West Virginia Blue
The Best Blogging Community in West Virginia Democratic politics, progressive policies, the good life and free living in Wild, Wonderful West Virginia.
In a year when the Republican brand is at an all time low and voters are embracing Democrats at all levels, you might think a popular incumbent Democrat would use their camapign website to reinforce the Democratic party brand.
Well, yes, there is well-buried reference of being "Chair for 2008 of the Democratic Governors Association." I only found that because I was looking for it. Come to think of it... it's even worse to think the Chair of the Dem. Gov. Association doesn't want to admit he's a Democrat on his campaign website!!
Come on, Gov. Manchin, you don't have to be an average Joe to be proud to be a Democrat.
This weekend there are 182 more delegates at stake. Eric Kleefeld at TPM Election Central has a state-by-state breakdown:
Louisiana primary — Saturday, 56 delegates: Obama is considered the favorite here due largely to the large portion black voters among the state's Democrats, and his past performance in the Deep South primaries in South Carolina, Georgia and Alabama. (snip)
Nebraska caucus — Saturday, 24 delegates: Obama has done very well in Mountain/Prairie state caucuses, such as his 74% showing in neighboring Kansas on Super Tuesday, on account of the small Democratic establishments that do exist in this region giving him their support. (snip)
Washington State caucus — Saturday, 78 delegates: This is the single biggest contest of the weekend, and also the one taking place in the bluest state. Although Hillary built up the early support of establishment figures like former Gov. Gary Locke, Sen. Maria Cantwell and recently Sen. Patty Murray, Obama has caught up very quickly. This week he won the endorsement of the state SEIU, the largest union in the state, and today he got the support of current Gov. Christine Gregoire. Also bear in mind that caucuses are all about organization and intensity on the part of a candidate's followers. A SurveyUSA poll released Monday put Obama ahead 53%-40%.
Maine caucus — Sunday, 24 delegates: There hasn't been any major polling on this race, but on paper it looks like Hillary Clinton's best chance for a victory this weekend. She has the support of the state's Democratic establishment, led by Gov. John Baldacci and former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell, and the demographics don't help Obama very much.
In his prediction thread, Jerome Armstrong at MyDD reprints the actual spreadsheet projections from the Obama campaign:
A while back we posted an inspired (and inspirational) video of Sen. Barack Obama's words put to music. Here's a video response for Sen. Hillary Clinton fans:
In a year when the Republicans have struggled to determine who their least worst old white guy is, the remaining Democratic party candidates are an embodiment of change.
Having two excellent choices in Hillary and Obama is rather inspiring to this Democratic party activist. Having the odds look very good for the next President of the United States to make history in their gender or ethnicity is quite inspiring to this progressive liberal.
West Virginia Governor Joe Manchin: Democrats Are Committed To Retaining and Creating Good-Paying Jobs
Applauds Democratic-Led Congress for Bipartisan Work on Economic Stimulus Package
Washington, DC - Governor Joe Manchin of West Virginia, chair of the Democratic Governors Association, delivers the Democratic radio address this week. He credits Democrats in Congress for working quickly with the President on a timely, targeted, and temporary economic stimulus package and for laying the groundwork to turn around the economy.
Governor Manchin, who addressed members of the U.S. House Democratic caucus this week, also highlights the success of Democratic policies in retaining and creating good jobs in West Virginia. He notes that it is going to take a Democratic president to restore consumer confidence, pay down the debt, and help middle class families.
The 2007 Kentucky gubernatorial election had mostly good news and yet some bad as well.
First off I want to apologize for being wrong on the date that the last Republican governor was governor. It was 1967 and not the 50s like I thought it was. I sincerely apologize for my mistake.
First for the good news:
Democratic gubernatorial candidate Steve Beshear as expected won in a landslide over law-breaking Republican governor Ernie Fletcher. While we Democrats didn't quite receive that magical 60 percent we had hoped we would receive, Democrats carried just about carried every part of the state, including even prominent supposedly Republican strongholds in western Kentucky and the Cincinnati-Covington suburbs. Those parts of Kentucky get a bum rap for being too Republican when actually independents are the dominant force up there. Thus I'm not surprised as much as most people are. And the same is true for western Kentucky as well where the evangelical presence is perhaps the strongest in the Bluegrass State.
The eastern Kentucky coalfields, the part of Kentucky that is almost exactly like our home state of West Virginia in every way, as expected remained Democratic and even normally reliable Republican Johnson, Martin, and yes almost always Republican Leslie County, a county that former Republican President Richard Nixon even visited, believe it or not, voted Democratic this time.
