The story, or at least John Edwards' version of it, simply makes no sense.
His statement to the Press on Friday raises more questions than it answers. But he ended his remarks by saying that after giving the statement he would say nothing more about the matter.
How convenient.
Here are 3 key questions for Senator Edwards:
1. Now that we know Rielle Hunter, your supposed 'ex' mistress, will refuse to participate in a paternity test for her child, doesn't that make your offer of 'taking any test to prove you are not the father' just a tad disingenuous, particularly if you knew in advance she would refuse to participate, making your offer a moot point?
2. If Rielle is indeed your 'ex' mistress and the child is not yours, then what were you doing with them in her hotel room in Beverly Hills on the night of July 21, from roughly 10 PM until roughly 3 AM?
3. If you know beyond any shadow of a doubt that you are not the father of the child, then why didn't you go ahead and have the paternity test in advance, making the results known to reporters and the world when you made your 'confession' on Friday? If such a test would prove you are not the father, then having the results available as soon as you finally admitted to the sordid mess would certainly have put an immediate stop to the speculation.
Until John Edwards answers these 3 key questions, then we can only assume he has more to hide--much more to hide.
The National Enquirer insists that it has more information and more pictures, including video footage.
And contrary to the notion that such things are 'private' and have no business being reported in the news, such things are vital to the public interest. The voters have a right to know about the character of the person they are considering supporting, right?
After all, this is the common mantra of the media and liberals every time a conservative or Republican is caught in a sex scandal.
Edwards has always held out his family and marriage as stellar examples of his character. Now we know of the hypocrisy of that tactic. He has not been who he says he is, and THAT is news.
My hunch is that Edwards threw the Press a bone to chew on in order to try to squelch the story and move on without telling the whole story. In that sense he is still lying, and there is much more to this story than the small part Edwards made public.
If the National Enquirer is telling the truth, then what Edwards stated on Friday is only the tip of the iceberg.
Showing posts with label John Edwards. Show all posts
Showing posts with label John Edwards. Show all posts
Sunday, August 10, 2008
Friday, August 08, 2008
Edwards May Be Snubbed at DNC Over Scandal
A major North Carolina newspaper is reporting that former Democratic Presidential candidate John Edwards may be snubbed at the Democratic National Convention over the sex scandal that allegedly involves a mistress and a 'love child.'
The Raleigh News & Observer quotes several top Democratic Party operatives as saying that Edwards will lose his chance to address the Convention--an honor normally given to all previous Presidential candidates--unless he publicly answers the allegations made by the National Enquirer.
So far Edwards has neither directly confirmed nor denied the allegations. His only public comment about the matter is stating that the story is 'tabloid trash.'
But that does nothing to address the truth or falsehood of the allegations.
In fact, Edwards has had several opportunities to answer questions posed by members of the mainstream media in North Carolina concerning the scandal, but each time he has sidestepped the issue.
Democratic Party officials state that with each passing day that the issue remains unresolved, Edwards' value as a speaker at the DNC declines.
The Raleigh News & Observer quotes several top Democratic Party operatives as saying that Edwards will lose his chance to address the Convention--an honor normally given to all previous Presidential candidates--unless he publicly answers the allegations made by the National Enquirer.
So far Edwards has neither directly confirmed nor denied the allegations. His only public comment about the matter is stating that the story is 'tabloid trash.'
But that does nothing to address the truth or falsehood of the allegations.
In fact, Edwards has had several opportunities to answer questions posed by members of the mainstream media in North Carolina concerning the scandal, but each time he has sidestepped the issue.
Democratic Party officials state that with each passing day that the issue remains unresolved, Edwards' value as a speaker at the DNC declines.
Friday, July 25, 2008
EDWARDS CAUGHT WITH MISTRESS BY SECURITY
Fox News is reporting this afternoon the explosive revelation that a hotel security guard caught former U.S. Senator and Vice-Presidential candidate John Edwards (D-NC) at the Beverley Hilton in the room of his mistress on the night of July 21.
The guard confirms that Edwards was in the hotel room and that there was an altercation between Edwards and the media personnel who had followed him to the room.
In addition, the guard says that he escorted Edwards out of the hotel at roughly 2 AM and that the former Senator was 'white as a sheet.'
Read the rest of this breaking story HERE.
The guard confirms that Edwards was in the hotel room and that there was an altercation between Edwards and the media personnel who had followed him to the room.
In addition, the guard says that he escorted Edwards out of the hotel at roughly 2 AM and that the former Senator was 'white as a sheet.'
Read the rest of this breaking story HERE.
Thursday, July 24, 2008
JOHN EDWARDS CAUGHT WITH PANTS DOWN
Former U.S. Senator and Vice-Presidential candidate John Edwards (D-NC) has been caught with his pants down after meeting his mistress and their love child at a hotel this week.
Matt Drudge first broke the story concerning Edwards' extramarital affair and love child last December, as reported on The Liberty Sphere.
At the time Edwards was running for the Democratic nomination for President.
The story produced a string of strongly-worded denials by Edwards and his staff.
Yet this week the National Enquirer was on the scene where Edwards met the woman and child--the Beverly Hilton on Monday night, July 21.
The Enquirer reports that the former Senator was in the woman's hotel room all night and was seen leaving the next morning.
Edwards' wife is at home in the fight of her life against cancer.
Matt Drudge first broke the story concerning Edwards' extramarital affair and love child last December, as reported on The Liberty Sphere.
At the time Edwards was running for the Democratic nomination for President.
The story produced a string of strongly-worded denials by Edwards and his staff.
