"I have a lifetime of experience. Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience. Barack Obama has a speech [against the Iraq War] he delivered in 2002." (Hillary Rodham Clinton) I'll keep adding to this column on Wednesday and finish the "Hillary comments" on Thursday. I'd very much like to get your comments on a deeply flawed human being, Hillary R. Clinton.
I have many friends who were Hillary Supporters. One former friend, Robin, listened to my positive comments on Sarah Palin after she was named McCain's running mate. Robin then said, "Steve, I don't like all the praise of Palin because it makes Hillary sound bad by comparison." That's when Robin, a woman incapable of taking a clear-eyed look at HRC, became a former friend. "Yes, Robin, HRC is no Sarah Palin -- not by a longshot."
My sad impression is that most Hillary Supporters don't want to discuss the woman's actions in any serious way. Apparently, they feel that if they look deeply into this woman's heart and soul, they'll end up like the madman in Conrad's Heart of Darkness, who finally recognizes the evil of what he's done and blurts out, "The horror! The horror!" Horror and Hillary are more than alliterative.
John Edwards, another mindless left-wing Democrat, limply said of his affair that he had become "egotistic" and "narcissistic." John Edwards, meet Hillary Clinton, a card-carrying narcissist.
Hillary Clinton has spent a lifetime accepting, rationalizing, and even defending (yikes) her husband's chronic adultery and abusive behavior toward women, including Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, and Kathryn Willey. Of course, that didn't stop the gentle ladies of NOW and NARAL from endorsing Bill . . . or Hillary. Abuse of women is apparently okay as long as you're "right on the issues." Of course, without a demand for basic decency all the "issues" become practically irrelevant.
Many Hillary Supporters are now spending their lives defending HRC's decision to value her career over her country. In fact, what do you call a woman who values career more than the nation? Why, for services rendered, you call her "Madame Secretary of State," that is Secretary of . . . the Country.
As a member of Alaska's Oil and Gas Commission, Sarah Palin cited the head of the Alaska Republican Party (Randy Ruedrich) for an ethics violation. Such acts continue to make her enemies in the state, one long synonymous with political corruption. .
Hillary Clinton has NEVER done anything remotely comparable in her long career. The sad reality is that most of Hillary's supporters have much higher standards for themselves than they do for their tinsel candidate. I fear that if Mrs. Clinton appeared without clothes, such supporters would be marveling over how good she looks in a pants suit.
In the election, Clinton was a major factor in helping Obama carry Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida. To say that she must have had a good (but of course, unstated) reason for doing so is to give her credit she in no way deserves. Over a lifetime, she has always done what is best for Hillary. Period.
During and after the election, I regularly asked people why HRC had supported her tormentor -- her abuser -- Obama. Perhaps for the same reason she'd always supporter her marital abuser, Bill, "the Big Dog?" No one ever gave an answer that made Mrs. Clinton seem like anything other than a moral weakling.
More than one Hillary backer told me, "Well, she had to. They [unnamed] threatened her. They threatened her MOTHER. They threatened CHELSEA." There is not one scrap of evidence any such thing ever happened. Moreover, anyone who would cave into threats has no business aspiring to the presidency.
People like Hillary Clinton are despicable. The fact that she's a woman is not exculpatory. Anyone who's so easily intimidated should not be occupying a high position of any kind.
Showing posts with label John Edwards. Show all posts
Showing posts with label John Edwards. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Saturday, August 9, 2008
National Disgraces: John, Elizabeth Edwards
Note: You can find everything you need to know about starting a blog that will play a role in defeating Barack Obama in November by going to: http://pennsylvaniaforjohnmccain.blogspot.com. The site contains critical information about how you can help defeat Obama.
The Haircut Man (and Ken-Doll-lookalike) John Edwards hugging his adoring wife . . .
"Rielle Hunter" was the perfect mistress for John Edwards, a man she once compared (accurately) to a "Ken Doll."
