@Janet

you have got to be F###IN kidding me, right?

Wow Janet - I am a democrat and your comment is completely insane.  It kinda makes me sad for you.

That was pretty funny.   And get a life Janet, it is a spoof, a joke.  

Why is it that all Liberals don ot have a sense of humor unless it is attacking Conservatives.????  It is good to laugh at yourself every once in a while.

If they had one making fun of Conservative clinging to guns and Bibles and voting to bomb Iran or many of the other idiotic things that Liberals always say about Conservatives it wold be funny.   

And go and see An American Carol on Oct. 3.   It is hilarious and I saw it at the RNC Convention.

@Janet

proud of 2 abortions and anti death all in the same sentence.

Thought I had heard it all.

Someone needs to tell Janet that the election is in November.  Oh all right, I'll tell her.  It's NOVEMBER dear.  There, that's done at least. 

Sigh, maybe I shouldn't have.

out.

"Why is it that all Liberals don ot have a sense of humor unless it is attacking Conservatives.????  It is good to laugh at yourself every once in a while."

Actually, liberals usually don't have a sense of humor when they are attacking conservatives. Everyone is fair game for lampooning, but much of liberal political humor is distinctly unfunny.

That being said, Janet is, indeed, a piece of work. If she's real. Which she may not be. You never know on the Internets.

BTW, IMHO, Obama is the best candidate the Democrats have run since Clinton. I think he stands a good chance of winning . . . in November. 

If that happens, I'm guessing the Republicans get the house and senate back in 2010. So I'm not that worried. And Obama does come off as a pretty cool guy. And McCain does come off as kind a weiner. And they both seem, I dunno, more like political opportunists that ideologues (a good thing for us, if Obama gets elected, bad if McCain gets elected, because of that will cause them, respectively, to do once in office). 

But, oh, sweet Palin. And all the hatred the left has for her. I so want to see her in the Whitehouse. I will drink the sweet tears of liberal misery and incomprehension as the becomes our first female vice president.

Mooseburger dinners at the Whitehouse. I'd love to see it. Truly would.

I wish Obama would get out there and really push is Global Poverty Initiative. I think spelling out how he plans to spend $50 billion of tax payers money--a year, indefinitely--on corrupt 3rd world dictators. I think that would be a really popular thing to be hittin' on the stump.

Do these videos really work?  Seriously, does anyone look at this stuff and say ok, I've made my decision.  Or even, I was leaning one way or another and this clinches it.  We are about a month away now.  It's a battle for undecideds and independents at this point.  This sort of stuff appeals to partisans and you could argue that it's a joke or it's supposed to be funny.  One of these came out back in June, right?  Basically the same concept as before, right?  What is funny about the stuff I've seen on the Daily Show or even SNL is that it's the candidate's own words, not some skewed interpretative script read by bad actors.  It's well produced but it's not funny in my opinion.  Conservatives should stick to the mean sprited, distorted smears you have perfected and are well known for.  Leave the "comedy" to the politicians.  Sarah Palin has taken it to a whole new level followed very closely by Father Time.

No.......i don't need to know about the candidates past.........who cares if McCain has a history of corruption (Keating 5?).......or ZigZags all over the issues, and supports George Bush's $10TRILLION deficit (while allowing the rich even more tax breaks)......
Keep trying UC!

I think that even McCain knows that he shouldn't be running on his past.  I mean, other than the POW thing (which is so long ago most have forgotten about it), McCain is running from his past- but that is odd because he is continually trying to bring up Obama's past, which may be shorter than his (doesn't take much) but at least it's clean.  So let's see, the guy with the long dirty past is trying to divert your attention from holding him accountable by harping on the other guys short clean past.  Hm.m.. keep trying McSame.  Obama is 8 points up.  Palin is history.  

What thehell are you taslking about Harrymom.  what past is McCain running from????  Keating 5 is a bust, even the prosecuor said he did notthing wrong and never should been with the other 4.

Maybe you should look into Obama's past.   He was one of the lawyers suing banks to give loans to people that could not afford them.  

Here is a book coming oput about those wonderful polls

http://www.beacon.org/productdetails.cfm?SKU=4232

"For the first time, David W. Moore—praised as a "scholarly crusader" by the New York Times—reveals that pollsters don't report public opinion, they manufacture it. And they do so at the peril of our democratic process. While critics cry foul over partisan favoritism in the mainstream media, what's really at work is a power bias that polls legitimate by providing the stamp of public approval."

The only poll that counts is on Election day.

Shhh!!  Nobody tell janet the election is actually in November!  One more crazy out of the voting booth.

Keating was John McCain's sugar daddy........funding his campaigns (until he went to prison).
Is John McCain a criminal?  Maybe not.
Is he a 2faced son-of-a-bitch?
Most definitely.

walters, mccain has been acquitted ling ago for Keating5, that story'sbeen debunked time and again, what's the point of goign ona nd on and on about something that it's a non-issue. There was  a commission that investigated the whole thing and mccain was acquitted. so there.

