Recent Activity
Search BL Rag
About This Site

The BL RAG is dedicated to the idea of free expression, thus we welcome and encourage reader  commentary on current events and issues, music, sports, or other topics of interest, no matter what one's political leanings or worldview.

  

Site Management:

Front Page Section Editors: Machiavelli, Skinnydipinacid, and Redbeard

Miscellanea Editor: Zoy Clem

Poetry Editor: Lenny

Music Editors: see schedule below

***

Site Editors: Skinnydipinacid and Zoy Clem

Maintenance Man: Master Admin Dude

 

Alumni:
Eric Olsen, Fornax, GrayRider, Winston, Jimmmco, and WesMorgan1

 

KRAG Music Section Schedule:

Sunday - Jgeagle5

Monday - Rhythm & Truth

Tuesday - Machiavelli

Wednesday - GrayRider

Thursday - Skinny

Friday - Fornax

Saturday - Zoy Clem

On-call - Schwabman

Powered by Squarespace
« Super-Sized Open | Main | Giuliani Questions Biden's Mental Capacity »
Wednesday
Aug152012

Prominent Former Obama Supporter Now a Romney Man 

Artur Davis, who once was a strong Obama supporter, has not only switched parties, but is actively supporting Mitt Romney. 

 

Says Mr. Davis: 

"Well, I think we all know, four years later, candidate Obama has been a very different person than President Obama."

"Words aren’t enough now.  We are going to have to put a president [Romney] in the White House who takes this problem seriously . . . to put us on the pathway towards a balanced budget."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/07/06/former_dem_artur_davis_squarely_in_romneys_corner_114711.html

Now, as we all know from listening to the screwball left, the only possible reason to oppose Obama is because he's a black man.  It can't be his foul policies and the economic hole he has dig for this nation; it must be racism.  So, following that logic train as it speeds toward the cliff, Artur Davis has to be a racist.  Somehow, though, I doubt that Mr. Davis will accept that characterization.     

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (64)

I believe the correct term in Democratic parlence for a black person who escapes their plantation is "race traitor" or "Uncle Tom".

August 15, 2012 at 14:06 | Registered CommenterMachiavelli

Mr Davis per Joe Biden "threw off those shackles."

August 15, 2012 at 14:37 | Unregistered CommenterThomas Miller

Davis hasn't been a Dem for quite some time. He voted against the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) in 2009. In 2010 Davis tried to run for Governor and lost the Democratic primary. He was the first African-American candidate in a statewide Alabama race to lose the black vote. Afterwards he said he was retiring and another Dem - Terri Sewell (first female African-American from Alabama) took over his seat in 2011.

Anyway, good luck with Artur. I'm sure he will sway great masses of black folks in Alabama to the Republican side, lol.

August 15, 2012 at 15:32 | Registered CommenterChoy Lee Mu

I'm sure he will sway great masses of black folks in Alabama to the Republican side, lol.

He should tell them the Democrats will put them back in chains...I hear that's acceptable political rhetoric these days.

August 15, 2012 at 16:23 | Registered CommenterMachiavelli

Every decision is through the prism of race with the left. Since the rumbling of the last few days is starting to grow that Biden may be out, any guess on the race, gender and sexual orientation of Obama's next potential Veep?

August 15, 2012 at 17:02 | Unregistered CommenterThomas Miller

Artur Davis, who once was a strong Obama supporter, has not only switched parties, but is actively supporting Mitt Romney.

It's fun Kabuki theater isn't it? Though it is a bit like Gilligan's Island reruns in that this is the third Repub National Convention in row featuring the token I'm a Former Democrat Who Says the Democratic Party Sucks Now schtick.

Remember the good ole days of Zell Miller? He's sure lighting the political world on fire these days.

And Smokin' Joe Why Won't the Democrats Invite Me to the 2012 Convention Lieberman?

Is it amazing that people think we won't notice this little recurrance on a theme or is it pathetic that most people won't remember it?

August 15, 2012 at 17:15 | Registered Commenterkwawk

Every decision is through the prism of race with the left. Since the rumbling of the last few days is starting to grow that Biden may be out, any guess on the race, gender and sexual orientation of Obama's next potential Veep?

