2007 Carnival of Christmas
Dec 24, 2007 General
Please be sure to visit the Carnival of Christmas that my friend Kat has worked very diligently on.
Tags: carnival of christmas, Kat
Politico Misrepresents Ron Paul Statement
Dec 24, 2007 Political
Maybe it is the political season that forces writers to inflate headlines in order to get readers and maybe it is just a desire to get them to click on the link. In the case of Matt Drudge it is neither because he generally misrepresents the character of a story in order to get people to click on the link. The Politico (more specifically, Daniel Riley of The Politico), on the other hand, usually has an accurate depiction so I was a bit surprised to see a headline that read “Ron Paul won’t rule out a third party run.”
Ron Paul has made it clear a number of times that he does not intend to run as a third party candidate and he did so again on Meet the Press. Ron Paul, when asked about running as a third party candidate, stated that he was 99.9% sure that would not happen. I imagine that in the overall scheme of things that 0.1% technically means he will not rule it out but since it is such a little number perhaps a more accurate headline would have been; “Ron Paul unlikely to run as third party candidate.”
I know politicians like to engage in double talk and to say all the things that everyone wants to hear. Hillary did that with her sandbagging in New York and her run for the presidency. She told people she was not thinking about it and she was only concerned about winning the Senate seat. She would never say that she would serve her term if elected which means she was, in fact, thinking about it. Ron Paul, on the other hand, has been pretty straight forward and I think he will probably not run as a third party candidate.
Anything is possible though and I am sure if enough Ron Paul supporters pressed him he might just go for it. However, until that time, a 0.1% chance makes it an unlikely event and it should be reported that way.
Tags: misrepresent, politico, ron paul, third party
Ron Paul Defends Earmarks
Dec 24, 2007 Political
Ron Paul was on Meet the Press and he had to defend himself against accusations that he put earmarks (pork to the rest of us) in bills while in Congress. Paul claimed that he never voted for an earmark and that he only put them in the bills because some of his constituents were asking for some of their money back. He said that he does not like the tax system but that does not stop him from claiming the deductions to which he is entitled because he wants his money back, just as his constituents do.
I am no fan of earmarks and I think the whole process should be done away with. No one from Congress should be allowed to add anything to a bill. Our tax money should not be getting thrown around to build bridges that help 200 people, build planetariums, or fund secret and usually non existent companies (Jack Murtha). No bill (especially a spending bill) should ever be introduced unless the Article and Section of the Constitution that authorizes it is cited. I find it odd that Paul would insert them and then vote against them.
If he wants his constituents to have their money back then why would he vote against the earmark? If he intended to vote against it then why add it in the first place. I’m sorry but this sounds a bit fishy to me. Paul is supposed to be the guy who keeps watch on such things so it is disheartening to find out he is involved in the process. Maybe his views are not as absolute as he would have us believe.
Paul is a long shot to win so maybe after he loses he can go back to Congress and keep introducing bills that take away the earmark process. Until all earmarks are gone I don’t want to hear Democrats or anyone else tell me that we are in debt because of George Bush or the Republicans. We are in debt because all of them have no control and they spend our money with little regard to the huge debt they are causing.
Earmarks must go before we ever discuss ending a war or how much war costs. Evidently, we are doing well if they can throw money around.
Ron Paul needs to get this fixed.
Source:
My Way News
Tags: earmarks, fiscal responsibility, meet the press, ron paul
Vote for Hillary and Get Lower Oil Prices
Dec 23, 2007 Political
Hillary Clinton has ramped up the pandering and outright lies of her campaign by claiming that electing her to the presidency will instantly lower the price of oil. Hillary is claiming that since she will reduce our dependence on oil, the oil producing countries will lower prices to get us to stifle that effort. She actually claimed that Jimmy Carter, perhaps America’s worst president, was on the right track in doing this and then Reagan was elected and he ignored it because oil was cheap. I know that the 60 year old Clinton has to remember the gas lines of the 70s and the terrible economic times fueled, in part, by the oil crunch. If this is her idea of being on the right track, she is more delusional than I originally thought.
So, electing Hillary will result in an instant drop in the price of oil. I wonder if she will sign a binding and irrevocable contract stating that she will immediately resign if the price of oil does not instantly drop (and it needs to be a significant drop, not a few dollars but more like the $60 or $70 she cited). The Arabs are probably keeping the oil price high to help Democrats win the White House anyway. The Democrats have a history of being in bed with the terrorists and the Commies.
