Dallasblog.com, the Dallas, Texas news blog and Dallas, Texas information source for the DFW Metroplex. - DALLAS BLOG

You’re Welcome!

by James Reza

Mon, Mar 10, 2008, 10:50 AM

Last Tuesday, March 4, my daughter, Cecilia, informed me that she and her husband, Chris, (both Republicans) voted for Hillary. Their reason, they want the battle between Senator(s) Clinton and Obama to continue all the way into the Democrat’s National Convention to be held at the Pepsi Convention Center (aka “The Can”) this August (25 thru 28) in Denver, Colorado. Not only do they want the Democrat Party to be split, but also, they prefer the Democrat presidential front-runners spend their campaign funds battling each other instead of targeting Senator John McCain, the Republican presidential nominee. Though I had a similar inclination to vote for Senator Obama when I voted earlier, I must say that my daughter and son-in-law’s strategy was not bad thinking.

Now that the political dust has settled here in Texas (for a while anyway), many political pundits have egg on their faces. Most were predicting a victory in Texas and Ohio, though by a close margin, for Senator Obama after he registered 11 straight victories in as many states. Notwithstanding, Senator Obama, I humbly believe, did quite well in Ohio and Texas, losing only by a few percentage points. Though Senator Obama lost the popular vote, he gained a sizeable amount of delegates and still commands that lead over Senator Clinton.

I must point out that this past week in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, an article written by Bud Kennedy, a liberal writer, wrote a piece (Clinton Owes Debt of Gratitude to Texas Republicans) where he chastised Republicans for crossing over and voting for Senator Clinton. Here’s a quote from the concerned liberal writer, “Not only did crossover Republicans reinvigorate Clinton’s campaign, but they also abandoned some local Republicans.” Golly! This guy really has a soft heart for Republicans doesn’t he?

It has been theorized according to poll experts, that here in Texas, 1 out of 10 voters supporting Senator Clinton were Republicans, fine with me. However, Senator Clinton really cleaned Senator Obama’s clock with Hispanic voters. She carried most of South Texas where Hispanics abound with margins of over 70 percent. In the border city of Laredo, Texas, Senator Clinton garnered 80 percent of the Hispanic vote. Here in Fort Worth 63.8 of Hispanics supported Senator Clinton and 35 percent went to Senator Obama. Exit polls show that 7 out of 10 Hispanic women cast their votes for her, and among white women, 6 out of 10. In contrast, over 80 percent of black voters were solidly behind Senator Obama while Senator Clinton’s support among black voters slipped into the 20 percent range. Here in Fort Worth again, Senator Clinton only managed to reap 13.9 percent of the black vote.

Prior to the Super Tuesday duel, I was amazed that ex-President Bill Clinton (the first Black President as he’s been labeled by blacks) pandered mostly to Hispanic voters. Seems that every time I would see him on TV stumping for his wife, there were but a handful of blacks amongst the crowds he attracted. Of course these appearances by President Clinton were staged in large Hispanic strongholds. I was also stunned that here in Fort Worth, the ex-President made several appearances in Hispanic barrios (neighborhoods), he even visited my old stomping grounds in North Fort Worth. With all the support he’s profited from blacks in the past, one would think that he would at least have made some appearances in black communities here in Fort Worth. Some gratitude from President Clinton huh? Having said that, I believe that if Senator Clinton’s presidential competitor were white, President Clinton would probably have limited his appearances in Hispanic barrios and would have made a B-line to black communities. “Why?” one would ask, because more blacks support Democrats than Hispanics.

To add injury to insult, I’m now hearing from political junkies that Senator Clinton wants to garner the delegates from Florida. A state that along with Michigan, were penalized because these two states violated Democrat Party rules and held contests too early in the primary season. Regardless of the restrictions imposed by the Democrat operatives in Florida and Michigan, Senator Clinton had her name on the Florida ballot, easily winning the states delegates but could not cash them in. Now that she’s behind Senator Obama in delegates she wants those Florida delegates counted. Or, she wants Florida and Michigan, states somewhat favorable to her, to vote again. Boy, those Clintons will fight you all the way to the parking lot won’t they?

