Tuesday, February 12, 2008

Poles plump for Clinton


An opinion poll published in the Dziennik newspaper reveals what the beatroot was mulling over a couple of weeks ago – who would Poles vote for in the US general election in November?

Forty eight percent said they would vote for Hilary Clinton, and that’s 11 percent more than her rival Barak Obama.

I imagine this is down to maybe a couple of factors: firstly, recognition. Poles remember Bill – ‘I did not have sex with that women’ – Clinton. So Hilary is a known quantity. And the second reason I will leave to your imagination.

Poor old Republican nominee-in-waiting John MaCain doesn’t seem to have much support at all in Poland. If the presidential race was between Clinton and MaCain then 64 percent of Poles would vote Democrat and just 20 percent Republican. If Obama was the candidate, then Poles would still vote Democrat but by the smaller margin of 52 to 36 percent.

So Poles are Democrats, interestingly, and they are rooting for Hilary.

113 comments:

Anonymous said...

"So Poles are Democrats, and they are rooting for Hillary"

But that's only because like you said "name recognition". I wonder if most Poles would agree with her social policies and such. I think she's too liberal for the "average" Pole, but maybe I'm wrong. In politics though, name recognition is a wonderful tool.

geez said...

Poles like jarred pickeled herring, too.

luridtraversal said...

I. Hate. Hil'ry. She's about as fake as a 3 dollar bill. If it comes down to a Clinton vs. McCain election this year, I am truly at a loss on what to do. I can't stand either of them. I'm still hoping Obama will pull off the nomination. Not because I believe he'll change anything, but just because at least he's new. Hil'ry in my opinion is just the G.W. Bush of the left. But maybe I'll have the opportunity to watch her "cry" a few more times before the next rounds of cauc/aries!!! It's always fun seeing crocodile tears!

beatroot said...

Geez - it is true about herrings. But, though a strange taste in fish, it is understandable as Poles live on the Baltic, where there are lots of herrings.

And to some Hilary smells as bad as a jar of herrings, it is true. But it is interesting that Poles in Poland are going Democrat, while Poles in the US often than not vote republican.

geez said...

And smelts, too. For breakfast no less. The thought of it makes me squeamish. Why not eels, too?

"Poles in the US" meaning post- Solidarity immigrants? I don't even have a clue on Polish immigrant voting patterns. Couldn't care less. I don't think that are not any kind of bloc or organizable voting constitutency. And I've come to abhor ethnic and identity politics of all kinds.

My guess is that the vast majority of Poles in Poland don't know anything about McCain or Obama, other than that the latter is black.

beatroot said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
beatroot said...

You are probably correct. And I hate identity politics too - although that is what Clinton and Obama are playing to.

But generally it is thought in Poland that Poles in the US vote more Republican than Dem - although I also heard that New York Poles are different from Chicago Poles, for reasons I do not understand.

But it is certainly true that many ex-pat Poles are often more conservative than Poles in Poland. Although that is probably changing now as there is a middle classation of Poles in the US, which means they will vote for Obama - the middle class white's candidate!

geez said...

ISTM that Obama is the first successful(?) anti-identity politics politician in the US. And he's perfect for the role having a white mother. He's certainly not playing the same political game as Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton.
To a certain extent, he's playing identity politics vis-a-vis Hispanics but only because he's been forced into it by Billary.

sonia said...

I don't even have a clue on Polish immigrant voting patterns.

Until the early 1980's, Poles voted Democratic. Then, they become part of the so-called "Reagan Democrats", voting Democrat for Congress, but Republican for the White House, ever since.

I also heard that New York Poles are different from Chicago Poles

New York Poles tend to vote Republican as a bloc with other Catholic ethnic groups (especially Italians) - they were part of the coalition that elected Rudy.

Chicago Poles are Democrats. Probably the most conservative Democrats in the whole country.

geez said...

This is a pretty solid historical analysis methinks:

http://www.piastinstitute.org/pdf/polpolitics.pdf

geez said...

According to the article, 45-50% of **all** Pol-Ams still consistently vote Democrat in national elections with 10-15 swinging back and forth between the two major parties and the rest voting Republican.

It's important to narrow down what folks mean by "Polish". My guess is that there are even major variations between the post Solidarity immigrants and the post-WWII immigrants.

Anonymous said...

Shit eater geez doesn’t like our eating habits!

beatroot said...

Don;t you just loooove these trolls!

Anonymous said...

Do any Americans on this blog find it insulting that Barack Hussein Obama would not salute the Flag of the United States? Is this acceptable behaviour for a presidential hopeful?

schaden freud said...

Even Fox News has exposed the above claim about Obama not saluting the American flag as fradulent.

BTW, I think it would be great for the US for an American president to have the middle name of Hussein.

Anonymous said...

Seventy-eight year-old Rep. Charlie Rangel calls him "stupid," BET mogul Robert Johnson, 62, compares him to Sidney Poitier in Guess Who's Coming to Dinner (not a good thing, intimates Johnson), Rep John Lewis, 68, calls him "no Martin Luther King Jr," and former ambassador Andrew Young, 76, insists that "Bill [Clinton] is every bit as black as Barack." Recent sexagenarian Bill himself has lit into him ferociously half a dozen times this year

Anonymous said...

