A PARTY OF EXCLUSION – REPUBLICANS

As I watched the Republican drivel coming from the Xcel Center, I kept looking for signs of inclusiveness in the audience. I thought surely there must be some minorities in attendance. As the cameras panned the crowd, I kept looking and looking and looking.

I saw one or two – oops, maybe three – but no wonder. This year’s Republican delegation includes – hold your breath – 36 black delegates – a mere 2% of the total count of approximately 1800. So while McCain talks about how he will help all Americans, looking at the convention makes it pretty evident whom he will be helping.

One of McCain’s promises is that of lowering taxes. You bet he will lower taxes – for the wealthiest 10%. His philosophy is that when the wealthiest pay fewer taxes, the economy grows and grows and wealth will trickle down a la Ronnie Reagan. How did that work out for everyone?

Apparently not too well since wealth distribution in the United States is concentrated in the top 10% with 70% of the wealth in the hands of that 10% of the population. That means the 90% of us left get to share in the remaining 30%.

And Palin? Well, the more that time goes by, the more that will be learned about her. New revelations are coming out every day. For instance, McCain introduced her as someone who is a compatriot in fighting wasteful government spending. I guess that is when the spending is for states other than Alaska or towns other than Wasilla.

Palin employed a lobbying firm to secure almost $27 million in federal earmarks for a town of 6,700 residents while she was its mayor. She sought $500,000 for a youth shelter, $1.9 million for a transportation hub, $900,000 for sewer repairs, and $15 million for a rail project — all intended to benefit her home town, Wasilla, which is located about 45 miles north of Anchorage. What a thrifty nifty fighter of waste!

But the ace in the hole for McCain is Palin’s energy views. Giuliani brought the crowd to its feet with his comments urging energy independence by drilling. As the crowd yelled, “drill, drill, drill, drill” ad nauseum, McCain must have been smirking. He recently caved on his previous coastal drilling position so the thought that Palin, who supports the “drill, drill, drill” philosophy, will be out there campaigning on his team must make him ecstatic. After all, what could be better than having the governor of the targeted state with all those coastal waters on your side?

The Republicans – especially the right-wingers – have clearly lept off the cliff at this point in their fanatical support of a hard-core conservative VP pick. The right was so hungry for some acknowledgment that they still mattered and that they still had some influence, that they were willing to accept anyone who remotely steered McCain to the right.

As I watched I couldn’t help but think that, while Palin has accomplished much, she will simply be a flash-in-the-pan in this election cycle. She has been selected for purely political reasons – to bring the right on board and to lure in the disaffected Hillary supporters. The right will climb on board, but I am betting that the remaining disenchanted Hillary folks won’t be fooled by McCain’s blatant and demeaning ploy.

Advertisements

About Charlotte A. Weybright

I own a home in the historical West Central Neighborhood of Fort Wayne, Indiana. I have four grown sons and nine grandchildren - four grandsons and five granddaughters. I love to work on my home, and I enjoy crafts of all types. But, most of all, I enjoy being involved in political and community issues.
This entry was posted in Energy, Politics, Republican Party, White House and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to A PARTY OF EXCLUSION – REPUBLICANS

  1. pastoralan says:

    You may be right on some points. But do you really have anything different with Obama? NO! It’s amazing how people are scrutinizing a VP candidate more than a Prez candidate.

    I agree with you on race. But how do you answer why Blacks are voting in droves (95%?) for Obama? The REPUBS have a problem with race and that’s true. BUT, the other side is not voting on content. That cannot be possible. So, maybe it just change…to ….who cares what it is. It obviously doesn’t matter what the platform is.

    We will see if Palin’s political pick was worth it. Don’t write them off yet. You may be surprised at how far this goes.

  2. Pastoralan:

    Obama has been scrutinized to death at this point, so I guess I don’t see the need to focus on him as much at this point. For a year and a half we have heard nothing but attacks on Obama and his experience, his relationships, etc.

    Palin has just stepped into the arena – she has to expect and to be prepared for what is coming as far as scrutiny. We don’t know much about her at all. Biden has been in the public eye for over three decades, so, again, we know more about him.

    As to why blacks are voting for Obama, I think it is obvious – he is black. And I see blacks viewing him as “hope.” After all, while we talk about not being held responsible for the past, slavery is still there. I believe blacks see Obama as a symbol, just like I saw Geraldine Ferraro as a symbol when she was selected over 20 years ago. Funny, how it has taken the Republicans so long to do the same thing. But honestly, neither party has been outstanding when it comes to seeking talented and qualified women for the VP spot.

    So perhaps some blacks are not voting on content but rather on change and hoping that content underlies change.

