Anuther Reepublikan Prezidant. Graet.

(This blog is published, first, in phonetic (Fanetik) spelling and only then in standard English spelling. If you wish to skip to the traditionally spelled text (albeit with a few simplifications here and there), click here.)
+
Jon Edwerdz, the oenle elektabool Demakraat, dropt out uv tha Prezidenshal raes yesterdae. Wel, not egzaaktle. Hwut he did wuz "saspend" hiz kaampaen. Thaat kood meen thaat if he tthroez hiz sapaurt tu Oeboma, aand then Klintan aand Oeboma dedlok aat tha kanvenshan, Edwerdz wil be availabool aaz a kompramiez kaandidaet tu win in kanvenshan hwut he kood not win in priemereez dominaetad bi mune aand hiep about tha "histaurik" kaandidase uv a wooman aand a blaak maan. Thaat wood be tha best outkum, aaz I haav sed heer erleeyer. But if eether Klintan aur Oeboma iz nominaetad, tha nekst faur yeerz uv Amairikan histare, aand werld histare, wil be dominaetad bi yet anuther Reepublikan Prezidant. Eevan a Maurman hwiet maan wil beet a wooman aur blaak maan in tha reel Yoonietad Staets, a kuntre thaat iz not the airee-faire, laand uv oepan miendz aand oepan horts thaat sum Demakraats preetend tu se.
+
I liv in a preeponderantle blaak, but midool-klaas, naeberhood in a site, Nuewerk, Nu Jerze, thaat iz 54% blaak. Ouwer maeyer aand a majorite uv tha Site Kounsal or blaak aand/aur Hispaanik. We or saroundad bi dominantle hwiet suberbz. Tho tha kounte oeveraul iz 44% hwiet aand oenle 41% blaak, neerle haaf uv tha kounte's 325,000 blaaks reezied in Nuewerk aloen (151,000), aand aul but 26,000 or in Nuewerk aand tha 5 kloesast-in suberbz (uv 22 toetal myuenisipaaliteez). Ports uv hwiet Esaks haav mountad a siseshan muevmant tu eskaep Esaks Kounte aand faurm thair oen preedominantle hwiet kounte uv West Esaks.
+
Nu Jerze iz wun uv tha bluewast uv blu staets, witth a Demakraatik Guverner aand Demakraatik majoriteez in boetth houzaz uv tha Staet Lejislaecher. But moest hwiet Nu Jerzeeyanz or unkumfartabool living under a blaak maeyer. Thai'r sapoesd tu voet faur a blaak Prezidant? Mene wer aebool aand wiling, if ekstreemle reeluktantle, tu leev Nuewerk (beekauz, daspiet its repyootaeshan, Nuewerk haaz a lot uv wunderfool tthingz, not just faamile ruets, goewing faur it). Tha hwiet-flieterz hu haav fled ouwer siteez or not liekle tu fle the Yoonietad Staets. Hwairaaz it wuz fien tu leev Nuewerk tu a blaak maeyer, hwiet saberbaniets or not liekle tu voet faur a blaak Prezidant. A sens uv daenjer praduesaz a "fiet aur fliet" reespons. If peepool kaan't fle, thae wil fiet.
+
I aam hwiet. I heer hwut hwiet peepool sae. "Niger" iz wun uv tha moest freekwantle uterd werdz in this kuntre, aand "tha blaaks" iz not a term of endeermant. But tha Demakrats wont tu beeleev thaat aul thoez milyanz uv Naurthern hwiets hu fled Nuewerk, Baultimaur, Kleevland, Deetroit, Woshingtan, aand evre uther maejer site nou lorjle blaak wil sudanle chaenj thair spots aand voet faur a blaak Prezidant. I doen't beeleev it.
+
Naur du I beeleev thaat a kuntre thaat reejektad tha soe-kauld "Eekwal Riets Amendmant" faur wiman wil voet faur a wooman Prezidant, espeshale not a wooman so deetestabool, frijid, aand hord aaz Hilare Klintan, in a tiem uv multipool waurz.
+
So ene Reepublikan wil beet eether Barok Oeboma aur Hilare Klintan, sumhwair beetween "haandile" aand "bi a laandslied". The oenle kweschan nou iz hwether it wil be Prezidant MikKaen, Prezidant Romne, aur Prezidant Huckabe.
+
Aat tha moemant, Prezidant MikKaen seemz vere liekle, espeshale if Kaandidaet MikKaen shood chuez eether Jueleeyone aur Hukabe faur Veep, Jueleeyone wood giv Liberal Demakraats a kuver faur thair raesizam aur aante-Raadikal Feminist 'bieyas'. Hukabe wood hortan tha Reepublikan kanservativ baes aand alou them tu voet faur a maan thae jenerale reegord aaz not kanservativ eenuf.
+
Mi prieyer observaeshanz on tha vieyabilite uv kaandidaets haav bin pruevd bi eevents tu be lorjle riet.
+
In eevaalyuewaeting tha vaareeyas Reepublikan kaandidaets, I sed heer on Noevember 17, 2006:

