Clinton Campaign: Unthinking Iowans Picked Obama
Jan 4, 2008 Political
This is the message out of the Clinton camp today as Hillary suffered a stinging defeat in Iowa. The caucuses were held yesterday and on the Democratic side it was Obama, Edwards and then Clinton. The Republicans selected Huckabee, Romney and Thompson as their win, place and show horses. Interestingly, Ron Paul garnered 10% of the vote, more than Giuliani (3%).
Today has to be a bad day for both Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney. Both spent a fortune in Iowa and did not do as well as they had hoped or expected. Clinton, who was supposed to be the shoe in for the Democrats was smacked hard by an upstart Senator named Obama who handed her a 9 point loss. Clinton’s people have a few problems. When this all started she was inevitable and then people actually got to see her and meet her and she lost. First she had experience and when that was not working it was decided that Hillary needed a make over. Her campaign needed to get her out and let America see who she really is. Evidently, at least in Iowa, they did not like what they saw. Her campaign blames this on unthinking voters:
“Everyone underestimated this conflagration,†said a former Clinton administration official.
“If people think he’s electable, they’ll vote with their hearts and not their minds.†The Politico
This statement just shows the arrogance of anything Clinton. Even this defeat was not her fault because people did not vote with their heads, they voted with their hearts. To me this says, if you had brains you would have voted for Hillary. Hillary has vowed to push on and she should. One state is not the end for her because she has a huge organization and lots of money. A one state loss means the end for candidates who have little money even if they are most experienced. Such was the case with Dodd and Biden who both threw in the towel last night.
The remarks of the Clinton campaign show how much disdain they have for the American people. They believe that only thinking people will select Clinton and any other pick is an event that did not involve a thought process. I would make the argument that voting for any Democrat involves no thought process but with regard to this situation, the Clinton campaign remark shows contempt for the American electorate.
People from every state should remember that if they vote for someone other than Hillary they are unthinking rubes who are getting in the way of Hillary’s birthright. You people, and you know who you are, are not worthy of the Queen…But please vote for her, K?
“We’re going to keep pushing as hard as we can,” she said, with former President Bill Clinton and their daughter Chelsea at her side. “I am so ready for the rest of this campaign and I am so ready to lead.” Breitbart
It is too bad that they could not be gracious losers and move on to the next contest. Instead they chose to take a swipe at the people who get to decide in this process. therein lies the problem. Clinton does not believe you should have a choice. Her platform involves a number of things that people or companies have no choice in. She will mandate any number of things involving our lives, if only she can win the big prize.
Remember America, she cannot mandate what you do and how you do it unless you give her a mandate by voting for her.
Think about it…
Others with similar items:
Nuke’s, Outside the Beltway, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary’s Thoughts, Allie is Wired, Adam’s Blog, Shadowscope, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Cao’s Blog, and Wolf Pangloss, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Tags: caucus, Clinton, dumb people, iowa, loser, Obama, ron paul
Is Fox Excluding Ron Paul?
Dec 31, 2007 Political
Fox News is putting together a forum of Republican candidates to take place two days before the New Hampshire Primary. The release indicates; “Participating in the forum will be Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, John McCain, Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson.” Notice there is no mention of Ron Paul. Ron Paul’s people have contacted the NH GOP Chairman and asked if Paul would be invited and were told that this was unknown. The Chair indicated that this was in the planning stage but that the decision was ultimately Fox’s.
If this is a forum for Republican candidates then Ron Paul should be included as should any other person who is running for the Republican nomination. Fox would not consider excluding Romney or Giuliani and if they did there would be an uproar. The idea of the forums is for voters to get to know the candidates and to be better informed for when they vote. Eliminating any candidate tarnishes the process and makes it appear as if the media (in this case Fox) is deciding for voters who they should and should not hear.
Ron Paul has raised a great deal of money in this quarter and he has a lot of supporters regardless of what his poll numbers show (though money or not, all candidates should be invited). By ignoring him Fox is demonstrating that they are afraid of his candidacy and that they worry he might actually be the nominee. One would think Fox would be a little more sensitive to this considering how the Democrats refused to attend a debate sponsored by the network. Fox was none too pleased to have its credibility challenged and yet the network acts in a way that leaves it open to such criticisms.
Ron Paul deserves to be heard and the people who support him deserve to have their candidate at that event unless he chooses not to participate. All candidates should be invited and all candidates should be heard. Anything less is harmful to the election process and disenfranchises voters.
I did notice that in addition to Ron Paul, Duncan Hunter is not mentioned in the invite. I do not know if he was invited and declined or if he was excluded along with Paul.
Tags: excluded, forum, new hampshire, ron paul
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
Tancredo Trades Principle for Politics, Blows Immigration Stance
Dec 20, 2007 Immigration, Political
Tom Tancredo officially dropped out of the GOP race today and he threw his support behind Mitt Romney. Tancredo has great positions on immigration but he is a one trick pony. All he ever talked about was immigration. I am sure there are other issues he has positions on but he failed to come across as anything more than an advocate for tough immigration law enforcement. The one trick got old fast for a number of people who realize that there are many issues in addition to immigration. In dropping out Tancredo had the chance to show how principled he was with regard to his signature issue. Unfortunately, he failed miserably.
Tom Tancredo threw his support behind Mitt Romney who Tancredo met with to receive assurances that Romney would be tough on the issue of immigration. In throwing his support behind Romney Tancredo stated that he was “the best hope for our cause.” This is where I have problems and where it appears to me that he abandoned his principles and went for the politics of the issue. Romney is not as bad as Giuliani or Huckabee when it comes to immigration but he has had his issues with it. I don’t believe that Romney should be held accountable if the company he hired employed illegals. It is the responsibility of the company to do that. However, the company in question had been caught using ILLEGALS before and Romney failed to keep an eye on them or to replace them all together. It took a news report showing admitted ILLEGALS working on his property for him before he fired the company. This man is running for the presidency. He is under much higher scrutiny than the guy next door and he should have been on top of this. He says he is tough on immigration but it does not appear that way.
Fred Thompson, Duncan Hunter and Ron Paul are the only remaining GOP candidates with records that reflect tough immigration policies. If Tancredo wanted to show that he was absolutely concerned about the issue he should have selected one of these candidates to throw his support behind. Ron Paul has a very good plan with regard to immigration and while I am not in favor of many of his other policies I like his stance on immigration and our borders. Fred Thompson has an equally good plan at his site as does Duncan Hunter. Any of these guys would have been a better choice to be “the best hope for our cause.” Yet, Tancredo neglected each of these people, people who have stands and would not need to provide reassurance, in order to support Romney, a man with questionable views on Immigration. Before the Romney crowd beats me up, remember, Tancredo needed to get reassurance. That is usually not necessary if you have been clear and consistent.
It is unfortunate but Tancredo traded his principles. It gives the impression that Tancredo was not all that serious about immigration because he could not back one of the people who is actually tough on the issue. Since that was his only issue he could have at least picked someone who held the same beliefs. If Romney gets elected and he ends up signing an amnesty bill Tancredo and his efforts will go to the ash heap of history. He will be viewed as a man who backed the guy who gave the country away.
It is unfortunate that Tancredo could not get this right but at least it shows that he would not have been a good president. If he blew this easy choice this badly think about how terribly he would do with judges, justices, and just about any other appointee.
Source:
Des Moines Register
Tags: fred thompson, Immigration, mike huckabee, mitt romney, ron paul, rudy giuliani, tom tancredo