This evening (Saturday), I'll be writing on two blogs (the ones with links below) about the John Edwards scandal. In their statements, both Sen. Edwards (the "haircut man") and his equally cynical wife, Elizabeth, talked about the Senator's "honesty." His mistress, Rielle Hunter, had talked about his being "open . . . authentic . . . real." Please give me a break.
When Senator Edwards, a thoroughly despicable man, talked about his being "honest 99% of the time," he demonstrated his self-acknowledged "egomania" and "narcissism." As GOP strategist Alex Castellanous explained, honesty is not a matter of percentages. Alex said, "Either you're honest -- or you're not."
Neither Sen. Edwards nor his wfie are honest individuals. Rather, they are very ambitious people. Because of people like John and Elizabeth Edwards -- who was John's attack dog against Hillary Clinton -- it's becoming progressively harder to get decent people to have anything to do with politics.
Why did Sen. Kerry, who knew Edwards to be a dishonest man, choose him as his V-P candidate? How did the good Democrats of Iowa think such an individual was a suitable candidate for President? Why did the media present Moveon.org and Daily Kos leftist Elizabeth as some sort of saint?
And, why are we to assume the massive payoffs to Ms. Rielle Hunter (born "Lisa Druck") and Edwards staffer Young are anything other than payoffs?
The Haircut Man (and Ken-Doll-lookalike) John Edwards hugging his adoring wife . . ."Rielle Hunter" was the perfect mistress for John Edwards, a man she once compared (accurately) to a "Ken Doll."
This evening (Saturday), I'll be writing on two blogs (the ones with links below) about the John Edwards scandal. In their statements, both Sen. Edwards (the "haircut man") and his equally cynical wife, Elizabeth, talked about the Senator's "honesty." His mistress, Rielle Hunter, had talked about his being "open . . . authentic . . . real." Please give me a break.
When Senator Edwards, a thoroughly despicable man, talked about his being "honest 99% of the time," he demonstrated his self-acknowledged "egomania" and "narcissism." As GOP strategist Alex Castellanous explained, honesty is not a matter of percentages. Alex said, "Either you're honest -- or you're not."
Neither Sen. Edwards nor his wfie are honest individuals. Rather, they are very ambitious people. Because of people like John and Elizabeth Edwards -- who was John's attack dog against Hillary Clinton -- it's becoming progressively harder to get decent people to have anything to do with politics.
Why did Sen. Kerry, who knew Edwards to be a dishonest man, choose him as his V-P candidate? How did the good Democrats of Iowa think such an individual was a suitable candidate for President? Why did the media present Moveon.org and Daily Kos leftist Elizabeth as some sort of saint?
And, why are we to assume the massive payoffs to Ms. Rielle Hunter (born "Lisa Druck") and Edwards staffer Young are anything other than payoffs?
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
McCain-Clinton: National Unity Ticket
Got the following from Kathy Morrison: Please go vote, okay? Hi Steve,If I remember right you've helped start a number of state blogs? I have a McCain States blog http://mccainstates.blogspot.com/ that I'd like to fill out some more. If you have a list of state blogs could you forward it to me?Also, just submitted your Hillary for VP article to Real Clear Politics, thought it might grabs some votes/attention...http://realclearpolitics.com/readerarticles/?period=allKathy was right.
FRIDAY: I'LL HAVE SOME FASCINATING REVELATIONS ABOUT SEN. TED KENNEDY PLAYING FOOTSIE WITH THE SOVIET KGB IN THE REAGAN ERA.
Note: If you're read part of this piece before, please scroll down to see additions made on Thursday. The suggestions in his column are so important that I want to leave it up for the entire day of May 14. It is critical for the country to elect John McCain, but it's equally important that he not face an intransigent Democratic Congress that hamstrings his ability to govern. McCain and Senator Clinton need to speak candidly about how they can both best serve their nation. Yes, there are problems with what I suggest, but there are more problems if we continue in Washington, DC with "business as usual."
