President Bush, the Liberal President (and the Republican Party and the Black Vote)


I have said to Mr. McCain that I admire all he has done. I have some concerns about the direction that the party has taken in recent years. It has moved more to the right than I would like to see it, but that’s a choice the party makes.– Colin Powell, Former Secretary of State under the Bush Administration, on Meet the Press, Sunday October 19, 2008

Photo credit: Reuters/Kevin Lamarque (Hat tip: Skyepuppy)

What did Colin Powell have in mind, exactly, in stating his belief that the Republican Party has moved further starboard? Expansion of government and uncontrolled spending? Dramatic Increases in entitlement programs, such as social security, food stamps, and medicare drug benefit? Dramatic increase in education spendings (“I believe that education is the new civil right.”– President Bush) under the current president? Faith-based intitiatives aimed at benefiting the poor? A soft “compassionate conservative” approach by the Administration in dealing with illegal immigration and immigration reform?  More financial relief to fight AIDS in Africa as well as helping local farmers in Africa, doing more to help people living in Africa than any other previous U.S. president?

President Bush has behaved rather liberally on not just spending, but on supporting programs that have been beneficial to minority groups.

Rove recommended books to Bush to read, including Murray Myron’s The Dream and the Nightmare and Marvin Olasky’s The Tragedy of American Compassion. Both mirrored Bush’s thoughts, arguing that the feel-good, permissive values of the 1960s undermined the strength of families and helped create dependency on government, ultimately harming the disadvantaged classes. As an antidote, Bush, in discussions with Myron, Olasky, and others, fashioned the concept of “compassionate conservativism.”

It was not a catchy phrase, and conservatives didn’t like it because it implied that there was something wrong with being a conservative- like calling someone a realistic liberal. But the phrase accurately described Bush’s philosophy. His goal was to help people. He believed the best way to do that was to develop government programs and policies that allowed them to help themselves. He did not see government as an enemy, as traditional conservatives did. But he did not believe the solution to problems was necessarily to throw money around.
– Pg 58, A Matter of Character, by Ronald Kessler.

Guest host Wayne Perryman (author of Unfounded Loyalty) for the Michael Medved Show, October 9, 2008, questioned “What do Obama critics mean when they say they “don’t want more of the same”?; then ran through a list of unacknowledged positives that President Bush has done on behalf of liberal blacks, sometimes to the consternation of his conservative base.

In 2000, The NAACP launched an unprecedented $10 million voter education and registration project; Democrats and unions pumped several millions more into black communities in “get out the vote” operations. In the end, Democrats received more votes for their candidate than they received in the previous 2 elections: 90 percent of the black vote while 8-9% went to Republicans, the lowest share for Republicans since Goldwater in 1964; for Hispanics, it went 64-35, Democrats. In 2004, Bush received 11% of the black vote.

McCain is supposedly taking a different strategy than Bush in ’04, to woo the black vote; but he has one problem: He’s white. His political opponent is….not quite that white. And the lure to see a historical glass ceiling broken is tempting even to black conservative Republicans.

In 2000, the GOP had woefully mismanaged its appeals to black and Hispanic voters. George W. Bush was the most minority-friendly candidate Republicans had nominated since Abraham Lincoln. He had showcased his concern for minority problems throughout his governorship, both by the appointments he had made and the policies he’d pursued. And he had won unusually high vote shares among black and Hispanic Texans.

But in 2000, none of that history was communicated through the media that mattered. Democratic ads on minority stations accused Bush and the Republicans of intimidating minority voters, of promoting hate crimes, and of incarcerating minority youth en masse. GOP consultants seemed frozen in place. Unwilling to expend the emotional or financial capital to counterattack in the relevant venues, Republicans neither refuted racially charged allegations nor promoted a positive conservative agenda.

By absenting ourselves from minority media, we Republicans gave the Democrats carte blanche to paint us as they chose. And they chose to paint us as bigots. In 2002, pollster Kellyanne Conway measured the consequences. Black voters did not associate the GOP with any of its traditional issues: “Republican” meant bigotry, plain and simple.

Adding irony to angst, GOP platform issues polled well with minorities. Millions of blacks supported traditional marriage and school choice. Millions of Hispanics were pro-life and anti-tax. In fact, there was hardly an issue in the Republican arsenal that did not receive higher approval from minorities than the party itself did. But this gap between minority patterns of thinking and voting mattered not a whit unless conservatives mustered the will to politicize it.

How many black babies have been aborted, on account of groups like Planned Parenthood and the pro-choice policy of the Democratic Party?  Why do black voters continue to vote against their self-interest:

A new Zogby Poll on abortion indicated that 56 percent of Americans believe abortion should never be legal, be legal only when the life of the mother is in danger or be legal in cases of rape and incest. But when African Americans were asked these same questions, 62 percent answered in kind, identifying themselves as measurably more pro-life than the population at large.

Bush has supported and signed into law the Partial Birth Abortion Ban and the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. Conversely, John Kerry voted against the Partial Birth Abortion Ban six times; voted against the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, and voted 25 times in favor of using taxpayer dollars to fund abortions. If elected president, Kerry has vowed to only nominate jurists who will uphold unabated abortion rights.

Even more significantly, African Americans continue to voice a strong desire to protect traditional marriage. A recent CBS News poll found that 55 percent favor a constitutional amendment protecting marriage. Interestingly, that same poll found that African Americans oppose same-sex marriage in considerably greater numbers, with 67 percent favoring a constitutional amendment.

Again, it is Bush who has called for amending the U.S. Constitution to preserve and protect traditional marriage. Bush is convinced that passage of the Federal Marriage Amendment is the only way to ultimately ensure that a single judge cannot override the will of the vast majority of Americans.

President Bush embraces 4th and 5th graders from P.S. 76 in the Bronx, N.Y., after making a statement about the “No Child Left Behind” program.
Charles Dharapak, AP

President Bush has had the most racially diverse cabinet in U.S. presidential history. On July 27, 2006, he signed a 25 year extension of the National Voting Rights Act of 1965.

It is the Republican Party that has a profound history of support for blacks; not the Party of Soft Bigotry of Low Expectations:

Partial list:

The Republican Party was formed in 1854 specifically to oppose the Democrats, and for more than 150 years, they have done everything they could to block the Democrat agenda. In their abuses of power, they have even used threats and military violence to thwart the Democrat Party’s attempts to make this a progressive country. As you read the following Republican atrocities that span three centuries, imagine if you will, what a far different nation the United States would be had not the Republicans been around to block the Democrats’ efforts.

