Kowabunga

McCain pulled off a close victory in Florida. McCain had 36% with Romney at 31%. Giuliani was a distant third at 15% with Huckabee trailing behind the New York mayor at 13%. Ron Paul, the Dennis Kucinich of the GOP, came in last at a very distant 3%.

According to headlines on Fox News, Giuliani is expected to quit the race. Hopefully Huckabee and Paul will take a hint and drop out as well thus making it a two horse race.

Hillary had an unsurprising win in Florida, receiving 50% with Obama trailing at 33% and Edwards, in the "also ran" position, receiving 14%, meaning he did better than Huckabee and almost as well as Giuliani.

Florida was the battleground with a lot of negative campaigning and McCain claiming he is more conservative than Romney. We'll set aside McCain's claims of being a conservative. I don't like negative campaigning. I don't like it when one candidate claims to be more of something than his competitors, whether the claim is more conservative, more liberal, or more qualified.

I like issues driven campaigns. I want to know what a candidate will do for or, in the case of the Hillarys and Obamas, what) they will do to our country. I want to know where they stand in the War on Terrorism and rebuilding Iraq as a democratic nation and ally. I want to know how they will control Federal spending and if/how they will reduce the size of government. I want to know how they will go about reforming Social Security, secure our borders and deal with the some 20 million illegal aliens now living within the United States. I want to know how they will treat our Armed Forces and how they will manage our nuclear arsenal.

Claiming to have a bigger "tool" than the other guy just doesn't cut it. Especially when it comes from someone like McCain whose record shows him to be anything BUT conservative.

Next week is Super Tuesday. A lot of States will come into play, including Minnesota with its caucus system.

My field of choices has narrowed to one: Romney.

But when push comes to shove in November, I'll vote GOP, not because it is the right thing to do, but because any of the GOP candidates will be better than having Hillary or Obama as president and in control of our nuclear arsenal.

Tags:

McCain Romeny Giuliani Florida Primary Hillary Obama Ron Paul

Posted by Sqotty at 7:55 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Fred Thompson announced today that he is withdrawing his candidacy for the presidency of these United States. Egads! What's a conservative to do? Couldn't he have hung in there another two weeks to at least see how he performs in some of the other upcoming primaries and caucuses? Okay, I am a bit selfish on that last point as the Minnesota caucus is two weeks out. It also directly impacts my short list of candidates to one.

Previously, my short list consisted of Thompson along with Mitt Romney and Duncan Hunter. Hunter's campaign didn't even get out of the gate, which narrowed it down to Thomson and Romney. Now, with Thompson out of the race, that leaves Romney.

Not like Romney is a bad choice. He is a good choice and a major player. I just wanted to continue to see how things shaped up during the coming weeks between the various major candidates.

Thompson was a late comer to the campaign trail. It is possible, even probable, that this played against his being able to make it for the long haul.

From an announcement on Thompson's campaign website:

Today I have withdrawn my candidacy for President of the United States. I hope that my country and my party have benefited from our having made this effort.

The GOP nomination for president has been wide open for the first time my lifetime. With Thompson out of the race, the dynamics of the campaign over the next few weeks will change. My money is that it will change in Romney's favor.

Thompson is one of the few candidates of any party that I consider has the "right stuff" (and I don't mean right in the political sense) to be President and Commander in Chief. He is someone that I believe could be trusted with this nation's most awesome power: our nuclear arsenal. That is something I would never entrust to Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.

Maybe, just maybe, Thompson will resurface in the V.P. slot. If so, he wold certainly give a good jolt to whoever the GOP candidate ends up being.

Tags:

Fred Thompson GOP Republican

Posted by Sqotty at 6:34 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Hillary Clinton, after being handed a series of softballs, tells Tyra Banks living in the White House is like living in a prison. How the heck did she come up with that comparison?

From the LA Times:

Not that it's going to diminish her ambition to live there again, but Hillary Clinton says she views the White House as something of a prison.

and

President Harry Truman once said that the White House was like the crown jewel of the American penal system because you can feel confined.

Based on my very limited knowledge of prison and the White House, I have hard time coming to that kind of conclusion. Maybe its only Democrats that feel that way as that is where so many of them, like former congressman Traficant, belong.

In the White House, there are security details there to prevent you from getting bumped off, and these security agents will take a bullet for you. In prison, there are also guards; they are there to keep the inmates from doing more harm to law-biding citizens.

In the White House, you get gourmet meals prepared by great chefs, served with wine or any other kind of booze (especially important if Ted Kennedy is coming to dinner) you would like. In prison, you are served whatever the cooks prepare in a large cafeteria setting with some guy named Bubba eyeing you AND your food. No alcohol is served.

In the White House you can come and go as you please, albeit escorted by an entourage of security agents. In prison, you get to go to an exercise yard and work out with some guy named Bubba who may think you are cute.

In the White House, you have luxurious living accommodations for both you and your family. In prison, you share a tiny cell and toilet with some guy named Bubba who may want to do "the nasty" with you.

How is this like prison? Unless Hillary considers Bill to be like Bubba in the prison examples, there are no similarities.

Hillary then suggests that if she is elected America will need a name for Bill as First lady won't work.

Banks also wanted to know what Clinton's husband would be called if she won. "He will always be Mr. President," Clinton said. "But now we need to do a nationwide contest for a name."

"Like a reality show," Banks suggested.

"Like a reality show," Clinton agreed. "This is good, because think about it; here are some of the things that have been suggested like First Mate. His Scottish friends say 'First Laddie,' but we need ideas. I'll just keep calling him Bill."

My recommendation is "First Philanderer", which is a little politer than "First Adulterer." The question is, where do I submit my entry?