    I am not writing her off when it comes to the right-wing of the party. But I do believe Hillary supporters will ultimately feel offended that McCain chose to exploit a woman to lure them into voting for the Republican ticket. Securing the right-wing vote will not be enough to give McCain the election – he needs the independent vote and the Hillary supporters.

  3. J. Q. Taxpayer says:

    I was going to post a reply but I find the majority of your post so far out that I am beside myself.

    First Kevin Knuth post a link to a piece of BS about McCain that was proven false within days when it appeared for the first time and not years later. Karen Goldner post a link to a blog that she knew full well contained a comment of one of the most sickening attacks on any women or her family. Now you post an intended raciest statement. It is clearly shown by your last sentence in your second paragraph.

    I thought we only had one or two people here in the Fort that reached these kinds of levels. But with this election coming up I am learning something else. Don’t worry, I will not be back so feel free to remove this post.

  4. J.Q.

    You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. That is entirely up to you. I am not exactly sure how my post is racist though. Racism is a belief that one’s own race is superior to another. Perhaps it is time for Republicans and others who loosely throw around such terminiolgy to make an effort to understand what the words mean.

    If you are alluding to the sentence:

    “So while McCain talks about how he will help all Americans, looking at the convention makes it pretty evident whom he will be helping.”

    Again, if you think that comment is racist, then so be it. I made an observation, and, if that doesn’t square with your reality of an all-inclusive Republican Party, then too bad because the reality obviously is reflected by the composition of the convention delegates.

    And let me ask you this – why do you think the Republican party is so lacking in diversity that only 36 blacks out of 1800 delegates were in attendance? Please try to come up with an answer if you decide to return.

  5. little debbie says:

    pastoralan–i suspect the majority of black voters garnered by obama initially may have been about racial support. but why does it seem unlikely that they quickly came to like the message and also still feel pride in one of their own being the “right person for the job”? guess i give my black friends much more intellectual credit than you do yours. how can you think its not possible so many obama supporters could be voting on content?? wherever the thought comes from let me assure you it is totally incorrect. his supporters, myself included, are happy with his platform. we arent looking for and dont need a political messiah-ish hero, as faux news likes to tell its viewers. we want and deserve much better than bushco and supporting party have given us for almost 8 years. he stands for enough of what i stand for. in my view he has the necessary characteristics to improve the horrific mess the republicans have put our nation in over the past 7 years.

    if it were not about content, how did he win iowa? and so many nearly all-white states?

    why should palin not be closely scrutenized? she is our potential president if they win and anything happens to mccain. the gop didnt actually vet her and left it up to the media. and now they whine about the facts coming out in the open? i want to know all i can about her..not in the interest of gossip but in the interest of knowing where the country will go if she ever becomes prez..i would be a fool NOT to learn all i can! i eagerly await the veep debate.

  6. Andy says:

    I thought Sarah Palin gave an emotional speech at the convention last night. Many people were hoping to find out more about her.

    She brings much-needed energy and a fresh face to the Republican campaign. Senator McCain clearly is taking a gamble by choosing her as his running mate considering she is virtually an unknown to the majority of Americans.

    It was great to hear her bring attention to children with special needs, like her son who was born with Downs Syndrome.

    But I wonder if the excitement and energy we are currently witnessing will subside as more substantive details emerge. I was disappointed to hear so many condescending and personal jabs at Barack Obama in her speech. It was obvious the bulk of the speech was written by people who want to continue to fan the flames of divisiveness in America. I think she would have faired far better if she would have stuck to, and gave specific details regarding the direction her and Senator McCain would like to take this country in . For instance, I heard absolutely no reference given to the lack of healthcare millions of Americans currently do not have.

    To me, its great she is/was a hockey mom and this theme was evidenced repeatedly by the numerous signs many of the delegates displayed, but I’m looking for something more than that to qualify oneself for the seat of second-in-command. Soccer mom, hockey mom, or house dad are all social titles which should not be used as the basis for electing someone into office. For the last eight years, President Bush has played the “I’m just a home-town boy” far too much. I’m looking for someone who is intelligent, competent, and someone who will win back our country’s credibility and respect in the rest of the world. The Bush-Cheney go-it-alone mantra has alienated and divided far more people than it has united.

    Even more concerning to me is the “blurring” of government and religion in our current and possible future commander in chiefs.

    Last summer, Sarah Palin was quoted saying American troops were sent to fight in the Iraq War as a, “task that is from God”.

    She went further on to state, “…if the people of Alaska’s heart isn’t right with God” none of the governing she does would make a difference.

    The separation of church and state is vital to the future of our country. The statements of Sarah Palin’s I listed above are a clear indication of why this is so crucial.