as for the budget deficit, asked in the last debate about how the candidates would cut the spending if they were elected, Obama explained how he would spend more (he used the word 'spend' more than 5 times in answering that question, any content analysis will show that).   So who exactly is going to pay for the $220 billion in new spending that Obama proposes if he is elected? Where is he going to take the money from? And most importantly how exactly is he going to do it during times of economic slow down and possible recession?  And anyways these new grandiose 'social' programs proposed by Obama-Biden can’t possibly be funded by a tax solely on the rich.
We all know exactly that taxes targeted on the rich rarely strike their intended target for a variety of reasons. One of them is when the 'rich' begin to feel the tax bite they simply readjust their income to offset tax increases. They can do this by deferring income or decreasing the amount they work. In other words they wiggle a bit of their cash here and there to offset things, but they keep on keepin’ on. Obviously, the rest of us don’t have these options.
For any increased taxes that the rich do end up paying, they pass those off to the middle class who are their employees (through pay cuts and layoffs) and customers (through price increases). Thus, tax increases on the rich actually result in stealth tax increases and layoffs that land squarely on the middle class and the poor. Do you have anyone to pass your tax increases off to? Didn’t think so. And when prices of everyday goods begin to increase, the result is inflation, meaning that the money you have today is worth less tomorrow. For high inflation and high unemployment, think Jimmy Carter. Talking of which, which investor will create jobs in this country if you tax them into oblivion, do you know any who will work pro-bono?

I am from Europe and the socialist policies practised there are exactly like the ones obama proposes, but what pople don't get here is that it's the middle class who end up paying more, and it's going to be no different here, in other words, the new motto will be: force the “middle class” to carry the burden of the poorest and, to a degree, of the richest as well. But then the “rich” can afford to pay more, the poor don’t pay anyways, and they’re well beyond EXPECTING their way to be paid for. It is YOU AND I – the “middle class” – who will pay and pay and pay  and... pay more. 

oh, and btw 'the Keating 5' :-), here's some breaking news courtesy of Washington Post. Wonder who's more corrupt lol The article is entitled: 'Pelosi paid husband with PAC funds' (99,000 USD for utilities, rent, accounting fees)' and it's written by Jennifer Haberkorn. The whole article can be found here:

http://www.washtimes.com/news/2008/oct/01/pelosis-pac-pays-bills-for-spouses-firm/

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has directed nearly $100,000 from her political action committee to her husband's real estate and investment firm over the past decade, a practice of paying a spouse with political donations that she supported banning last year.
Financial Leasing Services Inc. (FLS), owned by Paul F. Pelosi, has received $99,000 in rent, utilities and accounting fees from the speaker's "PAC to the Future" over the PAC's nine-year history.
The payments have quadrupled since Mr. Pelosi took over as treasurer of his wife's committee in 2007, Federal Election Commission records show. FLS is on track to take in $48,000 in payments this year alone - eight times as much as it received annually from 2000 to 2005, when the committee was run by another treasurer.

Meredith McGehee, policy director at the nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center, said putting family members on a PAC payroll is bound to raise questions and, in some cases, allow for abuse.
"The reality is that under the current system, PACs are rife with self-dealing transactions," she said. "The laws and regulations could and should be strengthened.
"There is a point now that you're starting to talk about real money," she said of Mrs. Pelosi's PAC. "This is not just a mom-and-pop operation and any self-dealing transaction by a member of Congress is going to get scrutiny, particularly with large amounts of money and prominent members."
It is illegal for members of Congress to hire family members to work on their official staff, but hiring relatives to work on a campaign or PAC is legal.
To be sure, many political action committees employ or work with family businesses. Last year, CREW found that 19 members of Congress used campaign committees or PACs to purchase services from a family member between 2002 and 2006.
Mrs. Pelosi's PACs have been in trouble before. In 2004, one of her political action committees, Team Majority, was fined $21,000 by the FEC for accepting donations over federal limits. It was one of two PACs she operated at the same time. The Team Majority PAC was closed shortly after the fine was levied.

I thought you republicans were all about "associations"  You do it with Barack every chance you get.  McCain is associated with the Keating 5.  As a matter of fact, quick, besides Keating and McCain, who were the other 3?  You don't know and neither does the average person (don't bother looking it up, it's irrelevant).  Personally, I think the associations argument is the sign of weakness and desperation, hence McCain and the republican's dependency on them. 

Did anyone see the Grandma's jab at Joe Biden yesterday?  She suggested he was old and had been around a long time  Then she started to talk about how SHE was the "new face and the new energy"  I expected to hear, "I'm barack Obama and I approve this message" at the end.  She is truly the gift that keeps on giving.  Even some of your fellow cons are starting to turn on her.  Priceless!

Palin is gonna clean Joe's clock tomorrow.  get the cobwebs out of "Wrongway Joe".

Great video and those sayings are almost verbatim what you hear from the mindless trolls out in the workplace.  Funny and sad at the same time.  people are truly easily fooled.  Dem's seem to have a monopoly lately.  Didn't used to be that way.

out.

pnin....
Keating 5 is useful in painting a candidates history, such as John Glenn or John McCain.  It was Charles Keating who gave copious amounts of money to John McCain's congressional campaign (among others) for which Keating ended up in prison, though his sentence was eventually overturned and McCain, for his part was admonished by the Senate ethics committee.
As for the budget deficit..........John McCain voted for this war which costs us $10 BILLION/MONTH (not year....per month), and has caused us to have an almost $10Trillion Deficit  .  Cutting $18Billion/yr. in earmarks is not gonna dent this budget deficit (as John McCain has suggested)........but allowing  the wealthiest to pay the fair share in taxes they have payed in the past will help us tackle this fiscal problem this nation confronts.  McCain supports the Bush Tax cuts and the Bush war which has put us in debt.

So if the voting record is an indication of the candidate, that would make OBAMA an empty shill shirt for the Socialist left.  Okay, I can accept those parameters.

out.

On a funnier note, someone must have listened to dave about banking De-reg cause Bill Clinton was asked about it. 