South Central Kentucky the most Republican part of the state as expected because more voters there are Southern sympathizers who usually vote more like the Deep South than any other part of Kentucky was where Fletcher did his best, and even there were cracks in Republican support.
And the Democratic city of Louisville in Jefferson County where the African-American effect is the greatest in Kentucky went 2 to 1 in favor of Beshear, and since there are still 5 precincts in Jefferson County where the final vote totals still haven't been calculated yet the margin statewide for Beshear will probably be a little larger and cross the 59 percent mark but not quite the 60 percent I and many other Democrats had hoped for.
UPDATE: All Jefferson County precincts have now been officially counted meaning 100 percent of the precincts have been counted. There was no change in the percentages.
And Democrats won every other statewide office quite convincingly except for popular Republican Secretary of Agriculture Richie Farmer, whose days as a decent former U of Kentucky basketball player couldn't have hurt his chances, and the Republican Secretary of State Trey Grayson.
Now for the little bad news:
Current Republican Secretary of State Trey Grayson beat Democratic challenger Bruce Hendrickson - spelling - by a larger margin than we Dems hoped for receiving approximately 57 to 58 percent of the vote over Democratic challenger Bruce Hendrickson 42 to 43 percent.
And of course not quite reaching 60 percent in the gubernatorial race of course.
The 2007 Kentucky gubernatorial election's impact on Kentucky, West Virginia, and Virginia and the rest of the nation as well:
I'm firmly convinced now that Kentucky will be an unexpected battleground in the 2008 presidential election. Though I still give the Republicans a slight edge there due to the margin of victory in the gubernatorial race being a little closer than what I had originally suspected, the Republicans will now have to spend more time and effort in the Bluegrass State than they ever dreamed possible. This in a state where Bush actually broke the 60 percent mark in 2004 and in a state which is socially conservative and the evangelical impact is huge.
I don't know if I've ever seen any presidential election where a political party is in danger of not carrying a state where they won over 60 percent of the vote. But this might be an exception.
As for the Virginias, our beloved home state of West Virginia and our neighbors the "other" Virginia, to me it's currently 50/50 in both states. Since West Virginia is much more like Kentucky than Virginia is except for the far southwestern portion of the Old Dominion, I feel it's a virtual 50/50 tossup in all three states right now.
As for three other states: Tennessee, North Carolina, and Indiana that Kentucky's gubernatorial results could have an impact on, the Republicans currently have a slight lead there right now but those three states could shock a ton of folks in 2008 if the conditions are just right. North Carolina and Tennessee have strong Democratic bases and very very popular and effective Democratic governors and could be ripe for the picking believe it or not.
Indiana would definitely be a shocker since it's a Republican base state where no Democratic presidential nominee has carried it since Lyndon Johnson did in 1964. But currently Indiana is one of the most trending Democratic states in the nation right now, having thrown out 3 incumbent Republican US House or Representative members out of office in 2006 in favor of moderate Democrats.
But the best news of all is the Democratic victories in our bordering state the great Buckeye state of Ohio, the state that most often determines who is President. Democrats in Ohio were victorious big time last night in the local elections up there. Voters in Ohio still have not forgotten the debacle of 2004, where then Republican Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell was huge in the state that eventually was the difference between having a second Bush term instead of John Kerry being our current president
But he like most other prominent Republicans in Ohio were defeated soundly in 2006 and once again last night in 2007...
and yes in 2006 that included the all-important underrated Secretary of State's office.
I also learned just recently that under Ohio election law that the number and percentage of poll workers there in the Buckeye State are decided by the margins of the last election each even year, and since we Democrats won in a landslide in Ohio in 2006 that gives us Democrats just that much more hope that we can elect our nominee for president in 2008
If Ohio stays solidly Democratic in 2008 like it is now here in 2007 - and it looks just great for us right now - it will be very difficult if not impossible for the Republicans to win no matter whom the nominees are.
And on Jan. 21, 2009 the very sad eight-year period of the Bush presidency and complete Republican rule in government will officially thank God be over.
And finally we Americans will have taken our great country back, hopefully this time for good.
There were elections yesterday in quite a few of our neighboring states. Virginia, Kentucky and Ohio all had major elections; they went to the polls in Pennsylvannia, too. Kos lays out the good news for Democrats.
George W. Bush campaigned in 2000 that he was going to be a "uniter and not a divider."
His gubernatorial record in Texas indicated that maybe perhaps he was 100 percent correct....
but as fellow Texan and 1992 and 1996 presidential candidate Ross Perot so adequately put it:
"The devil is in the details."