Be careful what you wish for there TM, because the obvious choice for Biden's replacement would be one very popular Secretary of State.

August 15, 2012 at 17:17 | Registered Commenterkwawk

You mean Hillary, who hates Obama with a passion?

August 15, 2012 at 18:27 | Unregistered CommenterRedBeard

"Is Joe Biden Too Dumb To Be On a National Ticket?"

LOL, well is he? Sorry wrong thread. Oh' man, Barry, Hillary with Bill as retired Prez on the ticket. Three ego-manics hogging the stage and limelight. How could that not work?? LOL.

August 15, 2012 at 18:41 | Unregistered CommenterThomas Miller

Yes. We're talking about the Clintons right? The same Hillary whose husband is giving the keynote speech at the Democratic convention next month?

And, I'm sure Hillary would just have to say no when the party came calling to tell her she's desparately needed by Obama to become the first woman VP with a lock on the nomination for President in 2016. Yep, she'd just have to turn that one down.

In any case TM seems to come up with a new Biden is out rumor every month or so. Where is this rumbling? I've not heard it anywhere.

August 15, 2012 at 18:43 | Registered Commenterkwawk

Please don't take our Joe-Joe away from us. I mean, sure, it's fun watching the dysfunctional Clintons pretend to be a couple and pretend to be Barry O's best friends, but nothing beats spending time with Joe-Joe the Gaffemaster.

August 15, 2012 at 19:11 | Unregistered CommenterRedBeard

Hillary as V.P. will cut down on Billl's out of town booty hunts.

August 15, 2012 at 19:27 | Unregistered CommenterThomas Miller

kwawk;

You can google about Biden being replaced going back to 2010. He's been a dead anchor around Obama since then.

August 15, 2012 at 19:30 | Unregistered CommenterThomas Miller

I note that our leftward-tilting members are ignoring the subject of racism being the cause of any criticism of Obama. I suppose I don't really blame them, given the intellectual bankruptcy of the left's cries of racism.

The Artur Davis story is a bellwether of the current political climate, indicative of the sweeping changes going on among Obama voters from 2008. The enthusiasm for The One has dropped precipitously, even to the point of folks like Mr. Davis switching teams, while Romney supporters are far more fired up than the McCain folks 4 years ago.

Ignore the trends if you wish, but that won't make them irrelevant.

August 16, 2012 at 06:00 | Unregistered CommenterRedBeard

Looks like Obama's politicization of the OBL killing has come back to bite him in the ass. It seems SEALS don't take kindly to politicians taking credit for their work or disclosing operational methods that could get them killed. Don't these guys know it's an election year and their expendable??

August 16, 2012 at 06:30 | Unregistered CommenterThomas Miller

Yes, President Tough Guy is a phony.

Damning accusation here: http://times247.com/articles/new-book-reveals-jarrett-not-obama-led-on-bin-laden

Somehow, I have no problem believing that Jarrett leads Obama around on a leash.

August 16, 2012 at 06:57 | Registered CommenterRedBeard

I note that our leftward-tilting members are ignoring the subject of racism being the cause of any criticism of Obama. I suppose I don't really blame them, given the intellectual bankruptcy of the left's cries of racism.

I'm not ignoring the issue of racism, it's just not an argument that makes sense. Arthur Davis' big criticism of Obama is that candidate Obama has been a very different person than President Obama. This ofcourse had a lot to do with the fact that as Mitch McConnell so helpfully pointed out, Republicans made it their singular goal to make Barack Obama a one term President.

As the saying goes, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. Obama could try to work with Republicans but if Republicans were not willing to work with Obama then there wasn't much of anything Obama could do about it. That is ofcourse, unless you bought into a seriously silly notion that by Obama saying he'd work with Republicans it meant that he what he was really saying is that he'd do whatever Republican wanted. Which is fairly stupid.

Davis' other problem is that he comes across as being someone who's bitter that he lost a primary election and has an axe to grind with Obama. Just as Guilianni's calling Biden stupid reeks of bitterness of being tagged by Biden with the killer line relating to a noun and a verb and 9/11.