He pretty much shot Dave down in flames all by himself.  Pretty funny stuff.  Way to be wrong dave  ..  again.

out.

What we are seeing, finally, is a fundamental shift, particularly in the all important swing states.  AOL, my email carrier, has been running these polls for months now.  Poll after poll had McCain up big.  I'm talking about crazy numbers like 60% to 40%.  Anyone who has AOL knows what I'm talking about.  Granted it is an unscientific online poll but it always favored McCain big.  Now even that survey is favoring Barack for the first time EVER.  We all know the ultimate poll is Nov. 4th.  And even if tomorrow's debate is reminiscent of the classic Lincoln/Douglas duels of yesteryear, the tide has turned.  As I said earlier, this is all about the independents now.  All of the tactics you cons employed to disparage Barack the last year or so, have hit their target.  The delicious irony is that the Grandma has become that target.  You guys still think you are going to win this thing with stuff like Paris Hilton and Rev. Wright and flag pins and voting present and lipstick and Muslim and Hussein.  Even the inexperience argument was effectively negated by the Grandma.  That stuff gets no traction anymore.  It's white noise at this point but you don't have anything else.  Part of that silliness was born out of a lack of familiarity with Barack.  Independents don't care about any of that crap and given the performance of Palin recently, there is not that time to repair or refute.  Think about it.  If we were hearing about Rev. Wright for the first this week, Barack would be toast.  The Grandma is her own Rev. Wright and McCain's whole campaign is seemingly riding on the VP debate.  The VP debate?  The economy is kicking McCain's butt.  He wants to desperately change the subject but he can't because he doesn't know how.  He has to spend a portion of every interview he does talking about and defending the Grandma.  It does remind me of the Rev. Wright dust up in that it has become an issue on it's own.  McCain has been reduced to calling all questions directed at her as "gotcha" questions.  Is McCain really going to spend the next month saying the word gotcha?  It doesn't matter who you thought won last Friday's debate.  Ask yourself this question:  If Barack couldn't have made it to Oxford, could Joe Biden stand in and comfortably hold his own against McCain?  Can the same be said about the Grandma if McCain couldn't make it?  Can you imagine THAT scenario?  And you are comfortable with her as VP?  Good luck with that.

Oh my God it is all lost.  An AOL poll has Pbama in the lead.   McCain is doomed.   He should just give up now.

The American people are starting to see thru the empty suit Obama.  They are fuinally seeing what he did as a Community Organizer under ACORN's direction.   And the polls have MCCain witnin the margin of error.  And Get this, the polls are all BS anyway,  They do not show the mood or will of the people, it is whatever the pollers want it to be. 

"For the first time, David W. Moore—praised as a "scholarly crusader" by the New York Times—reveals that pollsters don't report public opinion, they manufacture it. And they do so at the peril of our democratic process. While critics cry foul over partisan favoritism in the mainstream media, what's really at work is a power bias that polls legitimate by providing the stamp of public approval."----The Opinion Makers

Can Biden hold it against himself or Obama???   I would love to see a debate between Obama and Biden.  They never seem to be on the same page.    Or how about Obama between his ever changing opinoions on Iraq??   That would be fun to see.  

I'll simply mention that OBAMA has a MAJOR PROBLEM.  He's a TAX & SPENDER.........  How's he gonna wiggle around the financing? 

People are not gonna vote in a TAX & SPENDER at this point in time, I don't care what the polls say.

Besides that come October the "C" word will be finally uttered.

out.

When your favorite candidate is losing, polls are meaningless. But when they're in your favor, they bring hope.

the public will hold the republicans responsible for the current financial crises, and as for tax and spend  democrats, wasn't the entire national debt was created while republicans where in the white house.

Stix,

I think I characterized the AOL poll as unscientific at best.  I just used it as an example of a poll that was overwhelmingly for McCain and now is not.  I also said there is only one poll that matters.  I think you are right that people are really seeing Barack now.  I think they are really seeing McCain now too which helps Barack.  This election is not about us, Stix.  We've made up our minds.  It's about the people in the middle and the people who just began paying attention now.  Since the republican convention it has been down hill for Father Time and the Grandma.  If Katie Couric and Tina Fey can dismantle your campaign, it wasn't strong to begin with.  You saw the debate last Friday and I assume you think Father Time won.  That's good and well.  Tell us all how confident you would be if McCain could not make it to the debate and had to send the Grandma to debate Barack instead.  BTW, for the record, Barack and Joe have debated one another since you would LOVE to see that.  Keep in mind that every word out of the Grandma's mouth tomorrow night carries the fate of the whole campaign.  That is enormous pressure.  I equate it to the pressure of a high school basketball championship or maybe a beauty contest so she should be just fine.  Ha! Ha!

Janet is the model feminist.  She LIKES killing babies.