if peepool tthingk tha Protastant eevanjelikalz hu kantroel tha Reepublikan Porte or goewing tu voet faur a proe-abaurshan Itaalyan KAATHALIK frum NU YAURK SITE, thae or halueskinaetin'.

On Morch 5, 2007, hwen Ruedolf Jueleeyone wuz tha sapoezd "fruntruner" faur tha Reepublikan nominaeshan, I sed:

I haav pue-pued heer the iedeeya thaat Ruedolf Jueleeyone iz tha leeding kaandidaet faur tha Reepublikan Portee's nominaeshan faur Prezidant in 2008. The oenle peepool hu kood beeleev ene such tthing or peepool hu noe aulmoest nutthing about Jueleeyone eksept thaat he wuz Maeyer uv Nu Yaurk hwen tha Werld Traed Senter ataaks akerd. But he wuz much maur thaan thaat, aand hiz publik rekerd iz fild witth ietamz thaat bor him frum seereeyas kantenshan faur tha Reepublikan Portee's nominaeshan.

Meedeeya kept telling us thaat Jueleeyone wuz tha fruntruner:

In aan Okt. 19-22 servae Jueleeyone wuz tha chois uv 32 persent uv Reepublikanz naeshanwied, maur thaan dubool tha sapaurt uv hiz neerast rieval, faurmer Tenase Senater Fred Tompsan.

Uv Tompson, I roet heer on September 6tth:

Faurchanatle, Tompsan iz fizikale vere ugle, hwich boedz baadle faur him in this aej uv telavizhan and aan eelektarat thaat iz majorite feemail. Ugle peepool doen't du vere wel in politiks nouwadaez. We wont ouwer politishanz tu be prite peepool, uv boetth seksaz. Hwi els wood Jon Edwerdz spend hundradz uv dolerz on a hairkut, aand Hilare Klintan sho kleeevaj?

Tompsan dropt out uv tha raes Janyuewere 22nd, tthre muntths tu tha dae aafter tha poel thaat shoed him 2d oenle tu Jueleeyone.
+
Aaz faur Jueleeyone agen, on Oktoeber 7, 2007, I roet heer:

But hwi wood Reepublikanz preetend tu wont Ruedolf Jueleeyone? Iz it beekauz thae sens the autthoritaireeyan streek in hiz kaarakter, aand thae wont tu kantinyu tha dounwerd slied uv this Reepublik intu diktaetership? I livd in Jueleeyonee's Nu Yaurk aand kauld him "Muesoeleeyone" beekauz uv hiz diktataureeyal tendanseez. Maebe tha Reepublikan Riet haets tha freedam thae keep proeklaeming thair deevoeshan tu, in "pratest tue much" faashan. But du thae reele wont a proe-gae aand proe-abaurshan diktaeter frum Nu Yaurk Site, tha moest haetad site in tha Naeshan? "Hiemeetoun"? A site apaarantle maur foran thaan Amairikan? I doen't beeleev it.