March 20, 1854
Opponents of Democrats’ pro-slavery policies meet in Ripon, Wisconsin to establish the Republican Party

May 30, 1854
Democrat President Franklin Pierce signs Democrats’ Kansas-Nebraska Act, expanding slavery into U.S. territories; opponents unite to form the Republican Party

June 16, 1854
Newspaper editor Horace Greeley calls on opponents of slavery to unite in the Republican Party

July 6, 1854
First state Republican Party officially organized in Jackson, Michigan, to oppose Democrats’ pro-slavery policies

February 11, 1856
Republican Montgomery Blair argues before U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of his client, the slave Dred Scott; later served in President Lincoln’s Cabinet

February 22, 1856
First national meeting of the Republican Party, in Pittsburgh, to coordinate opposition to Democrats’ pro-slavery policies

March 27, 1856
First meeting of Republican National Committee in Washington, DC to oppose Democrats’ pro-slavery policies

May 22, 1856
For denouncing Democrats’ pro-slavery policy, Republican U.S. Senator Charles Sumner (R-MA) is beaten nearly to death on floor of Senate by U.S. Rep. Preston Brooks (D-SC), takes three years to recover

March 6, 1857
Republican Supreme Court Justice John McLean issues strenuous dissent from decision by 7 Democrats in infamous Dred Scott case that African-Americans had no rights “which any white man was bound to respect”

June 26, 1857
Abraham Lincoln declares Republican position that slavery is “cruelly wrong,” while Democrats “cultivate and excite hatred” for blacks

October 13, 1858
During Lincoln-Douglas debates, U.S. Senator Stephen Douglas (D-IL) states: “I do not regard the Negro as my equal, and positively deny that he is my brother, or any kin to me whatever”; Douglas became Democratic Party’s 1860 presidential nominee

October 25, 1858
U.S. Senator William Seward (R-NY) describes Democratic Party as “inextricably committed to the designs of the slaveholders”; as President Abraham Lincoln’s Secretary of State, helped draft Emancipation Proclamation

June 4, 1860
Republican U.S. Senator Charles Sumner (R-MA) delivers his classic address, The Barbarism of Slavery

April 7, 1862
President Lincoln concludes treaty with Britain for suppression of slave trade

April 16, 1862
President Lincoln signs bill abolishing slavery in District of Columbia; in Congress, 99% of Republicans vote yes, 83% of Democrats vote no

July 2, 1862
U.S. Rep. Justin Morrill (R-VT) wins passage of Land Grant Act, establishing colleges open to African-Americans, including such students as George Washington Carver

July 17, 1862
Over unanimous Democrat opposition, Republican Congress passes Confiscation Act stating that slaves of the Confederacy “shall be forever free”

August 19, 1862
Republican newspaper editor Horace Greeley writes Prayer of Twenty Millions, calling on President Lincoln to declare emancipation

August 25, 1862
President Abraham Lincoln authorizes enlistment of African-American soldiers in U.S. Army

September 22, 1862
Republican President Abraham Lincoln issues Emancipation Proclamation

January 1, 1863

Emancipation Proclamation, implementing the Republicans’ Confiscation Act of 1862, takes effect

February 9, 1864
Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton deliver over 100,000 signatures to U.S. Senate supporting Republicans’ plans for constitutional amendment to ban slavery

June 15, 1864
Republican Congress votes equal pay for African-American troops serving in U.S. Army during Civil War

June 28, 1864
Republican majority in Congress repeals Fugitive Slave Acts

October 29, 1864
African-American abolitionist Sojourner Truth says of President Lincoln: “I never was treated by anyone with more kindness and cordiality than were shown to me by that great and good man”

January 31, 1865
13th Amendment banning slavery passed by U.S. House with unanimous Republican support, intense Democrat opposition

March 3, 1865
Republican Congress establishes Freedmen’s Bureau to provide health care, education, and technical assistance to emancipated slaves

April 8, 1865
13th Amendment banning slavery passed by U.S. Senate with 100% Republican support, 63% Democrat opposition

June 19, 1865
On “Juneteenth,” U.S. troops land in Galveston, TX to enforce ban on slavery that had been declared more than two years before by the Emancipation Proclamation

November 22, 1865
Republicans denounce Democrat legislature of Mississippi for enacting “black codes,” which institutionalized racial discrimination

December 6, 1865
Republican Party’s 13th Amendment, banning slavery, is ratified

February 5, 1866
U.S. Rep. Thaddeus Stevens (R-PA) introduces legislation, successfully opposed by Democrat President Andrew Johnson, to implement “40 acres and a mule” relief by distributing land to former slaves

April 9, 1866
Republican Congress overrides Democrat President Johnson’s veto; Civil Rights Act of 1866, conferring rights of citizenship on African-Americans, becomes law

April 19, 1866
Thousands assemble in Washington, DC to celebrate Republican Party’s abolition of slavery

May 10, 1866
U.S. House passes Republicans’ 14th Amendment guaranteeing due process and equal protection of the laws to all citizens; 100% of Democrats vote no

June 8, 1866
U.S. Senate passes Republicans’ 14th Amendment guaranteeing due process and equal protection of the law to all citizens; 94% of Republicans [Senate] vote yes and 100% of Democrats vote no [96% of GOP House members also-ws]

July 16, 1866
Republican Congress overrides Democrat President Andrew Johnson’s veto of Freedman’s Bureau Act, which protected former slaves from “black codes” denying their rights

July 28, 1866
Republican Congress authorizes formation of the Buffalo Soldiers, two regiments of African-American cavalrymen

July 30, 1866
Democrat-controlled City of New Orleans orders police to storm racially-integrated Republican meeting; raid kills 40 and wounds more than 150

January 8, 1867
Republicans override Democrat President Andrew Johnson’s veto of law granting voting rights to African-Americans in D.C.

