Palin: Pit Bull With A Lynch Mob

"Now it turns out, one of his earliest supporters is a man named Bill Ayers," Palin said.

"Boooo!" said the crowd.

"And, according to the New York Times, he was a domestic terrorist and part of a group that, quote, 'launched a campaign of bombings that would target the Pentagon and our U.S. Capitol,'" she continued.
"Boooo!" the crowd repeated.

"Kill him!" proposed one man in the audience.

Palin went on to say that "Obama held one of the first meetings of his political career in Bill Ayers's living room, and they've worked together on various projects in Chicago."

Palin says nothing.

By Dana Milbank
CLEARWATER, Fla. -- "Okay, so Florida, you know that you're going to have to hang onto your hats," Sarah Palin told a rally of a few thousand here this morning, "because from now until Election Day it may get kind of rough."

You betcha. And the person dishing out the roughest stuff at the moment is Sarah Palin.

read more @ Washington Post.


Roadkill said...

The Tuskegee Institute reports that from 1882 – 1968, there were 3,447 lynchings of African Americans in the United States. Of those lynchings, 3,171 occurred in the states of the old Confederacy, which were of course controlled by the Democrat Party. Most of the rest of these lynchings were in border states such as Missouri and West Virginia. Hardly any were in Northern, Republican-controlled states.

Its no surprise, really. Democrats, after all, are the party of slavery, and Republicans are the party of emancipation.

It is so amusing to watch the party founded by slaveholders (Jackson/Jefferson), and the party of pro-south slavery, and the party of Jim Crow and the KKK and the high-tech lynching of Justice Thomas now point fingers of accusation at Republicans for being violent racists. I think the psychologists call that projection.

So while I applaud the Democrats for finally getting on the right side of history and human rights, its partisan fantasy to suggest that Republicans are the party of lynching.

Get smarter on your history, Sunny, and stop feeding the anti-intellectual and ahistorical mythology of the left. It’s not doing anybody any good.

Sunny B. said...


The pre-civil-rights-act Democrats of the south have become the Republican base of the South today. Those would be the Bull Conor Democrats. I don't need to tell you that the progressive Republicans of the early 1900s became the liberal Democrats of today. I would also venture to point out that the Grover Cleveland Democrats of the 1880s morphed into the Reagan Republicans of the 1980s and beyond.

I'd even say that Republican McCain -- with the exception of taking millions in campaign contributions -- followed in the anti-pork footsteps of Democrat William Proxmire. For political footstep following, I'd say Feingold embraces the Proxmire model.

In defining what the two parties represent, there is a rather fluid shifting that has gone on. I would also bet that there are a large number of white Americans who won't vote for Obama because he is black. Likewise, I bet there will be black Republicans who will vote for Obama because he is black.

How Clarence Thomas votes, I won't guess. But I do agree that there are a few digital rope fibers to be found on the Thomas confirmation hearing. But hey, this is politcs. Don't be dragging the facts and reason into the discussion this late in the game.

I never did follow up on your comments about Obama and Bill Ayers. I'm confused as to what the big deal is. I didn't notice any big stink being made over meetings between Reagan and Anwar Sadat -- who many consider to be a terrorist. I believe a number of Presidents met with Menachem Begin -- who many considered a terrorist.

Roadkill said...


The theory that all the bad, racist Democrats fled to the party of emancipation and civil rights, to the party that sent Federal Troop to little rock to enforce desegregation, and to the party that passed the 957 civil rights act and voted in higher percentages than the Democrats for the 1064 civil right act is just plain ridiculous. It may be conveniently useful for liberal revisionists, but it has little basis in fact or logic. Why would a party that had been working for the liberation and civil rights of African Americans for over 100 years suddenly welcome the most racist and objectionable elements of the Democrat party?

The only “morphing” that is going on is that of the Democrat Party, which has replaced the racist, slavery-based contempt of black Americans with the soft bigotry of Welfare and Affirmative Action. Whereas Democrats once used black Americans to advance their economic well-being, they now use them to advance their political aims. It’s the plantation mentality, repackaged and sold like crack on the street corner to people who have lost their perspective and self respect, and confuse hand-outs with hand-ups. Is this what Frederick Douglas and Booker T Washington worked for all their lives, that their people would be perpetual second class citizens dependent on the charity and low expectations of the government? I think not.

As for the Ayers thing, well, Sadat (who was not a terrorist, and only met with Reagan once), and Begin (who definitely was a terrorist) fought against the occupying British in Egypt and Palestine, whereas Ayers conducted violent terrorist actions against his own government and its citizens. There is a distinction in there somewhere.

My problem with Obama is mostly concerns his association with oddities and criminals (e.g. Wright, Rezko, Ayers, Dorhn) that goes to the question of his judgment. Why would such a smart guy get involved with such fringe personalities? How much of the thought and values of such people have rubbed off on Obama? I would feel better if I knew.