So I guess Obama thinks that African-Americans are so apathetic about our Government that unless another African-American is running for office they will simply stay home and refuse to vote. I’m sorry Mr. Senator but your faith in your own community is pathetic. I have a great deal more faith in the intelligence, knowledge and patriotism of the African-American community. They are not mind-numbed robots who can’t think for themselves and need YOU to think for them. Besides—many African-Americans are conservative and won’t vote for you because of your political ideas and left-wing agendas—I suppose you would call those individuals “sell-outs.” So your assumption that all African-Americans are liberals/democrats is as out of touch as your belief that you will raise voter turnout simply because of your skin color. Why not tell us how you want to “bring the Country together” instead of making comments directed at dividing us further.

Anonymous said...

geez

Yo momma's so ugly,
when she joined an ugly contest, they said "Sorry, no professionals."

Yo momma's so ugly,
she looked out the window and got arrested for mooning.

Yo momma's so ugly,
just after she was born, her mother said "What a treasure!" and her father said "Yes, let's go bury it."

Yo momma's so ugly,
they push her face into dough to make cookies.

Yo momma's so ugly,
they filmed "Gorillas in the Mist" in her shower

Yo momma's so ugly,
they didn't give her a costume when she auditioned for Star Wars.

Yo momma's so ugly,
instead of putting the bungee cord around her ankle, they put it around her neck

Yo momma's so ugly,
when she walks into a bank, they turn off the surveillence cameras

Yo momma's so ugly,
her mom had to be drunk to breast feed her

Yo momma's so ugly,
her mom had to tie a steak around her neck to get the dog to play with her.

Yo momma's so ugly,
the government moved Halloween to her birthday.

Yo momma's so ugly,
they pay her to put her clothes on in strip joints.

Yo momma's so ugly,
she made an onion cry.

geez said...

Anon, are you actually influenced by the oldline establishment Democrat African Americans you list and misquote or quote out of context?

Are you so stooooooooopid to think that anybody on this blog would be influenced by or give two shits about what any of these guys didn't really say?

geez said...

Anon,

Yo mama made you.

Nuff said.

opamp said...

Vote for Hillary... because being in NATO is bad for Poland! (Explanation: mysteriously we couldn't get accepted into NATO under Clinton. W. at least let us in.)

Seriously, this proves that Poles in the U.S. have no idea of the situation of their homeland.

opamp said...

W. at least let us in.

Errm... Sorry. Clinton did, but he did ensure it took longer than necessary.

Richie D said...

re: Chicago Poles voting record

During the Cold War, the Polish-American Congress national presidents Charles Rozmarek and Al Mazewski constently supported Republicans on the national tickets
and anti-Communist Dems for the U.S. Senate, conceeding local elections to the Polish speaking Democratic precinct captains.

There are only three major Polish communities left in Chicago, which has enabled diluting Polish voping strength through redistrict gerrymandering.

Listening to Chicago Polish radio over the weekend, I was surprised
to hear of strong support for RON PAUL.

geez said...

Not more than a handful of PolAms has ever paid any attention to the PAC.

The support of an "independent" candidate is not all that surprising. Anderson supposedly got 15% of the PolAm vote in 198er-whenever.

michael farris said...

I'm pretty maxed out on election coverage, but on Polish talk radio, it seemed that all the American Polonia they talked to were voting for Obama.

Renegade Eye said...

McCain isn't popular in the US either.

jannowak57 said...

Not withstanding the orgy of patronizing and fawning by liberals, Obama’s bid for the White House will not be the successful. It could potentially also present McCain with his only hope of victory if the Democrats consume themselves in a devise struggle over Hillary and Obama. Should it turn acrimonious in the end.

Obama’s lack of managerial experience (he has never run anything) and his lack of foreign policy experience are guaranteed to doom him. Notwithstanding the lack of any established power base to advance his cause, seals his fate.

He will go down in history as an interesting novelty and a short term feel good factor for Americans trying to escape their racist legacy.

Lets face it American blacks are losing political currency to the rapidly growing Hispanic community and the Asian community. Neither of these groups are an easy mark for the democrats.

What do we Poles care who they elect so long as some continuity in foreign policy continues with respect to Poland, like in Poland the style may change but the rest carries on all the same.

Remember that even JFK couldn’t get elected in the US without his father taking some special measures.

Is it fair to call America a managed democracy?

geez said...

Yea.

And it's a fair assessment to call Polish politicos vassals of the Cheney administration.

Also, polls, for whatever they are worth, presently give Obama a better chance of beating McCain than Billary. The same polls show both Billary and Obama beating McCain.

I don't think the experience angle plays well with the American electorate at this point. Folks with the supposed experience are the ones who seem only able to get fooled again and again. And Billary's power base is rapidly eroding. And ISTM that Kennedy, Kerry and many more constitute a considerable established power base in the Dem Party and they are backing Obama.

Blacks constitute a voting bloc / power base that is delivering well over 90% of their vote to Obama. And they are still the most numerous voting minority and they are coming out in record numbers. Asians and/or Hispanics don't deliver at such a high rate towards any other candidate including any Republican.

That said it will prolly be a brokered convention.

But I haven't heard of any orgies being planned yet...

beatroot said...

polls, for whatever they are worth, presently give Obama a better chance of beating McCain than Billary.