It was back then and sadly much much more so today.
In Texas the legislature there was once one of the most non-partisan in the country at the time Bush was governor there. And the Democrats down there are some of the most conservative Democrats that America had back then.
So it really is not that surprising that Bush and the Democratic legislature there were "chummy." Yet the Main Stream Media was successful in 2000 in conveying that very image. They said it possibly could work as President too.
What they failed to say is that the Democrats in Congress are much more liberal the Democrats in the Texas legislature and that the atmosphere in Washington is much more partisan and less willing to compromise unlike the Democrats in Texas.
It seems that Bush thought that he could get away with governing Washington the same way he did in Austin....
and the results have been a complete and total failure to say the least.
Bush missed several very important opportunites to unify the country as one.
The first test was the 9/11 tragedy of course.
For a little while it seemed that he was passing the test with flying covers, until Ross Perot's famous words came calling again....
"The devil is in the details."
When all the details came out we all knew then for the very 1st time that Bush was not placing his money where his mouth was. Little tidbits came out even on Sept. 11, 2001 how Bush actually seemed to "downplay" this national tragedy and seem sort of "uncaring" about it. For the very 1st time it seemed that "born-again Christian" George W. Bush might not be the real deal that the MSM portrayed them to be.
Instead of placing Al-Queda as his number 1 priority instead he placed Saddam Hussein who now we all know - except for the "25 percenters" of course - that Saddam had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11 or Osama bin Laden.
In fact Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden hated each other's guts. They couldn't stand to be around each other even one second.
While Saddam was indeed a ruthless dictator he posed absolutely no national security threat to the United States. None at all!
Now the Iraq War has claimed even more Iraqi deaths than Saddam Hussein's "reign of terror."
Instead of making 9/11 an "American issue" Bush decided to make 9/11 a "political issue" by lying and making the case for a bogus charge saying something about uranium - have forgotten the exact speech but do remember at least 90 percent of it if not even higher were lies to make his case for a war we shouldn't have even fought in the 1st place for two causes we shouldn't fight for period:
Iraq's oil supply and defense contractor profits.
Those are the reasons are now why we are in Iraq, not to remove Saddam.
And then came Hurricane Katrina.
This time it was much more evident that Bush wasn't being Christ-like in his response. From the very beginning he gave us the impression of a man who really didn't care about human pain, suffering, and death of poor innocent African-American mostly Democratic voters in New Orleans.
Instead he and his Religious Right buddies said that God had "cleansed" New Orleans of "voodoo worship" and actually seemed to gloat over their deaths.
Again Bush had another chance to unify the country. But once again he chose "politics" over "people" pandering to the Old Guard Southern white racists who cared less than even he did about New Orleans' people.
Instead more Republican Mississippi and Alabama got the lion's share of help instead of Democratic city New Orleans. But even in Mississippi a stauch Bush supporter in the US Senate named Trent Lott blasted the Bush Administration for giving out no-bid contracts to out-of-state companies.
More than 10000 innocent New Orleans residents passed away. It's been over 2 years now and the majority of Katrina victims are still homeless and displaced. Most of the FEMA trailers down there are empty and the others who do live them have air so toxic that's it's a legitimate health threat.
To me those two tragic events have defined Bush more than no other. In both instances he chose "politics and profits" over people.
And in both cases he chose "division" over "unity."
Just look at the 2008 electoral map and you'll see what I'm talking about. The red Republican states are redder than ever. The blue Democratic states are bluer than ever.
And it's even the case down here in the West Virginia, Kentucky, and Virginia coalfields.
There is even a huge division between Democratic McDowell County and much more Republican Mercer County. McDowell Countians except for my fellow evangelicals and Pentecostals for the most part hate Bush and Republican-supporting Mercer County loves or is indifferent about him.
The same is true for Virginia between Democratic-supporting Buchanan County and Republican-supporting Tazewell County.
And yet again in Kentucky, with Democratic-supporting Floyd County and Republican-supporting Johnson County.
One of the most lasting negative parts of Bush's legacy is how he chose division over unity and politics over people. He had two defining moments to bring the country together, and instead he chose to further divide us instead.
The Democratic National Committee is asking folks all over the country to start PartyBuilder Groups as 2008 gets closer. The PartyBuilder concept and the reasons for starting groups are described by the DNC as follows...
PartyBuilder is a set of online tools designed to empower Democrats to take control of the future of their party. Through technology, we're moving people from email and websites to canvasses and rallies. PartyBuilder isn't the typical online tool set. Individual users control most of the activity – from blogging, to setting up and managing groups or activists, to organizing and managing real-world events, to fundraising, Democrats are entrusted to build the space and the Party. Take a minute to explore the different features, then invite your friends and connect with each other to help build the Party for 2006 and beyond. PartyBuilder gives you everything you need to take online action for real-world results.
