Mind Games in the Presidential Race
May 9, 2008 Political
John McCain, the MSM’s and Democratic selection for the Republican party, has been the subject of debate because of his age. While Howard Dean stated that the Democrats would not take this up as an issue that has not stopped some of them from chiming in. Jack Murtha, the unindicted criminal who is three years older than McCain said that McCain was too old to be president by stating that it was no old man’s job. B. Hussein Obama recently complained about a factual statement by McCain that the terrorists would rather see Obama win. Since this was stated by terrorists it is not a lie. Obama indicated that McCain was losing his bearings which the McCain camp took as a veiled shot at the candidate’s age.
Is age an issue in this campaign? Certainly there is a minimum age requirement for the office of President but there is no maximum age limit. So why are people able to make statements about McCain’s age? Ageism is a form of discrimination so why is it tolerated. Imagine for a moment that a prominent Republican Congressman had made the statement that Hillary Clinton should not be president because she is a woman by saying “this ain’t no lady’s job.” Or imagine this same person said that Obama should not be president because he is black by saying “this ain’t no job for a black man.” The howls of misogyny or racism would be heard from coast to coast. But members of the Democratic party make a crack about age and it is quite alright. It is ironic that Murtha would say it given that he is ancient. It is also strange that age never seemed to be a problem for Ronald Reagan, the greatest president of the last century. To be fair, Chuck Norris also made an issue of McCain’s age and he was just as wrong as Murtha.
What about this age issue? Is it a concern? Has John McCain lost his bearing ? I might argue he lost his bearing a long time ago with regard to conservatism but I somehow don’t think that is what Obama meant. It is true that as we age our minds get a little slower and we forget things and of course we are more susceptible to brain diseases that result in a decline of brain function. McCain though, seems to be in pretty good shape and except for a few gaffes it does not look like he has lost any of his mental function.
There are those, especially when the general election rolls around (if the Democrats ever figure out who is running), who will make a big deal out of the gaffes and attribute them to decreased mental capacity. These would be the same people who excuse Hillary Clinton’s lies about sniper fire as a mistake. Hillary says that she told us something that she knew to be different from what actually happened and she has even written about it. Does she have decreased mental capacity because she can’t recall if she was shot at or not? The media and those on the left never attributed it to her age and decreasing brain function. Many could not compel themselves to call her a liar opting to say she simply “made a mistake.”
Now Hillary is 60 so there might be people who say that she is declining. In fact, Bill Clinton said as much (when he was trying to excuse her lie) when he said that when people get to be 60 they will forget things when they are tired. Obama though, is a mere babe in the woods compared to these two. Certainly, his mental capacity is not in question and he has the most sound mind for the job.
But wait! Obama has told us that he started attending Pastor Wright’s church 20 years ago when he was 26. He also told us that in 20 years he never realized that Wright was a racist. It took this man 20 years and public outcry to see that his pastor was an American hating racist with crack-pot conspiracy theories about the government inventing AIDS to get rid of blacks. Good thing his mind is sharp or it might have taken 40 years.
Obama’s sharp and well tuned mind did not prevent him from insulting many Americans by saying that they are bitter and as a result cling to religion and their guns while hating outsiders. If we are to believe that Obama did nothing wrong in his land deal with Tony Rezko then his sharp as a tack mind did not keep him from making a deal that had red flags flying all around it.
John McCain was tortured at the hands of our enemy for nearly seven years and he can go toe to toe with either of the other two in an intellectual battle and not get bested (I bet he could go toe to toe in a fist fight and beat them both). To make his age an issue does an injustice to the elderly in our society.
There are plenty of problems with John McCain but his age is not one of them.
Sources:
WSJ
My Way News
Jimmah Carter is a Closet Obama Supporter
May 8, 2008 Political
Former Disaster in Chief Jimmah Carter was on Jay Leno recently (Leno must be having a has been week) and he indicated that the delegates from Florida and Michigan must not be seated because those states broke the rules of the DNC. I actually happen to agree with this position but I agree because it was the rule and the states knew what would happen if they broke it. Carter does not particularly care about the rules as much as he cares how this will affect Barry Obama (who Carter has hinted at preferring). Carter does not want to let Hillary get any closer and he does not want the number of delegates needed to win to increase. He also does not want super delegates added because that would increase Hillary’s chances. Carter also warned about super delegates changing the will of the people:
He warned of a disaster if party insiders try to wrest the nomination from the candidate with the largest number of votes and state victories.
