Some major figures in the Obama Administration will be gone soon, including Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Tim Geithner, and press secretary Robert Gibbs. In fact, Biden, Geithner, and Gibbs will be shoved out. Mrs. Clinton will leave because she's become invisible and irrelevant, a Secretary-of-State in name only.
Hawaii political analyst Jill Rethman and I both wrote (see below for yesterday's column) that Hillary's tenure as Sec. of State will be a short one. On Biden's coming resignation for "health reasons," he is a human gaffe machine and, as such, major liability to the Obama crowd. In his comments yesterday on supposed health care "savings," the V-P appeared ill and lifeless.
Robert Gibbs? He may limp along for a few more months. Warren Buffet blasted Geithner this morning on ABC, and that is very bad news for the hapless Treasury Secretary -- of course, Buffet was an important early supporter of Obama.
The only thing more "troubled" than the TARP program is Geithner himself, a man clearly out of his league. As unemployment continues to skyrocket, Obama and Axelrod will need to look for a scapegoat, and odds are that Geithner will be "their man."
If both cap-and-trade and healthcare reform fail this summer, the designated scapegoat in that case could be Rahm Emanuel. He could either lose his job, or much of his power.
The dropping of Biden as V-P nominee was a real possiblity during the general election campaign. What saved Biden's role was the collapse of the economy, which occurred around Sept. 15 and eradicated McCain-Palin's lead in the polls. If Obama had then replaced Biden with Hillary, she would have spent the next four years in "an undisclosed location."
I also believe Bernanke is in trouble in the Fed. Jim Demint and others are calling for an "audit" of the Fed, which would be about as pretty as nude pictures of Barbara Mikulsi.
I'm sure Hillary is delivering some ultimatums, now that she must recognize Obama's goal is to shut her up and marginalize both her and Bill Clinton. Of course, the MSM responds to all these emerging developments by drooling out of both sides of its mouth.
Showing posts with label Bill and Hillary Clinton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bill and Hillary Clinton. Show all posts
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Hillary Clinton Ready to Resign?
There are many hot rumors coming out of DC and NY that Hillary Rodham Clinton is preparing to resign as Secretary of State. Why?
Because Obama has reduced the woman to invisibility and irrelevance. He's accomplished much of the same with Bill Clinton, who hates being in the background.
Also, Obama is pursuing policies, especially with Iran and North Korea, that are downright dangerous, which Mrs. Clinton knows. It's no secret that, during the rebelliion in the streets of Tehran, the Secretary of State wanted the President to take a much harder line than he did.
Finally, Richard Holbrooke and George Mitchell (neither of whom is as great he thinks) are fulfilling what should be primary obligations of a real Sec. of State. Holbrooke is in charge of the explosive situations in Pakistan and Afghanistan, while Mitchell essentially has responsibility for the Middle East. In addition, Obama sees himself as the chief foreign policy negotiator, which leaves Clinton usually looking for something of significance to do.
Mrs. Clinton has become mainly an administrator at State, her least-favorite role aside from office maintenance.
The irony is that John McCain would have named Clionton Sec. of State and given her real responsibilities. (I don't know what HRC's relationship is with U. N. Ambassdoar Susan Rice, an Obama loyalist who bashed Hillary during the campaign, but I would bet it's frigid at best.)
Because Obama has reduced the woman to invisibility and irrelevance. He's accomplished much of the same with Bill Clinton, who hates being in the background.
Also, Obama is pursuing policies, especially with Iran and North Korea, that are downright dangerous, which Mrs. Clinton knows. It's no secret that, during the rebelliion in the streets of Tehran, the Secretary of State wanted the President to take a much harder line than he did.
Finally, Richard Holbrooke and George Mitchell (neither of whom is as great he thinks) are fulfilling what should be primary obligations of a real Sec. of State. Holbrooke is in charge of the explosive situations in Pakistan and Afghanistan, while Mitchell essentially has responsibility for the Middle East. In addition, Obama sees himself as the chief foreign policy negotiator, which leaves Clinton usually looking for something of significance to do.
Mrs. Clinton has become mainly an administrator at State, her least-favorite role aside from office maintenance.
The irony is that John McCain would have named Clionton Sec. of State and given her real responsibilities. (I don't know what HRC's relationship is with U. N. Ambassdoar Susan Rice, an Obama loyalist who bashed Hillary during the campaign, but I would bet it's frigid at best.)
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Reforming Democratic Party? Cleansing Cesspool
PUMA people are Hillary Supporters who were horrified by what the Obama Machine did to their favorite candidate. PUMA people want to reform the Democratic Party, but as I say below, asking how we can reform the Democratic Party is like asking, "How can we make a cesspool into drinkable water." The two paragraphs following are my response to a column by well-known PUMA who goes by the name "Riverdaughter." I urge you to read her column, although I also urge you not to believe it.
RiverDaughter, a friend sent me your column, one of many I've seen. I thought this one was beautifully written, but I found myself thinking, "Bright as this woman is, she just doesn't get it." The Democratic Party is no longer the Party of John F. Kennedy or even of Bill Clinton. It has nothing to do with such people. It is completely and fully the corrupt Party of Barack H. Obama, Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid. It doesn't want (because it believes it doesn't need) people like you and those who made the heartfelt comments to your essay. It won without you in 2008 and, to an extent, in 2006. It believes it will do so again next year and in 2012. Meanwhile, you're all thinking, "Gee, how can we reform the Democratic Party?" RiverDaughter, that's a little like asking, "How can we make a cesspool into drinkable water." Remember who was it that smeared Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin? Hint: for the most part, it certainly wasn't Republicans. It was good, loyal Democrats. Eighty percent of people in the active military voted for McCain-Palin. Those are the people who defend this country, and defend our rights to write what we believe on our blogs. Unlike you, they don't believe the Republican Party (in toto) is "morally bankrupt." I'd suggest all PUMAs follow their lead.
What I'm saying about your suggestion to have under-funded candidates run in the Democratic primaries is that they will be totally outspent and, if necessary, smeared beyond the imagination (remember Sarah Palin?). Go check out on opensecrets.org to see who's funding Obama, Dodd, Pelosi, and rest. It's not the Great Unwashed. It's our beloved Wall Street bankers and union bosses dedicated not the "general welfare," but to their own bank accounts. My point? The Democratic Party -- the liberalism of "gimme, gimme, gimme" -- is the source of most of our problems and the solution to none. Our country had an unfunded liability (Social Security and Medicare mainly) of more than $80 trillion, and the Democrats' solution to that is borrow trillions more from Communist China. I'm going to write more about this on my very Republican blog (this one). Thanks for providing your soap box.
Below you'll find a big chunk of Riverdaughter's column Saturday: Forest and trees and The Marshall Plan. I urge you to read it.
http://riverdaughter.wordpress.com/2009/04/18/saturday-forest-and-trees-and-the-marshall-plan/#comment-334833
I was going to write today about the PUMA movement and principles. I believe that a successful movement is based on principles. I also believe that we are at a time in our nation’s history when the public is so fed up with the two party system that there is a window of opportunity to make a real change and the political principles of either party aren’t as relevant at the present time. Our social safety net in this country is so fragile that it only takes a couple of missed paychecks or a catastrophic illness to put a family into insolvency.
The steady erosion of our quality of life has happened under the auspices of both parties through deregulation, regressive taxation, union busting and the outright fraud perpetrated by the financial industry and their cronies in the business management field. Before the election last year, we knew that the Republican party was morally bankrupt but who would have suspected before November 2008 that Democrats would also seek the path of least resistance and sell us out? Well, *us*. We believed it because we watched it happening in real time with our eyes wide open and our minds unclouded by propaganda. But now, many more people know it too.
In order to make change happen we need to threaten the current power structure. By threaten I don’t mean by the use of any form of sabotage or physical violence. I mean we have to make sure that our elected officials know that we will toss them out and then we must do it. The question is how do we do this?
The answer is in motivating voters to go to the polls to vote out people who do not put the general welfare first. The public doesn’t like Republicans, even if the GOP has been more successful at channeling the rage into tea parties. But the GOP is not in power right now and as long as Democrats feel they are safe, they are going to try to ride this recession out without biting the hands that feed them. But once Democratic voters start to turn their attention towards their own party, then there will be hell to pay. The question is, can we engage people outside the Democratic party to join us? Yes, I think we can.
I think we have all had the experience of knowing people who say they do not vote for any party. They vote for the individual. And this may be true, although I think some of these people are influenced by the last voice they hear on the way into the voting booth. But the truth is that there are very few Democrats running for office who haven’t sworn to uphold the party machine that gets them elected. And once you buy into this machine, your chances of balking at the money that flows to you is very slim. Without that money, you can’t run. But is this true?
If it is true that people vote for the individual, what is it they really want? I would say that most people want to be treated fairly. They want to feel like they have as much right to representation as someone with wealth and connections. The reason why people want fairness is because deep down inside, we Americans believe profoundly in promoting the General Welfare. We believe that this country was founded because we wanted to be free from a power that did *not* see our General Welfare as important to its own survival. Isn’t this the same situation we find ourselves in today? The power is not a foreign one; it is homegrown. But our welfare is completely incidental to its own. We need to be rid of this power.
This is an idea that can potentially attract voters from many different political persuasions. The recession is having a profound effect on Republicans no less than Democrats. And when it comes right down to it, no one wants to see the end of Social Security. Why? Because it is an insurance policy against risk. Now that Republican households are just as vulnerable as Democrats’, there are a lot more of us who want to keep it in a “lock box.”
We need to bring this home to Democrats in a very simple way, because, after all, THEY are the ones with the reins of power. We need to primary as many of them as we can. We need to register as Democrats again, find out what the local requirements are for Congress and Senate and just enter our names as an alternative to whoever is running as the blessed party candidate. Getting our names on that primary ballot doesn’t take a party endorsement. In fact, I wouldn’t expect one. But in a primary, you don’t need to be known or popular or a politician to be an active citizen interested in public service. Those of you who are unemployed can look forward to a nice salary and health benefits. All you need to be is another name on that ballot under the Democratic party. Call yourself a PUMAcrat. Throw some coffees and cocktail parties. Then see what happens.
Now, there will probably be campaign ads against you saying you aren’t connected enough. In this environment, that could be a plus. There will be people digging up dirt about you and your family and your unpaid car registration. Tell them those without sin can cast the first stone. There will be people who will say you don’t know enough about the issues. Um, if you are reading blogs instead of the mainstream media, you can run circles around anyone making that claim.
If we manage to upset some races around the country, it may put the fear of God into our party officials and the tide may turn in our favor.
If we don’t do it, we can look forward to social unrest. It’s coming. The financial aces who have been riding high on our 401K contributions are busily tunneling out our economy. To them, it’s all global now. What happens in the US is collateral damage as they race to the bottom chasing lower and lower labor costs. It’s very short term thinking but they aren’t worried about it right now. It is time to focus our elected officials’ attention.
It’s either reform now or socialism later.
RiverDaughter, a friend sent me your column, one of many I've seen. I thought this one was beautifully written, but I found myself thinking, "Bright as this woman is, she just doesn't get it." The Democratic Party is no longer the Party of John F. Kennedy or even of Bill Clinton. It has nothing to do with such people. It is completely and fully the corrupt Party of Barack H. Obama, Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid. It doesn't want (because it believes it doesn't need) people like you and those who made the heartfelt comments to your essay. It won without you in 2008 and, to an extent, in 2006. It believes it will do so again next year and in 2012. Meanwhile, you're all thinking, "Gee, how can we reform the Democratic Party?" RiverDaughter, that's a little like asking, "How can we make a cesspool into drinkable water." Remember who was it that smeared Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin? Hint: for the most part, it certainly wasn't Republicans. It was good, loyal Democrats. Eighty percent of people in the active military voted for McCain-Palin. Those are the people who defend this country, and defend our rights to write what we believe on our blogs. Unlike you, they don't believe the Republican Party (in toto) is "morally bankrupt." I'd suggest all PUMAs follow their lead.