In an email today the DNC asked those on the BlogsUnited list to spread the word to others emphasizing the importance of starting local groups at the county and city level.
We're essentially asking our users and our entire list to create or join partybuilder groups for their local county. Partybuilder for anyone not familiar with the tool is our social networking tool, like facebook. We've sent out an email to our party builder users today and tomorrow we're sending out the email to the rest of our list with personalized links for the counties they live in. The groups act like facebook groups but allow events and a listserve. (hundreds or thousands of little townhouses of activists will be popping up).
We're all invested at different levels in the local netroots community.
In combination with Blogs such as our WVaBlue PartyBuilder gives folks a way to stay in touch and get organized. You can check to see if there is a group near you in West Virginia by clicking here and searching under the PartyBuilder logo or to start a PartyBuilder group click here. If you do start a group in your county or city take a few minutes and let us know. The more we all link up the better we will do as we take on the Republicans in 2008 including the vulnerable Shelly Moore Capito.
Don Blankenship the CEO of Massey Energy is pissed. He spent a small fortune trying to take over the West Virginia State Legislature and lost. Now according to the Associated Press he is not only attempting to get revenge by suing the West Virginia Democratic Party, but also the state party chairman Nick Casey. During the 2006 election Nick Casey conducted a massive "Fly-In" all over the state that clearly demonstrated Don Blankenship's efforts to BUY the election. The now well known slogan "Don Blankenship - West Virginia is Not For Sale" was coined during that campaign. You can read the article here.
Evidently Blankenship just doesn't know when to give up. I guess he is trying desperately to prove to the shareholders at Massey Energy that he is just a guy trying to do his job and like many politicians he just gets "misquoted". He certainly told enough lies about Democrats over the years. Now he is trying to legitimize his mistakes.
Lincoln Walks at Midnight has more on Blankenship's penchant for suing folks that tell the truth about him.
As I've said before, there's things I like about all of the viable Democratic candidates--I'm strongly in the "I'm supporting the Democratic nominee" camp. One of the reasons I've not picked the one right candidate to support is to keep an open mind to new information.
Read the entire editorial, it's all good... it's hard to pick what to excerpt. Here's a few choice lines:
Independence Day is about having the courage to oppose what is wrong and unjust. There is nothing courageous about staying the course in a war fought for uncertain objectives and for questionable reasons.
For four long years, Mr. President, you and Rep. Shelley Moore Capito have overseen and pushed policies to continue a war with no end in sight. Mr. President, you have incited and provoked our enemies with careless and irresponsible rhetoric. You have turned a blind eye to the needs of the men and women returning from service — many with visible physical wounds and many more with less visible, mental ailments.
Really, read the whole thing. It's a short concise July 4th themed indictment of Pres. Bush and Rep. Shelley Moore Capito's failed policies.
Finally I've gotten some free time to write this very important diary. This is about 7 very very important "values issues" we Democrats MUST - and I mean MUST - address for us Democrats to have any shot at carrying our home state West Virginia; our neighbors Kentucky, Ohio, and Virginia; and similar tossup states like Arkansas and Missouri; and states we've been sort of competitive with in the past like North Carolina, Tennessee, and Georgia.
These 7 "values" issues were very crucial to Bush's win in 2000 because sadly of our evangelical and Pentecostal friends here in West Virginia and even more so in 2004 where for the very first election ever in the history of the United States "values" issues were ranked no. 1 in most polls as to why Bush was re-elected.
But most evangelicals and Pentecostals say they've been disappointed big time by the Bush administration mainly because the president's Iraqi occupation has taken center stage since the Nov. 2004 election.
But still we have to balance these states out with our western swing states like Colorado, Nevada, and New Mexico where "values" issues are not that important and actually could hurt us there instead of helping us.
I still think as of right now the three swing states that will determine who our next president are Ohio, Colorado, and Nevada. And must take back Iowa and hold on to Wisconsin as well but I think we will keep Wisconsin is because of Democratic Senator Russell Feingold who has opposed the Iraqi occupation from the very start and is loved out there. And New Mexico is just about in the bag for us right now because of popular gov. Bill Richardson who is no doubt the frontrunner for Dem VP nominee in my honest opinion.