Tags:

Hillary Philanderer White House

Posted by Sqotty at 6:10 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Former Congressman Cynthia "Assault and Battery" McKinney is using the Green Party in an attempt to make her self relevant again after she was voted from office in 2006. How? By running for the Green Party presidential nomination. How about that? An irrelevant former congressman running for president in an irrelevant political party.

From CNSNews:

"The Republicans have deceived us; the Democrats have failed us," McKinney said in a video news release posted on the runcynthiarun.org Web site last week to announce her candidacy for the White House. "It is time for a new beginning, a time for hope to rise from the ashes of despair.

Well, she is half-right, the Democrats have failed the hard-left in pushing the agenda of surrender in Iraq. I have yet to see any one who makes the claim that Republicans have deceived us actually prove it. Probably because there was never any deceit involved in our Liberating Iraq. There may have been some mistakes made, due to bad intelligence, but there has been no deceit, except on the part of Democrats like Cynthia McKinney.

She goes on to claim that the war in Iraq is: "illegal, immoral and undeclared." There she isn't even half-right. It may be undeclared, but there is nothing illegal about it, and liberating the people of Iraq from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein (who murdered a half-million of his own people) is about as immoral as our liberating Europe from NAZI Germany in 1945. War was also used to end slavery in the United States. Was that also immoral? as for the war in Iraq being undeclared, let's look at some other wars that were also undeclared: the U.S. entry into WW2 (although a declaration of war did come after the first bombs were dropped), the Korean War, Vietnam War, Grenada, the Gulf War, Mogadishu, Bosnia, and the liberation of Afghanistan. And those are the ones I can think of off the top of my head.

Why is it that the left calls only the Wars in Iraq, both of them, as being "illegal, immoral and undeclared?" Why is it they only get bent out of shape when the U.S. is involved in a war, but not when the aggressors, whether it was Iraq when it invaded Kuwait, or the soviet Union when it invaded Afghanistan, or North Vietnam when it invaded South Vietnam for the final time? I could probably list a hundred other wars, but I think this is enough to get the point across.

According to McKinney, who is also described as "no stranger to controversy and unafraid of speaking truth to power," it is time to "break the vicious cycle where the poor go to war and veterans come home wounded and ignored."

Well, she is "no stranger to" hitting police officers who are only attempting to do their job, then screaming "racism" when called on the carpet for it. And this isn't the Vietnam War we're talking about, where the hard-left, people like McKinney, are the ones who spat upon are soldiers and called them "baby killers" when they returned home from that war. And her claim that it is "the poor" who go to war is also false. Even during Vietnam when there was a draft, this wasn't entirely true. Okay, there were people of wealth and privilege, like Bill Clinton, who milked the system in order to avoid military service, and many others who went to Canada. But there were also many people of wealth and privilege who served in Vietnam.

And if it is only "the poor" who are going to war, then why are active duty re-enlistments at record levels?

On the flip side, McKinney's campaign site gives yet one more reason to NOT support Ron Paul. One of the comments posted there reads:

I'm actually a Ron Paul supporter and was recently thinking "I hope Ron gets the republican nomination and runs with Cynthia McKinney."

That combination could cause me to vote for Hillary.

Tags:

McKinney 2008 President Green Party Moonbat

Posted by Sqotty at 4:59 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

The big headline over at MyFoxLA is that Hillary was heckled by a Code Pinko during a forum on global Warming (Edwards and Kucinich were also speaking there). The Code Pinko disturbance was not much more than a blip on the radar screen for the event. It is far more interesting to learn a bit about where the candidates stand on energy and global warming.

Okay, we know that all ready: they stand with Al "Carbon Bigfoot" Gore.

All three of the candidates want to CUT energy consumption, anywhere from 15% to 20% over the next decade or so. How they expect to do that without crippling the economy, lowering the American standard of living (at least for those of us who are working-class Americans - the rich elites, like Edwards, Clinton, and the Boracle will continue to live as they do while telling us how we should curtail our energy consumption), throwing millions of Americans out of work, raising taxes on us, or putting our lives at risk by forcing auto manufacturers to produce lighter, less safe vehicles is beyond me. Nuclear energy is not an acceptable option for any of them.

That's the real story from the Grist forum. The Code Pinko was nothing more than a distraction (could he be a Hillary Campaign plant? Naw!) from the big picture. These people are not ready for prime time; they want power to control Americans in a "do as I say, not as I do!" fashion, and therefore should not be trusted with this nation's highest office.

Tags:

Hillary Code Pink

Posted by Sqotty at 7:56 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

My wife sent me an email quiz on a series of very Marxist sounding quotes, all of them attributable to Hillary Clinton. I poked around on snopes.com to see if it had any further enlightenment, and it confirmed that they are indeed accurate, but claims they are taken out of context.

Quote #1:

"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common
good."

Snopes states that this is out of context as it was made at a fundraiser of well-to-do (wealthy) Democrats about the Bush taxcuts being for the wealthy and not the middle-class. Snopes does not cite the origin of this quote.

Headlining an appearance with other Democratic women senators on behalf of Sen. Barbara Boxer, who is up for re-election this year, Hillary Clinton told several hundred supporters - some of whom had ponied up as much as $10,000 to attend - to expect to lose some of the tax cuts passed by President Bush if Democrats win the White House and control of Congress.

"Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you," Sen. Clinton said. "We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

Okay, I agree that anyone who can pony up $10,000 to keep moonbats like Boxer in office probably don't need taxcuts. But the rest of us who have benefited to some greater or lesser degree sure do. Even though snopes claims the context was that the quote was targeted wealthy Democrats, it actually does apply to all working Americans as well.

What is also important to remember is that more money in the hands of the people who earn it use that money to further stimulate the economy by investing in companies, savings, and spending it to buy products. People don't squirrel money away between their mattresses these days, unless they are drugrunners.

Quote #2:

"It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few... and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity."