What I'm saying about your suggestion to have under-funded candidates run in the Democratic primaries is that they will be totally outspent and, if necessary, smeared beyond the imagination (remember Sarah Palin?). Go check out on opensecrets.org to see who's funding Obama, Dodd, Pelosi, and rest. It's not the Great Unwashed. It's our beloved Wall Street bankers and union bosses dedicated not the "general welfare," but to their own bank accounts. My point? The Democratic Party -- the liberalism of "gimme, gimme, gimme" -- is the source of most of our problems and the solution to none. Our country had an unfunded liability (Social Security and Medicare mainly) of more than $80 trillion, and the Democrats' solution to that is borrow trillions more from Communist China. I'm going to write more about this on my very Republican blog (this one). Thanks for providing your soap box.
Below you'll find a big chunk of Riverdaughter's column Saturday: Forest and trees and The Marshall Plan. I urge you to read it.
http://riverdaughter.wordpress.com/2009/04/18/saturday-forest-and-trees-and-the-marshall-plan/#comment-334833
I was going to write today about the PUMA movement and principles. I believe that a successful movement is based on principles. I also believe that we are at a time in our nation’s history when the public is so fed up with the two party system that there is a window of opportunity to make a real change and the political principles of either party aren’t as relevant at the present time. Our social safety net in this country is so fragile that it only takes a couple of missed paychecks or a catastrophic illness to put a family into insolvency.
The steady erosion of our quality of life has happened under the auspices of both parties through deregulation, regressive taxation, union busting and the outright fraud perpetrated by the financial industry and their cronies in the business management field. Before the election last year, we knew that the Republican party was morally bankrupt but who would have suspected before November 2008 that Democrats would also seek the path of least resistance and sell us out? Well, *us*. We believed it because we watched it happening in real time with our eyes wide open and our minds unclouded by propaganda. But now, many more people know it too.
In order to make change happen we need to threaten the current power structure. By threaten I don’t mean by the use of any form of sabotage or physical violence. I mean we have to make sure that our elected officials know that we will toss them out and then we must do it. The question is how do we do this?
The answer is in motivating voters to go to the polls to vote out people who do not put the general welfare first. The public doesn’t like Republicans, even if the GOP has been more successful at channeling the rage into tea parties. But the GOP is not in power right now and as long as Democrats feel they are safe, they are going to try to ride this recession out without biting the hands that feed them. But once Democratic voters start to turn their attention towards their own party, then there will be hell to pay. The question is, can we engage people outside the Democratic party to join us? Yes, I think we can.
I think we have all had the experience of knowing people who say they do not vote for any party. They vote for the individual. And this may be true, although I think some of these people are influenced by the last voice they hear on the way into the voting booth. But the truth is that there are very few Democrats running for office who haven’t sworn to uphold the party machine that gets them elected. And once you buy into this machine, your chances of balking at the money that flows to you is very slim. Without that money, you can’t run. But is this true?
If it is true that people vote for the individual, what is it they really want? I would say that most people want to be treated fairly. They want to feel like they have as much right to representation as someone with wealth and connections. The reason why people want fairness is because deep down inside, we Americans believe profoundly in promoting the General Welfare. We believe that this country was founded because we wanted to be free from a power that did *not* see our General Welfare as important to its own survival. Isn’t this the same situation we find ourselves in today? The power is not a foreign one; it is homegrown. But our welfare is completely incidental to its own. We need to be rid of this power.
This is an idea that can potentially attract voters from many different political persuasions. The recession is having a profound effect on Republicans no less than Democrats. And when it comes right down to it, no one wants to see the end of Social Security. Why? Because it is an insurance policy against risk. Now that Republican households are just as vulnerable as Democrats’, there are a lot more of us who want to keep it in a “lock box.”
We need to bring this home to Democrats in a very simple way, because, after all, THEY are the ones with the reins of power. We need to primary as many of them as we can. We need to register as Democrats again, find out what the local requirements are for Congress and Senate and just enter our names as an alternative to whoever is running as the blessed party candidate. Getting our names on that primary ballot doesn’t take a party endorsement. In fact, I wouldn’t expect one. But in a primary, you don’t need to be known or popular or a politician to be an active citizen interested in public service. Those of you who are unemployed can look forward to a nice salary and health benefits. All you need to be is another name on that ballot under the Democratic party. Call yourself a PUMAcrat. Throw some coffees and cocktail parties. Then see what happens.
Now, there will probably be campaign ads against you saying you aren’t connected enough. In this environment, that could be a plus. There will be people digging up dirt about you and your family and your unpaid car registration. Tell them those without sin can cast the first stone. There will be people who will say you don’t know enough about the issues. Um, if you are reading blogs instead of the mainstream media, you can run circles around anyone making that claim.
If we manage to upset some races around the country, it may put the fear of God into our party officials and the tide may turn in our favor.
If we don’t do it, we can look forward to social unrest. It’s coming. The financial aces who have been riding high on our 401K contributions are busily tunneling out our economy. To them, it’s all global now. What happens in the US is collateral damage as they race to the bottom chasing lower and lower labor costs. It’s very short term thinking but they aren’t worried about it right now. It is time to focus our elected officials’ attention.
It’s either reform now or socialism later.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
European Buyer's Remorse on Obama
In the election The Economist of London endorsed Barack Obama. It's now having some serious buyer's remorse. Here below are excerpts (in boldface) its recent edition ("Learning the Hard Way") about how it sees the Obama Administration's performance. I hope you'll pass this along to other bloggers and online activists. It shows Obama's failures as seen from a European perspective.
I've been asking everyone to turn the heat way up on Barack H. Obama, who turns out to be little more than a slick talker in a $3,500 suit. He's no Sarah Palin -- and yes, she could beat him at basketball also. (Ask budding star Willow Palin, who still can't beat her mother.)
Mar 26th 2009
From The Economist print edition
Barack Obama may at last be getting a grip. But he still needs to show more leadership, at home and abroad
"HILLARY CLINTON'S most effective quip, in her long struggle with Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination last year, was that the Oval Office is no place for on-the-job training. It went to the heart of the nagging worry about the silver-tongued young senator from Illinois: that he lacked even the slightest executive experience, and that in his brief career he had never really stood up to powerful interests, whether in his home city of Chicago or in the wider world.
"Might Mrs Clinton have been right about her foe? Polls show that independent voters again prefer Republicans to Democrats, a startling reversal of fortune in just a few weeks . . . Mr Obama has seemed curiously feeble.
Empty posts, weak policies
There are two main reasons for this. The first is Mr Obama's failure to grapple as fast and as single-mindedly with the economy as he should have done. His stimulus package, though huge, was subcontracted to Congress, which did a mediocre job: . . .
"His budget, though in some ways more honest than his predecessor's, is wildly optimistic. The failure to staff the Treasury is a shocking illustration of administrative drift. There are 23 slots at the department that need confirmation by the Senate, and only two have been filled .. . Getting the Treasury team in place ought to have been his first priority.
"Second, Mr Obama has mishandled his relations with both sides in Congress. Though he campaigned as a centrist and promised an era of post-partisan government, that's not how he has behaved.
"His stimulus bill . . . if Mr Obama had done a better job of selling his package, and had worked harder at making sure that Republicans were included in drafting it, they would have found it more difficult to oppose his plans.If Mr Obama cannot work with the Republicans, he needs to be certain that he controls his own party.
"Unfortunately, he seems unable to. . . . The Democrats . . . have stuffed his stimulus package and his appropriations bill with pork, even though this damages him and his party in the eyes of the electorate. Worst of all, he is letting them get away with it.
Lead, dammit
"But the [Geithner banking] plan at least demonstrates the administration's acceptance that it must work with the bankers, instead of riding the wave of popular opinion against them, if it is to repair America's economy.
"[On overseas "leadership"]. . . Take the G20 meeting in London, to which he will head at the end of next week. The most important task for this would-be institution is to set itself firmly against protectionism at a time when most of its members are engaged in a game of creeping beggar-thy-neighbour. [But they point out, Obama is completely in bed with protectionist unions.]"
Link follows: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=%22The++Economist%22+%2B+%22Learning+the+Hard+Way%22&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=
I've been asking everyone to turn the heat way up on Barack H. Obama, who turns out to be little more than a slick talker in a $3,500 suit. He's no Sarah Palin -- and yes, she could beat him at basketball also. (Ask budding star Willow Palin, who still can't beat her mother.)
Mar 26th 2009
From The Economist print edition
Barack Obama may at last be getting a grip. But he still needs to show more leadership, at home and abroad
"HILLARY CLINTON'S most effective quip, in her long struggle with Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination last year, was that the Oval Office is no place for on-the-job training. It went to the heart of the nagging worry about the silver-tongued young senator from Illinois: that he lacked even the slightest executive experience, and that in his brief career he had never really stood up to powerful interests, whether in his home city of Chicago or in the wider world.
"Might Mrs Clinton have been right about her foe? Polls show that independent voters again prefer Republicans to Democrats, a startling reversal of fortune in just a few weeks . . . Mr Obama has seemed curiously feeble.
Empty posts, weak policies
There are two main reasons for this. The first is Mr Obama's failure to grapple as fast and as single-mindedly with the economy as he should have done. His stimulus package, though huge, was subcontracted to Congress, which did a mediocre job: . . .
"His budget, though in some ways more honest than his predecessor's, is wildly optimistic. The failure to staff the Treasury is a shocking illustration of administrative drift. There are 23 slots at the department that need confirmation by the Senate, and only two have been filled .. . Getting the Treasury team in place ought to have been his first priority.
"Second, Mr Obama has mishandled his relations with both sides in Congress. Though he campaigned as a centrist and promised an era of post-partisan government, that's not how he has behaved.
"His stimulus bill . . . if Mr Obama had done a better job of selling his package, and had worked harder at making sure that Republicans were included in drafting it, they would have found it more difficult to oppose his plans.If Mr Obama cannot work with the Republicans, he needs to be certain that he controls his own party.
"Unfortunately, he seems unable to. . . . The Democrats . . . have stuffed his stimulus package and his appropriations bill with pork, even though this damages him and his party in the eyes of the electorate. Worst of all, he is letting them get away with it.
Lead, dammit
"But the [Geithner banking] plan at least demonstrates the administration's acceptance that it must work with the bankers, instead of riding the wave of popular opinion against them, if it is to repair America's economy.
"[On overseas "leadership"]. . . Take the G20 meeting in London, to which he will head at the end of next week. The most important task for this would-be institution is to set itself firmly against protectionism at a time when most of its members are engaged in a game of creeping beggar-thy-neighbour. [But they point out, Obama is completely in bed with protectionist unions.]"
Link follows: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=%22The++Economist%22+%2B+%22Learning+the+Hard+Way%22&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=
Friday, September 12, 2008
Obama-Biden Shift: Obama-Clinton
In boldface and italics below, you'll find some news that would be shocking -- if we Americans weren't increasingly hard to shock. Obama-Biden moving to Obama-Clinton . . .
We (Clintons4McCain and Nobama Mission) have received information from sources high in the Democratic Party that, in a cynical, desperation move, Hillary Rodham Clinton will replace the hapless Joe Biden as V-P candidate on the Obama ticket. I will send out more information on this over the next several days.
Hillary Clinton has said that Barack H. Obama is not qualified to be Commander-in-Chief. Presumably, he hasn't grown any more qualified in the past few weeks. As the saying now goes, "It took a Republican woman [Sarah Palin] to have the Obama Dems name a female to the ticket."