July 19, 1867
Republican Congress overrides Democrat President Andrew Johnson’s veto of legislation protecting voting rights of African-Americans

March 30, 1868
Republicans begin impeachment trial of Democrat President Andrew Johnson, who declared: “This is a country for white men, and by God, as long as I am President, it shall be a government of white men”

May 20, 1868
Republican National Convention marks debut of African-American politicians on national stage; two – Pinckney Pinchback and James Harris – attend as delegates, and several serve as presidential electors

September 3, 1868
25 African-Americans in Georgia legislature, all Republicans, expelled by Democrat majority; later reinstated by Republican Congress

September 12, 1868
Civil rights activist Tunis Campbell and all other African-Americans in Georgia Senate, every one a Republican, expelled by Democrat majority; would later be reinstated by Republican Congress

September 28, 1868
Democrats in Opelousas, Louisiana murder nearly 300 African-Americans who tried to prevent an assault against a Republican newspaper editor

October 7, 1868
Republicans denounce Democratic Party’s national campaign theme: “This is a white man’s country: Let white men rule”

October 22, 1868
While campaigning for re-election, Republican U.S. Rep. James Hinds (R-AR) is assassinated by Democrat terrorists who organized as the Ku Klux Klan

November 3, 1868
Republican Ulysses Grant defeats Democrat Horatio Seymour in presidential election; Seymour had denounced Emancipation Proclamation

December 10, 1869
Republican Gov. John Campbell of Wyoming Territory signs FIRST-in-nation law granting women right to vote and to hold public office

February 3, 1870
After passing House with 98% Republican support and 97% Democrat opposition, Republicans’ 15th Amendment is ratified, granting vote to all Americans regardless of race

May 19, 1870
African-American John Langston, law professor and future Republican Congressman from Virginia, delivers influential speech supporting President Ulysses Grant’s civil rights policies

May 31, 1870
President U.S. Grant signs Republicans’ Enforcement Act, providing stiff penalties for depriving any American’s civil rights

June 22, 1870
Republican Congress creates U.S. Department of Justice, to safeguard the civil rights of African-Americans against Democrats in the South

September 6, 1870
Women vote in Wyoming, in FIRST election after women’s suffrage signed into law by Republican Gov. John Campbell

February 28, 1871
Republican Congress passes Enforcement Act providing federal protection for African-American voters

March 22, 1871
Spartansburg Republican newspaper denounces Ku Klux Klan campaign to eradicate the Republican Party in South Carolina

April 20, 1871
Republican Congress enacts the Ku Klux Klan Act, outlawing Democratic Party-affiliated terrorist groups which oppressed African-Americans

October 10, 1871
Following warnings by Philadelphia Democrats against black voting, African-American Republican civil rights activist Octavius Catto murdered by Democratic Party operative; his military funeral was attended by thousands

October 18, 1871
After violence against Republicans in South Carolina, President Ulysses Grant deploys U.S. troops to combat Democrat terrorists who formed the Ku Klux Klan

November 18, 1872
Susan B. Anthony arrested for voting, after boasting to Elizabeth Cady Stanton that she voted for “the Republican ticket, straight”

January 17, 1874
Armed Democrats seize Texas state government, ending Republican efforts to racially integrate government

September 14, 1874
Democrat white supremacists seize Louisiana statehouse in attempt to overthrow racially-integrated administration of Republican Governor William Kellogg; 27 killed

March 1, 1875
Civil Rights Act of 1875, guaranteeing access to public accommodations without regard to race, signed by Republican President U.S. Grant; passed with 92% Republican support over 100% Democrat opposition

September 20, 1876
Former state Attorney General Robert Ingersoll (R-IL) tells veterans: “Every man that loved slavery better than liberty was a Democrat… I am a Republican because it is the only free party that ever existed”

January 10, 1878
U.S. Senator Aaron Sargent (R-CA) introduces Susan B. Anthony amendment for women’s suffrage; Democrat-controlled Senate defeated it 4 times before election of Republican House and Senate guaranteed its approval in 1919

July 14, 1884
Republicans criticize Democratic Party’s nomination of racist U.S. Senator Thomas Hendricks (D-IN) for vice president; he had voted against the 13th Amendment banning slavery

August 30, 1890
Republican President Benjamin Harrison signs legislation by U.S. Senator Justin Morrill (R-VT) making African-Americans eligible for land-grant colleges in the South

June 7, 1892
In a FIRST for a major U.S. political party, two women – Theresa Jenkins and Cora Carleton – attend Republican National Convention in an official capacity, as alternate delegates

February 8, 1894
Democrat Congress and Democrat President Grover Cleveland join to repeal Republicans’ Enforcement Act, which had enabled African-Americans to vote

December 11, 1895
African-American Republican and former U.S. Rep. Thomas Miller (R-SC) denounces new state constitution written to disenfranchise African-Americans

May 18, 1896
Republican Justice John Marshall Harlan, dissenting from Supreme Court’s notorious Plessy v. Ferguson “separate but equal” decision, declares: “Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens”

December 31, 1898
Republican Theodore Roosevelt becomes Governor of New York; in 1900, he outlawed racial segregation in New York public schools

May 24, 1900
Republicans vote no in referendum for constitutional convention in Virginia, designed to create a new state constitution disenfranchising African-Americans

January 15, 1901
Republican Booker T. Washington protests Alabama Democratic Party’s refusal to permit voting by African-Americans

October 16, 1901
President Theodore Roosevelt invites Booker T. Washington to dine at White House, sparking protests by Democrats across the country

May 29, 1902
Virginia Democrats implement new state constitution, condemned by Republicans as illegal, reducing African-American voter registration by 86%

February 12, 1909
On 100th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln’s birth, African-American Republicans and women’s suffragists Ida Wells and Mary Terrell co-found the NAACP

June 18, 1912
African-American Robert Church, founder of Lincoln Leagues to register black voters in Tennessee, attends 1912 Republican National Convention as delegate; eventually serves as delegate at 8 conventions

August 1, 1916
Republican presidential candidate Charles Evans Hughes, former New York Governor and U.S. Supreme Court Justice, endorses women’s suffrage constitutional amendment; he would become Secretary of State and Chief Justice

May 21, 1919
Republican House passes constitutional amendment granting women the vote with 85% of Republicans in favor, but only 54% of Democrats; in Senate, 80% of Republicans would vote yes, but almost half of Democrats no

April 18, 1920
Minnesota’s FIRST-in-the-nation anti-lynching law, promoted by African-American Republican Nellie Francis, signed by Republican Gov. Jacob Preus

August 18, 1920
Republican-authored 19th Amendment, giving women the vote, becomes part of Constitution; 26 of the 36 states to ratify had Republican-controlled legislatures

January 26, 1922
House passes bill authored by U.S. Rep. Leonidas Dyer (R-MO) making lynching a federal crime; Senate Democrats block it with filibuster

June 2, 1924
Republican President Calvin Coolidge signs bill passed by Republican Congress granting U.S. citizenship to all Native Americans