Snopes again claims it s out of context in order to produce a socialist nature that is "undercut" when you give the complete quote. From a speech Hillary made on May 27, 2007 (and posted on hillaryclinton.com)

It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few and for the few, time to reject the idea of an "on your own" society and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity. I prefer a "we're all in it together" society.

Now, there is no greater force for economic growth than free markets, but markets work best with rules that promote our values, protect our workers and give all people a chance to succeed.

This really is, when you take the full context, Marxist drivel. America became a great nation because of a society that promotes individual responsibility and free markets where people can choose their path to success (or not!).

The Russian revolution was based on the concept of protecting the workers and implementing a society of "shared responsibility" and "shared prosperity." What the people of Russia (and China later on) got was a new form of government of/by/for the few, the Soviet party hierarchy, which merely replaced the old aristocracy, the elimination of free markets and, consequently, the elimination of prosperity.

The rest of the quotes all have to do with health care, energy and global warming, and again, snopes claims that they are out of context, yet even when taking into account the full context of the quote, they are quite Marxist in nature.

In one example Hillary talks about the 45 million people who have chosen not to buy health insurance as if it is some sort of national tragedy that needs to be resolved by government, rather than by individual choice. I have known people who have not had health insurance, the reason being that they were working jobs that did not provide insurance to them (they were contractors) and chose not to buy their own. The problem is one of attitude: We have come to expect that our employers will provide health insurance, rather than it being a benefit that is offered as a lure to hire people.

I could go on, but it is snowing (what happened to "global warming"?) and my daughter is excited about that and wants to go outside and play.

Tags:

Hillary Snopes Quotes Marxism

Posted by Sqotty at 8:28 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

I am not surprised to learn that the Hillary Political Juggernaut is planting questions at open forums. I am surprised that they are admitting to it.

FoxNews has a report on this admission by Clinton staffers that state that they planted questions in a townhall forum in Iowa. From the FoxNews report:

"After her speech, Clinton accepted questions. But according to Grinnell College student Muriel Gallo-Chasanoff '10, some of the questions from the audience were planned in advance. 'They were canned,' she said. Before the event began, a Clinton staff member approached Gallo-Chasanoff to ask a specific question after Clinton's speech. 'One of the senior staffers told me what [to ask],' she said.

"Clinton called on Gallo-Chasanoff after her speech to ask a question: what Clinton would do to stop the effects of global warming. Clinton began her response by noting that young people often pose this question to her before delving into the benefits of her plan.

"But the source of the question was no coincidence — at this event 'they wanted a question from a college student,' Gallo-Chasanoff said."

It seems odd that with all of the brain-washed kids out there these days, Hillary still has to plant questions on the topic of global warming in order to push her energy agenda which includes the trading of carbon credits ala the Al "Carbon Bigfoot" Gore plan where the wealthy continue to live as they do in mansions that use far more carbon-based energy in per month than the average American uses in a year, while the middle class who can't afford to buy carbon credits get stuck footing the bill.

What I especially like is her plan that all Federal buildings be carbon emission free. That must mean they will shut down all Federal buildings and eliminate all Federal jobs.

Hillary also claims that her plan will create 5 million jobs. The only jobs government creates are government jobs, so she must intend on expanding government by that much, which is too much, especially since the average American will be forced to pay for all of that through increased taxes.

If Hillary has to stoop to planting shills in an audience in order to advance her cause, then that must mean there is something dreadfully wrong about her "cause."

And how will Iowa respond to the fact that Hillary has to have these shills in their midst?

Tags:

Hillary, Iowa, Townhall

Posted by Sqotty at 8:17 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Barack Obama is truly full of himself these days. I really do hope that he beats Hillary out of the Democratic nomination and has to face someone like Mitt Romney, John McCain, Duncan Hunter, or Fred Thomson. Yes, McCain has been gaining traction with me lately. I can't fault the man completely for being wrong on two important issues when he gets the other important issues right.

Obama on the other hand has yet to be right (as in correct not conservative) on any issue. He seems to think he can bring about change in this country, more so than Hillary. The kind of change he represents is actually the same kind as Hillary and means ending the Constitution and all that defines America: Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

From FoxNews:

"There's no doubt that we represent the kind of change Senator Clinton can't deliver on. And part of it's generational," Obama told FOX News." Senator Clinton and others have been fighting some of the same fights since the '60s. It makes it very difficult for them to bring the country together to get things done. And I think that's what people hunger for."

Okay, so there is a generational issue here. This is news to me. How is Obama planning on brining the country together? What has he accomplished in his two years in the U.S. Senate? Zero! Let's remember that Obama was elected to the Senate with 70% of the Illinois vote, which would be impressive except he was running virtually unopposed (the token effort by Keyes was merely a show, not a real campaign). Receiving 70% under the conditions in whcih he ran is rather embarrassing low.

"You can have all the establishment you want and all the Washington endorsements you want, but ultimately people are going to make a choice on who really cares about them and who has a track record for fighting for them."

Okay, he is partially right; most Americans are tired of the Washington political machine. I certainly am. That's why I am pulling for someone other than Giuliani as the anointed savior of the GOP. As for Obama, I seriously doubt he cares about the people as a whole and his track record thus far is the same as his record in the Senate: Zero! Nada! He has none. His plans: abandon Iraq to terrorists and Iran; invade Pakistan, which is still an ally (although we can't be sure for how much longer with the troubles they are having); raise taxes on working Americans; maintain the status quo on Social Security, or expand its taxation rather than reform and privatize the beast (which is the right thing to do); amnesty for illegal aliens and putting them on the path to citizenship, skipping ahead of those who play by the rules.

He added that voters are "tired of the tit for tat. They're tired of divisive politics. What they want is somebody who can unify the country, push back against the special interests and stand up for what they really believe in."