Yesterdae, Jueleeyone kwit tha raes, haaving akyuemyoolaetad a graand toetal uv wun (1) delagat!
+
Nou, reeterning tu tha Demakraats, I haav sed reepeetadle thaat tha Demakraats or fueling themselvz if thae tthingk the Yoonietad Staets wil eelekt Hilare Klintan aur Barok Oeboma Prezidant. But it wood apeer thaat nutthing kaan shaek Demakrats out uv thair perpechuewal diluezhanal staet, not tha krushing deefeet uv tha ferst "histaurik" nominaeshan uv a feemail kaandidaet faur Vies Prezidant (Jeraldeen Feroro in 1984), not the uter failyer uv tha Demakraats tu kaapitaliez apon publik disgust witth the Eerok Waur in tha 2006 Kangreshanal kaampaen, nutthing. Kaan thae posible be so kampleetle out uv tuch witth reeyaalite? Aur iz sumtthing maur sinister aat werk?
+
Wun must aask — mi kweschanz, not a kwoet frum eneewun els:

Iz tha Demakraatik Porte a shil faur tha Reepublikanz? Or thae a foene porte, a setup, a kon? Du thae taek a diev daliberatle, aulmoest evre eelekshan? (Bil Klintan wuz aan ostensibool Demakraat, but hiz Prezidanse seemd maur Reepublikan than Demakraatik aaz tu polise.) Iz evre eelekshan reele just a poot-up job tu giv tha voeterz the iluezhan thaat we haav tue maejer porteez hwen in faakt we haav but wun, a singgal servant uv tha sueper-rich aand Kaurparat Amairika, operaeting in tue ports thaat waej maek-beeleev waur faur tha voets uv the eelektarat?