October 3, 1924
Republicans denounce three-time Democrat presidential nominee William Jennings Bryan for defending the Ku Klux Klan at 1924 Democratic National Convention

December 8, 1924
Democratic presidential candidate John W. Davis argues in favor of “separate but equal”

June 12, 1929
First Lady Lou Hoover invites wife of U.S. Rep. Oscar De Priest (R-IL), an African-American, to tea at the White House, sparking protests by Democrats across the country

August 17, 1937
Republicans organize opposition to former Ku Klux Klansman and Democrat U.S. Senator Hugo Black, appointed to U.S. Supreme Court by FDR; his Klan background was hidden until after confirmation

June 24, 1940
Republican Party platform calls for integration of the armed forces; for the balance of his terms in office, FDR refuses to order it

October 20, 1942
60 prominent African-Americans issue Durham Manifesto, calling on southern Democrats to abolish their all-white primaries

April 3, 1944
U.S. Supreme Court strikes down Texas Democratic Party’s “whites only” primary election system

February 18, 1946
Appointed by Republican President Calvin Coolidge, federal judge Paul McCormick ends segregation of Mexican-American children in California public schools

July 11, 1952
Republican Party platform condemns “duplicity and insincerity” of Democrats in racial matters

September 30, 1953
Earl Warren, California’s three-term Republican Governor and 1948 Republican vice presidential nominee, nominated to be Chief Justice; wrote landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education

December 8, 1953
Eisenhower administration Asst. Attorney General Lee Rankin argues for plaintiffs in Brown v. Board of Education

May 17, 1954
Chief Justice Earl Warren, three-term Republican Governor (CA) and Republican vice presidential nominee in 1948, wins unanimous support of Supreme Court for school desegregation in Brown v. Board of Education

[GOP President Dwight Eisenhower’s Justice Department argued for Topeka, Kansas’s black school children. Democrat John W. Davis, who lost a presidential bid to incumbent Republican Calvin Coolidge in 1924, defended “separate but equal” classrooms.]

November 25, 1955
Eisenhower administration bans racial segregation of interstate bus travel

March 12, 1956
Ninety-seven Democrats in Congress condemn Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education, and pledge to continue segregation

June 5, 1956
Republican federal judge Frank Johnson rules in favor of Rosa Parks in decision striking down “blacks in the back of the bus” law

October 19, 1956
On campaign trail, Vice President Richard Nixon vows: “American boys and girls shall sit, side by side, at any school – public or private – with no regard paid to the color of their skin. Segregation, discrimination, and prejudice have no place in America”

November 6, 1956
African-American civil rights leaders Martin Luther King and Ralph Abernathy vote for Republican Dwight Eisenhower for President

September 9, 1957
President Dwight Eisenhower signs Republican Party’s 1957 Civil Rights Act

September 24, 1957
Sparking criticism from Democrats such as Senators John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, President Dwight Eisenhower deploys the 82nd Airborne Division to Little Rock, AR to force Democrat Governor Orval Faubus to integrate public schools

June 23, 1958
President Dwight Eisenhower meets with Martin Luther King and other African-American leaders to discuss plans to advance civil rights

February 4, 1959
President Eisenhower informs Republican leaders of his plan to introduce 1960 Civil Rights Act, despite staunch opposition from many Democrats

May 6, 1960
President Dwight Eisenhower signs Republicans’ Civil Rights Act of 1960, overcoming 125-hour, around-the-clock filibuster by 18 Senate Democrats

July 27, 1960
At Republican National Convention, Vice President and eventual presidential nominee Richard Nixon insists on strong civil rights plank in platform

May 2, 1963
Republicans condemn Democrat sheriff of Birmingham, AL for arresting over 2,000 African-American schoolchildren marching for their civil rights

June 1, 1963
Democrat Governor George Wallace announces defiance of court order issued by Republican federal judge Frank Johnson to integrate University of Alabama

September 29, 1963
Gov. George Wallace (D-AL) defies order by U.S. District Judge Frank Johnson, appointed by President Dwight Eisenhower, to integrate Tuskegee High School

June 9, 1964
Republicans condemn 14-hour filibuster against 1964 Civil Rights Act by U.S. Senator and former Ku Klux Klansman Robert Byrd (D-WV), who still serves in the Senate

June 10, 1964
Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen (R-IL) criticizes Democrat filibuster against 1964 Civil Rights Act, calls on Democrats to stop opposing racial equality

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was introduced and approved by a staggering majority of Republicans in the Senate. The Act was opposed by most southern Democrat senators, several of whom were proud segregationists—one of them being Al Gore Sr. Democrat President Lyndon B. Johnson relied on Illinois Senator Everett Dirkson, the Republican leader from Illinois, to get the Act passed.

[According to Congressional Quarterly, only 61% of Democrats in the House of Representatives supported the act, while 80% of Republicans voted in favor. In the Senate, 69% of Democrats and 82% of Republicans voted in favor. Among the Democratic senators who voted against the legislation were J. William Fulbright (Bill Clinton’s mentor), who was a racist- pg 82, Do-Gooders, Mona Charen]

*[Senator Barry Goldwater (R., Ariz.) opposed this bill the very year he became the GOP’s presidential standard-bearer. However, Goldwater supported the 1957 and 1960 Civil Rights Acts and called for integrating Arizona’s National Guard two years before Truman desegregated the military. Goldwater feared the 1964 Act would limit freedom of association in the private sector, a controversial but principled libertarian objection rooted in the First Amendment rather than racial hatred.]

Goldwater was also a founding (lifelong) member of the Arizona chapter for the NAACP.