Obama is not capable of uniting the country. Quite frankly, I don't know if any one is capable of doing so. At least not so long as the hard-Left controls the Democratic Party and groups like MoveOn.org continue to spew their venom against men who have served their country for their entire adult lives (like they did to General Petreus with their "Betray Us" ad). When groups like MoveOn flourish with their messages of hate and anti-Americanism, it creates such a poisonous environment for all Americans and divisiveness is the rule, rather than the exception.

Yes, I hope Obama wins the Democratic Nomination and the top of the ticket in November, 2008. Why? Because Obama is a candidate that even Ron Paul can beat. What do you think will happen if he faces a team like Romney/Hunter?

Tags:

Obama Hillary

Posted by Sqotty at 8:11 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Sometimes I think the Clintons are not as smart as people want us to believe they are. From MyWay News:

In a presidential nomination fight growing more intense by the day, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama also criticized the former first lady for having voted in the Senate against incentives for ethanol production and higher fuel efficiency standards. And 2004 vice presidential nominee John Edwards challenged her to spell out what she would do about Iraq.

The week after Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign accused her rivals of "piling on," those foes showed no sign of easing up. They even went so far as to criticize the former president, a strategy that comes with risks in a party filled with voters who admire him for resurrecting the party in the 1990s.

According to the Hillary camp, opponents who ask her point-blank as to what she intends to do in Iraq if elected president, or questioning her Senatorial record, is called "pilling on." I thought it was a matter of getting the public informed on the issues to better empower the People to make a good choice for president.

It gets better:

On Monday, in defense of his wife against political critics, Bill Clinton cited the "swift boat" television ads of the 2004 presidential campaign that questioned John Kerry's patriotism and the campaign commercials in 2002 that suggested Sen. Max Cleland of Georgia was soft on terrorism.

The "swift boat" ads in question did not question John Kerry's patriotism, but rather questioned his ability to lead this country and serve as Commander in Chief of our Armed forces. Legitimate questions in a presidential campaign. As for Max Cleland being "soft on terrorism," well, so was Bill Clinton, who had Osama bin Laden offered up to him on a silver platter by the Sudan; Clinton also failed to act on operational intelligence that would have allowed our forces to eliminate bin Laden years before the attacks of 9/11. Now that's soft on terrorism. The fact of the matter is that most Democrats now serving in Congress are "soft on terror." That's why they want to abandon Iraq to the Islamo-Fascist extremists.

Clinton is also wrong in comparing the questioning of his wife's ambitions as being ‘swift boating." He is way of base and, surprisingly, I agree with Dodd on that (Obama pulls some other wackiness out of his, er, brain).

"I wasn't at my best the other night," Clinton said on CNN.

A president has to be at their best every single day and night, not just once in a while.

Dodd is right in that anyone who will cry foul anytime they are questioned by their rivals should not be president. Presidents, and people seeking that office, need to always be prepared to answer the tough questions, and that includes discussing plans for Iraq, securing our border and dealing with the millions of illegal aliens now residing in this country, and how best to enforce our current laws rather than changing them because they don't want to enforce them.

Tags:

Hillary Democrat Liberal Dodd Debates Moonbat

Posted by Sqotty at 7:47 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

It is clear to me that Hillary Clinton is solidly on the side of granting amnesty and citizenship to illegal aliens, people who by their being here are in violation of U.S. laws. From CNN.com:

Asked by reporters Sunday why it's taken so long for clarification Clinton admitted she "wasn't as clear as [she] should have been" but added, "I broadly support what governors like Elliot Spitzer are trying to do."

And what is it governors like Spitzer are doing? Failing to uphold their oath of office by defending and protecting our constitution and enforcing our laws, including and specifically, our immigration laws. This is not limited to governors like Spitzer, but to mayors of cities like San Francisco and new York that set up sanctuary laws that frustrate immigration officials and allow illegal aliens to live in this country illegally.

Clinton said governors around the nation are left with the burden because she said the Bush administration and the federal government as a whole have failed to bring about comprehensive immigration reform.

Thus it is Bush's fault, despite the fact that Bush is in the same court Hillary is and wanted to grant amnesty and a path to citizenship to illegal aliens. How about putting the blame where the blame is due? On congress for failing to supply our Federal law enforcement agencies with the manpower and the tools to enforce our immigration laws and secure our borders? How about on governors like Spitzer who push to legitimize illegal aliens by issuing them drivers licenses? How about on the cities that pass sanctuary laws and then again on Congress for not cutting federal funding to cities that do so?

"But finally I do not believe we can resolve this problem unless we bring people out of the shadows," Clinton said, adding that undocumented immigrants should have a pathway to citizenship but they'd need to register, pay taxes, pay fines, learn English, and wait in line after those who've come to the United States legally. Those who have committed crimes, she said, should be deported.

It is more accurate to say that we can not resolve this problem by not penalizing cities that pass sanctuary laws, allowing illegal aliens to flourish. Granting illegal aliens a pathway to citizenship is not an acceptable answer, just as deporting the 12+ Million illegals already here may not be a viable solution.

Illegal aliens commit identity theft, frequently using the social security numbers of real Americans in order to fraudulently obtain jobs. They buy cars and drive without legitimate drivers licenses and without insurance. By the way, even in California, there is a serious problem with people WITH licenses not maintaining auto insurance. Just by giving illegal aliens drivers licenses does not mean the problem of them (or any other person) driving without insurance will go a way. (For those of you who are interested, in California you only have to provide insurance at the time you renew your vehicle registration. The tactic used is that people get insurance for that one month when they need to register their vehicle and get their tabs, then they cancel the policy.)