Yet this week the National Enquirer was on the scene where Edwards met the woman and child--the Beverly Hilton on Monday night, July 21.
The Enquirer reports that the former Senator was in the woman's hotel room all night and was seen leaving the next morning.
Edwards' wife is at home in the fight of her life against cancer.
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.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Second Amendment News Roundup for 1/24/08
Focusing on guns and politics, here is today's Second Amendment News Roundup:
As we reported yesterday, Gun Owners of America issued an alert urging members to contact their Reps in Washington, demanding that Bush withdraw the brief in support of D.C.'s gun ban. Red's Trading Post has picked up on the alert and issues this to all gun owners:
http://redstradingpost.blogspot.com/2008/01/president-bush-support-second-amendment.html
Sebastian has some great pointers on reloading:
http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/?p=2505
Say Uncle has news on the pro-gun/anti-gun protest in Virginia yesterday:
http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2008/01/24/interesting-8/
I have been saying all along that this year the GOP will come as close to having a brokered Convention with no clear front runner as they have in 80 years. Nicki at The Liberty Zone points to one pundit who believes Fred Thompson will emerge as THE MAN at the Convention is this indeed takes place:
http://libertyzone.blogspot.com/2008/01/is-fred-gone.html
Traction Control issues a reminder of the upcoming Second Amendment Blog Bash:
http://tractioncontrol.well-regulatedmilitia.org/?p=936
Squeaky says that when Fred Thompson dropped out, it was due to the fact that the powers that be picked the toy poodles over the Saint Bernard:
http://www.squeakywheelseeksgrease.com/blog/2008/01/23/fred-thompson-surprises-no-one/
Tam has the Battle Hymn of the DECLINE of the Republic....and, sadly, it is true:
http://booksbikesboomsticks.blogspot.com/2008/01/battle-hymn-of-decline-of-republic.html
Could the dumbing down of American politics get any worse? Well, Michelle Malkin has THIS that will make you wonder--John Edwards on the Tyra Banks Show:
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/01/24/john-edwards-and-tyra-banks-even-dumber/
The Buckeye Firearms Association says that presently we are having a debate we should never be forced to have in this country, given its Constitution, but here we are:
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/5024
A Keyboard and a .45 says that a coward speaks out:
http://akeyboardanda45.blogspot.com/2008/01/coward-speaks-out.html
Alphecca has the MUST-read of the day from the Colorado Springs Gazette:
http://www.alphecca.com/?p=617
Armed and Safe takes on Cook County Commissioner William Beavers for his flip-flop on gun rights:
http://armedandsafe.blogspot.com/2008/01/what-shift-away-from-rights.html
Blogonomicon presents yet another strike against John McCain, including the fact that McCain's 'pro-gun' stance actually refers to his positions over a decade ago, but not now:
http://blogonomicon.blogspot.com/2008/01/another-strike-against-mccain.html
Blogstitution has started a series of commentaries on French philosopher Jean Baudrillard's 'America.' Here is the first installment (Note: Scroll up to get the entirety of the first installment):
http://www.blogstitution.com/2008/01/22/america-a-series/
Pam Geller over at Atlas Shrugs has some very interesting factoids about Barack Obama and the company he keeps, including atheist Democratic billionaire activist George Soros:
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/01/obama-sleeping.html
As we reported yesterday, Gun Owners of America issued an alert urging members to contact their Reps in Washington, demanding that Bush withdraw the brief in support of D.C.'s gun ban. Red's Trading Post has picked up on the alert and issues this to all gun owners:
http://redstradingpost.blogspot.com/2008/01/president-bush-support-second-amendment.html
Sebastian has some great pointers on reloading:
http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/?p=2505
Say Uncle has news on the pro-gun/anti-gun protest in Virginia yesterday:
http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2008/01/24/interesting-8/
I have been saying all along that this year the GOP will come as close to having a brokered Convention with no clear front runner as they have in 80 years. Nicki at The Liberty Zone points to one pundit who believes Fred Thompson will emerge as THE MAN at the Convention is this indeed takes place:
http://libertyzone.blogspot.com/2008/01/is-fred-gone.html
Traction Control issues a reminder of the upcoming Second Amendment Blog Bash:
http://tractioncontrol.well-regulatedmilitia.org/?p=936
Squeaky says that when Fred Thompson dropped out, it was due to the fact that the powers that be picked the toy poodles over the Saint Bernard:
http://www.squeakywheelseeksgrease.com/blog/2008/01/23/fred-thompson-surprises-no-one/
Tam has the Battle Hymn of the DECLINE of the Republic....and, sadly, it is true:
http://booksbikesboomsticks.blogspot.com/2008/01/battle-hymn-of-decline-of-republic.html
Could the dumbing down of American politics get any worse? Well, Michelle Malkin has THIS that will make you wonder--John Edwards on the Tyra Banks Show:
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/01/24/john-edwards-and-tyra-banks-even-dumber/
The Buckeye Firearms Association says that presently we are having a debate we should never be forced to have in this country, given its Constitution, but here we are:
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/5024
A Keyboard and a .45 says that a coward speaks out:
http://akeyboardanda45.blogspot.com/2008/01/coward-speaks-out.html
Alphecca has the MUST-read of the day from the Colorado Springs Gazette:
http://www.alphecca.com/?p=617
Armed and Safe takes on Cook County Commissioner William Beavers for his flip-flop on gun rights:
http://armedandsafe.blogspot.com/2008/01/what-shift-away-from-rights.html
Blogonomicon presents yet another strike against John McCain, including the fact that McCain's 'pro-gun' stance actually refers to his positions over a decade ago, but not now:
http://blogonomicon.blogspot.com/2008/01/another-strike-against-mccain.html
Blogstitution has started a series of commentaries on French philosopher Jean Baudrillard's 'America.' Here is the first installment (Note: Scroll up to get the entirety of the first installment):
http://www.blogstitution.com/2008/01/22/america-a-series/
Pam Geller over at Atlas Shrugs has some very interesting factoids about Barack Obama and the company he keeps, including atheist Democratic billionaire activist George Soros:
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/01/obama-sleeping.html
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Matt Drudge: Edwards Love-Child Scandal Brewing
Note! Scroll down for late-breaking update, including the name and picture of the woman.