An attempt by so-called Democratic superdelegates to override the popular vote “would be an almost unacceptable thing,” Carter told Jay Leno on “The Tonight Show.”
If a candidate has a clear edge in votes, state-by-state wins and delegates claimed at caucuses and primaries, “I can’t imagine that the superdelegates would go against them,” Carter said. “It would be a catastrophe for the party.” WBAL
This is the flaw in their process. First of all, the super delegates are allowed, by their rules, to select who they want. The party has done this before and selected someone who was not the popular candidate (Adlai Stevenson). Secondly, even if they go with the will of the people the standard should not be the will of the people as a whole or the will of the people of a state but should be defined to the will of the people in a particular Congressional District. This standard would apply to elected super delegates who are in the House. The Senators represent an entire state so they wll need to decide how to vote.
For example, in Maryland there are eight Congressional Districts, five of which have Democrats for their representatives. Obama won the state and if we apply Carter’s standard (and the standard of Obama supporters) then he should get all five super delegates. However, Clinton won one of the five (as well as the three headed by Republicans) so Obama should get four and Clinton one. This is how the will of the people is demonstrated. Their wishes are expressed by their Representatives. If we goup all people together by state or as a country then the wishes of the people are not truly expressed.
The fact that Democrats want to do this does not surprise me because they do not care about the will of the voter unless they lose to a Republican (then there are voting problems and people were disenfranchised). The establishment is worried about one thing and one thing only and that is losing the black vote if they select Clinton over Obama. They are worried that Obama will not win the general election because he cannot carry the white vote in sufficient numbers. But, they are stuck with him unless they want to risk losing the black vote, a demographic they cannot win without.
If the Democrats cared about the will of the people they would let the people of Florida and Michigan have a say in the process. Instead, the Democrats have disenfranchised all those people who will probably remember this when it is time to vote in the general election. I agree with Rush Limbaugh. All the people in those states should register as Republicans because we will let your votes count.
In any event, the Democrats have painted themselves into a corner and they will end up getting bloodied before they can get out of that corner.
It will be so much fun to watch them beating themselves to death.
Tags: carter, Clinton, convention, Obama, super delegates, will of the people
Obama’s Plan; Wishful Thinking
May 7, 2008 Political
Throughout this never ending campaign season Barry Obama has trumpeted to the masses that he is different than the others. He has told us that he is a DC outsider and that he has the vision for America that is not clouded by politics as usual. This, of course, is a crock of excrement and one only needs to look at his career to see that politics as usual played a big part in how he was elected in Illinois and how he eventually got a seat in the elite club known as the US Senate.
After the primaries yesterday Obama put out a press release (I know it was his campaign but they speak for him) which stated that Rush Limbaugh had encouraged people to vote for Clinton because he wanted her to win and that Republicans were scared of Obama. The underlying theme is that she only won by 2% with all of Limbaugh’s “help.”
The first thing to address is this idea that Republicans want Hillary to win because she will be easier to beat and that Limbaugh leads that charge. The idea behind Operation Chaos is to keep Hillary close enough so that the Democratic primary continues to its convention. While Hillary might be easier to beat (polls differ on this on any given day) the sole intent is to keep this circus going. If Hillary loses and drops out it will give Obama more time to fight the Republican. By keeping this close we take that option away and allow Democrats to damage each other. Fear of one or the other has nothing to do with wanting Hillary to stay in the race.
In the overall scheme of things there is no need to fear any president because a president has limited power. The real damage to this country is done by the Congress. Congress does not have term limits so people get elected and they stay there a long time and they stagnate. They introduce and pass unconstitutional legislation and they spend our money recklessly. Congress is the reason this country is in bad shape. For those of you who oppose the war, Congress gave the authorization for it. Blame Congress for giving the President permission. A President Obama or Clinton would do little harm if there were a small Democratic majority or a Republican majority. Even as the minority, Republicans can block judicial and other nominations. We can obstruct any president as the Democrats have done to George Bush during the last seven plus years. Congress is the root of all evil but can place a president in check.
