Senator Dodd Should be Arrested for Child Abuse

There is an article out about the Democratic Primary and how it boils down to a four letter word which happens to be Iowa. Hillary Clinton enjoys a lead in national polls due to her name recognition but in Iowa she is running neck and neck with Obama and Clinton with Obama now in the lead by a percentage points. The candidates are pouring their hearts and souls into this state and are spending time there courting people they will forget about as soon as the election (or caucus) is over.

Regardless of these power plays there is one candidate who has gone way overboard and who is abusing his child as part of this process. Senator Christopher has moved his family to Iowa and placed his relocated daughter in a kindergarten there to show how much he cares for the state:

Dodd has temporarily moved his family to Iowa to demonstrate his commitment to the state, enrolling his daughter in kindergarten at a Des Moines public school. My Way News

This jerk has temporarily uprooted his small child and placed that little girl in a school away from her friends at home just to show a state that he has little to do with just how much he cares about it. It is a pretty good bet he will not win Iowa and even if he does as soon as the contest there is over he will move his family back home and this means his child will have to go back to her old school. This is certainly not in the child’s best interest and has a huge impact on her social development. Children make friends and they do not like to be moved away from those friends. Moving during the school year means the child must go into a new environment where they are probably learning different things and then she will go through this again.

This is totally wrong and the guy should be arrested for child abuse. It is not like he has to do this, he is doing it to pander to the Iowans so he can show them how much he cares. Evidently he cares more about them than his own family. I find this disgusting and think he should be taken to task for it. Those Democrats are all for the children, especially when they can exploit them for personal gain.

This guy is 63 and he has a 6 year old and a 2 year old. I guess the only consolation is that he will likely be dead before they are grown and certainly he will not be around to abuse his grandchildren.

Big Dog

Mona Charen of NRO Skewers Ron Paul

I am not a Ron Paul supporter but to be clear, I have not gotten on the bandwagon of any candidate. I need to see more before I take a decision as to whom I will support. I understand there is a big net roots campaign for Ron Paul of Texas. I have written in the past that I like most of Paul’s views on domestic policy but I have some real issues with his foreign policy especially with regard to the war on terror in Iraq. I just can’t get my hands around this idea that we caused the attack on 9/11.

However, I have found that Paul appears to be an honest man with strong devotion to his ideals. While I might not agree with all of them, I can see his is true to them and does not flip flop around like many other candidates. Mona Charen of NRO wrote a piece about Paul and in it I think she went out of bounds. She makes some good points but then likens him to some of the groups who happen to support him. She also took a stab at him because he received money from a person (or people) who have bad beliefs.

I do not think a politician has to give back money just because the donor has ideas that others do not like. This is not to say that candidates like Hillary Clinton should be able to keep money that was donated under questionable circumstances which border the realm of illegality (if they are not down right illegal). This goes for all candidates but when donors just happen to be people with whom others disagree it is unreasonable for anyone to expect them to return the money. The politician in question does not have to agree with the donor to accept the money.

Imagine if Clinton were required to give back money from the gay and lesbian or ILLEGAL immigrant support groups because others found their positions detestable? Of course Hillary agrees with the groups so that makes it easier but I imagine that she would accept money from any conservative group that donated it legally regardless of their positions. If the person wanted Hillary to win she would take their money no matter what positions they personally held as should any politician, so long as the donations are legal. Charen makes the leap that Neo Con (a term that more people than Paul use) is shorthand for the Jews. How many times have Democrats used that term and why have Jews not found it offensive?

There is a little battle going on and the Paul campaign sent a letter to clear up some of Charen’s assertions. Whether or not that will do any good is hard to say.

However, it might be helpful if the Paul supporters stopped inundating email in boxes with their ardent support for Paul. Ticking off the people who have the power to write widely read columns does not seem to be a smart course of action.

Charen’s Column
Paul Response

As always, please feel free to comment.

