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.
Showing posts with label Democratic debate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Democratic debate. Show all posts
Friday, November 16, 2007
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.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
The Whining Hildabeast
From the Drudge Report, CNN, and the Hillary Clinton campaign:
CNN's Wolf Blitzer has been warned not to focus Thursday's Dem debate on Hillary. 'This campaign is about issues, not on who we can bring down and destroy,' top Clinton insider explains. 'Blitzer should not go down to the levels of character attack and pull 'a Russert.'' Blitzer is set to moderate debate from Vegas, with questions also being posed by Suzanne Malveaux... Blitzer says he is not being pressured by any campaign: 'No one has pressured me. No one has threatened me. No one is trying to intimidate me'...
Pulling 'a Russert?' You mean, actually ask the candidate pertinent questions that get to the heart of her character, personality, views, and voting record? Why, how dare they!
If Blitzer goes easy on Hillary during Thursday night's Democratic debate, then he is just as big a schmuck as the Hildabeast.
This should demonstrate for the entire country what a whining bitch Hillary is for demanding that the news media 'go easy' on her.
CNN's Wolf Blitzer has been warned not to focus Thursday's Dem debate on Hillary. 'This campaign is about issues, not on who we can bring down and destroy,' top Clinton insider explains. 'Blitzer should not go down to the levels of character attack and pull 'a Russert.'' Blitzer is set to moderate debate from Vegas, with questions also being posed by Suzanne Malveaux... Blitzer says he is not being pressured by any campaign: 'No one has pressured me. No one has threatened me. No one is trying to intimidate me'...
Pulling 'a Russert?' You mean, actually ask the candidate pertinent questions that get to the heart of her character, personality, views, and voting record? Why, how dare they!
If Blitzer goes easy on Hillary during Thursday night's Democratic debate, then he is just as big a schmuck as the Hildabeast.
This should demonstrate for the entire country what a whining bitch Hillary is for demanding that the news media 'go easy' on her.
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.
Wednesday, August 08, 2007
John Edwards--the Quintessential Chameleon
He is the Breck Girl, tending to his 1200-dollar, Hollywood-professional coiffure like a Sports Illustrated swimsuit model.
After all, he did say that he was more in tune to women's issues than the female candidate standing right beside him in the debate.
He is also the consummate African-American, claiming that he has done more for minorities than the African-American candidate running against him for the Democratic nomination.
We also know that he is the ultimate bubba, pandering to southern newspaper editors with all of the 'y'alls' and 'dad-gums' one would expect to hear from Andy Griffith.
The 'aw-shucks' demeanor that John Edwards seems to be able to turn on and off at will certainly did not impress one southern newspaper editor who has seen the candidate in action in a variety of settings and has concluded that he is one big phony.
And it is no wonder. Edwards is a male Hillary Clinton, except much worse.
Remember when Hillary went south early in the campaign and gave several speeches before African-American audiences using a fake black-southern accent?
Edwards uses similar tactics but to the nth degree.
He simply becomes what he thinks the people he happens to be with expect to see. When he is with the editor of a southern newspaper he quickly becomes the 'aw-shucks' bubba. When he is 'on' just prior to a speech he makes his way through the crowd with a fake smile, pretending to be a 'man of the common people.' When speaking to more sophisticated audiences he is the penultimate professional, the silvery-tongued attorney who can manipulate audiences every bit as much as he once manipulated juries.
Edwards' penchant for being the chameleon, however, is beginning to catch up with him. As Lincoln said, 'You can't fool all of the people all of the time.' For someone who has been in the public eye as long as Edwards, eventually some very important people along the way are going to catch on to the game.
And Edwards has been had.
Read the following scathing expose written by a newspaper editor in Columbia, South Carolina, whose observations of Edwards through the years have led him to conclude that the candidate, to put it simply, is a big fake:
http://www.thestate.com/editorial-columns/story/139273.html
After all, he did say that he was more in tune to women's issues than the female candidate standing right beside him in the debate.
He is also the consummate African-American, claiming that he has done more for minorities than the African-American candidate running against him for the Democratic nomination.
We also know that he is the ultimate bubba, pandering to southern newspaper editors with all of the 'y'alls' and 'dad-gums' one would expect to hear from Andy Griffith.
The 'aw-shucks' demeanor that John Edwards seems to be able to turn on and off at will certainly did not impress one southern newspaper editor who has seen the candidate in action in a variety of settings and has concluded that he is one big phony.
And it is no wonder. Edwards is a male Hillary Clinton, except much worse.
Remember when Hillary went south early in the campaign and gave several speeches before African-American audiences using a fake black-southern accent?
Edwards uses similar tactics but to the nth degree.
He simply becomes what he thinks the people he happens to be with expect to see. When he is with the editor of a southern newspaper he quickly becomes the 'aw-shucks' bubba. When he is 'on' just prior to a speech he makes his way through the crowd with a fake smile, pretending to be a 'man of the common people.' When speaking to more sophisticated audiences he is the penultimate professional, the silvery-tongued attorney who can manipulate audiences every bit as much as he once manipulated juries.
Edwards' penchant for being the chameleon, however, is beginning to catch up with him. As Lincoln said, 'You can't fool all of the people all of the time.' For someone who has been in the public eye as long as Edwards, eventually some very important people along the way are going to catch on to the game.
And Edwards has been had.
Read the following scathing expose written by a newspaper editor in Columbia, South Carolina, whose observations of Edwards through the years have led him to conclude that the candidate, to put it simply, is a big fake:
http://www.thestate.com/editorial-columns/story/139273.html
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Monday Night's Democratic Presidential Debate
Charleston, SC (TLS). The Democratic Presidential candidates met on Monday evening for a forum in Charleston, SC at the military college called 'the Citadel.' CNN co-sponsored the forum with YouTube.
Citizens asked questions of the candidates via YouTube, moderated by Anderson Cooper.
The War in Iraq dominated the discourse during the forum. As William F. Buckley observed a couple of months back, the manner in which George W. Bush has conducted the War has the potential of burying the Republicans in November of 2008.
Democrats have wasted no time in jumping on this vulnerability, taking full advantage of public sentiment. They all wish to leave Iraq immediately, but the devil is in the details.
Not all would leave immediately, despite the rhetoric. There are nuances in the various plans for withdrawal offered by the candidates.
Hillary Clinton advocates for continuing an American military presence in the country even after most of the combat forces have been withdrawn. Dennis Kucinich, on the other hand, wants an immediate total withdrawal, including cutting off funds for the troops.