A Call for a McCain-Clinton ticket and a government of national unity in a time of great national crisis: The following exchange that took place on http://mccainnow.com/ speaks for itself. Serious times demand bold actions. Country must transcend Party. Love to hear your thoughts.
Stephen Maloney May 14, 2008
"There's an old saying that you drop your bucket in the well where water is. Sen. Clinton has a lot of water in her well (in the form of voters). Does she think John McCain would make a better President than Obama? Of course she does, but to say so might put her in the Democratic 'Hall of Infamy.' She can send signals though."
Michel Zala May 14, 2008
"I could not agree more with your opinion. Quite actually, in light of the absolute need to unify this country which faces the gravest challenges in recent decades and on so many dimensions, I dare to propose an outrageous idea: Nominate Hillary as John's candidate for VP. Anything to stop the empty suit with his disastrous ideas which could take the US as well as the entire free world to the brink of the abyss, is good enough for me."
Stephen Maloney May 14, 2008
"Great minds think alike? :-) I sincerely hope John McCain and Mrs. Clinton have some serious, private discussions about running as a "national unity" team. Our beloved country -- and I truly believe both she and John love it dearly -- faces problems we haven't seen since The Great Depression and World War II. Senators McCain and Clinton need to look deeply into their hearts and then do what is best for the country. I'm sure there will be a lot more written about this by others, but I deeply support what you have suggested.
I'm putting this exchange up on my Hillary Supporters for McCain blog: http://hillarysupportersformccain.blogspot.com./Thanks Michel, for making a a truly bold statement.Note to visitors: Your comments (on this blog or by e-mail to TalkTop65@aol.com) are sought and welcomed.
"Andi Card" ("CountryGirl) wrote the following in response to the posts above.
"Now that John Edwards has also come out and backed Obama for sure something smells a bit fishy in all these Democrat's positions on Obama. He is one person that no one and I mean no one appears to know much about this man. So why in the World are all these Democrats, along with the Super Delegates backing a man they themselves know nothing about. I also think that the people's votes should certainly count more than any super delegates vote does. As you mentioned look at the bigger states that Senator Clinton has won over Obama. If the super delegates are going to make the decision, instead of the American people, then why are we even bothering to vote? Interesting what you've written about here for sure. Something we'll be keeping an eye on for sure. John McCain is the one and only man for our new Commander-in-Chief."
Stephen Maloney wrote the following response to "Andi Card":
Many years ago a guy named Ralph Ellison (a Black man) wrote a great novel -- his only one -- called The Invisible Man. That's Barack Obama, the man no one really knows.
"Fifty-one percent of WV DEMOCRATS said they believe Obama shares Rev. Wright's beliefs. West Virginians may be wiser than the media knows. Michel and I have suggested a radical step for Sen. McCain. I'm interested in what people say about it. My country means everything to do me, and I'm sure it also does to John McCain. We shall see what it means to Sen. Clinton."
FRIDAY: I'LL HAVE SOME FASCINATING REVELATIONS ABOUT SEN. TED KENNEDY PLAYING FOOTSIE WITH THE SOVIET KGB IN THE REAGAN ERA.
Note: If you're read part of this piece before, please scroll down to see additions made on Thursday. The suggestions in his column are so important that I want to leave it up for the entire day of May 14. It is critical for the country to elect John McCain, but it's equally important that he not face an intransigent Democratic Congress that hamstrings his ability to govern. McCain and Senator Clinton need to speak candidly about how they can both best serve their nation. Yes, there are problems with what I suggest, but there are more problems if we continue in Washington, DC with "business as usual." A Call for a McCain-Clinton ticket and a government of national unity in a time of great national crisis: The following exchange that took place on http://mccainnow.com/ speaks for itself. Serious times demand bold actions. Country must transcend Party. Love to hear your thoughts.
Stephen Maloney May 14, 2008
"There's an old saying that you drop your bucket in the well where water is. Sen. Clinton has a lot of water in her well (in the form of voters). Does she think John McCain would make a better President than Obama? Of course she does, but to say so might put her in the Democratic 'Hall of Infamy.' She can send signals though."