I think that is correct. MaCain is divisive for republicans because the conservatives don't like him (witness what happened in Virginia last night). The only hope MaCain has is if its the Bilariys. Then onservatives will get out and vote Repulican because the hate the Clintons so much.

And Clinton really is on some trouble now. She is pinning everything on the next really big states, like Texas in three weeks time and sitting out the rest. It looks bad for the Clintons.

michael farris said...

At this point it looks like Obama for the win (barring unforeseeen scandal or press disenchantment).
The US presidential race has always been more about style than substance and despite what they may say many (probably most) voters don't vote on the basis of issues, but for the candidate they self-identify with. As Bob Harris said :

"All else being equal, America’s best-loved leaders are always optimistic alpha males with will-do attitudes who project comfort with their own power and a touch of self-deprecation — in other words, embodiments of the projected self-image of the country. Over and over and over."

Pretty much anytime a candidate fits that profile noticeably more than their opponent(s) (Eisenhower, Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton, Bush II (vs Kerry), they win and issues be damned.

beatroot said...

It's true. And the primary process emphasises this, in my opinion. It's about individuals, not what they are gonna do and not about the party they are from. So telling folk that 'change is coming' when Americans have a bad image of themselves (after debacles in foreign places, and an economy looking very wobbley) is just about all Obama has to do.

geez said...

Don't forget the role of the superdelegates (non-elected) if neither candidate has the necessary number of elected delegates to secure the nomination.

Geez

(what's with the change at the bottom?)

geez said...

The other thing to consider is how much of a rule or ruin mentality Billary will put into play at the convention.

Also, Ann Coulter and Rush Limburgh are saying they will vote for Billary if it's McCain and that seems a done deal. They say she's more conservative on many issues than McCain. Of course, they may well change their tune later and support McCain. The other thing they are saying is that they see an economic disaster waiting to happen and they would rather a Democrat get in and take the rap for it so the Republicans can come back and retake congress in two years' time.

geez said...

One last observation for now that's mighty interesting:

In the Maryland primary last night, according to exit polls, Obama won:

Latino Voters By Six Points: 53-47

All Religions (Including Catholics)

All Age Groups (Including Seniors)

All Regions

All Education Levels

And Women by TWENTY ONE POINTS...

michael farris said...

There's also the Florida delegate issue (I'm registered in florida though independent so i couldn't vote in the primary anyway).

Short story, the dem party bosses are punishing florida (potentially) democratic voters for something the republican dominated state legislature did.

I'd still vote for Clinton over McCain, but if the delegates aren't seated then I'd strongly consider McCain over Obama who's main selling points are his brilliant public speaking abilities and a knack for inciting youthful idealism (I've always thought that youthful idealism is a vastly overrated commodity, even when I was a reasonably idealistic youth).

michael farris said...

"And Women by TWENTY ONE POINTS..."

Why is this surprising? Every poll I've ever seen clearly indicates that women prefer male bosses to female ones.

I always thought Clinton pinning hopes on the female vote was .... dubious at best, men have gender solidarity, women don't.

geez said...

It's surprising because it's the the first time Obama won by such a wide margin among women -- and in a state that Billary was expected to do well. It seems the tide has indeed turned even if he prolly won't get enuff elected delegates to win.

The Florida thing is skewed now with Billary having "won" after she alone went back on her word among with all the other candidates who pledged that they would not campaign there.

BTW, are you sure about the date for the Dem primary being forced by the Republicans? I thought they could have it on different days as in other states.

And isn't Billary an alpha male?

beatroot said...

(what's with the change at the bottom?

Geez, it just appeared there. But I think it is quite self evident what it is for. And the previous thing that appeared a few weeks ago was very confusing.

Ann Coulter and Rush Limburgh are saying they will vote for Billary if it's McCain and that seems a done deal.

Don't you think that is just a Obama spoiling technique? I just don;t believe some shithead lile Coulter would vote democrat.

geez said...

There are a lot of certain conservatives that really, really despise McCain. What can Coulter or Limburgh say that will convince Dems to vote one way or the other?

beatroot said...

They just told of a poll on CNN that if it was Macain-Clinton then it would be a dead heat...if it was Obama-Macain then it would be 42 to 48 percent to Obama.

geez said...

There are now more than a few Dems pushing for new Dem primaries in Michigan and Florida.

Billary will try to get those delegates seated (she won those primaries) even though Obama's name wasn't on the ballot in Michigan and he didn't campaign in Florida (unlike Billary who broke his/her promise to stay out of it).

Dem Chairman Dean is in a huff about avoiding a brokered convention where the 796 unelected superdelegates get to decide the nominee. He wants to broker a deal between Billary and Obama himself it seems. Yeeeee-hah!

If Obama has the elected delegate majority going into the convention and if Billary pulls out the stops with the superdelegates,, hell is going to break loose with the Black community either boycotting the election altogether or supporting Cynthia McKinney (if she beats Nader) on the Green Party ticket.

beatroot said...

Yeeeee-hah! Woooooooo-eeeeeee!

More analysis (well, it's fun) on CNN...if the current split in support continues then none of them are going to reach the magic number. So the superdelegates come in. They have to pick the one they think that can beat MaCain. And that has to be Obama. Even some republican personalities are picking him. Eisenhower's grand daughter, for heaven's sake, is going with a liberal-dem like Obama (who is backed by ultra lib-dem Kennedy.