You guys get called racist because of the irrational need you've had to oppose each and every thing Obama has done. To give him credit for nothing. To call him crooked, when in fact, to date he's run about as clean of an administration as we've seen in a long tijme. When you start calling him the food stamp President when he has done nothing to expand the existing food stamp program, nor has he proposed to, you get branded as racist. When you've set goals not to get the country back on track but to do anything to drive the President from office, people will naturally look for an explanation for why you have this irrational impulsive need to do so.

And they ask what makes this President different that would cause this sort of gutteral reaction. And the answer they come back with is.....

August 16, 2012 at 10:51 | Registered Commenterkwawk

Ah. So we're still racists. Nice to know how bizarre and reasonless your thinking is, kwAwk.

Here's just one tip for you. Go take a look at the demographics of the food stamp program, and then come back here and try to justify your cockeyed notion that referring to food stamps is a coded racial message from bigoted whites.

Or, just continue with your baseless story-telling. It seems to comfort you.

August 16, 2012 at 11:06 | Unregistered CommenterRedBeard

Truth be told I don't like the assignment of Conservative's motivations to racism becasaus it ascribes to Conservatives power or intellectual acumen that I don't see there.

When I see Conservatives I don't see racists angry at the black man for taking over their country, what I see are a bunch of spoiled children who are used to being in charge and getting their way and upset that somebody else gets a chance to be the leader of the metaphorical high school.

Conservatives want the football captain Paul Ryan to be prom king, not that geeky chess club guy Barack Obama.

August 16, 2012 at 11:07 | Registered Commenterkwawk

Way to go, kwAwk, to prove that you can't think rationally about this issue.

Us vs. them, black vs. white, rich vs. poor - that's the ridiculous liberal view of the United States. Pigeonhole everyone. Set up classifications. Segregate the country. Make sure one group is always set against another, at least in your minds. What a terribly sad way to go through life. Pathetic, actually.

For perhaps the tenth time, I'll tell you that I despise Obama because of his policies and his character, not his racial composition.

The odd notion that we should work with him is one of the most bizarre things I've ever heard. Why would we want to work with a man who has done so much damage to our country? Credit? There's his credit.

By the way, the notion of the spliff-toking young Obama as a member of the high school chess club has always amused me. Thanks for the morning laugh.

August 16, 2012 at 11:22 | Unregistered CommenterRedBeard

By the way, the notion of the spliff-toking young Obama as a member of the high school chess club has always amused me. Thanks for the morning laugh.

Indeed. Most of the heavy drug users I knew in high school were more like the Spicoli character from Fast Times at Ridgemont High.

August 16, 2012 at 11:43 | Registered CommenterMachiavelli

LoL, Obama will never pick Hillary... he'd spend every day of his presidency in fear of his life knowing a Clinton is next in line. He'd have to travel in a pope-mobile, check his bed for black mambas nightly and have somebody test everything he eats and drinks beforehand.

It's either Biden or none-of-the-above for Obama. I say get Biden diagnosed with some pretend disease like bi-polarism (seems to be working for Jesse Jackson, Jr.) and go for the sympathy vote. "Oh, look at that Joe Biden, suffering through this disease. He's so powerful just trying to talk. Oh, ho ho... he called 'em a bunch of racist hicks again.... good ol' Joe!"

On another note, what's with all the RINO's out there saying Biden shouldn't be on the ticket? Seriously RINO's... STFU... we LOVE Joe Biden. He's a working class hero. Very influential. Couldn't ask for a better Vice President. He's more than capable... just get the guy a friggin' teleprompter like his boss already. Minimize the damage he can cause just like they do with Barry O.

We all know he has a history of making goofy sounding remarks when he goes off message too.

If you replace Joe Biden you may as well replace Barack Obama on the ticket too. It's not like Obama has any better record or message to run on without him. If you're going for Hillary as VP it's only to push a Clinton agenda anyway (because there's no way the Clintons are going to take a backseat in the Obama administration).

August 16, 2012 at 11:53 | Registered Commenterskinnydipinacid

The odd notion that we should work with him is one of the most bizarre things I've ever heard. Why would we want to work with a man who has done so much damage to our country? Credit? There's his credit.

lmao Republicans never tried to work with Obama from day one. They were simply out for political gain from day one.