Matt Drudge is reporting a major breaking story, published by the National Enquirer, which contends that Democratic Presidential hopeful John Edwards is embroiled in a love-child scandal in which the mother is being kept in hiding.
The woman, who has not yet been named, is purportedly carrying Edwards' child and is being kept out of public view.
This still-developing story is short on details at this point. For this reason a link will be provided below that will take you directly to the Drudge Report website for further updated information.
If this story turns out to be true, it will sound the death-toll for the Edwards campaign. You can bet your last birth control pill that Americans, even within the Democratic Party, are not going to stand for a candidate who sires a love child while his wife is dying of cancer.
Here is the link to the Drudge Report:
http://www.drudgereport.com/
UPDATE! The link to the National Enquirer story is provided here, which not only names the woman in question, but has a picture of her and excerpts from her admission to the affair with Edwards to a friend:
http://www.nationalenquirer.com/john_edwards/celebrity/64424
Matt Drudge is reporting a major breaking story, published by the National Enquirer, which contends that Democratic Presidential hopeful John Edwards is embroiled in a love-child scandal in which the mother is being kept in hiding.
The woman, who has not yet been named, is purportedly carrying Edwards' child and is being kept out of public view.
This still-developing story is short on details at this point. For this reason a link will be provided below that will take you directly to the Drudge Report website for further updated information.
If this story turns out to be true, it will sound the death-toll for the Edwards campaign. You can bet your last birth control pill that Americans, even within the Democratic Party, are not going to stand for a candidate who sires a love child while his wife is dying of cancer.
Here is the link to the Drudge Report:
http://www.drudgereport.com/
UPDATE! The link to the National Enquirer story is provided here, which not only names the woman in question, but has a picture of her and excerpts from her admission to the affair with Edwards to a friend:
http://www.nationalenquirer.com/john_edwards/celebrity/64424
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Now That We're Winning, Let's Leave?
Most observers in the realm of world politics say that the so-called 'troop surge' in Iraq is working. Some of the very pundits whose warnings were used by the Democrats to call for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq are now saying that winning the war is entirely within reach.
Even many Congressional Democrats are beginning to say the very same thing.
The Democratic leadership, however, says that our recent successes in Iraq are cause for immediate withdrawal. This view is clearly not shared by many of the rank-and-file Democrats in the Congress, however.
So, what, exactly, is happening with the Democratic leadership?
One, Party leaders are definitely beholden to extremists who make up the core of the Party faithful. From Cindy Sheehan to Michael Moore, from Sean Penn to Harry Belafonte, from George Soros to Barbra Streisand, Democratic Party activists demand an immediate withdrawal from Iraq no matter what.
Two, the Democrats have staked out the War in Iraq as the single issue with which to win the White House in 2008. Thus, whether they like it or not, and whether they admit it or not, the Democrats have a vested political interest in our losing the War.
The fact that we are now winning does not figure into the 2008 campaign playbook, which assumed that Iraq would continue to drag Mr. Bush and the Republicans further down into the abyss, leaving a golden opportunity for the Democrats to seize the supposed failures of the War as a reason to put them in the White House.
Thus, for the U.S. to turn things around and actually begin to bring a volatile situation under control in Iraq would be bad political news for the Democrats.
And whether the Dems like it or not, this is precisely the predicament in which the Party and its candidates find themselves, i.e., being the Party that wins if America loses.
Three, without fail each member of the Democratic leadership is on record utilizing the most vitriolic rhetoric one can muster to condemn the War, though most of them voted for it, and to lambast the Republicans who supposedly 'got us into this mess,' which once again could not have happened without the help and support of Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, John Kerry, Harry Reid, and Ted Kennedy in 2002.
Each of the Senators mentioned above support withdrawal in spite of the turn-around produced by the troop-surge. Add to that members of the House, such as John Conyers, Nancy Pelosi, and John Murtha, and it is clear that the Party leadership is obviously paying no attention to the members of the Democratic rank-and-file nor their chosen pundits who once supported withdrawal but who now say the surge is working.
The attitude of the Democratic leadership seems to be that of, 'Now that we are winning, let's leave.' No real need to stay until the job is done, right?
Only if you have a vested interest in making sure that we do not finish the job. After all, the 2008 elections draw near.
Even many Congressional Democrats are beginning to say the very same thing.
The Democratic leadership, however, says that our recent successes in Iraq are cause for immediate withdrawal. This view is clearly not shared by many of the rank-and-file Democrats in the Congress, however.
So, what, exactly, is happening with the Democratic leadership?
One, Party leaders are definitely beholden to extremists who make up the core of the Party faithful. From Cindy Sheehan to Michael Moore, from Sean Penn to Harry Belafonte, from George Soros to Barbra Streisand, Democratic Party activists demand an immediate withdrawal from Iraq no matter what.
Two, the Democrats have staked out the War in Iraq as the single issue with which to win the White House in 2008. Thus, whether they like it or not, and whether they admit it or not, the Democrats have a vested political interest in our losing the War.