Well, here goes nothing: actually these are in REVERSE order of importance. And I have my reasons for doing that as you'll see later:
7. prayer in public schools; this is an issue that Republicans and even the vast majority of Dems agree on for the most part. But the Dems in Congress have really decided that this is not a major issue. Try telling that to my fellow evangelicals and Pentecostals though who say that things in this nation's public schools have gone downhill fast because of the landmark 1973 decision restricting mandatory prayer in public schools. And they have proof - at least they say - to back them up. I do agree with my fellow Dems though that this is the least important "values" issue there is for us at least at the present time. But still enough votes can be swayed by this issue that we Dems still have to address it and take it seriously at the present time.
6. ATVs; OK laugh if you will but strangely enough this is a very huge issue here in West Virginia especially in the coalfields where I live. ATV owners have been very very critical of us Democrats for placing health and safety restrictions above their "freedom to ride" wherever they want to. Most people here in West Virginia esp. in my neck of the woods have vehemently opposed ALL restrictions on them even though there is clear evidence that most people who have died in ATV accidents died unnecessarily because of the lack of these restrictions being enforced in the past. But don't tell ATV owners that. They actually say that these restrictions have caused these unnecessary deaths because people "have to take chances more" because of these resttictions. And it's a proven fact that these ATV owners believe very much that is a very serious "values" issue. Sadly I would have to say that at least 2/3 of these riders vote Republican. And it has swayed election resulte here before believe it or not to continue to be a cause of concern
5. gay and homosexual rights: this is a tough issue for us Dems to win on especially here in Appalachia and in the Deep South. Most of the people in the dark blue Democratic Northern, Great Lakes, and Western states actually support gay rights now or have decided this is a non-issue. It's not that way in West Virginia and the rest of the Red states especially the pro-evangelical states I mentioned above and the Deep South as well. Most West Virginians I know in the coalfields actually call themselves "the Deep South." In my neighbor to the West Democratic County Buchanan County Virginia they voted 90 to 10 percent in the 2006 election in favor of BANNING same-sex marriage. Yes they voted that way in a solidly Democratic county while at the same time backing Dem. Sen. candidate Jim Webb I think by a 60-40 margin. And Southern West Virginians esp. evangelicals feel exactly the same way. My mom has tried to keep me from talking to my gay friend at the mall constantly. It really doesn't affect that many votes but still enough for us Dems to be very concerned....
Now the next 4 "values" are really REALLY critical for us Dems; for the first three listed above we could at least "wing it" as they say. But for the next 4 we cannot do that at all or else the Reps will win in 2008 even with Bush as unpopular as he is. Actually I think these next 4 "values" issues are of equal importance. I'm putting them in my order of importance but that is just me saying that. In reality though they are of equal importance.
4. gun control or more truthfully "the lack of gun control": no candidate I don't care what background they come from Democratic or Republican small town or big city can even think about winning in West Virginia, the Deep South, or any Red state for that matter if you support gun control. Everyone of the people I talk to sportsman or non-sportsman except perhaps for one of my non-hunting friends in Mingo County 100 percent Democratic or Republican is OPPOSED TO ANY GUN CONTROL AT ALL. If you support gun control mark it down you will lose in West Virginia Democratic or Republican 100 percent chance of that happening. The best way I think for us Dems to handle this issue is simply this: DO NOT bring up the issue at all or if you have to just say in a debate that you are opposed to semi-automatic rifles and guns and THAT'S IT. I myself hate shotguns with a passion because in my honest opinion they literally blow up their game and they suffer from it big time. But even mention BANNING shotguns and people will HATE YOU FOREVER for saying and believing that! This "values" issue was I believe the 2nd most important reason Bush carried W. Virginia in 2000 and 2004. I personally believe that guns do more harm than good - look at the US crime rate it's NO COMPETITON WE HAVE BY FAR THE HIGHEST CRIME RATE IN THE WORLD but when I told my mom that she literally HIT THE ROOF! My step-dad has 10 to 20 guns in his house. You try to even take away one of his or any of his fellow sportsman's guns and he will absolutely DECLARE WAR ON YOU! Don't try the "all you need is one gun" comment either or they will do the exact same thing and DECLARE WAR ON YOU. We have to steer 100 percent clear of this issue except in debates where all we can really say is that we oppose semi-automatics. And many if not most people don't even like that answer. The 2nd amendment only says "we have a right to keep a highly trained militia" or similar to that but don't tell these hunters that if you want to live another day.