    I personally do not want our next President or VP quoting scripture or referencing God’s will as a reason for a failing economy, let alone, invading a country and/or placing our troops in harm’s way.

  7. kent strock says:

    Charlotte,
    You have much more patience or faith in rationality that I can muster. Really, you keep presenting facts and you get what kind of responses? Attacks that that say blacks are crazy non-thinking people. There is no talking to people who are white christians who watch Fox News, Rush, O’Reily, WOWO, NBC, and post blogs in Indiana.

  8. kent strock says:

    The Republicans are much smarter than liberals…they realize they can spout facile, shallow, pandering stuff that Liberals find facile, shallow, pandering and insults the intelligence of people.

  9. Clint Jenkins says:

    This one doesnt even deserve a response

  10. clint jenkins says:

    Only a liberal racist would count the number of minorities, handycapped, lesbian, gay, bisexual, pre-op, post op, like the left has been doing. CNN actual had these facts streaming across the tv for the dem convention. Who cares! Anyone can come to the party. And if more minoritys didnt have it engrained in their heads by info like you presented here, they would be better off. Welfare has killed the black family, no need for a daddy, mr govt will take care of the woman so I can go make more babies. This is actualy for all lower income folks but has effected the blacks disproportionatly. And if conservatives are so damn racist and sexist, how do we put a woman on the ticket as vp, why is Codaleeza Rice where she is? At some point you have to say wait a minute, Bush appointed more minoritys and woman than Clinton, so where do the rumers and slander end and facts begin. It gets pretty old playing the race and class war. We vote on priciple (conservative) not race or gender and the excitment at the convention should show you that and also scare the hell out of you because, it aint no flash in the pan!

    The top-earning 25% of taxpayers — those with an Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) over $62,068 — earned 67.5% of the nation’s income, but they paid 86% of taxes collected.

    The top 1% of taxpayers (AGI over $364,657) earned about 21% of the nation’s income, yet paid more than 39% of all federal income taxes collected.

    That means the top 1% paid about the same amount of federal individual income taxes as the bottom 95 percent, and the top 5% paid more (about 60% of all taxes collected) than the bottom 95% (about 40% of all taxes).

    So either make taxes truely fair by flattening, or shut up. Yall want to redistribute wealth, again another socialist agenda.

    This is probably your scarriest statment yet–
    “Apparently not too well since wealth distribution in the United States is concentrated in the top 10% with 70% of the wealth in the hands of that 10% of the population. That means the 90% of us left get to share in the remaining 30%.”

    So you want the govt to take from the rich (share) and (give) redistribute it to you? This is the problem- the rich employ people and buy things. If you tax anything too much it, whether person or corporation, will freaking leave the country and take their riches and resources with them. I guess this bothers me because I aspire to be the owner of a wildly successful business in the next 10-15 years. I have and will continue to put my livly hood on the line and risk family income now to get this business going. I will have worked 1000s of hours in addition to a fulltime traveling job on getting this business going. I will risk failure. I will risk humiliation. I will risk pride. I will have done this with no help from the govt. As sales increase from my hard work and risk- maybe even to 1 million in profit- you want to throw my efforts away on giving money to a govt that is sure to waist it whether republican or democrat. If you want to see taxes at their best run up north to Michigan/Detriot and see how the tax the rich (and all for that matter) has worked out. Michigan has had a massive amount of people saying bye bye to high taxes. They actualy had a drop in population. If you tax me too much I will do the same.

  11. Andy says:

    Clint –

    “This is the problem- the rich employ people and buy things”

    And middle-class American’s don’t employ people and buy things ?

    So, should we make the people with the most power and the most wealth in our country richer by cutting their taxes ? I believe Bush-Cheney already tried this method, and it worked out beautifully – IF YOU ARE RICH. In fact, the number of Billionaires in the US, and that’s with a “B”, have steadily increased over the last several years, while the average wage for working-class American’s has gone down. With the state of our current economy, I would have to say this method doesn’t work so well for the average American.

    What I do witness is how many American-owned companies have closed up shop here in America and moved their production/services overseas. Just last month, I made a toll-free call to get assistance with the installation of QuickBooks software. I was surprised to learn the person I was connected with was working from Indonesia. Keep in mind in this scenario, the “rich” people who own these companies reap the rewards of cheap labor abroad, and pad their pockets even more. The American worker who is trying to provide for his or her family, is out of work due to this scenario and many times if he or she is LUCKY, has to take another job which pays a considerably lower wage.

    One of the wealthiest people in America, Warren Buffet, has stated routinely that his employees, who earn a significantly LESS amount of money than he does, pay a HIGHER Federal rate of income tax than Warren Buffet does under the Bush-Cheney tax cuts. In 2006, Warren Buffet paid federal income tax at a rate of 19 % on his income. The majority of his employees however, paid the federal government nearly twice as much income tax at a rate of 33 %.