I wonder what unbelievable (and unrealistic) claims Hillary will make next. Vote for me and global warming will instantly stop. Vote for me and Natalie Holloway will show up unharmed. Vote for me and the dead Beatles will rise from the dead and go on tour with those who are living. Vote for me and I will turn water into wine. Vote for me and there will instantly be world peace. Vote for me and world hunger will end.
This is the part of the campaign where candidates say just about anything to get elected. There is no way that she is correct on this but she does not care so long as she gets elected. Once she is president she can shrug it off until it is time to get reelected and then she can tell a few more whoppers and make a few more unrealistic claims.
I have a feeling she would get in office and then when the prices failed to drop she would say that the Arabs are trying to make her look like a liar (as if she needs help). Remember, Bill promised a huge tax cut for the middle class and then when he got in he said he looked at everything and tried all he could but he could not make it work. Things, he said, were worse than he thought or than anyone told him. Hillary would play much the same way.
Anyone who votes for Hillary Clinton is an idiot. Anyone who believes what she is saying should be locked in a small room with no lights and kept there away from other humans.
If Hillary is elected and prices go down does it mean she is the candidate of big oil?
Source:
NY Daily News
Others with similar posts:
Stuck On Stupid, The Pink Flamingo, Chuck Adkins, Right Truth, The World According to Carl, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Tags: Clinton, lies, oil prices, pandering, snake oil
Clinton Doubletalk
Dec 23, 2007 Political
B. Hussein Obama said that he has more former Clinton (Bill) foreign policy advisers working for him than Hillary does and that this should show people something. While this claim might or might not be true the Clinton camp felt it was necessary to answer the charge. I can understand why because even if Obama does not have more of them he has a significant number of them and this really should cause people to ask; if she is so wonderful why are her hubby’s former advisers backing her rival?
The Hillary Clinton camp could have answered this charge in a number of ways. They could have ignored it (which is a non answer, really) they could indicated that people do not vote for advisers, which is what they did and if they had stopped there, they might have made the point. Instead, Hillary went one step further by describing the large number of advisers that she does have.
“This is not a campaign between lists of advisers,” Clinton told reporters in a packed diner. “This is a campaign between real people with experience and qualifications to become president on day one.”
~snip~
“Why is the national security adviser of Bill Clinton, the secretary of the Navy of Bill Clinton, the assistant secretary of state for Bill Clinton, why are all these people endorsing me?” Obama said. “They apparently believe that my vision of foreign policy is better suited for the 21st century.”
Clinton rejected the comment’s premise.
“Honestly, it’s a silly question. We have hundreds of people’s support, not just people who were in my husband’s administration, but people from all over the country who have expertise.”
She added: “It’s important to pick the person who can make the best decision, who is tested and proven as a leader.” My Way News
Hillary contends that this is not a campaign about advisers but about experience and then she goes on to say how many advisers she has. If this is a campaign about experience, as she said, then she should have expanded the experience part. Instead, she expanded that which she just said was not important. She said that people do not vote for advisers and then told everyone how many advisers she has.
The reason for this is quite simple, Hillary Clinton does not have the experience she wants everyone to believe she has. Obama has held elected office longer, Obama was against the war in Iraq (though he was not in the Senate) and he voted against the Iran resolution. No matter what one thinks about these issues, Obama and Hillary were opposites on them and if the Democratic base is using the war as the bellwether (this issue is why they say they won the election) than Obama is clearly more in tune with the base than Hillary is. This might be because she triangulated in order to appeal to the general election voters (she was supposed to win the primaries, hands down).
This is more Clinton double speak. They are already down playing the Iowa caucus and lowering expectations. They are doing the same in Hew Hampshire. It is true that Hillary is in trouble in those states but there are reasons for this ploy. They will be able to say they expected the losses if she in fact loses one or both states and if she wins both they can say she is the second coming of the comeback kid. They will say that Iowa and NH were always going to be tough and she never figured to win but she is the comeback kid like her hubby. The reality is, Hillary and her people have been predicting she was the inevitable winner for a year because she held huge leads for most of it.
I can’t figure how she has any support because she talks out of both sides of her face and she has not been truthful for years (remember, she said she never thought about running for president and then jumped right in the race). She has the highest negative ratings of any candidate and she is very polarizing. I might not agree with Obama’s politics but at least he appears to be a warm and charming person.
Hillary is toast and I cannot wait for her to lose so that we can finally rid this country of the vermin known as Clinton.