3. coal mining and the environment: this is the BIGGEST REASON in my opinion that Al Gore didn't carry West Virginia in 2000 because I still think even with the other 6 issues we still would have carried the Mountain State. Gore was considered a "tree hugger" then and sadly even in June 2007 W. Virginians still believe that's the case today. I HATE MOUNTAINTOP REMOVAL WITH A PASSION! But many folks here a pretty significant number of them will tell pro-enviromentalists like me YOU ARE TRYING TO TAKE FOOD OFF MY KIDS' TABLE AND I DON'T LIKE IT! They will for the most part even admit to destroying the land and say with all their heart "I don't want to do this at all but I have to feed my children's mouths." They say they have no choice because it pays a high 5 or even in some cases a lower 6 digit salary while no other job can. Of course you all know the story about the family in Pike KY that feels that way. People here hate mountaintop removal but "feel it's necessary to make end's meet." Many of them will even cry when they say it. Never mind the fact that much of WV, VA, and KY is now a "mountain desert" - got the term from somewhere else but can't remember where. Until last year's election Massey CEO and chairman Don Blankenship and his Republican supporters were very successful in using this as a political issue in the coalfields where I live until last year 2006 when my fellow coalfield residents finally saw they were being used and taken advantage of and voted for the very 1st time against Blankenship and his Rep. supporters. But sadly it was too little too late and the damage was already done. I have come to a sad resignation that I will be flooded out again because of this. And my fellow coalfield residents sadly feel that same way.
2. National Security and the war in Iraq: this is now the number 1 issue here in WV. The funny thing about WV is that here the Iraqi War and Occupation is supported more here in Democratic West Virginia than even some of the very reddest Republican states in the nation. I think that even in our bordering neighbors KY, OH, VA, MD and PA the Iraq War Occupation is way way more unpopular in those states than here in West Virginia even though I'll have to check and see to be 100 percent certain. The reason it's not opposed as much here is because West Virginia has a storied history of fighting military men, women, and veterans unmatched big time by any other state in the nation, mostly because it's the best way to make a living because of our high unemployment rate and the lack of high-paying jobs here in the Mountain State. And most well-off servicemen here both active and retired support Iraq War and Occupation big time even while many of their poorer fellow Vietnam, Korean, and yes even Iraq War veterans are really kicked to the curb for the most part and treated like second-class citizens by our government especially by Bush, Cheney, and the Republican Party. My fellow evangelicals are especially duped, saying that "soldiers knew very well what they were getting into when they signed up for the military and volunteered for duty" and continue to say "Iraq is better off today because my fellow Christian George W. Bush removed anti-Christian Saddam Hussein out of power." Actually they still fail to realize even in June 2007 that there were no WMD's ever found - they still say there are WMD's when the evidence clearly states there not saying "those foreign governments and inspectors are still hiding something and hate the greatest country in the world the United States of America and want us Americans wiped off the face of the earth." In actually I don't know exact number but I think that the number of Iraqis killed since Saddam was removed out of power is even greater than those murdered in his regime. And my fellow evangelicals say that "Bible prophecy says more about Iraq than any other nation besides Israel whom we have to support or else our USA will be cursed. We must support Israel who is God's Chosen People or else God will turn his back on these United States of America." 'Nuff said.
Finally the number 1 issue of them all. Drum roll please....
1. ABORTION ABORTION ABORTION! Many of my fellow evangelicals I know say "We can disagree on every other issue but this. If you voted for John Kerry you will die and go to hell and burn forever and forever because you are a BABY-KILLER!" Many of them actually even agree with us and our fellow Dems on the first 6 six issues. But to my fellow evangelicals this is literally a LIFE AND DEATH ISSUE. "Life begins at conception, the Bible says something like I knew you in your mother's womb before you were born." My fellow evangelicals say this "values" issue trumps all the others even if they disagreed with the first 6. We Dems have done a very poor job communicating to the American people especially the Republican Red States our position on this the abortion "LIFE AND DEATH" issue for the most part. I have to be completely honest in saying I don't even know how to respond to my fellow evangelicals on this subject and I've even moticed many of my fellow members on this site say the exact same thing. My fellow evangelicals almost always am crush me big time in every debate with them on the abortion issue. The current Democratic policy of SAFE, RARE, AND LEGAL ain't gonna cut with them I'm afraid. Even the very least educated ones are too smart and intelligent fo fall for that. While I'm pro-life myself I'm often considered a "child murderer and traitor to the unborn babies of this country". My fellow Dems didn't help themselves at all when they excluded former Democratic PA pro-life governor Bob Casey Sr. the dad of current Dem PA Senator Bob Casey Jr. from speaking at the '92 or '96 Democratic convention I don't remember which one. And former pres. Clinton didn't even appoint one pro-life judge to the federal bench. NOT EVEN ONE. And even my least educated fellow evangelicals can see through that. My online friend Dan says that Republicans are "100 percent wrong" on every life and death issue but that one. And he is 100 percent correct. Yet abortion is the only life and death issue the mainstream media wants to focus on most of the time. WE DEMOCRATS MUST AND I MEAN MUST FIND A SOLUTION TO OUR ABORTION DILEMMA OR ELSE! We have to do it. Can't continue avoid this question at all. Some Democrat out there has to speak up with a solution to this subject or else even with Bush at a 28-34 approval rating the Republican presidential candidate will win easily again in 2008 except possibly pro-choice Republican candidate Rudy Giuliani.
