According to their tally sheets, the Associated Press is reporting this afternoon that Barack Obama has won enough delegates to become the Democratic nominee for President. However, Hillary Clinton is claiming a 25-point landslide against Obama in the South Dakota primary today, which places the AP's story into question.
Pressure is mounting on Hillary to show up in St. Paul tonight and concede the nomination to Obama.
Hillary, on the other hand, is saying she will concede only if Obama reaches a total of 2118 delegates, which includes regular delegates and super-delegates.
There is some question as to whether or not Obama can reach that figure with today's primaries.
Showing posts with label Democratic Presidential candidates. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Democratic Presidential candidates. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 03, 2008
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Clinton Campaign Writes Off Today's Primaries
Without verbally conceding today's Democratic primaries to Barack Obama, top aides within the Clinton campaign have all but written off Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia as losses.
In addition, Obama is picking up steam to win the rest of the contests scheduled for February, including Hawaii and Wisconsin.
Clinton advisors privately admit that the candidate could go limping into the month of March after losing 9 primaries in a row. The Clinton staffers fear that with such mounting losses the election may be slipping away and that Obama would have the momentum going into the big March 4 contests, which include Texas and Ohio.
One of the Democratic superdelegates put it bluntly, 'She has to win both Ohio and Texas comfortably, or she's out.'
This is the first time since the campaign began that Clinton insiders have spoken seriously about the possibility that the candidate may be forced to withdraw from the race.
The report on the state of the Clinton campaign and the losses looming on the horizon during the remainder of February can be found in today's New York Times, according to Matt Drudge.
In addition, Obama is picking up steam to win the rest of the contests scheduled for February, including Hawaii and Wisconsin.
Clinton advisors privately admit that the candidate could go limping into the month of March after losing 9 primaries in a row. The Clinton staffers fear that with such mounting losses the election may be slipping away and that Obama would have the momentum going into the big March 4 contests, which include Texas and Ohio.
One of the Democratic superdelegates put it bluntly, 'She has to win both Ohio and Texas comfortably, or she's out.'
This is the first time since the campaign began that Clinton insiders have spoken seriously about the possibility that the candidate may be forced to withdraw from the race.
The report on the state of the Clinton campaign and the losses looming on the horizon during the remainder of February can be found in today's New York Times, according to Matt Drudge.
Monday, February 11, 2008
Obama Gains Delegates, Hillary Shakes Up Staff
Democratic Presidential hopeful Barack Obama won four state primaries in a row over the weekend, placing him in the lead in the delegate count for the Democratic nomination.
Obama picked up wins in Washington state, Louisiana, Nebraska, and Maine. He is also expected to win most of the primaries on Tuesday of this week, which will take place in Hawaii, the District of Columbia, Wisconsin, Maryland, and Virginia.
As expected, the scenario of an Obama sweep this weekend and a potential sweep on Tuesday has placed the Hillary Rodham Clinton campaign in damage control mode.
The New York Senator embarked on a major campaign shakeup over the weekend, resulting in her longtime campaign manager, Patti Solis Doyle, stepping down. Her replacement is longtime Clinton aide Maggie Williams.
With Obama poised to potentially win 9 primaries in a row, the Clinton campaign is desperately seeking a way to stop her mounting losses which, if they continue, will result in an Obama avalanche that cannot be thwarted.
Obama picked up wins in Washington state, Louisiana, Nebraska, and Maine. He is also expected to win most of the primaries on Tuesday of this week, which will take place in Hawaii, the District of Columbia, Wisconsin, Maryland, and Virginia.
As expected, the scenario of an Obama sweep this weekend and a potential sweep on Tuesday has placed the Hillary Rodham Clinton campaign in damage control mode.
The New York Senator embarked on a major campaign shakeup over the weekend, resulting in her longtime campaign manager, Patti Solis Doyle, stepping down. Her replacement is longtime Clinton aide Maggie Williams.
With Obama poised to potentially win 9 primaries in a row, the Clinton campaign is desperately seeking a way to stop her mounting losses which, if they continue, will result in an Obama avalanche that cannot be thwarted.
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
Notes on Super Tuesday
Although John McCain received a major boost from his performance on Super Tuesday, the celebrations are a bit premature.
In spite of the fact that he won most of the larger states, including those states with the most delegate counts, McCain faces opposition from an unexpected rival--Mike Huckabee.
Huckabee did much better than expected, winning a number of southern states by a comfortable margin.
If this is truly a '2-man race,' it is clear that now it is between McCain and Huckabee rather than McCain and Romney.
Romney struggled, in spite of his favored status among the GOP's most conservative voters. The explanation can be laid directly at the feet of Huckabee, who showed that his strength among both white and black evangelical Christians is a force with which to contend.
California's prize of mega-delegates could be a silver lining in the dark cloud for Romney, who has been polling very well in the state. If he can win California, he can make a case for continuing in the race.
On the Democratic side it is clear that the Party is divided. Obama and Clinton each won a significant number of primaries and will probably wind up with a divided delegate count.
The suprise of the evening, however, is just how strong Obama proved to be on a day that was once proclaimed by Hillary to be the day she would sweep the lion's share of the primaries and win the nomination.
Hillary is still by no means out of this race, however. She has shown some surprising strength in areas tonight where she was expected to faulter.
One pundit stated that Hillary has begun to turn around her downward slide, and the moment that turn-around began was when husband Bill decided to keep his mouth shut.
It's a good thing he went mum when he did. Obama has shown some surprising strength of his own in areas where he had little support at first, such as white affluent suburbanites.
Perhaps Bill's use of the race card backfired.
But stay tuned. California is still out due to the time differential. Polls in the state will not close until 11 PM EST.
The state is up for grabs in both Parties, with both Obama and Romney in position to pull off an upset. We shall see.
In spite of the fact that he won most of the larger states, including those states with the most delegate counts, McCain faces opposition from an unexpected rival--Mike Huckabee.
Huckabee did much better than expected, winning a number of southern states by a comfortable margin.
If this is truly a '2-man race,' it is clear that now it is between McCain and Huckabee rather than McCain and Romney.
Romney struggled, in spite of his favored status among the GOP's most conservative voters. The explanation can be laid directly at the feet of Huckabee, who showed that his strength among both white and black evangelical Christians is a force with which to contend.
California's prize of mega-delegates could be a silver lining in the dark cloud for Romney, who has been polling very well in the state. If he can win California, he can make a case for continuing in the race.
On the Democratic side it is clear that the Party is divided. Obama and Clinton each won a significant number of primaries and will probably wind up with a divided delegate count.
The suprise of the evening, however, is just how strong Obama proved to be on a day that was once proclaimed by Hillary to be the day she would sweep the lion's share of the primaries and win the nomination.
Hillary is still by no means out of this race, however. She has shown some surprising strength in areas tonight where she was expected to faulter.
One pundit stated that Hillary has begun to turn around her downward slide, and the moment that turn-around began was when husband Bill decided to keep his mouth shut.
It's a good thing he went mum when he did. Obama has shown some surprising strength of his own in areas where he had little support at first, such as white affluent suburbanites.
Perhaps Bill's use of the race card backfired.
But stay tuned. California is still out due to the time differential. Polls in the state will not close until 11 PM EST.
The state is up for grabs in both Parties, with both Obama and Romney in position to pull off an upset. We shall see.
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Clinton Strategy a Major Failure
In the first major test of Hillary Clinton's strength in a major southern primary, one thing has become clear. The Clinton strategy is a major failure.
Not only did Hillary lose, but she lost big. Senator Barack Obama won in a major landslide with 55% of the vote. Hillary finished a distant 2nd with 27%. And South Carolina native son John Edwards came in 3rd with 18% of the vote.
Clinton had a 3-pronged strategy going into the South Carolina primary. First, unleash husband Bill as an attack dog on Barack Obama. Second, attack Obama relentlessly during the pre-primary debate. Third, use the race card to subtly link Obama with the Black vote in order to scare older white voters into supporting Hillary.
The intended result of this strategy was to send some of Obama's support from white voters over to Hillary.
It did not work. Not only did it not work but it may have backfired.
Obama received a respectable showing of white support in the South Carolina primary. When the totals are fully tallied we will see that Obama received roughly 30-35% of the white vote. Hillary received roughly 45% of this vote. And John Edwards received roughly 15-20% of the white vote.
This means that Obama is poised to do very well with white voters on Super Tuesday--a fact that looms ominously over the heads of the Clintons who expected Obama to be another Jessie Jackson whose appeal is limited almost exclusively to black voters.
In fact, Bill Clinton said as much during remarks following Hillary's concession to Obama in South Carolina. The former President stated that Obama has run a good campaign, 'just like Jessie Jackson did in South Carolina in 1984 and 1988.'
The problem is that Jackson was not running against a former First Lady and her husband, a former President of the United States. In addition, Jackson got almost NONE of the white vote in those years.
Rush Limbaugh and Dick Morris have postulated a theory that the Clintons wanted to lose South Carolina so they could say afterward that they fully expected Obama to win 'because of the large African-American vote in the state,' and thus scare white people into the Clinton camp.
If, in fact, the Clinton strategy was to lose, once again the plan backfired. They wanted her to lose but not by 30 percentage points, which puts her entire campaign in trouble.
Exit polls in S.C. show that voters were turned off by the Clintons' playing the race card and conducting a highly negative campaign. Thus, the entire Clinton campaign strategy must be re-evaluated just a little over two weeks away from Super Tuesday.
And they surely did not want Obama picking up the level of support he received from white voters.
Obama now has big momentum going into Super Tuesday, and the Clintons are wondering what went wrong.
Not only did Hillary lose, but she lost big. Senator Barack Obama won in a major landslide with 55% of the vote. Hillary finished a distant 2nd with 27%. And South Carolina native son John Edwards came in 3rd with 18% of the vote.
Clinton had a 3-pronged strategy going into the South Carolina primary. First, unleash husband Bill as an attack dog on Barack Obama. Second, attack Obama relentlessly during the pre-primary debate. Third, use the race card to subtly link Obama with the Black vote in order to scare older white voters into supporting Hillary.
The intended result of this strategy was to send some of Obama's support from white voters over to Hillary.
It did not work. Not only did it not work but it may have backfired.
Obama received a respectable showing of white support in the South Carolina primary. When the totals are fully tallied we will see that Obama received roughly 30-35% of the white vote. Hillary received roughly 45% of this vote. And John Edwards received roughly 15-20% of the white vote.
This means that Obama is poised to do very well with white voters on Super Tuesday--a fact that looms ominously over the heads of the Clintons who expected Obama to be another Jessie Jackson whose appeal is limited almost exclusively to black voters.
In fact, Bill Clinton said as much during remarks following Hillary's concession to Obama in South Carolina. The former President stated that Obama has run a good campaign, 'just like Jessie Jackson did in South Carolina in 1984 and 1988.'
The problem is that Jackson was not running against a former First Lady and her husband, a former President of the United States. In addition, Jackson got almost NONE of the white vote in those years.
Rush Limbaugh and Dick Morris have postulated a theory that the Clintons wanted to lose South Carolina so they could say afterward that they fully expected Obama to win 'because of the large African-American vote in the state,' and thus scare white people into the Clinton camp.
If, in fact, the Clinton strategy was to lose, once again the plan backfired. They wanted her to lose but not by 30 percentage points, which puts her entire campaign in trouble.
