U.S. Congressman John Murtha, D-Pennsylvania, stated this week that John McCain is 'too old to be President.' The comments immediately drew the ire of the American Association of Retired Persons.
It's not about age, Murtha.
Although John McCain is 71, he looks and acts 15 years younger. Murtha is younger than the GOP nominee but looks and acts like he is 10 years older than McCain.
Chronological age is not the factor it once was in politics as the overall health of senior Americans has improved significantly. But the ability to grasp issues and articulate them in a coherent fashion IS important, and Murtha has shown over the past few years that perhaps it is time for him to think about hanging it up.
Perhaps Murtha was speaking prophetically...about himself.
Showing posts with label John Murtha. Show all posts
Showing posts with label John Murtha. Show all posts
Saturday, April 19, 2008
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.
Monday, March 12, 2007
Newt's Confession
Washington, DC (TLS). Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich confessed to evangelical Christian leader James Dobson and his massive radio audience that he had an affair during the 1990s while he served in Congress. Gingrich stated that he had recognized his wrongdoing and had asked God to forgive him.
Newt is to be congratulated and affirmed for his honesty.
The reason why Newt's confession rings authentic and thus rises above that of most politicians is that in other cases such confessions come only after one is 'caught with their pants down.' Newt had nothing to gain and nothing to lose in making this public confession to a deed that has gone relatively unnoticed. It is not like someone in the media had caught the former Congressman in a compromising situation and was hounding him about the truth of the misdeeds. This confession came out of the blue, under no pressure from anyone to talk about it.
In addition, Newt's confession is further significant in that the affair took place during Bill Clinton's impeachment hearings--hearings of which Gingrich was a part. Being basically a deeply spiritual man at the core of his being, this fact more than likely haunted Newt for all these years. While castigating Bill Clinton's dalliances with Monica Lewinsky, he himself was engaged in an adulterous affair.
Thus, the confession was an exercise in the cleansing of the soul.
No doubt, most of James Dobson's listeners, and the Christian community in general, can be very forgiving when a wayward soul makes such a stark and honest confession. However, the problem is not with the evangelical Christian community but with hypocritical Democrats should Newt decide to seek the Republican nomination for President.
Democrats in Congress have already shown the populace time and again that they have no qualms at all about vilifying a Republican for doing what they defended a Democrat for doing. The Democrat mantra is, 'If we do it, it's ok, but if THEY do it, it's wrong.'
Look at how many Democrats sit in positions of leadership in Congress who have terrible legal and ethical stains on their records--Kennedy, Conyers, Reid, Leahy, Murtha, and about a dozen more. Yet they thought Scooter Libby should be in jail for 'outing' an operative who everyone in town already knew about and who was not even a covert operative to begin with.
Conyers on the other hand broke federal campaign laws.
Thus, in spite of the fact that the Democrats gave us Bill 'Cigars' Clinton, Gerry 'I Love Under-Age Boys' Studds, and the like, you can bet your bottom dollar that they will have a field-day with Newt's confession to an affair while he was presiding over impeachment hearings on Bill Clinton.
One can imagine all sorts of nightmarish, tasteless, and downright sleazy attack ads aimed at Newt. Christians forgive but Democrats need campaign fodder. No matter how vehemently they defended Bill Clinton and Gerry Studds, they will turn right around and attempt to make Newt into the Devil himself.
The Gingrich confession may well work to Newt's favor in the long-run. We shall see. But there are deep and treacherous waters here that will have to be navigated.
By the way, it is not totally coincidental that former Tennessee Senator and TV Star Fred Thompson announced Sunday he may seek the Republican nomination. Here is a man with solid conservative credentials, with instant name recognition, and with little excess baggage, who could well become the 'dark horse' candidate who rises to the top in a hurry.
Stay tuned. It's really getting interesting out there.
Newt is to be congratulated and affirmed for his honesty.
The reason why Newt's confession rings authentic and thus rises above that of most politicians is that in other cases such confessions come only after one is 'caught with their pants down.' Newt had nothing to gain and nothing to lose in making this public confession to a deed that has gone relatively unnoticed. It is not like someone in the media had caught the former Congressman in a compromising situation and was hounding him about the truth of the misdeeds. This confession came out of the blue, under no pressure from anyone to talk about it.
In addition, Newt's confession is further significant in that the affair took place during Bill Clinton's impeachment hearings--hearings of which Gingrich was a part. Being basically a deeply spiritual man at the core of his being, this fact more than likely haunted Newt for all these years. While castigating Bill Clinton's dalliances with Monica Lewinsky, he himself was engaged in an adulterous affair.
Thus, the confession was an exercise in the cleansing of the soul.
