Monday, January 20, 2014

Sarah Palin's Way Of Honoring Dr. Martin Luther King Jr...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Purveyor of Truth


Sarah Palin, former Republican Vice Presidential candidate honored Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. today. Following is what be had to say.

Former Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin seized Martin Luther King Day as an opportunity to lob vague criticism at President Barack Obama.

"Mr. President, in honor of Martin Luther King, Jr. and all who commit to ending any racial divide, no more playing the race card," Palin wrote Monday on her Facebook page, after quoting from the civil rights icon's famous "I Have A Dream" speech.

Obama said in an extensive New Yorker profile published this weekend that he believes “there’s no doubt that there’s some folks who just really dislike me because they don’t like the idea of a black President."

"Now, the flip side of it is there are some black folks and maybe some white folks who really like me and give me the benefit of the doubt precisely because I’m a black President," he added.

Palin didn't point to any specific instances of the President playing the race card in the short post.

The remarks by President Obama that the Ex Alaskan Governor was referencing to can be found below the fold.

Isn't it heartening to see a ex Republican Vice Presidential candidate stoop to such brazen political tactics as to use the birthday of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. to backhandedly criticize the first American President of partial African descent?

And Republicans wonder why the black community distrusts them.

Via: Memeorandum

29 comments:

  1. Oh, I'm so sure Palin would have been a big fan of MLK had she been around in his day. My ass.

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
  2. President Obama expressed an obvious truth. Some people dislike him only because of his skin color; and some people like him only because of his skin color. Not anything revelatory there. Same sort of thing could have been said of George W. Bush: some people liked him just because he was a Texan; and some people disliked him for that same reason.

    There's really no controversy in what the president said in that particular statement.

    Sarah Palin is boring. I'd much rather hear an opinion from my can opener.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Can opener it is. Hm, this is not surprizing.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I find Ms. Palin more credible when she discusses moose and sled dogs.

    ReplyDelete
  5. She might do well discussing beauty pageants also.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I don't understand your continuing obsession with that woman...

    ReplyDelete
  7. Apparently you don't read other post? Out of the 2401 so far the handful I done hardly constitutes an obsession.

    Life is too short not to have fun and Palin makes it oh so easy.

    What amazes me is the immense following she seems to have among the Tea Party folks. Many who still believe she is Presidential material.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. RN: In terms of the 2008 election, she was "presidential" in terms of being about as qualified as Barack H. Obama. However, that speaks more for the paucity of Obama's resume/qualifications (the worst among the several Democrats running) than it does for Palin's strengths.

      And, of course, that was then... in 2008, before she blew off her governorship (which was the major element on her resume).

      Delete
  8. Shaw: Same sort of thing could have been said of George W. Bush: some people liked him just because he was a Texan; and some people disliked him for that same reason.

    Not exactly. "Texan" isn't a race (even if "race" is largely an artificial concept... some have strong feelings in regards to it).

    RN: And Republicans wonder what the black community distrusts them.

    Randal Paul's statements about Civil Rights legislation might have them distrusting Libertarians as well.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Since she quit her post in Alaska, Palin hasn’t run for public office but still plays the part of politician who calls her constituents “fans.” What exactly does she do other than essentially proposition her self and image to the highest bidder? Sounds like Sarah is America’s highest paid escort! See how down and dirty she’ll get for the money at http://dregstudiosart.blogspot.com/2011/06/ecstasy-of-sarah-palin_15.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. She is an effective marketing exec. She has sold millions on "her brand."

      Delete
  10. Hey, no biggie. Everyone knows blacks are what 90+ percent democrat. LBJ was apparently right when he predicted it (in a relatively racist way) all those years ago.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Above is response to DS's last comment.

      Delete
    2. What the heck do you mean by that? How was what LBJ predicted "racist???"

      JMJ

      Delete
    3. The prediction wasn't in and of itself. It is the verbiage he used. I know you have the technological savvy to look it up for verification. I'd tell you but before you could say Jack Sprat somebody would be calling me a racist

      Delete
    4. I don't know what you're talking about.

      JMJ

      Delete
  11. Dervish brings up a really good point about libertarians and race, Les.

    Libertarians, many if not most of them, are against vital titles of the Civil Rights Act. Going forward, libertarians have got to wrap those titles around their ideology. It can be done, with a simple argument we on the left have been begging them to understand: if you do business in the public sphere, you must accept the public. Why the libertarians refuse to embrace that perfectly rational compact is beyond me. I've never heard a rational argument against it, and the American people find it unfair and unpleasantly tribal.

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
  12. No jmj, what rational individuals are against is a system that selects, hires, promotes, and bases pay on a person's race, gender, ethnicity or any other criteria than ones ABILITY and COMPENTENCY.

    ReplyDelete
  13. There is no law that disallows hiring, promoting, and pay for ability and competency. That only exists in your mind.