Exit polls in S.C. show that voters were turned off by the Clintons' playing the race card and conducting a highly negative campaign. Thus, the entire Clinton campaign strategy must be re-evaluated just a little over two weeks away from Super Tuesday.
And they surely did not want Obama picking up the level of support he received from white voters.
Obama now has big momentum going into Super Tuesday, and the Clintons are wondering what went wrong.
Sunday, January 20, 2008
What Now?
My belief that Fred Thompson would win South Carolina was more than just wishful thinking or baseless optimism. I actually believe that his views more closely reflect the views of the citizens in this state than any other candidate.
Yet for some reason or another, South Carolina Republicans decided to go with McCain, with Huckabee coming in a close 2nd.
The thing that makes this fact very puzzling to say the least is that John McCain is the very man who took a shellacking from GOP activists in the state for his support of amnesty for illegal aliens. Several GOP county delegations in the state were condemning Senator Lindsey Graham's support of the McCain plan to the extent that they suggested recalling the Senator and conducting another election.
A very telling poll tells the story. Those who voted for both McCain and Huckabee said they did so 'because they believed the candidate would do something about illegal aliens.'
Either these particular voters are showing their vast ignorance, or else both McCain and the Huckster hoodwinked South Carolina Republicans into believing they were strong on doing something about the immigration problem.
In actuality, Fred Thompson is the only one in the top three in S.C. who actually advocated for strong leadership on the issue long before McCain and Huckabee had a sudden 'change of heart.'
But, after all, the Huckster is a Baptist preacher. Nobody would expect him to lie. And McCain is a war hero. Everyone knows war heroes do no wrong.
Nonetheless the voters have made their choice and this is what we are facing.
The question becomes, what now? Do we fold up the tents and go home? Do we sit out election day? Do we consider a vote for a 3rd party candidate?
First of all, Fred is not out of it. I know that his advisers, including many of his supporters, are encouraging him to carry on until Super Tuesday. This would be my advice to the Senator as well.
Second, as for me, I think it is a big mistake to fold up the tents and go home or to sit out election day. It's not over until it's over, as Yogi would say. And, in the event of a brokered convention, Republicans could well turn to Fred Thompson to reunite the Party behind solid Reagan principles.
In addition, some have suggested that should McCain win the nomination, he could well ask Thompson to be his running mate to appeal to the GOP base and heal rifts within the Party. Thompson and McCain go back a long way in the Senate, and the two are good friends despite their policy differences.
Third, I will in no way, shape, form, or fashion vote for or advocate voting for a third party candidate, unless that person shows enough solid support in the electorate to win and not just be a spoiler for the Republican candidate.
So far I have not seen anyone, not even Ron Paul, who has that kind of support.
Thus, I will support the GOP candidate because, frankly, ANYBODY is better than Hillary, Obama, or Edwards. And that includes Giuliani, Romney, and McCain.
When it comes to beating outright Socialists who truly wish to rob citizens of liberties, including their gun rights, I truly do not care about some of Romney's less than admirable qualities as Governor of Massachusetts. He is for tax cuts, he is pro-business and pro-free enterprise, he supports smaller more efficient government.
Both Rudy and McCain share those views as well.
I can handle that any time, any day of the week over a European-styled Socialist who wants to give us socialized medicine which hangs like an Albatross around the necks of British citizens or who believe that government is the entity to cure all of society's ills.
Hillary, Obama, and Edwards each share these views which are absolutely deplorable and are a threat to our Republic.
With a Democratic-controlled Congress there will be nothing, absolutely nothing, stopping these tyrants from unleashing their voodoo magical cures on society by robbing the citizens of more of their hard-earned income.
At least with a Republican President there will be the all-important veto.
Finally, let's not forget Court appointments. Let's face it, my friends, with Hillary, Obama, or Edwards in the White House, along with a Democratic Congress, you can kiss goodbye getting Judges and Justices who believe in the Second Amendment as an individual right, Federalism, or any of the views propounded by the Founders of the Republic.
Someone needs to be sitting in the Oval Office who will stop the assault on individual liberties as perpetrated by the imbeciles who are now running Congress.
Think about these things long and hard, my friends. If you think that allowing a Democrat to be elected to the Oval Office while Democrats control Congress is a good thing for individual liberty and the Constitution, then I am afraid all of my appeals to good sense and reason will fall on deaf ears and blind eyes.
As Fred said in his speech in South Carolina Saturday night, 'Keep on fighting! Keep on fighting!'
Yet for some reason or another, South Carolina Republicans decided to go with McCain, with Huckabee coming in a close 2nd.
The thing that makes this fact very puzzling to say the least is that John McCain is the very man who took a shellacking from GOP activists in the state for his support of amnesty for illegal aliens. Several GOP county delegations in the state were condemning Senator Lindsey Graham's support of the McCain plan to the extent that they suggested recalling the Senator and conducting another election.
A very telling poll tells the story. Those who voted for both McCain and Huckabee said they did so 'because they believed the candidate would do something about illegal aliens.'
Either these particular voters are showing their vast ignorance, or else both McCain and the Huckster hoodwinked South Carolina Republicans into believing they were strong on doing something about the immigration problem.
In actuality, Fred Thompson is the only one in the top three in S.C. who actually advocated for strong leadership on the issue long before McCain and Huckabee had a sudden 'change of heart.'
But, after all, the Huckster is a Baptist preacher. Nobody would expect him to lie. And McCain is a war hero. Everyone knows war heroes do no wrong.
Nonetheless the voters have made their choice and this is what we are facing.
The question becomes, what now? Do we fold up the tents and go home? Do we sit out election day? Do we consider a vote for a 3rd party candidate?
First of all, Fred is not out of it. I know that his advisers, including many of his supporters, are encouraging him to carry on until Super Tuesday. This would be my advice to the Senator as well.
Second, as for me, I think it is a big mistake to fold up the tents and go home or to sit out election day. It's not over until it's over, as Yogi would say. And, in the event of a brokered convention, Republicans could well turn to Fred Thompson to reunite the Party behind solid Reagan principles.
In addition, some have suggested that should McCain win the nomination, he could well ask Thompson to be his running mate to appeal to the GOP base and heal rifts within the Party. Thompson and McCain go back a long way in the Senate, and the two are good friends despite their policy differences.
Third, I will in no way, shape, form, or fashion vote for or advocate voting for a third party candidate, unless that person shows enough solid support in the electorate to win and not just be a spoiler for the Republican candidate.
So far I have not seen anyone, not even Ron Paul, who has that kind of support.
Thus, I will support the GOP candidate because, frankly, ANYBODY is better than Hillary, Obama, or Edwards. And that includes Giuliani, Romney, and McCain.
When it comes to beating outright Socialists who truly wish to rob citizens of liberties, including their gun rights, I truly do not care about some of Romney's less than admirable qualities as Governor of Massachusetts. He is for tax cuts, he is pro-business and pro-free enterprise, he supports smaller more efficient government.
Both Rudy and McCain share those views as well.
I can handle that any time, any day of the week over a European-styled Socialist who wants to give us socialized medicine which hangs like an Albatross around the necks of British citizens or who believe that government is the entity to cure all of society's ills.
Hillary, Obama, and Edwards each share these views which are absolutely deplorable and are a threat to our Republic.
With a Democratic-controlled Congress there will be nothing, absolutely nothing, stopping these tyrants from unleashing their voodoo magical cures on society by robbing the citizens of more of their hard-earned income.
At least with a Republican President there will be the all-important veto.
Finally, let's not forget Court appointments. Let's face it, my friends, with Hillary, Obama, or Edwards in the White House, along with a Democratic Congress, you can kiss goodbye getting Judges and Justices who believe in the Second Amendment as an individual right, Federalism, or any of the views propounded by the Founders of the Republic.
Someone needs to be sitting in the Oval Office who will stop the assault on individual liberties as perpetrated by the imbeciles who are now running Congress.
Think about these things long and hard, my friends. If you think that allowing a Democrat to be elected to the Oval Office while Democrats control Congress is a good thing for individual liberty and the Constitution, then I am afraid all of my appeals to good sense and reason will fall on deaf ears and blind eyes.
As Fred said in his speech in South Carolina Saturday night, 'Keep on fighting! Keep on fighting!'
Thursday, January 10, 2008
RICHARDSON OUT; ROMNEY PULLS ADS
Big news is coming out of the world of politics today as one of the Democratic candidates has withdrawn from the race and a Republican has pulled his ads in two key states.
The Associated Press is reporting that Democratic Presidential hopeful Bill Richardson is pulling out of the race for his Party's Presidential nomination.
Richardson has struggled to reach double-digit support in the polls, and his showing in the primaries and caucuses so far has been dismal.
We feel that Richardson is making the right decision. We have not attempted to hide our dislike for Richardson, who, with the exception of his views on gun rights, is a big government Socialist like Hillary and Obama.
The other big news comes out of South Carolina as the Mitt Romney campaign announced that it is pulling its ads immediately from both South Carolina and Florida. The significance of this news cannot be over-emphasized.
Romney has managed only one win and two second-place finishes so far. Increasingly it appears that he will not do well in South Carolina, where John McCain, Mike Huckabee, and Fred Thompson are expected to duke it out for the top spots in the primary vote.
In Florida Romney faces a rather large Giuliani voter-base. Mike Huckabee is also expected to do well in the Florida primary.
Thus, the Romney campaign has decided to focus its efforts on Michigan, where the candidate has a good chance of winning. Romney's father, George Romney, was Governor of Michigan in the 60s. The elder Romney even briefly challenged Richard Nixon for the Republican Presidential nomination in 1968.
It is clear, however, that Romney is facing a major problem beneath the surface and beneath all of the headlines. In spite of the megabucks of his own money Romney has spent, he has very little to show for it so far, and the signs indicate it will only get worse.
Giuliani will do well on Super Tuesday. John McCain will do much better than expected. So will Mike Huckabee. And, depending on what happens in South Carolina, Thompson may become a major player on Super Tuesday as well.
In short, Romney is gradually being overshadowed by other candidates.
The fact that he has pulled his ads out of South Carolina and Florida is a clear indication that he has conceded those states as losses.
The Associated Press is reporting that Democratic Presidential hopeful Bill Richardson is pulling out of the race for his Party's Presidential nomination.
Richardson has struggled to reach double-digit support in the polls, and his showing in the primaries and caucuses so far has been dismal.
We feel that Richardson is making the right decision. We have not attempted to hide our dislike for Richardson, who, with the exception of his views on gun rights, is a big government Socialist like Hillary and Obama.
The other big news comes out of South Carolina as the Mitt Romney campaign announced that it is pulling its ads immediately from both South Carolina and Florida. The significance of this news cannot be over-emphasized.
Romney has managed only one win and two second-place finishes so far. Increasingly it appears that he will not do well in South Carolina, where John McCain, Mike Huckabee, and Fred Thompson are expected to duke it out for the top spots in the primary vote.
In Florida Romney faces a rather large Giuliani voter-base. Mike Huckabee is also expected to do well in the Florida primary.
Thus, the Romney campaign has decided to focus its efforts on Michigan, where the candidate has a good chance of winning. Romney's father, George Romney, was Governor of Michigan in the 60s. The elder Romney even briefly challenged Richard Nixon for the Republican Presidential nomination in 1968.
It is clear, however, that Romney is facing a major problem beneath the surface and beneath all of the headlines. In spite of the megabucks of his own money Romney has spent, he has very little to show for it so far, and the signs indicate it will only get worse.