June 20, 1964
The Chicago Defender, renowned African-American newspaper, praises Senate Republican Leader Everett Dirksen (R-IL) for leading passage of 1964 Civil Rights Act

March 7, 1965
Police under the command of Democrat Governor George Wallace attack African-Americans demonstrating for voting rights in Selma, AL

March 21, 1965
Republican federal judge Frank Johnson authorizes Martin Luther King’s protest march from Selma to Montgomery, overruling Democrat Governor George Wallace

August 4, 1965
Senate Republican Leader Everett Dirksen (R-IL) overcomes Democrat attempts to block 1965 Voting Rights Act; 94% of Senate Republicans vote for landmark civil right legislation, while 27% of Democrats oppose

August 6, 1965
Voting Rights Act of 1965, abolishing literacy tests and other measures devised by Democrats to prevent African-Americans from voting, signed into law; higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats vote in favor

July 8, 1970
In special message to Congress, President Richard Nixon calls for reversal of policy of forced termination of Native American rights and benefits

September 17, 1971
Former Ku Klux Klan member and Democrat U.S. Senator Hugo Black (D-AL) retires from U.S. Supreme Court; appointed by FDR in 1937, he had defended Klansmen for racial murders

February 19, 1976
President Gerald Ford formally rescinds President Franklin Roosevelt’s notorious Executive Order authorizing internment of over 120,000 Japanese-Americans during WWII

September 15, 1981
President Ronald Reagan establishes the White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges and Universities, to increase African-American participation in federal education programs

June 29, 1982
President Ronald Reagan signs 25-year extension of 1965 Voting Rights Act

August 10, 1988
President Ronald Reagan signs Civil Liberties Act of 1988, compensating Japanese-Americans for deprivation of civil rights and property during World War II internment ordered by FDR

November 21, 1991
President George H. W. Bush signs Civil Rights Act of 1991 to strengthen federal civil rights legislation

August 20, 1996
Bill authored by U.S. Rep. Susan Molinari (R-NY) to prohibit racial discrimination in adoptions, part of Republicans’ Contract With America, becomes law

April 26, 1999
Legislation authored by U.S. Senator Spencer Abraham (R-MI) awarding Congressional Gold Medal to civil rights pioneer Rosa Parks is transmitted to President

January 25, 2001
U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee declares school choice to be “Educational Emancipation”

March 19, 2003
Republican U.S. Representatives of Hispanic and Portuguese descent form Congressional Hispanic Conference

May 23, 2003
U.S. Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) introduces bill to establish National Museum of African American History and Culture

February 26, 2004
Hispanic Republican U.S. Rep. Henry Bonilla (R-TX) condemns racist comments by U.S. Rep. Corrine Brown (D-FL); she had called Asst. Secretary of State Roger Noriega and several Hispanic Congressmen “a bunch of white men…you all look alike to me”

National Voting Rights Act of 1965 signed for a 25 year extension by President George W. Bush on July 27, 2006.

Shattering glass ceilings

Until 1935, every black federal legislator was Republican. America’s first black U.S. Representative, South Carolina’s Joseph Rainey, and our first black senator, Mississippi’s Hiram Revels, both reached Capitol Hill in 1870. On December 9, 1872, Louisiana Republican Pinckney Benton Stewart “P.B.S.” Pinchback became America’s first black governor.

August 8, 1878: GOP supply-siders may hate to admit it, but America’s first black Collector of Internal Revenue was former U.S. Rep. James Rapier (R., Ala.).

October 16, 1901: GOP President Theodore Roosevelt invited to the White House as its first black dinner guest Republican educator Booker T. Washington. The pro-Democrat Richmond Times newspaper warned that consequently, “White women may receive attentions from Negro men.” As Toni Marshall wrote in the November 9, 1995, Washington Times, when Roosevelt sought reelection in 1904, Democrats produced a button that showed their presidential nominee, Alton Parker, beside a white couple while Roosevelt posed with a white bride and black groom. The button read: “The Choice Is Yours.”

GOP presidents Gerald Ford in 1975 and Ronald Reagan in 1982 promoted Daniel James and Roscoe Robinson to become, respectively, the Air Force’s and Army’s first black four-star generals.

November 2, 1983: President Reagan established Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday as a national holiday, the first such honor for a black American.

President Reagan named Colin Powell America’s first black national-security adviser while GOP President George W. Bush appointed him our first black secretary of state.

President G.W. Bush named Condoleezza Rice America’s first black female NSC chief, then our second (consecutive) black secretary of State. Just last month, one-time Klansman Robert Byrd and other Senate Democrats stalled Rice’s confirmation for a week. Amid unanimous GOP support, 12 Democrats and Vermont Independent James Jeffords opposed Rice — the most “No” votes for a State designee since 14 senators frowned on Henry Clay in 1825.

“The first Republican I knew was my father, and he is still the Republican I most admire,” Rice has said. “He joined our party because the Democrats in Jim Crow Alabama of 1952 would not register him to vote. The Republicans did. My father has never forgotten that day, and neither have I.”

“it is a plain fact of American political life today that Democrats are completely dependent on black votes. The day African Americans stop casting 80 to 95 percent of their votes for Democrats is the day Democrats stop winning elections.”– Mona Charen, Do-Gooders

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments


Glad you liked that one.

I thought of you when I saw this today:

Yah, I caught that vid on the “Sweat Equity” thread, Aye…. made me laugh they didn’t do a “Jo” the plumber in embedded text. But, ya know, being gender conscious is probably too politically sensitive right now.

Oh wait… I confused that with race instead, right? Ooop… I forgot I’m being threatened with racism charges, riots if Barack isn’t elected, and that the electorate is too racist to vote for Obama from the media and DNC of late.

Maybe gender bias is still in vogue afterall!

True, Wordsmith. Perhaps I’m a bit short with Erika/voter.

But you are also correct that after all the research and work done, plus access to the “categories & archives” link above, it’s frustrating to have someone wander in, not check out what’s been read and vetted in the FA community, and spout the past 8-9 weeks of so-called scandalous MSM headlines as some sort of truth.

Then again, I believe Erika/voter is a hard core Obama maniac. I stand behind my “blind mentality no facts can penetrate” comment. And I suspect that Erika would also agree that she is of no mind to change her support. But perhaps she thinks she can change ours.

…. right…. Perhaps after a bottle of prozac just before voting. Nope.. not even then.



If you look back to the start when Erika was “Erika” you will find that she immediately launched into negativity the very first time she was challenged.

I suppose she thought she would either find an echo chamber or an empty tube into which she could spew.

Turns out she found neither.

Mata and I and others have made every effort to have a civil discourse with her. In fact, I have made every effort to temper and moderate my responses. The temptation to pin her ears back has been very strong.

You make a good point however there comes a time when enough is enough.