The fact that we are now winning does not figure into the 2008 campaign playbook, which assumed that Iraq would continue to drag Mr. Bush and the Republicans further down into the abyss, leaving a golden opportunity for the Democrats to seize the supposed failures of the War as a reason to put them in the White House.
Thus, for the U.S. to turn things around and actually begin to bring a volatile situation under control in Iraq would be bad political news for the Democrats.
And whether the Dems like it or not, this is precisely the predicament in which the Party and its candidates find themselves, i.e., being the Party that wins if America loses.
Three, without fail each member of the Democratic leadership is on record utilizing the most vitriolic rhetoric one can muster to condemn the War, though most of them voted for it, and to lambast the Republicans who supposedly 'got us into this mess,' which once again could not have happened without the help and support of Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, John Kerry, Harry Reid, and Ted Kennedy in 2002.
Each of the Senators mentioned above support withdrawal in spite of the turn-around produced by the troop-surge. Add to that members of the House, such as John Conyers, Nancy Pelosi, and John Murtha, and it is clear that the Party leadership is obviously paying no attention to the members of the Democratic rank-and-file nor their chosen pundits who once supported withdrawal but who now say the surge is working.
The attitude of the Democratic leadership seems to be that of, 'Now that we are winning, let's leave.' No real need to stay until the job is done, right?
Only if you have a vested interest in making sure that we do not finish the job. After all, the 2008 elections draw near.
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
Monday, July 30, 2007
South Carolina and the Presidency
South Carolina normally would not be considered a powerhouse in national politics--a least not in terms of perception. That is about to change.
The state will host one of the earliest primaries in the nation in 2008, and thus, candidates in both Parties have already been frequent visitors to the Palmetto state.
Sensing that the state is crucial in garnering the required number of delegate votes at the political Conventions, candidates are not leaving anything to chance. Republican Duncan Hunter announced his Presidential bid here. Ron Paul has been here twice. So have Hillary and Obama.
Yet South Carolina is actually more crucial to the Republican candidates than that of the Democrats. The state is now thoroughly Republican. Both of its U.S. Senators are Republicans. So is the Governor. The state legislature is controlled by Republicans.
Thus, this is a test state for the Republicans. Whoever wins here will more than likely win the Party's nomination for the White House.
Although S.C.'s U.S. Senators Lindsey Graham and Jim DeMint belong to the same Party, the two are actually as different as night and day. Graham is solidly behind McCain and has been rumored to be a potential running mate for the Arizona Senator, should he win the nomination.
Graham has also created some enemies for himself among the Party faithful here, with his front-lines support of the McCain-Ted Kennedy-George Bush immigration amnesty plan.
Rumors are that the Senator may be in trouble during his next re-election campaign, and he already has some opposition from two Republican candidates who are intent on wresting the nomination away from Graham.
Jim DeMint, on the other hand, has become a favorite of the Party faithful in S.C. with his staunch opposition to the amnesty bill that Graham supported. DeMint also supports Mitt Romney for the Republican nomination, although his backing has not helped the candidate move to the top of the pack.
Duncan Hunter, Mike Huckabee, and Rudy Giuliani have strong support in the state, but polls have shown that South Carolina will probably go to Fred Thompson, assuming that Thompson will declare his candidacy.
On the Democratic side, both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have shown solid support among Democrats in the state. Despite John Edwards' strong ties here and his upbringing in neighboring North Carolina, he has not been able to create very much excitement for his campaign.
In all likelihood, the candidates who win South Carolina will be their Party's nominee for the Presidency. At this point it would appear that those candidates will be Fred Thompson and Hillary Clinton.
And thus, South Carolina will have a large hand in choosing the next President.
The state will host one of the earliest primaries in the nation in 2008, and thus, candidates in both Parties have already been frequent visitors to the Palmetto state.
Sensing that the state is crucial in garnering the required number of delegate votes at the political Conventions, candidates are not leaving anything to chance. Republican Duncan Hunter announced his Presidential bid here. Ron Paul has been here twice. So have Hillary and Obama.
Yet South Carolina is actually more crucial to the Republican candidates than that of the Democrats. The state is now thoroughly Republican. Both of its U.S. Senators are Republicans. So is the Governor. The state legislature is controlled by Republicans.
Thus, this is a test state for the Republicans. Whoever wins here will more than likely win the Party's nomination for the White House.
Although S.C.'s U.S. Senators Lindsey Graham and Jim DeMint belong to the same Party, the two are actually as different as night and day. Graham is solidly behind McCain and has been rumored to be a potential running mate for the Arizona Senator, should he win the nomination.
Graham has also created some enemies for himself among the Party faithful here, with his front-lines support of the McCain-Ted Kennedy-George Bush immigration amnesty plan.
Rumors are that the Senator may be in trouble during his next re-election campaign, and he already has some opposition from two Republican candidates who are intent on wresting the nomination away from Graham.
Jim DeMint, on the other hand, has become a favorite of the Party faithful in S.C. with his staunch opposition to the amnesty bill that Graham supported. DeMint also supports Mitt Romney for the Republican nomination, although his backing has not helped the candidate move to the top of the pack.
Duncan Hunter, Mike Huckabee, and Rudy Giuliani have strong support in the state, but polls have shown that South Carolina will probably go to Fred Thompson, assuming that Thompson will declare his candidacy.
On the Democratic side, both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have shown solid support among Democrats in the state. Despite John Edwards' strong ties here and his upbringing in neighboring North Carolina, he has not been able to create very much excitement for his campaign.
