Is Clinton Tested and Ready to Lead?
Nov 17, 2007 Political
I wrote a post about the Democratic debate in Nevada and said that none of the contenders were presidential and none were prepared to lead. Dick Morris wrote that CNN was kind to Hillary and failed to follow up on her flat NO when asked about driver’s licenses for ILLEGALS. Russert would have asked about the change of heart which Morris says is because New York Governor Spitzer dropped the idea of issuing the licenses. He did it to help Hillary. Now she can oppose it without offending a Governor from her adopted state, a Governor that could hurt her chances of getting votes. The debate showed that CNN truly stands for the Clinton News Network. They were easy on her, highlighted Bill Richardson who wants the VP job under a Hillary ticket and they failed to disclose that their post debate analyst, James Carville, is a consultant to the Clinton campaign. They were pushing Hillary and they were easy on her. In the debate though, Hillary made this statement:
“Let’s not forget that the Republicans are not going to vacate the White House voluntarily,†she said in the debate. “We need someone who is tested and ready to lead. I think that’s what my candidacy offers.†FT.com
She is correct, the other side is running for the White House and will not leave it voluntarily. But how does she get to the conclusion she is tested and ready to lead? She has never been in charge of a company, she has never been a governor of a state, she has never led anything. So how is she tested? How is she ready to lead. Richardson is a Governor so he has more experience leading than she does.
Perhaps Hillary is asking us to believe that eight years as First Lady has tested her and given her the experience to lead but since she and her husband refuse to release any of the papers that might prove such a claim that idea should be dismissed out of hand. If being First Lady for eight years is the sole qualification for being a tested leader than Laura Bush and Nancy Reagan are just as qualified as Hillary though I doubt many Hillary supporters would say these two women are tested and qualified to lead.
As for Hillary’s time in the Senate, what has she actually led? She attaches her name to a lot of bills that others have authored so she can get in on the action. It helps a candidate to be able to say that he (or she) cosponsored legislation. John Kerry’s dismal Senate record was part of his weakness. But how has Hillary led? What legislation has she proposed that was out in front of issues. Besides bashing the current administration at every turn, where has she been out in front of the issues? The fact that she attaches her name as cosponsor to many bills others have proposed (no doubt after seeing what polls and focus groups say) shows that she is more qualified to follow than lead.
She has been running for office for ten months now so she has had little time to actually do her job in the Senate and therefore it is easier for her to attach her name to the hard work of others. This is not the mark of a leader. The only thing that Hillary leads is the race according to national polls (not so in Iowa) but leading in a poll does not make one tested and qualified. I imagine Rush Limbaugh would have high marks in a national poll because he has what Clinton has, name recognition. Though I think Limbaugh would be better at running the country than Clinton the fact that he has name recognition does not make him tested and qualified to lead. The fact that he runs his own company, a company that makes a lot of money, makes him more qualified than a person whose only claim to fame is she happened to be married to a past President.
Hillary is not tested and she is not qualified. The only real test she faced was when a “hostile” moderator asked her to explain her position on driver’s licenses and she failed that test as alluded to by Wolf Blitzer when he said it tripped her up. He handlers must have told her not to address it in depth since they had Spitzer in their pockets and since Wolf had been warned to play nice.
Maybe I have a different idea about what tested and qualified to be a leader means. Then again, I was leading people while Clinton was scheming with Bill to get in the White House and I led long after they left the place. Under the tested and qualified aspect, I have more qualification to lead than Hillary Clinton does. The only two things she has that allows her to run is name recognition and money and those are not leadership qualities.
Face it, if she had not been married to Bill she would have never been elected tot he Senate in New York or any other state and she would not ever be considered as a Presidential candidate. The only thing she has is her husband’s name and his coattails.
Not bad for a woman who claims to be independent and running on her own. Seems to me that her crying they are picking on the girl and her dependence on her husband’s name and record shows that the girl is not a feminist when it is convenient and that she depends on a man for her success. Not very Presidential, now is it?
Oops, did I just pile on the girl?