Giuliani will do well on Super Tuesday. John McCain will do much better than expected. So will Mike Huckabee. And, depending on what happens in South Carolina, Thompson may become a major player on Super Tuesday as well.
In short, Romney is gradually being overshadowed by other candidates.
The fact that he has pulled his ads out of South Carolina and Florida is a clear indication that he has conceded those states as losses.
Friday, January 04, 2008
Instant Analysis: The Iowa Caucuses
With over 99% of the Democratic vote counted and with nearly 90% of the Republican vote tallied, the Iowa Caucuses have once again shown us the independence and grit of Iowa voters.
Defying all predictions (except for the last minute prognostications late last night), Iowans have picked Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee as their preferred standard-bearers for the Democrats and the Republicans.
Although the Iowa Caucuses are very strategic in American politics due to their uniqueness and thoroughly grassroots process, the system does have its weaknesses. That weakness shows itself in the winners.
Only the most activist of voters participate in the Iowa Caucuses, which require a commitment of time and energy. On the Democratic side this means that Leftist activists by and large choose the preferred candidate. On the Republican side this means that rightwing evangelicals carry the most weight in picking their preferred candidate.
Thus, Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee emerge as winners.
While America needs the unique grassroots process as epitomized by the Iowa Caucuses, their importance in influencing who will eventually be the Parties' nominees is highly questionable. So many candidates have won Iowa only to go on to defeat.
It is highly unlikely that Mike Huckabee will be elected President of the United States. And this is why Republicans will eventually reject him.
The same can be said for Barack Obama. He is a first-term U.S. Senator who has ZERO experience in so many areas that are vital to America's well-being. This is particularly true with regard to foreign policy and terrorism.
In fact, neither Huckabee nor Obama have the necessary experience to deal with situations such as Pakistan.
Obama may well win in New Hampshire and Michigan. But by the time the Florida primary rolls around we can expect Democratic voters to have settled down from their 'star-worship' and consider the cold, hard facts that in a dangerous world such as ours it is sheer folly to select a novice as your Party's nominee.
As for Huckabee, voters in New Hampshire already know the folly of choosing a novice. He will not do well in N.H., neither will he gain much traction in Michigan. Huckabee's best hope is to make a good showing in South Carolina, which is still very much in flux.
Both Obama and Huckabee have made 'change' the rallying cry of their respective campaigns. When disgruntled voters throw a tantrum, they usually turn to such candidates, even if they possess very little knowledge or experience in the area of world politics.
But Iowa is different--always has been. The entire electorate nationwide is not quite ready to throw a tantrum, at least not to the degree that they are willing to throw all rationality out the window. For this reason we can look for McCain to win New Hampshire.
It will take the Democrats a bit longer to come to their senses. We predict they will have done so by the time the Florida primary rolls around.
Defying all predictions (except for the last minute prognostications late last night), Iowans have picked Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee as their preferred standard-bearers for the Democrats and the Republicans.
Although the Iowa Caucuses are very strategic in American politics due to their uniqueness and thoroughly grassroots process, the system does have its weaknesses. That weakness shows itself in the winners.
Only the most activist of voters participate in the Iowa Caucuses, which require a commitment of time and energy. On the Democratic side this means that Leftist activists by and large choose the preferred candidate. On the Republican side this means that rightwing evangelicals carry the most weight in picking their preferred candidate.
Thus, Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee emerge as winners.
While America needs the unique grassroots process as epitomized by the Iowa Caucuses, their importance in influencing who will eventually be the Parties' nominees is highly questionable. So many candidates have won Iowa only to go on to defeat.
It is highly unlikely that Mike Huckabee will be elected President of the United States. And this is why Republicans will eventually reject him.
The same can be said for Barack Obama. He is a first-term U.S. Senator who has ZERO experience in so many areas that are vital to America's well-being. This is particularly true with regard to foreign policy and terrorism.
In fact, neither Huckabee nor Obama have the necessary experience to deal with situations such as Pakistan.
Obama may well win in New Hampshire and Michigan. But by the time the Florida primary rolls around we can expect Democratic voters to have settled down from their 'star-worship' and consider the cold, hard facts that in a dangerous world such as ours it is sheer folly to select a novice as your Party's nominee.
As for Huckabee, voters in New Hampshire already know the folly of choosing a novice. He will not do well in N.H., neither will he gain much traction in Michigan. Huckabee's best hope is to make a good showing in South Carolina, which is still very much in flux.
Both Obama and Huckabee have made 'change' the rallying cry of their respective campaigns. When disgruntled voters throw a tantrum, they usually turn to such candidates, even if they possess very little knowledge or experience in the area of world politics.
But Iowa is different--always has been. The entire electorate nationwide is not quite ready to throw a tantrum, at least not to the degree that they are willing to throw all rationality out the window. For this reason we can look for McCain to win New Hampshire.
It will take the Democrats a bit longer to come to their senses. We predict they will have done so by the time the Florida primary rolls around.
Thursday, January 03, 2008
Ready To Rumble: Iowa Caucuses Today
Alright, alright, alright. We're ready to rumble. The Iowa Caucuses are today, kicking off the 2008 Presidential race in earnest.
For us here at The Liberty Sphere, this is our area of expertise, our forte. And we are already excited about the drama of this race in both Parties.
First of all, our sources in Iowa tell us that we can safely throw out the window all we think we know concerning the polling numbers in both Parties. A trusted veteran GOP operative in Iowa tells us that never in the history of the Caucuses has a race been as wide-open as this one.
Never in his memory has a race been so tight, and this includes the Republicans as well as Democrats.
Within the GOP there are now four candidates that are within easy striking distance of first place: Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, John McCain, and Fred Thompson.
On the Democratic side the race fluctuates between three top candidates: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards.
In addition, the thing for which Iowans are known when it comes to politics--changing their minds and deciding on a candidate at the last minute--is even more a factor this year than any before. A significant number of primary voters in the state say that they could easily change their minds. Some citizens even state that they have already changed their minds after they declared support for a candidate in the various polls that have been conducted in the last few days.
The process is expected to go on well into the night, particularly for the Democrats whose procedure is more complicated than the Republicans.' The Republican procedure is a straight straw poll. The Democrats, however, wheel and deal, negotiate, and vote at least twice before a winner is decided.
Nowhere in the country is the political process any more grassroots than in Iowa. Iowans commit much more than just a vote at their caucuses. They commit a significant amount of time to come out to the polling places to engage the candidates and their supporters.
This is the reason the Iowa Caucuses are considered to be so vitally important. This is the American heartland. This is the grassroots in the heartland. This is as close to the average voter as it gets.
And this is why Iowa will always be central to the American political process--as long as they keep their system close to the people.
So, my friends, it's time to rock and roll.
For us here at The Liberty Sphere, this is our area of expertise, our forte. And we are already excited about the drama of this race in both Parties.
First of all, our sources in Iowa tell us that we can safely throw out the window all we think we know concerning the polling numbers in both Parties. A trusted veteran GOP operative in Iowa tells us that never in the history of the Caucuses has a race been as wide-open as this one.
Never in his memory has a race been so tight, and this includes the Republicans as well as Democrats.
Within the GOP there are now four candidates that are within easy striking distance of first place: Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, John McCain, and Fred Thompson.
On the Democratic side the race fluctuates between three top candidates: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards.
In addition, the thing for which Iowans are known when it comes to politics--changing their minds and deciding on a candidate at the last minute--is even more a factor this year than any before. A significant number of primary voters in the state say that they could easily change their minds. Some citizens even state that they have already changed their minds after they declared support for a candidate in the various polls that have been conducted in the last few days.
The process is expected to go on well into the night, particularly for the Democrats whose procedure is more complicated than the Republicans.' The Republican procedure is a straight straw poll. The Democrats, however, wheel and deal, negotiate, and vote at least twice before a winner is decided.
Nowhere in the country is the political process any more grassroots than in Iowa. Iowans commit much more than just a vote at their caucuses. They commit a significant amount of time to come out to the polling places to engage the candidates and their supporters.
This is the reason the Iowa Caucuses are considered to be so vitally important. This is the American heartland. This is the grassroots in the heartland. This is as close to the average voter as it gets.
And this is why Iowa will always be central to the American political process--as long as they keep their system close to the people.
So, my friends, it's time to rock and roll.
Saturday, December 22, 2007
Did You Notice in the Ratings of Candidates....
In The Liberty Sphere's final ratings of both Republican and Democratic candidates for President, did you notice that no Democrat rated above a 4 on the 1-10 scale?
And did you notice that no Republican rated below a 6 on that same scale?
This means, of course, that on the 8 key issues impacting human liberty, ANY of the Republicans are to be preferred over ANY of the Democrats.
And yes, my friends, this means that Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Mitt Romney, and even Mike Huckabee rate much higher on the issues impacting freedom than ANY of the Democratic candidates.
Rudy, Mitt, and Mike have their problems, no doubt--problems that cause us concern. But those difficulties pale in comparison to the baggage carried by the Hildabeast, Obama, Edwards, or any of the other Socialists seeking the Democratic nomination.
Not that I expect all of you to agree, but still, when you look at the basic facts and the record, any of the GOP candidates can be counted on to attempt to preserve human liberty while ALL of the Democrats promote issues that squelch that liberty.
And did you notice that no Republican rated below a 6 on that same scale?
This means, of course, that on the 8 key issues impacting human liberty, ANY of the Republicans are to be preferred over ANY of the Democrats.
And yes, my friends, this means that Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Mitt Romney, and even Mike Huckabee rate much higher on the issues impacting freedom than ANY of the Democratic candidates.
Rudy, Mitt, and Mike have their problems, no doubt--problems that cause us concern. But those difficulties pale in comparison to the baggage carried by the Hildabeast, Obama, Edwards, or any of the other Socialists seeking the Democratic nomination.
Not that I expect all of you to agree, but still, when you look at the basic facts and the record, any of the GOP candidates can be counted on to attempt to preserve human liberty while ALL of the Democrats promote issues that squelch that liberty.
Monday, November 19, 2007
If We Have Right to Privacy As the Dems Say...
Without exception, each of the Democrats who are contending for their Party's Presidential nomination stated during Thursday night's debate that they believe the U.S. Constitution affirms and protects the citizens' 'right to privacy.'
The term 'right to privacy' has become code language for those who support abortion rights. That is most unfortunate. This implies that those who are pro-life see no right to privacy in the Constitution.
Such thinking is exceedingly flawed.
For example, personally I am pro-life. I do not believe that a living human being growing inside of a woman's body is just 'another part of her body' like an appendage. While the life growing inside her is connected to her body, that life itself is separate with its own genes and chromosomes.
I do not believe that it is right to tamper with that life unless there is an overriding medical reason for doing so.
This medical reason would be determined by the woman's physician. And in that regard there is a right to privacy, due to the fact that medical information is considered private and protected by law.
Thus, if the woman in question decides to have an abortion upon the advice of her physician, it is really none of my business. Medical records are private, and as each of the Democratic candidates stated, we all have the 'right to privacy.'
Alrighty then. Let's see just how far these legal scholars are willing to go with their supposed affirmation of the Constitutional 'right to privacy,' shall we?
If it is none of my business nor the government's as to whether or not the young woman living beside me decides to have an abortion due to medical reasons, which are considered a matter of privacy, although I happen to believe that such an act may be unethical, immoral, and displaying a shocking lack of regard for the sacredness of human life, then why is it any of government's business when and where or how often I buy a gun?
