The Candidate of Change
May 9, 2008 Opinion, Political
This election has been about hope and change on the Democrat’s side. I already addressed the hope issue and equated hope to wishful thinking so now it is time to address change. Candidates from both sides talk about change and the Democrat’s are lapping up the change kool aid as if it is something new. All presidential candidates (all candidates, for that matter) campaign on change. If they did not want change they would be happy with the person who is already there.
The change issue seems to have hit a collective nerve on the left and they have embraced the message of change from the very first day. But what do they want? They have two candidates of change. Hillary and Obama are both candidates of change so why are people flocking to B. Hussein Obama when Hillary Rodham Clinton is all about even more change?
Obama has changed his story about Pastor Wright more than a few times and he has had to change what he said to what he meant with regard to the bitter folks in this country. While people like to think Obama is a fresh face with new ideas he is an inexperienced politician who conducts business as usual. He did not get ahead in Chicago by being the outsider he clams to be.
Clinton changed her sniper story, her opinion as to whether Obama could win in the general election, her benchmark for success, he position on NAFTA, he story about releasing documents, her position on driver’s licenses for ILLEGALS and any number of other things that far outweigh the number of changes that B. Hussein Obama has made.
So, if the Democrats really want a candidate of change then they are supporting the wrong person. Hillary Clinton is the candidate of change and she has Obama beaten by a wide margin in that category.
The only real change we will get with either one is how rapidly they change what they promised on the campaign trail to what they will actually do in office. They will change even more and most of it involves taking more of the change out of your pockets.
I am looking for change as well. I say we start by changing the three people still running with three others and have a “do over.” Then I say we change out every seat in the House and every seat in the Senate that is on the ballot. Then I say we change the tax laws as in abolishing them along with the plethora of unconstitutional government programs that suck the lifeblood out of our republic.
Now those would be positive changes.
Tags: change, Clinton, democrat, hope, McCain, Obama, republican
Republicans are Unable to Let Democrats Suffer Alone
Mar 14, 2008 Political
It isn’t bad enough that the MSM deliberately avoids mentioning the party of Democrats involved in scandal but now Republicans have taken some for the media away from the Spitzer issue by having one of their own. At a time when Republicans are trying to convince America that they are careful with money, a scandal comes forth involving a Republican who embezzled money from the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC). Christopher Ward served as treasurer at the NRCC and there are indications that he has funneled as much as one million dollars away from the NRCC and into his own endeavors.
Source:
Washington Post
Tags: corruption, democrat, msm, republican
Ferraro Dreams; If Only Obama Were White
Mar 11, 2008 Political
Former VP candidate and Hillary backer Geraldine Ferraro has thrown down the race card with regard to Barack Obama. In this high stakes game of political poker Ferraro threw down the Ace of Spades by stating that if Obama were not black he would not be where he is.
“If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.”
I do not disagree with her because if Obama were a white man he would not be drawing 85% of the black vote. Hillary would be getting it as the wife of the first black president. Most black people are voting for him for two reasons, he is black and he is a Democrat.
I will take Ferraro’s statement further and say that if Obama were a black Republican he would not be getting the votes that he is. he would have been out of this race a long time ago having been shunned by the black community as an Uncle Tom. The Democrats have so thoroughly put a strangle hold on the black community that they will not vote Republican unless Obama gets screwed by his party and the nomination goes to Hillary. Ms. Ferraro made a valid point but she was too narrow in her focus. His being black is only part of the equation but his being a Democrat is the other part. Blacks support him for those two reasons. God knows it is not because he actually says anything of substance. Amazingly, if whites voted for someone solely because he was white they would be labeled racists.
Now I want to turn Ferraro’s words inward. Hillary Clinton would not be where she is if she were a man. She would not be where she is if it were not for the fact that she is married to a former president. Clinton was elected to the Senate by an electorate that felt sorry for her because her husband cheated on her. She had no qualifications for the job. He life has been spent as a First Lady of one sort or another and she has had NO leadership experience in the real world.
She was elected because of her last name and she was the heir apparent because of her last name and for no other reason. People figured that if she were elected it would be a back door third term for Bubba and the prospect of him back in the White House excited people (except for parents of young interns). Hillary has no major accomplishments, she has a thin resume, and she was a carpetbagger in New York.
Yes, Ms. Ferraro is correct that Obama would not be where he is if he were white but Hillary would not be where she is if it were not for her last name. If Bill Clinton had never been elected to the presidency she would never have been elected to the Senate and she would not have been seen as a viable candidate for the White House.
