April 1, 2006
Um... What Am I Missing?
Scott Johnson of Power Line -- who is both useful and intelligent -- quotes a fellow who is neither in a recent post. He turn his gimlet eye on the maundering of the head of the Democratic Farmer Labor Party (the DFLP -- should that be pronounced "deaf-lip?"). Without further ado:
This past week Melendez has been hurling brickbats again, digging deeply to find ground on which to take offense. Speaking to College Republicans at Mankato State University in support of Kennedy's senate campaign and other Minnesota congressional campaigns, Republican Rep. Gil Gutkneckt sought to emphasize the importance of the midterm elections and inspire the students' efforts on behalf of Republican candidates. In his remarks Gutknecht invoked the legendary heroism of the First Minnesota Volunteer Regiment that saved the day at Gettysburg on July 2, 1863, by filling a momentary gap in the Union line on Cemetery Ridge. As reported by the Mankato State University student newspaper, Gutknecht said:"We're asked to stand in that gap and there are big stakes in this election. I'm not asking you to make the kind of sacrifices that were made on July 2, 1863 by those brave Minnesotans, but I am asking you to make your best effort."
Melendez purports to have found Gutknecht's motivational talk deeply offensive; he demands an apology to "Democrats across the country." And isn't the reason obvious? If Gutknecht's analogy is pursued, the Democrats stand in the shoes of the Confederate forces (or "slaveholders," as asserted in the heading of Melendez's press release) who were charging the Union line. Thus Melendez says:"To compare beating Democrats to defeating the Confederate Army is either an absurd display of historical ignorance or an insult to the intelligence of Minnesota... [Gutknecht] should be ashamed of himself for stooping so low..."
Mr. Melendez? But... the Confederates were Democrats. Right?
Hatched by Dafydd on this day, April 1, 2006, at the time of 4:16 PM
TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/624
The following hissed in response by: Airdale
Never confuse a Democrat with facts!
The following hissed in response by: RBMN
Somebody's been running the new American plantation for forty years, but it's not the Republicans. It's Republicans that wanted the emancipation of today's American slaves, starting with the welfare reforms of a few years ago.
California's Back-to-Reality Welfare Reform
by Carolyn Lochhead
City Journal, Spring 1995
With red-hot intensity, Eloise Anderson despises the welfare system she heads for California-the state that consumes fully a quarter of the nation's spending on Aid to Families with Dependent Children, the main cash welfare program.
Right now, nobody feels that they are responsible. It's the government.
Fathers do not naturally abandon their children; what she has watched is women push men away because the government has become a better provider. "In poor families, what we have said is that you don't have to have the dad at the table. And that I think is a disaster, both for these families and for society."
Boys, especially in neighborhoods devoid of working men, grow up thinking men have no importance in families. "When a black boy grows up and looks out, he doesn't see around him black males doing anything except hanging out on the street. He goes home, and he looks at his family, and he doesn't see black men doing anything. He goes to school, and he doesn't see black men doing anything. What do you think happens to the psyche of this child?"
Anderson argues that welfare advocates implicitly degrade those they claim to care about. The unspoken message behind the assertion that welfare recipients can't find jobs when immigrants easily find them, she says, is that recipients cannot compete with everyone else. Such attitudes, she contends, promote ugly racial stereotypes. The same dismissive implication underlies the advocates' nonjudgmental acceptance of out-of-wedlock childbearing. "We should say, 'Hey, aren't you talking about black folks here, and aren't you saying that black folks can't control their sexual behavior? Aren't you saying that black folks aren't capable of supporting their kids?', I mean, I will just take this and just wipe [advocates'] faces in it."
The following hissed in response by: hunter
Melendez is hunting wabbits.
And besides, he is desperate to turn attention away from his and his party's desire to censor the free speech of Americans.
The following hissed in response by: Don
Democrats=Confederates? Not quite that simple, as Daffyd no doubt knows.
The Democrats had been the dominant party since Andrew Jackson's time but they split massively over the question of the expansion of slavery to the new territories in the elction of 1860.
Most southerners voted Democratic but there were still a substantial number of Southern Whigs - so it wasn't universal.
There were Northern Democrats. Ben Butler, the man who saved Lincoln's hash by forcing his way through an angry Baltimore mob to relieve Washington DC was a Democrat. He later became notorious as 'Beast Butler' the governor of occupied New Orleans.
The following hissed in response by: cdquarles
The beef isn't about individual Democrats. The beef is about the Democrat Party's policies and the effects, intended and unintended, that logically follow if you implement said policies. The Democrat Party following Andy Jackson was, is, and if it doesn't change, will be the Party of Slavery; and I don't give a rip if that's because of the Know-Nothings, Copperheads, or "Progressives".
The above hissed in response by: cdquarles at April 7, 2006 2:27 AM
Post a comment
Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)
© 2005-2009 by Dafydd ab Hugh - All Rights Reserved