The American people aren't paying the Republicans in Congress to stomp their feet, piss and cry about how the man THEY hired to be President shouldn't be President. It might come as a shock to you but the US Constitution does not give Rush Limbaugh veto power over who gets to become President. Or you for that matter.

Your contention that liberals divide people into categories but Conservatives don't is ridiculous. The words limosene liberal, feminazi, welfare queen, tree huggers, gay agenda and all of the others didn't invent themselves.

August 16, 2012 at 12:05 | Registered Commenterkwawk

Skwawk, your notion that conservatives are pissed because they are not in charge is ridiculous. But we are pissed (some of us) that limosense liberal, feminazi, welfare queen, tree hugging, gay bladed faggots with progressive, socialist designs of the kind that are destroying our country are. :)

August 16, 2012 at 12:16 | Registered CommenterTijuana

"lmao Republicans never tried to work with Obama from day one."

Move over Loch ness Monster, Sasquatch and George HW Bush flew to Paris on a SR-71 spy plane to meet the Iranians; there's a new myth in town bound to told and re-told around leftist solar heated campfires for years to come.

August 16, 2012 at 12:53 | Unregistered CommenterThomas Miller

Don't we need a reasonable budget first before we can say whether or not we "working with Obama" ? The best you've put forth didn't even get a single vote... from Republicans AND Democrats. Seems like the most bi-partisan thing we've seen in the Democrat-controlled Senate is the striking down of Obama's joke of a budget.

However, if you're saying we weren't working with on leftist ideology... well, duh. That'd be like accusing the Democrats of not working with Republicans just because they won't go along with things like abortion bans, unlimited gun rights, the death penalty or any other far right position(s). Let's not play coy here.

What do you call bills brought to Harry Reid's desk only to sit and die of dry-rot, never to be even be read on the Senate floor? Is that "working together"? Is that your idea of "bi-partisanship"? Or is that fear of even bringing the conversation to the forefront?

You lefties were chirping "we won, you lost... get over it" after the 2008 election. Back then it was 'fuck you Republicans.... get on board the Hope and Change Express'. You had limitless power to do whatever you wanted but in the end you wound up squandering it. Now suddenly you want us to work with you because you've lost a significant leg in your Washington dominance and are threatened by losing even more in less than 3 months. Why is that? Is it because it's harder to ram crap down peoples' throats when they are able to fight back? Is it not a fair fight just because your opponent isn't in a coma?

When's the last time your side put forward a budget?
Are the Democrats even trying at this point?

August 16, 2012 at 14:03 | Unregistered Commenterskinnydipinacid

lmao Republicans never tried to work with Obama from day one.

That's because, from day one, Obama put noted paragons of bi-partisanship such as Nancy Pelosi in charge of his legislative agenda.

August 16, 2012 at 14:06 | Registered CommenterMachiavelli

Speaking of more Obama gaffes

(but Joe Biden is the problem, lol)

August 16, 2012 at 14:10 | Registered Commenterskinnydipinacid

Here, Kwawk. Come stroll down the memory lane of Dem bi-partisanship in the Age of Obama.

August 16, 2012 at 14:51 | Registered CommenterMachiavelli

Skinny - There were hundreds of bill passed in the house during Nancy Pelosi's tenure as speaker that weren't addressed by the Harry Reid controlled Senate also. Obviously this is because the House is a pass anything with a bare majority institution, and the Senate nowadays requires 60 votes to do almost anything.

You can save the Democrats had free reign to do anything they wanted in 2009 and 2010 for somebody a little less informed about what really happened.

The truth of what happened in those years was that Republicans invoked the filibuster on every piece of legislation presented in the Senate requiring Democrats to be perfect agreement in every piece of legislation in order to get things passed, and as you know there was always a Joe Lieberman or Ben Nelson type in the Senate willing to insist that each bill was constructed as if they were in a chamber where they represented the center of the organization as opposed to them being 10 seats to the right of center.

If you really looked at it, Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman were probably 15 to 20 seats to the right of center but since the moderate Republicans such as Collins and Snowe were so cowtowed with threats of primary challenges from the right they were too afraid to vote for legislation that they supported.