That's all. I'm worn out big time now. We have to address all 7 of these "values" issues or at least 10000 probably now 20000 or more innocent US soldiers will continue to die needlessly in Iraq and probably Iran too now.
Losing is not an option for us Democrats in 2008. We can't take another 4 years of Republican rule.
I have always wondered why it seems to be the case without exception since the 1964 presidential election when the opposite was true. I wasn't even born until 1970 but have done some research on this. And what I've found is very interesting to say the least.
In 1964 the last total moderate to be Republican presidential nominee Barry Goldwater was the last brutally honest Republican presidential candidate there was. He told it like it is. And what did he get in return for his brutal honesty? He was trounced big time by Democrat Lyndon Johnson with only a few Deep Southern states supporting him mostly because Johnson was only the second real President besides JFK to support racial integration. Goldwater also won his home state of Arizona but just barely.
Since 1964 however the tables have turned big time. Starting with the 1968 presidential election. That election was the last time us Democrats had that in our favor. Every election since then it's been totally and completely different. Republicans have been given the benefit of the doubt since then without exception. Even in '76 when Jimmy Carter was elected.
This time Democratic nominee Hubert Humphrey was the more honorable candidate. Richard Nixon on the other hand was very irritating even in his campaigns to say the least. Again Americans chose the worse of the two candidates.
The same was even more evident in 1972. The last really brutally honest presidential candidate - I'm 50/50 on Jimmy Carter - on either side of the aisle George McGovern was trounced in 49 of 50 states with the only exceptions Massachusetts and District of Columbia.
Even in 1976 presidential election where Democrat Jimmy Carter was elected Gerald Ford who was very unpopular after pardoning Richard Nixon still managed 240 electoral votes and was arguably a few votes away from carrying Ohio, Hawaii, and Mississippi or else he would have been re-elected. The South for the very last time voted solidly Democratic except for Virginia. Even fellow Southerner Bill Clinton only managed a split there.
In 1980 Ronald Reagan trounced Carter pretty easily. Actually besides record inflation and Iran Hostage Crisis Jimmy Carter's reign wasn't half bad. Still Carter managed to carry only a very few solidly Democratic states. Even the Deep South besides his home state of Georgia turned their backs on him.
Things were just completely awful economically in 1984. Yet Reagan won 49 out of 50 states and almost carried Walter Mondale's home state of Minnesota.
Again in 1988 George Bush Senior won election pretty easily over the more honorable Michael Dukakis. The Solid South was a major player for Republicans for the very first time. Yes they did vote for Reagan but this was really first time Southerners were very influential in the Republican Party.
In 1992 it was the "economy stupid" and our last great President Bill Clinton was elected mostly because the economy was in very sad shape. So much so that even Bush Sr.'s first Iraq War "success" - Bush Sr. didn't finish the deal - didn't even help him. Clinton was re-elected in 1996 even though at times he was dishonest about his personal life. Again it was the "economy stupid" that won him re-election. Even then a solid minority of people voted Republican.
Do you ever wonder how Ross Perot would have done if he had stayed in the race the whole time instead of dropping out and then re-entering again? To me that was the best and only shot at the United States ever having a viable third party.
Actually in my opinion fairly or not Bill Clinton hurt this country big time when he let the Republicans use the "Contract for America" against him and his fellow Democrats in Congress to oust us in '94. It was just last year's 2006 election that we Dems took over Congress again almost exclusively due to opposition to the Iraqi occupation.
Then for the very first time since Andrew Johnson President Clinton was impeached just because he lied under oath concerning his affair with intern Monica Lewinsky. It seemed at the time that maybe Republicans were not all that they were cracked up to be. Only 2 minor offenses were listed and Clinton was acquitted simply because for the first time in our collective lives the Democrats in the Senate were unanimous in their oppostion. You think that in the next presidential election Americans would have learned their lesson.