    Another statement you typed Clint:

    “If you tax anything too much it, whether person or corporation, will freaking leave the country and take their riches and resources with them.”

    You probably won’t have to worry about the poor or middle-class Americans leaving this country. That would involve hiring moving trucks, plane tickets, purchasing gas and plenty of other possible relocation expenses which they surely won‘t be able to afford under the current Bush-Cheney tax cuts.

  12. clint jenkins says:

    Andy, the Rich people who own Quickbooks are you and me, sorry to break this to you Nasdaq INTU, look it up!

    Middle class defined as obama explains it pulling in 250000 or less dont employ alot of people

    You can have all the rich peoples money you want, go by a lawn mover, powerwasher, food service, paving business, or some other way to take it honestly from them.

    And a final point, If warren the generous wants to pay 33 damn percent he can. Nothing stops him from donating more money. I just have a problem with him saying the govt should FORCE me to. Thats the problem libs want to talk about taxes but then dont give the money themselves when they can

  13. kent strock says:

    Clint,

    I was gonna suggest you use or acknowledge spell checker, but it helps only with grammar and spelling-not well…fill in the blank.

    I am sure you aspire to having a “wildly successful business” in the next 10-15 years. This is interesting…either you are 14 or an incredible underachiever.

    PS. to be successful you have to be able to spell.

  14. Charlotte A. Weybright says:

    Clint:

    Your statement:

    “Bush appointed more minoritys and woman than Clinton.”

    Reality:

    http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20060503160909-97328.pdf

    While I am sure you will find a defect in the fact that the study was requested by Democrats, the sources were governmental sources such as the Central Personnel Data File and the Civil Service records.

    Your statement:

    “And a final point, If warren the generous wants to pay 33 damn percent he can. Nothing stops him from donating more money.” “Thats the problem libs want to talk about taxes but then dont give the money themselves when they can.”

    Reality:

    Now on this one, you have got to be kidding. Warren Buffett recently gave the largest donation in history to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

    Would you prefer that he give increased taxes so they can be squandered on the wars in the Middle East? If Buffett gave more in taxes then they might just go for social programs that you don’t favor.

    We are spending $10 billion dollars a month on those wars, and, frankly, I prefer that Buffett – a registered Democrat by the way – give to foundations and charities as he has done for decades. Here is a snippet of his philosophy and his actions:

    “In June 2006, Buffett gave approximately 10 million Berkshire Hathaway Class B shares to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (worth approximately 30.7 billion as of June 23, 2006) making it the largest charitable donation in history. The foundation will receive 5% of the total donation on an annualized basis each July, beginning in 2006. Buffett will also join the board of directors of the Gates Foundation, although he does not plan to be actively involved in the foundation’s investments.

    He also announced plans to contribute additional Berkshire stock valued at approximately $6.7 billion to the Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation and to other foundations headed by his three children. This is a significant shift from previous statements Buffett has made, having stated that most of his fortune would pass to his Buffett Foundation. The bulk of the estate of his wife, valued at $2.6 billion, went to that foundation when she died in 2004.

    His children will not inherit a significant proportion of his wealth. These actions are consistent with statements he has made in the past indicating his opposition to the transfer of great fortunes from one generation to the next. Buffett once commented, “I want to give my kids just enough so that they would feel that they could do anything, but not so much that they would feel like doing nothing.”

    I suppose you find some way of criticizing Buffett, not for his generosity, but because of his party affiliation.

    Your Statement:

    “Only a liberal racist would count the number of minorities, handycapped, lesbian, gay, bisexual, pre-op, post op, like the left has been doing.”

    Again, look at the definition of racist. I made an observation which apparently upsets people. Perhaps some research on your part into why Republicans don’t draw from minorities, handicapped, etc. would be useful in discussing this issue. Or if, as you say, who cares, then I guess the underlying reasons really don’t matter.

    That just backs up the point of my post – the Republicans exclude – the Democrats include.

  15. clint jenkins says:

    Charlotte. My point exactly on w buffet. IF you tax him higher he has less money to donate to worthy causes. W buffet is a bad example because he is freakishly rich. The ordanary millionaire would have to decide do I want to buy that big boat or give more to charity with what the govt has left me with. I just met with a man who has a falcon jet, leer jet, and is worth more than I can imagine. What is neat about the rich is that they are not these coniving, schemeing, slimy people. They are hard workers who do contibute more to our sociaty than they get credit for. His business started from one semi, he now has 11400 employees. My fear is that we may make this business impossible to recreate in a new tax structure.

Comments are closed.