Ideally, we need to replace ALL the members of the House and every Senator who is up for reelection. Barring that, we need to have a divided government with gridlock. The less they are able to accomplish the less damage they can inflict. Now, back to the memo.
While the memo is long on Limbaugh it also contains other items of interest. There is a statement that the Obama camp expected Hillary to win Indiana “where she has the support of Senator Evan Bayh’s political operation and the demographics heavily favor her.” I can just imagine how the cries of racism would have sounded had Bill Clinton stated that they expected Obama to win North Carolina because the Demographics heavily favored him. There is no doubt in my mind that black voters and the race baiters who speak for them would claim that the statement was racist and did not belong in the campaign. I don’t see the statement as racist and feel that either is a statement of fact but I think it would be viewed differently by the black community had Bill said it. The question that the statement begs is, if the demographics heavily favored her how will Obama overcome them in the general election given that only 12% or so of the population is of a Demographic that has supported him at a 90% level. There is little support left given those numbers. Anyone who thinks this campaign is not about race has not paid attention to who is voting for Obama. Many blacks are voting for him because he is black. That means it is about his race.
The last part of the memo that I found interesting (it is full of distortions typical of a politician) is this:
But leaving that aside, this simply isn’t the kind of tactic that Democratic voters and superdelegates want to say. As President Clinton himself said a couple of years ago, “if one candidate’s appealing to your fears and the other one’s appealing to your hopes, you better vote for the person who wants you to think and hope.” Lynn Sweet
The first thing is that Obama has been repudiating Clinton and the politics of the past and has put some of the blame for where our country stands on the former president. I find it odd Obama would use Clinton’s words to make his case for a fresh start when he continues to link him with the past. I also know that hope is not proper mission planning. People can hope for many things and often it is an expression of wishful thinking as in I hope gas prices go down or that it does not rain. It is not prudent to hope for things, it is prudent to plan for them. Obama talks a lot about hope and he talks a lot about change but he does not talk about plans. He has no plans that extend beyond taxing people. He has nothing more than “I bring you hope [wishful thinking].” People don’t want hope, they want well defined leadership and Obama does not fit that bill.
People who live their lives based upon hope will fall for anything and follow anyone.
Enter Barack Obama…
Tags: Clinton, indiana, memo, north carolina, Obama, Rush Limbaugh, typical politician
Obama Sounds Like George Bush
May 4, 2008 Political
Barack Obama has made a lot of noise about his opposition to the Iraq war and he has chided Hillary Clinton for her vote on the matter. He has also told America that Clinton (and John McCain for that matter) are part of the old politics in DC and that he was the candidate of change. Obama touts himself as a DC outsider who will do things differently. Today he stated that Hillary Clinton sounded a lot like George Bush because of a statement she made last month.
Hillary Clinton was asked what she would do, as president, if Iran attacked Israel. Clinton stated that the US would attack Iran in retaliation and she stated that they should know we would obliterate them. At the time Iran claimed that her words were a violation of UN charter. Seems that when Iran threatens to wipe Israel off the map that is not a violation but when we threaten to do the same it is. Typical Muslim thinking.
Obama also took a shot at Clinton for her proposal to suspend the gasoline tax for the Summer (it was actually McCain’s proposal with which Hillary agrees). Obama said that this was a classic Washington gimmick that would only save people $28.
Now I understand Mr. “I was always against the war” and his platform of non aggression. It took him 20 years to realize his pastor was an aggressive man who hated white people so I can understand how he is slow to recognize threats. However, Obama said that Clinton sounded like George Bush with her statement about obliterating Iran because, of course, it involves aggression.
But if Clinton sounds like George Bush for her statement then who does Obama sound like with this statement?
Obama said if elected in November 2008 he would be willing to attack inside Pakistan with or without approval from the Pakistani government, a move that would likely cause anxiety in the already troubled region.