[Note: See the following link on "Obama's October Surprise" (month is correct) -- Biden leaving the Democratic ticket: http://www.postchronicle.com/commentary/article_212171504.shtml#share ]
What's the new campaign slogan? "I'm propping up an empty suit?" "He can sleep while I stay up till 3 a.m.?"
Scroll down for analysis of this stunning development "Stand up! Stand up! And fight for what's right" (John McCain)
Much more information to follow later . . . This is the site that first broke the news that John McCain would name Sarah Palin as his running mate (scroll down to two Fridays ago).
Frankly, if you want to know what's really going on in American politics, DON'T tune in to CNN or MSNBC. Instead, come here to this site -- and, especially, to my main national site: http://camp2008victorya.blogspot.com. As time goes on, you'll learn exactly when and how Biden will "yield" his spot to Hillary Rodham Clinton. Biden is a clasic example of someone who values Party over County, and you'll get to see in advance the whole story of his ignominy and cynicism. The key right now is how Biden can pretend to have health issues -- but be healthy enough to run for his Senate seat. Stay tuned.
Analysis of the coming "new" Democratic ticket: "Desperate People Take Desperate Measures . . . "
When Sharon (OK), Jean (WA), and I figured out the story of the Sarah choice, I sent out e-mails that said "I hope I'm right . . ." Now, I know I'm right, even though you're not hearing it on CNN or MSNBC. Those people couldn't break an egg. My sources are from central Texas, Washington, DC, and elsewhere, and they are consistent truth-tellers and fact-knowers. Sarah and Jean are NOT the sources of this story, although neither one will be surprised.
One of the key moments in this development was when Joe Biden said in NH that Hillary Clinton would have been a "better" V-P candidate than he. I have been dancing around for days on blogs saying that "Hillary is coming . . ."
However, I believe McCain-Palin is unstoppable at this point, whomever the Dems run against them. There's no reason to disbelieve serious polls that show them 10 or more points ahead.I feel as good about this story as I did about the Palin choice story two weeks ago. I will not name the people (three in recent days) who told me this is going to happen. I trust them all, and Democratic Party logic indicates that group will stoop to any lengths to try to win this race.
After all, what's a few more months of humiliation for Sen. Clinton?The "rumors" various people at Clintons4McCain and NoBama Mission had during the run-up to the Convention that Hillary didn't get the nod because "she asked for too much" were true. (Of course, with the Obama crowd, one wonders if "too much" was a promise that she wouldn't have to make coffee daily for The Chosen One.)
Right about now, with the Obama Campaign falling like a boulder from the sky, Hillary can get (promises! promises!) just about anything.Okay, on Biden: the one straw that broke "Joe Camel's" back was the fact that the Palin Effect is going to cost the Democrats many seats in the Congress. The Rassmussen Poll shows that the huge "generic Democrat" lead nationally in congressional races has disappeared. I believe this has been noted (and how!) by the Democrats now likely to lose their seats.
I also believe the "transfer" of V-P roles probably COULD take place as early as Monday, although it may occur somewhat later. Biden -- "health problems," you know -- will not be "sick enough" to drop out of his Senate race. He doesn't look any sicker than usual to me. He does look old and tired. He got 9,000 votes in the presidential primaries, his high-water mark in two decades of running futilely for President.
Yes, Hillary Clinton can endorse Obama, the man who labeled her a warmonger, a liar, and a racist. She can endorse the politician whom her husband claimed "played the race card" against him.Hey, friends this is today's "Obama Democrats." Nothing lost save honor and integrity.
When I heard from the McCain camp (through the legendary "little birdie") about their "Biden Strategy," I thought it was a good one. Essentially, it said, "Ignore him. He's irrelevant, a windbag who's been wrong on every major issue of our time." Well said.
If he makes it to the debate on Oct. 2, Sarah Palin will mop the floor with him.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
McCain-Palin: What Really Happened
Sarah Palin reads this blog regularly. I used to get hits from her home town and the state capital of Juneau when she was there. When her son graduated from infantry training school at Ft. Benning, GA with Sarah and Todd present, I got my first hit from . . . Ft. Benning. You're always welcome Sarah!
Bookmark this site and return often! You're always welcome -- even if your name isn't . . . Sarah Palin.
I broke the "Sarah Palin Choice" on my four blogs Friday morning. I had a short post up at 2:30 a.m. that said I had information (from Sharon in Oklahoma and one other GOP operative) that Gov. Palin and her two teen-age daughters and perhaps others had flown from Anchorage to Dayton, where she would be named today McCain's running mate. The story came from people who put two-and-two together, and the media was still falling all over itself at 11 a.m. this morning. Charles Krauthammer said at 11 McCain should choose Fred Thompson. Good God!
At that point, I said to my wife we already had enough old white guys (Biden, McCain) and we needed a woman, preferably Sarah . I went to sleep believing it was Sarah and woke up to her picture on the screen on FOX (and others?). I never bought the Campaign's decoy statement that, well everybody on the list was flying in (Romney, Pawlenty, Huckabee, the Easter Bunny, Peter Rabbit?) More tomorrow (Saturday).
Gov. Sarah Palin and husband Todd in Native Alaskan area saluting Teacher of the Year Jan Boucher.
[From early Friday a.m.] I'm getting word from Republican operatives in OK and FL that Gov. Sarah Heath Palin's charter plane from Alaska has just landed in Dayton, Ohio. That almost certainly would indicate she is John McCain's choice for V-P. If that is the case, much more about Sarah tomorrow. Sarah Palin is the mother of five, including an infant son, Trig, who was born with Down Syndrome. Her oldest son, Track, is an infantryman headed soon to Iraq . This story comes from a woman I'd trust with my life. [Put up just before 3 a.m. Friday morning.] This was the first blog I know of to break the news about Sarah.
If you want continuing inside information on Sarah Palin, you've come to the right place. See also my Hillary Supporters blog, which will feature information on how Gov. Palin can and will reach out to Hillary Clinton voters and working people in America.
Following is my response to a woman, a leader in the Nobama Effort, who asked if we are pretty certain winners now with Gov. Palin on the ticket.
This is a winner. I wrote the following to CristiAdkisn: The Sarah Palin you heard and saw, even more than heard, is the real person. She is very dynamic, and she brings the kids (young ones) with her to the office. The 7-year-old was ready to go up and help mommie give the speech. Husband Todd is a "proud member of the United Steelworkers." I love it.
She "makes love" to the audience in a way Obama never will. During a speech, lots of dynamism and interaction with the kids, the McCains, and the audience. Pefect delivery. I think she'll kick Biden to the curb. She is getting a very positive response from Hillary Clinton Supporters, who now recognize that there's more than one woman who will be President someday.
I haven't yet visited Adam's blog, the one that started it all -- and where I was guest host last week. He got 600 blog comments YESTERDAY. I never heard of anybody getting more than 20 or so. Trish Hauser from Alaska co-managed the effort
The BBC called me and is doing an interview tonight. I told them already that he couldn't have made a better choice. Other people were qualified, but she has the charisma -- and reached right out to Hillary Supporters and Geraldine Ferraro.
The five kids are charming -- and the 7-year-old is a riot ("Piper"). She takes the bady to the office. Heck, she's the Governor so she can do what she wants.
When I discovered Sarah was reading my blogs on her, I started talking directly to her. I said, "Sarah, you are a classic daughter of Alaska. But now you belong to America."
Bookmark this site and return often! You're always welcome -- even if your name isn't . . . Sarah Palin.
I broke the "Sarah Palin Choice" on my four blogs Friday morning. I had a short post up at 2:30 a.m. that said I had information (from Sharon in Oklahoma and one other GOP operative) that Gov. Palin and her two teen-age daughters and perhaps others had flown from Anchorage to Dayton, where she would be named today McCain's running mate. The story came from people who put two-and-two together, and the media was still falling all over itself at 11 a.m. this morning. Charles Krauthammer said at 11 McCain should choose Fred Thompson. Good God!
At that point, I said to my wife we already had enough old white guys (Biden, McCain) and we needed a woman, preferably Sarah . I went to sleep believing it was Sarah and woke up to her picture on the screen on FOX (and others?). I never bought the Campaign's decoy statement that, well everybody on the list was flying in (Romney, Pawlenty, Huckabee, the Easter Bunny, Peter Rabbit?) More tomorrow (Saturday).
Gov. Sarah Palin and husband Todd in Native Alaskan area saluting Teacher of the Year Jan Boucher.[From early Friday a.m.] I'm getting word from Republican operatives in OK and FL that Gov. Sarah Heath Palin's charter plane from Alaska has just landed in Dayton, Ohio. That almost certainly would indicate she is John McCain's choice for V-P. If that is the case, much more about Sarah tomorrow. Sarah Palin is the mother of five, including an infant son, Trig, who was born with Down Syndrome. Her oldest son, Track, is an infantryman headed soon to Iraq . This story comes from a woman I'd trust with my life. [Put up just before 3 a.m. Friday morning.] This was the first blog I know of to break the news about Sarah.
If you want continuing inside information on Sarah Palin, you've come to the right place. See also my Hillary Supporters blog, which will feature information on how Gov. Palin can and will reach out to Hillary Clinton voters and working people in America.
Following is my response to a woman, a leader in the Nobama Effort, who asked if we are pretty certain winners now with Gov. Palin on the ticket.
This is a winner. I wrote the following to CristiAdkisn: The Sarah Palin you heard and saw, even more than heard, is the real person. She is very dynamic, and she brings the kids (young ones) with her to the office. The 7-year-old was ready to go up and help mommie give the speech. Husband Todd is a "proud member of the United Steelworkers." I love it.
She "makes love" to the audience in a way Obama never will. During a speech, lots of dynamism and interaction with the kids, the McCains, and the audience. Pefect delivery. I think she'll kick Biden to the curb. She is getting a very positive response from Hillary Clinton Supporters, who now recognize that there's more than one woman who will be President someday.
I haven't yet visited Adam's blog, the one that started it all -- and where I was guest host last week. He got 600 blog comments YESTERDAY. I never heard of anybody getting more than 20 or so. Trish Hauser from Alaska co-managed the effort
The BBC called me and is doing an interview tonight. I told them already that he couldn't have made a better choice. Other people were qualified, but she has the charisma -- and reached right out to Hillary Supporters and Geraldine Ferraro.
The five kids are charming -- and the 7-year-old is a riot ("Piper"). She takes the bady to the office. Heck, she's the Governor so she can do what she wants.
When I discovered Sarah was reading my blogs on her, I started talking directly to her. I said, "Sarah, you are a classic daughter of Alaska. But now you belong to America."
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?
Sunday, July 20, 2008
McCain Deserves Libertarians' Support
If you listen to Barack Obama (and Hillary Clinton) on the campaign trail, you hear some scary things. They portray “too many Americans’ as one step away from economic and social disaster. They see as people badly in need of major assistance – their assistance.
John McCain, imperfect as he may be, sees a very different America. It’s the same country whose liberties he was willing to give his life for in Viet Nam. We may not agree with him on every issue, but we can’t disagree that a love for liberty is at the central core of this man’s being.
Even Bill Clinton has said of McCain: “He’s given everything he has to his country – except his life.” President Clinton has never spoken truer words.
In contrast to McCain, Obama essentially portrays America as something resembling Matthew Arnold’s “Dover Beach,” where “ignorant armies clash by night.” As “Lexington" in The Economist describes Obama’s world-view, America is “a coalition of groups that define themselves as victims of social and economic forces, and . . . [where] its leaders encourage people to feel helpless and aggrieved . . .”
If Obama becomes President, we would become a society of “victims,” all of us clamoring for the government to bail us out of our misery. That would be a disaster not only for libertarians, but for all Americans.
I hope all libertarians do the right thing: voting for John McCain. Also, ask your friends and family members to do the same thing. The future of liberty in this society depends on free people standing up and supporting a man who has devoted his entire life to defending American values and liberties. John McCain is the right man for our cause.