The right to privacy in the Constitution protects a woman's right to end a human life but does not protect MY right to privacy when it comes to the Second Amendment, which is explicitly affirmed as an inherent right.
It is actually much easier in this country to end a baby's life than it is to buy a gun.
When I go to the gun shop to purchase a handgun or a long gun, I am required to fill out paperwork, complete with my name, address, phone number, driver's license number, and Social Security Number, and in some states I have to wait a week to 14 days before I can take possession of the firearm.
How long will it be before I have to drop 'em, bend over, and grab 'em so that they can examine my lower colon with a proctoscope before I can purchase a firearm?
Further, the right to privacy doesn't seem to bother the Dems in the least when it comes to airline safeguards, national databases, national I.D. cards, cameras on street corners, eye-I.D., and the like.
Our privacy has been flying out the window faster than a bat out of hell over the last ten years or so, under both Democratic AND Republican politicians in the Congress and White House.
Yet the Dems claim we have a Constitutional right to privacy.
Apparently, that claim only pertains to abortion rights. I am waiting for one of them to correctly extend that right to the Second Amendment and other privacy violations as well.
I won't be holding my breath...
The term 'right to privacy' has become code language for those who support abortion rights. That is most unfortunate. This implies that those who are pro-life see no right to privacy in the Constitution.
Such thinking is exceedingly flawed.
For example, personally I am pro-life. I do not believe that a living human being growing inside of a woman's body is just 'another part of her body' like an appendage. While the life growing inside her is connected to her body, that life itself is separate with its own genes and chromosomes.
I do not believe that it is right to tamper with that life unless there is an overriding medical reason for doing so.
This medical reason would be determined by the woman's physician. And in that regard there is a right to privacy, due to the fact that medical information is considered private and protected by law.
Thus, if the woman in question decides to have an abortion upon the advice of her physician, it is really none of my business. Medical records are private, and as each of the Democratic candidates stated, we all have the 'right to privacy.'
Alrighty then. Let's see just how far these legal scholars are willing to go with their supposed affirmation of the Constitutional 'right to privacy,' shall we?
If it is none of my business nor the government's as to whether or not the young woman living beside me decides to have an abortion due to medical reasons, which are considered a matter of privacy, although I happen to believe that such an act may be unethical, immoral, and displaying a shocking lack of regard for the sacredness of human life, then why is it any of government's business when and where or how often I buy a gun?
The right to privacy in the Constitution protects a woman's right to end a human life but does not protect MY right to privacy when it comes to the Second Amendment, which is explicitly affirmed as an inherent right.
It is actually much easier in this country to end a baby's life than it is to buy a gun.
When I go to the gun shop to purchase a handgun or a long gun, I am required to fill out paperwork, complete with my name, address, phone number, driver's license number, and Social Security Number, and in some states I have to wait a week to 14 days before I can take possession of the firearm.
How long will it be before I have to drop 'em, bend over, and grab 'em so that they can examine my lower colon with a proctoscope before I can purchase a firearm?
Further, the right to privacy doesn't seem to bother the Dems in the least when it comes to airline safeguards, national databases, national I.D. cards, cameras on street corners, eye-I.D., and the like.
Our privacy has been flying out the window faster than a bat out of hell over the last ten years or so, under both Democratic AND Republican politicians in the Congress and White House.
Yet the Dems claim we have a Constitutional right to privacy.
Apparently, that claim only pertains to abortion rights. I am waiting for one of them to correctly extend that right to the Second Amendment and other privacy violations as well.
I won't be holding my breath...
Friday, November 16, 2007
A Few Comments on the Democratic Debate, 11/15
The Democratic candidates debated in Las Vegas Thursday evening before a highly partisan crowd, despite Wolf Blitzer's assertion that they were 'undecided voters.' These 'undecided' voters were all Bush-bashers and overtly anti-Republican.
It was obvious in their responses to the answers by the candidates and in the questions they posed to the them.
The CNN production was fairly poor. The Democrats were introduced to the stage individually, to great applause, much as baseball players in the World Series are individually introduced to the ball field to take their place standing along the first and third baselines.
The display was positively tacky.
In response to suggestions that CNN and its moderators had been 'warned' by the Clinton campaign to go easy on the candidate, Wolf and his pack wasted no time in attempting to appear bold in the face of the threat.
They went directly after Mrs. Clinton on the flip-flopping.
The ensuing scuffle between Mrs. Clinton, Edwards, and Obama was the stuff of dramatic TV--a mild form of Jerry Springer. Mrs. Clinton responded by saying that the words of Edwards in particular were 'mud-slinging.'
Clearly they were not.
Edwards merely held up for public viewing the statements of Mrs. Clinton, particularly on her many contradictions, often within the same sentence.
Once the three finished with their tangle, the debate continued on a variety of issues, most of which showed that each one of the Democratic candidates are avowed Socialists, and big tax-and-spend liberals who believe government is the best and final solution to all problems.
The following is a run-down of my impressions of each candidate, based upon the Thursday night debate.
Mrs. Clinton--definitely a flip-flopper, contradictory, subject to change with the wind, a big government Socialist who is trying very hard to run from her votes in the Senate in support of the Iraq War, funding for the Iraq War, open borders, amnesty for illegal aliens, free health care and tuition credits for illegal aliens, driver's licenses for illegal aliens (despite her claim during the debate that she is opposed to it...I suppose it is one of those infamous Kerry-inspired cases of 'I was for it before I was against it'), and GOVERNMENT MANDATED healthcare for everyone in America.
B. Hussein Obama--a clown. He once taught law. This is one of the things that's wrong with America. He stated that it is the duty of the Federal Courts to equalize and protect minorities. No, Sir. The ONLY constitutional duty of the Court is to interpret and uphold the Constitution no matter what other considerations may exist.
Billy Richardson--too dumb to be President. He didn't even know that the Presidential oath of office specifically states that the utmost duty of the President is to uphold and defend the Constitution and to protect it against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Richardson stated that 'human rights' are more important than defending the country's security and upholding the Constitution. What an imbecile.
John Edwards--the Breck girl. Pretty boy, in spite of the fact that he is a lawyer, pays scant attention to the Bill of Rights. He is the one who said that having Internet access, becoming a U.S. citizen, being guaranteed an education, etc, are the most important rights in this country. Never once did he mention the rights delineated in the Bill of Rights. He is also a Socialist who believes government can solve everything, but he gets a few points for holding Mrs. Clinton to some accountability.
Joe Biden--a likable, skillful politician. Too bad he is so liberal. He is masterful in his knowledge of foreign policy issues, but again, his stance is for Socialistic solutions to problems, although not as hardened as Clinton, Obama, or Edwards.
Chris Dodd--DUH!? What a complete and utter waste of time.
Dennis Kucinich--nutty as a fruitcake, crazy as a loon, a neo-Commie to the core, but at least he is consistent and does not try to soften or hide his basic philosophy, unlike Clinton.
With each passing Democratic debate, I become even more convinced that the election of any of these individuals to the Presidency bodes ill for the country.
It was obvious in their responses to the answers by the candidates and in the questions they posed to the them.
The CNN production was fairly poor. The Democrats were introduced to the stage individually, to great applause, much as baseball players in the World Series are individually introduced to the ball field to take their place standing along the first and third baselines.
The display was positively tacky.
In response to suggestions that CNN and its moderators had been 'warned' by the Clinton campaign to go easy on the candidate, Wolf and his pack wasted no time in attempting to appear bold in the face of the threat.
They went directly after Mrs. Clinton on the flip-flopping.
The ensuing scuffle between Mrs. Clinton, Edwards, and Obama was the stuff of dramatic TV--a mild form of Jerry Springer. Mrs. Clinton responded by saying that the words of Edwards in particular were 'mud-slinging.'
Clearly they were not.
Edwards merely held up for public viewing the statements of Mrs. Clinton, particularly on her many contradictions, often within the same sentence.
Once the three finished with their tangle, the debate continued on a variety of issues, most of which showed that each one of the Democratic candidates are avowed Socialists, and big tax-and-spend liberals who believe government is the best and final solution to all problems.
The following is a run-down of my impressions of each candidate, based upon the Thursday night debate.
Mrs. Clinton--definitely a flip-flopper, contradictory, subject to change with the wind, a big government Socialist who is trying very hard to run from her votes in the Senate in support of the Iraq War, funding for the Iraq War, open borders, amnesty for illegal aliens, free health care and tuition credits for illegal aliens, driver's licenses for illegal aliens (despite her claim during the debate that she is opposed to it...I suppose it is one of those infamous Kerry-inspired cases of 'I was for it before I was against it'), and GOVERNMENT MANDATED healthcare for everyone in America.
B. Hussein Obama--a clown. He once taught law. This is one of the things that's wrong with America. He stated that it is the duty of the Federal Courts to equalize and protect minorities. No, Sir. The ONLY constitutional duty of the Court is to interpret and uphold the Constitution no matter what other considerations may exist.
Billy Richardson--too dumb to be President. He didn't even know that the Presidential oath of office specifically states that the utmost duty of the President is to uphold and defend the Constitution and to protect it against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Richardson stated that 'human rights' are more important than defending the country's security and upholding the Constitution. What an imbecile.
John Edwards--the Breck girl. Pretty boy, in spite of the fact that he is a lawyer, pays scant attention to the Bill of Rights. He is the one who said that having Internet access, becoming a U.S. citizen, being guaranteed an education, etc, are the most important rights in this country. Never once did he mention the rights delineated in the Bill of Rights. He is also a Socialist who believes government can solve everything, but he gets a few points for holding Mrs. Clinton to some accountability.
Joe Biden--a likable, skillful politician. Too bad he is so liberal. He is masterful in his knowledge of foreign policy issues, but again, his stance is for Socialistic solutions to problems, although not as hardened as Clinton, Obama, or Edwards.
Chris Dodd--DUH!? What a complete and utter waste of time.
Dennis Kucinich--nutty as a fruitcake, crazy as a loon, a neo-Commie to the core, but at least he is consistent and does not try to soften or hide his basic philosophy, unlike Clinton.
With each passing Democratic debate, I become even more convinced that the election of any of these individuals to the Presidency bodes ill for the country.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Mounting Woes for Mrs. Clinton--Bill's Wife
Mrs. Clinton--Bill's wife--is losing her personal identity. She is sending husband Bill out to defend her debacle on healthcare in 1993, stating that it was 'my fault and not hers' for the failure, despite the fact that Mrs. Clinton has been going around the country bragging about her 'work on national healthcare.'
Not only that, but Mrs. Clinton--Bill's wife--has been caught red-handed planting questioners during her supposed 'impromptu' question-and-answer sessions during her townhall meetings around the country.
One female college student in particular has described the trick in detail, stating that a Mrs. Clinton operative approached her about asking the candidate a question. When the student stated what she wanted to ask, the operative disapproved and presented her with a list of possible 'acceptable questions,' several specifically set up for college students to ask.
In short, Hillary is only getting questions she wants to answer, as we have seen with countless newspapers, radio programs, and now, with her threatening Wolf Blitzer and CNN over the upcoming Democratic debate on Thursday night.
Clearly Mrs. Clinton--Bill's wife--has trouble answering the tough questions as she demonstrated in the last Democratic debate when Tim Russert pressed her on drivers' licenses for illegal aliens and several other issues on which the candidate has waffled.
This woman has at least a 50-50 chance of becoming the next President of the most powerful nation on earth, and she has trouble handling tough questions?