It wood seem so. Poleeyaanish optimizam about tha byuetifool, jeneras speerit uv the Amairikan eelektarat koodan't posible serviev dekaedz uv dispruef, hwen selfish, vishasle unfair poliseez enaaktad bi tha Reepublikan majorite in Konggras aand deefendad bi veeto aafter veeto frum a Reepublikan Prezidant, upheld bi tha Reepublikan mienorite eevan aafter tha Demakraats paast, bi a tiene number, intu tha majorite in boetth Houzaz uv Konggras. Shuerle aul the ugleenas uv Gwontonamo aand wuterbaurding aand a waur uv agreshan agenst a kuntre thaat never ataakt us; the aabalishan uv baangkruptse faur tha puer aand midool klaas; the inaakshan tu preevent yuezhuereeyas interest raets frum krushing Amairikanz under a mountan uv det aand saev milyanz frum luezing thair hous tu faurkloezher, wood haav haad tu snaap eevan tha bliendast uv Demakraats out uv thair dreem staet — if it wer a dreem staet.
+
We need anuther maejer porte. Aur we need a graasruets kaampaen tu steel tha Demakraatik Porte out frum under the tthum uv tha rich aand reestaur it tu its popyoolist ruets. Givan tha preeposteras, kumbersam, aand hyuejle ekspensiv priemere proses, houwever, thaat seemz unduewabool. A palitikal porte needz a bilyan dolerz tu run a kaampaen faur Prezidant nouwadaez. This iz anuther wae tha rich keep tha puer aand midool klaas frum haaving ene sae in thair fyuecher: just run up tha kausts uv eelekshanz tu such aastranominkal levalz thaat no wun but tha porteez under tha kantroel uv tha rich haav tha slietast chaans uv wining eether tha Hwiet Hous aur Konggras. It's a traajade. We haav laust ouwer damokrase, aand thair iz no indikaeshan thaat eneetthing kaan be dun tu reestaur it.
+
Hwut duz thaat leev us, tha puer, tha midool klaas krusht bi det aand a Sistam thaat duzan't kair? Vieyalans.
+
(Tha kerant Y.S. militere detth toel in Eerok, akaurding tu tha websiet "Eerok Koewalishan Kaazhuewalteez", iz 3,943 — faur Izreeyal.)
+
Another Republican President. Great.
+
John Edwards, the only electable Democrat, dropped out of the Presidential race yesterday. Well, not exactly. What he did was "suspend" his campaign. That could mean that if he throws his support to Obama, and then Clinton and Obama deadlock at the convention, Edwards will be available as a compromise candidate to win in convention what he could not win in primaries dominated by money and hype about the "historic" candidacy of a woman and a black man. That would be the best outcome, as I have said here earlier. But if either Clinton or Obama is nominated, the next four years of American history, and world history, will be dominated by yet another Republican President. Even a Mormon white man will beat a woman or black man in the real United States, a country that is not the airy-fairy, land of open minds and open hearts that some Democrats pretend to see.
+
I live in a preponderantly black, but middle-class, neighborhood in a city, Newark, New Jersey, that is 54% black. Our mayor and a majority of the City Council are black and/or Hispanic. We are surrounded by dominantly white suburbs. Tho the county overall is 44% white and only 41% black, nearly half of the county's 325,000 blacks reside in Newark alone (151,000), and all but 26,000 are in Newark and the 5 closest-in suburbs (of 22 total municipalities). Parts of white Essex have mounted a secession movement to escape Essex County and form their own predominantly white county of West Essex.
+
New Jersey is one of the bluest of blue states, with a Democratic Governor and Democratic majorities in both houses of the State Legislature. But most white New Jerseyans are uncomfortable living under a black mayor. They're supposed to vote for a black President? Many were able and willing, if extremely reluctantly, to leave Newark (because, despite its reputation, Newark has a lot of wonderful things, not just family roots, going for it). The white-fliters who have fled our cities are not likely to flee the United States. Whereas it was fine to leave Newark to a black mayor, white suburbanites are not likely to vote for a black President. A sense of danger produces a "fite or flite" response. If people can't flee, they will fite.
+
I am white. I hear what white people say. "Nigger" is one of the most frequently uttered words in this country, and "the blacks" is not a term of endearment. But the Democrats want to believe that all those millions of Northern whites who fled Newark, Baltimore, Cleveland, Detroit, Washington, and every other major city now largely black will suddenly change their spots and vote for a black President. I don't believe it.
+
Nor do I believe that a country that rejected the so-called "Equal Rights Amendment" for women will vote for a woman President, especially not a woman so detestable, frigid, and hard as Hillary Clinton, in a time of multiple wars.
+
So any Republican will beat either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, somewhere between "handily" and "by a landslide". The only question now is whether it will be President McCain, President Romney, or President Huckabee.
+
At the moment, President McCain seems very likely, especially if Candidate McCain should choose either Giuliani or Huckabee for Veep. Giuliani would give Liberal Democrats a cover for their racism or anti-Radical Feminist 'bias'. Huckabee would hearten the Republican conservative base and allow them to vote for a man they generally regard as not conservative enuf.
+
My prior observations on the viability of candidates have been proved by events to be largely right.
+
In evaluating the various Republican candidates, I said here on November 17, 2006:

if people think the Protestant evangelicals who control the Republican Party are going to vote for a pro-abortion Italian CATHOLIC from NEW YORK CITY, they are halluskinatin'.

On March 5, 2007, when Rudolph Giuliani was the supposed "frontrunner" for the Republican nomination, I said:

I have pooh-poohed here the idea that Rudolph Giuliani is the leading candidate for the Republican Party's nomination for President in 2008. The only people who could believe any such thing are people who know almost nothing about Giuliani except that he was Mayor of New York when the World Trade Center attacks occurred. But he was much more than that, and his public record is filled with items that bar him from serious contention for the Republican Party's nomination.