John McCain, imperfect as he may be, sees a very different America. It’s the same country whose liberties he was willing to give his life for in Viet Nam. We may not agree with him on every issue, but we can’t disagree that a love for liberty is at the central core of this man’s being.
Even Bill Clinton has said of McCain: “He’s given everything he has to his country – except his life.” President Clinton has never spoken truer words.
In contrast to McCain, Obama essentially portrays America as something resembling Matthew Arnold’s “Dover Beach,” where “ignorant armies clash by night.” As “Lexington" in The Economist describes Obama’s world-view, America is “a coalition of groups that define themselves as victims of social and economic forces, and . . . [where] its leaders encourage people to feel helpless and aggrieved . . .”
If Obama becomes President, we would become a society of “victims,” all of us clamoring for the government to bail us out of our misery. That would be a disaster not only for libertarians, but for all Americans.
I hope all libertarians do the right thing: voting for John McCain. Also, ask your friends and family members to do the same thing. The future of liberty in this society depends on free people standing up and supporting a man who has devoted his entire life to defending American values and liberties. John McCain is the right man for our cause.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Hillary: Do NOT HELP OBAMA
Dolores Bernal, a heavy-duty liberal columnist wrote an article about "How Hillary Could Still Ger the Nomination." I don't for a minute believe that will happen. Ms. Bernal's problem with Obama is that he "moving toward the center" and is not a real "progressive," whereas Hillary might be. Blah, blah, blah. I wrote the following response to a NoBama Group:
[Note: This column is one of those rare reposts from my Hillary Supporters' blog.]
I disagree with Dolores Bernal on several points. Why do all candidates "move toward the center?" They move to the center (toward compromise positions) because that's where the voters are. The government is not one "for the progressives" anymore than it is one "for the social conservatives." It is a government "of, by, and for the people."
McCain ran in the Republican center (perhaps center-left), where supposedly he could not win. Conservatives still don't like him. Independents do -- and so do many Democrats. I like him a lot (see reasons below).
The difference is this: Obama is a man who doesn't have any strong beliefs. In 2007, he was the "most liberal" Senator (according to National Journal) and now he running as someone quite different.
Now, he is making speeches to Black audiences (NAACP and others) that are really directed almost exclusively to white audiences. Saying that Black people (generally!) lack a commitment to personal responsibility will go over big with some white audiences. ANYTHING he says to the vast majority of Blacks will not cause him to lose their votes. He will not go around telling white people that they are falling short on personal responsibility.
I have a good sense of what John McCain believes and, frankly, it is the same thing most Clinton Democrats (and "Reagan Democrats") believe. He believes in campaign finance reform; he believes in comprehensive immigration reform; he believes in eliminating the vote-buying (with your money) tactic of "earmarks." He believes that losing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan would be a disaster for the country and the world. He believes in being respectful to opponents, as he has been to Mrs. Clinton and, to the degree possible, even to Obama.
Also, he obviously believes in adoption to save the lives of those in danger (as he did with his Bangladesh born daughter). He believes in religious tolerance and a 'quiet Christianity.' He believes in working "across the aisle," unlike Obama, who believes in talking about it. He is opposed to the mistreatment of prisoners, for reasons that are both philosophical and intensely personal.
Unlike Obama, he believes in paying female staffers at least as much as he does male staffers. So, why do I think John McCain is the very best candidate for President this year -- and perhaps the best candidate in my lifetime? To answer that, read the foregoing paragraphs.
I realize that if Sen. Clinton accepts the vice-presidency nomination, which would have a disastrous effect on her reputation, she may help her nemesis, Obama become President. She would be doing a major disservice to her Supporters and to her country, one I believe she loves.
With Hillary on the ticket some of her supporters would move over to Obama, in the mistaken notion that Hillary would exert some influence in his presidency, which she would not. As I said sarcastically last night, her main task would be to ask, "One lump or two, President Obama?"
Last night I said to friends -- in regard to this issue of the V-P -- that apparently "I take life itself much more seriously than some political candidates." They look at it mainly as a game -- a power game. I hope Hillary is not such a person, and I believe she is much better than that.
In her campaign, Sen. Clinton said: "I have a lifetime of experience. Sen. McCain has a lifetime of experience. Sen. Obama has a speech [against the Iraq War] that he delivered in 2002."
The question is: did she really mean what she said on this point? In fact, did she mean anything she said during the campaign? I hope the answer is that she stands by everything she told her supporters. If she doesn't, she's not the woman they imagined her to be.
[Note: This column is one of those rare reposts from my Hillary Supporters' blog.]
I disagree with Dolores Bernal on several points. Why do all candidates "move toward the center?" They move to the center (toward compromise positions) because that's where the voters are. The government is not one "for the progressives" anymore than it is one "for the social conservatives." It is a government "of, by, and for the people."
McCain ran in the Republican center (perhaps center-left), where supposedly he could not win. Conservatives still don't like him. Independents do -- and so do many Democrats. I like him a lot (see reasons below).
The difference is this: Obama is a man who doesn't have any strong beliefs. In 2007, he was the "most liberal" Senator (according to National Journal) and now he running as someone quite different.
Now, he is making speeches to Black audiences (NAACP and others) that are really directed almost exclusively to white audiences. Saying that Black people (generally!) lack a commitment to personal responsibility will go over big with some white audiences. ANYTHING he says to the vast majority of Blacks will not cause him to lose their votes. He will not go around telling white people that they are falling short on personal responsibility.
I have a good sense of what John McCain believes and, frankly, it is the same thing most Clinton Democrats (and "Reagan Democrats") believe. He believes in campaign finance reform; he believes in comprehensive immigration reform; he believes in eliminating the vote-buying (with your money) tactic of "earmarks." He believes that losing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan would be a disaster for the country and the world. He believes in being respectful to opponents, as he has been to Mrs. Clinton and, to the degree possible, even to Obama.
Also, he obviously believes in adoption to save the lives of those in danger (as he did with his Bangladesh born daughter). He believes in religious tolerance and a 'quiet Christianity.' He believes in working "across the aisle," unlike Obama, who believes in talking about it. He is opposed to the mistreatment of prisoners, for reasons that are both philosophical and intensely personal.
Unlike Obama, he believes in paying female staffers at least as much as he does male staffers. So, why do I think John McCain is the very best candidate for President this year -- and perhaps the best candidate in my lifetime? To answer that, read the foregoing paragraphs.
I realize that if Sen. Clinton accepts the vice-presidency nomination, which would have a disastrous effect on her reputation, she may help her nemesis, Obama become President. She would be doing a major disservice to her Supporters and to her country, one I believe she loves.
With Hillary on the ticket some of her supporters would move over to Obama, in the mistaken notion that Hillary would exert some influence in his presidency, which she would not. As I said sarcastically last night, her main task would be to ask, "One lump or two, President Obama?"
Last night I said to friends -- in regard to this issue of the V-P -- that apparently "I take life itself much more seriously than some political candidates." They look at it mainly as a game -- a power game. I hope Hillary is not such a person, and I believe she is much better than that.
In her campaign, Sen. Clinton said: "I have a lifetime of experience. Sen. McCain has a lifetime of experience. Sen. Obama has a speech [against the Iraq War] that he delivered in 2002."
The question is: did she really mean what she said on this point? In fact, did she mean anything she said during the campaign? I hope the answer is that she stands by everything she told her supporters. If she doesn't, she's not the woman they imagined her to be.
Friday, July 4, 2008
Hillary Clinton: Character Problems
Hillary Supporters, it's time for a dose of reality . . .
[The main directory of groups opposed to the election of Barack Obama is at: www.nobamanetwork.com . There are now nearly 300 organizations (some very large), blogs, and web sites listed there. The group is run by a Republican, Wendy, and it consists of Democrats, Republicans, Independents, and various others. It's a great site and is set up to stimulate networking. Another group that's working actively with the McCain Campaign is: http://womenforfairpolitics.com . It started out as a site to back Hillary Clinton, but it now includes people of all political persuasions. I hope you'll all consider joining (or at least using) these good sites.]
One member of a Hillary Supporters Group accused me of trying to disrupt the group (apparently because I'm a Republican). Actually, I couldn't disrupt a family picnic in my hometown of Ambridge, PA.
Admittedly, I'm extremely skeptical about people who would prefer to spend their time fantasizing about somehow getting "St. Hillary" the Democratic nomination. I'm also irritated by people who rationalize endlessly about why Sen. Clinton endorsed Sen. Obama for the presidency.Some of those people say she did it because "she had a gun to her head." Google those words, and you'll see how often the phrase comes up. However, I saw no gun.
Others say she did it to "preserve her career" as a politician who might someday gain the White House. That explanation doesn't exactly seem to cover her -- a mere careerist? -- with glory.Anyway, here's my response:
I haven't read the email about me trying to tear up the group, which the group seemed to be doing a fine job of on its own. I have a hard time when people are saying absurd things in not responding, which may be a weakness.I keep quoting that old saying by the poet T.S. Eliot about "Humankind cannot bear very much reality."
The reality is that Mrs. Clinton let down her supporters and also, I believe, her country in coming out and slavishly endorsing Obama, a man who spent 18 months humiliating her.In short, she did the things that career politicians always do.
Frankly, rationalizing what she did means holding her to much lower standards than we do ourselves.
Thus, I'm the kid saying "The Emperor [Empress] has no clothes." And the crowd, fearful and confused, is treating me like the enemy for stating the obvious.
I tell the truth. I don't do fairy tales. I don't humor people. I don't hold up false hopes. I don't rationalize dishonorable behavior. I judge people as I would like to be judged.
Like many people in the [Hillary Supporters] group, I endorse John McCain. I have done so since the New Hampshire Primary. I have done so because I believe he is the best -- the most honorable and capable -- person running for President. More honorable than Barack Obama. More honorable than Hillary Clinton. More honorable than President Bill Clinton.
In her "Unity" speech, which contained a thoroughly gratuitous dig at Sen. McCain, who is her better in every way, Mrs. Clinton proved that my assessment of the candidates was correct.
Some people don't want to hear that. They are the same people who don't want to hear that it's raining during a downpour. When people face up to the new realities about Mrs. Clinton and the Democratic Party as it now exists, they will be able to take constructive actions on behalf of their country. Before that, they will engage mainly in one futile exercise after another.
Senator McCain has put his career and his political future on the line innumerable times throughout his time in Washington. I do not believe Senator Clinton has ever done that, or will ever do it. If I'm wrong in that characterization, I'd love to hear about it.
"The Empress Has No Clothes."
[The main directory of groups opposed to the election of Barack Obama is at: www.nobamanetwork.com . There are now nearly 300 organizations (some very large), blogs, and web sites listed there. The group is run by a Republican, Wendy, and it consists of Democrats, Republicans, Independents, and various others. It's a great site and is set up to stimulate networking. Another group that's working actively with the McCain Campaign is: http://womenforfairpolitics.com . It started out as a site to back Hillary Clinton, but it now includes people of all political persuasions. I hope you'll all consider joining (or at least using) these good sites.]
One member of a Hillary Supporters Group accused me of trying to disrupt the group (apparently because I'm a Republican). Actually, I couldn't disrupt a family picnic in my hometown of Ambridge, PA.
Admittedly, I'm extremely skeptical about people who would prefer to spend their time fantasizing about somehow getting "St. Hillary" the Democratic nomination. I'm also irritated by people who rationalize endlessly about why Sen. Clinton endorsed Sen. Obama for the presidency.Some of those people say she did it because "she had a gun to her head." Google those words, and you'll see how often the phrase comes up. However, I saw no gun.