Your politics is in a wird and wonderful condition, Geez.

michael farris said...

Assuming the nominee is Obama, I get nervous about what could happen between the convention and november.

My biggest fear is that no one really has any idea whether or not he can take an unfair hit in the media and survive. In 2004, Howard Dean couldn't (good thing we found out in time) and Kerry couldn't (too bad we didn't find out in time).

Extreme negative burned earth campaigning is not unique to the GOP but they're really good at it and very persistent. In recent years, they're not above just making things up (like the swift boat veterans for lying bullshit).

We know Clinton can survive negative GOP rhetoric. She's been the target of arguably the single most negative and sustained (15 years now and still going strong) organized political attack in US history and it hasn't destroyed her. It hasn't helped her and it has created an anyone-but-Hillary demographic (that largely overlaps the anyone-but-Obama demographic) but her negatives will only go so low and no lower.

Obama's a big question mark and a lot of little pieces hint to me that he won't stand up well under extreme negativity.

Also, I really hope it doesn't boil down to the youth vote. I hate the youth vote. I can easily see all the fired up young people thinking the job is done once he's the nominee and not getting around to voting in november.

There's also the question of what sort of president he'd be. I assume that either Clinton or McCain would be respectable caretakers (probably no more or less).

But the experience of having fresh voiced outsiders serve as president has not necessarily been an unmixed blessing. By my reckoning there've been three in the last 50 years. One almost got the US into a nuclear war (JFK), one's memory is universally reviled largely because he was an outsider and therefore couldn't get much done (Carter) and the third is our own uniting, not dividing compassionate conservative, W.

geez said...

They have to pick the one they think that can beat MaCain. And that has to be Obama.

Most of them will pick the one who will offer them the best deal is my guess.

Obama's a big question mark and a lot of little pieces hint to me that he won't stand up well under extreme negativity.

What little pieces?

I think McCain is the one who will flip out and have a temper shit fit when the least hint of negativity is thrown his way. And that's what scares me about him in the White House.

BTW, Rush Limburger is now saying that he may be McCain's best frind by not endorsing him because if he did, the independents and not-so- left liberals won't consider voting for him. The guy's just a wind bag trying to get publicity for himself.

Hey, why aren't you libertarian guys for Ron Paul???

beatroot said...

Ron Paul is a racist.

beatroot said...

Allegedly.

michael farris said...

"What little pieces?"

Alice Palmer for one.

geez said...

Just rough and tumble rust belt politics. If her operatives could have knocked him off the ballot, she would have gone for the gusto, too. It's easy enough to check over one's petitions before they are handed in to make sure there aren't any shakey signatures that were forged or signed for dead people by petitioners. All you have to do is draw a line through anything that is suspect. You don't check them over, you are likely to have your petitions challenged. And you really have to have quite a few bad signatures to get thrown off the ballot.

Unless there's something else you're getting at.

beakerkin said...

Beatroot

Who cares how non voters like the candidates? The only factor that is relevant is that of the American people.

Perhaps Lurid will cast his vote for Chavez or Ken Livingstoned.

schaden freud said...

Who cares how non voters like the candidates? The only factor that is relevant is that of the American people.

Amerikkka uber alles.

luridtraversal said...

"Perhaps Lurid will cast his vote for Chavez or Ken Livingstoned."

Sigh. I'm still trying to figure out exactly where I'm a communist...

Oh. Wait. It's because I disagree with Beakertwat. I would like to state so maybe you'll get it through, that YES, I AM liberal (mostly in social terms), and NO I am not a communist! You asshole. Never in any comment have I voiced support for Chavez, Trotsky or anyone else for that matter. Why don't you get to know somebody before making accusations. By the way, I eagerly await your response to tell me to stay out of America!!!

geez said...

Well, at least you didn't get called a "liberal fascist."

Yea, this is the guy he-who-cannot-be-named idolizes:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=147884&title=jonah-goldberg

luridtraversal said...

"Well, at least you didn't get called a "liberal fascist."

Yes, that is true. I'm not sure which is worse honestly!!! I'm really tired of that guy.

luridtraversal said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
luridtraversal said...

Oops. Sorry for the multiple post Beat!!!

michael farris said...

"Unless there's something else you're getting at"

I see blogger helpfully ate my long, considered answer, so I'll summarize.

First, Obama is certainly not a bad candidate and if he's the nominee then I'll most likely vote for him (depending on resolution of Florida delegate issue).

Second, I'm kind of a contrarian (I know you'd never be able to guess) and not a joiner and not an enthusiast of youthful idealism. So the media ... ('worship' is the word that comes to mind though 'hype' is probably more accurate) awakens my inner Miss Marple and makes my wonder what everybody is missing.

Third, it's not one thing, it's a lot of little things. They probably don't mean anything, but you never know ... Overall the impression I get from my reading about Obama is of a smart, tough-willed person who's kind of secretive, has a thin skin and has never really internalized the idea of anyone opposing him. IME that's not a profile of a good manager (presidents most definitely encounter opposition on an hourly basis).