It has a lot to do with why neither Nelson nor Lieberman will be in the Senate next year. They lost a lot of respect from people on the left when they decided to take on the cause of the minority against their own party.

August 16, 2012 at 15:15 | Registered Commenterkwawk

Shorter Kwawk: Clearly it's the GOP's fault, and not Dick Durbin's, when the Dems can't hold their own caucus together!

August 16, 2012 at 15:27 | Registered CommenterMachiavelli

lol Well, that task will become a lot easier without Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson.

Look, the Republicans made a decision that they were going to oppose everything as a unified caucus. The only defense Obama and the democrats had would have been to, as you say, vote for everything as a unified caucus also. But there were certain Democrats who refused to go along and thus screwed the President and the whole Democratic caucus.

It is what it is, but it's just surprising that those same democrats complain that they're being pushed out of the party.

August 16, 2012 at 15:58 | Registered Commenterkwawk

Look, the Republicans made a decision that they were going to oppose everything as a unified caucus.

What you can't seem to grasp is the fact that Obama and the Dem Party leadership made that task a lot easier by governing against the interests of the American People.

August 16, 2012 at 16:10 | Registered CommenterMachiavelli

I know kwawk thinks were making this up. From The Hill;

"White House says Obama will stick with Biden as running mate"

When the WH starts fielding daily questions on Biden like there's a betting pool on how long he'll last; you know there's behind the scene's discussions.

August 16, 2012 at 16:13 | Unregistered CommenterThomas Miller

President Obama has no intention of getting rid of Vice President Biden as his running mate, the White House said Thursday.

Republicans are being “ridiculous” and are trying to “distract attention” with their focus on Vice President Biden and his controversial comments earlier this week, White House press secretary Jay Carney said.

“They know that what they're saying about this is ridiculous," Carney said at a briefing with reporters, adding that it's an “obvious” attempt to take attention away from policy issues.

Did you mean this article TM?

August 16, 2012 at 16:21 | Registered Commenterkwawk

Memories can get foggy...
and I wouldn't want us to forget this one too

That was like a hybrid mixture... part gaffe, part lie, yet 100% partisan.

If you really looked at it, Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman were probably 15 to 20 seats to the right of center but since the moderate Republicans such as Collins and Snowe were so cowtowed with threats of primary challenges from the right they were too afraid to vote for legislation that they supported.

It has a lot to do with why neither Nelson nor Lieberman will be in the Senate next year. They lost a lot of respect from people on the left when they decided to take on the cause of the minority against their own party.

So because they saw the support of such a bill detrimental to their re-election (which would be determined by the people who put them in office), this is somehow relevant to being partisan? It's actually quite the opposite if you can find the ability to sit back and look at what you're saying here. You're saying Nelson is in trouble by his party for listening to his district and not doing the partisan thing and towing the liberal line and that RINOS like Snowe would be in trouble if they crossed the aisle to vote for it. Sounds to me they were aware of the feelings throughout their district.

What's bad in Nelson's case you have a Democrat who's seen more favorably by moderate Republicans than he is the far-left loons in the party and because of that the loons are determined to get him out. They have no interest in working with the right and in this case they're going out of their way to kill the political career of those who try.

It's really a bad topic, perhaps one of the worst you could have brought up given the topic, not to mention your complaint over the GOP "not working with Obama". It's quite hypocritical to then applaud the elimination of Democrats who do cross party lines. Given that.... why should we even bother working with Obama? You've provided ample enough evidence alone that Democrats see it only as a one-way street anyway.

August 16, 2012 at 16:29 | Unregistered Commenterskinnydipinacid

Working with Obama is just about as great an idea as working with a mugger. But at least the mugger only assaults one or two people at a time.

Hey, let's work with the Russian mafia while we're working with people.

August 16, 2012 at 16:31 | Unregistered CommenterRedBeard

“They know that what they're saying about this is ridiculous," Carney said at a briefing with reporters, adding that it's an “obvious” attempt to take attention away from policy issues.