Michel Zala May 14, 2008
"I could not agree more with your opinion. Quite actually, in light of the absolute need to unify this country which faces the gravest challenges in recent decades and on so many dimensions, I dare to propose an outrageous idea: Nominate Hillary as John's candidate for VP. Anything to stop the empty suit with his disastrous ideas which could take the US as well as the entire free world to the brink of the abyss, is good enough for me."
Stephen Maloney May 14, 2008
"Great minds think alike? :-) I sincerely hope John McCain and Mrs. Clinton have some serious, private discussions about running as a "national unity" team. Our beloved country -- and I truly believe both she and John love it dearly -- faces problems we haven't seen since The Great Depression and World War II. Senators McCain and Clinton need to look deeply into their hearts and then do what is best for the country. I'm sure there will be a lot more written about this by others, but I deeply support what you have suggested.
I'm putting this exchange up on my Hillary Supporters for McCain blog: http://hillarysupportersformccain.blogspot.com./Thanks Michel, for making a a truly bold statement.Note to visitors: Your comments (on this blog or by e-mail to TalkTop65@aol.com) are sought and welcomed.
"Andi Card" ("CountryGirl) wrote the following in response to the posts above.
"Now that John Edwards has also come out and backed Obama for sure something smells a bit fishy in all these Democrat's positions on Obama. He is one person that no one and I mean no one appears to know much about this man. So why in the World are all these Democrats, along with the Super Delegates backing a man they themselves know nothing about. I also think that the people's votes should certainly count more than any super delegates vote does. As you mentioned look at the bigger states that Senator Clinton has won over Obama. If the super delegates are going to make the decision, instead of the American people, then why are we even bothering to vote? Interesting what you've written about here for sure. Something we'll be keeping an eye on for sure. John McCain is the one and only man for our new Commander-in-Chief."
Stephen Maloney wrote the following response to "Andi Card":
Many years ago a guy named Ralph Ellison (a Black man) wrote a great novel -- his only one -- called The Invisible Man. That's Barack Obama, the man no one really knows.
"Fifty-one percent of WV DEMOCRATS said they believe Obama shares Rev. Wright's beliefs. West Virginians may be wiser than the media knows. Michel and I have suggested a radical step for Sen. McCain. I'm interested in what people say about it. My country means everything to do me, and I'm sure it also does to John McCain. We shall see what it means to Sen. Clinton."
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
McCain, Palin, See Other Blog
On my main blog, I have a new column today (Wednesday) about John Edwards, "The Haircut Man." Here's the link: http://camp2008victorya.blogspot.com/. Please visit and bookmark. Your comments are always welcome. I always enjoy it when people agree with me, which happens occasionally, but I probably learn more from those who disagree.
If your name happens to be Sarah Heath Palin, I'll be continuing to write about you (a lot) on my other blog.
steve maloney
If your name happens to be Sarah Heath Palin, I'll be continuing to write about you (a lot) on my other blog.
steve maloney
Monday, January 21, 2008
Key Issues for Sarah Palin
NOTE: GOVERNOR SARAH PALIN WILL BE ON THE COVER OF VOGUE MAGAZINE IN FEBRUARY. VOGUE MAY HAVE MORE SENSE THAN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.
For many months, I've been one of a group on the Internet advocating that the Republican presidential nominee, whomever he turns out to be, choose Gov. Sarah Heath Palin of Alaska as his running mate. When Adam Brickley started the "Draft Palin" Movement, he, I, and another guy were the three known members of the group. Since then, a lot more people -- some of them national figures -- have joined the growing crowd.
A few months ago, I separated myself (slightly) from the Draft Palin for VP effort and started my own one-man band -- one dedicated to getting Sarah the presidential nomination in either 2012 or 2016. I started wondering -- and, among Palinites this is something of a heresy -- whether it would be a good idea for her to seek the vice-presidency.