The only way to solve the illegal alien problem is by first securing our borders, and then enforcing our existing laws. We don't need immigration reform, nor should we be giving amnesty to illegal aliens nor passing laws that serve as a backdoor to amnesty, such as the DREAM Act that would grant in-state tuition to illegal immigrants. We should also terminate all Federal funding to cities that pass sanctuary laws.

Tags:

Hillary Clinton Democrat Liberal Moonbat

Posted by Sqotty at 5:56 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Apparently Hillary Clinton and the hard-left have still not gotten over the fact that hey lost the 2000 election. Hillary had this to say in the latest rounds of debates (from MyWay news):

"I think we were making progress in the 1990s and I am very proud of the progress we were making until, unfortunately, the Supreme Court handed the presidency to George Bush, and we have been living with the consequences ever since," Clinton said.

This ignores completely the fact that the Gore campaign attempted to steal the election by having the Florida courts change Florida's election laws after the election took place; it ignores that thousands of voters in Florida were disenfranchised by the liberal media siding with Gore, calling the election for Gore before the polls were closed. This is especially galling as the Florida panhandle is in a different time zone and voter turnout there was substantially lower than normal. And finally it ignores the facts that the Gore attempted to have the absentee ballots of military service members serving overseas thrown out on a technicality (through no fault of the service members) and have the votes of convicted felons counted.

The Supreme court of the U.S. only stepped in because someone had to straighten out the Constitutional mess that the gore Campaign and the Democrats created. They did not give the election to Bush in any way shape or form.

The article goes on to include statements by her competitors for the Democratic Nomination:

Chimed in Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd, "Whether it's fair or not fair, the fact of the matter is that my colleague from New York, Senator Clinton, there are 50 percent of the American public that say they're not going to vote for her."

We'll set aside the fact that according to Democratic standards, Dodd should be considered AWOL during Vietnam. He misses a very important point: Bill Clinton never achieved 50% of the popular vote (unlike Bush who achieved over 50% of the popular vote in 2004). In 1992 he only achieved roughly 42%, a couple of hundred thousand votes (and a fraction of a percent) of the popular vote over then President George H. W. Bush. It does not take a majority of the popular vote to win the presidency; it takes a majority of votes in the Electoral College to win.

Despite what Dems claim, I still think she is their most likely choice, and also one of the greatest threat to the U.S. Constitution and the American way of life.

Tags:

Hillary Democrat Liberal Dodd Debates Moonbat

Posted by Sqotty at 6:03 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

I ran across a good opinion piece in the SF Chronicle online edition about my former congressman, Pete Stark. I lived in his district before moving to Minnesota, so it is a good thing to know what he's been up to. In this opinion piece Debra Saunders describes Stark as the Ann Coulter of the Democrat Party. That actually describes about half of the Democrat Party.

Last week, after President Bush vetoed a bill to expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program to cover not only poor but also middle-class children, Stark accused Republicans of wanting "to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send them to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the president's amusement." Speaker Nancy Pelosi rebuked Stark for his "inappropriate" comments.

This is a very sick statement on two counts: first that Republicans are only interested in killing innocent people and second that the president finds getting American soldiers killed as an entertaining past time. Fortunately I never voted for him, not because he's a Democrat but because he is a lousy congressman. Spewing a contemptible statement like that confirms my long standing opinion of him. Question for Stark: did you say the same thing about Kennedy and LBJ for Vietnam? How about Clinton with Somalia and Kosovo?

Stark, after finding himself in hot water, issued the following statement: "I have nothing but respect for our brave men and women in uniform and wish them the very best. But I respect neither the commander in chief who keeps them in harm's way nor the chicken hawks in Congress who vote to deny children health care."

Actually, he doesn't show a lot of respect for our troops by making outrageous statements. Further, he continues to show his moonbattiness by bundling socialized medicine (health care for children) into his reasons for not having respect for the president.

Surprisingly, Stark served in the Air Force in the '50s (was he drafted?), post Korean War. He was also anti-Vietnam War and had checks printed with the "peace sign" on it and even had one on the roof of the bank he started. He's may not be a chicken dove, but he is still a moonbat.

As Saunders points out in her piece, we are back to the return of the Chicken Hawks for another fun-filled campaign season. Saunders points out several interesting facts about the current field of candidates running for president and a bit of recent history:

Sure, in 2004 Democrats hurled the "chicken hawk" epithet at George W. Bush, who took America to war in Iraq even though he only served as a pilot in the Air National Guard. Then-Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe, who had no apparent qualms about President Bill Clinton's evasion of the draft, charged that Bush was "AWOL" during Vietnam.

You see, Democrats had nominated John F. Kerry, a decorated Vietnam combat veteran, who had voted for the Iraq war resolution. So, just years after President Clinton put U.S. forces into the former Yugoslavia and sent bombers over Iraq, Democrats argued that only a combat vet was suited to serve in the White House and put U.S. troops in harm's way. In that mind set, Kerry addressed the Democratic National Convention in martial terms: "I'm John Kerry, and I'm reporting for duty."

The Democrats are very one-sided in their views on the military, especially when it comes to the Vietnam era. Clinton was a draft dodger, milking the system for all that it was worth by getting deferments. The Dems shoot back that Cheney also did so, ignoring the fact that Cheney was already close to being exempt from the draft when Vietnam was going on (I'm not sure about this, but I seem to recall that the draft was for those between the ages of 18 and 27, Cheney, being 5 years older than Clinton, had a lower likelihood of being drafted during the war). Basically, the Dems blast Cheney about his draft deferments but not Clinton.

What is worse is the Dems treatment of President Bush's service in the Air National Guard, during which service he flew one of the most dangerous (to the pilot) fighter aircraft in the inventory, and volunteered for a program called "Palace Alert", which, had he been accepted into the program, would have had Bush flying combat missions in Vietnam. This is hardly the mark of someone who was AWOL, despite the rantings of Dan Rather.