@janet

truly sickening. I feel sorry for you. Maybe you should learn how to keep your legs closed and spare a life.

walters, a lot of democrats voted for the war too,shall we say a majority of them, Biden included, Hillary, and a lot of other prominent dems, the list goes on. so, they are all responsible for this war and the costs associated with it. or, well, ok, maybe not for all the costs, assuming that some dems eventually voted to cut down funding for the troops, for their armored vehicles, etc, so true you can argue that they didn't vote for all the spending associated with the war, but for a great deal of them though. but the war and the current debt are faits accomplis now, and not only that, but there's this new 800,000,000 amount arguably thrown out of the window (or maybe not, it remains to be seen anyways), but you still haven't explained the math behind obama's figures, where is he going to take the money needed for his social programs, the 250,000,000 more billions USD, plus the other 95 billions pledged to the UN? the 'tax on the rich', again, it's not going to be but a small fraction of the money he needs, once again, the 'rich' begin can simply readjust their income to offset tax increases, all they have to do is hire smart accountants, but the middle class folks don't have those options. and they will be the ones who will pay more, I wonder how long is it going to take until they actually realize that.

pnin, what are you going to be doing 13 years from now on a thursday at 7:27PM?
your quetsion regarding Obama's proposed programs has been asked and answered several times over the past week- including in the debate- and today in michigan...either you are not paying attention, or you just don't care to listen.  either way, it shows that you have a very vague idea of actual issues, discussions, and answers that have already taken place.   when exactly do you plan to start paying attention? 

insipid videos such as above are only of interest to those who cannot read the facts and do not associate with information outside of their little bubble- it's  loaded with the constant misrepresentations that have  been the hallmark of the republican babble during this election - they live in the shadows and try to fill people with fear,  promote whisper campaigns and encourage lies. 
quite a lame effort this video and the arizona folk behind it.

When did elite become a bad word? I thought we all wanted our kids to be elite?

Normally I give money to homeless people, but now, when you right wing idiots are homeless due to Bush/McCain policies, I will have no sympathy.

wow... maybe if that was funny it would work...  one thing i have to give to the them Dems though; they have much better acting.... you betcha!..., maverick, maverick, maverick, maverick, maverick, maverick, maverick...

http://www.nationalblackrepublicans.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=pages.DYK-Why%20I%20am%20a%20Black%20Republican&tp_preview=true
Why I am a Black Republican

By Frances Rice
Knowledge is power.  Given what I know about the two political parties, it’s easy for me to be a black Republican.  From its founding in 1854 as the anti-slavery party until today, the Republican Party has championed freedom and civil rights for blacks. On the other hand, as author Michael Schereur so succinctly stated, the Democrat Party is the party of the four S's: Slavery, Secession, Segregation and now Socialism.
The knowledge I gained about the racist past and failed Socialism of the Democratic Party came from personal experiences and historical research.
My Personal Experiences
My great-great-grandparents were slaves, and I spent my formative years in poverty in the segregated South during the 1940’s, 1950’s and 1960’s.  I was born in Grady Memorial Hospital in Atlanta, Georgia, the same hospital where Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was born, and I occasionally attended Ebenezer Baptist Church where Dr. Martin Luther King, Sr. was the pastor.  I suffered personally at the hands of the Democrats and while in High School participated in civil rights protests inspired by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.  Over the years, using my Republican Party principles of hard work, getting a good education and personal responsibility, I pulled myself out of poverty, earning both an MBA and a Juris Doctorate degree.  I am now a retired lawyer and Army Lieutenant Colonel who spent 20 years in the military.
The Hidden History of Civil Rights
The history of civil rights uncovered by renowned historian Dr. Eric Foner and presented in his book A Short History of Reconstruction, shows that it was the Democrats who seceded from the Union, sparking the Civil War, because they wanted to keep blacks in slavery.  Democrats fought to prevent the passage of every piece of civil rights legislation, beginning with the civil rights laws of the 1860's, and continuing with the civil rights laws of the 1950's and 1960's.  Democrats passed the discriminatory Black Codes and Jim Crow laws.  Democrats started the Ku Klux Klan to lynch and terrorize Republicans, black and white.
It was the Republicans who fought to free blacks from slavery and amended the Constitution to grant blacks freedom (13th Amendment), citizenship (14th Amendment) and the right to vote (15th Amendment).  Republicans passed the civil rights laws of the 1860's, including the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Reconstruction Act of 1867 that was designed to establish a new government system in the Democrat-controlled South, one that was fair to blacks.  Democrats fought against anti-lynching laws, and when the Democrats regained control of Congress in 1892, they passed the Repeal Act of 1894 that repealed portions of laws designed to help African Americans.
Inner-city minister Rev. Wayne Perryman conducted five years of research and wrote a book called Unfounded Loyalty.  He then sued the Democratic Party for that party’s 200-year history of horrendous racism.  Under oath in court, the Democrats admitted their racist past, but refused to apologize because they know that they can take the black vote for granted.
Republicans Started the NAACP and Implementation of Affirmative Action
Few people know that it was Republicans who founded the Historically Black Colleges and Universities.  Republicans also started the NAACP.  Black Republican James Weldon Johnson, who wrote the inspirational song, Lift Every Voice and Sing, was the first black general secretary of the NAACP.
It was Republican President Richard Nixon who implemented the concept of affirmative action in 1969 that was established by the "Philadelphia Plan” during the Johnson administration which set goals and timetables.  Black Republican Art Fletcher revised the original plan and supervised the enforcement of equal opportunities for minorities in federally funded contracts.  Art Fletcher was known as “the father of affirmative action enforcement” and advised three presidents – Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush.  While Fletcher was head of the United Negro College Fund, he coined the slogan:  “A mind is a terrible thing to waste.”  Fletcher briefly made a bid for the Republican presidential nomination in 1995.
Under the Nixon administration, the 1972 Equal Employment Opportunity Act was passed which gave the Civil Rights Commission the authority to issue judicially enforceable cease and desist orders in cases involving discriminatory employment practices.  Also passed was the 1972 Equal Opportunity Revision Act which prohibited employment discrimination in the private sector, as well as in federal, state and local governments.  Further, the 1973 Comprehensive Employment and Training Act was enacted to provide federal funding to employ and train unskilled minority workers in federally assisted programs.
The affirmative action plans and laws were designed to overcome not only the discriminatory practices of labor unions, but also the discriminatory actions by Democratic President Woodrow Wilson who kicked blacks out of federal government jobs after he was elected in 1912.  The Congress that was controlled by the Democrats during the Wilson administration introduced the greatest number of bills proposing racial segregation and discrimination than had ever been introduced in our nation’s history.
 