In all likelihood, the candidates who win South Carolina will be their Party's nominee for the Presidency. At this point it would appear that those candidates will be Fred Thompson and Hillary Clinton.
And thus, South Carolina will have a large hand in choosing the next President.
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.
Saturday, July 07, 2007
Campaign Fundraising: Who's Ahead So Far?
Washington, DC (TLS). With precious time ticking away as we draw ever closer to that important but early deadline of 1/1/08, Republican and Democratic Presidential candidates are reporting their fundraising totals for the second quarter.
Never before in a campaign has money been so vitally important this early. And it is way too early, indeed. Yet, in order to be competitive in the early 2008 primaries, each of the candidates will need at least 100 million bucks on hand.
We can thank the masterminds of both Parties for setting up this scenario, moving state primaries earlier and earlier supposedly giving their states more clout. What they may succeed in doing instead is making the electorate totally sick of politics a year ahead of the election.
Nonetheless, this is the situation we have, and we must deal with it.
So, who is ahead so far?
Republican campaign contributions are lackluster. This is due in part to a fairly unpopular President who continues to make gargantuan mistakes, all in the name of attempting to secure a positive 'legacy.' The other factor is Fred Thompson.
And this points to a much deeper problem. The present field of candidates are not catching on with the Party's base, and thus, most are holding on to their money until Fred Thompson makes his announcement.
Among the announced Republican candidates, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, and John McCain are still the top three, although McCain's 2nd quarter totals were totally disappointing, leading the candidate to cut campaign staff. Although Romney's totals look fairly good, his 2nd quarter was not up to par with his 1st quarter totals, and the candidate loaned personal cash to his campaign. Giuliani still leads the pack with a steady and consistent stream of contributions.
Giuliani's 2nd quarter totals were approximately equal to his 1st quarter totals, bringing his grand total to over 32 million.
While the Ron Paul campaign claims it has more cash on hand than McCain, in terms of totals raised so far Dr. Paul is not in the top tier. When his 1st and 2nd quarter totals are combined he comes up with roughly 2.5 million in campaign funds.
However, Paul runs a very frugal campaign. He rarely travels to campaign on the stump, and most of his funds are raised on the Internet. Thus, the candidate can make a couple of million go a very long way, and he doesn't have to worry about overhead that eats through money faster than Michael Moore can inhale four Big Macs from Mickey D's.
Duncan Hunter and Mike Huckabee appear to be in a dead-heat with regard to funds, and the rest of the 2nd tier lags far behind.
On the Democratic side, Barack Obama beat Hillary Clinton in the 2nd quarter, raising 32.5 million. This means that he is now ahead of Hillary for the year, raising 55.7 million as compared to her 53 million.
John Edwards comes in third with a lackluster 9 million, followed by Bill Richardson with 7.2 million.
Although the money has taken on more importance than normal given the unusually early primaries, it is nonetheless common in campaigns for candidates who have the most money to lose in the actual vote counts. This would give hope to candidates such as Bill Richardson, Ron Paul, Duncan Hunter, and Mike Huckabee.
Here is a quick wrap-up of the top fundraisers so far, in order of their year-to-date totals:
REPUBLICANS
**Rudy Giuliani
**Mitt Romney
**John McCain
**Ron Paul
**Duncan Hunter, Mike Huckabee
**Sam Brownback
**Jim Gilmore
**Tom Tancredo
**Tommy Thompson
DEMOCRATS
**Barack Obama
**Hillary Clinton
**John Edwards
**Bill Richardson
**Chris Dodd
**Joe Biden
**Dennis Kucinich
**Mike Gravel
Never before in a campaign has money been so vitally important this early. And it is way too early, indeed. Yet, in order to be competitive in the early 2008 primaries, each of the candidates will need at least 100 million bucks on hand.
We can thank the masterminds of both Parties for setting up this scenario, moving state primaries earlier and earlier supposedly giving their states more clout. What they may succeed in doing instead is making the electorate totally sick of politics a year ahead of the election.
Nonetheless, this is the situation we have, and we must deal with it.
So, who is ahead so far?
Republican campaign contributions are lackluster. This is due in part to a fairly unpopular President who continues to make gargantuan mistakes, all in the name of attempting to secure a positive 'legacy.' The other factor is Fred Thompson.
And this points to a much deeper problem. The present field of candidates are not catching on with the Party's base, and thus, most are holding on to their money until Fred Thompson makes his announcement.
Among the announced Republican candidates, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, and John McCain are still the top three, although McCain's 2nd quarter totals were totally disappointing, leading the candidate to cut campaign staff. Although Romney's totals look fairly good, his 2nd quarter was not up to par with his 1st quarter totals, and the candidate loaned personal cash to his campaign. Giuliani still leads the pack with a steady and consistent stream of contributions.
Giuliani's 2nd quarter totals were approximately equal to his 1st quarter totals, bringing his grand total to over 32 million.
While the Ron Paul campaign claims it has more cash on hand than McCain, in terms of totals raised so far Dr. Paul is not in the top tier. When his 1st and 2nd quarter totals are combined he comes up with roughly 2.5 million in campaign funds.
However, Paul runs a very frugal campaign. He rarely travels to campaign on the stump, and most of his funds are raised on the Internet. Thus, the candidate can make a couple of million go a very long way, and he doesn't have to worry about overhead that eats through money faster than Michael Moore can inhale four Big Macs from Mickey D's.
Duncan Hunter and Mike Huckabee appear to be in a dead-heat with regard to funds, and the rest of the 2nd tier lags far behind.