Democratic activists applauded wildly for Kucinich on that point.
It is most unfortunate, however, that the War dominates political discussion so far during this election cycle. By focusing on the War, the Democrats can avoid close scrutiny of their views on many other issues, which show that they are basically in one accord on social policy.
In short, they are all to one degree or another European styled socialists.
None of the Democratic candidates talk about the importance of Constitutional law, the Bill of Rights, or the necessity of appointing only those Judges to the bench who understand that strict adherence to the Constitution is the primary task of jurisprudence.
All of the candidates support abortion, including late-term 'partial-birth' abortions. All have a dismal record on supporting citizens' rights to self-defense as delineated in the Second Amendment. All have advocated dangerous limits on freedom of speech. All would dismantle the greatest healthcare system in the world in order to help a small minority of citizens gain access to medical care, rather than focusing on ways to fix the problem without killing the goose that laid the golden egg.
Therefore, using our exclusive 'Liberty Rating System'--which rates the candidates on the basis of their stance on abortion, healthcare, gun rights, national defense, immigration, taxes, the War on Terror, and U.S. foreign policy--The Liberty Sphere rates the Democratic candidates in Monday night's debate as follows, with 10 being the highest score and 1 the lowest:
Bill Richardson--3
Joseph Biden--2
Chris Dodd--2
John Edwards--1
Mike Gravel--1
Dennis Kucinich--1
Barack Obama--1
Hillary Clinton--1
As time progresses during this campaign cycle, we are increasingly appalled at how thoroughly the Democratic candidates have virtually discarded and ignored every single principle for which the Founders of this nation stood.
Citizens asked questions of the candidates via YouTube, moderated by Anderson Cooper.
The War in Iraq dominated the discourse during the forum. As William F. Buckley observed a couple of months back, the manner in which George W. Bush has conducted the War has the potential of burying the Republicans in November of 2008.
Democrats have wasted no time in jumping on this vulnerability, taking full advantage of public sentiment. They all wish to leave Iraq immediately, but the devil is in the details.
Not all would leave immediately, despite the rhetoric. There are nuances in the various plans for withdrawal offered by the candidates.
Hillary Clinton advocates for continuing an American military presence in the country even after most of the combat forces have been withdrawn. Dennis Kucinich, on the other hand, wants an immediate total withdrawal, including cutting off funds for the troops.
Democratic activists applauded wildly for Kucinich on that point.
It is most unfortunate, however, that the War dominates political discussion so far during this election cycle. By focusing on the War, the Democrats can avoid close scrutiny of their views on many other issues, which show that they are basically in one accord on social policy.
In short, they are all to one degree or another European styled socialists.
None of the Democratic candidates talk about the importance of Constitutional law, the Bill of Rights, or the necessity of appointing only those Judges to the bench who understand that strict adherence to the Constitution is the primary task of jurisprudence.
All of the candidates support abortion, including late-term 'partial-birth' abortions. All have a dismal record on supporting citizens' rights to self-defense as delineated in the Second Amendment. All have advocated dangerous limits on freedom of speech. All would dismantle the greatest healthcare system in the world in order to help a small minority of citizens gain access to medical care, rather than focusing on ways to fix the problem without killing the goose that laid the golden egg.
Therefore, using our exclusive 'Liberty Rating System'--which rates the candidates on the basis of their stance on abortion, healthcare, gun rights, national defense, immigration, taxes, the War on Terror, and U.S. foreign policy--The Liberty Sphere rates the Democratic candidates in Monday night's debate as follows, with 10 being the highest score and 1 the lowest:
Bill Richardson--3
Joseph Biden--2
Chris Dodd--2
John Edwards--1
Mike Gravel--1
Dennis Kucinich--1
Barack Obama--1
Hillary Clinton--1
As time progresses during this campaign cycle, we are increasingly appalled at how thoroughly the Democratic candidates have virtually discarded and ignored every single principle for which the Founders of this nation stood.
Saturday, July 14, 2007
Clinton, Edwards Plot to Oust Colleagues from Debates
Washington, DC (TLS). Unaware that a Fox News microphone was open and the tape was rolling, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards were heard scheming to oust certain of their Democratic colleagues from future debates.
Upon hearing the news that Clinton and Edwards were plotting to exclude some of the contenders, campaign aides for Democratic Representative Dennis Kucinich expressed outrage over the secret plan.
The exchange took place at a political forum in Michigan, which included Democrats Clinton, Edwards, Kucinich, Barack Obama, Bill Richardson, Chris Dodd, Joe Biden, Mike Gravel, and Republican Congressman Tom Tancredo.
At one point Edwards turned to Clinton and said in a low voice, 'We should try to have a more serious and a smaller group.'
Clinton agreed and stated, 'We've got to cut the number. They're not serious.'
Hillary further stated that the Clinton and Edwards campaigns had already tried to limit the number of participants, and that 'we've gotta get back to it.'
It is difficult to comprehend how Edwards can consider himself a 'serious' contender given his fundraising woes of late and his plummeting poll numbers. The only true top contenders at the moment among the Democrats are Clinton and Obama.
Even so, it is nonetheless highly presumptive of any of the candidates at this point to attempt to limit debate so early in the campaign. Under normal conditions, a Presidential campaign doesn't get started in earnest until the winter of the election year, which in this case would be January of 2008. And even then it is normally early enough for ALL of those seeking their Party's nomination to be hitting the campaign trails, doing interviews, and taking part in debates.
Only as the primaries are held in late winter and early spring does the weeding out process begin.
No doubt this year is very different, given the fact that all of the major primaries have been moved up. This has forced everything to an earlier schedule. Even so, it is the height of arrogance on the part of Edwards and Clinton to merely think about excluding anyone at this stage. The elitist snobbery of such a thing is mind-boggling.
After all, the first primary is still six months away.
Upon hearing the news that Clinton and Edwards were plotting to exclude some of the contenders, campaign aides for Democratic Representative Dennis Kucinich expressed outrage over the secret plan.
The exchange took place at a political forum in Michigan, which included Democrats Clinton, Edwards, Kucinich, Barack Obama, Bill Richardson, Chris Dodd, Joe Biden, Mike Gravel, and Republican Congressman Tom Tancredo.
At one point Edwards turned to Clinton and said in a low voice, 'We should try to have a more serious and a smaller group.'
Clinton agreed and stated, 'We've got to cut the number. They're not serious.'