Martin Luther King, Jr. fought the Democrats
During the civil rights era of the 1960's, it was the Democrats who Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and the protestors were fighting.  Democrat Public Safety Commissioner Eugene "Bull" Connor in Birmingham let loose vicious dogs and turned skin-burning fire hoses on black civil rights demonstrators.  Democrat Georgia Governor Lester Maddox famously brandished ax handles to prevent blacks from patronizing his restaurant.  Democrat Alabama Governor George Wallace stood in front of the Alabama schoolhouse in 1963 and thundered, "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever."  In 1954, Democrat Arkansas Governor Orville Faubus tried to prevent desegregation of a Little Rock public school.
It took a law suit in the 1930’s that went all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court to force the Democratic Party to allow blacks in that party.  After Democrat President Franklin D. Roosevelt received the vote of African Americans due to his “New Deal” appeal and took office in 1933, he rejected both anti-lynching laws and the establishment of a permanent U.S. Civil Rights Commission.  Democrat President Harry Truman not only rejected Republican efforts to enact anti-lynching laws and establish a permanent U.S. Civil Rights Commission, but also failed to enforce his 1948 Executive Order designed to desegregate the military.  It was Republican President Dwight Eisenhower who established the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, enforced the desegregation of the military, sent troops to Arkansas to desegregate the schools, and appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren to the U.S. Supreme Court which resulted in the 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education decision ending school segregation.  Eisenhower also supported the civil rights laws of 1957 and 1960.
President John F. Kennedy was not a Civil Rights Advocate
Democrat President John F. Kennedy is lauded as a civil rights advocate.  In reality, Kennedy voted against the 1957 Civil rights Act while he was a senator, as did Democrat Senator Al Gore, Sr.  After he became president, John F. Kennedy opposed the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. King that was organized by A. Phillip Randolph who was a black Republican.  President Kennedy, through his brother Attorney General Robert Kennedy, had Dr. King wiretapped and investigated by the FBI on suspicion of being a Communist in order to undermine Dr. King.
In March of 1968, while referring to Dr. King's leaving Memphis, Tennessee after riots broke out where a teenager was killed, Democrat Senator Robert Byrd, a former member of the Ku Klux Klan, called Dr. King a "trouble-maker" who starts trouble, but runs like a coward after trouble is ignited.  A few weeks later, Dr. King returned to Memphis and was assassinated on April 4, 1968.
Senator Everett Dirksen, not President Lyndon Johnson, was the Lynchpin for the Civil Rights Laws of the 1960’s
Unknown today is the fact that it was Republican Senator Everett Dirksen from Illinois, not Democrat President Lyndon Johnson, who pushed through the civil rights laws of the 1960’s.  In fact, Dirksen was key to the passage of civil rights legislation in 1957, 1960, 1964 and 1965.  Dirksen wrote the language for the 1965 Voting Rights Act.  Dirksen also crafted the language for the Civil Rights Act of 1968 which prohibited discrimination in housing.
Today little is known about the struggle to pass the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act.  The law guaranteed equal access to public facilities and banned racial discrimination by any entity receiving federal government financing.  The law was an update of Republican Charles Sumner's 1875 Civil Rights Act which had been stuck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1883. The chief opponents of the bill were Democrat Senators Sam Ervin, Albert Gore, Sr. and Robert Byrd.  Senator Byrd, a former member of the Ku Klux Klan, filibustered against the bill for 14 straight hours before the final vote.  Former presidential candidate Richard Nixon lobbied hard for the passage of the bill.  When the bill finally came up for a vote, the House of Representatives passed the bill by 289 to 124.  80% of Republicans in the House of Representatives voted yes, and only 63% of Democrats voted yes.  The Senate vote was 73 to 27, with 21 Democrats in the Senate voting no, and only 6 Republicans voting no.
Equally important was the 1965 Voting Rights Act that authorized the federal government to abolish literacy tests and other means used to prevent blacks from exercising their constitutional right to vote that was granted by the 15th Amendment to the Constitution. With images of violence against civil rights protestors led by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. shaping the national debate, Democrats in Congress decided not to filibuster the Voting Rights Act of 1965.  When the bill finally came up for a vote, both houses of Congress passed the bill.  In the House of Representatives, 85% of Republicans and 80% of Democrats voted for the bill.  In the Senate, 17 Democrats voted no, and only one Republican voted no.
Notably, in his 4,500-word State of the Union Address delivered on January 4, 1965, Johnson mentioned scores of topics for federal action, but only thirty five words were devoted to civil rights.  He did not mention one word about voting rights.
The statement by President Johnson about losing the South after passage of the 1964 civil rights law was not made out of a concern that racist Democrats would suddenly join the Republican Party that was fighting for the civil rights of blacks.  Instead, it was an expression of fear that the racist Democrats would again form a third party, such as the short-lived States' Rights Democratic Party.  In fact, Alabama’s Democrat Governor George C. Wallace in 1968 started the American Independent Party that attracted other racist candidates, including Democrat Atlanta Mayor Lester Maddox.
Goldwater was a Libertarian, not a Racist
A review of Senator Barry Goldwater’s record shows that he was a Libertarian, not a racist.  Goldwater was a member of the Arizona NAACP and was involved in desegregating the Arizona National Guard.  He supported the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and the Civil Rights Act of 1960, as well as the constitutional amendment banning the poll tax.  His opposition to the more comprehensive Civil Rights Act of 1964 was based on his libertarian views about government.  Goldwater believed that the 1964 Act, as written, unconstitutionally extended the federal government's commerce power to private citizens, furthering the government’s efforts to "legislate morality" and restrict the rights of employers.
It is instructive to read the entire text of Goldwater’s 1964 speech at the 28th Republican National Convention, accepting the nomination for president that is available from the Arizona Historical Foundation.  By the end of his career, Goldwater was one of the most respected members of either party and was considered a stabilizing influence in the Senate.
Senator Goldwater’s speech may be found also on the Internet at:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/daily/may98/goldwaterspeech.htm
The Racists Democrats did not all Join the Republican Party
Contrary to the false assertions by Democrats today, the racist "Dixiecrats" did not all migrate to the Republican Party.  With the party slogan: "Segregation Forever!," the Dixiecrats, who were Democrats, (a) formed the States' Rights Democratic Party for the presidential election of 1948, (b) remained Democrats for all local elections and all subsequent national elections, and (c) declared that they would rather vote for a “yellow dog” than a Republican because the Republican Party was known as the party for blacks.
Today, some of those "Dixiecrats" continue their political careers as Democrats, including former Democrat Senator Ernest Hollings who put up the Confederate flag over the state capitol when he was the governor of South Carolina.
Another former "Dixiecrat" is Democrat Senator Robert Byrd who is well known for having been a "Keagle" in the Ku Klux Klan. There was no public outcry when Democrat Senator Christopher Dodd praised Senator Byrd as someone who would have been "a great senator for any moment," including the Civil War.  Democrats denounced Senator Trent Lott for his remarks about Senator Strom Thurmond.  However, Senator Thurmond was never in the Ku Klux Klan and, after he became a Republican, defended blacks against lynching and the discriminatory poll taxes imposed on blacks by Democrats. If Senator Byrd and Senator Thurmond were alive during the Civil War, and Byrd had his way, Thurmond would have been lynched.
Nixon’s “Southern Strategy” was not a Racist Appeal