Others say she did it to "preserve her career" as a politician who might someday gain the White House. That explanation doesn't exactly seem to cover her -- a mere careerist? -- with glory.Anyway, here's my response:
I haven't read the email about me trying to tear up the group, which the group seemed to be doing a fine job of on its own. I have a hard time when people are saying absurd things in not responding, which may be a weakness.I keep quoting that old saying by the poet T.S. Eliot about "Humankind cannot bear very much reality."
The reality is that Mrs. Clinton let down her supporters and also, I believe, her country in coming out and slavishly endorsing Obama, a man who spent 18 months humiliating her.In short, she did the things that career politicians always do.
Frankly, rationalizing what she did means holding her to much lower standards than we do ourselves.
Thus, I'm the kid saying "The Emperor [Empress] has no clothes." And the crowd, fearful and confused, is treating me like the enemy for stating the obvious.
I tell the truth. I don't do fairy tales. I don't humor people. I don't hold up false hopes. I don't rationalize dishonorable behavior. I judge people as I would like to be judged.
Like many people in the [Hillary Supporters] group, I endorse John McCain. I have done so since the New Hampshire Primary. I have done so because I believe he is the best -- the most honorable and capable -- person running for President. More honorable than Barack Obama. More honorable than Hillary Clinton. More honorable than President Bill Clinton.
In her "Unity" speech, which contained a thoroughly gratuitous dig at Sen. McCain, who is her better in every way, Mrs. Clinton proved that my assessment of the candidates was correct.
Some people don't want to hear that. They are the same people who don't want to hear that it's raining during a downpour. When people face up to the new realities about Mrs. Clinton and the Democratic Party as it now exists, they will be able to take constructive actions on behalf of their country. Before that, they will engage mainly in one futile exercise after another.
Senator McCain has put his career and his political future on the line innumerable times throughout his time in Washington. I do not believe Senator Clinton has ever done that, or will ever do it. If I'm wrong in that characterization, I'd love to hear about it.
"The Empress Has No Clothes."
Thursday, June 12, 2008
America's Last Undecided Superdelegate
On my Pennsylvania blog Thursday afternoon, I put a posting about the last undecided Democrat Superdelegate in America -- Pennsylvania Rep. Tim Holden. Some compare Holden to Prince Hamlet, although I actually see a resemblance to Harpo Marx. Anyway, he's a new figure for Hillary Supporters to dislike -- and rightfully so.
The material below this italicized section is from Jean Avery of Moms for McCain. A resident of Seattle, Washington, Jean is one of the most important political operatives "you've never heard about." She's an absolute VIP when it comes to understanding women voters -- and attracting them to the cause of John McCain. Her comments on "what do women want?" apply not only to the presidential election, but also to every race for the House and Senate. Thus, this is a high stakes discussion.
On my Pennsylvania blog today, I discuss how candidates in the Keystone State can pick up major support -- including financial contributions -- from voters who were committed to the candidacy of Hillary Clinton. Come visit!
Jean Avery's comments follow: "Last week, Howard Dean and friends gave delegates to someone who wasn't even on the ballot and took half the delegates from a candidate who was. And, by the way, she was also the first woman with a serious shot at the Presidency. Suddenly millions of American women who hung their hopes on Hillary are the Desirable Voting Bloc. (Sure, Hillary had male supporters, but because many women's motives differed, their response to her rejection may differ too.)
So, what happens now for Hillary's women? Do they ride what one disgruntled Mom called the "unity pony"? Do they stay home to 'send a message'? Or do they rise up like the poetic Scorned Women of yore, uniting as "PUMAs for McCain" (party unity my....well....you can figure it out).
Gloria Steinem and friends are confident (too confident?) that the same women screwed over by their own party will come home to roost because a lefty novelist thought he heard a nasty remark or because McCain refused to pander on an 'equal pay' lawsuit bill. But I believe women voters are smart enough to look at what the remaining men have to offer as President, and can judge them on that basis. So what DOES McCain have to offer women? Here are a few thoughts.
More money in your pocket(book). Despite humorous greeting cards to the contrary, most women I know are very careful with their money. We work hard for it and when we spend and save we have priorities in mind. We are more likely to drive the gas-guzzling minivan and buy the overpriced groceries. A McCain presidency maintains tax cuts which put more money into the pockets, purses, and bank accounts of the vast majority of Americans. This is not a vague promise, this is a specific, concrete commitment from both candidates - one of them will take more of your money than the other. Figure out your family's costs under Obama here.
More safety for your country. If Obama is elected, regardless of what is happening on the ground, he has to uphold his devil's bargain with the anti-war lobby and retreat from Iraq - even if maintaining a presence makes logistical and strategic sense. John McCain's positions on the war are shaped by a lifetime of personal investment - including heroic suffering, family sacrifice, and yes, logistical hands-on experience. Hillary said it best herself, when the phone rings at 3 am, I want someone answering it who has not only experience, but is unfettered by political fears and promises when making those split-second life-and-death decisions
.Hillary herself observed that McCain was much better qualified choice than Obama on national security issues. If she can see it, so should her supporters.
Education and healthcare. The only thing worse than having a seriously sick child in the middle of the night is getting an administrative run-around at the emergency room when you bring them in. Hillary made government-led 'universal healthcare' a cornerstone of her First Ladyship and her campaign. I personally dislike any system that takes money from your pocket and your paycheck FIRST and THEN you (hopefully) have a procedure they approved done by a provider they choose in a location they deem affordable and appropriate. But for those Hillary supporters whose hearts were set on health care solutions, consider the viable, easily-implemented alternatives McCain proposes, including tax credits, drug price management, and increased portability of coverage.
Life and moral issues. Despite bellyaching to the contrary, a majority of Americans - including women - are against partial-birth abortion (sucking a baby's brains out), government funding of abortion at home and abroad, and other frightening policies espoused by Obama [like the hideous "live-birth abortion"]. If you're pro-life, McCain is your ONLY choice. But even if you're pro-choice, you should ask yourself if this is how you want your tax dollars being spent - and if you're willing to put your country in a rookie's hands over this issue. Hillary herself knew it in her heart - John McCain will make a better President than Barack Obama.
You'll note that I have fought the (substantial) urge to rant about crazy pastors, terrorist friends, etc. - because all those distractions put together are less important than what each candidate will actually DO in office.I believe women are smart voters, I believe we are capable of identifying good and bad judgment when we see it, and I believe we understand what is best for our families and for our country. To all women who are politically 'homeless,' take some time to get to know John McCain. You'll like what you see.
Steve adds: McCain needs to sell his proposals on pocketbook issues, family and community security, and moral issues in simple, compelling ways. He needs to distinguish between his straight-talk and Obama's endless blasts of hot air. He also need to attack Obama on the change issue, outlining how the Senator from Illinois is offering big government solutions that just don't work.
Overall, he must emphasize how he advocates positive change, while Obama relies exclusively on -- in McCain's word -- "platitudes."
The material below this italicized section is from Jean Avery of Moms for McCain. A resident of Seattle, Washington, Jean is one of the most important political operatives "you've never heard about." She's an absolute VIP when it comes to understanding women voters -- and attracting them to the cause of John McCain. Her comments on "what do women want?" apply not only to the presidential election, but also to every race for the House and Senate. Thus, this is a high stakes discussion.
On my Pennsylvania blog today, I discuss how candidates in the Keystone State can pick up major support -- including financial contributions -- from voters who were committed to the candidacy of Hillary Clinton. Come visit!
Jean Avery's comments follow: "Last week, Howard Dean and friends gave delegates to someone who wasn't even on the ballot and took half the delegates from a candidate who was. And, by the way, she was also the first woman with a serious shot at the Presidency. Suddenly millions of American women who hung their hopes on Hillary are the Desirable Voting Bloc. (Sure, Hillary had male supporters, but because many women's motives differed, their response to her rejection may differ too.)
So, what happens now for Hillary's women? Do they ride what one disgruntled Mom called the "unity pony"? Do they stay home to 'send a message'? Or do they rise up like the poetic Scorned Women of yore, uniting as "PUMAs for McCain" (party unity my....well....you can figure it out).
Gloria Steinem and friends are confident (too confident?) that the same women screwed over by their own party will come home to roost because a lefty novelist thought he heard a nasty remark or because McCain refused to pander on an 'equal pay' lawsuit bill. But I believe women voters are smart enough to look at what the remaining men have to offer as President, and can judge them on that basis. So what DOES McCain have to offer women? Here are a few thoughts.
More money in your pocket(book). Despite humorous greeting cards to the contrary, most women I know are very careful with their money. We work hard for it and when we spend and save we have priorities in mind. We are more likely to drive the gas-guzzling minivan and buy the overpriced groceries. A McCain presidency maintains tax cuts which put more money into the pockets, purses, and bank accounts of the vast majority of Americans. This is not a vague promise, this is a specific, concrete commitment from both candidates - one of them will take more of your money than the other. Figure out your family's costs under Obama here.
More safety for your country. If Obama is elected, regardless of what is happening on the ground, he has to uphold his devil's bargain with the anti-war lobby and retreat from Iraq - even if maintaining a presence makes logistical and strategic sense. John McCain's positions on the war are shaped by a lifetime of personal investment - including heroic suffering, family sacrifice, and yes, logistical hands-on experience. Hillary said it best herself, when the phone rings at 3 am, I want someone answering it who has not only experience, but is unfettered by political fears and promises when making those split-second life-and-death decisions
.Hillary herself observed that McCain was much better qualified choice than Obama on national security issues. If she can see it, so should her supporters.
Education and healthcare. The only thing worse than having a seriously sick child in the middle of the night is getting an administrative run-around at the emergency room when you bring them in. Hillary made government-led 'universal healthcare' a cornerstone of her First Ladyship and her campaign. I personally dislike any system that takes money from your pocket and your paycheck FIRST and THEN you (hopefully) have a procedure they approved done by a provider they choose in a location they deem affordable and appropriate. But for those Hillary supporters whose hearts were set on health care solutions, consider the viable, easily-implemented alternatives McCain proposes, including tax credits, drug price management, and increased portability of coverage.
Life and moral issues. Despite bellyaching to the contrary, a majority of Americans - including women - are against partial-birth abortion (sucking a baby's brains out), government funding of abortion at home and abroad, and other frightening policies espoused by Obama [like the hideous "live-birth abortion"]. If you're pro-life, McCain is your ONLY choice. But even if you're pro-choice, you should ask yourself if this is how you want your tax dollars being spent - and if you're willing to put your country in a rookie's hands over this issue. Hillary herself knew it in her heart - John McCain will make a better President than Barack Obama.
You'll note that I have fought the (substantial) urge to rant about crazy pastors, terrorist friends, etc. - because all those distractions put together are less important than what each candidate will actually DO in office.I believe women are smart voters, I believe we are capable of identifying good and bad judgment when we see it, and I believe we understand what is best for our families and for our country. To all women who are politically 'homeless,' take some time to get to know John McCain. You'll like what you see.
Steve adds: McCain needs to sell his proposals on pocketbook issues, family and community security, and moral issues in simple, compelling ways. He needs to distinguish between his straight-talk and Obama's endless blasts of hot air. He also need to attack Obama on the change issue, outlining how the Senator from Illinois is offering big government solutions that just don't work.
Overall, he must emphasize how he advocates positive change, while Obama relies exclusively on -- in McCain's word -- "platitudes."
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Hillary Supporters: People Like Us
I wrote Wednesday (scroll down) about Hillary Supporters taking out revenge on Democrat "SuperDelegates" that supported Obama -- even though their districts or states voted for Hillary Clinton. When the angry Hillary backers get through with them those delegates will not feel very super.
Thursday a.m. (about 10:30 a.m.) on my Pennsylvania blog I'll attempt an answer to an overwhelming question: How exactly do Republican candidates for federal office -- including John McCain -- go about getting the votes -- and financial support -- of the Hillary backers?
I can imagine Republican congressional candidates, some of them very dear to me, saying, "Hey, I don't agree with Hillary on much, so how can I can her supporters to back me?"