Hillary further stated that the Clinton and Edwards campaigns had already tried to limit the number of participants, and that 'we've gotta get back to it.'
It is difficult to comprehend how Edwards can consider himself a 'serious' contender given his fundraising woes of late and his plummeting poll numbers. The only true top contenders at the moment among the Democrats are Clinton and Obama.
Even so, it is nonetheless highly presumptive of any of the candidates at this point to attempt to limit debate so early in the campaign. Under normal conditions, a Presidential campaign doesn't get started in earnest until the winter of the election year, which in this case would be January of 2008. And even then it is normally early enough for ALL of those seeking their Party's nomination to be hitting the campaign trails, doing interviews, and taking part in debates.
Only as the primaries are held in late winter and early spring does the weeding out process begin.
No doubt this year is very different, given the fact that all of the major primaries have been moved up. This has forced everything to an earlier schedule. Even so, it is the height of arrogance on the part of Edwards and Clinton to merely think about excluding anyone at this stage. The elitist snobbery of such a thing is mind-boggling.
After all, the first primary is still six months away.
Monday, June 04, 2007
The Democrats--Who's Ahead So Far?
Washington, DC (TLS). With two nationally televised debates under their belts, the Democratic Presidential candidates have begun to show patterns that help voters form opinions and impressions of their fitness for office.
Who's ahead so far?
As we did with the Republicans, The Liberty Sphere will provide an overview of the candidates' performance and their ratings on the eight key liberty issues, based upon the two debates so far.
In our opinion Joe Biden has made his way to the top of the heap when it comes to effectiveness as a communicator and ability to connect with voters. The candidate's many years in the Senate have certainly provided Biden with the experience to handle himself extremely well in public forums.
Dennis Kucinich comes in a close second in terms of overall debate performance. He is articulate and is able to clearly convey his views with a minimum amount of spin.
Edwards, Richardson, Dodd, Gravel, and Clinton make up the next tier of candidates in terms of effectiveness of communication.
Bringing up the rear is Barack Hussein Obama, who has shown viewers of the last two debates that he is clearly lacking in the experience and seasoned communication skills to be placed in the same league with the other candidates.
Obama's poor showing may well be every bit as big a story as Biden's strong performance.
Now on to the accumulative ratings of each of the candidates, based upon their scores in the last two debates on the eight key issues that impact human liberty.
On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the highest score, The Liberty Sphere rates the Democratic candidates cumulatively as follows on those eight key issues:
Bill Richardson--5
Joe Biden--3.5
John Edwards--3
Chris Dodd--2.5
Hillary Clinton--1.5
Barack Obama--1
Dennis Kucinich--1
Mike Gravel--1
It is to be noted that in spite of Joe Biden's excellent showing in terms of communication skills, his views on gun rights deprived him of a higher score. Bill Richardson, on the other hand, picked up points for his support for Second Amendment rights, in spite of his disappointing answers in the 2nd debate.
The Liberty Sphere believes that the candidacy of Barack Hussein Obama is essential over for all intents and purposes. His falling poll numbers since the first debate will only continue after the 2nd. His poor debate performances have given the impression that the candidate is simply not Presidential material.
Of course, both Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel can essentially hang it up as well. We do not see either candidate gaining any momentum either in terms of poll numbers or financial support.
Thus, The Liberty Sphere believes that it is a whole new ball game for the Democrats. We now have a new set of front-runners. Hillary Clinton will continue to be THE front-runner for now, but both Joe Biden and Bill Richardson are coming on strong. We look for both candidates to greatly enhance their poll numbers.
John Edwards has slipped to 2nd-tier status. We saw nothing in last night's debate to change that fact. In spite of his overall cumulative score, we feel he is losing momentum while Biden and Richardson are surging. This is why we feel Biden and Richardson are now in the top three, while Edwards is on his way downward.
In terms of polling numbers and campaign cash, look for the following lineup of front-runners in order of their poll numbers and financial support:
Hillary Clinton
Bill Richardson
Joe Biden
Chris Dodd leads the pack of the 2nd-tier candidates, but look for him to begin to surge should one of the new front-runners stumble.
For perspective, consult with The Liberty Sphere's ratings on the first Democratic presidential debate. This will also explain in great detail our eight key, critical issues with regard to human liberty:
http://thelibertysphere.blogspot.com/2007/04/ratings-of-democratic-presidential.html
Who's ahead so far?
As we did with the Republicans, The Liberty Sphere will provide an overview of the candidates' performance and their ratings on the eight key liberty issues, based upon the two debates so far.
In our opinion Joe Biden has made his way to the top of the heap when it comes to effectiveness as a communicator and ability to connect with voters. The candidate's many years in the Senate have certainly provided Biden with the experience to handle himself extremely well in public forums.
Dennis Kucinich comes in a close second in terms of overall debate performance. He is articulate and is able to clearly convey his views with a minimum amount of spin.
Edwards, Richardson, Dodd, Gravel, and Clinton make up the next tier of candidates in terms of effectiveness of communication.
Bringing up the rear is Barack Hussein Obama, who has shown viewers of the last two debates that he is clearly lacking in the experience and seasoned communication skills to be placed in the same league with the other candidates.
Obama's poor showing may well be every bit as big a story as Biden's strong performance.
Now on to the accumulative ratings of each of the candidates, based upon their scores in the last two debates on the eight key issues that impact human liberty.
On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the highest score, The Liberty Sphere rates the Democratic candidates cumulatively as follows on those eight key issues:
Bill Richardson--5
Joe Biden--3.5
John Edwards--3
Chris Dodd--2.5
Hillary Clinton--1.5
Barack Obama--1
Dennis Kucinich--1
Mike Gravel--1
It is to be noted that in spite of Joe Biden's excellent showing in terms of communication skills, his views on gun rights deprived him of a higher score. Bill Richardson, on the other hand, picked up points for his support for Second Amendment rights, in spite of his disappointing answers in the 2nd debate.
The Liberty Sphere believes that the candidacy of Barack Hussein Obama is essential over for all intents and purposes. His falling poll numbers since the first debate will only continue after the 2nd. His poor debate performances have given the impression that the candidate is simply not Presidential material.
Of course, both Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel can essentially hang it up as well. We do not see either candidate gaining any momentum either in terms of poll numbers or financial support.