@Wordsmith: Thank you Wordsmith, and yes I am an Obama supporter, and there is probably nothing that can change my mind, unless we found out he was a murderer or something like that, to suggest that if he “murdered someone in front of me” or in other threads “raped one of my children” I would still support him is ridiculous. I am simply trying to spur some debates. I’ll admit I was wrong about the dismissal, I did some more research, and my husband helped me,so I apologize. I thought that the signature was not showing up on the Internet document. I am still very new to this. All of you were at one time to. Why would they have a document saying dismissed? I still don’t think there is anything to come of it. I stand by what I said about the media. At least I can admit when I am wrong, I am human after all, Aye still has not admitted he was wrong about Obama being an Arab Muslim. You know, Aye has been nothing but antagonistic with me, so I am not going to touch on him. I do think that I have brought up some good points,in the past(maybe not my best thread) I came on this site to learn what “the other side” has to offer, and to learn what I might not find on the more “left” side of the web. And, also to offer up an alternative for people to think about. But you can’t deny that a lot of the McCain following is “blind” as well because he is republican, definitely the case with Palin. And no I do not find anything wrong with a successful woman, I did in fact support Hillary, untill I saw how she was running her campaign, I believe how someone runs their campaign, is a window into how they will run our country. Hands down Obama in my opinion has the MOST integrity. If he had a pregnant teenage daughter, you bet that McCain would have a field day with it. I brought it up in my last post, because I was trying to figure out why she would be bringing her children with her to so many trips, when even many of the organizers said she called and asked if they could come, or she just showed up with them,and they had to scramble to make room. In my mind I came up with, she just wanted to keep an eye on them. With three young daughters, I would to, my point was can she handle that and politics?

To answer you question, yes Word I am pregnant, little stressful tho, I think I am losing it, it will be three in a row to lose, so to keep my mind off of it here I am. We are praying, and putting it in Gods hands.

Mata- I do appreciate all the research you do, sorry if I wasted your time, with my “infancy” research, but I do have a doctors appointment to get ready for so peace to all, even you Aye:)


First of all, I sincerely wish you the very best with your pregnancy. My wife and I have been right where you are so I know what it is like.

I am simply trying to spur some debates.

Debating is a two way thing Erika.

What you have been engaging in is largely a one way conversation.

You throw out your points sans factual support and then cry foul when challenged.

If you want to debate then you should have facts at the ready to support your positions.

Aye still has not admitted he was wrong about Obama being an Arab Muslim

Oh dear.

Here we go with the false accusations.

What I said Erica was that he was born Muslim and raised Muslim. He claims to have converted to Christianity. That may or may not be true and it is not for me to judge. What I do find curious however is why did he have to tell multiple, ever morphing stories regarding something so simple as his faith?

I also said that in the Islamic faith, there is no conversion away. Once a Muslim, always a Muslim in their eyes.

Don’t believe me? Go look it up.

As to his Arab heritage that is easily proven by a simple examination of his family tree. The info is all there for anyone who wants to see it. Look it up if you want.

Nothing I said was wrong.

If you read through my posts here you will find that I always know the answer before I ever ask the question.

I never post anything unless I know with certainty that the facts are on my side.

So no, I won’t apologize for something that I said when it was completely and totally factually accurate.

My statements may offend your sensibilities but they are factually accurate nonetheless.

You know, Aye has been nothing but antagonistic with me, so I am not going to touch on him.

Again, with the victim mentality.

At least twice I have challenged you to support that accusation with some sort of proof. I have asked you to point to the specific post that I made where I was “antagonistic”. I believe that you also called me “hateful”.

Believe me, you haven’t seen “antagonistic” or “hateful” from me.

I have been nothing but temperate with you.

Once again, you can feel free to point to any comments directed to you which may or may not prove me wrong.

You will find me to be straightforward, direct, and to the point. For that I also do not apologize.

I do think that I have brought up some good points,in the past(maybe not my best thread) I came on this site to learn what “the other side” has to offer, and to learn what I might not find on the more “left” side of the web.

The first portion is open to debate but I, for one, am glad that you are here.

If you are interested in a true debate and honest discussion then you are more than welcome here.

If, however, you get dodgy with your answers, start ignoring the questions that are directed toward you, or engage in a constant stream of victimization then I, for one, will not hesitate to call you out on it.

There is a huge amount of intellect and research right here on this site.

The authors and the participants, by and large, are some of the more learned people I have come across.

Take part if you like, but again, remember that debate is a two way conversation.

But you can’t deny that a lot of the McCain following is “blind” as well because he is republican, definitely the case with Palin.

Actually, no I won’t admit that.

McCain does not appeal to the vast majority of the Republican base.

Palin does.

Personally, I was really on the fence about voting for McCain, or even voting at all and I haven’t missed an election of any type EVER.

Hands down Obama in my opinion has the MOST integrity.

Wow, that’s quite a statement.

I wonder how you can make that statement in light of all the lying that Obama has engaged in since the campaign started.

Over and over and over again he has been caught.

Yet the lemmings continue to follow.

If he had a pregnant teenage daughter, you bet that McCain would have a field day with it.

Again, your opinion is not borne out in reality.

Have you not watched how McCain has conducted himself?

He has pulled punches all the way through the campaign.

He has ruled out areas of attack that he felt were across the line.

He forced the NC Rep party to pull an ad that he felt went too far.

Seek out the information Erika.

It’s there.

With three young daughters, I would to, my point was can she handle that and politics?

I wonder if those questions were asked about Joe Biden.

He was a single parent when he began his life in politics.

Perhaps, Erika, some of the debates you want to “spur” are just nonsensical. And considering your delicate condition, perhaps “spurring” is not what you ought to be doing. Because frankly, while I wish you and your baby a smooth healthy birth, I’m not tip toeing around you because you’re pregnant and your hormones are raging. Been there, done that, as have many women. But you can’t throw mud here in the forum, then run behind the monitor and cry “foul” because you are pregnant.

So let’s discuss your latest mud.

While the Obama crowd thinks his relationship to Wright, Ayers and ilk is not important, I see them as such for the man’s political philosophy. That you are so willing to subject your children to a social and economic justice education in public schools makes me believe that you know little of that philosophy, and it’s roots in Marxism. But if that’s what you want for your children’s future, then you are voting for the right ticket.

Ayers is not about his terrorist past. McCain’s campaign is pursuing that tact in error. But what Ayers *is* all about is his educational thrust, and Obama’s belief in that same philosopy.

What Wright is about is heavy handed affirmative action… or as I view both Obama and Michelle, they are black first, Americans second. His entire welfare policies are focused seriously on black and/or minority… just as his Public Allies program – a pet project founded by he and Michelle is an affirmative action leadership program designed to change the face of leadership to reflect what they believe “America will look like” in the future, is 67% “people of color”, and 15% LGBT (sexual preference).

I don’t know about you, but I want a President who doesn’t view American’s in financial classes and races.

You can go back thru the “categores and archives” link, click on Palin and find many stories and research on the Palin “scandal” headlines. But there’s a new one everyday. So let’s talk about the latest you seized on – Palin’s wardrobe. A subject I find so banal that I can’t even bring myself to create a post on it.