Behind my (slight) change in views on the best scenario from Sarah was a growing belief that no Republican nominee can win the presidency in 2008. In a previous column I mentioned The Economist's note that registered Democrats now outnumber registered Republicans by 50% to 35%. I also observed that the Democratic nominees have raised an amazing 70% more cash than their Republican counterparts. A similar fundraising imbalance exists with the two congressional committees.
For Sarah Palin, the question is if it would advance her career to run as the vice-presidential nominee on a losing ticket. Yes, it would do wonders for her name recognition, and the world would get a better sense of what an outstanding human being she is.
On the other hand, vice-presidential nominees on tickets that lose big tend to disappear quickly. Consider Barry Goldwater's running mate in 1964 -- Bill Miller of Lockport, New York -- a man who might have been vaporized after his losing effort. Or consider John Edwards (Kerry, 2004), a man who believes he's a serious candidate for President but will be forevermore the guy who got the $400 hair cut. And whatever happened to Joe Lieberman (Gore, 2000)? Or Dan Quayle (Bush, 1988, 1992)? Or Jack Kemp (Dole, 1996)? Running for V-P on the wrong ticket can be a real career-stopper.
Sarah, it may be that the best thing which could ever happen to you is NOT to be on ticket in 2008. However, I'm still predicting that -- eventually -- they will need to reserve a spot for you on Mt. Rushmore.
For many months, I've been one of a group on the Internet advocating that the Republican presidential nominee, whomever he turns out to be, choose Gov. Sarah Heath Palin of Alaska as his running mate. When Adam Brickley started the "Draft Palin" Movement, he, I, and another guy were the three known members of the group. Since then, a lot more people -- some of them national figures -- have joined the growing crowd.
A few months ago, I separated myself (slightly) from the Draft Palin for VP effort and started my own one-man band -- one dedicated to getting Sarah the presidential nomination in either 2012 or 2016. I started wondering -- and, among Palinites this is something of a heresy -- whether it would be a good idea for her to seek the vice-presidency.
Behind my (slight) change in views on the best scenario from Sarah was a growing belief that no Republican nominee can win the presidency in 2008. In a previous column I mentioned The Economist's note that registered Democrats now outnumber registered Republicans by 50% to 35%. I also observed that the Democratic nominees have raised an amazing 70% more cash than their Republican counterparts. A similar fundraising imbalance exists with the two congressional committees.
For Sarah Palin, the question is if it would advance her career to run as the vice-presidential nominee on a losing ticket. Yes, it would do wonders for her name recognition, and the world would get a better sense of what an outstanding human being she is.
On the other hand, vice-presidential nominees on tickets that lose big tend to disappear quickly. Consider Barry Goldwater's running mate in 1964 -- Bill Miller of Lockport, New York -- a man who might have been vaporized after his losing effort. Or consider John Edwards (Kerry, 2004), a man who believes he's a serious candidate for President but will be forevermore the guy who got the $400 hair cut. And whatever happened to Joe Lieberman (Gore, 2000)? Or Dan Quayle (Bush, 1988, 1992)? Or Jack Kemp (Dole, 1996)? Running for V-P on the wrong ticket can be a real career-stopper.
Sarah, it may be that the best thing which could ever happen to you is NOT to be on ticket in 2008. However, I'm still predicting that -- eventually -- they will need to reserve a spot for you on Mt. Rushmore.
Sunday, January 6, 2008
IOWA CAUCUS: BAD GOP OMENS
Single issue voters are destroying the GOP's chances of winning crucial elections -- including the presidency. That's true whether the single issue is abortion, gay marriage, or immigration. Ironically (sadly?), the single-issue voters are also undermining their chances to win on their issue of choice.
In fact, abortion, gay marriage, and immigration are NOT big issues with most American voters, as we found out once again in almost all-white, politically moderate Iowa. All three of the Democratic candidates hold views the opposite of GOP single-issue voters, including the evangelicals who cast their votes for Mike Huckabee.