Thus, The Liberty Sphere believes that it is a whole new ball game for the Democrats. We now have a new set of front-runners. Hillary Clinton will continue to be THE front-runner for now, but both Joe Biden and Bill Richardson are coming on strong. We look for both candidates to greatly enhance their poll numbers.
John Edwards has slipped to 2nd-tier status. We saw nothing in last night's debate to change that fact. In spite of his overall cumulative score, we feel he is losing momentum while Biden and Richardson are surging. This is why we feel Biden and Richardson are now in the top three, while Edwards is on his way downward.
In terms of polling numbers and campaign cash, look for the following lineup of front-runners in order of their poll numbers and financial support:
Hillary Clinton
Bill Richardson
Joe Biden
Chris Dodd leads the pack of the 2nd-tier candidates, but look for him to begin to surge should one of the new front-runners stumble.
For perspective, consult with The Liberty Sphere's ratings on the first Democratic presidential debate. This will also explain in great detail our eight key, critical issues with regard to human liberty:
http://thelibertysphere.blogspot.com/2007/04/ratings-of-democratic-presidential.html
Sunday, June 03, 2007
Ratings of Democratic Candidates--2nd Debate
Manchester, NH (TLS). The Democratic Presidential candidates squared off in this, their second major televised debate.
As always, The Liberty Sphere will provide complete evaluations on all of the candidates, based upon their performance and how closely they adhere to our eight key issues that impact human liberty.
First, a word about CNN and Wolf Blitzer's job as moderator. Blitzer is due high marks for his willingness to level the hard questions at the candidates, giving them very little wiggle room for deflection. Right out of the starting gate he zeroed in on the War on Terror in light of yesterday's foiled attack at JFK.
There was only one 'stupid question' segment of the debate, a segment which we have come to expect from the mainstream media's coverage of Democrats. In contrast to MSNBC and Chris Matthews' penchant for emphasizing the absurd, Blitzer only asked one question that could be considered stupid, which was, 'What role will you give Bill Clinton if you are elected President?'
Overall, however, Blitzer and CNN are to be commended for producing a debate that focused largely on the pertinent issues. Fox News is still tops in the manner in which they handled the Republican debate, but CNN is running a close second so far.
GENERAL EVALUATION OF DEBATE PERFORMANCE OF CANDIDATES
In terms of communication skills, clarity, answering the question asked, and ability to connect with the audience, The Liberty Sphere believes that there are two candidates that came on very strong--Joseph Biden and Dennis Kucinich.
The two candidates who exhibited a marked improvement over their last debate performance are Chris Dodd and Mike Gravel.
Bill Richardson and John Edwards both can be placed in the 'good' category, both giving a solid performance.
Once again, Barack Obama came across as rather tentative. We noticed this tendency during the last debate. The candidate often seems to struggle to put together his answers. And, since this is certainly an observable trend rather than a one-time fluke, we feel that the candidate is simply not in the same league with the other candidates.
This leaves Hillary Clinton. Her performance was as expected--nothing to win people over but nothing to discourage her supporters either. Her problem, in our view, is her playing loose with the facts. We noted several instances where the candidate simply was not candid in her answers and instead opted for her usual spin of facts.
For example, she referred to the War in Iraq as 'George Bush's War.' This was big lie number one. She voted for it, no matter how she spins the issue. In addition, this is America's war. OUR sons and daughters are fighting in it. We are in it together.
Big lie number two was Hillary's claim that her husband tried to 'take out bin Laden.' Actually, the record shows he had several opportunities to do so, but opted out.
We will stop with the first two big lies of Hillary, simply because much of her rhetoric is not worth the time to evaluate.
RATINGS OF CANDIDATES ON THE ISSUES THAT IMPACT LIBERTY
The Liberty Sphere's eight key issues that impact liberty are as follows: national defense, taxes, healthcare, gun rights, abortion, the war on terror, U.S. foreign policy, and immigration control.
Based upon the candidates' answers this evening, and their previous statements on these issues, we rate them as follows on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the highest score:
Joseph Biden--5
Bill Richardson--4
Chris Dodd--3
John Edwards--2
Hillary Clinton--1
Barack Obama--1
Dennis Kucinich--1
Mike Gravel--1
Joe Biden's strong showing this evening is perhaps THE big news of the debate.
Bill Richardson lost some points from his first debate performance due to his answers concerning immigration, taxes, and U.S. foreign policy.
In addition, Richardson's assertion that the Border Fence that is to be built between the U.S. and Mexico is like 'the Berlin Wall' is the most ridiculous statement of the evening. The Berlin Wall was built to keep oppressed people imprisoned by a totalitarian government. Our Border Fence is being built to keep a free people from being overrun by those who neither respect nor value America's way of life or her government.
That Richardson would even suggest such a highly ludicrous and asinine thing is simply unbelievable for a Presidential candidate.
Running a close second to Richardson's most ridiculous statement of the evening is John Edwards' repeated assertion that the War on Terror should not be fought and that it is 'just a bumper sticker slogan.' That he would suggest such a thing only one day after the FBI foiled one of the most massive terrorist plots in the history of the nation is simply baffling.
We must at this point question Edwards' judgment, and therefore, wonder if he is fit to be President.
Only one Democratic candidate believes that English should be the official language of the United States--Mike Gravel. He is also the least likely to gain any ground as a viable candidate.
Thus, there are NO Democratic candidates who believe that English should be the official language of America.
You will note that none of the Democratic candidates could muster above a rating of '5' on our Liberty Scale. This is very telling and very dangerous.
If the Democratic Party can offer no one but these, or perhaps Al Gore to boot, then it is obvious that American politics has reached a sorry state of affairs when it comes to human liberty.
As always, The Liberty Sphere will provide complete evaluations on all of the candidates, based upon their performance and how closely they adhere to our eight key issues that impact human liberty.
First, a word about CNN and Wolf Blitzer's job as moderator. Blitzer is due high marks for his willingness to level the hard questions at the candidates, giving them very little wiggle room for deflection. Right out of the starting gate he zeroed in on the War on Terror in light of yesterday's foiled attack at JFK.
There was only one 'stupid question' segment of the debate, a segment which we have come to expect from the mainstream media's coverage of Democrats. In contrast to MSNBC and Chris Matthews' penchant for emphasizing the absurd, Blitzer only asked one question that could be considered stupid, which was, 'What role will you give Bill Clinton if you are elected President?'
Overall, however, Blitzer and CNN are to be commended for producing a debate that focused largely on the pertinent issues. Fox News is still tops in the manner in which they handled the Republican debate, but CNN is running a close second so far.