On the Democratic side, Barack Obama beat Hillary Clinton in the 2nd quarter, raising 32.5 million. This means that he is now ahead of Hillary for the year, raising 55.7 million as compared to her 53 million.
John Edwards comes in third with a lackluster 9 million, followed by Bill Richardson with 7.2 million.
Although the money has taken on more importance than normal given the unusually early primaries, it is nonetheless common in campaigns for candidates who have the most money to lose in the actual vote counts. This would give hope to candidates such as Bill Richardson, Ron Paul, Duncan Hunter, and Mike Huckabee.
Here is a quick wrap-up of the top fundraisers so far, in order of their year-to-date totals:
REPUBLICANS
**Rudy Giuliani
**Mitt Romney
**John McCain
**Ron Paul
**Duncan Hunter, Mike Huckabee
**Sam Brownback
**Jim Gilmore
**Tom Tancredo
**Tommy Thompson
DEMOCRATS
**Barack Obama
**Hillary Clinton
**John Edwards
**Bill Richardson
**Chris Dodd
**Joe Biden
**Dennis Kucinich
**Mike Gravel
Sunday, July 01, 2007
Poor Little Innocent, Frail, Weak Elizabeth Edwards
Washington, DC (TLS). To hear the mainstream media describe it, the poor, innocent, frail and weak Elizabeth Edwards, wife of Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, was compelled to call in impromptu to Chris Matthews' show to defend her husband against the relentless, cold, mean, and barbaric attacks of that pit bull Ann Coulter.
Never has a pathetic political operation gotten so much milage out of the comments of a ideological opponent.
And the Edwards laugh all the way to the bank.
First, Elizabeth Edwards is no innocent, frail, and weak human being. To the contrary, despite her fight against cancer, she is one of John Edwards' most effective and TOUGH campaign advisers. But you have to give the woman credit, she played the poor little innocent frail and weak wife to the 't.' She should win an Oscar.
Second, Edwards' phone call to the Chris Matthews show was no impromptu, spur-of-the-moment thing. It was PLANNED. Matthews informed Coulter just before airtime that Elizabeth Edwards 'might' call in.
'Might.' Sure, Matthews. You set the whole thing up. You even admitted it.
Third, Coulter's statements about John Edwards are largely deserved. And for the record, she never actually said she wished he would die in a terrorist attack. That statement was a joke and was a takeoff on the statement by Bill Maher that Vice President Dick Cheney should die in a terrorist attack...about which he was 100% serious. It was that very week that the blogosphere was full of venomous attacks against Cheney, who has heart disease, to the effect of, 'We wish he would die.'
Now, did the mainstream media report on the fact that countless posts to the Daily Koz and the Huffington Post website were calling for the death of Dick Cheney? Nary one.
What about their comments concerning White House Press Secretary Tony Snow's cancer, to the effect of, 'We hope he dies. His death will be proof that God hates him.'
NONE of this was reported by the mainstream media. Zilch.
Yet Ann Coulter is made out to be a close relative of Bagdad's 'Chemical Ali' because she uses what the Left had already been saying to turn the tables around on Edwards, saying in effect, 'Every time I say anything negative about him I get attacked. Maybe if I do what the Left does and wish he would die in a terrorist attack, that would be just fine.'
But you see, most of the reporters in the mainstream media are too dumb to follow carefully such logic and use of the English language, and unfortunately, many of their viewers are in the same boat.
Thus, it is much easier to assume Coulter meant she hoped Edwards would die in a terrorist attack.
Make no mistake, my friends, the Edwards campaign, for which Elizabeth Edwards is the most powerful player outside the candidate himself, has its own pit bull tactics that make Ann Coulter look like Pollyanna.
An Edwards campaign staffer wrote this on the Edwards campaign blog in the months prior to her resignation (and she was not even fired for the statement): "What if Mary had taken Plan B after the Lord filled her with his hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit"?
Wonder what the good, down-home Baptist and Methodist folk in Edwards' hometown of Seneca, South Carolina think about this blasphemous attack on Christian belief?
Personally, I don't think they're surprised. People who know the Edwards know that they are relentless and cold opportunists. And in this way they are so very much like the Clintons.
Never has a pathetic political operation gotten so much milage out of the comments of a ideological opponent.
And the Edwards laugh all the way to the bank.
First, Elizabeth Edwards is no innocent, frail, and weak human being. To the contrary, despite her fight against cancer, she is one of John Edwards' most effective and TOUGH campaign advisers. But you have to give the woman credit, she played the poor little innocent frail and weak wife to the 't.' She should win an Oscar.
Second, Edwards' phone call to the Chris Matthews show was no impromptu, spur-of-the-moment thing. It was PLANNED. Matthews informed Coulter just before airtime that Elizabeth Edwards 'might' call in.
'Might.' Sure, Matthews. You set the whole thing up. You even admitted it.
Third, Coulter's statements about John Edwards are largely deserved. And for the record, she never actually said she wished he would die in a terrorist attack. That statement was a joke and was a takeoff on the statement by Bill Maher that Vice President Dick Cheney should die in a terrorist attack...about which he was 100% serious. It was that very week that the blogosphere was full of venomous attacks against Cheney, who has heart disease, to the effect of, 'We wish he would die.'
Now, did the mainstream media report on the fact that countless posts to the Daily Koz and the Huffington Post website were calling for the death of Dick Cheney? Nary one.
What about their comments concerning White House Press Secretary Tony Snow's cancer, to the effect of, 'We hope he dies. His death will be proof that God hates him.'
NONE of this was reported by the mainstream media. Zilch.
