Why Wouldn’t Kerry Visit Our Enemy?
Dec 26, 2009 Political
John Kerry is floating the idea of visiting Tehran. He would be the first high level person to visit there since 1979. Barack Obama said he would meet with Iran’s leader without preconditions and so far the diplomatic effort has been a dismal failure. Iran has balked at any discussions about its nuclear plans and has basically laughed in the face of Obama.
Iran has bought itself another year to work on its nuclear program which is, no doubt, a vehicle for developing nuclear weapons.
It should not surprise anyone that John Kerry would work on getting to Tehran. He has a history of going to meet our enemies. Who can forget that Kerry, as a Vietnam War protester, visited with the North Vietnamese while we were at war.
Kerry’s anti war antics likely earned him a dishonorable** discharge from the Naval Reserve. That Dishonorable Discharge would have been changed under a program that President Carter implemented. There is no way of telling because Kerry has not released his records for review even though he promised to do so. He probably does not want any embarrassing items circulating.
Regardless, this is par for the course for Kerry. He likes to visit with our enemies.
It should surprise no one.
**I indicated Dishonorable but it is likely he had a LESS THAN HONORABLE DISCHARGE, not a DISHONORABLE one.
Source:
Wall Street Journal
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: john kerry, tehran, traitor, vietnam, war protest
Arlen Specter Trusted The Democrats, Bad Move
May 7, 2009 Political
I am absolutely ecstatic that Arlen Specter finally went home to the Democrats where he belongs. I will not miss him in the party and I hope he gets his rear end handed to him on a platter in the next election. He changed parties for one reason and one reason only and that is because he could not win as a Republican. His switch had nothing to do with aligning more with Democrats because his views have aligned with them for a while. He was the guy who derided those who switch parties during a term and stated he would introduce a rules change to prevent it. He also said he would not switch parties as recently as March.
But then he found out that his narrow victory last time was no fluke and that Republicans were not happy with how he voted on the stimulus. He decided to switch parties rather than face the voters who put him in office.
He is a coward.
However, he has learned a tough lesson. The Democrats promised him the moon to get him to switch and that included him keeping his seniority on the committees on which he served. Looks like that promise, made by Harry Reid, had a shorter shelf life than an Obama promise. Now that Specter is a Democrat he will be moved all the way to the end of the seniority line except on one committee where he will be next to last. The Democrats stripped him of the seniority they promised him he could keep.
Couldn’t have happened to a nicer guy. Now he is a non issue except he gives the Democrats enough votes to avoid a filibuster (assuming Franken wins his contested race). However, he has been screwed and will be all the way behind all the other Democrats, even those who were children when he was first elected.
HA HA HA
I think it is great. If this twerp had stayed a Republican he would have retained seniority. Of course he can’t switch back because the Republicans will not have him and even if they did he would lose the election in 2010.
I have always said that you should never trust a Democrat. Specter was a darling when he voted with them and when they were courting him. Now that they have him he is not so special.
Enjoy what little time you have left in the Senate Arlen. Enjoy your lack of seniority.
Big Dog salute to Gribbit
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: arlen specter, coward, seniority, traitor
The Phantom of the Oprah
Jan 21, 2008 Political
Oprah Winfrey has been very vocal in her support for B. Hussein Obama. In her first venture into the political scene, Winfrey campaigned for Obama at several events and he is the only candidate that has appeared on her show. Winfrey has been paying a bit of a price for her support of Obama and has been labeled a traitor by women who think she should be supporting Hillary Clinton.
This kind of thinking is very dangerous for the political scene because it places emphasis on a physical characteristic rather than on policy issues and qualification for the job. Winfrey is in a particularly difficult position because if she supports Clinton she will be labeled a traitor by the blacks who support Obama. Race and sex are not supposed to play into the selection process and picking a candidate based solely upon those, or any other characteristics, is a silly way to select leaders. Imagine what kind of uproar there would be if famous male supporters of Hillary were labeled traitors by other men who think a male should be president or if whites were labeled traitors for their support of Obama.
Think of how ridiculous it would be if the supporters of other candidates did the same thing. The elderly and Vietnam vets would label other elderly or VN vets who do not support McCain as traitors. Balding men would label as traitors those who do not support Thompson, evangelicals label other evangelicals as traitors for not supporting Huckabee, trial lawyers would label other trial lawyers as traitors for not supporting Edwards, those who have been divorced several times would labels others with that history as traitors for not supporting Giuliani and successful businessmen would label other successful businessmen as traitors for not supporting Romney.
Ron Paul supporters already label anyone who does not support Paul as a traitor.
These examples are just as ridiculous as concentrating on the fact that Obama is black or Hillary is a woman. Of course these are barriers that have never been broken but electing someone just to break that “glass ceiling” (as Hillary calls it) is not the correct way to select leaders. If one is a liberal there are many reasons to vote for Clinton or Obama and if one is a Conservative there are plenty of reasons not to vote for either of them. The color or sex of the candidates does not fit into this equation.
In order to see how invalid the idea of support based upon color or sex is one only needs to ask the question; is it OK to oppose Clinton because she is a woman or Obama because he is black? Would a person who said that he will not vote for Clinton solely because she is a woman be labeled a sexist and would a person who says that he would not vote for Obama solely because he is black be labeled a racist? If the answer is yes (and we know the answer is yes) then support based upon those two items is just as wrong.
This country is ready for a woman president and it is ready for a black president and there are plenty of both who would do a great job. These two just are not the ones.