GENERAL EVALUATION OF DEBATE PERFORMANCE OF CANDIDATES
In terms of communication skills, clarity, answering the question asked, and ability to connect with the audience, The Liberty Sphere believes that there are two candidates that came on very strong--Joseph Biden and Dennis Kucinich.
The two candidates who exhibited a marked improvement over their last debate performance are Chris Dodd and Mike Gravel.
Bill Richardson and John Edwards both can be placed in the 'good' category, both giving a solid performance.
Once again, Barack Obama came across as rather tentative. We noticed this tendency during the last debate. The candidate often seems to struggle to put together his answers. And, since this is certainly an observable trend rather than a one-time fluke, we feel that the candidate is simply not in the same league with the other candidates.
This leaves Hillary Clinton. Her performance was as expected--nothing to win people over but nothing to discourage her supporters either. Her problem, in our view, is her playing loose with the facts. We noted several instances where the candidate simply was not candid in her answers and instead opted for her usual spin of facts.
For example, she referred to the War in Iraq as 'George Bush's War.' This was big lie number one. She voted for it, no matter how she spins the issue. In addition, this is America's war. OUR sons and daughters are fighting in it. We are in it together.
Big lie number two was Hillary's claim that her husband tried to 'take out bin Laden.' Actually, the record shows he had several opportunities to do so, but opted out.
We will stop with the first two big lies of Hillary, simply because much of her rhetoric is not worth the time to evaluate.
RATINGS OF CANDIDATES ON THE ISSUES THAT IMPACT LIBERTY
The Liberty Sphere's eight key issues that impact liberty are as follows: national defense, taxes, healthcare, gun rights, abortion, the war on terror, U.S. foreign policy, and immigration control.
Based upon the candidates' answers this evening, and their previous statements on these issues, we rate them as follows on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the highest score:
Joseph Biden--5
Bill Richardson--4
Chris Dodd--3
John Edwards--2
Hillary Clinton--1
Barack Obama--1
Dennis Kucinich--1
Mike Gravel--1
Joe Biden's strong showing this evening is perhaps THE big news of the debate.
Bill Richardson lost some points from his first debate performance due to his answers concerning immigration, taxes, and U.S. foreign policy.
In addition, Richardson's assertion that the Border Fence that is to be built between the U.S. and Mexico is like 'the Berlin Wall' is the most ridiculous statement of the evening. The Berlin Wall was built to keep oppressed people imprisoned by a totalitarian government. Our Border Fence is being built to keep a free people from being overrun by those who neither respect nor value America's way of life or her government.
That Richardson would even suggest such a highly ludicrous and asinine thing is simply unbelievable for a Presidential candidate.
Running a close second to Richardson's most ridiculous statement of the evening is John Edwards' repeated assertion that the War on Terror should not be fought and that it is 'just a bumper sticker slogan.' That he would suggest such a thing only one day after the FBI foiled one of the most massive terrorist plots in the history of the nation is simply baffling.
We must at this point question Edwards' judgment, and therefore, wonder if he is fit to be President.
Only one Democratic candidate believes that English should be the official language of the United States--Mike Gravel. He is also the least likely to gain any ground as a viable candidate.
Thus, there are NO Democratic candidates who believe that English should be the official language of America.
You will note that none of the Democratic candidates could muster above a rating of '5' on our Liberty Scale. This is very telling and very dangerous.
If the Democratic Party can offer no one but these, or perhaps Al Gore to boot, then it is obvious that American politics has reached a sorry state of affairs when it comes to human liberty.
Democrats Debate Tonight
Washington, DC (TLS). The Democratic Presidential candidates take the stage this evening for their next debate at 7 PM, EDT. CNN will take the honors this time as the co-sponsor and broadcaster of the event.
As always, The Liberty Sphere will provide readers with our exclusive 'Liberty Rating System' of each of the candidates in the debate. The candidates will first receive a general evaluation based upon their debate performance alone--communication skills, answering the questions posed, ability to connect with the audience, etc.
Then, we will rate the candidates based on their adherence to the principles that promote and preserve human liberty, using our 8 key issues as indicators.
More about that tonight.
So, be sure to watch the debate and then check back with The Liberty Sphere this evening for our evaluation of the Democratic candidates.
As always, The Liberty Sphere will provide readers with our exclusive 'Liberty Rating System' of each of the candidates in the debate. The candidates will first receive a general evaluation based upon their debate performance alone--communication skills, answering the questions posed, ability to connect with the audience, etc.
Then, we will rate the candidates based on their adherence to the principles that promote and preserve human liberty, using our 8 key issues as indicators.
More about that tonight.
So, be sure to watch the debate and then check back with The Liberty Sphere this evening for our evaluation of the Democratic candidates.
LIBERTY ALERT! Terrorist Threat on Two Fronts
Washington, DC (TLS). The Liberty Sphere has reason to believe that the U.S. is at a heightened risk for a major terrorist strike, perhaps more so than at any other time since 9/11.
As we reported to you in the aftermath of the foiled JFK Airport attack, the Saudis have warned that suspicious activity has been occurring at the nation's major airports since January of 2006, including strange persons who have been observed watching restricted areas at those airports.
In addition, the FBI is offering a 5 million dollar reward for information leading to the capture of Al Qaeda operative Adnan el-Shukrijumah, who is suspected to have smuggled nuclear material into the Unites States in order to conduct a massive, simultaneous terrorist attack on major U.S. cities using nuclear explosives.
Read The Liberty Sphere's special reports here:
http://thelibertysphere.blogspot.com/2007/06/foiled-jfk-terror-plot-may-be-tip-of.html
It is interesting that this information comes to the forefront just as the Democratic Presidential candidates get set to debate this evening on CNN. Not only have most of the Dems downplayed the significance of the terrorist threat to the nation, but one in particular, John Edwards, has stated that there should be NO 'global war on terror.'
It will be interesting to see if the Democratic lapdogs at CNN dare ask the Dems about whether or not their views have changed in the wake of the foiled terror plot in New York City.
As we reported to you in the aftermath of the foiled JFK Airport attack, the Saudis have warned that suspicious activity has been occurring at the nation's major airports since January of 2006, including strange persons who have been observed watching restricted areas at those airports.
In addition, the FBI is offering a 5 million dollar reward for information leading to the capture of Al Qaeda operative Adnan el-Shukrijumah, who is suspected to have smuggled nuclear material into the Unites States in order to conduct a massive, simultaneous terrorist attack on major U.S. cities using nuclear explosives.