I’m not interested at all which Democrat candidate wins, I just want them to keep slugging it out. It is fun to watch and it will be interesting to see how black voters will react if the Clintons try to strong arm the nomination away from Senator Obama in an unfair manner, which I would not put it past them.

Finally, if Senator Clinton wants to thank Republicans like my daughter and her husband for helping her win here in Texas, all I can say in their behalf is, “You’re Welcome!”

Bookmark

Email This

Comments (5) add comment

...
written by Old Red , March 10, 2008

The name of the party is Democratic, not "Democrat".

Or should we throw "Republic" party into the mix?

...
written by Mike Shaw , March 10, 2008

Good for Cecilia! You and your wife have done well in raising your children.
I too voted for Obama here in Kansas for exactly the same reason. He was trailing Hill-dog at the time, and I wanted to see her sweat. He won handily here in Kansas, and tho I am a Huckabee supporter, it was a foregone conclusion that McCain was taking the state. I will vote for whomever the GOP nominates, just to keep the dems out.
It is a sad situation when the once honarable democratic party now has nothing but self serving Facist scum like Hill-dog and the Facist dis-loyal Obama to offer us. Sadder still that so many of us have fallen for Obama's flowery but empty words. Their's must be the parents who abdicated their parenting responsibilities to the glow of the TV and video games.
We will get the President we deserve in this next election, and it may be that we have to have another Jimmy " Malaise Forever" Carter before we get another Ronald Reagan.
If President Bush or Congress wants to turn around this economy, less expensive fuel will help immensely. It is not the fault of the petro companies, but our own fault in not using what we have in the Gulf of Mexico and at ANWAR. Drilling at both will immediately cause OPEC to pump more, lowering the cost. We need to quit being seen as fawning to OPEC.
Then if we had the Fair Tax, corporations could spend their time being more competitive instead of planning strategies to avoid taxes.
Look out China and Europe if we ever do that...

...
written by truk , March 11, 2008

James's children obviously have the ability to think & reason just like their dad. And that includes making the best use of a bad situation we are presented with in this years topsy turvy array of those seeking the top office of our land. Let the cat fight continue for the Dems. The republican choice we now have is not what I myself would pick, but what are ya gonna do when you can't find another Ronnie Reagan around these days? I'll vote for our republican ticket, even if I have to hold my nose to do it, just to keep the Libs/Dems from having a chance. As for old reds comments,- -I think they should be known as the Democrat party & not the Democratic part,- -they are anything BUTT,(you should pardon the pun)

...
written by Atticus , March 11, 2008

Tico, I'm sure the Dems in Florida and Michigan are grateful for your advice, just as those in South Texas chose to support our first woman President. Go build your fence.

...
written by DAN COMSTOCK , March 15, 2008

Well this certainly is a great discussion. Anyway, I would like to add that I am going to vote happily for John McCain. He was not my first choice because of a couple of issues; but I think he will listen to us if we make our voices heard on those issues too. Otherwise, he is for fiscal responsibility, strict constructionist judges (essential for our freedom and the meaningful preservation of the rule of law), pursuing a successful outcome of the war in Iraq, and national security while treating prisoners humanely. He is finally committed to border control. As far as the fence is concerned, maybe that is part of the answer and maybe it is not, but how could anyone who calls himself an American be against border control. Just as each person values the sanctity of his home, should not a nation value the sanctity of its sovereign borders? It does not follow that if one is for border control one is not for some form of controlled immigration (which does not include amnesty – tried once before and the problem has only escalated). It does follow that one would want the immigrants to be: invited/welcomed; screened for true identity; screened for criminal background; screened for willingness to become a truly loyal and productive American; screened for willingness to follow our laws; screened for willingness to adopt our national language so we can all talk to one another; and, screened for willingness to participate in an honor system that does not allow for false identities etc. If the issue is helping people then we should promote a new “Marshall Plan” for certain other countries. If the issue is the well being of America we should encourage more immigration not just by those looking for work but also for those able to contribute to the overall ability of our people to compete in the global markets. The gifted and educated should not be penalized in the process.

Write comment

< Prev		Next >