Finally, I don't hold the rough and tumble politics against him (it's how the game is played) but it clashes with his public persona. Of the three candidates still standing his is the only campaign that makes me feel he's insulting my intelligence. McCain and Clinton can be wrong, irritating and tiresome but they don't talk down to me. Obama does and a little too often for me to be entirely comfortable with him.

beatroot said...

No probs.

'Liberal fascist' of course is just the usual infintile name calling we have come to know (and not love) from this individual. People name call when they don't have the ability to debate something.

And of course, the use of 'liberal fascist' is similar to when the commies used to call social democrats 'social fascists' in the old days. I wonder if he realises the similarities between his kind of dumb name calling and the communists' sloganizing he professes to hate?

beatroot said...

Mike - alwayts right click and copy just in case befoee pressing the post button. This blogger is a strange beasty.

geez said...

Well, michael farris, let's face it: all politicians are ambitious, morally compromised if not outright morally bankrupted, pricks. Except for the women politicians but if I said what they are, I'd be called a misogynist.

luridtraversal said...

"Well, michael farris, let's face it: all politicians are ambitious, morally compromised if not outright morally bankrupted, pricks."

Truer words were never spoken my friend, but one can still hope.

I agree with Michael Farris that Obama talks down to people a lot, and that is a little off-putting, but overall if I have to choose between him and "Billery", I still think I'd go with Obama. But I honestly don't think he'll get the nomination anyway, so it's pretty much a non-issue I think. The superdelagates are going to toss it to Clinton. I wonder what the Vegas odds are on Obama getting the nomination?

beatroot said...

When listening to Obama just tune in on the gorgeous cadencews, the timing...and I tune out the rest, because it is meaningless mood music.

And that's better than Macain or Clintbum, who just do wooden.

But I don't agree all politicians are self serving pricks, and neither do I care. That's just a way of disengaging with what they are saying. It doesn't matter who or what they are, it matters what they say and do. That's how to judge them.

Anonymous said...

BEATROOT:

Ron Paul is a racist why?

Is he infecting women with HIV like the anti-racist Simon Mol?

Anonymous said...

http://ronpaulish.blog.onet.pl/

http://asia4ronpaul.blogspot.com/

http://bavaria-for-ron-paul.blogspot.com/

http://zionistsforronpaul.blogspot.com/

http://ronpaulbrazil.wordpress.com/


http://ronpaulfr.blogspot.com/

http://portugal4ronpaul.blogspot.com/


ETC.

Anonymous said...

Super Tuesday — Exposing the Real Racists in America

Obama gets at least 88 percent of the Black vote but nobody notices

Bill and Hillary Clinton have been the biggest advocates of Black interests and the Black agenda in recent American politics. Bill is even warmly referred to as the “first Black President” for his unrelenting support of the Black agenda.

Under the Clinton administration, the massive government-mandated racial discrimination against Whites (called euphemistically affirmative action) has become pervasive in both the public and private sector. Better-qualified Whites face racial discrimination in jobs, scholarships, union admittance, college admittance, promotions in academia, business and industry and the military, and in publicly bid contracts. Millions of Whites have been victims of Black criminality. More millions have been forced to abandon, with great financial difficulty, the public schools that their own taxes overwhelmingly pay for because of the horrid conditions caused by the racial realities in those schools. Millions of Whites have seen massive immigration transform their communities from the clean and safe places of American heritage to ghettos and barrios of dilapidation, trash and crime. The Clintons have been at the forefront of the policies that have so harmed White America.

But, everything the Clintons have done for the Black radicals counts for nothing among the Black voters.

Anonymous said...

The Atlanta Journal exit poll revealed that on Super Tuesday at least 88 percent of the Black voters pulled the lever for the Black candidate, Barack Obama. Owing to the fact that he is a relative newcomer, Barack Obama has accomplished little to advance the Black agenda, certainly nothing comparable to the Clintons. He surely did not get the Black vote because his policies were more in line with the Black community as they were practically identical on welfare, health care, and in what they call the mistreatment of Black criminals. Both Obama and Clinton allege that a racist criminal justice system exists in America. Both of them want to let hundreds of thousands of Black criminals out of jail.

So why did Blacks overwhelmingly vote for Obama? Did he offer a remarkably different program?

There is clearly one overriding factor in their choice of Obama. He is one of them! They were motivated by a racial loyalty. They voted for Obama because he is Black, period.

Such is the clear hypocrisy of the American political system. Every candidate is grilled by the media and minority special interest groups as to what they will specifically do for the Blacks, the Hispanics, etc. Often the questions are expressed as, “Why should African Americans vote for you?” or “What will you do to address the issues important to Black people in America.” The same kind of questions are also addressed from the Mexican or “Hispanic” point of view.

No Democrat or Republican candidate can avoid such questions, and not one of them, not even Ron Paul, refrained from saying how he was the best candidate for the group interests of Blacks or Hispanics. Ron Paul even went on to say that Blacks are the victims of a “racist criminal justice system” and that he was the only one who would pardon and release all Black drug felons in American federal prisons. Shockingly, he had no concern about the thousands of White victims that would suffer terribly from such a policy. I dare say that Paul’s statment undermined a great deal of potential White support for Ron Paul and goes a long way to explain his poor showing even though most Americans oppose the war.

Not one candidate dared to appeal directly to the needs and issues facing White people in America. No reporters asked the candidates, “Why should White people vote for you?,” or “What will you do about the issues that are important to White American majority?”