“If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will,” Obama said. al Reuters [emphasis mine]
Here is Obama saying that if we have actionable intelligence he would attack inside another nation with or without permission. Sounds a bit like what he accuses the Bush administration of doing in Iraq. Also sounds like what he chastised Clinton for. I would think Iran attacking Israel is “actionable intelligence” and that attacking Iran in that instance is certainly more appropriate than just invading Pakistan.
Therefore, Obama advocates the same policies that he has castigated since he decided to run for office. Using his own standards, Obama sounds just like George Bush.
As for the gimmick of gas taxes. I agree that a suspension of them will hardly make a dent in anything especially since the states will still tax and most tax at a higher rate than the feds. I see that Obama though, has taken issue with his opponents and mentioned that they are engaging in a clasic Washington gimmick. So where was Obama when Nancy Pelosi sponsored the Economic Relief Package that redistributed income in America?
This is the bill that sends out $600 checks to people up to certain incomes in order to stimulate the economy. This is the bill where people who paid absolutely no income taxes whatsoever will get money from the government while those above certain incomes will not get one red cent. This is a typical Washington gimmick. It is an election year and politicians fell all over themselves to send money to people in hopes that it will curry favor at the polls in November. This package will do nothing for the economy.
The economy is not as bad as people are saying it is and many economists said that it would be improving by the time the checks even went out. The only thing that this bill did was get Democrats to admit that it is better if you are allowed to keep your own money and that they tax too much. They were conceding that taking your money amounts to forcing you to work for free for part of the year and that is true. While they were having this epiphany, they seemed to miss the fact that the money will not stimulate the economy. The market should be allowed to run the economy free of government interference. Government is the reason things get broken in the first place.
If they would learn to keep their work confined to running government and let businesses run themselves free of encumbering regulation things would be a hell of a lot better. Cheesy gimmicks like tax rebates will not help the economy any more than a gas tax holiday will (though they could repeal the gas tax all together and I would be happy).
Oh, and how did Obama see the rebate issue? He, like Hillary Clinton, did not vote on it. Both are listed as “not voting.” They were probably posturing to play gotcha. However, given Obama’s avoidance of controversial votes, he probably just avoided it to keep safe. That is not true leadership.
This guy is a lightweight. The funny thing is he keeps saying he is an outsider but he acts like the rest of them. He, like Clinton, will say anything to get elected. He also seems to ignore his own actions while criticizing others for doing the exact same thing.
Perhaps he should leave the glass house before throwing any more stones?
Sources:
My Way News
Tags: Bush, Clinton, gas tax, holiday, Iran, Israel, mcccain, Obama
Frank Rich of the NYT Should Look Left for Racists
May 4, 2008 Political
Frank Rich of the New York Times has a piece out today asking why Obama’s pastor has received so much scrutiny when McCain’s has not. Rich is referring to John Hagee, an absolute nut job, who has endorsed John McCain. According to Rich, Obama’s pastor, with whom he had a 20 year relationship, is no different than a man who endorsed McCain and with whom McCain had no other relationship. Hagee is not and was not McCain’s pastor.
Rich addresses this difference by stating there is no difference between Obama sitting there in Wright’s church and John McCain actively (Rich’s assertion) seeking Hagee’s endorsement because by doing so he is agreeing with the lunacy that comes out of Hagee’s mouth (just as Obama did by being in Wright’s church).
The entire story boils down to Rich’s claim that America is a racist country and that there is double standard because Clinton and Obama are scrutinized for every perceived racist remark while the racism of the Republicans is ignored. Rich “proves’ his point by indicating that there are no blacks among all the Senators and Representatives in the Congress who happen to be Republicans. Rich tells us that gays (Foley) have a better chance of getting elected in the GOP than blacks.
I have gone through this before but I will do it again for the benefit of Frank Rich whose Obama tinted glasses have obscured his thinking. First of all, the Democrats are not being scrutinized any more on subjects of race. The Democrats have never been taken to task for their racism until this election cycle that just happens to have a black man in it. Republicans are always the subject of allegations of racism. Anytime a Republican makes a remark cries of racism abound. This is standard operating procedure. The claims do not have to be true, just some half baked idea fostered by race baiters who blow it out of proportion while, I might add, the public ignores the racist remarks of those doing the crying.