Yes, we need to get back to the serious policy issues like Seamus the dog and Mitt's tax returns. *eye roll*

August 16, 2012 at 16:33 | Registered CommenterMachiavelli

What you can't seem to grasp is the fact that Obama and the Dem Party leadership made that task a lot easier by governing against the interests of the American People.

lmao yeah. It was all about Democrats governing against the best interests of the country and not Republicans being scared that what Democrats would have done given a non-hyper partisan congress would have led to a long term restructuring of the electorate.

Had Democrats fully succeeded in getting the economy turned around before the 2010 election it would meant a bunch of successful incumbants going before the electorate. Couldn't have that could we?

August 16, 2012 at 16:44 | Registered Commenterkwawk

Obama may (or may not) be sticking with Joe-Joe, but they won't be eating at a certain bakery any time soon. See story link posted on Biden thread.

August 16, 2012 at 16:48 | Registered CommenterRedBeard

Had Democrats fully succeeded in getting the economy turned around before the 2010 election it would meant a bunch of successful incumbants going before the electorate. Couldn't have that could we?

Judging by the stimulus bill they passed, it appears the Dems were banking on the economy fixing itself.

August 16, 2012 at 17:16 | Registered CommenterMachiavelli

Considering how long it's been since they submitted a budget...
... I'm sticking with "they're not even trying to fix the economy"

August 16, 2012 at 22:25 | Unregistered Commenterskinnydipinacid

A MSNBC host named Toure' is none too happy with Romney claiming the campaign of his idol Barack Obama is based on "anger." Toure' was so upset because now "anger" is a code word for racism and he charged Romney with the "niggerization" of the Obama campaign.

The left has lost their f**king minds. It's over.

August 17, 2012 at 06:30 | Unregistered CommenterThomas Miller

Toure' is a perfect fit in the MSNBC fever swamp. He didn't just now go crazy; he's been nuts since the beginning.

Oh, wait... I called him nuts. Is that yet another code word? I'm so sorry.

August 17, 2012 at 06:49 | Unregistered CommenterRedBeard

Waiting for kwAwk (guest host of the Conservatives are Racists Panel in Winston's absence) to tell us that we only laugh at Toure' because he's a non-white sort of guy.

August 17, 2012 at 07:38 | Unregistered CommenterRedBeard

So the AP is upset over the tone of the presidential campaign. Were they upset when Obama inferred Romney was a felon? No. Or when Obama inferred that Romney caused a woman to die from cancer? No. I would guess their not to upset about Toure's use of "niggerization" or Slo' Joe's racist chains comment. You what gets the AP upset? Romney pointing out a factual point that Obama took $716 billion out of Medicare to pay for Obamacare. That just pisses the AP off and their telling both parties to raise the discourse. LOL.

August 17, 2012 at 07:53 | Unregistered CommenterThomas Miller

The AP, in recent years, has been a reliable propaganda arm of the DNC, so this is not surprising.

August 17, 2012 at 08:00 | Unregistered CommenterRedBeard

The are starting to embarrass themselves and they are too stupid to even know it. That tingle their feeling running down their leg about now is them pissing all over themselves.

August 17, 2012 at 09:20 | Registered CommenterTijuana

SE Cupp was beautiful as always in pointing out Toure's insanity... but if you REALLY want a great laugh like I had last night you just sit back and watch Ace's twitter acct. They've been tearing the guy to "shredz".

"By the way, young voters: How did voting for the cool, hip, youth-oriented 50 year olds work out for you last time?"
"Don't trust their 50-60 year old political staff. They're so old! Trust *our* 50-60 year old political staff."
"@andylevy I don't respect you, your abilities, or any of the choices you make. No offense."

Of course then there's also the popular trend #ThingsToureThinksAreRacist:
I liked Michelle Malkin's "A,E, I, O, and YOU PEOPLE", lol
(her Twitchy site also had a "best-of" Ace's tweets if you scroll down)

The response from the right led Toure', who is a frequent and obsessive Twitter user, to remain quite silent last night.

August 17, 2012 at 09:29 | Unregistered Commenterskinnydipinacid

Skinny, your last post proves you're a racist, you know. According to kwAwk, it's all because you fear Toure's star power.

But, of course, if you post a comment flattering to Artur Davis, Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, or Allen West, the same deal doesn't work in reverse. You get no points.

August 17, 2012 at 09:43 | Unregistered CommenterRedBeard

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>