In the days after Super Tuesday, not one national commentator has pointed out the racist nature of the overwhelming mass of Black voters. No one has pointed out the racist nature of the media establishment and the racism of every major candidate in being concerned only about the needs or interests of Blacks, but not daring to even suggest that there are interests shared in common by the vast majority of the White population just as there are needs shared in common by Blacks.

To address issues of importance to Black people is called fairness and compassion.

To address needs of White people is called “racism.”

Barack Obama is a leading member of an Afro-centric Black Church that pledges first loyalty to Africa over America. Why does no one in media dare to criticize Obama on this issue, not even Republican candidates?

In spite of Obama’s clear racial appeal to Blacks and what is perceived as Black interests, millions of White people were still willing to vote for Obama, a man whose first loyalty as shown by his church, is arguably to Africa and African Americans. At the same time, Blacks were not even willing to vote for a White candidate who has unashamedly put Black interests over White interests for many years.

Who the real racists in America?

The facts are clear. You decide.

geez said...

Is this shit being generated and distributed through some kind of McKaka computer program?

schaden freud said...

From Wikipedia:

Macaca[1] is a pejorative epithet used by francophone colonialists in Central Africa's Belgian Congo for the native population.[2] It may be derived from the name of the genus comprising macaque monkeys. The word macaque has also been used as a racial slur. The macaque's genus name, Macaca, is a latinization of the Bantu (Kongo) ma-kako,[3] meaning "monkey".

In the United States, the term was at the center of a controversy during the 2006 United States Senate election in Virginia when it was used by the Republican incumbent, George Allen. Relating to the Allen controversy, "Macaca" was named the most politically incorrect word of 2006 on December 15 by Global Language Monitor, a nonprofit group that studies word usage [2].

geez said...

Mea kaka.

beatroot said...

I was refering to the newsletters, which I know he says he didn't write, but took 'moral duty' for.

Ron Paul got hip. He is anti-war, and has a libertarian view, some of which I agree with.

And then he turns into arch conservative. Pro-life, anti-immigration. It's the same old tired old crap.

geez said...

Also, according to Wikipedia, Kaka is also the nickname of Kazimierz Dejna, a Polish footballer and star of Escape to Victory, a film also starring Sylvester Stallone, Michael Caine, and Pele.

How did the guy get a nickname of "Poop"?

Anonymous said...

Is this shit being generated and distributed through some kind of McKaka computer program?

NO it´s distributed through the migrant theatre.

Anonymous said...

«And then he turns into arch conservative. Pro-life, anti-immigration. It's the same old tired old crap.»

CRAP?

Remind me of this:


«Refugee tried to infect innocent Poles with HIV, screams the tabloids!
This story, to anyone who knows the guy, stinks.»

BEATROOT DEFENDING A WELL KNOWN MURDERER!

Anonymous said...

You are not forgotten my friend.
Your day is coming...

kakaking said...

Anon, are you that kid in Iceland?

Anonymous said...

Nie, Nie:)

beatroot said...

:-)

You are not forgotten my friend.
Your day is coming...


Would you care to say what you mean by that?

Anonymous said...

Sto lat, sto lat!

Niech zyje, zyje nam!

michael farris said...

anonymous 8:43 forgot the link:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMbTBzPgMb0

I think s/he is crushing on the beatroot

geez said...

But the lyrics "your day is coming" come straight from a Busta Rhymes chorus :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Euw406YQV8

My little man, your day is coming, coming, your day is coming, I tell you
And when it comes, just keep it running, running, just keep it running, I tell you

Better yet... Time has Come Today.. Cuckoo:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nuiIqMQ4sA

michael farris said...

"But the lyrics "your day is coming" come straight from a Busta Rhymes chorus"

Even had I known that I'd still prefer Ruby and the Romantics (I've never been able to get into hip hop almost all of it is either depressing or degenerate- real aesthetic nihilism).

beakerkin said...

Beakerkin does this slowly for the mindless types.

The only relevant opinions in US elections are those belonging to American Citizens. The views of non citizens are irrelevant.

Lurid the Trotskyite remarks are aimed at the self described Trotskyite Renegade Eye. I am certain if you grovel Hugo Chavez will take you in.

Thank you for remaining out of the country. It is very easy to renounce your citizenship. Kindly visit the nearest embassy and do so
at the earliest opportunity.

beatroot said...

Comment boxes on blogs are a bit like people in cars. They scream and shout and say things they would not dream of saying in normal everyday face to face communication (because they would get their heads kicked in). But they act like that because they think they are in a private space and are safe to vent their infantile bile.

But, of course, the web is not a private space. We are not ‘anonymous’. This is a public space and its about time the small minority of jerks got taught a lesson, if they continue to try and disrupt intelligent people talking about stuff – which is the purpose of this.

For everyone else - I will tolerate this wanker for a while, because he has a minor entertainment value, and I am not into deleting stuff. He will go away as he usually does after a little while - back to the murkier depths of the internet. But if it continues for too long then I will just delete the comments, if that is OK with everyone else.

It’s just a waste of electricity.

beatroot said...

I am not actually talking about you, Beakowack - you are in the borderline group who just write nonsense, not especially offensive nonsense. So you can stay.

michael farris said...