As President, would she, for example, present the ominous Vladmir Putin a list of only 'acceptable' topics for conversation? Would she send Bill out to run interference with Hugo Chavez? How would she deal with the Iranian President and his tough-guy and dangerous rhetoric?
And she thinks Tim Russert and the 'boys' (her Democratic rivals) are 'ganging up on her'?
A world leader she is not.
In addition, several new polls released in the past 24 hours, two of which are by Zogby and Rasmussen, show that only 25% of respondents say they believe Hillary has been 'ganged up on' and treated unfairly by her Democratic rivals and Tim Russert, despite the whines of Mrs. Clinton and husband Bill.
These are only the least of her worries, however.
Since the last Democratic debate her lead over Barack Obama has been cut in half. She is in a statistical dead-heat with Obama in Iowa, and her lead over him in New Hampshire has been in a free fall.
And then there are the scandals that hang over her head like the Sword of Damocles.
Do these mounting woes indicate that Mrs. Clinton--Bill's wife--may be denied the Democratic nomination? Absolutely not. Her nomination is practically a foregone conclusion.
But she will most definitely be a scarred and greatly weakened candidate.
Not only that, but Mrs. Clinton--Bill's wife--has been caught red-handed planting questioners during her supposed 'impromptu' question-and-answer sessions during her townhall meetings around the country.
One female college student in particular has described the trick in detail, stating that a Mrs. Clinton operative approached her about asking the candidate a question. When the student stated what she wanted to ask, the operative disapproved and presented her with a list of possible 'acceptable questions,' several specifically set up for college students to ask.
In short, Hillary is only getting questions she wants to answer, as we have seen with countless newspapers, radio programs, and now, with her threatening Wolf Blitzer and CNN over the upcoming Democratic debate on Thursday night.
Clearly Mrs. Clinton--Bill's wife--has trouble answering the tough questions as she demonstrated in the last Democratic debate when Tim Russert pressed her on drivers' licenses for illegal aliens and several other issues on which the candidate has waffled.
This woman has at least a 50-50 chance of becoming the next President of the most powerful nation on earth, and she has trouble handling tough questions?
As President, would she, for example, present the ominous Vladmir Putin a list of only 'acceptable' topics for conversation? Would she send Bill out to run interference with Hugo Chavez? How would she deal with the Iranian President and his tough-guy and dangerous rhetoric?
And she thinks Tim Russert and the 'boys' (her Democratic rivals) are 'ganging up on her'?
A world leader she is not.
In addition, several new polls released in the past 24 hours, two of which are by Zogby and Rasmussen, show that only 25% of respondents say they believe Hillary has been 'ganged up on' and treated unfairly by her Democratic rivals and Tim Russert, despite the whines of Mrs. Clinton and husband Bill.
These are only the least of her worries, however.
Since the last Democratic debate her lead over Barack Obama has been cut in half. She is in a statistical dead-heat with Obama in Iowa, and her lead over him in New Hampshire has been in a free fall.
And then there are the scandals that hang over her head like the Sword of Damocles.
Do these mounting woes indicate that Mrs. Clinton--Bill's wife--may be denied the Democratic nomination? Absolutely not. Her nomination is practically a foregone conclusion.
But she will most definitely be a scarred and greatly weakened candidate.
Thursday, November 01, 2007
Democrats Begin to Question Hillary Candidacy
It is always painful to watch a candidate for public office attempt to appear to be unflappable while in the midst of being made highly uncomfortable. To most observers Hillary Clinton was feeling the heat in last night's Democratic debate although she attempted to appear unfazed.
Hillary took the heat from several different sources on several different issues, not the least of which was moderator Tim Russert, who hammered the candidate with questions about pertinent material that she and her husband ordered sealed until the year 2012.
The answer that Hillary attempted to slip by Russert, her rivals, and observers, was that the matter was 'out of her hands.'
No, Ma'am. The matter is entirely in your hands since it was you and your husband who ordered the documents sealed until 2012 to begin with.
In addition, Clinton took the heat from her Democratic Party rivals who are seizing upon her votes to give President Bush the authority to use the military against Iraq and Iran back in 2002.
Their castigations against Hillary seem rather disingenuous, given that a majority of Democrats voted with Republicans to allow the President to act with the power of the U.S. military.
A historical perspective is key here. Democrats were practically in 100% complete agreement that Saddam was a direct threat to the U.S. as long as one of their own, Bill Clinton, was in office. But once he was gone, suddenly it became politically expedient to appear to be 'against the war,' although most of them voted for it.
In this case, Hillary was right in voting for it. Early in the Bush administration the facts of the dangers of Iraq, Iran, and Syria were still fresh in her mind from her husband's administration. The thing she should be castigated about is her attempt to distance herself from her vote.
Her penchant for flip-flopping on a variety of issues is becoming all the clearer.
As one political pundit observed after the debate, once a candidate is labeled as a flip-flopper, their candidacy is in deep trouble.
Hillary's problems are compounded by the fact that not only has she flip-flopped on a variety of issues over a period of months and years, but she did so during Tuesday night's debate in answering one single question.
As B. Hussein Obama observed after Hillary had answered that question, 'I can't tell what her answer is...it seems she gave two opposite answers to the same question.'
Clearly the Democrats are getting nervous about Hillary the closer we get to the actual campaign of 2008. Her negatives in the polls are high, 50% of American women state that they would not vote for her in ANY circumstance, and scandal continues to loom heavily over her campaign.
But who would assume the role of front-runner? All of the rest of the Democratic candidates are a joke and so far outside the mainstream of America that they are actually frightening. This includes Billy Richardson, who was a crony of Bill Clinton and whose political ideology is nearly the same as the Clintons.
Further, the hero of many extremists, Algore, is no savior waiting in the wings. Increasingly he is viewed as a clown who can't even get his facts straight on climatology.
Hillary took the heat from several different sources on several different issues, not the least of which was moderator Tim Russert, who hammered the candidate with questions about pertinent material that she and her husband ordered sealed until the year 2012.
The answer that Hillary attempted to slip by Russert, her rivals, and observers, was that the matter was 'out of her hands.'
No, Ma'am. The matter is entirely in your hands since it was you and your husband who ordered the documents sealed until 2012 to begin with.
In addition, Clinton took the heat from her Democratic Party rivals who are seizing upon her votes to give President Bush the authority to use the military against Iraq and Iran back in 2002.
Their castigations against Hillary seem rather disingenuous, given that a majority of Democrats voted with Republicans to allow the President to act with the power of the U.S. military.
A historical perspective is key here. Democrats were practically in 100% complete agreement that Saddam was a direct threat to the U.S. as long as one of their own, Bill Clinton, was in office. But once he was gone, suddenly it became politically expedient to appear to be 'against the war,' although most of them voted for it.
In this case, Hillary was right in voting for it. Early in the Bush administration the facts of the dangers of Iraq, Iran, and Syria were still fresh in her mind from her husband's administration. The thing she should be castigated about is her attempt to distance herself from her vote.
Her penchant for flip-flopping on a variety of issues is becoming all the clearer.
As one political pundit observed after the debate, once a candidate is labeled as a flip-flopper, their candidacy is in deep trouble.
Hillary's problems are compounded by the fact that not only has she flip-flopped on a variety of issues over a period of months and years, but she did so during Tuesday night's debate in answering one single question.
As B. Hussein Obama observed after Hillary had answered that question, 'I can't tell what her answer is...it seems she gave two opposite answers to the same question.'
Clearly the Democrats are getting nervous about Hillary the closer we get to the actual campaign of 2008. Her negatives in the polls are high, 50% of American women state that they would not vote for her in ANY circumstance, and scandal continues to loom heavily over her campaign.
But who would assume the role of front-runner? All of the rest of the Democratic candidates are a joke and so far outside the mainstream of America that they are actually frightening. This includes Billy Richardson, who was a crony of Bill Clinton and whose political ideology is nearly the same as the Clintons.
Further, the hero of many extremists, Algore, is no savior waiting in the wings. Increasingly he is viewed as a clown who can't even get his facts straight on climatology.
Saturday, October 06, 2007
Symbols Mean Something, Senator
Senator Barack Obama took off his American flag lapel pin.
Stating that from now on he will speak about the meaning of the flag rather than wear it, the Democratic Presidential hopeful has obviously failed to grasp the importance of symbols, particularly on the part of one who would be President. Wearing the flag, it would seem, would present even MORE opportunities to explain what the flag means than taking it off.
In fact, the candidate symbolically declared today why he is unfit to be President in one simple symbolic act.
Men who would be President of our country do not shun symbols of our flag but embrace them.
What does this act say, for example, to Kim Jong Ill, or Fidel Castro and the oppressed who live under Cuban Communism, or to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? A would-be President of the United States expresses disdain for wearing the symbol of his country? No doubt the act gives rise to the notion on the part of the tyrants of the world that Obama is ashamed of America's symbol.
There is but one reasonable explanation for Obama's actions. He feels it is much more important to appease the extremists who have seized control of the Democratic Party than to express allegiance to his country. He would rather please anti-war activists who have spit on the flag and burned it, referred to our troops in Iraq as murderers, and who have denigrated our military in general by referring to one of its top commanders, General Petraeus, as a traitor, than to overtly and proudly display the world's number one symbol of freedom.
George Soros, Moveon.org, and Media Matters are very proud, I am sure.
Thus, here is yet one more example of the swiftness with which Democrats embrace symbolic, anti-American gestures. The Dems can't appear too patriotic lest they alienate their main donor base.
The actions of Barack Obama hearken back to another era in America, during and after the Viet Nam War when the Democratic Party increasingly came under the influence of anti-war activists. At the 1972, 1976, and 1980 Democratic National Conventions the American flag was basically nowhere to be seen.
In fact, one commentator commented that the Democrats had so alienated the American public by shunning the flag that in 1984 they basically wrapped themselves in the flag in a last-ditch effort to try to defeat Ronald Reagan.
Americans saw through the ruse and elected Ronald Reagan to a 2nd term in one of the biggest landslides in American history.
The Iraq War has once again pushed to Democrats to the far-Left, so far, in fact, that Americans are beginning to wake up. The Democratic controlled Congress certainly inspires no confidence among the public with its dismal and historic low public approval rating of 11%.
Perhaps Americans will connect the dots and see that the same disease that infests Congress also infests the Democratic Presidential candidates.
It is possible, of course, that Obama unconsciously recognizes that the positions he espouses are a desecration to the flag and the liberty it symbolizes. In that case, it is better to take the flag off in order to espouse anti-freedom than to wear it as a hypocrite.
Stating that from now on he will speak about the meaning of the flag rather than wear it, the Democratic Presidential hopeful has obviously failed to grasp the importance of symbols, particularly on the part of one who would be President. Wearing the flag, it would seem, would present even MORE opportunities to explain what the flag means than taking it off.
In fact, the candidate symbolically declared today why he is unfit to be President in one simple symbolic act.
Men who would be President of our country do not shun symbols of our flag but embrace them.
What does this act say, for example, to Kim Jong Ill, or Fidel Castro and the oppressed who live under Cuban Communism, or to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? A would-be President of the United States expresses disdain for wearing the symbol of his country? No doubt the act gives rise to the notion on the part of the tyrants of the world that Obama is ashamed of America's symbol.
There is but one reasonable explanation for Obama's actions. He feels it is much more important to appease the extremists who have seized control of the Democratic Party than to express allegiance to his country. He would rather please anti-war activists who have spit on the flag and burned it, referred to our troops in Iraq as murderers, and who have denigrated our military in general by referring to one of its top commanders, General Petraeus, as a traitor, than to overtly and proudly display the world's number one symbol of freedom.