Democrats expressed no concern when the racially segregated South voted solidly for Democrats; yet unfairly deride Republicans because of the thirty-year odyssey of the South switching to the Republican Party that began in the 1970's with President Richard Nixon's "Southern Strategy.”  Nixon’s strategy was an effort on the part of Nixon to get people in the South to stop voting for Democrats who did not share their values and were discriminating against blacks.  Georgia did not switch until 2004, and some Southern states, including Louisiana, are still controlled by Democrats.  With the recent election of Republican Bobby Jindal as the Governor of Louisiana comes the prospect for a change from the destructive Socialism of the Democrats.  
Democratic Party Socialism Hurts Black Americans
The Socialist values of the Democrats include anti-God secularism and dependency on government handouts, rather than faith in God and prosperity through self-reliance which are the core principles that made America great.  In their quest to ban God from the pubic square, the Democrats are using the ACLU to sue the Boy Scouts because the Scouts say “God” in their pledge and refuse to allow homosexual men to be in charge of young boys.  As part of their Socialist agenda, Democrats promote same-sex marriage, while opposing preserving the sanctity of marriage as a union between one man and one woman.  Incredibly, Democrats favor the barbaric practice of partial-birth abortion where a baby’s skull is cracked open and its brain sucked out, just as the baby emerges from the mother.
Democrats want to tear down our traditional values and remake America in their own version of utopia with the depravity of Hollywood and the perversions of Europe.  In order for Democrats to push their anti-God, Socialist agenda on America, they need to maintain their lock on the black vote by keeping blacks poor, angry and voting for Democrats.
Democrats Act to Keep Blacks in Poverty
Examples of how egregiously Democrats act to keep blacks in poverty are numerous.  For example, in a deliberate effort to keep the minimum wage alive as a wedge issue, Democrats on August 3, 2006 killed the minimum wage bill passed by House Republicans on July 29, 2006.  Then, in 2007 after having taken over the House and Senate, Democrats allowed the minimum wage bill to pass.  Blatantly, Democrat Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama voted against the minimum wage bill, knowing that they can take the black vote for granted despite stabbing blacks in the back.
The blockage of the minimum wage bill in 2006 was the second time in as many years that Democrats stuck a legislative finger in the eye of black Americans. Senate Democrats on April 1, 2004 blocked passage of a bill to renew the 1996 welfare reform law that was pushed by Republicans and vetoed twice by President Bill Clinton before he finally signed it.  Since the welfare reform law expired in September 2002, Congress had passed six extensions, and the latest expired on June 30, 2004.  It wasn’t until 2006 that the Republicans were finally able to reinstitute welfare reform over the objection of the Democrats.
Also opposed by the Democrats are school choice opportunity scholarships that would help black children get out of failing schools.  Our education tax dollars belong to the people, not the buildings.  The teachers’ union (one of the Democratic Party’s biggest campaign contributors) wants to maintain control over the money, and the Democrats have placed the interest of the teacher’s union over the interest of poor black children.  Democrats want blacks to have choice about abortions, but not choice about schools.
Catering to another big campaign donor, the AARP that wants to keep Social Security alive as a wedge issue, Democrats oppose Social Security reform, even though blacks on average lose $10,000 in the current system because of a shorter life expectancy than whites (72.2 years for blacks vs. 77.5 years for whites).  Democrats do not want blacks to have the same opportunity as the 3.1 million federal government employees under the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) that was started in 1983 as a substitute for Social Security.  TSP allows money to be invested in the stock market, and under TSP, federal employees receive $4,000 per month vs. the $1,300 for Social Security recipients.  Blacks would benefit enormously from having Thrift Savings Accounts (TSAs) where their money can be passed on to their heirs, and the blocking of Social Security reform by Democrats is unconscionable.
Democrats Responsible for Deplorable Conditions in Black Communities
Democrats work continuously to harm blacks and fight efforts of Republicans to help blacks get out of poverty because Democrats have built their power base on the backs of poor blacks.  Every election cycle, Democrats brazenly blame Republicans for the deplorable conditions created by Democrats in the inner-cities and incite blacks to cast a protest vote against Republicans, not a vote for Democrats.
 Democrats have been running black communities for the past 40 years, and blacks are still complaining about the same problems.  The failed Socialist policies of the Democratic Party have turned urban black communities into economic and social wastelands.
In the book called Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America, liberal black Democrat Juan William brings to light the crisis condition in urban communities.
Exposed by Juan Williams in Enough is the disturbing fact that 70% of black children are born to single mothers.  Additionally, the school dropout rate in black communities is about 50%, and the average black student who gets a high school diploma is doing math and reading at an eighth-grade level.  This means that young black people, even with a diploma, are not prepared to compete for a college degree or entry-level jobs.  Democrats are quick to blame racism, pointing a finger at Republicans.
Juan Williams points out in his book that racism is not the whole problem, considering that “black people from Africa and the Caribbean, arrive in this country and outperform native-born black people in educational achievement and income.”  Notably, only 25% of blacks live in those urban communities run by Democrats, and Juan Williams writes that “the other 75% of black America is taking advantage of 50 years of new opportunities - since Brown vs. Board of Education and the Civil Rights Act - to create the largest black middle class in history, with unprecedented wealth and political power.”
According to Williams, “the core group of black people trapped in poverty today is not defined by lack of opportunity as much as by bad choices.”
In order to keep blacks from leaving the Democratic Party’s economic plantation and becoming self-reliant, Democrats call blacks who leave the plantation “sellouts” and denigrate the Republican Party as a party of “rich white racists” who do not care about blacks.
Republicans do not “Disenfranchise” Black Americans
As part of their efforts to keep blacks toeing the Democratic Party line, Democrats falsely accuse Republicans of “disenfranchising“ blacks, citing the 2000 election, even though second recounts of the votes in Florida by the Miami Herald and a consortium of major news organizations confirmed that President George W. Bush won the election.  Also, investigations by the U.S. Civil Rights Commission and the U.S. Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division found that no blacks were denied the right to vote.  If even one black person had been denied the right to vote, that person’s name would have been blasted on the front page of every newspaper in the nation.  As for the “felon purge list,” the Miami Herald found that whites were twice as likely to be incorrectly placed on the list as blacks.  When Democrats lose elections, they play the race card and accuse Republicans of “stealing” the elections and “disenfranchising” blacks, without presenting a shred of evidence.
Democrats, not President Bush, failed Blacks during Hurricane Katrina
To their eternal shame, Democrats used the tragedy caused by Hurricane Katrina for their own partisan political gain.  While criticizing President Bush, Democrats turned a blind eye to the failures of the Democrats running the city of New Orleans and the state of Louisiana.  The black Democrat officials in New Orleans did not execute the emergency evacuation plan and allowed over 1,000 school buses and city transit buses to stay in parking lots and become ruined by the flood.
Further, the Posse Comitatus Act passed by Congress in 1878 prevents a president from sending federal troops to a state without the governor’s consent. The Democrat governor of Louisiana, a white woman, refused to cooperate with President Bush when the president asked for her consent to begin a mandatory evacuation four days before the storm.  The Democrats in the Louisiana homeland security office also refused to let the Red Cross bring truckloads of food, water and supplies to the Superdome.  Since 1980, Louisiana emergency personnel knew that the levees in New Orleans would not withstand a category 3 or 4 hurricane.  Yet, the Democrats in Congress filibustered President Bush’s energy bill which was introduced in 2001 and contained $540 million for repairing the levees in New Orleans.
Republicans Act to Help Black Americans Prosper
 