Source:
ABC Political Punch
Others with interesting posts:
Debbie Lee on A NEWT ONE!, Rosemary’s Thoughts, Faultline USA, DragonLady’s World, Right Truth, The World According to Carl, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Leaning Straight Up, , Pursuing Holiness, Stageleft, Right Voices, Chuck’s Place, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Tags: Clinton, democrat, ferraro, Obama, racism, republican, sexism
Hillary Has Howard Dean Moment and Other Debate Fun
Jan 6, 2008 Political
There were two debates tonight the first being the Republicans followed by the Democrats. I will briefly say that the Republicans beat up Mitt Romney fairly well and that Fred Thompson looked like the winner in this one. Ron Paul held his own and John McCain was on target most of the night. Rudy invoked 9/11 and Ronald Reagan every other sentence. The Democratic debate was much more lively and was more fun to watch.
Hillary Clinton had a melt down and I think it will show on Tuesday. I admit that she did not go negative on Obama in the fashion that I thought she would but it might be because John Edwards sided with Obama and they tag teamed her pretty good. She did not hammer Obama when moderator Charlie Gibson gave her a huge opening to do so by asking her to describe the issues that separate them. Her Howard Dean moment came when she got very angry after Edwards said that the status quo (He pointed to Hillary) would always attack agents of change like him and Obama. She was obviously frustrated and when she addressed the comment she became visibly angry and animated. She would have done better if her answer was shorter and she was more sane. Her campaign is saying she showed strength but the reality is the media is hammering her and the undecided voters said that Obama was the change agent and did not appreciate her response.
As for the rest of the Democratic debate, I noticed a few other Hillary gaffes. One of the first questions dealt with Pakistan. The question dealt with al Qaeda building up along the border. The question was, if we had actionable intelligence that Osama bin Laden was there and the Pakistani government would not go attack him or the AQ terrorists would they, as president, attack the area? They asked Obama first and he said absolutely. Then Gibson said that this was the same as the Bush doctrine of preemption. Obama said no because we had actionable intelligence (as if the intelligence from all over the world that Bush had was not actionable). Hillary said that if we tried diplomacy and it failed she would but that we had to be careful. She then talked about how they (she and Bill) launched a missile based on intelligence that OBL was someplace and he was not there. She said we had to be careful. I believe that they launched the missile because soil samples indicated that a building was being used to make chemical weapons. It turned out to be an aspirin factory (I am sure this is what she was talking about). This means, if it is the ASA factory, that she lied about why we bombed it. Additionally, she failed to mention the three times that we had OBL in our sites, on camera or via witnesses, no doubt he was there, and she and Bill refused to pull the trigger. Details, details. They bombed the aspirin factory to take everyone’s minds off the Monica problems. There was one other instance where we launched missiles and then called the country to tell them and we gave them enough warning that they were able to warn OBL. If this is what she was talking about then the intelligence was right and the method flawed. Now there could have been other incidents but it is doubtful since Clinton worked hard at not getting OBL.
Another security question dealt with a nuclear bomb being detonated in a US city. It was a two parter and the questions associated were (paraphrased); 1. The day after what do we wished we would have done? and 2. What do we do now? None of them answered these directly though Obama got closest to the what do we wish. However, all who answered said that we would find out who did it and we would attack them with all we have. Charlie Gibson made the point that anyone who would do this would not be from a country or have a government’s blessing to do it. Hillary said that they might not have a country but they had to train and plan somewhere and we would find out where that was and attack it. She said there would be no difference between the people who did it and the the people who let them plan and train in their country.
Check me on this but wasn’t George Bush the one who said that we would make no distinction between the terrorists and those who harbor them? Wasn’t George Bush also the one who said that we will attack first to prevent being attacked? Their admission that they would violate the sovereignty of Pakistan to hit OBL means they would use preemptive warfare and wage war in a country that did not attack us to get our enemies, or the Bush Doctrine. I don’t disagree with the idea but I have not been using Bush’s name in vain and telling voters that I would be different than he. I am not out there saying that George Bush mismanaged the war. They have all been criticizing the war and the way Bush has operated and yet they are willing to use the same tactics to protect our country. The MSM will not likely focus on these things because they are Democrats. Only Republicans are evil in the eyes of the MSM.
I did agree with Hillary and she showed some foreign policy savvy when she said that once we launched the missiles toward Pakistan we would have to notify that government because of the tensions with India we did not want them to think that it was India attacking. I agree but we should not call until a few minutes before impact so that no warnings can be issued.