I find this judgment of yours tremendously disingenuous, and conveniently tolerant of the other ticket.

The Palin family is similar to America in their lives and budget. From a Feb 2008 Alaska Mag article:

When a reporter and photographers from Vogue magazine came to Alaska in December to do a story on her, Palin was sure she disappointed them. “In the interview you could tell that the writer was trying to get me to focus on the gender and appearance issues, but I kept talking about energy and national security, and not relying on foreign sources of energy,” Palin said. “Finally, she stopped me and said, ‘I know that’s what you want to talk about, but this is a women’s fashion magazine.’ I don’t know about fashion. It’s bunny boots and fleece and The North Face. So I tried to talk about that, but it’s just not the way I’m wired.”


Bristol, upon returning from a shopping trip in Anchorage, received Palin’s nod of approval for the $15 dress she bought for the night’s gala they were about to attend. No need for a $300 gown, Palin said.

But when Bristol revealed she spent $30 on leg waxing—“That was supposed to be gas money,” Todd Palin said disapprovingly—the governor wasn’t too happy, either.

“That’s a waste of money,” she said. “You have razors.

Perhaps you and the Obama faithful would be happier if she and her family dressed in their normal duds. Then you must remember in Anchorage, Wasilla and Juneau, the haute couture of apparel shops is the Gap, North Face and Banana Republic. There are no Neimann Marcus’s, no Bergdorf’s, no Sak’s 5th Aves in Sarah’s ‘hood.

But she is a VP nominee today.

Considering that the earliest of DNC charges were that she and family were “trailer trash”, perhaps you’d be happier that she also appeared that way on the national stage?


Now let’s take your guy’s wife, Michelle. I’ll be you think she’s wandering around the campaign trail in Walmart duds, right? But no… and she hasn’t been a budget apparel woman for quite a while.

Michelle has catapulted her personal favorite local designer, Maria Pinto, to even more national fame. Ms. Pinto’s ready-to-wear line isn’t found in Target or Walmart, Erika. Try Barneys New York, and Takashimaya. You can find yourself a nice ready-to-wear dress perhaps under $300.

But of course, Ms. Obama is not a patron of the “ready-to-wear” bit. She and Oprah are both part of the Chicago elite who have been mainstays of Pinto’s for quite a while.

Pinto’s luxurious designs have been a mainstay on Chicago’s elite, including Oprah Winfrey and Michelle Obama, the stylish wife of presidential hopeful Barack Obama, who is often photographed in a Maria Pinto design.

These are not the off-the-rack women shoppers, but the designer line.

Now shoppers will be able to have access to her beautiful ready-to-wear collection with an inviting new shopping experience. “The store will be a natural extension of my atelier,” said Maria Pinto. “My collections are known for well-edited luxury; each garment incorporates innovative materials and sophisticated tailoring from beginning to end. This attention to detail will be reflected in the environment of the retail space from the moment a client walks through the door.”

In short, Michelle’s clothing budget is hardly frugal by your or my standards. But then both Obama and Michelle make more in a month than the both Sarah *and* Todd Palin’s combined income annually.

But if Palin’s going to be campaigning on the national stage for VP of the US, it is only appropriate that she be attired befitting the job. The Palin’s can’t afford that on their family budget. She is a Joe-six-pack family, not the elite wealthy of Chicago, like the Obamas.

Try reading this in the HillaryClintonForum,, for a more reasonable perspective. Then you might want to consider that Palin’s not taking these clothes home to Alaska… but that they will be auctioned off for charity donation.

Now try and make this a scandalous case again to me, Erika.

@MataHarley: First of all, I’ve never “cried foul because I was pregnant”. When I first said it, I said it in passing, we weren’t even having a “heated” debate. So please don’t tip toe around me, I never asked you to. The only person I have said was disrespectful in anyway shape or form was AYE, if you look back to all of his posts to me they have been nothing but antagonistic. I have actually enjoyed the debates I have had with Wordsmith, and yourself, as well as have the utmost respect for you. I can disagree with someone and still understand and respect where they are coming from. As long as they are not disrespectful to me. When it comes to Palin, and her wardrobe, it is a little ridiculous to spend more than you make in a year on clothes. I’ve never said anything about her being “trailer trash”. If she didn’t try to portray herself as “frugal, or the hockey mom, or the Joe six pack family” then it would be a non issue. And Michelle Obama buys her clothes with her own money, (The Obama’s and the Bidens use their own money for clothes for the campaign, the DNC pays for makeup and hair)and they may make in a month what the Palins make in a year, so what. They work hard for it, I haven’t faulted ANYBODY for having a lot of money, more power to them. Who cares if they are the elite, do we want “white trash, or ghetto fabulous” in the white house? The difference is Obama knows what it is like to work his way up. But if Palin portrays herself one way and acts a different way, she should expect to be judged. As far as her spending as governor, all that is public record, we have a right to look into it, since, she could be the second in command. If she made bad decisions as a governor, then she will most likely make bad decisions as V.P. Like I say, how they run their campaign, is a window into how they will run the country. They are showing us their priorities. If it is important to spend 150k on clothes, how will that train of thought affect the spending in the WH? And what priorities will the spending go to? And it doesn’t matter where the money came from, it is too much, she could have used the opportunity to make a statement, without saying a word, her actions would have still spoke volumes. All your quote says to me is, they are frugal with their own money, when they have access to other money, be it tax money or campaign money, they live high on the hog. That further explains the reason she used tax payers money to take her children to watch their father compete in a dog sled race, and the many other trips she charged to the tax payers.

Am I an Obama supporter? YES. Do I like EVERYTHING about him? NO. Do I think we could have done better? YES. But I believe he is the best of the two. I don’t believe he will turn our country into a socialist country. I do believe that any extreme is bad. Obama, in my opinion, will utilize ideas from both sides of the aisle. We do need new, fresh ideas. Obama is the one of the two with those ideas, in my opinion. I also believe after he has been in office a little while, when people see he isn’t that bad, he will be able to bring our country back together. In the last 8 years we have been terribly divided. Bush had an opportunity to unite us after 911, instead he says “keep shopping”. Had it been someone else, they would have seized the opportunity to unite us as a country. The terrorists have suceeded in dividing us. Bush let it happen. Divide and conquer.