Yet Ann Coulter is made out to be a close relative of Bagdad's 'Chemical Ali' because she uses what the Left had already been saying to turn the tables around on Edwards, saying in effect, 'Every time I say anything negative about him I get attacked. Maybe if I do what the Left does and wish he would die in a terrorist attack, that would be just fine.'
But you see, most of the reporters in the mainstream media are too dumb to follow carefully such logic and use of the English language, and unfortunately, many of their viewers are in the same boat.
Thus, it is much easier to assume Coulter meant she hoped Edwards would die in a terrorist attack.
Make no mistake, my friends, the Edwards campaign, for which Elizabeth Edwards is the most powerful player outside the candidate himself, has its own pit bull tactics that make Ann Coulter look like Pollyanna.
An Edwards campaign staffer wrote this on the Edwards campaign blog in the months prior to her resignation (and she was not even fired for the statement): "What if Mary had taken Plan B after the Lord filled her with his hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit"?
Wonder what the good, down-home Baptist and Methodist folk in Edwards' hometown of Seneca, South Carolina think about this blasphemous attack on Christian belief?
Personally, I don't think they're surprised. People who know the Edwards know that they are relentless and cold opportunists. And in this way they are so very much like the Clintons.
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.
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.
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Losing Our Resolve
Washington, DC (TLS). The West is in mortal danger of losing its resolve to fight global terrorism, much to our peril. Western Europe finds itself in the throws of a nonchalance towards Islamic extremists and therefore finds itself in danger of being totally dominated by barbarians within a decade or less.
Meanwhile, in the U.S., the Presidential candidates provide a sobering microcosm of the nonchalance of the electorate. Democratic Presidential candidate John Edwards says there is no global war on terror. Hillary Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama both voted against funding our troops.
Americans, by and large, have turned against the War in Iraq, not because they did not think the cause was noble but that it did not go as expected. We have come to think that military campaigns should be swift, short, and clean.
Perhaps this is due to the fairy-tale world that the television generation has created.
Nonetheless, we stand on the brink of not only losing our resolve to fight what is a most dangerous fight to the death against extremist barbarians emboldened by their religion, but we are in grave danger of losing our very civilization, our values, our way of life to those who will throw the world into another era like the Dark Ages.
These people aren't playing. They WILL take advantage of our weakness, and they WILL dominate the West if we continue on the present course.
Our favorite intellectual, Dr. Walter Williams, warns that America's fate could well be that of the great Roman Empire, which fell to barbarians who then ushered in the Dark Ages. If the West falls to the present barbarians, you can be assured that a thousand years of darkness will follow in a world ruled by ruthless terrorist warlords who believe women should be kept enslaved, children should be used as suicide bombers, and all must convert to Islam or be killed.
Read Williams' gripping article here:
http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams052207.php3
Meanwhile, in the U.S., the Presidential candidates provide a sobering microcosm of the nonchalance of the electorate. Democratic Presidential candidate John Edwards says there is no global war on terror. Hillary Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama both voted against funding our troops.
Americans, by and large, have turned against the War in Iraq, not because they did not think the cause was noble but that it did not go as expected. We have come to think that military campaigns should be swift, short, and clean.
Perhaps this is due to the fairy-tale world that the television generation has created.
Nonetheless, we stand on the brink of not only losing our resolve to fight what is a most dangerous fight to the death against extremist barbarians emboldened by their religion, but we are in grave danger of losing our very civilization, our values, our way of life to those who will throw the world into another era like the Dark Ages.
These people aren't playing. They WILL take advantage of our weakness, and they WILL dominate the West if we continue on the present course.
Our favorite intellectual, Dr. Walter Williams, warns that America's fate could well be that of the great Roman Empire, which fell to barbarians who then ushered in the Dark Ages. If the West falls to the present barbarians, you can be assured that a thousand years of darkness will follow in a world ruled by ruthless terrorist warlords who believe women should be kept enslaved, children should be used as suicide bombers, and all must convert to Islam or be killed.
Read Williams' gripping article here:
http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams052207.php3
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
The Mounting Shame of John Edwards
Washington, DC (TLS). Democratic Presidential candidate John Edwards stated that Monday, Memorial Day, should be a day of protest against the Iraq War and the War on Terror.
Thus, in one simple sentence, Edwards has succeeded in desecrating what to multi-millions of Americans is a sacred day to remember the ultimate sacrifice of those who gave their time, effort, energy, resources, and lives, for their country--many in foreign wars.
Rather than taking the opportunity to honor and remember our military men and women, Edwards and his ilk instead chose to use this as an opportunity to bash our troops overseas and their families. Edwards politicized a national holiday for his own expediency.
This is what we have come to expect from Leftwing nutcases. Hillary Clinton stated week before last that on July 4--Independence Day--Americans should declare the day to be our 'independence from foreign oil and the burning of fossil fuels.'
You can rest assured that as July 4 draws near, this writer will have plenty more to say about THAT utterly stupid and ultimately desecrating remark on the part of one who has absolutely no reverence for traditional American values.
But for now the focus is on Edwards, who continues to show Americans, particularly those in his own home territory of the South, that he is so out of step with the majority that only a Jane Fonda radical would vote for him.
As the campaign moves forward it has become abundantly clear that the Democrats have no candidate to put forth who is not marching in lockstep with Cindy Sheehan nutcases. These are the ones who control the Democratic Party.
They may as well go ahead and choose either Michael Moore, Harry Belafonte, or Danny Glover as their candidate. At least it will be an honest presentation of where, exactly, they stand on the issues rather than attempting to hide their true ideology by using rhetorical mumbo-jumbo that clouds the facts.