No doubt, most of James Dobson's listeners, and the Christian community in general, can be very forgiving when a wayward soul makes such a stark and honest confession. However, the problem is not with the evangelical Christian community but with hypocritical Democrats should Newt decide to seek the Republican nomination for President.
Democrats in Congress have already shown the populace time and again that they have no qualms at all about vilifying a Republican for doing what they defended a Democrat for doing. The Democrat mantra is, 'If we do it, it's ok, but if THEY do it, it's wrong.'
Look at how many Democrats sit in positions of leadership in Congress who have terrible legal and ethical stains on their records--Kennedy, Conyers, Reid, Leahy, Murtha, and about a dozen more. Yet they thought Scooter Libby should be in jail for 'outing' an operative who everyone in town already knew about and who was not even a covert operative to begin with.
Conyers on the other hand broke federal campaign laws.
Thus, in spite of the fact that the Democrats gave us Bill 'Cigars' Clinton, Gerry 'I Love Under-Age Boys' Studds, and the like, you can bet your bottom dollar that they will have a field-day with Newt's confession to an affair while he was presiding over impeachment hearings on Bill Clinton.
One can imagine all sorts of nightmarish, tasteless, and downright sleazy attack ads aimed at Newt. Christians forgive but Democrats need campaign fodder. No matter how vehemently they defended Bill Clinton and Gerry Studds, they will turn right around and attempt to make Newt into the Devil himself.
The Gingrich confession may well work to Newt's favor in the long-run. We shall see. But there are deep and treacherous waters here that will have to be navigated.
By the way, it is not totally coincidental that former Tennessee Senator and TV Star Fred Thompson announced Sunday he may seek the Republican nomination. Here is a man with solid conservative credentials, with instant name recognition, and with little excess baggage, who could well become the 'dark horse' candidate who rises to the top in a hurry.
Stay tuned. It's really getting interesting out there.
Saturday, February 17, 2007
REALITY CHECK: Showdown Between U.S. and Iran
Washington, DC (TLS). The coming showdown between the United States and Iran is inevitable. The only question is, will America face such a showdown from a position of strength or weakness?
This is the question Mideast expert and journalist Caroline Glick asks in her new column. As Glick correctly points out, President Bush and Secretary Rice are gambling with high stakes in hopes that their latest foreign policy adventures in the Mideast and North Korea will buy them time. To be fair, however, Congress is putting unprecedented pressure on the President to halt all American involvement in the region.
Nancy Pelosi AND Hillary Clinton both stated this week that the President doesn't even have the power to launch an attack on Iran, in spite of the fact that we have proof positive they are supplying missiles and weapons to kill our soldiers and Iraqi citizens. This is not to mention their nuclear weapons program.
Apparently Pelosi and Clinton are not aware of the Presidential powers granted by the U.S. Constitution. The country can carry out limited missions to dismantle Iran's nuclear plants and its government headquarters without a declaration of all-out war from Congress. Bill Clinton utilized this power many times. But, as always, with Democrats this tactic is only justifiable if one of THEM does it.
When that dreadful day comes as the U.S. will be forced to face down a nuclear Iran, we can lay the blame squarely at the feet of pacifistic cowards like Pelosi and Clinton--and John Murtha--for the carnage that will surely befall us if we are in a weakened position.
Better to nip this beast in the bud NOW while it is yet an infant.
Here is Glick's article:
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0207/glick021607.php3
This is the question Mideast expert and journalist Caroline Glick asks in her new column. As Glick correctly points out, President Bush and Secretary Rice are gambling with high stakes in hopes that their latest foreign policy adventures in the Mideast and North Korea will buy them time. To be fair, however, Congress is putting unprecedented pressure on the President to halt all American involvement in the region.
Nancy Pelosi AND Hillary Clinton both stated this week that the President doesn't even have the power to launch an attack on Iran, in spite of the fact that we have proof positive they are supplying missiles and weapons to kill our soldiers and Iraqi citizens. This is not to mention their nuclear weapons program.
Apparently Pelosi and Clinton are not aware of the Presidential powers granted by the U.S. Constitution. The country can carry out limited missions to dismantle Iran's nuclear plants and its government headquarters without a declaration of all-out war from Congress. Bill Clinton utilized this power many times. But, as always, with Democrats this tactic is only justifiable if one of THEM does it.
When that dreadful day comes as the U.S. will be forced to face down a nuclear Iran, we can lay the blame squarely at the feet of pacifistic cowards like Pelosi and Clinton--and John Murtha--for the carnage that will surely befall us if we are in a weakened position.
Better to nip this beast in the bud NOW while it is yet an infant.
Here is Glick's article:
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0207/glick021607.php3
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)