered to spend ten minutes with a decent search engine.

Radish, that's a good argument, but it fails to take into account that Russell would be a powerless nutjob that Pelosi could ignore, whereas Murtha's flaws, while smaller, would have bigger effects. Still, we might regret Russell's elevation at some point.

Oh I'll happily concede that Russell's immediate impact on actual legislation would be minor -- one consistently pro-war far-right vote, as opposed to Murtha's intermittently pro-war center-right vote.

What electing Russell will do for sure though is to introduce a new vector of toxicity and ignorance into the halls of Congress and the public airwaves.

Pelosi doesn't have to listen to him, no. But I suspect that his beleaguered and marginalized Republican colleagues will be listening to him. Respectfully, I bet, since that seat could even be the only D-to-R transition of the whole election. As will some of the additional people who will see and hear him on the TV and the radio and receive his mailings as a result of his newly started career.

How significant will that vector be? I have no idea. I first heard Rush Limbaugh around '90 or maybe '91, thought he was hilarious, considered his incoherent bluster as an indicator that the cognitive dissonance in the GOP had grown too outrageous to sustain, and concluded that the GOP as a whole would therefore be ditching the crazies and veering back toward sanity (viz. Poppy Bush).

I have adjusted my risk assessment policies since then.

So, would ousting Murtha have any appreciable impact on defense pork or corruption? Maybe. I personally doubt it, especially since the perceived reason for his departure would be his unkind words about Haditha and PA racism. But there's no way to know. Is it worth putting somebody like Russell in Congress in order to find out? YMMV.

FlyOnTheWall, I agree with half of your diagnosis, and with none of your prescription.

First, I see no evidence that Republican voters care much about corruption unless it's sexual. If there's a lesson for Democrats about corruption in the last 20 years, it is: go ahead and abuse executive powers, steal some money, take some bribes, all fine so long as you don't get caught with your fly down. And the same for censuring your colleagues, don't bother unless there's sex involved.

The voters threw da bums out because we were bogged down in Iraq and the economy was heading south (yes, ordinary voters noticed their debt rising, income falling, and home values dropping long before Paulson noticed that Wall Street was in trouble). The lesson from that is, you really can lose your seat for following the President -- but only if he's a big enough moron. And as John McCain's campaign woes show, it doesn't help to make a very occasional big public stand against your President, you would have to work against him pretty regularly. If you do, that will also probably cost you your seat.

Then there's the lesson from the Clinton years: if you cut your own President off at the knees in good times, and if you can't deliver votes when you're in the majority, you won't stay in the majority for long, you'll lose all chance to help set the agenda even from the minority, and you'll have a long, hard slog through the wilderness.

So, no, don't dump Murtha. Get and keep a solid majority and use it. If you succeed, you'll win more seats. Then you can either dump Murtha or work around him.

Anyway, Murtha is not basically the problem. The problem is that between military bases and military contractors, the military budget provides jobs and markets for a huge portion of every district's voters. I don't know how to solve that problem.

I don't feel too strongly about Murtha one way or the other. His corruption is notable, but I can think of a variety of other more egregiously corrupt Congressmen I'd sooner go after. He's a gaffe machine and tends to say stupid crap on occasion, but that isn't necessarily a death sentence in politics--look at Biden, for whom I have increasing respect every time he speeches for Obama.

So yeah, if he loses his seat this year, I won't cry much. But I'd rather he lose it in a primary for the right reasons, than lose it to a Republican for two years over a gaffe.

I wouldn't be too sad to see Murtha go. He's corrupt, and I wasn't happy about how he started a leadership fight right when we were celebrating taking over Congress and needlessly divided the caucus.

Just stopping by one of the left-end kool aid stands where, seemingly, the election is over and the debate is how much internal slime do we high-minded progressives tolerate within our ranks after we are in control? Answer: It depends, is the corruption tied to defense or domestic spending?

My former party probably will lose, but seriously, do you think the American public would, for a minute, vote in Obama if he campaigned on what seems to be an article of faith here in the Kool Aid Korner, i.e. that defense spending is so bloated and corrupt that it needs to be cut by as much as half or more?

The silver lining in the dark cloud hovering over the Republicans is that, for at least the next two years, there will be no doubt who gets credit for any failures. Maybe doubling the federal government and halving the defense department is the answer. I doubt it, but we'll get to find out. If you're wrong, you are also history. You won't get a second chance any time soon.

that defense spending is so bloated and corrupt that it needs to be cut by as much as half or more?

That doesn't sound unreasonable to me, but I don't think there's any elected Democrat who would dream of saying or doing anything resembling that, so I'm not sure how it's relevant to the election.


for at least the next two years, there will be no doubt who gets credit for any failures.

I'm glad to see you are in agreement about how W and the GOP can be held to account for every rough patch we hit between now and 2010, seeing as how they were the ones who baked the cake that we now all have to eat.

do you think the American public would, for a minute, vote in Obama if he campaigned on what seems to be an article of faith here in the Kool Aid Korner, i.e. that defense spending is so bloated and corrupt that it needs to be cut by as much as half or more?

No.

The silver lining in the dark cloud hovering over the Republicans is that, for at least the next two years, there will be no doubt who gets credit for any failures.

No doubt. And, of course, assigning "credit for any failures" is a hell of a lot easier than, you know, making stuff work.

Assuming that Obama actually pulls it off, your side should find it's new role much more in line with it's natural strengths. Hope you have fun playing pin the blame on the donkey.

You won't get a second chance any time soon.

Also quite believable. I guess we'll just have to do our best and hope it works out.

Now get the hell out of our way, please. We have 1,783 messes to clean up.

Anything else you'd like to chat about?

Thanks -

The silver lining in the dark cloud hovering over the Republicans is that, for at least the next two years, there will be no doubt who gets credit for any failures.

We all know who the Republicans blame for everything, and we all know they do it whether the claim has any merit or not, they do it if the claim is complete horsesh*t.

And we all know we will be hearing the same old horsesh*t from them for the next two years. No one but the 27 percenters listen any more. If the Democrats do a good job of running the country, that won't change. If they don't it will.

Love Pelosi?

What is to love about Pelosi?

I mean I am with you on the "throw the bums out" agenda and think that the duality of Murtha - courage and corruption - is problematic.

But Pelosi is lame, humourless, uninspiring, ineffectual on policy and has spent the last two years waiting for the clock to run out on Bush the lesser rather than actually fill the leadership vacuum.

Voted against civil liberties in HR 3604. I mean Jesus, if by June of 2008 you can't vote against Bush's attempts to legalize and immunize domestic spying on Americans what use are you?

"I want to second superdestroyer's point."

I don't really think you do, since you seem to have missed that his point is that "black" people are inferior to "whites," and that because of the demographic tide leading to "white" people becoming a minority in the U.S., the U.S. will become a one-party state of Democrats, since people vote strictly by racial categories, and the "white" party, the Republicans, are doomed to disappear.

I really don't think you want to second that. That's his point, which he's stated upwards of 60+ times.

"It's the only comment he ever makes, and he's been making it for months, if not years at this point."

Years.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Whatnot


  • visitors since 3/2/2004

September 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30        
Blog powered by Typepad

QuantCast