Big Dog

Others with similar items:
Nuke’s, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Rosemary’s Thoughts, Woman Honor Thyself, Three Forces Of Evil, Right Truth, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Cao’s Blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, Chuck Adkins, and Dumb Ox Daily News, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Clinton Mocks Obama’s Experience

Hillary Clinton mocked a statement by B. Hussein Obama concerning his experience. He indicated that because he lived in foreign countries as a child he gained a different perspective on foreign policy challenges. Hillary remarked:

‘‘I offer the experience of being battle-tested in the political wars here at home,’’ said Clinton, arguing that her background not only was superior as a potential president but also made her the most electable Democrat.

‘‘For 15 years I’ve been the object of the Republican attack machine and I’m still here,’’ she said. Chicago Sun Times

Once again I must ask the question, what experience does she have? What does she have that makes her any more qualified than Obama? She is a one and a half term Senator and since she has been campaigning for President since just after the last election, she really only has one term. She spent all her time in the White House as the First Lady. Granted, she stuck her nose in the country’s business but she was not elected she held no position of leadership. The only reason she was even there is because she was married to the guy that was elected. This does not equate to experience.

I know she has this delusion that she has leadership experience because she was First Lady but deciding what desert to serve at White House meals is not experience and neither is deciding on the pattern for the White House China. Perhaps if she released her records from that time we could see if her work actually backs up her claim but since she has not released it, it is a good bet that there is nothing to substantiate her claim. John Kerry tried this with his military record but he refused to release his records so it was obvious that he was covering up (he still has not released them). Hillary could put an end to the experience once and for all by releasing records that show she has leadership experience but she needs to release ALL of them so we can get the entire picture.

As far as I am concerned the time she spent in the White House is a non issue and does not count. Her time in the Senate is the only experience she has and her record is unremarkable. As far as being attacked for 15 years and still being here, big deal. Ted Kennedy has been in the Senate for 46 years and he has been attacked but he sticks around. That does not mean he is effective or can lead anything.

As far as being attacked by the VRWC, she is attacked by her own party as well. There are many who do not like her but will vote for Satan if it means putting a Democrat back in charge. She has a disapproval rating above 50% so there are plenty of Democrats who are not thrilled with her. Additionally, She has lost her lead in Iowa and now has to play catch up to the “less experienced” Obama.

Hillary, you have little experience and have never led anything. Continually saying you have does not change this indisputable fact.

Big Dog

Is Clinton Tested and Ready to Lead?

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?

Hillary Finally Takes a Position

Hillary Clinton finally took a position on issuing driver’s licenses to ILLEGALS (she calls them undocumented) by declaring that she agrees with New York Governor Spitzer’s decision not to issue them. Hillary sort of supported his position when he was going to issue them, then said no, then say yes and left it at a maybe. Since Spitzer has finally decided the Hildabeast figured it was OK to take a stand. She also indicated that, as President, she will not issue driver’s licenses to ILLEGALS and that she will fix the immigration problem in America.

The President is not the person to fix these things. Congress is the body that is supposed to come up with bills that address these kinds of issues. After it is worked out it is sent to the President to be signed into law. The President can tell Congress how he wants things and they can work together but the biggest thing the President gets to do is sign it into law or veto it. Hillary Clinton will have little success with immigration if the Congress does not act. She had a better chance of doing something as part of the Senate and yet I can’t seem to find any bills she has authored to address the problem. The only thing she has done is criticize GOP efforts to toughen criminal laws regarding ILLEGALS and blame the Bush administration for a problem caused by Democrats long before he ever took office. In fact, Bush and Congress tried to ram amnesty down our throats and Hillary voted for that plan. She wants to give them licenses but not until she gives them amnesty. Hillary Clinton votes to help ILLEGALS.

I am sure this is not the last we have heard on this issue. If a poll comes out in a few weeks indicating that Hispanics are supporting another candidate and they cite this stance as the reason, Hillary will change faster than you can shake a stick.