The Dems then wrapped themselves in the Flag and pushed hard for a combat veteran, preferably of the Vietnam era. They ended up with John Kerry and lost the election with Bush getting over 51% of the vote (and funny how they still claim he doesn't have a mandate, even though Clinton never broke the 50 percentile and they claim Clinton did have a mandate).

This year the field is truly interesting, as Saunders points out:

In 2008, Democratic hopefuls are twice as likely to have been in law school than in boot camp. Among eight Democrats, Mike Gravel served in the Army from 1951-1954, while Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, who voted for the Iraq war resolution, served in the Army Reserves. By McAuliffe's lights, Dodd was AWOL.

Based on the 2004 election cycle, the only candidate that should be acceptable to the Dems is Mike Gravel, as all of the others never served or, as McAuliffe would say, AWOL. Meanwhile, the GOP has John McCain (not my favorite, but is gaining traction with me) whose story in the Vietnam War we all know, and Duncan Hunter, a decorated Vietnam Veteran. Oh, yeah, there's also Ron Paul.

Quite a contrast.

Of the Dems, both Hillary and John "Never Served" Edwards voted FOR the Liberation of Iraq. Barrack "Never Served Chicken Dove" Obama claims that if he were a senator then he would have voted against. Maybe that's true, but claims of what one would have done in office don't count.

Three years ago, Democrats shamelessly donned a military mantle. In a display of craven opportunism, they embraced an argument that seemed phony then, and now has vanished. They argued their candidate was better because he was a combat vet. Today none of the Dems' top three candidates has a military record.

Saunders his right on the money on this one.

Meanwhile, back to my former congressman Pete Stark, I have this to say to you: congratulations Congressman Stark, you are the latest winner of the Moonbat Award.

Tags:

Pete Stark Moonbat Chicken Hawks Chicken Doves Iraq

Posted by Sqotty at 7:19 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Michelle Obama goes off on a bit of a rant, posted on Drudge:

"Well that, you know, she doesn't know me. She doesn't know Barack. I can't even give that any attention. She doesn't know what she's talking about when it comes to what's going on in our household. Look, Barack Obama is someone who can laugh at himself and he's also somebody who can hear criticism, not just from me, but the other people around him. He's the kind of leader who will actually listen to what people say. He doesn't hold onto points because he has to be right. I mean, we're in a war because of that kind of leadership. What I'm trying to say to you is Barack is human."

To the best of knowledge, President Bush, despite what Michelle Obama implies, has listened to what the people say. When it comes to the war in Iraq, everyone in the international community agreed that Hussein was after nukes and had maintained an arsenal of chemical weapons. Whether or not the assessment on nukes is right, we did recover over 500 chemical weapons and other weapons that were banned as part of the Gulf War Cease Fire agreement. What she is saying is that the only people that should be listened to are the pro-terrorist activists, like MoveOn.org, when it comes to the war in Iraq.

A President has the responsibility to listen to all opinions and evaluate the facts that are known then come up with the best possible decision. That decision not only has to be the best possible decision, it has to be the right decision every time, other wise we could be seeing mushroom clouds over New York and Los Angeles.

Bush has done exactly that in deciding to end the Cease Fire agreement and removing Hussein from power. And it was the right decision for many of the facts behind it were also right, especially where chemical weapons and other contraband were concerned.

Neville Chamberlain came back to England after meeting with Hitler and proclaimed "Peace in our time." Then the next thing anybody knew, World War 2 was in full swing. Chamberlain was wrong when he needed to be right. The stakes were astronomically high, and the millions of Jews paid the price of his being wrong.

The same is true with the Vietnam War. Whether or not we should have been involved there to begin with, or helping the government of South Vietnam, can be debated. What cannot be debated is the end result of the Democrat controlled Congress forcing the abandonment of South Vietnam: millions in Southeast Asia, especially in Cambodia, died, because the Nixon administration was mired in Watergate and facing impeachment while the Democrats chose to cut off funding to South Vietnam. Bad decisions that were wrong and the consequences were paid for in blood.

Nixon was wrong in his actions that precipitated the fall of his administration which forced him to resign in disgrace. Had he made the right decision, had he been right as he should have been, then Watergate would not have happened and we may not have seen the fall of South Vietnam and the Killing Fields of Cambodia would not exist. had the Democrats listened to reason rather than the shrill voices of the anti-war crowd in 1973, maybe they would have come to the right decision and continued to foster South Vietnam and prevented the massacre of millions in Southeast Asia.

A president has to be right on every issue, especially the big issues. Getting the little ones wrong, like taxation, health care, or same-sex marriage probably won't get people killed, but getting the big ones wrong, like the War on Terror, Iraq, border security and, yes, abortion, will result in a lot of dead people.

Clinton got it wrong in the '90s with his handling of Osama bin Ladin, failing to accept extradition offers from Sudan or dropping missiles when we know exactly when and where he was. By getting that wrong when Clinton could easily have gotten it right, resulted in thousands of dead Americans on 9/11.

And it is the last line of Michelle Obama that shows she is not the brightest bulb in the box: "What I'm trying to say to you is Barack is human." Is she saying President Bush is not human?

Michelle Obama may think its okay to not be right all of the time, but Barack Obama so far has proved that he would get the big issues wrong 100% of the time. And as the president is the one with the finger on the proverbial button, that is a track record America cannot afford.

Tags:

Obama president Iraq Vietnam Moonbat

Posted by Sqotty at 5:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Dennis Kucinich, after his anti-military tirade on Syrian TV, has proven himself worthy of the Moonbat Award. Congratulations Dennis, you are a Moonbat. God help us if you are ever elected President. In the meantime, I guess we can continue to call you Congressman Moonbat.