Read The Liberty Sphere's special reports here:
http://thelibertysphere.blogspot.com/2007/06/foiled-jfk-terror-plot-may-be-tip-of.html
It is interesting that this information comes to the forefront just as the Democratic Presidential candidates get set to debate this evening on CNN. Not only have most of the Dems downplayed the significance of the terrorist threat to the nation, but one in particular, John Edwards, has stated that there should be NO 'global war on terror.'
It will be interesting to see if the Democratic lapdogs at CNN dare ask the Dems about whether or not their views have changed in the wake of the foiled terror plot in New York City.
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Dems Choose Debate Sponsors--Snub Fox
Washington, DC (TLS). The Democrats, continuing with their obvious cowardice at the prospects of facing Fox News, have chosen instead to allow CNN, ABC, CBS, and NBC/MSNBC to host their next six debates...an obvious snub of Fox.
What are these bozos afraid of? Being asked the hard questions?
Obviously. They had rather Chris Matthews ask them about sex or about their thoughts on Hillary winning the White House.
What idiots.
CNN will get two out of the next six debates, NBC/MSNBC will also get two, and CBS and ABC will get one a piece.
Way to go, guys. It must be nice to have the reporters who are already in your hip pocket to ask you the soft-ball questions.
Read the full story here:
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/politics/debates_dnc_announces_six_two_on_cnn_two_on_nbcmsnbc_59165.asp
What are these bozos afraid of? Being asked the hard questions?
Obviously. They had rather Chris Matthews ask them about sex or about their thoughts on Hillary winning the White House.
What idiots.
CNN will get two out of the next six debates, NBC/MSNBC will also get two, and CBS and ABC will get one a piece.
Way to go, guys. It must be nice to have the reporters who are already in your hip pocket to ask you the soft-ball questions.
Read the full story here:
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/politics/debates_dnc_announces_six_two_on_cnn_two_on_nbcmsnbc_59165.asp
Friday, May 11, 2007
Stupid Questions
Washington, DC (TLS). Everyone knows that Chris Matthews of NBC is a partisan, biased, Leftwing nutcase. He has never attempted to hide the fact. He was seen recently on a late-night talk show using expletives to describe Republicans. He has done this before.
But the questions Matthews issued to the Republican candidates during their first debate cannot be described in any other way but 'stupid.'
'How would you feel about Hillary Clinton in the White House?'
'Well, ah, gee whiz there, Chris, I would just LOVE it if Hillary were in the White House! After all, that's why I'm running for President, you IDIOT!'
I wish someone had had the guts to answer the stupid question in that manner.
However, now it is Mike Wallace's turn to ask the stupid questions. In an upcoming 60 Minutes interview on CBS with Mitt Romney, Wallace reportedly asks Romney if he and his wife 'ever had premarital sex.'
Excuse me, Mr. Wallace, but with all due respect this is an IDIOTIC question that demeans your entire distinguished career.
So does it all come down to this? I suppose the start of it all was the question put to Bill Clinton in 1992, 'Boxers or briefs?'
The news business has reached a very low ebb. Not only do they think we want to know what type of underwear the candidates wear, but they have the unmitigated gall to ask an opponent what he/she thinks if their rival wins the White House. DUH!
And who cares if Mitt Romney and his wife had premarital sex!
We can only hope that with Fox News sponsoring the next debate, we will get some questions that are worthy of a serious dialogue concerning the nation's future. It would be hard to imagine Britt Hume or John Gibson asking the candidates such blatantly mindless questions that have nothing to do with their ability to be President.
No wonder none of the Democrats want to face Fox News reporters asking the questions!
But, since apparently the Dems have insisted that only so-called 'mainstream' news organizations sponsor their debates--you know, the ones that want to know about premarital sex--I have come up with a few stupid questions the mighty heavy-weights of ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN could ask the Democrats.
'Mrs. Clinton, are you presently taking prescription hormonal therapy for post-menopausal women? And could this medication impair your decision-making?'
'Mr. Obama, which brand of smokes do you prefer? Winstons? Benson and Hedges? Would you offer Hillary a smoke if you were to light up after the debate?'
'Mr. Biden, are you standing there lusting after Hillary while waiting for your next question? And would you describe Hillary as an attractive woman or more of a bulldog?'
'Mr. Dodd, have you ever engaged in cross-dressing?'
'Mr. Edwards, if elected, would you disclose just who it is that does your hair? Chris Matthews and others of us want to know.'
'Mr. Kucinich, how many more times do you think you will have to position yourself to be photographed with President Bush before people remember who you are?'
'Mr. Gravel, do YOU even remember who you are?'
And finally.....
'Mr. Richardson, since you served in the Clinton White House and are friends of Bill (and we all know Bill talks)....tell us what all of America wants to know...does Hillary wear thong panties?'
But the questions Matthews issued to the Republican candidates during their first debate cannot be described in any other way but 'stupid.'
'How would you feel about Hillary Clinton in the White House?'
'Well, ah, gee whiz there, Chris, I would just LOVE it if Hillary were in the White House! After all, that's why I'm running for President, you IDIOT!'
I wish someone had had the guts to answer the stupid question in that manner.
However, now it is Mike Wallace's turn to ask the stupid questions. In an upcoming 60 Minutes interview on CBS with Mitt Romney, Wallace reportedly asks Romney if he and his wife 'ever had premarital sex.'
Excuse me, Mr. Wallace, but with all due respect this is an IDIOTIC question that demeans your entire distinguished career.
So does it all come down to this? I suppose the start of it all was the question put to Bill Clinton in 1992, 'Boxers or briefs?'
The news business has reached a very low ebb. Not only do they think we want to know what type of underwear the candidates wear, but they have the unmitigated gall to ask an opponent what he/she thinks if their rival wins the White House. DUH!
And who cares if Mitt Romney and his wife had premarital sex!
We can only hope that with Fox News sponsoring the next debate, we will get some questions that are worthy of a serious dialogue concerning the nation's future. It would be hard to imagine Britt Hume or John Gibson asking the candidates such blatantly mindless questions that have nothing to do with their ability to be President.
No wonder none of the Democrats want to face Fox News reporters asking the questions!
But, since apparently the Dems have insisted that only so-called 'mainstream' news organizations sponsor their debates--you know, the ones that want to know about premarital sex--I have come up with a few stupid questions the mighty heavy-weights of ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN could ask the Democrats.