The first thing is to understand that Hillary Supporters aren't from another planet. As our fellow Americans, they share a lot more with us than we -- or they -- might imagine. For instance, the vast majority of Hillary backers do support our American soldiers. In fact, Hillary's voters are a lot more likely to KNOW -- or to have in their family -- one or more American soldiers.
The same is not true of Obama-philes. To them, soldiers are somebody they see on TV. Twenty percent of Democrats say they hope the U.S. loses the war in Iraq. Very few of them -- almost none, I'd guess -- voted for Hillary Clinton in the Dem Primaries.
Even though I have one wife and five daughters and various grand-daughters, I don't claim to be an expert on women. Even Dr. Freud (not a big favorite with feminists) felt called upon once to ask, "But what does a woman want?" In coming up with an answer to that, I'm going to rely on my long-distance friend, Jean Avery, from Seattle, Washington. She's as good as it gets on understanding the hopes, fears, and thoughts of female voters. Jean blogs at http://moms4mccain.blogspot.com.
She's the one who brought to my attention the avalanche of angry generated by Mrs. Clinton's loss of the nomination. I wrote about that on Tuesday on my Hillary Supporters for McCain site. I also provided the very long list of web sites for Hillary-ites who now intend to vote for McCain.
Caution: Jean, a mom herself, is also a Princeton grad (perhaps one of the few things she shares with Michelle Obama). However, she's promised me not to use too many big words. (When people found out I had been a college English teacher, they used to worry about their grammar!
I think it cost me invitations to parties.)
Anyway, after I do the Pennsylvania piece, I'll steal some bits and pieces and add them to this site. As always, thanks for visiting. If you have comments, please either use the "comments" section or send them to me via e-mail at TalkTop65@aol.com.
Thursday a.m. (about 10:30 a.m.) on my Pennsylvania blog I'll attempt an answer to an overwhelming question: How exactly do Republican candidates for federal office -- including John McCain -- go about getting the votes -- and financial support -- of the Hillary backers?
I can imagine Republican congressional candidates, some of them very dear to me, saying, "Hey, I don't agree with Hillary on much, so how can I can her supporters to back me?"
The first thing is to understand that Hillary Supporters aren't from another planet. As our fellow Americans, they share a lot more with us than we -- or they -- might imagine. For instance, the vast majority of Hillary backers do support our American soldiers. In fact, Hillary's voters are a lot more likely to KNOW -- or to have in their family -- one or more American soldiers.
The same is not true of Obama-philes. To them, soldiers are somebody they see on TV. Twenty percent of Democrats say they hope the U.S. loses the war in Iraq. Very few of them -- almost none, I'd guess -- voted for Hillary Clinton in the Dem Primaries.
Even though I have one wife and five daughters and various grand-daughters, I don't claim to be an expert on women. Even Dr. Freud (not a big favorite with feminists) felt called upon once to ask, "But what does a woman want?" In coming up with an answer to that, I'm going to rely on my long-distance friend, Jean Avery, from Seattle, Washington. She's as good as it gets on understanding the hopes, fears, and thoughts of female voters. Jean blogs at http://moms4mccain.blogspot.com.
She's the one who brought to my attention the avalanche of angry generated by Mrs. Clinton's loss of the nomination. I wrote about that on Tuesday on my Hillary Supporters for McCain site. I also provided the very long list of web sites for Hillary-ites who now intend to vote for McCain.
Caution: Jean, a mom herself, is also a Princeton grad (perhaps one of the few things she shares with Michelle Obama). However, she's promised me not to use too many big words. (When people found out I had been a college English teacher, they used to worry about their grammar!
I think it cost me invitations to parties.)
Anyway, after I do the Pennsylvania piece, I'll steal some bits and pieces and add them to this site. As always, thanks for visiting. If you have comments, please either use the "comments" section or send them to me via e-mail at TalkTop65@aol.com.
Sunday, June 8, 2008
Hillary Clinton Versus Sarah Palin
As the world rightly focuses on the McCain-Obama contest, a battle is shaping up behind the scene -- one that pits two powerful women -- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Gov. Sarah Heath Palin -- against one another. Why is Sarah Palin the woman the Democrats fear most? I'll try to answer that today (Sunday). If you scan through the previous columns, you'll find comments on both women.
Gov. Sarah Heath Palin welcoming home Alaskan soldiers who fought in Iraq. Gov. Palin's son, Track, age 18, is an infantry soldier in the U.S. Army.
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton giving her concession speech on Saturday, June 10
Gov. Sarah Heath Palin welcoming home Alaskan soldiers who fought in Iraq. Gov. Palin's son, Track, age 18, is an infantry soldier in the U.S. Army.
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton giving her concession speech on Saturday, June 10Sarah Palin may very well be John McCain's choice for V-P on the Republican ticket. Barack Obama apparently doesn't want Hillary to be his V-P choice, but for purely political reasons he may choose her anyway.
Why do the Democrats fear the presence of Sarah Palin on the Republican ticket? In part, it's her legendary toughness (they don't call her "Sarah Barracuda" for no reason). But her main strength is her strong appeal to critical groups of voters. Consider:
Married women: Sarah's marriage to Todd Palin gives every evidence of being a model relationship. Sarah and Todd were childhood sweethearts, and they eloped shortly after she graduated from high school.
Young people: Sarah is only 44, and she exude youthfulness and energy. She has children ranging in age from 18 (son Track) to a few weeks (son Trig).
Military families: Sarah and Todd are a military family. Their son Track enlisted in the U.S. Army Infantry on September 11, 2007. It's extremely likely he will see combat duty in either Afghanistan or Iraq, or both.
Families with children: The Palins have five children, three of them teenagers, as well as daughter Piper, age 7, and baby Trig (a Norwegian name).
Reagan Democrats: Palin has the highest approval ratings of any major elected official in the U.S. -- in the 90% range. That means she's gained approval from the vast majority of Democrats.
Women professionals (journalists, teachers, nurses, doctors, lawyers, and businesswomen): Sarah is the consummate female professional, having served as Mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, and as governor of the state. Her college degree is in journalism. Her parents both served as public school teachers.
Working families: Sarah's husband, Todd, has labored his entire adult life as a commercial fisherman and an oil field production worker. The couple's links to working families go far beyond the usual political rhetoric.
Gun owners: Sarah is an avid hunter and a life-member of the National Rifle Association.
Pro-Life social conservatives: When Sarah found out that her unborn son, Trig, had Down Syndrome, she and her husband elected to have the child. Her point was that God has a purpose for every human being. When Trig was born, the Palins' press release began with thse word, "God has blessed us . . . ." The fascinating point was that they meant every word of it.
Evangelical Christians: Sarah is an evangelical Christian. However, she doesn't wear her religious faith on her sleeve. She is not anti-gay and does not scapegoat people who disagree with her.
People concerned about energy and the environment: As governor of Alaska, Sarah is among the best-informed elected officials on both issues. She's head of the energy committee at the Republican Governors Association and is a strong advocate of level-headed conservation of natural resources.
Overall, there's no other Republican that brings more to the table than Sarah Palin. She has exceptionally wide appeal. She would help John McCain with many groups with which he's currently weak (including young people and women professionals).
Of supreme importance: Sarah could be particularly helpful in battleground states with large numbers of working class voters, including Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan.
In 2012 (if Obama wins this year or if McCain elects to serve just one term) or 2016, the presidential face-off could pit Sarah Palin against Hillary Clinton. One imagines that it would be a battle royal.
Note: I hope everyone will visit my Hillary Supporters for McCain column. It contains a guest column by a Black woman from North Carolina -- a Hillary supporter -- who is now strongly backing McCain.
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Presidential Troika: Barack, Hillary, Bill
Let's make a major effort to support Republican congressional candidate Dana Walsh. I am going to put up on every blog (and I have a bunch) an appeal to send a contribution to Ms. Walsh. She's pro-military and running against Cindy Sheehan and Nancy Pelosi, "the witches of the West." I hope a whole lot of people online will feature Dana Walsh at: http://danawalshforcongress.com. Her web site is terrific. It has pics of Sheehan and Pelosi playing huggy-bear with dictators (Chavez and Assad). Please contribute what you can to this courageous woman.
I put up late Tuesday columns on: (1) the Pennsylvania blog about a new, unified, national effort to elect Republican candidates; (2) the Hillary Supporters for McCain blog about the Obama campaign and its surrogates "sliming" (Bill Clinton's word) Mrs. Clinton. If you're a "mom," you'll want to take a look at Jean Avery's blog: http://moms4mccain.blogspot.com/. (On the Hillary Supporters site, I have a picture of Bill's supposed girlfriend (Gina Gershon), as well as a quote from a friend in Ambridge, who said, "As Bill gets older, the girlfriends get better looking." Can't quarrel with that.)
The pundits last night didn't really "interpret" Mrs. Clinton's "concession speech" (more properly, her "non-concession speech"). Instead, they mainly had a befuddled look on their faces. Some wondered if she was not perhaps launching the first shot in the 2012 campaign for the presidency.
I suggested that the next presidential election -- the one after this year's -- might end up pitting Senator Clinton on the Democratic side against Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin for the Republicans. (In this scenario, President John McCain would have -- as we said in business -- "elected to take early retirement."
Of course, the major question the Senator left is whether she wants the vice presidential nod. David Gergen suggested that Mrs. Clinton seemed to be indicating that she wanted Senator Obama to agree to some sort of "coalition" government -- or perhaps a co-presidency. On that point, what about a "troika," that would have three equal parts: Barack, Hillary, and -- of course -- Bill?
The problem with Hillary as a vice-presidential nominee is this: she has supplied the Republicans with all sorts of ammunition. Famously, she once said, "I have a lifetime of experience; Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience; Senator Obama has a speech [against the Iraq War] that he delivered in 2002." When Obama runs against McCain, he will hear those words used in ads -- again and again and again.
Mrs. Clinton's slogan in her campaign was "Ready on Day 1." She has implied that John McCain would also be ready to serve as President on Day 1. Of course, her words mean that Obama would NOT be ready. If she thought the Illinois Senator had the appropriate readiness (and as Prince Hamlet said, "The readiness is all"), then her slogan would have made no sense.
Bill Clinton said on June 2 that the Obama campaign was "sliming" his wife. Again, if Hillary Clinton accepts (the proper word may be "seizes") the vice-presidential nod, Bill Clinton's words just might ring throughout the fall campaign. The former President indicated that Obama is relying on "surrogates" to hurl mud at his wife.
Are Hillary and Bill Clinton really ready to mend fences with Obama?
Are they willing to say, in essence, "all is forgiven, Barack. We really didn't mean all those nasty things we said about you." Is this to be a ticket that contains a undertone of the following: "It's true that I said Barack wouldn't be ready on day 1; however, since he will have me with him (in the White House? perhaps the Lincoln Bedroom?), he won't have to worry about not being quite ready. He'll have my 'help.'"
And what would the presence of Mrs. Clinton on the ticket do to Obama's seminal message of change? In fact, the "Billary" triplex would be a continuing reminder of the ghosts of American politics past. Barack would learn that it's impossible to fire a vice-president (or a former President).
For Senator McCain, campaigning against an Obama-Clinton team might not be the daunting task it appears to be yesterday. The Republican message -- one of them -- is going to highlight Obama's unsuitability for the highest office. And the main "spokesperson" for that position might not be John McCain, but rather Hillary Clinton -- with occasional assists from her husband.
Let the games begin!
I put up late Tuesday columns on: (1) the Pennsylvania blog about a new, unified, national effort to elect Republican candidates; (2) the Hillary Supporters for McCain blog about the Obama campaign and its surrogates "sliming" (Bill Clinton's word) Mrs. Clinton. If you're a "mom," you'll want to take a look at Jean Avery's blog: http://moms4mccain.blogspot.com/. (On the Hillary Supporters site, I have a picture of Bill's supposed girlfriend (Gina Gershon), as well as a quote from a friend in Ambridge, who said, "As Bill gets older, the girlfriends get better looking." Can't quarrel with that.)