Here's a quote from Dennis Kucinich in his interview on Syrian TV (Daily Motion):

We must pay reparations to the people of Iraq, perhaps as many as a million innocent Iraqis have lost their lives as a result of this war…millions of refugees.

So says the Moonbat Dennis Kucinich, Congressman and candidate for the presidency. What he implies is that the United States has killed over a million innocent people being killed in Iraq since 2003. This means he is accusing our military of mass murder.

He goes on to say that the war was based on lies, "Iraq didn't have the weapons of mass destruction," despite the fact that over 500 chemical weapons have been recovered, despite the fact the tons of precursor chemicals, the stuff nerve gas is made of, had been found, despite the fact French made weapons capable of carrying chemical, biological, or nuclear warheads, weapons manufactured and delivered in 2002 despite cease-fire agreements, were stockpiled in the many massive munitions dumps. And he claims it was a lie?! He then states Iraq was not connected to 9/11, and although this is true, there wasn't a direct connection to the attacks of 9/11, no such claims were made by the administration: Only that they were connected to al-Qaeda and provided financial support to terrorists internationally. Remember that Saddam Hussein was paying the families of Palestinian suicide bombers $25,000 each for their willingness to go out and blow themselves up, killing innocent Israelis, especially children. THAT was the claim concerning terrorism that was made, and that has been proven time and again.

He claims in the video that he is following the truth, yet he doesn't seem to be able to know what the truth is if it jumped up and bit him on the nose, especially since he believes over a million Iraqis have been killed since 2003.

It truly bothers me, as someone who has served in the Armed Forces, that this chickendove would claim that over a million innocent Iraqis since the U.S. lead coalition liberated Iraq and removed a murderous dictator from power. A quick fact check, and one can hit any of the left-ward anti-war chickendove sites for this information, puts the number of "civilians" killed at a bit over 70,000 currently. I say "civilians" in quotation marks as those numbers also include the thousands of terrorists and sectarian death-squad thugs who have been killed, either by each other or by coalition forces. Then the bulk of the rest of those killed, the ones are innocent casualties of the ongoing conflict, have been killed by the terrorists and sectarian death-squad thugs, not by coalition forces. The difference between the factual accounting of how many people have died in Iraq, and what Kucinich the clown claims in his interview in Syria (And what the heck is he doing in Syria, a rouge terror supporting state?).

Of course, hearing such stupidity concerning our military is not surprising as a check of is biography on his website and other sources reveals that he has NEVER spent a day in uniform. This is typical of the left: They don't have the cojones to serve in the military, but they happily accuse them of killing off a million innocent people.

In Lebanon, he continues his assault by stating (Jerusalem Post):

Kucinich, a strong anti-war opponent who trails far in the US presidential polls, also said he won't visit Iraq on his trip to the region because he considers the US military deployment there illegal.

"I feel the United States is engaging in an illegal occupation ... I don't want to bless that occupation with my presence," he said in an interview in Lebanon, after visiting Syria. "I will not do it."

The last I checked the Iraqi Government still wanted us there. does this mean we are also maintinaing illegal occupations of Germany, Japan, Italy, South Korea, and a number of other countries where we maintain a military presense?

I find it repugnant that a man who so easily accuses our military of mass murder should want to be Commander in Chief of our Armed Forces. There is no doubt that Kucinich is a chickendove and a Moonbat.

By the way, it is interesting to note that Kucinich has the video of his Syrian TV interview linked up on his website.

Tags:

Kucinich Democrat Military Iraq Occupation Syria President Moonbat

Posted by Sqotty at 5:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Presidential Candidate John Cox of Illinois was the only candidate present at the Minnesota Straw Poll held this week. as such, he gave a good speech to the couple of hundred Minnesotans present for the event.

A shot video of his speech, splitting it into two parts so that it will fit into YouTubes 10 minute parameter for videos.

Part 1 of John Cox

Part 2 of John Cox

A lot of what Cox said resonates well with me, and I suspect with others as well. That being said, there were two points he made in regard to Iraq that put me off. The first is that he said if the current, democratically elected, government of Iraq doesn't get off its keester and get its political act together, we can and should replace it, just as we got rid of Saddam Hussein. The second is that we need to get Iraq's oil producing infrastructure up and fully operational and moving to the U.S.

The second point is the shorter one to explain why it bugs me, so I'll start with it. By complaining about the lack of oil production in post-war Iraq, and the need to get it flowing plays into the leftist mantra that Iraq is a "war for oil." This is not to say that he shouldn't make mention of oil production in Iraq, but the way it is phrased is important.

The way he presents it makes it sound as though we are entitled to the oil (or, more accurately, it's our oil). Getting oil production up and running to full capacity is important for Iraq for a number of reasons: Job creation, stabilizing the economy, and bringing in desperately needed revenues to facilitate the reconstruction of Iraq. It should not matter to whom Iraq sells their oil to (however I would prefer it not go to communist countries like China), and, sure, I would prefer it end up in our gas tanks in the long haul. But that is secondary to using the oil production to getting Iraq back on its feet, which is the primary goal.

Current oil production in Iraq is about 2 million barrels per day, only slightly below the target production of 2.1 million barrels. All in all, that's not too shabby a record.

As for the point on replacing the government of Iraq, Cox needs to remember that it is a democratically elected government, and as such, it should not be our decision to replacing it with something that might be more "friendly" to us. It is also an ally, and one should not threaten to remove our allies from power.

There have been numerous mistakes made in Iraq, including by the government that we helped to build and hope to see achieve good things. The Iraqi government has, with our blessing, made deals with murdering thugs like Muqtada al-Sadr, who is more interested in destabilizing the government and bringing in a totalitarian theocracy such as that which rules its neighbor, Iran.