    The Civil Rights Act does not force you to hire outside your needs. It's a myth. Libertarians (and perhaps you?) are specifically against Title II, Title IV, Title VII, Title VIII, Title X, and sometimes others, and most Americans, especially educated voters, find that abhorrent. It's a serious problem for libertarian-type candidates and libertarian in general. Why they can't embrace the CRA is beyond me. I don't see it in any way conflicting with their core beliefs. It makes everything so easy if we treat each other equally in the public sphere.

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
  14. I will not respond to your ignorance or your insults jackass.

    See ya.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. RN: You could see it coming, that Jersey (who often otherwise has fine qualities) was going to be unpleasant and fact-free in pursuit of his preferred form of bigotry. When he said "Dervish brings up a really good point..." you knew it was downhill from there...

      Delete
  15. JMJ: What the heck do you mean by that? How was what LBJ predicted "racist???"

    RN is referring to a quote attributed to LBJ by Rightwing author/journalist and current NewsMax contributor Ronald Kessler. I just put up a post on my blog in which I conclude that the quote is false.

    Dennis: When he said "Dervish brings up a really good point..." you knew it was downhill from there

    Dodge, as well as ad hominem. Jersey's comments were chock full of facts, none of which fit with Dennis' preferred form of bigotry.

    ReplyDelete
  16. When the Civil Rights Act passed in 1964, it passed with more Republican support than Democrat. Here are the vote counts:

    The House version …
    Democrat - 61%
    Republican – 80%

    The Senate version …
    Democrat – 69%
    Republican – 82%

    The Senate version voted by the House …
    Democrat – 63%
    Republican – 80%

    When I compare the Republican Party of 1964 with the Republican Party of today, I am shocked at the direction taken by the GOP in a mere 50 years. It is now dominated by a reactionary, ultra right wing, lunatic fringe. Gone are the conservatives, moderates, and – yes – liberal Republicans who practiced the fine art of compromise and consensus and made landmark legislation possible. The Republicans of 1964 ended the de facto apartheid that existed in America. The Republicans of today are a rude, bellicose, and belligerent bunch who don’t give a damn about fairness and equality, who have driven all moderate voices out of the party, and who demand nothing less than ideological purity and obedience to groupthink.

    JMJ is right: “I don't see it in any way conflicting with their core beliefs. It makes everything so easy if we treat each other equally in the public sphere.

    I have raised this issue myself on previous occasions: If you consider yourself a libertarian and value equality for all and above all, then how can you possibly oppose laws that dismantled the kind of apartheid that existed in mid 20th Century America!

    JMJ did not deserve your sharp and unwarranted response.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. " The Republicans of today are a rude, bellicose, and belligerent bunch who don’t give a damn about fairness and equality, who have driven all moderate voices out of the party, and who demand nothing less than ideological purity and obedience to groupthink. "

      Which makes them no different from the Democrats. Welcome to the political reality.

      Delete
    2. The Dems didn't get together following the election of GWb and plot to bring down his presidency by (in the words of one conspirator) learning from the Taliban to "become insurgency". It is a bald faced lie to suggest that the Dems are "no different" than the traitorous Repubs. But that Dennis would say there is? That certainly is no surprise. Welcome to the political reality of those who goose-step for the plutocrats.

      Delete
    3. Correction, GWB. We here at this site do not write BHo now do we? Perhaps you recommend it? As a new method of using presidents initials.

      Interesting article. It is one of the many reasons I severed my political affiliation with the GOP and will never be affiliated with or a member of a political party again.

      Delete
  17. Fair is a subject word.

    Equal is fine, of course abilities, intellect , common sense, ambition and drive are not equal in humans. Equal opportunity, equal pay and benefits for individuals performing jobs with the same or similar responsibilities, equal voice, equal treatment under the law etc I good and I support those things.

    I shall be the judge with respect to jmj.

    The left has their wackos as well.

    Tit for tat is the norm. I have given up trying to be reasonable with unreasonable progressives.

    ReplyDelete
  18. DO NOT CONFUSE EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY WITH EQUALITY OF ABILITY!!!! This is a non sequitur and a low, cheat sheet debating tactic that deliberately avoids the point. There was nothing unreasonable in my taking the time to research the voting history of the CRA to substantiate a piece of political history. In the future, I won't waste my time. Yup, I'm getting rather tired of the bullshit too.

    ReplyDelete
  19. That is where YOU make YOUR mistake. I am not confused one iota, nope, not at all.

    It is not a low cheap shot and I am not debating. What I said, if you would actually think about it rather than dismissing it out of hand (perhaps because I'm not a PHD or a progressive?) you might understand that I agree with ALL people having equal opportunity to use their intelligent and UNIQUE abilities, combined with their level of ambition and drive as far as they desire... JUST LIKE PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS DONE.

    What more can I say? I said what I mean, if you either don't understand, or simply want to disagree fine. My world certainly will not be affected one bit either way.

    ReplyDelete

As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 8/12/13 Anonymous commenting has been disabled. This unfortunate action was made necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or serve only to disrupt honest discourse..

I apologizes for any inconvenience this necessary action may cause the honest Anonymous who would comment here, respect proper decorum and leave comments of value. However, The multitude of trollish attack comments from both the left and right has necessitated this action.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.