Edwards, for example, believes there should be no worldwide war on terror. He also condemned the Supreme Court's ruling to outlaw the barbaric procedure known as 'partial birth abortions.' And now he takes a sacred American holiday designed to memorialize our servicemen and women, and turns it into a day to stage war protests.
These are hardly the values of Seneca, South Carolina, Edwards' hometown.
Thus, in one simple sentence, Edwards has succeeded in desecrating what to multi-millions of Americans is a sacred day to remember the ultimate sacrifice of those who gave their time, effort, energy, resources, and lives, for their country--many in foreign wars.
Rather than taking the opportunity to honor and remember our military men and women, Edwards and his ilk instead chose to use this as an opportunity to bash our troops overseas and their families. Edwards politicized a national holiday for his own expediency.
This is what we have come to expect from Leftwing nutcases. Hillary Clinton stated week before last that on July 4--Independence Day--Americans should declare the day to be our 'independence from foreign oil and the burning of fossil fuels.'
You can rest assured that as July 4 draws near, this writer will have plenty more to say about THAT utterly stupid and ultimately desecrating remark on the part of one who has absolutely no reverence for traditional American values.
But for now the focus is on Edwards, who continues to show Americans, particularly those in his own home territory of the South, that he is so out of step with the majority that only a Jane Fonda radical would vote for him.
As the campaign moves forward it has become abundantly clear that the Democrats have no candidate to put forth who is not marching in lockstep with Cindy Sheehan nutcases. These are the ones who control the Democratic Party.
They may as well go ahead and choose either Michael Moore, Harry Belafonte, or Danny Glover as their candidate. At least it will be an honest presentation of where, exactly, they stand on the issues rather than attempting to hide their true ideology by using rhetorical mumbo-jumbo that clouds the facts.
Edwards, for example, believes there should be no worldwide war on terror. He also condemned the Supreme Court's ruling to outlaw the barbaric procedure known as 'partial birth abortions.' And now he takes a sacred American holiday designed to memorialize our servicemen and women, and turns it into a day to stage war protests.
These are hardly the values of Seneca, South Carolina, Edwards' hometown.
Saturday, May 05, 2007
New Poll Indicates Hillary In Trouble
Washington, DC (TLS). A new poll is making its rounds in Washington and beyond that shows Hillary Clinton in deep trouble. The poll also has some startling information for the Republican front-runners.
If the election were held today, both Barack Obama and John Edwards would beat each of the top three Republican candidates in head-to-head races. This shows that Giuliani, McCain, and Romney's support may be very tentative, even among Republicans.
However, when Hillary is matched with Rudy Giuliani in a head-to-head encounter, if the election were held today, Giuliani would beat Hillary in some areas that have become known as Democratic strongholds, such as New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. Hillary would not win a single Southern state.
The poll suggests that at this particular point in time, if Hillary is the Democratic nominee, Giuliani is the one who can beat her. However, if either Obama or Edwards are the nominee, the Republicans had better have a strong candidate other than Giuliani, McCain, or Romney to step up to the plate.
No doubt this race is still wide open at this point, as it should be this early in the game.
But let's look at trends. Over the past several weeks, Democratic voters have tended to shift away from Hillary and toward Obama to a great degree, and toward Edwards to a somewhat lesser degree.
Republicans, on the other hand, are beginning to indicate that they actually prefer a candidate who is NOT in the top tier, while hanging onto Rudy as their preference should Hillary be the Democratic nominee.
LIBERTY SPHERE INSIDER'S TIP: It is still very early and things will certainly change. But at this point don't count out John Edwards as an emerging powerhouse on the Democratic side. Voters are still enamored with Obama's charisma, but that will fade as the campaign moves forward and citizens see just how much of a political lightweight he truly is. The picture on the Republican side is a bit fuzzy but beginning to focus slightly on one major variable--the Fred Thompson-Newt Gingrich factor. If one or both enter the race, it is an entirely new ball game.
If the election were held today, both Barack Obama and John Edwards would beat each of the top three Republican candidates in head-to-head races. This shows that Giuliani, McCain, and Romney's support may be very tentative, even among Republicans.
However, when Hillary is matched with Rudy Giuliani in a head-to-head encounter, if the election were held today, Giuliani would beat Hillary in some areas that have become known as Democratic strongholds, such as New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. Hillary would not win a single Southern state.
The poll suggests that at this particular point in time, if Hillary is the Democratic nominee, Giuliani is the one who can beat her. However, if either Obama or Edwards are the nominee, the Republicans had better have a strong candidate other than Giuliani, McCain, or Romney to step up to the plate.
No doubt this race is still wide open at this point, as it should be this early in the game.
But let's look at trends. Over the past several weeks, Democratic voters have tended to shift away from Hillary and toward Obama to a great degree, and toward Edwards to a somewhat lesser degree.
Republicans, on the other hand, are beginning to indicate that they actually prefer a candidate who is NOT in the top tier, while hanging onto Rudy as their preference should Hillary be the Democratic nominee.
LIBERTY SPHERE INSIDER'S TIP: It is still very early and things will certainly change. But at this point don't count out John Edwards as an emerging powerhouse on the Democratic side. Voters are still enamored with Obama's charisma, but that will fade as the campaign moves forward and citizens see just how much of a political lightweight he truly is. The picture on the Republican side is a bit fuzzy but beginning to focus slightly on one major variable--the Fred Thompson-Newt Gingrich factor. If one or both enter the race, it is an entirely new ball game.
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)