George Soros, Moveon.org, and Media Matters are very proud, I am sure.
Thus, here is yet one more example of the swiftness with which Democrats embrace symbolic, anti-American gestures. The Dems can't appear too patriotic lest they alienate their main donor base.
The actions of Barack Obama hearken back to another era in America, during and after the Viet Nam War when the Democratic Party increasingly came under the influence of anti-war activists. At the 1972, 1976, and 1980 Democratic National Conventions the American flag was basically nowhere to be seen.
In fact, one commentator commented that the Democrats had so alienated the American public by shunning the flag that in 1984 they basically wrapped themselves in the flag in a last-ditch effort to try to defeat Ronald Reagan.
Americans saw through the ruse and elected Ronald Reagan to a 2nd term in one of the biggest landslides in American history.
The Iraq War has once again pushed to Democrats to the far-Left, so far, in fact, that Americans are beginning to wake up. The Democratic controlled Congress certainly inspires no confidence among the public with its dismal and historic low public approval rating of 11%.
Perhaps Americans will connect the dots and see that the same disease that infests Congress also infests the Democratic Presidential candidates.
It is possible, of course, that Obama unconsciously recognizes that the positions he espouses are a desecration to the flag and the liberty it symbolizes. In that case, it is better to take the flag off in order to espouse anti-freedom than to wear it as a hypocrite.
Wednesday, October 03, 2007
Fred's $8 Million
Early reports on Monday indicated that Fred Thompson had raised over $8 million dollars for his campaign during the third quarter. This has been confirmed by the Thompson campaign.
Thompson is still running behind his closest rivals, Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney, when it comes to campaign cash. Romney continues to benefit from the use of his own private funds which he channels into his campaign.
Both Ron Paul and John McCain came on strong during the third quarter. Mr. Paul raised around $5 million and so did McCain. Yet McCain is reportedly $2 million bucks in the red. With his strong showing in the third quarter, however, he could yet be a force with which to be reckoned in the long run.
The mainstream media are sure to downplay the significance of Thompson's $8 million, just as they did when he announced he had raised $3.5 million before he had even announced as a candidate. After all, Thompson's campaign funds are dwarfed by those of Giuliani and Romney.
However, one must bear in mind that Thompson only announced during the first week of September. Fully two months of the third quarter had passed before he jumped into the race. This means, of course, that the totals Giuliani and Romney have posted for the third quarter include all three months, not just one.
I believe it is fairly safe to say that it is highly doubtful that any Republican candidate has raised $8 million bucks in one month. This makes Thompson's totals all the more impressive.
Impressive, that is, until one begins to look at the totals raised by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. The Democrats have out-raised the Republicans 2-to-1 so far.
Thompson has some serious catching up to do in order to be competitive in the general election against Hillary or Obama.
But then, let's not forget to bear in mind the all-important question, how much of that money the top two Democrats are raising is 'dirty money' funded by sleazy pyramid schemes in the murky world of corrupt political fundraisers?
And even more importantly than that, when will the mainstream media begin treating Norman Hsu as the Democrats' Jack Abramoff?
Thompson is still running behind his closest rivals, Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney, when it comes to campaign cash. Romney continues to benefit from the use of his own private funds which he channels into his campaign.
Both Ron Paul and John McCain came on strong during the third quarter. Mr. Paul raised around $5 million and so did McCain. Yet McCain is reportedly $2 million bucks in the red. With his strong showing in the third quarter, however, he could yet be a force with which to be reckoned in the long run.
The mainstream media are sure to downplay the significance of Thompson's $8 million, just as they did when he announced he had raised $3.5 million before he had even announced as a candidate. After all, Thompson's campaign funds are dwarfed by those of Giuliani and Romney.
However, one must bear in mind that Thompson only announced during the first week of September. Fully two months of the third quarter had passed before he jumped into the race. This means, of course, that the totals Giuliani and Romney have posted for the third quarter include all three months, not just one.
I believe it is fairly safe to say that it is highly doubtful that any Republican candidate has raised $8 million bucks in one month. This makes Thompson's totals all the more impressive.
Impressive, that is, until one begins to look at the totals raised by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. The Democrats have out-raised the Republicans 2-to-1 so far.
Thompson has some serious catching up to do in order to be competitive in the general election against Hillary or Obama.
But then, let's not forget to bear in mind the all-important question, how much of that money the top two Democrats are raising is 'dirty money' funded by sleazy pyramid schemes in the murky world of corrupt political fundraisers?
And even more importantly than that, when will the mainstream media begin treating Norman Hsu as the Democrats' Jack Abramoff?
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
What If: Thoughts on Dems' Campaigns So Far
To hear the pundits and major politicians call it, one would think the Democratic race for the Party's Presidential nomination is over. Both President Bush and Newt Gingrich, along with countless politicos, have stated definitively that Hillary Clinton will be the nominee.
Certainly this would be the most plausible scenario. From the very start the Democratic nomination has been Hillary's to lose. She has been planning for this moment at least as far back as the end of her husband's second term, and many claim this has been her dream since her days as a lawyer in Arkansas.
While we tend to agree with the conventional wisdom that Hillary will receive her coronation at the Democratic Convention next summer, there are some significant landmines that could blow up her face at any moment, thus sending the conventional wisdom downward in a deathly tailspin.
Several campaign finance scandals lurk just behind her in the shadows, the latest being the Norman Hsu-ponzi scheme to use the illegal 'pyramid' technique to raise millions of dollars that would be donated to Hillary's Senate and Presidential campaigns in the names of thousands of donors who would contribute nothing from their own pockets.
The thing that adds shock-value to the story is that Hsu had been a fugitive from justice for nearly 15 years--a decade and a half during which Hsu played cozy with the Clintons while developing further illegal schemes to pad their pockets with dirty campaign cash.
Further, a man by the name of Peter Franklin Paul, a former crony of Bill and Hillary Clinton, filed a civil fraud lawsuit against the Clintons claiming that both committed felonies in agreeing to a massive $17 million dollar deal in which the Clintons would promote Paul's entertainment company in exchange for stock, cash options, and large contributions to Hillary Clinton's 2000 Senatorial campaign.
Paul introduced a videotape which he claims is evidence that the Clintons engaged in illegal activity, which includes Bill Clinton allegedly destroying Paul's entertainment company in order to get out of the $17 million dollar deal.
The video also allegedly shows that Hillary Clinton had direct knowledge and input into a Hollywood fundraiser organized by Paul at which Hillary was seen and heard engaging in direct solicitation of campaign funds in excess of the $25,000 per person limit--a clear violation of federal campaign finance laws.
This particular case went to trial in the California Court of Appeals, Second Appellate District, two weeks ago. A ruling will be issued in 90 days.
The sleaze factor has always been a ticking time-bomb for Hillary Clinton, as any number of scandals both large and small have the potential for blowing up in her face at any moment in time.
So far she has remained relatively unscathed. If she continues to escape personal culpability in the scandals swirling around her, there is no reason to believe she will not sail to the nomination. The speculation begins at the point that one of these scandals torpedoes the Clinton campaign into oblivion. What then?
It would be much too easy to discount the strength of Barack Obama. While Obama's problems as a candidate begin to multiply if he makes it to the general election, those problems are no problem for most Democratic Party activists, who would likely hand him the nomination in the event that Hillary implodes.
He rings all the right bells for the Party faithful, particularly the powerful leftwing. He is anti-war, pro-abortion, anti-gun, and he has rolled out a trillion dollar tax increase to pay for socialized medicine and a myriad of programs that will vastly expand the scope and size of government.
If Hillary falters, expect the Dems to turn to Obama. If she prevails, he will likely be her running mate.
Cuban Communist dictator Fidel Castro knighted the 'dream ticket' last month as he gave his blessing to such a pairing, stating it would be good for America and good for Cuba.
If, however, Obama turns out to be the nominee, look for someone like Bill Richardson to be chosen as running mate in order to provide balance to the ticket. As it stands now Richardson is a long shot for the nomination, but his stock rises in the event that Hillary is forced to drop out of the race. The Dems could well turn to him instead of Obama, although at this point we do not see that happening.
As for the rest in the Democrats' field of candidates, for all intents and purposes they can fold up their tents and head home. We see no reason for hope at this point for Dodd, Edwards, Biden, Kucinich, or Gravel. And the time is growing short. January 1 will mark the beginning of the primary season in America.
Thus, it is do or die time. Unless one of the dark horses in the race exhibits a miraculous up-surge in support and campaign cash in the final quarter of 2007, we can look for at least five of these candidates to begin dropping by the wayside.
But there is still that nagging question concerning Hillary--what if?
Certainly this would be the most plausible scenario. From the very start the Democratic nomination has been Hillary's to lose. She has been planning for this moment at least as far back as the end of her husband's second term, and many claim this has been her dream since her days as a lawyer in Arkansas.
While we tend to agree with the conventional wisdom that Hillary will receive her coronation at the Democratic Convention next summer, there are some significant landmines that could blow up her face at any moment, thus sending the conventional wisdom downward in a deathly tailspin.
Several campaign finance scandals lurk just behind her in the shadows, the latest being the Norman Hsu-ponzi scheme to use the illegal 'pyramid' technique to raise millions of dollars that would be donated to Hillary's Senate and Presidential campaigns in the names of thousands of donors who would contribute nothing from their own pockets.
The thing that adds shock-value to the story is that Hsu had been a fugitive from justice for nearly 15 years--a decade and a half during which Hsu played cozy with the Clintons while developing further illegal schemes to pad their pockets with dirty campaign cash.
Further, a man by the name of Peter Franklin Paul, a former crony of Bill and Hillary Clinton, filed a civil fraud lawsuit against the Clintons claiming that both committed felonies in agreeing to a massive $17 million dollar deal in which the Clintons would promote Paul's entertainment company in exchange for stock, cash options, and large contributions to Hillary Clinton's 2000 Senatorial campaign.
Paul introduced a videotape which he claims is evidence that the Clintons engaged in illegal activity, which includes Bill Clinton allegedly destroying Paul's entertainment company in order to get out of the $17 million dollar deal.
The video also allegedly shows that Hillary Clinton had direct knowledge and input into a Hollywood fundraiser organized by Paul at which Hillary was seen and heard engaging in direct solicitation of campaign funds in excess of the $25,000 per person limit--a clear violation of federal campaign finance laws.
This particular case went to trial in the California Court of Appeals, Second Appellate District, two weeks ago. A ruling will be issued in 90 days.
The sleaze factor has always been a ticking time-bomb for Hillary Clinton, as any number of scandals both large and small have the potential for blowing up in her face at any moment in time.
So far she has remained relatively unscathed. If she continues to escape personal culpability in the scandals swirling around her, there is no reason to believe she will not sail to the nomination. The speculation begins at the point that one of these scandals torpedoes the Clinton campaign into oblivion. What then?
It would be much too easy to discount the strength of Barack Obama. While Obama's problems as a candidate begin to multiply if he makes it to the general election, those problems are no problem for most Democratic Party activists, who would likely hand him the nomination in the event that Hillary implodes.
He rings all the right bells for the Party faithful, particularly the powerful leftwing. He is anti-war, pro-abortion, anti-gun, and he has rolled out a trillion dollar tax increase to pay for socialized medicine and a myriad of programs that will vastly expand the scope and size of government.