Nothing could be farther from the truth. In 2000 George W. Bush was elected and chosen President by the Supreme Court even though he probably lost Florida legitimately. And sadly home state of West Virginia voted for a non-incumbent Republican presidential candidate for the 1st time since Herbert Hoover in 1928 mostly with the support of my fellow evangelicals. And boy we Americans have paid dearly for that mistake. Florida would have meant absolutely nothing if West Virginia had stuck to its Democratic roots.
In 2004 for the very first time the "values" issue took precedent as the number one issue with 9/11 a close second. Things were so bad in 2004 the rest of the world wondered "How could Americans be so stupid?" as Bush won re-election even by a greater margin in 2004 than in 2000. I still think Ohio voted for John Kerry but Bush again had both the Ohio and US Supreme Courts on his side as well as Ohio's very partisan secretary of state so there was really nothing Kerry and us Dems could legally do about it.
See the pattern developing here? Ever since 1968 Republicans have gotten the benefit of the doubt for the most part by Americans even by us Democrats and independents 100 percent of the time without exception and have been allowed to do things that if our fellow Democrats did them would create a very loud outcry by the media and my fellow Americans. Brutal honesty was the reason Democrats Humphrey, McGovern, and perhaps Carter lost big time. Meanwhile Republican liars have gotten off scot free for the most part. And we Americans sadly are 100 percent responsible. And sadly my fellow evangelicals are again the main reason why.
Do you think Democrats would have impeached Bush if he lied about a sexual affair? No way! In fact every Democrat in Congress would overlook it and think absolutely nothing of it. But Republicans did actually impeach Clinton and were actually rewarded for doing so in 2000 and 2004 by mostly my fellow evangelicals.
And finally my last question. What if Pres. Clinton had sent our troops to Iraq to conduct a pre-meditated strike just like Bush did? He would have been impeached and removed from office yesterday. And a majority if not at least two-thirds of Democrats in both houses of Congress would have voted for it. And it would have taken at the very most 1000 dead US soldiers for that to happen. Instead Bush and Cheney are likely to escape any punishment at all. A huge minority and perhaps even a majority of Americans currently oppose impeachment. But I am 100 percent certain that if Clinton had done the exact same thing a solid majority of Americans even many of us Dems would have impeached him, removed him out of office, and might have even put him in prison. Sadly I am not joking.....
There is absolutely no doubt in my mind a Double Standard as to what Republicans can do and what us Democrats can do. The bar for some reason is set much higher for Democrats than Republicans. Again I think it's mostly because of my fellow evangelicals. Bush is a "born-again Christian" so he must be doing the "will of God." Clinton on the other hand is a "servant of Satan" and a "baby-killer" so he "deserves prison" for even lying about a sexual affair. Even though Americans including my fellow evangelicals I might add lie about their sex lives all the time.
Polls currently show the 2008 presidential race a virtual deadlock. When it really shouldn't be. We Democrats should be ahead in them big time. We have almost 3500 dead US soldiers, unlimited corporate welfare, Medicare Part Death, Halliburton and other defense contractors profitting from our soldiers' injuries and deaths, more uninsured Americans in our health care system than at any time in US history, health care and public college and university costs soaring and tripling the rate of inflation, gas prices at record highs, and a bigger gap between the top 1 percent of wage-earners and the bottom 50 percent than at any time in US history.
Yet many if not most presidential polls have the 2008 race as a dead heat if not a slight Republican lead. Sad but true....
And one last point I have to make. When Bush was chosen president in 2000 most Democrats me included said "we want Bush to succeed."
Never even once during Bill Clinton's presidency did I hear even one Republican say the same thing. Not even once.
And another disturbing trend I noticed is that Americans supported the lying candidates especially the Republican ones over the brutally honest ones every single time with one exception: President Bill Clinton. And even he was sometimes dishonest in his own right.
And we Americans only have only ourselves to blame. Sorry for this brutally long diary but I felt it necessary to make all my points.
Copyright 2011 West Virginia Blue
Site content may be used for any purpose without explicit permission unless otherwise specified.
This site exists thanks to financial support from BlogPAC, dedicated volunteers and participation by members of this community. The views expressed at West Virginia Blue belong solely to their respective authors.
Don Blankenship the CEO of Massey Energy is pissed. He spent a small fortune trying to take over the West Virginia State Legislature and lost. Now according to the Associated Press he is not only attempting to get revenge by suing the West Virginia Democratic Party, but also the state party chairman Nick Casey. During the 2006 election Nick Casey conducted a massive "Fly-In" all over the state that clearly demonstrated Don Blankenship's efforts to BUY the election. The now well known slogan "Don Blankenship - West Virginia is Not For Sale" was coined during that campaign. 