Tags: bill richardson, clinton campaign, clinton news network, democratic debate, dick morris, first lady, governor spitzer, Hillary Clinton, illegals, james carville, laura bush, white house
Do They Really Need a Warrant?
Nov 17, 2007 General
Some groups are up in arms (pardon the pun) because the Boston police want to search homes for guns without a warrant. On the surface this sounds like a bad thing and if this were the whole truth it would be. The article goes on to describe that police want to search homes without a warrant after asking permission from the homeowner. If a police officer asks if he may search your home and you say yes he does not need a warrant. You are free to say no.
I will admit that the plan to search children’s bedrooms has flaws. The idea is that parents are so fed up and afraid of the gun violence that they will allow the searches and a warrant will not need to be obtained. In order to get a warrant the police would need probable cause, if they ask the homeowner and are allowed to search they do not need the warrant or probable cause. I would not allow the police to search my home without a warrant. I have nothing to hide but I will not give them access without probable cause and they need that to get a warrant. What will happen to the homeowner if they have other illegal items? Suppose they illegally copy DVDs and they are in the open? A warrant would specifically state what is to be searched and what they may look for. If the homeowner lets them in they can arrest for anything they find. I don’t condone illegal activity but I do not condone bypassing the rights people have. Of course, if someone is not bright enough to know his rights or to exercise them, perhaps he gets what he deserves. In any event, using fear to search a house is not a good way to conduct business.
The bigger issue here is why are there so many illegal guns in Boston and why are there so many shooting? Massachusetts has very tough gun control laws and the gun grabbers all tell us that the way to get guns off the streets by having these kinds of laws. If they are correct then there should be very few guns and very little gun violence. Perhaps there is some realization that criminals do not obey the law. As Thomas Jefferson noted in his Commonplace Book (quoting Cesare Beccaria), ‘Laws that forbid the carrying of arms… disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes… Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.’ [Federalist Patriot]
So how do so many guns end up in a state or a city in that state when the gun control laws are so strict that people get jail time for having BB guns? Obviously those who have little or no regard for the rule of law will not follow the law.
There are two issues here. Should the police be allowed to search without a warrant? No, unless of course the homeowner gives permission and only a fool would do that. Secondly, why is there a problem if gun control laws really work?
The founders recognized that we had an inherent right to carry arms in order to defend ourselves against invaders, the lawless and a tyrannical government. This is undeniable and clearly explained in their writings on the issue. We are also protected against unlawful search and seizure so it would be in the best interest of Boston homeowners to just say no…
Tags: boston police, gun control laws, gun grabbers, gun violence, homeowner, illegal activity, illegal guns, Second Amendment, warrant
Illegal Beaners Need not Apply
Nov 16, 2007 Immigration
Imagine if employers had a sign in their business that read the same as the title of this post. Imagine the uproar that all the ILLEGAL immigrant groups and the other amnesty seekers would cause. The owner would be called a racist, threatened by the feds, have protest marches at his store and he would be drummed out of business but not before he had to attend sensitivity training. I imagine if he said that the word beaner was not meant as an insult to anyone it would make little difference. Given Dennis Kucinich’s opposition to the word ILLEGAL, the employer might get executed.
According to the Washington Times, “A Casa Furniture and Bedding store in Alexandria has been advertising easy credit with a twist: “no gringo papers†necessary.” The word gringo is an offensive word used to refer to a foreigner in Latin America [usually American or English]. An assistant manager says the word gringo is not meant to offend anyone.
Yeah, good luck with that. Of course, it will be overlooked and no one will require the sign to be removed. The ACLU will not file a law suit and these folks will continue to insult Americans in their own country.
BTW, the person tried to explaining that people needed no white papers and that is why the word gringo was used. The Spanish word for white is blanco so if they wanted to say white paper blanco would be the word used.
Tags: dennis kucinich, foreigner, gringo, illegal immigrant, immigrant groups, law suit, protest marches, Stop the ACLU
Reid Holds Senate in Session
Nov 16, 2007 Political
Senator Harry Reid is holding the Senate in session over the Thanksgiving break to prevent President Bush from making recess appointments. Reid is upset because some of the people Democrats want are not being considered by the President.