'Mrs. Clinton, are you presently taking prescription hormonal therapy for post-menopausal women? And could this medication impair your decision-making?'
'Mr. Obama, which brand of smokes do you prefer? Winstons? Benson and Hedges? Would you offer Hillary a smoke if you were to light up after the debate?'
'Mr. Biden, are you standing there lusting after Hillary while waiting for your next question? And would you describe Hillary as an attractive woman or more of a bulldog?'
'Mr. Dodd, have you ever engaged in cross-dressing?'
'Mr. Edwards, if elected, would you disclose just who it is that does your hair? Chris Matthews and others of us want to know.'
'Mr. Kucinich, how many more times do you think you will have to position yourself to be photographed with President Bush before people remember who you are?'
'Mr. Gravel, do YOU even remember who you are?'
And finally.....
'Mr. Richardson, since you served in the Clinton White House and are friends of Bill (and we all know Bill talks)....tell us what all of America wants to know...does Hillary wear thong panties?'
Friday, April 27, 2007
Ratings of Democratic Presidential Candidates
Orangeburg, SC (TLS). The first major debate of the upcoming campaign cycle took place tonight in Orangeburg, South Carolina, at the campus of a traditionally black college, South Carolina State University. The University has a first class facility that only bolstered its reputation, and the debate was professionally conducted.
The Democratic candidates gathered on the stage to discuss the major issues of the day and to present their views about America's future.
The Liberty Sphere has rated each of these candidates as a service to those who study politics and public discourse, and to those who are honestly seeking clarification on a myriad of issues that can appear daunting and confusing.
According to the mission statement of The Liberty Sphere, we are here to advocate for groups, candidates, Parties, and organizations that promote human liberty all around the world. Thus, the heart of our rating system revolves around the candidates' views on those issues that we deem to be essential to human liberty.
More about that in a moment.
First, however, we would like to rate the candidates in tonight's debate based upon the strength of their presentation alone. A central element to being a good leader is being a great communicator. We will first rate the candidates based upon their style, manner of presentation, clarity, persuasiveness, and that often elusive quality of ANSWERING THE QUESTION that is posed.
Based upon our analysis of these elements of communication, we feel that John Edwards was strongest. He rarely dodged the question, although he did so a couple of times, and his style of communication was relaxed, succinct, and substantive, all encapsulated in a pleasant, deliberative demeanor that came across very well.
Three candidates tied for second place when it comes to strength of presentation...Joe Biden, Bill Richardson, and Dennis Kucinich. Each of these presented their case very well, but none came up to the level of Edwards.
In third place is Chris Dodd, who is no slouch as a debater but who often came across this evening as a bit tentative at times.
Fourth is Hillary Clinton. Her performance was predictably lackluster and did nothing to change the opinions that have already been formed of her. To those who love her, she did nothing to disappoint. To those who dislike her, she did nothing to persuade the leery.
Surprisingly, Barack Hussein Obama came in fifth. Obama was unusually ill-prepared in our view. He seemed to strain for his sentences, coming off as rather hesitant, disjointed, haphazard, and lacking in his usual energy and charisma. One wonders if this was simply a bad night for Obama...one of those days when a person is off their game, or if more significantly, being on the same stage with Democratic veterans was sufficiently intimidating to knock him off-balance.
But for whatever reason, Obama certainly did not help his case at all this evening, and if anything he may have hurt himself with many voters.
Coming in last is the former Senator from Alaska, Mike Gravel, who is such an unknown that his performance would be totally unremarkable, except for his striking anger and vitriol. The candidate came across as a gruff, angry, and irritable curmudgeon who is a bit frightening.
Now, on to the more substantive issues.
In rating the candidates in tonight's debate, The Liberty Sphere looked at 8 key issues that are central to the cause of liberty--national defense, taxes, healthcare, gun rights, abortion, the war on terror, U.S. foreign policy, and immigration control.
National defense is the ONLY thing mandated by the U.S. Constitution as a legitimate role of government, other than to protect and preserve basic human freedom. Without a strong defense, we cannot expect to maintain liberty in a world full of oppression and danger.
Taxes can be oppressive or they can be an adjunct to a healthy society. When taxes become so burdensome that average citizens feel oppressed, with little or no recourse or adequate representation, then liberty suffers. Currently the U.S. Tax Code is oppressive by its sheer size, scope, and contradictory provisions, leaving the electorate with nothing but mass confusion. The IRS is the single biggest example of taxation without representation in America today.
Healthcare is an issue that collectivists are using presently to take away more of the freedoms we enjoy as Americans. If this nation goes with a 'nationalized healthcare plan' funded by tax dollars, all freedom of choice goes out the window both on the part of patients AND doctors.
Gun rights are paramount in the preservation of liberty. Enough said.
Abortion is an issue of human freedom due to the fact that no government can maintain the moral authority to govern if it sanctions atrocity, murder, and barbarism. The Supreme Court passed an important corrective to absolute abortion rights by placing rational restrictions on the practice based upon the view that even medical procedures should be humane and not barbaric. Partial birth abortion is simply barbaric, and every single Democratic candidate stated on the record that they oppose the recent Court decision to ban this blood-thirsty, savage procedure.
This alone was enough to rob every single candidate of a top rating.
America must fight the War on Terror with the resolve to win or else we will not exist as a nation. Our enemies have sworn our annihilation. To back off, cut and run, or proclaim defeat is to accept our demise. We can do much better. The Democrats have little to offer in this most important endeavor.
U.S. foreign policy is crucial in the preservation of liberty. Do we stand with the EU with its Leftist leanings? Do we continue to support the U.N., which has become an organization of murderous thugs that bash America constantly? Or do we stand with our friends, such as NATO, Israel, Australia, Japan, and the eastern European block?
The support of Leftists and their anti-American rhetoric is a prescription for disaster for liberty.
Finally, without immigration control the nation is lost as a bastion of freedom. We CANNOT continue to allow non-citizens to come here illegally, benefit from our way of life without a willingness to adopt our language and customs, and make a mockery out of law-abiding immigrants who obey the law and go through the legal procedure for becoming citizens.
We MUST begin to enforce the nation's immigration laws, or else every single freedom for which our forefathers fought will come to naught.
