QandO
Questions and Observations| « Not that there's anything wrong with that... | Main | Two Americas » |
|
July 09, 2004 Take Cynthia McKinney...please! As you've probably noted, I live in Georgia. I've been here almost 30 years now. I live just outside Atlanta, and I love the place. It gets a little hot in the summer, but then it gets a little hot in the winter too so it balances out. Speaking of balance, we're about to become unbalanced around here again. Cynthia McKinney is running for her old seat in Congress. Yup, that's right, THAT Cynthia McKinney. The one who wondered right out loud whether Bush knew about 9/11. She's not running in my district, for which I'm eternally grateful, but she is back in her old haunts attempting to regain the seat she held before Denise Majettte thumped her like a cheap drum in 2002. Majette is running for the Senate seat that Zell Miller is vacating (and hasn't a prayer in hell of winning it, so PLEASE Denise, reconsider?!). McKinney is a wacko, to put it mildly. She was an embarrasment prior to her defeat and frankly that is pretty much the reason she lost her seat. She comes from a family of embarrasments, such as her father, Billy McKinney. Billy was a state representative who also lost his seat at the same time for his antisemetic remarks which blamed Cynthia's loss that year on "Jews have bought everybody. J-E-W-S." I'm sure you remember ... its pretty hard to forget. It is that antisemitism which explains why you're likely to see McKinney, if she should win, become a loud and squawking voice for the Arab world in general and the Palestinians specifically. I say "loud and squawking" because Cynthia has no other style. As the NY Post points out, here connections to various Arab and Palestinian groups are well known and lucrative for McKinney. Per the Post, McKinney "has long associated with militant Islamic groups whose members have openly supported terrorism. She has also taken donations from individuals suspected of terrorist ties." Some examples are: * In 2000-'01, she got $3,000 from Abdurrahman Alamoudi, founder of the Washington-based American Muslim Council. You'd think its bad enough that she takes money from these people, but she not only takes the bucks, she defends them in Congress: In a 2001 speech, McKinney called Rabih Haddad "a prominent community leader and religious cleric." Not only did McKinney apologize about Giuliani, but offered to help the prince out by accepting it in Guliani's stead. What a magnanamous gesture, huh? Last but not least, Cynthia McKinney makes Michael Moore look like a choir-boy when it comes to blaming America first. When it comes to blaming America first, McKinney has few equals. In September 2001, she refused to join the U.S. delegation in walking out of the rabidly anti-American and anti-Semitic "World Conference Against Racism" in Durban, South Africa. Instead, she issued a press release calling her country's behavior at the conference "obnoxious." I agree with the Post's conclusion that Georgia cannot afford to make the mistake of letting Cynthia McKinney back into Congress. As was proven with the election of Majette, being black isn't enough anymore. Although the district is 70% Democrat, they voted her out the last time and voted Majette in. I just hope that the voters in that district will again show the good sense they did in 2002 and keep the person Neal Boortz calls "the cutest little communist in Congress" cooling her heals in Atlanta. |
Your points about McKinney are well taken. But in a larger sense, she's just a part of what's going on. Look at all the big names of late on the left. Can you tell me where the mainstream of the Democrat party, differs with McKinney? Or, Moore? Or, Splash Kennedy? Or, Hitlery?
The fact of the matter is the reason that they're so prominant in the Dmeocrat party, is that they are mainstream Democrats.
Yes, we think of them rightly, as wackos. But mainstream Democrats don't. Hell, they agree with these wacked out people... they share their views!
The only logical conclusion is that the whole of the Democrat party has gone wacko.
Think of it; The Great Rotundo Moore, Hitlery Clinton, Splash Kennedy, Kos, Ted Rall... they're all mainstream Democrats.
Think I'm kidding? Think I'm stretching it? Explain to me where the mainstream Democrats are who are willing to stand up and be countaed as opposing these.... ummmm....in...duh...viduals, and their anti-capitalist, anti-western, anti-American views?
This connection needs to be made.. at which point the avgerage voter will back away from the Democrat party as someone would back away from someone in a bedsheet yelling "Allah is Great!"
(Who, not without irony, I note would likely vote Democrat, anyway)
Posted by: Bithead at July 9, 2004 04:28 PM
Hey McQ, thanks for all your hard work:
I agree with you about Cynthia McKinney, although some of what you wrote looks a lot like guilt by association, the chief extra-judicial weapon of Attorney General John Ashcroft.
On the other hand, each party seems to have its own lunatic fringe. Remember Rep. Robert K. Dornan? Or Sen. Jesse Helms?
This is for Bithead:
The Republican Party:
Cuts taxes for those making over 250K a year.
Places short-term corporate gain over environmental protection.
Places unborn children in higher regard than a woman's right to choose.
Places unborn children in higher regard than children that have been born.
Blocks the right of all Americans to receive a single-payer portable health plan.