In the face of all that the Democrats have done to harm blacks, Democrats have the gall to claim that it’s Republicans who don’t care about blacks and that Republicans have done nothing for blacks.  Ignored is the fact that President Bush has appointed more blacks to high level positions than any time in our nation’s history.  Also ignored is the fact that over $7 trillion dollars have been spent on poverty programs since the 1960’s with little, if any, impact on poverty.
The Washington Post reported that as of 2006, the federal government had in place over 80 poverty-related programs costing $500 billion annually.  Since President George W. Bush took office, record money has been spent on education, job opportunities, health care and housing for poor blacks.
Over $1.4 billion has been spent on overall education, a record 137% increase.  Contrary to the false claim by Democrats that the No Child Left Behind Act was an “unfunded mandate,” the Act was funded to the tune of $13.1 billion.  The Act provides money for tutoring and holds teachers accountable for failing to teach black children to read, write and do math.  Also, $12.9 billion is being spent for Pell Grants, and $18.8 million for HBCU’s.  Additionally, $500 million is being spent for job training, $24 billion for small business loans and grants, and $6 million for minority business development.
President Bush spending $150 million to fight AIDS in Africa, three times the $50 million allocated by President Clinton.  With little media coverage, President Bush was the only world leader to declare the situation in Darfur to be genocide.  Democrats are criticizing President Bush about Darfur, and the war he is waging to protect Americans from Islamic terrorists as authorized by Congress.  Yet, Democrats were silent when President Clinton sent troops to Bosnia to protect the Muslins without UN or Congressional approval, while Clinton was doing nothing to stop the massacre of 920,000 black Rwandans.
In another display of hypocrisy, Democrats accuse President Bush of being a racist, even though President Bush supported the affirmative action decision of U.S. Supreme Court which struck down the University of Michigan’s unfair quota system, but upheld the use of race as an admission factor.  Yet, Democrats expressed no concern when President Clinton - whose mentor was J. William Fulbright, a staunch segregationist - refused to comply with a court order to have shipping companies in California develop an affirmative action plan and stop discriminating against blacks.
Despite the opposition by Democrats, President Bush promoted the Faith-based Initiative in order to help black church-run charitable groups compete for federal tax dollars on an equal footing with secular organizations.  As a way of helping blacks become homeowners, Republicans enacted the American Dream Down Payment Act pushed by Republican Congresswoman Katherine Harris.  Under President Bush, half of black households are now home owners, an all-time high.
Democrats talk the talk, but Republicans walk the walk.  Until blacks stop voting monolithically for Democrats and start leveraging their votes, as other groups do, there will be no changes in black communities run by Democrats.  Black Americans need to stop having their vote taken for granted, seize control over their own destiny and hold politicians accountable for the content of their policies, not the label of their party.
 