The pundits last night didn't really "interpret" Mrs. Clinton's "concession speech" (more properly, her "non-concession speech"). Instead, they mainly had a befuddled look on their faces. Some wondered if she was not perhaps launching the first shot in the 2012 campaign for the presidency.
I suggested that the next presidential election -- the one after this year's -- might end up pitting Senator Clinton on the Democratic side against Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin for the Republicans. (In this scenario, President John McCain would have -- as we said in business -- "elected to take early retirement."
Of course, the major question the Senator left is whether she wants the vice presidential nod. David Gergen suggested that Mrs. Clinton seemed to be indicating that she wanted Senator Obama to agree to some sort of "coalition" government -- or perhaps a co-presidency. On that point, what about a "troika," that would have three equal parts: Barack, Hillary, and -- of course -- Bill?
The problem with Hillary as a vice-presidential nominee is this: she has supplied the Republicans with all sorts of ammunition. Famously, she once said, "I have a lifetime of experience; Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience; Senator Obama has a speech [against the Iraq War] that he delivered in 2002." When Obama runs against McCain, he will hear those words used in ads -- again and again and again.
Mrs. Clinton's slogan in her campaign was "Ready on Day 1." She has implied that John McCain would also be ready to serve as President on Day 1. Of course, her words mean that Obama would NOT be ready. If she thought the Illinois Senator had the appropriate readiness (and as Prince Hamlet said, "The readiness is all"), then her slogan would have made no sense.
Bill Clinton said on June 2 that the Obama campaign was "sliming" his wife. Again, if Hillary Clinton accepts (the proper word may be "seizes") the vice-presidential nod, Bill Clinton's words just might ring throughout the fall campaign. The former President indicated that Obama is relying on "surrogates" to hurl mud at his wife.
Are Hillary and Bill Clinton really ready to mend fences with Obama?
Are they willing to say, in essence, "all is forgiven, Barack. We really didn't mean all those nasty things we said about you." Is this to be a ticket that contains a undertone of the following: "It's true that I said Barack wouldn't be ready on day 1; however, since he will have me with him (in the White House? perhaps the Lincoln Bedroom?), he won't have to worry about not being quite ready. He'll have my 'help.'"
And what would the presence of Mrs. Clinton on the ticket do to Obama's seminal message of change? In fact, the "Billary" triplex would be a continuing reminder of the ghosts of American politics past. Barack would learn that it's impossible to fire a vice-president (or a former President).
For Senator McCain, campaigning against an Obama-Clinton team might not be the daunting task it appears to be yesterday. The Republican message -- one of them -- is going to highlight Obama's unsuitability for the highest office. And the main "spokesperson" for that position might not be John McCain, but rather Hillary Clinton -- with occasional assists from her husband.
Let the games begin!
Saturday, May 17, 2008
Ted Kennedy: A National Disgrace
On my provocative Hillary Supporters for McCain blog (http://pennsylvaniaforjohnmccain.blogspot.com) I have a new article entitled "Hillary Clinton Deserves Democratic Nomination." It presents a perspective you haven't seen before. Also, please click on the Google "Adsense" links you see to your right. All revenues generated (and, alas, they won't be much) will go to John McCain and other outstanding candidates. On my Pennsylvania blog today, I continue my discussion of how candidates (i.e., Republicans) can win when they're being significantly outspent by their opponents. Thanks for visiting!
Pennsylvania visitors, of whom there are many, please visit my blog that deals with Keystone State politics: http://pennsylvaniaforjohnmccain.blogspot.com. Thanks!
Teddy, as his many "friends" have come to know him best . . .
" . . . my good friend, Ted Kennedy." (Barack Obama) Bill and Hillary Clinton refused to kow-town to "Teddy," so the Obama endorsement was payback. John McCain also called Ted Kennedy a "friend." Clearly, the people in DC need a much better class of friends.
The idol-worship about Ted Kennedy that's going on today on cable TV is sickening. Yes, he's capable of being "amiable," but this is man whose entire life is replete with malicious actions -- from leaving Mary Jo Kopechne to drown, to driving his first wife literally to drink and mental illness, to conspiring with the KGB (scroll down) to steal the 1984 election from Ronald Reagan.
No, I don't want any human being to experience stroke or seizure disorder -- and he probably has suffered both -- but enough is enough. He may be a good something (a good liberal?), but he is in no way a good man.
He's a great advocate for "the poor," but his own inherited fortune -- he's one of the richest individuals in Congress -- seems to stay in his own bank account. He's a national disgrace.
John McCain, among many others, has said respectful things about Teddy. But would John really want such a man as a next-door-neighbor? My advice to John is not be on such friendly terms with a person who has done so much harm to other people.
After Teddy left Mary Jo to drown, his first calls were not to the fire or police departments but rather to a lawyer and a public relations man. Then, Teddy gave a national speech. He quoted liberally from his brother's Pulitizer-Prize winning book (written by a third-party, Ted Sorensen), Profiles in Courage. Somehow, he seemed to mistake his craven behavior for courage. A sickening display of egomania, but hey, that's our Teddy.
If you scroll down to read Professor Paul Kengor's interview about Ted Kennedy's flirtation with the Soviet KGB, you learn a great deal about the Massachusetts Senator. He was very willing to endanger Ronald Reagan's effort to win the Cold War. He saw no problem dealing in a friendly with Yuri Andropov, head of the KGB, and the man in charge of torturing and murdering Russian dissidents. Hey, Teddy thought, "it's okay, because after all the Republican Reagan is the major threat to the world. And maybe the Russians and I can keep Reagan from being re-elected."
That's the Teddy being lionized by a bunch of media sycophants on national TV. This is the Teddy, whose brother John said, "Let every nation know, whether friend or foe, that we shall bear any burden, pay any price, to ensure the survival of liberty."
Can you imagine such words coming out of Teddy's mouth? I can't.
As we're hearing ad nauseam, Ted Kennedy is the apotheosis of liberalism. He believes in collective responsibility -- that is, we're all responsible for "others" in our society. Exactly how we have collective responsibility -- looking out everyone else -- if we don't look out for ourselves is never made clear.
Redistribution of income -- although not of HIS great wealth, which is not income -- pays political dividends. It has gotten Ted Kennedy elected seven times in Massachusetts. It's the politics of envy and of class warfare. It doesn't ever mention people pulling themselves up by their bootstraps. If Ted Kennedy, worth $100 million-plus, ever earned a dollar in his life -- aside from feeding at the public trough -- it's never been recorded.
As one thoughtful observer put it, "Poor people have been voting for Democrats for 50 years -- and they're still poor." When poverty is a source of so many Democratic votes, we can all be sure that poverty will endure as long as the Democratic Party.
That is Ted Kennedy's legacy: a pompous, self-absorbed man who has done almost nothing to advance the security and economic growth of his society. If he loved his country a little more -- and himself a little less -- America would be a better nation.
I don't wish him serious illness, but the U.S. Senate will be a much better place without him. He lacks not just physical courage but the kind of moral courage he needs to be honest about our country and its people.
Pennsylvania visitors, of whom there are many, please visit my blog that deals with Keystone State politics: http://pennsylvaniaforjohnmccain.blogspot.com. Thanks!
Teddy, as his many "friends" have come to know him best . . ." . . . my good friend, Ted Kennedy." (Barack Obama) Bill and Hillary Clinton refused to kow-town to "Teddy," so the Obama endorsement was payback. John McCain also called Ted Kennedy a "friend." Clearly, the people in DC need a much better class of friends.
The idol-worship about Ted Kennedy that's going on today on cable TV is sickening. Yes, he's capable of being "amiable," but this is man whose entire life is replete with malicious actions -- from leaving Mary Jo Kopechne to drown, to driving his first wife literally to drink and mental illness, to conspiring with the KGB (scroll down) to steal the 1984 election from Ronald Reagan.
No, I don't want any human being to experience stroke or seizure disorder -- and he probably has suffered both -- but enough is enough. He may be a good something (a good liberal?), but he is in no way a good man.
He's a great advocate for "the poor," but his own inherited fortune -- he's one of the richest individuals in Congress -- seems to stay in his own bank account. He's a national disgrace.
John McCain, among many others, has said respectful things about Teddy. But would John really want such a man as a next-door-neighbor? My advice to John is not be on such friendly terms with a person who has done so much harm to other people.
After Teddy left Mary Jo to drown, his first calls were not to the fire or police departments but rather to a lawyer and a public relations man. Then, Teddy gave a national speech. He quoted liberally from his brother's Pulitizer-Prize winning book (written by a third-party, Ted Sorensen), Profiles in Courage. Somehow, he seemed to mistake his craven behavior for courage. A sickening display of egomania, but hey, that's our Teddy.
If you scroll down to read Professor Paul Kengor's interview about Ted Kennedy's flirtation with the Soviet KGB, you learn a great deal about the Massachusetts Senator. He was very willing to endanger Ronald Reagan's effort to win the Cold War. He saw no problem dealing in a friendly with Yuri Andropov, head of the KGB, and the man in charge of torturing and murdering Russian dissidents. Hey, Teddy thought, "it's okay, because after all the Republican Reagan is the major threat to the world. And maybe the Russians and I can keep Reagan from being re-elected."
That's the Teddy being lionized by a bunch of media sycophants on national TV. This is the Teddy, whose brother John said, "Let every nation know, whether friend or foe, that we shall bear any burden, pay any price, to ensure the survival of liberty."
Can you imagine such words coming out of Teddy's mouth? I can't.
As we're hearing ad nauseam, Ted Kennedy is the apotheosis of liberalism. He believes in collective responsibility -- that is, we're all responsible for "others" in our society. Exactly how we have collective responsibility -- looking out everyone else -- if we don't look out for ourselves is never made clear.
Redistribution of income -- although not of HIS great wealth, which is not income -- pays political dividends. It has gotten Ted Kennedy elected seven times in Massachusetts. It's the politics of envy and of class warfare. It doesn't ever mention people pulling themselves up by their bootstraps. If Ted Kennedy, worth $100 million-plus, ever earned a dollar in his life -- aside from feeding at the public trough -- it's never been recorded.
As one thoughtful observer put it, "Poor people have been voting for Democrats for 50 years -- and they're still poor." When poverty is a source of so many Democratic votes, we can all be sure that poverty will endure as long as the Democratic Party.
That is Ted Kennedy's legacy: a pompous, self-absorbed man who has done almost nothing to advance the security and economic growth of his society. If he loved his country a little more -- and himself a little less -- America would be a better nation.
I don't wish him serious illness, but the U.S. Senate will be a much better place without him. He lacks not just physical courage but the kind of moral courage he needs to be honest about our country and its people.
Sunday, May 11, 2008
AMERICAN POLITICS: WHOLE WORLD WATCHING
Note: On my new -- and, amazingly, popular -- blog: (http://hillarysuportersformccain.blogspot.com, I have a piece today by a superb political analyst, Jean Avery. It's called "The Agonies of Hillary Clinton." Yesterday's piece on the same blog is titled "Hatchets Hacking Away at Hillary." On my Pennsylvania blog, I have a piece about two congressional candidates whom I'm urging to link themselves closely to John McCain's presidential bid. It's a strategy I believe is applicable to most Republican congressional candidates across the nation. If you agree, please forward it to your own favorite congressional candidate. Thanks.
I hope you'll read both and comment if you wish.In recent months, The (London) Economist has written about the fascination many people in Great Britain have with this year's American politics.