Continues to propagate a phony and destructive "war on drugs."
Places incarceration above rehabilitation.
Refuses to stop illegal immigration where it would count—with the employer.
Withholds family planning services to third world countries resulting in more stress and famine.
Tries to overthrow leaders of nations they disagree with.
Refuses to deal with the UN, but then complains when another country violates its rules.
Places Christianity over reality.
Cuts funding for education, thereby creating more Republicans.
Oh, and Bithead, it's not the Republic Party or the Democrat Party. Get it right, or people will think you're an idiot.
Posted by: David Steele at July 10, 2004 03:22 AM
Mr. Steele,
You're not telling the truth, my friend. Well, okay, the last sentence is true at least. You ought to know better than to bring some of that stuff to this blog - where it can be factually refuted in very little time. You're well advised to take your own advice to Bithead.
Posted by: Jimmie at July 10, 2004 08:30 AM
I don't have to time to refute David Steele's assertions line by line, he;s made so many mistakes and or lies, I simply do not have time to correct them all.
Suffice it to say, he's very emblematic of the moonbat left.
Posted by: shark at July 10, 2004 11:18 AM
Uh.,. David?
Cuts taxes for those making over 250K a year.
Clearly, you've been mistening to the Democrats. EVERYONE'S TAXES WERE CUT EVENLY. IT"S CALLED A PERCENTAGE.
Get it right, or people will think you're an idiot.
Places short-term corporate gain over environmental protection
A constantly disproved wail from the left.
Get it right, or people will think you're an idiot.
Etc.
Posted by: Bithead at July 10, 2004 11:32 AM
Don't worry much about David, guys... he's simply democrating how facile the arguments of the Dmeocrats are when forced to face their own misbegotten positions.
And furthers my argument about showing the American people what the Democrats are... with their own words.
Posted by: Bithead at July 10, 2004 11:34 AM
David: Guilt by association? She either accepted the money or didn't. Its no different than accepting money from China or a Buddist temple.
I won't go into your rather long list of stuff in its entirety, but simply point to two:
Blocks the right of all Americans to receive a single-payer portable health plan.
What right is that? What Americans have every right to do is put this sort of thing together privately. But they have no "right" to health insurance, single-payer or otherwise.
Continues to propagate a phony and destructive "war on drugs."
While I agree its phony and destructive, I'd ask how they're able to 'propagate' if it hadn't been "continued" under the last Democrat administration.
Rather disingenuous wouldn't you say?
Posted by: McQ at July 10, 2004 11:52 AM
Thanks for all the replies.
Only when we have total public financing of all political campaigns, will we no longer have the need to criticize each other's party for where their money comes from. Unless we just like to do it, because it's fun, I guess.
While I agree with you having a right to health care is not in the constitution, what we have now--a profit-based system--is clearly not working; because right now, we're paying for everyone who doesn't have health care, and we're paying for CEO salaries and stockholder dividends. If it's not working, then we should get rid of it and try something else It is for the benefit of all of us that all of us have medical insurance that cannot be taken away.
I was always against Clinton's and Gen. Barry McAffrey's phoney drug war, but Clinton was always too worried about appeasing many of the Republicans and the "nominal" Democrats who favored interdiction over rehabilitation.
Again, if it's not working, fix it or get rid of it.
Posted by: David Steele at July 10, 2004 02:06 PM
If and when those paying think it isn't working then perhaps they will try something new. But it is their choice to stay with what they have or change, isn't it?
As to the War on Drugs (which I find to be more of a threat to our liberties than anything in the Patriot Act): If he wished to appease Republicans, then all he had to do was make public noises about the evils of drugs and fund interdiction at the same level. The bully pulpit would have sufficed in the appeasement arena.
Instead he purposely expanded the War on Drugs. So again, I find it a little disingenuous to argue that, in effect, its not Clinton's fault because he was trying to 'appease' Republicans.
Posted by: McQ at July 10, 2004 02:25 PM
Hey check out the Communist party USA web site. They have a good write up about McKinney and their support for her.
It can be found here.
http://www.cpusa.org/article/articleview/585/1/27/
Posted by: retired military at July 10, 2004 05:29 PM
"Instead he purposely expanded the War on Drugs. So again, I find it a little disingenuous to argue that, in effect, its not Clinton's fault because he was trying to 'appease' Republicans."
McQ,
I didn't mean to deflect the blame from Clinton.
The perpetuation of the Drug War during his administration was his fault, as was all the other actions he took to cut off Republican adversity.
Posted by: David Steele at July 11, 2004 03:17 PM
WHich of course makes the assumption that making a larger effort to elimitae drugs is a bad things.
I think you'll find that a hard sell.
Posted by: Bithead at July 11, 2004 11:18 PM
Thanks for that insightful comment! It makes interesting reading, especially when I need a payday loan.
Posted by: payday loan at November 25, 2004 09:59 PM