If Hillary falters, expect the Dems to turn to Obama. If she prevails, he will likely be her running mate.
Cuban Communist dictator Fidel Castro knighted the 'dream ticket' last month as he gave his blessing to such a pairing, stating it would be good for America and good for Cuba.
If, however, Obama turns out to be the nominee, look for someone like Bill Richardson to be chosen as running mate in order to provide balance to the ticket. As it stands now Richardson is a long shot for the nomination, but his stock rises in the event that Hillary is forced to drop out of the race. The Dems could well turn to him instead of Obama, although at this point we do not see that happening.
As for the rest in the Democrats' field of candidates, for all intents and purposes they can fold up their tents and head home. We see no reason for hope at this point for Dodd, Edwards, Biden, Kucinich, or Gravel. And the time is growing short. January 1 will mark the beginning of the primary season in America.
Thus, it is do or die time. Unless one of the dark horses in the race exhibits a miraculous up-surge in support and campaign cash in the final quarter of 2007, we can look for at least five of these candidates to begin dropping by the wayside.
But there is still that nagging question concerning Hillary--what if?
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Petraeus, Patriots, Prostitutes, and the Pimp
By all accounts the appearance of General David H. Petraeus before Congress yesterday was nothing less than a three-ring circus. The entire fiasco can be laid directly at the feet of the Democratic leadership who obviously did nothing, or very little, to insure a mature, orderly proceeding.
The embarrassing buffoonery started when Democratic committee chair Ike Skelton refused to listen to GOP warnings about potential disruptions at the hands of pinko anti-war demonstrators.
And disrupt, they did.
But first, we were treated to the highly embarrassing episode of the dead microphones. Neither the General's nor the Ambassador's microphones would work. Perhaps, as one blogger put it, this was perfectly symbolic. The Democrats had no intention of actually listening to the report, since they had already begun attacking it before it was issued.
Once the microphones were working, it was time for the pinkos to protest.
Of course, Rep. Skelton was forced to put on his best 'I am highly offended' face and throw the bums out...but not before they were allowed to heckle General Petraeus and the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq.
Perhaps Mr. Skelton believed that these types of made-for-TV demonstrations would somehow help to show Americans that those awful, despicable, war-mongering symbols of America's shame in Iraq returned to Washington only to face a massive outpouring of spontaneous heckling and hatred.
Why else would he allow them entrance to the committee hearing given that he had already been warned that troublemakers were on the prowl?
Yet, it could well be that Skelton's plot backfired. Petraeus appeared calm, steady, and professional under intense pressure. His character had already been impugned before he was allowed to speak a word, yet the General conducted himself with utmost dignity and steadiness.
Congressional Republicans conducted themselves with dignity, patriotism, and maturity as their colleagues in the other Party threw a tantrum.
It was the Democrats who came off looking like desperate, eager opportunists, searching for everything--anything--they could get their hands on to try to discredit the General and the Ambassador.
In fact, they appeared almost as if they were prostitutes, having sold themselves to individuals and entities that have anything but America's best interests at heart.
For example, Moveon.org, the anti-war organization of the Democratic Party, referred to General Petraeus as 'General Betray-Us.' They even bought a full-page ad in the New York Times to say it.
In the ad Moveon also accused Petraeus of 'cooking the books,' lying about the figures, in order to present a positive picture.
Back down at the funny farm in Congress, Democrat Tom Lantos launched into a lengthy Petraeus-bash prior to the General's report, and stated forthrightly about the General's ensuing words, 'I don't buy a word of it.'
U.S. Representative and Republican Presidential hopeful Duncan Hunter, R-California, responded to the attack by reminding the committee that Petraeus had been confirmed unanimously by Congress earlier this year, and that the proceedings should continue only with the stipulation that all would presume that Petraeus would offer 'a candid, independent assessment with integrity.'
Perhaps Hunter's stipulation was a bit too much for the ethically-challenged members of the Democratic leadership. Having sold themselves to the highest bidder, i.e., the anti-war, pinko nutcases of the extremist leftwing, these prostitutes would now sell the nation's soul to them as well.
At this hour, not a single Democratic candidate for President, nor any Democratic member of Congress has denounced, repudiated, or condemned Moveon.org for its blatant disrespect and character assassination of one of the America's most trusted military officials.
Former Democrat and Independent Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman joined with John McCain in drafting a letter to be sent to the Democratic leadership in the Senate, calling on the Majority Leader to denounce and distance himself and his Party from the Moveon.org ad.
Senator Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader, refused.
Of course he refused. When you have sold out like a prostitute, you are forever indebted to the pimp. And in this case the pimp is somewhat elusive but encompasses the Democratic National Committee and those it needs to please in order to get the cash.
But what about the patriots? Where did they stand on yesterday's clown show that was not worthy of a hearing for a General?
John McCain stated that this was a McCarthy-like attack on the character of an American patriot.
Indeed, it was.
Fred Thompson accused Moveon of libel, and stated that the Democratic Party and every single Democratic candidate for President should repudiate the libel of this patriotic American.
We agree. And Mr. Thompson himself is a great American patriot as well.
When David H. Petraeus received his unanimous confirmation by the Congress, he also received the pledges from Congressional Democrats to 'give the surge a chance,' and to 'wait until the report is issued in September before passing judgment.'
It is clear after today's fiasco that the Democrats lied. They had no intention of supporting Petraeus or of giving the surge a chance to work, simply because to do so would ruin their most effective 2008 election tool, i.e., claiming that the War in Iraq is a big mistake and no progress is being made.
And the news today which shows a steep decline in the number of deaths and a dramatic increase in safety and security in sectors that once had been nothing more than death-traps, is not good news for those whose political fortune rests on the failure of America.
But of course, the act of selling oneself to the highest bidder is not an exercise in love for country but a race to see who gets the most cash at the end of the day. I am sure that the pimp will be most pleased.
The embarrassing buffoonery started when Democratic committee chair Ike Skelton refused to listen to GOP warnings about potential disruptions at the hands of pinko anti-war demonstrators.
And disrupt, they did.
But first, we were treated to the highly embarrassing episode of the dead microphones. Neither the General's nor the Ambassador's microphones would work. Perhaps, as one blogger put it, this was perfectly symbolic. The Democrats had no intention of actually listening to the report, since they had already begun attacking it before it was issued.
Once the microphones were working, it was time for the pinkos to protest.
Of course, Rep. Skelton was forced to put on his best 'I am highly offended' face and throw the bums out...but not before they were allowed to heckle General Petraeus and the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq.
Perhaps Mr. Skelton believed that these types of made-for-TV demonstrations would somehow help to show Americans that those awful, despicable, war-mongering symbols of America's shame in Iraq returned to Washington only to face a massive outpouring of spontaneous heckling and hatred.
Why else would he allow them entrance to the committee hearing given that he had already been warned that troublemakers were on the prowl?
Yet, it could well be that Skelton's plot backfired. Petraeus appeared calm, steady, and professional under intense pressure. His character had already been impugned before he was allowed to speak a word, yet the General conducted himself with utmost dignity and steadiness.
Congressional Republicans conducted themselves with dignity, patriotism, and maturity as their colleagues in the other Party threw a tantrum.
It was the Democrats who came off looking like desperate, eager opportunists, searching for everything--anything--they could get their hands on to try to discredit the General and the Ambassador.
In fact, they appeared almost as if they were prostitutes, having sold themselves to individuals and entities that have anything but America's best interests at heart.
For example, Moveon.org, the anti-war organization of the Democratic Party, referred to General Petraeus as 'General Betray-Us.' They even bought a full-page ad in the New York Times to say it.
In the ad Moveon also accused Petraeus of 'cooking the books,' lying about the figures, in order to present a positive picture.
Back down at the funny farm in Congress, Democrat Tom Lantos launched into a lengthy Petraeus-bash prior to the General's report, and stated forthrightly about the General's ensuing words, 'I don't buy a word of it.'
U.S. Representative and Republican Presidential hopeful Duncan Hunter, R-California, responded to the attack by reminding the committee that Petraeus had been confirmed unanimously by Congress earlier this year, and that the proceedings should continue only with the stipulation that all would presume that Petraeus would offer 'a candid, independent assessment with integrity.'
Perhaps Hunter's stipulation was a bit too much for the ethically-challenged members of the Democratic leadership. Having sold themselves to the highest bidder, i.e., the anti-war, pinko nutcases of the extremist leftwing, these prostitutes would now sell the nation's soul to them as well.
At this hour, not a single Democratic candidate for President, nor any Democratic member of Congress has denounced, repudiated, or condemned Moveon.org for its blatant disrespect and character assassination of one of the America's most trusted military officials.
Former Democrat and Independent Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman joined with John McCain in drafting a letter to be sent to the Democratic leadership in the Senate, calling on the Majority Leader to denounce and distance himself and his Party from the Moveon.org ad.
Senator Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader, refused.
Of course he refused. When you have sold out like a prostitute, you are forever indebted to the pimp. And in this case the pimp is somewhat elusive but encompasses the Democratic National Committee and those it needs to please in order to get the cash.
But what about the patriots? Where did they stand on yesterday's clown show that was not worthy of a hearing for a General?
John McCain stated that this was a McCarthy-like attack on the character of an American patriot.
Indeed, it was.
Fred Thompson accused Moveon of libel, and stated that the Democratic Party and every single Democratic candidate for President should repudiate the libel of this patriotic American.
We agree. And Mr. Thompson himself is a great American patriot as well.
When David H. Petraeus received his unanimous confirmation by the Congress, he also received the pledges from Congressional Democrats to 'give the surge a chance,' and to 'wait until the report is issued in September before passing judgment.'
It is clear after today's fiasco that the Democrats lied. They had no intention of supporting Petraeus or of giving the surge a chance to work, simply because to do so would ruin their most effective 2008 election tool, i.e., claiming that the War in Iraq is a big mistake and no progress is being made.
And the news today which shows a steep decline in the number of deaths and a dramatic increase in safety and security in sectors that once had been nothing more than death-traps, is not good news for those whose political fortune rests on the failure of America.
But of course, the act of selling oneself to the highest bidder is not an exercise in love for country but a race to see who gets the most cash at the end of the day. I am sure that the pimp will be most pleased.
Saturday, August 18, 2007
The Dilemma of the Libertarian-Leaning Voter
During a speaking engagement some time ago I fielded a question from the participants concerning my political preferences. The question was this: given that you are obviously libertarian in your views, why, then, do you tend to support Republican candidates?
The answer that I gave at the time is still relevant. I said, 'Because the Republicans are the only ones, with a national audience, that take the Bill of Rights seriously, at least enough to talk about it.'
Of course it bears repeating my oft-cited assertion that I am neither Republican nor Democrat, but a political independent with libertarian leanings.
Further, it is essential to understand that there is a difference between belonging to the Libertarian Party, which I do not, and being one who espouses libertarian views.
A libertarian point of view toward government and politics normally centers on the belief in free market capitalism, small government that intrudes into private lives and private business only to insure a fair playing field, an adherence to Constitutional principles, particularly with regard to the Bill of Rights, and the general conviction that government is not entitled to taxes but is ultimately dependent on the people and what they are willing to allow government to collect in order to pay for the legitimate role of government as delineated in the Constitution itself.
At one time while the nation was still in its infancy, those persons who adhered to these views were known as 'Jeffersonian Democrats.'
The meanings of words certainly change over time.
Today Democrats are nearly as far away from the principles of Jefferson as one can get. Some Republican are just as bad.