In Britain, hundreds of thousands (millions?) of Englishmen and Englishwomen find them awake at 5 a.m. (their time) hanging on the latest results from Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Indiana. Some of these people may not know exactly where Indiana or Pennsylvania are, but they're fixated on the Obama-Clinton battles in those states.
The Economist mentions that a lot of people in Britain have a form of "primary envy." They wonder why their own country, one with a parliamentary system, can't have primaries of their own! Obviously, the primaries are great theater. Also, there are clear winners and losers, a situation that's always certain to draw public interest.
The obsession with American politics isn't just something you'll find in Britain. For example, I received the following e-mail from an overseas man, Jim Fryar, an Aussie who's a regular reader of my blogs.
He tells me, " I have been over to HSFM [Hillary Supporters for McCain] a few times, and I regard it as a potential winner for our cause [i.e., the conservative and libertarian one]. "My main concern at present is that Hilary will make it. I realize it's unlikely or highly improbable, but I never underestimate the Clintons, [because] they are as cunning as outhouse rats. . . . It's not over until Obama has the nomination, and even then I think its likely that Hilary would have 2012 in mind and have similar sentiments [regarding] the people we are reaching out to [as possible McCain supporters]."
[Alaska Governor] Sarah Palin would be a great asset to this effort if she were the VP nominee. The "girl" thing is a side issue to this. She is honest, competent, has executive experience, and appears to have the toughs where she needs them. I would not recommend her otherwise. The last thing we need in the future would be a useless VP who we 'owe' for getting us over the line.
"Sarah's main competition would be Mitt Romney, who is also a good choice. Mitt would bring back some of those who backed him but still won't come across to McCain. He would cost us some ultra-conservative support, but I am not sure that this would be a real bad thing if he can bring in greater numbers of other groups.
I think that a great many ultra-conservatives would still support the ticket [McCain-Romney] rather than accept the alternative. If Mike Huckabee and/or Fred Thompson were to support such a ticket, it would go a long way to help.
"That group [ultra-conservatives] worry me as they seem to be pulling us away from the more moderate electorate to the point where I feel some of them actually despise moderates and possibly want them out. I still believe we need the [ultra's] support so we have to be nice to them, but to some extent I think they are costing us, especially among the young [voters that] Romney could appeal to.
"I notice in the NYT an article which suggests that the Latino vote could be crucial and Eric [Dondero, a Texan who broadcasts on BlogTalkRadio/Libertarian] has been pushing this line for the last year, or at least that we do not do enough to get that vote. He also seems to feel that quite a few Latinos don't really like the Democrats as they tend to stand over them. He presented a good case for Bonnie Garcia as a possible VP a couple of months ago. If she were at least to get a prominent place in the campaign, she could be a great asset.
Is Condi [Rice] really 'tainted' [by assocation with the Bush Administration] as some seem to claim? I feel she has handled a bloody difficult role with total credit, and I have great respect and admiration for her. From over here, I don't get the street feel you would have, but on her record I would love to see her on the ticket.In another e-mail Jim said talked about the need in his country and ours for highly skilled immigrants -- in the face of growing anti-immigrant feelings.
"All of us are bound to disagree on some things. I kind of half heard a tv show in the background the other night on our ABC which was interviewing someone with similar views to Marina Kats's. I have been looking for the transcript on their website but it has not come up yet. The interviewee was saying that both of our countries [U.S. and Australia] could lose out badly and the tendency for industry to move offshore could increase if we do not get in more skilled people [immigrants] in a hurry."He adds, "It is almost impossible [in Australia] to get an electrician [in most non-minerals] industries now because of the mining boom."
Jim's knowledge of American politics is quite amazing when you consider that he's in Queensland, Australia. I love the way he talks about "us," referring to American conservatives. Jim sees himself -- and frankly, is -- one of "us." He's very familiar with what's going on in the New York Times and on ABC.
You can find Jim's remarkable blog at: http://jimunro.blogspot.com/. He describes its nature as:"Real World Libertarian: The Politics of Liberty and the Defense Thereof." Occupationally, he is a "former farmer, [and] surface and underground driller now moving into [mining] training and consultancy."
I told Jim that "Americans and Aussies" are brothers and sisters under the skin. And as he demonstrates, that's true. May it be ever thus.
I hope you'll read both and comment if you wish.In recent months, The (London) Economist has written about the fascination many people in Great Britain have with this year's American politics.
In Britain, hundreds of thousands (millions?) of Englishmen and Englishwomen find them awake at 5 a.m. (their time) hanging on the latest results from Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Indiana. Some of these people may not know exactly where Indiana or Pennsylvania are, but they're fixated on the Obama-Clinton battles in those states.
The Economist mentions that a lot of people in Britain have a form of "primary envy." They wonder why their own country, one with a parliamentary system, can't have primaries of their own! Obviously, the primaries are great theater. Also, there are clear winners and losers, a situation that's always certain to draw public interest.
The obsession with American politics isn't just something you'll find in Britain. For example, I received the following e-mail from an overseas man, Jim Fryar, an Aussie who's a regular reader of my blogs.
He tells me, " I have been over to HSFM [Hillary Supporters for McCain] a few times, and I regard it as a potential winner for our cause [i.e., the conservative and libertarian one]. "My main concern at present is that Hilary will make it. I realize it's unlikely or highly improbable, but I never underestimate the Clintons, [because] they are as cunning as outhouse rats. . . . It's not over until Obama has the nomination, and even then I think its likely that Hilary would have 2012 in mind and have similar sentiments [regarding] the people we are reaching out to [as possible McCain supporters]."
[Alaska Governor] Sarah Palin would be a great asset to this effort if she were the VP nominee. The "girl" thing is a side issue to this. She is honest, competent, has executive experience, and appears to have the toughs where she needs them. I would not recommend her otherwise. The last thing we need in the future would be a useless VP who we 'owe' for getting us over the line.
"Sarah's main competition would be Mitt Romney, who is also a good choice. Mitt would bring back some of those who backed him but still won't come across to McCain. He would cost us some ultra-conservative support, but I am not sure that this would be a real bad thing if he can bring in greater numbers of other groups.
I think that a great many ultra-conservatives would still support the ticket [McCain-Romney] rather than accept the alternative. If Mike Huckabee and/or Fred Thompson were to support such a ticket, it would go a long way to help.
"That group [ultra-conservatives] worry me as they seem to be pulling us away from the more moderate electorate to the point where I feel some of them actually despise moderates and possibly want them out. I still believe we need the [ultra's] support so we have to be nice to them, but to some extent I think they are costing us, especially among the young [voters that] Romney could appeal to.
"I notice in the NYT an article which suggests that the Latino vote could be crucial and Eric [Dondero, a Texan who broadcasts on BlogTalkRadio/Libertarian] has been pushing this line for the last year, or at least that we do not do enough to get that vote. He also seems to feel that quite a few Latinos don't really like the Democrats as they tend to stand over them. He presented a good case for Bonnie Garcia as a possible VP a couple of months ago. If she were at least to get a prominent place in the campaign, she could be a great asset.
Is Condi [Rice] really 'tainted' [by assocation with the Bush Administration] as some seem to claim? I feel she has handled a bloody difficult role with total credit, and I have great respect and admiration for her. From over here, I don't get the street feel you would have, but on her record I would love to see her on the ticket.In another e-mail Jim said talked about the need in his country and ours for highly skilled immigrants -- in the face of growing anti-immigrant feelings.
"All of us are bound to disagree on some things. I kind of half heard a tv show in the background the other night on our ABC which was interviewing someone with similar views to Marina Kats's. I have been looking for the transcript on their website but it has not come up yet. The interviewee was saying that both of our countries [U.S. and Australia] could lose out badly and the tendency for industry to move offshore could increase if we do not get in more skilled people [immigrants] in a hurry."He adds, "It is almost impossible [in Australia] to get an electrician [in most non-minerals] industries now because of the mining boom."
Jim's knowledge of American politics is quite amazing when you consider that he's in Queensland, Australia. I love the way he talks about "us," referring to American conservatives. Jim sees himself -- and frankly, is -- one of "us." He's very familiar with what's going on in the New York Times and on ABC.
You can find Jim's remarkable blog at: http://jimunro.blogspot.com/. He describes its nature as:"Real World Libertarian: The Politics of Liberty and the Defense Thereof." Occupationally, he is a "former farmer, [and] surface and underground driller now moving into [mining] training and consultancy."
I told Jim that "Americans and Aussies" are brothers and sisters under the skin. And as he demonstrates, that's true. May it be ever thus.
Thursday, April 3, 2008
McCain: Use Clintons in Commercials
If you scroll down one column, you'll see that I recommended John McCain "make nice with Hillary Clinton." My point is that many Hillary voters -- millions of them -- are there for the taking. I'd like now to go further -- and recommend that McCain develop commercials featuring Bill and Hillary Clinton.
He could use them in the general election.The commercials would feature public comments by the Clintons. Mrs. Clinton has said that "John McCain has a lifetime of experience." She added that Barack has one thing -- "a speech he gave [opposing the Iraq War] in 2002." As for Bill Clinton, he recently commended McCain's service to America, saying he'd given everything imaginable "other than his life."
I know Republicans generally don't use Democrats in their commercials. However, McCain needs to deviate from that practice, because the Clintons have done everything but endorse the Republican nominee. They've identified important ways in which he's a far superior candidate to Obama.
If John McCain gets a significant portion of the Democratic Primary voters who now support Sen. Clinton, he will win the election. He can get those voters if he keeps reminding people that the Clintons see him as candidate superior to Obama.
If Obama regards this approach as unfair, he might consider "unleashing" his :spiritual advisor," Rev. Jeremiah Wright. As we recall, the "Rev." had some intriguing things to say about Bill and Hillary.
Good evening, all:
Please check out my two posts from Sen. McCain’s stop in Jacksonville today during the “Service to America Tour”:
This first post has a compelling section of Sen. McCain’s speech: http://www.johnmccain.com/Blog/Read.aspx?guid=58c486db-f4ec-454c-8d97-ad79da9a53d1
And check out this young man who attended the event: http://www.johnmccain.com/Blog/Read.aspx?guid=0ad1cc64-c9ef-4006-8509-95c47d76042e
As always, we would appreciate you linking up to these two posts.
Patrick Hynes
You can get Patrick's updates from the McCain Campaign by contacting him at: phynes@calypsocom.com.
He could use them in the general election.The commercials would feature public comments by the Clintons. Mrs. Clinton has said that "John McCain has a lifetime of experience." She added that Barack has one thing -- "a speech he gave [opposing the Iraq War] in 2002." As for Bill Clinton, he recently commended McCain's service to America, saying he'd given everything imaginable "other than his life."
I know Republicans generally don't use Democrats in their commercials. However, McCain needs to deviate from that practice, because the Clintons have done everything but endorse the Republican nominee. They've identified important ways in which he's a far superior candidate to Obama.
If John McCain gets a significant portion of the Democratic Primary voters who now support Sen. Clinton, he will win the election. He can get those voters if he keeps reminding people that the Clintons see him as candidate superior to Obama.
If Obama regards this approach as unfair, he might consider "unleashing" his :spiritual advisor," Rev. Jeremiah Wright. As we recall, the "Rev." had some intriguing things to say about Bill and Hillary.
Good evening, all:
Please check out my two posts from Sen. McCain’s stop in Jacksonville today during the “Service to America Tour”:
This first post has a compelling section of Sen. McCain’s speech: http://www.johnmccain.com/Blog/Read.aspx?guid=58c486db-f4ec-454c-8d97-ad79da9a53d1
And check out this young man who attended the event: http://www.johnmccain.com/Blog/Read.aspx?guid=0ad1cc64-c9ef-4006-8509-95c47d76042e
As always, we would appreciate you linking up to these two posts.
Patrick Hynes
You can get Patrick's updates from the McCain Campaign by contacting him at: phynes@calypsocom.com.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