Thus, based on these 8 key, critical issues that are central to the cause of liberty, The Liberty Sphere rates the Democratic candidates as follows, on a scale of 1 to 10 (10 being the best score), based upon tonight's debate and the previously-stated views of the candidates:
Governor Bill Richardson--6
Former Senator John Edwards--4
Senator Hillary Clinton--2
Senator Joseph Biden--2
Senator Chris Dodd--2
Rep. Dennis Kucinich--1
Senator Barach Obama--1
Former Senator Mike Gravel--1
As you will note from our ratings, of the 8 Democratic candidates in tonight's debate, Bill Richardson rates way ahead of the pack on the issues that impact liberty. But even then he has rated only a '6.' Thus, while there are aspects of Richardson's views that are encouraging, such as his stance on gun rights, there is actually little to recommend any of the Democrats thus far as potential guardians of our precious liberties.
The Democratic candidates gathered on the stage to discuss the major issues of the day and to present their views about America's future.
The Liberty Sphere has rated each of these candidates as a service to those who study politics and public discourse, and to those who are honestly seeking clarification on a myriad of issues that can appear daunting and confusing.
According to the mission statement of The Liberty Sphere, we are here to advocate for groups, candidates, Parties, and organizations that promote human liberty all around the world. Thus, the heart of our rating system revolves around the candidates' views on those issues that we deem to be essential to human liberty.
More about that in a moment.
First, however, we would like to rate the candidates in tonight's debate based upon the strength of their presentation alone. A central element to being a good leader is being a great communicator. We will first rate the candidates based upon their style, manner of presentation, clarity, persuasiveness, and that often elusive quality of ANSWERING THE QUESTION that is posed.
Based upon our analysis of these elements of communication, we feel that John Edwards was strongest. He rarely dodged the question, although he did so a couple of times, and his style of communication was relaxed, succinct, and substantive, all encapsulated in a pleasant, deliberative demeanor that came across very well.
Three candidates tied for second place when it comes to strength of presentation...Joe Biden, Bill Richardson, and Dennis Kucinich. Each of these presented their case very well, but none came up to the level of Edwards.
In third place is Chris Dodd, who is no slouch as a debater but who often came across this evening as a bit tentative at times.
Fourth is Hillary Clinton. Her performance was predictably lackluster and did nothing to change the opinions that have already been formed of her. To those who love her, she did nothing to disappoint. To those who dislike her, she did nothing to persuade the leery.
Surprisingly, Barack Hussein Obama came in fifth. Obama was unusually ill-prepared in our view. He seemed to strain for his sentences, coming off as rather hesitant, disjointed, haphazard, and lacking in his usual energy and charisma. One wonders if this was simply a bad night for Obama...one of those days when a person is off their game, or if more significantly, being on the same stage with Democratic veterans was sufficiently intimidating to knock him off-balance.
But for whatever reason, Obama certainly did not help his case at all this evening, and if anything he may have hurt himself with many voters.
Coming in last is the former Senator from Alaska, Mike Gravel, who is such an unknown that his performance would be totally unremarkable, except for his striking anger and vitriol. The candidate came across as a gruff, angry, and irritable curmudgeon who is a bit frightening.
Now, on to the more substantive issues.
In rating the candidates in tonight's debate, The Liberty Sphere looked at 8 key issues that are central to the cause of liberty--national defense, taxes, healthcare, gun rights, abortion, the war on terror, U.S. foreign policy, and immigration control.
National defense is the ONLY thing mandated by the U.S. Constitution as a legitimate role of government, other than to protect and preserve basic human freedom. Without a strong defense, we cannot expect to maintain liberty in a world full of oppression and danger.
Taxes can be oppressive or they can be an adjunct to a healthy society. When taxes become so burdensome that average citizens feel oppressed, with little or no recourse or adequate representation, then liberty suffers. Currently the U.S. Tax Code is oppressive by its sheer size, scope, and contradictory provisions, leaving the electorate with nothing but mass confusion. The IRS is the single biggest example of taxation without representation in America today.
Healthcare is an issue that collectivists are using presently to take away more of the freedoms we enjoy as Americans. If this nation goes with a 'nationalized healthcare plan' funded by tax dollars, all freedom of choice goes out the window both on the part of patients AND doctors.
Gun rights are paramount in the preservation of liberty. Enough said.
Abortion is an issue of human freedom due to the fact that no government can maintain the moral authority to govern if it sanctions atrocity, murder, and barbarism. The Supreme Court passed an important corrective to absolute abortion rights by placing rational restrictions on the practice based upon the view that even medical procedures should be humane and not barbaric. Partial birth abortion is simply barbaric, and every single Democratic candidate stated on the record that they oppose the recent Court decision to ban this blood-thirsty, savage procedure.
This alone was enough to rob every single candidate of a top rating.
America must fight the War on Terror with the resolve to win or else we will not exist as a nation. Our enemies have sworn our annihilation. To back off, cut and run, or proclaim defeat is to accept our demise. We can do much better. The Democrats have little to offer in this most important endeavor.
U.S. foreign policy is crucial in the preservation of liberty. Do we stand with the EU with its Leftist leanings? Do we continue to support the U.N., which has become an organization of murderous thugs that bash America constantly? Or do we stand with our friends, such as NATO, Israel, Australia, Japan, and the eastern European block?
The support of Leftists and their anti-American rhetoric is a prescription for disaster for liberty.
Finally, without immigration control the nation is lost as a bastion of freedom. We CANNOT continue to allow non-citizens to come here illegally, benefit from our way of life without a willingness to adopt our language and customs, and make a mockery out of law-abiding immigrants who obey the law and go through the legal procedure for becoming citizens.
We MUST begin to enforce the nation's immigration laws, or else every single freedom for which our forefathers fought will come to naught.
Thus, based on these 8 key, critical issues that are central to the cause of liberty, The Liberty Sphere rates the Democratic candidates as follows, on a scale of 1 to 10 (10 being the best score), based upon tonight's debate and the previously-stated views of the candidates:
Governor Bill Richardson--6
Former Senator John Edwards--4
Senator Hillary Clinton--2
Senator Joseph Biden--2
Senator Chris Dodd--2
Rep. Dennis Kucinich--1
Senator Barach Obama--1
Former Senator Mike Gravel--1
As you will note from our ratings, of the 8 Democratic candidates in tonight's debate, Bill Richardson rates way ahead of the pack on the issues that impact liberty. But even then he has rated only a '6.' Thus, while there are aspects of Richardson's views that are encouraging, such as his stance on gun rights, there is actually little to recommend any of the Democrats thus far as potential guardians of our precious liberties.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)