“While an election year looms, significant progress can still be made on nominations,†Reid said. “I am committed to making that progress if the President will meet me halfway.
“But that progress can’t be made if the President seeks controversial recess appointments and fails to make Democratic appointments to important commissions.†Roll Call
Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution specifically states that it is the President’s job to nominate people for various positions and it is his alone. The approval is with the advice and consent of the Senate but the job of nominating belongs to the President so if he does not want the people the Democrats like it is his choice, not theirs.
Reid can keep the Senate in session if he wants but I certainly hope this means that they will be in DC and not home with their families. If he holds them in a pro forma session then he must have the minimum required to do the job. I realize he is saying that they will be non voting but in order to be in session they must be present, or at least the minimum required to conduct business. If they all go home the President should make the appointments he wants and let the courts sort it out.
Being in session means being present and if he is doing this then he needs to ensure his people do not leave town. If he is a real leader he will stay there with them because that is what a true leader does.
Having said that, Reid will probably be on the first plane out of town.
Tags: constitution, Democrats, president bush, pro forma session, recess appointments, senator harry reid, thanksgiving, true leader
Lackluster Democratic Debate
Nov 16, 2007 Political
Last night the Democrats held a debate in Las Vegas and though supporters will claim their individual candidate won, the reality is that it was a pretty evenly matched contest. Obama and Edwards lost their nerve and refused to continue their attack on Clinton, Clinton played the woman card again (veiled as it might have been) and the entire field promised to give away the country for votes. Richardson will give driver’s licenses to ILLEGALS, Clinton and Edwards will give free health care to everyone and Obama will make health care affordable for everyone which was actually the smartest of any proposal.
The candidates still wavered on Social Security other than to offer the Democratic staple of taxing the rich (note to candidates, that will not solve the problem) and they were elusive on merit pay for teachers. I recorded the event and watched it late last night but could not make it past the first part. It was nothing more than the same old Democratic mantra of raising taxes, class warfare, and promises none of them intend to keep.
Wolf Blitzer was a puppy dog and walked gingerly around Clinton fearing he would be to harsh. He failed to ask follow-up questions of her, legitimate questions, regarding her change of position on driver’s licenses for ILLEGALS. The questions he threw out were so softball that I would not be surprised if they were furnished by the Clinton campaign.
All in all I saw nothing from any candidate that even looked presidential. Leadership requires people to take positions and be firm on them. None of these people takes a firm stance on anything and last night was no difference. With the exception of a few yes or no answers on ILLEGALS and driver’s licenses (the no Clinton gave was not followed up with a question about her change of position) these people nuanced every answer. When they stayed on target their answers were often preceded with some caveat that left a future way out.
I was impressed with Joe Biden’s command of foreign policy but that is all he brings to the table. Richardson sounded like a used car salesman, Edwards a snake oil salesman, Clinton a screeching owl, and Obama a preacher. Kucinich sounded like a raving lunatic and should be fitted with a straight jacket. Other than Biden’s foreign policy strength these candidates were unimpressive.
There was nothing said last night that brings new light on their positions. They regurgitated their talking points and tried to sell us the same bill of goods as they have been peddling all along.
None of these people is worthy of the White House and we will be in trouble if any of them gets elected.
Others with similar items:
Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Perri Nelson’s Website, Rosemary’s Thoughts, guerrilla radio, 123beta, Right Truth, Stix Blog, The Populist, The Pet Haven Blog, Grizzly Groundswell, Leaning Straight Up, Cao’s Blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, The Amboy Times, Conservative Cat, Adeline and Hazel, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, The World According to Carl, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Right Voices, Gone Hollywood, and Church and State, Ron Smith WBAL, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Tags: class warfare, clinton campaign, Democrats, illegals, joe biden, legitimate questions, Obama, presidential leadership, puppy dog, wolf blitzer