"The only relevant opinions in US elections are those belonging to American Citizens. The views of non citizens are irrelevant."

So then, by analogy, the only relevant opinions on the leadership of countries like Iran and China and Russia (vamp till ready) are those belonging to the citizens of those countries and American opinions are irrelevant. I'm slightly surprised at this hardline isolationist and non-interventionist turn in your commentary.

beatroot said...

Ask him how non-interventionist he is about why America invaded Iraq.

luridtraversal said...

He's a jackass. Nothing more. But I still LOVE being told to renounce my citizenship... I think I'll keep it though (if it's alright with Beaktwat) and after next week when my son is born, I'm gonna really piss off Beakfuck and get him U.S. citizenship as well!!!

beakerkin said...

Lurid

There is no evidence that your cognitive disorders are genetic. Have you started with the Karl Marx and Noam Chomsky pop up books yet or are you still reading them yourself.

The process of renouncing your citizenship is quite easy. You can do it in a single visit. They might even throw in a good meal with condiments.

Expatriates should be in the same general area of the market as exlax. However, unlike laxitives they are quite useless.

FYI

Theo nly relevant opinion in any elections are those of stake holders. This may be above the IQ
limits of alcohol impaired salon types or their low wage hired help.

In fact the opinions of useless salon types have been proven quite good at getting people to vote the other way. Beatroot type imbeciles at the Guardian conducted a letter writing campaign to Ohio voters. The recipients of those letters voted for Bush.

I am wondering how Beatroot would react to a series of similar letters from Americans to Londoners
aimed at Ken Livingstoner. No doubt
Beaten Ruthless would be talking about obnoxious meddling Americans.

FYI Gomer Kerry instructed his French relatives to remain silent.

luridtraversal said...

Again, sigh...

Beakerfuck, can't you come up with something new to say? You sound like a broken record. Except for the insult to my unborn child of course.

"Expatriates should be in the same general area of the market as exlax. However, unlike laxitives they are quite useless."

I'm useless for moving to Poland to be with my wife while she finishes University? Okay, that's cool. I'm a lot less useless than a bureaucratic defunct government employee like yourself however. It's amazing how instead of debate with people you just shout COMMUNIST and say things like "give up your citizenship". It's funny how in your blog you talk about tolerance. Do you feel better about yourself when you call people "commies" or tell them to do something without knowing who they are except based on a comment? You have a sad life sir.

You ARE entertaining though. Come on...say it again with feeling this time: "give up your citizenship" Please just one more time sweetheart.

beatroot said...

I am wondering how Beatroot would react to a series of similar letters from Americans to Londoners
aimed at Ken Livingstoner.


No probs - Livingstone is a bit of a twat.

schaden freud said...

My guess is that the gubmint bureaucrat was rejected as cannon fodder.

geez said...

Nice. It all will come down to honest bribery. Best politicians money can buy:

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/02/superdelegates.html

luridtraversal said...

Nice. That's really sad.

beakerkin said...

Beatenroot

I do not believe in telling people how to run their countries if there are free elections. For better or worse Londoners elected Ken Livingstoner. Most elections are about local matters and no doubt Londoners likely had some reason to put elect him. However, I respect the popular will and procedure.

Lurid

Who is insulting your child? I seriously hope he did not inherit a thing from you. You should be familiar with the hardships of being an imbecile.

FYI I left a nice paying job in the private sector because of some bad timing. My choice to take a 70% pay cut to do a job I believe in has enriched my life.

Shall I book a space in Venezuela for you.

mao ding-dong said...

Bad timing's a terrible thing to happen. But then again, you probably wouldn't have gotten caught if you were more careful.

We're all gladdened, however, by the enrichment of your life, your having *chosen* to take a 70% pay cut, your taking a gubmint job and realizing that socialism is your savior.

beatroot said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
beatroot said...

mao
I have no idea what that kid Beak-o-wacko is on, but I think it is not good for his mental health. I never can understand what he is talking about, to be honest.

geez said...

He's on Jonah Goldfarb.

beakerkin said...

Beatroot

The reason you do not understand me or real people in general is your cultural arrogance. You know little of what real people do for a living
outside your neocolonial expatriate
alcohol induced blatherings.

Geez writing under several inane aliases assumes wrongly my bad timing is a reference to an economic event.There are things real men ( Commies excluded by IQ and backbone) do not discuss, but we go about our business each and every day.

Socialism is nobody's savior and genuine socialists are few and far between. All too often socialist permit Commies in their ranks and champion Communist messes like Cuba
and Hugo's blunderland.

Beatroot

Shall I interpret Geez's botching of Jonah Goldber's name as anti-semitic. Then again your type
does tend to burn books rather than read them.

beatroot said...

?

geez said...

"Goldber"?

I stand corrected.

There are things real men ( Commies excluded by IQ and backbone) do not discuss

Actually, I'm very happy you did not give us any details.

beakerkin said...

Geez

I will assume your error was a typo with no malice and that matter is done.

You should read the books in question before commenting on them. Oddly Goldberg makes some arguments that are similar to that of Beatroot himself on other topics.

geez said...

B-n:

Some day you are going to realize that what you've been writing is 90% malice.

And I've been reading Goldberg for years.

beakerkin said...