Media kept telling us that Giuliani was the frontrunner:

In an Oct. 19-22 survey Giuliani was the choice of 32 percent of Republicans nationwide, more than double the support of his nearest rival, former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson.

Of Thompson, I wrote here on September 6th:

Fortunately, Thompson is physically very ugly, which bodes badly for him in this age of television and an electorate that is majority female. Ugly people don't do very well in politics nowadays. We want our politicians to be pretty people, of both sexes. Why else would John Edwards spend hundreds of dollars on a haircut, and Hillary Clinton show cleavage?

Thompson dropped out of the race January 22nd, three months to the day after the poll that showed him 2d only to Giuliani.
+
As for Giuliani again, on October 7, 2007, I wrote here:

But why would Republicans pretend to want Rudolph Giuliani? Is it because they sense the authoritarian streak in his character, and they want to continue the downward slide of this Republic into dictatorship? I lived in Giuliani's New York and called him "Mussoliani" because of his dictatorial tendencies. Maybe the Republican Right hates the freedom they keep proclaiming their devotion to, in "protest too much" fashion. But do they really want a pro-gay and pro-abortion dictator from New York City, the most hated city in the Nation? "Hymietown"? A city apparently more foreign than American? I don't believe it.

Yesterday, Giuliani quit the race, having accumulated a grand total of one (1) delegate!
+
Now, returning to the Democrats, I have said repeatedly that the Democrats are fooling themselves if they think the United States will elect Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama President. But it would appear that nothing can shake Democrats out of their perpetual delusional state, not the crushing defeat of the first "historic" nomination of a female candidate for Vice President (Geraldine Ferraro in 1984), not the utter failure of the Democrats to capitalize upon public disgust with the Iraq War in the 2006 Congressional campaign, nothing. Can they possibly be so completely out of touch with reality? Or is something more sinister at work?
+
One must ask — my questions, not a quote from anyone else:

Is the Democratic Party a shill for the Republicans? Are they a phony party, a setup, a con? Do they take a dive deliberately, almost every election? (Bill Clinton was an ostensible Democrat, but his Presidency seemed more Republican than Democratic as to policy.) Is every election really just a put-up job to give the voters the illusion that we have two major parties when in fact we have but one, a single servant of the super-rich and Corporate America, operating in two parts that wage make-believe war for the votes of the electorate?

It would seem so. Pollyannish optimism about the beautiful, generous spirit of the American electorate couldn't possibly survive decades of disproof, when selfish, viciously unfair policies enacted by the Republican majority in Congress and defended by veto after veto from a Republican President, upheld by the Republican minority even after the Democrats passed, by a tiny number, into the majority in both Houses of Congress. Surely all the ugliness of Guantanamo and waterboarding and a war of aggression against a country that never attacked us; the abolition of bankruptcy for the poor and middle class; the inaction to prevent usurious interest rates from crushing Americans under a mountain of debt and save millions from losing their house to foreclosure, would have had to snap even the blindest of Democrats out of their dream state — if it were a dream state.
+
We need another major party. Or we need a grassroots campaign to steal the Democratic Party out from under the thumb of the rich and restore it to its populist roots. Given the preposterous, cumbersome, and hugely expensive primary process, however, that seems undoable. A political party needs a billion dollars to run a campaign for President nowadays. This is another way the rich keep the poor and middle class from having any say in their future: just run up the costs of elections to such astronomical levels that no one but the parties under the control of the rich have the slitest chance of winning either the White House or Congress. It's a tragedy. We have lost our democracy, and there is no indication that anything can be done to restore it.
+
What does that leave us, the poor, the middle class crushed by debt and a System that doesn't care? Violence.
+
(The current U.S. military death toll in Iraq, according to the website "Iraq Coalition Casualties", is 3,943 — for Israel.)

- posted by L. Craig Schoonmaker @ 9:05 PM