Double standard, she’d be picked on no matter what she wore. Be it expensive, moderate or off the rack. Really a moot argument on that subject. Media machine was set to discredit her and turn her into a joke. They succeeded, ya just know somewhere Michael Bolton feels her pain, heh.

Ms. Erika, mommy to be. Then be careful not to stress out. You have some gumption, I’ll say, tho. Many get way overstressed hanging on conservative sites as Obama supporters. Looking for a little excitement in your life? LOL

We’re doing the “Palin wardrobe” thing more in depth on Curt’s thread. Like I said, this was such an absurdity that I couldn’t bear posting on it. And I’m one of the main Palin authors here on her political history.

A few facts for you to absorb before you wander over there with your comments…

1: Paling didn’t buy the clothes. The RNC sent a shopper out to pick up a wardrobe. If Palin had the time, I doubt she’d be hanging in the Donna Karan or Oscar de la Renta departments. Just not her “bunny boots and fleece” style. Thus they handed her the duds.

And BTW, that figure is for dressing a family of seven, not just Palin.

2: The money was a donation from one or two RNC members. The clothes do not belong to Palin and will be auctioned off. If, as a Veep, she decides to keep them, they are declared as income and taxable. Thus “she” did not spend more than the family makes a year on clothes.

You might think of them as campaign props… sorta like greek columns… that will be returned. Speaking of, wonder how much those cost to rent, as well as that set. hummmm

3: The Obamas, Bidens and McCain’s income is considerably more than the Palin’s. No comparison. Frankly, I’m quite sure Sarah would have been just fine and content on the campaign trail in her own clothes. This was not her decision. She did not demand it. Show me that she did, and I’ll issue a huge mea culpa.

I can’t believe all the crap Erika Voter writes. What’s your problem Ericka, are you jealous? Do your kids a favor, vote McCain.


The only person I have said was disrespectful in anyway shape or form was AYE, if you look back to all of his posts to me they have been nothing but antagonistic.

Oy! Here we go with the victimhood again.

I have called you out repeatedly on the false accusations. Not once have you responded with anything to support your claims.

Not once.

You claim that I have been “antagonistic”.

You claim that I have been “hateful”.

You’ve presented no proof. No evidence.

Not one single copy/paste, which is so simple even someone in their computer “infancy” can do it.

Zero. Zilch. Nada.

So, now that I’ve got that out of the way, let me say this to you:

You, madame, are a bald faced liar.

I’ve been temperate. I’ve been kind. I’ve challenged you to think, to research, to expand your mind beyond the 10 second sound bytes and snippets that you have picked up from the Internet.

I’ve encouraged you to dig yourself out of the sad, pathetic intellectual state in which you currently find yourself.

Instead of helping yourself out of the gutter, you respond with loads of poor, pitiful me victocrat mentality.

That’s OK though.

It is now a goal of mine to peg you to the wall each and every time you force out another piece of your inane, vapid dog squeeze and you can rest assured I always accomplish my goals.

You’re a mental midget amongst giants here. Post cautiously lest ye get squashed.

I didn’t do it right

forget it i give up, what I am trying to say is your entire post proves my point.

Voter #63:

I do believe that any extreme is bad. Obama, in my opinion, will utilize ideas from both sides of the aisle.

Obama has the mask of a moderate; but is he truly such? He seems to have a history of gravitating toward those with extremist views. What in his public history indicates that he has ever “utilized ideas from both sides of the aisle”? His one or two examples of bipartisanship are shaky and based on fuzzy logic. Contrast that with McCain, who has a long paper trail of bipartisanship, often to the consternation of conservative Republicans. Obama’s voting “present” is not “coming to the center”. With his very, very, very liberal voting record, his idea of unity is this:

“I want everyone to unite — behind my values. I want everyone who disagrees with me to change the way they think so that we can all be united. I myself have no plans to change my positions on any important issues in order to achieve this unity. So in order to achieve it, I assume that all of you who differ with me will change your views and values and embrace mine.”

I don’t know who it was, but a conservative guest on a radio station described his meetings with Obama and said Obama seemed completely uninterested in his conservative ideas, despite Obama’s rhetoric about “coming together”. I think Obama’s already made up his mind that conservative ideas are wrong ideas, and would only feign interest, for appearance’s sake. I could be wrong, but where’s the evidence to speak to the contrary (I can think of one example you might bring up)?

We do need new, fresh ideas.

Does this include throwing the baby out with the bath water?

The changes Obama seems to advocate for would be hard to the left; and with Reid and Pelosi at his sides, they may do some irreparable harm.

Obama is the one of the two with those ideas, in my opinion.

Change is one thing; radical shift is quite another.

I also believe after he has been in office a little while, when people see he isn’t that bad, he will be able to bring our country back together.

Perhaps. And if he is “that bad”, then what?

In the last 8 years we have been terribly divided. Bush had an opportunity to unite us after 911,

I lay most of the blame squarely at the feet of those on your side. They have been completely deranged and out of bounds.

instead he says “keep shopping”.

Do you not understand the thought behind why he put that forth to the American public, at the time that he did? I know McCain pushes this criticism too, but it’s one of those hindsight critiques that forgets the state we were in at the time. In afterthought, yes, it would have probably been better to ask Americans to sacrifice more, and be involved more directly in the war we find ourselves in. But at the time, we needed to feel confident in ourselves and our way of life, to send a message to the terrorists that they did not take away our freedoms and cause us to cower in fear; it’s why when American airlines were back up in the skies, we were all encouraged to show our patriotism and fly as frequently as we could; it sent a message to those who attacked us, and it helped the economy and airlines that were struggling.

Had it been someone else, they would have seized the opportunity to unite us as a country.

The only options to possibly have done that would be Gore, or 4 years later, Kerry. How the devil would those two have “united us”, let alone create the tools (Patriot Act, NSA Surveillance, etc.) needed to protect us from the next terrorist attack?

The terrorists have suceeded in dividing us. Bush let it happen. Divide and conquer.

You can credit the terrorists if you’d like; they definitely deserve some of it. But don’t you dare lay this at the feet of President Bush. He has been at the center, reaching across party lines; it’s the Democrats who have spat at him, lied, distorted, maligned in hopes of regaining political power. When Pelosi and Democrats won House and Senate seats in 2006, how was Bush divisive? He was nothing short of gracious toward Pelosi. And how has Pelosi behaved? Nothing short of divisive. Just look at her recent speech in wake of the debate over the Rescue Bill, and how she politicized it, while denying all culpability when Democrats have had their fingerprints all over this economic mess.