Geez

So says the person who supports Norman Finkelstein ( Maoist calling himself Green ) whose works are compared to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

There are valid reasons for loathing commies. However, if you spent the time read the book in question you will see his arguments are identical to that of Beatroot albeit better formed and more coherent.

beatroot said...

I don;t think I have anything to do with Goldberg.

But spooky: the term 'liberal fascism' and 'cheese eating monkeys' are both from Goldberg.

geez said...

Only jackasses compare Finkelstein's work to the PotEoZ.

And yes, there are valid reasons for loathing commies. And for loathing jackasses who blindly equate to commies all liberals, libertarians, and a range of other folks who aren't easily categorized.

beatroot said...

Well, indeed.

And further to that obsessive use of a label, back to Goldberg and 'liberal fascism'.

The use of fascism as a catch all adjective is usually uttered by spotty 18 year olds standing on street corners selling the Party newspaper. 'Bush is a fascist!' etc.

The defense of using 'fascist' is exposed on the Daily Show here, to comic effect.

http://tv.popcrunch.com/daily-show-january-15-jonah-goldberg-author-of-liberal-fascism-video/

beakerkin said...

Geez

The work and life of Finkelstein is quite similar to the materials found in the Protocals.


Beatroot

Had you read the book in question you would see that Goldberg makes a similar argument to your own version of events with Communism.
We have been down this road before where you claim it is unfair to link current commies ( Renegade Eye) with that of the historical record. The record of Trotsky's own criminality should be familiar to Pole's including members of my own family who fought for Poland in 1920.

Thus if you had read Goldberg you would have seen with some validity his points about reducing fascism to a single event. Actual fascism has common roots with Communism.

Leftists live in a fantasy world where communists and a few words about " social justice" obscure reality. The drug dealing Black Panthers were little more than a street gang with a few lines of Marx added in. Pol Pot, Mao and so forth also had nationalistic elements.

Essentially Goldberg makes the exact same argument you do while trying to delink the historic crimes of Communists from its current followers.

Cheese eating surrender monkey is
part of the popular culture. The term was hardly coined by Goldberg.
It is reflective of an American weariness about rather mindless reflexive anti-American hysteria found in Europe.

Sorry but the salon crowd is not too popular in the states.

Try reading the book in question and compare your own comments about
Communism. Moreover, Goldberg unlike yourself, never gives a free
pass to modern Nazis or fascists. I contrast this with your rose colored views of Chavez and insane American self described Trotskyites.

beatroot said...

We have been down this road before where you claim it is unfair to link current commies ( Renegade Eye) with that of the historical record.

But, s usual, we have been down THIS road far too many times before. I have not claimed anything about modern day commies because modern day commies don't exsist anymore. It's kaput. Fin. Koniec. No more. Ceased to be. Defunkt. Gone to see its maker....

So you like Renegade are fighting some tired old battles. Time to move on. Get a life etc.

beakerkin said...

Beatroot

Hold on there. You made the exact same argument Goldberg did when the subject of Communism was presented.
Unlike Goldberg who in no way endorses fascism you endorse communism when it is rebranded and somehow think it is different when proposed by self descibed Trotskyites or by egomaniacal Latin American cocanuts like Chavez.

The avalanche of the historical record of communism are facts. Members of my own family fought for Poland against Bolshevik invaders led by Trotsky who commited war crimes against the Polish people.

How are modern communists exempt from the historical record? You made the exact same argument that Goldberg presented when you claimed
that modern Communists should not have to answer for the historic crimes of Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin and Trotsky.

FYI This is not a personal vendetta
but a matter of honesty and integrity. Now you you are claiming
commies do not exist. This must come as news to Renegade Eye who venerates a man patriotic Poles including members of my own family
call a war criminal. This must also
come as a shock to Castro, Chavez and lunatics in leadership positions of Code Pink do not exist.

Any comparison between you and an ostrich is an insult to a noble creature.

beatroot said...

Hold on there. You made the exact same argument Goldberg did when the subject of Communism was presented.
Unlike Goldberg who in no way endorses fascism you endorse communism when it is rebranded and somehow think it is different when proposed by self descibed Trotskyites or by egomaniacal Latin American cocanuts like Chavez.


If you can back up that last statement with a quote then I will be interested. If not, stop wasting my time.

geez said...

So you like Renegade are fighting some tired old battles. Time to move on. Get a life etc.

Yes. Amusing up to a point that was passed long ago. Now totally repetitive and boring. Any attempt to respond to he-who-cannot-be-named is self-indulgence in sadism. Mea culpa. Amen. Koniec.

beakerkin said...

Beatroot

Would you like me to pull the comment from Ren's site? You now exactly the ones I am talking about. Lets start off with the famous Stalin=Mao= Ren, the one where you deny linking current communists to historic crimes.Lets then move onto Chavez reminds you of Peron.

You can clear up the mess by answering the following questions

1 What is a person who calls himself a Trotskyite?
2 Are current communists accountable for their historical
record?
3 Do communist have a history of hiding under other labels?
4 Do rational people have reasons to oppose Communism?
5 Is Leon Trotsky a war criminal? If not why do some Poles including members of my own family think otherwise?

It would seem you say one thing on Ren's site and another in front of your Polish audience.

Anonymous said...

Yes! Finally something about insurance.

Feel free to surf to my site - affordable health insurance