Democrats have never been taken to task for their racism. They have always been held up as the champions of race relations yet under them blacks have slipped father and farther into poverty. Welfare programs keep blacks subservient to government and under the oppressive thumb of their slave masters in the Democratic party. Democrats are always quite happy to court the black vote, which votes for them at a level of 90% in elections, and then ignore them until the next election. Affirmative action and housing projects are the Democrat’s way of telling blacks they are not capable of making it on their own but not to worry because government is there for them.
This leads me to the idea that the GOP has no elected blacks in Congress. This is a matter of demographics and math. The math is, 90% of blacks support Democratic candidates so we can conclude that 90% of them are Democrat or believe in what Democrats represent. If 90% of the black population is Democratic where does Mr. Rich think the GOP will find black people to run for office? Only 10% remain and out of them how many are qualified (Constitutionally) or want to run.
Demographics show that most black Democrats come from urban areas. They come from cities where there are huge numbers of blacks and where the political climate is overwhelmingly Democratic. Blacks who happen to be conservative would never run in these areas because they cannot win. For Rich to claim this is GOP racism is absolutely out of touch with reality. Even blacks who live in conservative areas would not want to run for office and not because of white conservatives. Look at how the Democrats and particularly black Democrats act when a black person runs for office as a Republican. The name calling begins and the names of sell out and Uncle Tom do not come from the right. These names come from blacks in the community who wonder how a black would dare be a Republican.
Look at the Maryland Senate race from 2006 when Michael Steele, a black conservative, ran for the Senate seat being vacated by the retiring Paul Sarbanes and he ran against Joe Cardin, a white Democratic Congressman. Michael Steele was portrayed unfavorably by Democrats. He was shown in a black face photo-shopped picture and referred to as Sambo. He had Oreo cookies thrown at him and one of Cardin’s bloggers wrote terrible things about him and his race was a big part of it. These were all Democrats doing this to a black man. BTW, Steele was the Lieutenant Governor of the state and was the highest-ranking elected Republican black in the country. Republicans will elect them when they can overcome Democratic barriers.
Steele lost the race but he did not lose because whites refused to vote for him or because they did not want him in office, as Rich would have you believe. The heavily Democratic areas of Maryland (and areas with huge black populations) voted for Cardin. As those areas go so goes the state. Steele carried almost every county where the population is strongly Republican and overwhelmingly white (he won 18 subdivisions to Cardin’s 6). This should put to bed Rich’s claims and show that it is Democratic racism that prevents black Republicans from being elected.
The entire Rich story is right out of the leftist play book. The interesting thing is that he makes this an issue of McCain/Obama when the issues right now are all Obama/Clinton. Despite Rich’s attempts to make this about conservatives smearing Obama with his pastor’s words while ignoring McCain, the fact is it is the Democrats who are smearing the man (why should Republicans chime in when they are doing a good job of beating each other up). Republicans are not part of their primary process. All the negative stuff is coming from the left. Instead of asking about McCain’s “pastor” Rich would be more accurate if he asked when they were going to start looking at Clinton’s pastor.
I am sure the Democrats will get to McCain and the people with whom he associates when they finally settle their own contest. Until that time people like Frank Rich should stop muddying the waters with half truths and outright lies sprinkled with innuendo.
Yes Mr. Rich, there is a race problem in this country and it is from the Democrats and from people like you (but I repeat myself). People on the right are called racists and they have been labeled racists but in reality it is those on the left who display racism all the time.
Blacks would do themselves a world of good by changing parties (which would put a lot of black Republicans in Congress). Short of that they need to follow the words of Bill Cosby and stop blaming the white man for all their ills. It would help if white men like Frank Rich would do the same.
Others with interesting posts:
Pooh Flinging NeoCons, Rosemary’s Thoughts, 123beta, Right Truth, Shadowscope, Cao’s Blog, The Amboy Times, , Democrat=Socialist, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Allie is Wired, Nuke Gingrich, Faultline USA, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, McCain Blogs, The World According to Carl, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Wolf Pangloss, , Stageleft, Right Voices, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Tags: Clinton, frank rich, hagee, McCain, michael steele, NYT, Obama, racism, wright