Yet overall, Republicans generally claim at least verbal adherence to Jeffersonian principles. Even Rudy Giuliani, who is by no means a Jeffersonian, is alarmed at the abject socialism of Hillary Clinton and states that he would choose judges for the federal bench based upon the principle of 'strict constructionism,' which means that a candidate for a seat on the federal bench would have to consider the views of the Framers as the ultimate test of Constitutional interpretation.
Of course, Giuliani has consistently contradicted his stated philosophy by supporting measures that fly in the face of the views of the Framers, particularly on the Second Amendment.
Nonetheless, Republican voters take these matters very seriously. And thus, Rudy's apparent failure to adhere to his own stated principles is a big issue with a large portion of the GOP faithful, particularly in areas such as the South, the Midwest, and the Rocky Mountain states.
There are times, however, when the chosen Republican candidate is so repugnant when it comes to libertarian principles that voting for a third party candidate seems to be the only prudent course.
For example, during the 2006 election cycle I threw my support behind Alabama Gubernatorial candidate Loretta Nall, who was running on the Libertarian ticket. Republican governor Bob Riley had alienated many libertarian leaning Republicans in the state by proposing the largest tax increase in the state's history, although there was no budget shortfall.
It was for this exact same reason that I threw my support behind U.S. Senatorial candidate Kathrene Harris, R-FLA, in her bid to unseat Senator Bill Nelson. Harris wishes to abolish the IRS and move to a fair tax system as a means of lifting the tax burden for all.
The Democratic candidate in Alabama, Lucy Baxley, was a regular run-of-the-mill modern Democrat, complete with the expected 'big government can solve all' mentality.
I saw little difference between Riley and Baxley, and thus, I began to look at Nall.
I determined that Nall was the best choice based upon five basic reasons: she wished to cut the state income tax and supported the 'fair tax' on the national level; she supported homeschooling and private schools to protest the sorry state of affairs in public schools; she supported removing all restrictions on gun rights; she wished to end the so-called 'war on drugs' much as the nation ended Prohibition against alcohol for one reason alone--it did not work; and finally, she was refreshingly candid and honest.
Knowing early-on that Nall's chances of being elected were next to nil, I nonetheless could not bring myself to support either the Republican or the Democrat. Thus, my support went to Nall.
When this same level of deduction is applied to the national level, how far does the Republican candidate for President have to stray from basic libertarian principles before the GOP faithful begin to look to a third-party alternative?
My gut tells me that many would do exactly that--begin looking elsewhere--if the nominee happens to be Giuliani or McCain, and perhaps even Romney.
The question is, where would they go? If Giuliani is unacceptable, then support for someone like Hillary or Obama would be laughable. But there are no serious libertarian-leaning candidates to support in the Presidential race, unless it is one of the Republicans other than the RINOS.
This means that it is absolutely essential that the GOP chooses a candidate who appeals to those who value the Constitutional principles of small, efficient government, low taxes, free market capitalism, personal freedom, and the Bill of Rights--ALL of the Bill of Rights.
The answer that I gave at the time is still relevant. I said, 'Because the Republicans are the only ones, with a national audience, that take the Bill of Rights seriously, at least enough to talk about it.'
Of course it bears repeating my oft-cited assertion that I am neither Republican nor Democrat, but a political independent with libertarian leanings.
Further, it is essential to understand that there is a difference between belonging to the Libertarian Party, which I do not, and being one who espouses libertarian views.
A libertarian point of view toward government and politics normally centers on the belief in free market capitalism, small government that intrudes into private lives and private business only to insure a fair playing field, an adherence to Constitutional principles, particularly with regard to the Bill of Rights, and the general conviction that government is not entitled to taxes but is ultimately dependent on the people and what they are willing to allow government to collect in order to pay for the legitimate role of government as delineated in the Constitution itself.
At one time while the nation was still in its infancy, those persons who adhered to these views were known as 'Jeffersonian Democrats.'
The meanings of words certainly change over time.
Today Democrats are nearly as far away from the principles of Jefferson as one can get. Some Republican are just as bad.
Yet overall, Republicans generally claim at least verbal adherence to Jeffersonian principles. Even Rudy Giuliani, who is by no means a Jeffersonian, is alarmed at the abject socialism of Hillary Clinton and states that he would choose judges for the federal bench based upon the principle of 'strict constructionism,' which means that a candidate for a seat on the federal bench would have to consider the views of the Framers as the ultimate test of Constitutional interpretation.
Of course, Giuliani has consistently contradicted his stated philosophy by supporting measures that fly in the face of the views of the Framers, particularly on the Second Amendment.
Nonetheless, Republican voters take these matters very seriously. And thus, Rudy's apparent failure to adhere to his own stated principles is a big issue with a large portion of the GOP faithful, particularly in areas such as the South, the Midwest, and the Rocky Mountain states.
There are times, however, when the chosen Republican candidate is so repugnant when it comes to libertarian principles that voting for a third party candidate seems to be the only prudent course.
For example, during the 2006 election cycle I threw my support behind Alabama Gubernatorial candidate Loretta Nall, who was running on the Libertarian ticket. Republican governor Bob Riley had alienated many libertarian leaning Republicans in the state by proposing the largest tax increase in the state's history, although there was no budget shortfall.
It was for this exact same reason that I threw my support behind U.S. Senatorial candidate Kathrene Harris, R-FLA, in her bid to unseat Senator Bill Nelson. Harris wishes to abolish the IRS and move to a fair tax system as a means of lifting the tax burden for all.
The Democratic candidate in Alabama, Lucy Baxley, was a regular run-of-the-mill modern Democrat, complete with the expected 'big government can solve all' mentality.
I saw little difference between Riley and Baxley, and thus, I began to look at Nall.
I determined that Nall was the best choice based upon five basic reasons: she wished to cut the state income tax and supported the 'fair tax' on the national level; she supported homeschooling and private schools to protest the sorry state of affairs in public schools; she supported removing all restrictions on gun rights; she wished to end the so-called 'war on drugs' much as the nation ended Prohibition against alcohol for one reason alone--it did not work; and finally, she was refreshingly candid and honest.
Knowing early-on that Nall's chances of being elected were next to nil, I nonetheless could not bring myself to support either the Republican or the Democrat. Thus, my support went to Nall.
When this same level of deduction is applied to the national level, how far does the Republican candidate for President have to stray from basic libertarian principles before the GOP faithful begin to look to a third-party alternative?
My gut tells me that many would do exactly that--begin looking elsewhere--if the nominee happens to be Giuliani or McCain, and perhaps even Romney.
The question is, where would they go? If Giuliani is unacceptable, then support for someone like Hillary or Obama would be laughable. But there are no serious libertarian-leaning candidates to support in the Presidential race, unless it is one of the Republicans other than the RINOS.
This means that it is absolutely essential that the GOP chooses a candidate who appeals to those who value the Constitutional principles of small, efficient government, low taxes, free market capitalism, personal freedom, and the Bill of Rights--ALL of the Bill of Rights.
Thursday, August 09, 2007
The Dems Debated Tuesday, 8/7/07, in Chicago
Seven of the eight Democratic Presidential candidates debated Tuesday of this week in Chicago under a big tent in the sweltering heat. Candidate Mike Gravel perhaps showed the most prudence in not showing up.
MSNBC televised the event with moderator Keith Olbermann.
They had all of three viewers.
And that was two more than normal.
The 'debate' was sponsored by the AFL-CIO. In order to participate, the candidates were required to complete a questionnaire devised by the union. Gravel did not complete the questionnaire, which gives one pause to wonder if this was a protest move of some sort by Gravel.
On the other hand, the candidate may well have concluded that his fledgling campaign would not benefit at all from appearing at an event that was destined to get very little attention.
The usual suspects were on hand to advance their propaganda, with Hillary Clinton castigating Barack Obama for proposing to meet with the enemies of the U.S., a proposal that Hillary herself propounded two months ago.
Obama wants to invade Pakistan and thus widen the War in Iraq, a proposal that flies in the face of his heavy anti-military, anti-war rhetoric thus far.
John Edwards claims that he takes no money from special interest groups, a statement that belies the facts, given that we know he has received funds from the Trial Lawyers Union (they have to support one of their own), and that he has received significant funding from atheist billionaire and Democratic operative George Soros.
Bill Richardson is now an avid supporter of gun control, despite the fact that during his term as Governor of New Mexico he made his mark by being a gun-rights advocate, even receiving the accolades of the NRA. Apparently Richardson cannot resist the power, money, and influence of the Democratic National Committee and Party activists, who are all in one accord against the Second Amendment to the Constitution.
As for the rest, Biden, Kucinich, and Dodd, it is all just more blah, blah, blah.
Thus, as always, The Liberty Sphere will rate each of the candidates based upon our exclusive Liberty rating system, which has been slightly amended to fit the special circumstances of this stellar performance in Chicago (10 is the highest score):
Mike Gravel--10, for not showing up
Hillary Clinton--0
Barack Obama--0
John Edwards--0
Bill Richardson--0
Chris Dodd--0
Joe Biden--0
Dennis Kucinich--0
In short, it is as if seven of the candidates said absolutely nothing, since one cannot depend on their words, and they change their rhetoric day by day.
Mike Gravel's score of 10 for not showing up will figure into his overall score in the debates. We congratulate him for being the one Democrat who finally exhibited some common sense.
MSNBC televised the event with moderator Keith Olbermann.
They had all of three viewers.
And that was two more than normal.
The 'debate' was sponsored by the AFL-CIO. In order to participate, the candidates were required to complete a questionnaire devised by the union. Gravel did not complete the questionnaire, which gives one pause to wonder if this was a protest move of some sort by Gravel.
On the other hand, the candidate may well have concluded that his fledgling campaign would not benefit at all from appearing at an event that was destined to get very little attention.
The usual suspects were on hand to advance their propaganda, with Hillary Clinton castigating Barack Obama for proposing to meet with the enemies of the U.S., a proposal that Hillary herself propounded two months ago.
Obama wants to invade Pakistan and thus widen the War in Iraq, a proposal that flies in the face of his heavy anti-military, anti-war rhetoric thus far.
John Edwards claims that he takes no money from special interest groups, a statement that belies the facts, given that we know he has received funds from the Trial Lawyers Union (they have to support one of their own), and that he has received significant funding from atheist billionaire and Democratic operative George Soros.
Bill Richardson is now an avid supporter of gun control, despite the fact that during his term as Governor of New Mexico he made his mark by being a gun-rights advocate, even receiving the accolades of the NRA. Apparently Richardson cannot resist the power, money, and influence of the Democratic National Committee and Party activists, who are all in one accord against the Second Amendment to the Constitution.
As for the rest, Biden, Kucinich, and Dodd, it is all just more blah, blah, blah.
Thus, as always, The Liberty Sphere will rate each of the candidates based upon our exclusive Liberty rating system, which has been slightly amended to fit the special circumstances of this stellar performance in Chicago (10 is the highest score):
Mike Gravel--10, for not showing up
Hillary Clinton--0
Barack Obama--0
John Edwards--0
Bill Richardson--0
Chris Dodd--0
Joe Biden--0
Dennis Kucinich--0
In short, it is as if seven of the candidates said absolutely nothing, since one cannot depend on their words, and they change their rhetoric day by day.
Mike Gravel's score of 10 for not showing up will figure into his overall score in the debates. We congratulate him for being the one Democrat who finally exhibited some common sense.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)