Look at it this way: the number of Iowans who participate in the Democratic caucuses totaled an amazing 239,000. That was nearly twice the number in the Republican caucuses. In terms of registration, Iowans are roughly one-third Republican, one-third Democratic, and one-third "0ther" (most Independent).
Iowa is a "light Blue" or "light pink" state, with Bush losing narrowly in 2000 and winning narrowly in 2004. It's one where Republicans should at least be competitive on a statewide basis. Right now, Republicans are nowhere near being competitive in Iowa.
Look at the Caucus this way: ONE Republican, Mike Huckabee, won by a fairly comfortable margin.
However, THREE Democrats -- Barack Obama, John Edwards, and Hillary -- all got MORE Caucus votes than Huckabee. If he'd been running for Democratic votes, he would have finished a fairly distant FOURTH.
Of course, many Huckabee supporters -- Larry Perrault being a prominent one -- have announced that if Mike doesn't get the nomination, they will sit out the election. That should make it much easier for either Obama or Hillary Clinton to win the general election.
Generally, Democrats generally like their choice of (extremely liberal) candidates. Republicans don't like their choice of (mainly conservative) candidates.
If what happens in New Hampshire and South Carolina resembles in any way what occurred in Iowa, Republican candidates -- many of them superb human beings -- are in for a drubbing. Democrats are united, while Republicans are fractured.
Whoever the Democratic candidate for President turns out to be, bet your money on him -- or her.
Tomorrow's column (on Tuesday) will be about the candidacy of Melissa Hart trying to regain her seat in PA's 4th Congressional District.
Later this week I'll write one of my last pieces on the Russell-Murtha race. After analyzing the race carefully, I believe -- sadly -- that the race is not currently winnable by a challenger; however, any Republican candidate that can chalk up 100,000 votes would be in a good position to win the seat when Murtha retires/passes away.
In fact, abortion, gay marriage, and immigration are NOT big issues with most American voters, as we found out once again in almost all-white, politically moderate Iowa. All three of the Democratic candidates hold views the opposite of GOP single-issue voters, including the evangelicals who cast their votes for Mike Huckabee.
Look at it this way: the number of Iowans who participate in the Democratic caucuses totaled an amazing 239,000. That was nearly twice the number in the Republican caucuses. In terms of registration, Iowans are roughly one-third Republican, one-third Democratic, and one-third "0ther" (most Independent).
Iowa is a "light Blue" or "light pink" state, with Bush losing narrowly in 2000 and winning narrowly in 2004. It's one where Republicans should at least be competitive on a statewide basis. Right now, Republicans are nowhere near being competitive in Iowa.
Look at the Caucus this way: ONE Republican, Mike Huckabee, won by a fairly comfortable margin.
However, THREE Democrats -- Barack Obama, John Edwards, and Hillary -- all got MORE Caucus votes than Huckabee. If he'd been running for Democratic votes, he would have finished a fairly distant FOURTH.
Of course, many Huckabee supporters -- Larry Perrault being a prominent one -- have announced that if Mike doesn't get the nomination, they will sit out the election. That should make it much easier for either Obama or Hillary Clinton to win the general election.
Generally, Democrats generally like their choice of (extremely liberal) candidates. Republicans don't like their choice of (mainly conservative) candidates.
If what happens in New Hampshire and South Carolina resembles in any way what occurred in Iowa, Republican candidates -- many of them superb human beings -- are in for a drubbing. Democrats are united, while Republicans are fractured.
Whoever the Democratic candidate for President turns out to be, bet your money on him -- or her.
Tomorrow's column (on Tuesday) will be about the candidacy of Melissa Hart trying to regain her seat in PA's 4th Congressional District.
Later this week I'll write one of my last pieces on the Russell-Murtha race. After analyzing the race carefully, I believe -- sadly -- that the race is not currently winnable by a challenger; however, any Republican candidate that can chalk up 100,000 votes would be in a good position to win the seat when Murtha retires/passes away.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