In order to break the Democrats' stranglehold on the black vote and free black Americans from the Democratic Party's economic plantation, we must shed the light of truth on the Democrats.  We must demonstrate that the Democratic Party’s policies of Socialism and dependency on government handouts offer the pathway to poverty.  We must show that Republican Party principles of hard work, personal responsibility, getting a good education and ownership of homes and small businesses offer the pathway to prosperity.

McCain returned from Vietnam to his first wife, Carol (once a fashion model) only to find that she had lost several inches (from bone removal) due to a debilitating auto accident.  For quite some time she was left completely unable to walk, yet despite the catastrophic nature of her injuries, she didn't trouble McCain with the knowledge of it while he was in Vietnam.
 
Upon his return he wasted no time in pursuing constant affairs with multiple partners, cooly assessing each for their portfolios as well as their physical beauty.  
 
While still married to (and living with, with no separation of any kind) Carol, McCain began an adulterous relationship with Cindy. He married Cindy in May 1980 -- just a month after dumping Carol and securing a divorce. The newlyweds honeymooned in Hawaii. 

McCain followed his young, millionairess wife back to Arizona where her father helped catapult McCain into politics.

 
From the party who brought you "family values".

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1024927/The-wife-John-McCain-callously-left-behind.html

More John "Pander" McCain: 
John McCain grew up Episcopalian. He went to an Episcopalian high school. For at least 15 years, he has been listed as an Episcopalian in authoritative directories such as the Almanac of American Politics and Congressional Quarterly's Politics in America 2008. He told a reporter from McClatchy News Service in June 2007 that he was an Episcopalian.
Suddenly, in September 2007, he's campaigning in South Carolina, the heavily Baptist state where George W. Bush barely managed to stop McCain's presidential campaign 8 years ago. And guess what? McCain tells a reporter "By the way, I'm not Episcopalian. I'm Baptist."
When pressed, he said he's attended the North Phoenix Baptist Church in Arizona for more than 15 years, though he has never been baptized in that church.
I can think of no principle he will not set aside if it helps him win.

toe, and obama is a christian. i bet that bothers the heck out of you.

Toe.  We already knew all of that, that is why some still do not like McCain.

But are you trying to compare the past of McCain to Obama,man you are barkng up the wrong tree on that one.

Obama has terrorist friends, an anti-Semite Rev., PLO memebers helpng him get into Harvard and Columbia.  His wife's thesis was on how bad White America is and can notbelieve that blacks arenot upset with all whites. 

I can go on and on about Obama's past if you want. I haven't even gotten  to his ACORN days.

To the person who emailed me about Bill Clinton having a BJ:  several years of serial affairs versus a BJ...  Ok, here's a suggestion:  don't vote for Bill Clinton in this year's election.  

Oh, he's not running, I forgot.  I guess we'll have to choose between a candidate who, dare I borrow a republican cliche, actually would represent family values is running.  Someone who wouldn't have to explain minor "mistakes" like uncontrollably falling into multiple women's vag'es HUNDREDS of times with his willie - over and over and OVER again.  The "mistake" of cooly sleeping with dozens of women while his longsuffering wife sits at home - in the home they still shared.  An honest, upstanding guy with nothing to hide who is terrified that his POW records could actually be unsealed.

I don't see Bill Clinton on the ticket.  I also don't see any of a number of republican congressmen in gay scandals either, but no need to split hairs.  I see Obama and McCain, the first obviously familiar with what a catchphrase such as "family values" actually means, the second a golddigging blindly ambitious serial cheater.  I just love how in the past several years the party that brought us this utopian model of what a family is that doesn't actually describe more than a handful of real people is ready to hold anyone's feet to the fire who strays from that model but then is willing to characterize SERIAL CHEATING over a matter of YEARS as a one time mistake if a popular republican happens to do it.

Stix.....
it isn't un-American to point out the faults of this nation.....in fact it is highly patriotic to want to change America for the better, instead of sweeping inconvenient historical facts under the rug!