All in all the Democratic debate was more fun to watch than the Republicans. The Republicans were mostly civil (though they really beat up Romney) and had differing approaches to the issues. The donks attacked each other and were fighting like alley cats. Governor Richardson said he had been to hostage negotiations that were more civil (the quote of the night from the left).
Hillary did not have a good night. Her response to the change issue will haunt her and I think she will lose New Hampshire by 10 points.
I can just hear her now in her best Dean voice; Yeeeeeeeehaaaaaaaaa.
Others:
Political Punch
ADDENDUM: I forgot a great part. Hillary, while claiming to be the champion of change, said something about being the first woman president and how that is change. Obama was too classy to say it but wouldn’t the first black guy as president be just as real a change? Hillary played her gender card. She said before that she was just another candidate. Now she is playing the woman part. Desperate times call for desperate measures…
Tags: dean moment, debate, democrat, Hillary, hillary meltdown, Obama, republican
Elizabeth Edwards Worries About Huckabee
Dec 16, 2007 Political
Elizabeth Edwards has been brought out on various occasions to attack others on behalf of her husband. Her favorite target has been Hillary Clinton and my belief is that John used her so he would not be seen as a man attacking a woman. Elizabeth has had her go rounds with Ann Coulter as well but probably because John is afraid of Ann.
Now Elizabeth is out attacking Republicans who she says we should all fear. Her named target this time was Mike Huckabee who Edwards ridiculed for not believing in evolution. I am not going to rehash the evolution idea and why it makes no sense or why people hold it as gospel truth despite the fact it has never been proven and that it is a theory. The theory of evolution is much like the theory of Global Warming in the minds of Democrats. They believe it so it must be true and they will repeat it as true so often that it will become ingrained in people. Global warming and evolution are taught in schools as if they are proven science and this is done to brainwash a generation of school kids so they grow up to be little tree-hugging liberals. The libs have to find a way to replenish their ranks because they are aborting their children thus removing future generations of liberals.
Speaking about Republican candidate Mike Huckabee, who recently surged ahead in Iowa polls, Elizabeth noted, “He seems like a nice charming guy,” before saying that Huckabee, “doesn’t believe in evolution and has some nutty views about what it is we should do about ending violence in our inner city — we should make sure all of our young people are armed. Republicans scare me.” Political Radar
Elizabeth also went on to talk about Karl Rove and how he might not be working in the White House but is working in the “back” of the presidential race. It would seem that Rove is the Republican she is most afraid of. Elizabeth said that Republicans scare her and they should. Republicans stand for things that run counter to the liberal psyche. Republicans are against abortion, against universal health care, against socialism and against big government (though you would not know it by the way some of them act). Edwards wants the government to run every aspect of our lives and this is not the way a free society is supposed to be. She wants socialism and her belief in liberal ideals shows that she is a rich elitist who believes she knows what is best for the average person in this country. She can talk about helping the poor all she wants but if she really wants to help them perhaps she can get her husband to stop being involved in things that hurt the poor.
As for Huckabee and evolution. I do not agree with many of the things that Huckabee says and he is not in my first tier of candidates but he has a right to believe or not to believe what he wants. His belief on evolution is based in his religious teachings and using this as a qualifier for office puts a religious test on his candidacy. That is her right as a private citizen but it is not a test that can be used by our government to determine if he is qualified to run. Just as Romney’s Mormon religion does not bother me, Huckabee’s position on evolution does not bother me and it would not even if I believed in evolution.
The bigger question is; why does John Edwards keep running his wife out to attack other candidates? If he so cowardly that he cannot make these attacks on his own or is she a surrogate who he can later say was expressing her own views? It won’t matter because what she says will be tied to him just as Bill Clinton’s words are tied to Hillary. Maybe John figured he needed to have a spouse attacking other candidates just as Hillary is doing.
No matter what the reason, Huckabee is not running against Edwards in the primary and, as it appears right now, Edwards is not close to winning his party’s nomination. Perhaps he and his wife should spend their time attacking those against whom he is running.
He can’t ever take on a Republican if he does not get past the Democrats.
Others with similar posts:
Stop the ACLU, Outside the Beltway, The Virtuous Republic, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Rosemary’s Thoughts, The Midnight Sun, 123beta, sTIX bLOG, Adam’s Blog, Right Truth, Shadowscope, Stuck On Stupid, The Amboy Times, Cao’s Blog, Leaning Straight Up, Chuck Adkins, Pursuing Holiness, Wake Up America, Faultline USA, third world county, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Celebrity Smack, The Pink Flamingo, Global American Discourse, Right Voices, OTB Sports, Church and State, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Tags: democrat, edwards, evolution, fear, huckabee, republican, rove