Iraq also has to deal with rebuilding all of its infrastructure, particularly its military and police forces. This is a big job, and even though there are plenty of Iraqis who have shown the willingness to step up to the plate, they have also made themselves big targets for the terrorists. How many police stations and recruitment depots have been bombed killing and wounding hundreds of people?

On the upside, Cox resonates well on many of the issues.

He supports replacing the IRS with the "Fair Tax," which is a good move as it will encourage savings and investment by placing the tax burden on consumption.

He gets border security and illegal immigration. As he said, we don't need to reform our immigration laws but enforce the current laws.

In fact, he is right on the money on nearly issue.

It's just on those two points on Iraq that I found to be a turnoff. I hope that if he reads this he'll understand where I am coming from and reconsider his position on those two points. If he does, he will resonate much better with the mainstream Conservatives that make up the GOP.

Tags:

Minnesota HRCC GOP Cox Straw Poll

Posted by Sqotty at 8:48 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)
View blog reactions

In 2006 John Kerry said that if you don't do well in school you get stuck in Iraq. This year Barack Obama has said that our military is doing nothing but air raiding villages and killing civilians in Afghanistan. Kerry wanted to be president and lost to George W. Bush. Obama wants to be President; hopefully he will also go down in defeat.

Yet they both echo the reigning sentiments of the Democratic Party and the hard-left that controls the party's agenda.

The Gateway Pundit posed this question:

Why do democrats hate the military so much?

It's a good question.

Another one to ask is: Why would I want one of them to be "Commander in Chief" of our Armed Forces? This is especially relevant for those currently serving in uniform. Do you want someone in the position of command who thinks you are doing nothing but "air raiding villages and killing civilians?"

As a former serviceman, USAF in the '80s, I would not want for my Commander in Chief who thinks that that is all our military does.

Obama has also threatened to invade Pakistan, one of our allies in the region. Pakistan may not be a role-model of Democracy, however the government there is struggling to keep radical Islam in check. If Obama were to invade Pakistan, we would end up with greater problems in the Middle East than we now have, as well as another war. By attacking an ally we would deservedly become a country that could not be trusted.

Obama talks tough when it comes to the dictatorial regime of Castro in Cuba, and how America should spread and encourage democracy. Yet he has always stood against the removal of the murdering tyrant who ruled Iraq with a blood-soaked iron fist, and would prefer to send that country back down the road of tyranny rather than standing strong with the fledgling democratically elected government.

Another major consideration for selecting a president is to remember that whomever we elect will have their finger on the proverbial "button," control of our nuclear arsenal.

Both Hillary and Obama have made statements that the use of nuclear weapons is never an option. This sends a green light to the dictators of Iran, China and North Korea that they can expect to have carte blanche should either of these two be elected. It also sends a signal to the terrorists that they should continue their pursuit to gain nuclear materials from their benefactors, especially Iran.

Bill Clinton was well known for his disdain of the responsibility of the nuclear arsenal by losing the launch codes and frequently leaving behind the man with the nuclear "football" when traveling by motorcade. (Read Dereliction of Duty by Robert Patterson.)

It would also explain the current trend in Russia as President Putin rebuilds its military and undertakes military exercises with Communist China, as well as sending out long range bomber patrols reminiscent of the cold war.

Whomever we choose as president to succeed Bush has got to be able to understand that it is one thing to disdain the use of nuclear weapons and another to be always vigilant in the event that their use is necessitated. And a prospective president, or any member of Congress for that matter, should never disparage the men and women who choose to serve our country in the Armed Forces of the United States.

As the 2008 Campaign for the Presidency goes into full swing, those are truly important questions to ask yourself: What kind of commander in Chief will they be, and how well can they handle the responsibility of managing, and, God forbid, using our nuclear arsenal.

Tags:

Obama Hillary Democrats Military

Posted by Sqotty at 5:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Last night the Minnesota House Campaign Committee hosted the first Minnesota Presidential Straw Poll. The short version of the event is that Fred Thompson won the poll, followed very closely by Mitt Romney. Ron Paul of Texas made a good showing, but only because what looked like his entire Minnesota Campaign staff was there.

Jason Lewis broadcasted live from the event, interviewing Ron Paul (I heard it on the drive downtown) and John Cox who was at the event.

State Representative Marty Seifert MCed the event, and many other GOP State Reps were in attenedance. (Thanks to Rep. Garofalo for providing me with a ticket). Harold Shudlick, who ran a good, but unsuccessful bid for the GOP nod for the U.S. Senate was also in attendance.

The results of the straw poll are:

Kudos to John Cox for taking the time to join us in Minnesota for this Presidential event.

There were some extra boxed meals that were donated to a shelter.

Tags:

Minnesota HRCC GOP Thompson Romney Cox Huckabee Straw Poll

Posted by Sqotty at 7:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Senator-who-would-be-Queen Hillary Clinton moonbats it out of the park in a response to VP Cheney's refusal to allow the disclosure of Iraq plans from the Pentagon.

From Myway News:

She used even tougher language in an appeal sent to supporters of her presidential bid: "I couldn't care less what Dick Cheney says about me. But when he plays politics with the lives of our troops, you had better be sure I'm going to respond. And I know that you want to respond too."

As the saying goes "kettle, black."

It amazes me how often the hard-left accuses Conservatives of playing politics with the lives of our men and women who serve, especially since they are the ones who are playing hardball politics with our troops by tying funding for continued operations in Iraq to timetables for withdrawal (that's Democrat for surrender). It was a Democrat named Kerry who proclaimed "I voted for the $86 billion before I voted against" in regards to funding that was destined to provide needed equipment, including body armor, for our boots on the ground in Iraq.

Every time a Democrat attempts to tie funding to timetables or other tactics to micromanage the war, they are playing politics with the lives of our troops.

The politically charged debate began in May when Clinton, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, sought a briefing on how the Pentagon is planning to eventually remove troops and equipment from Iraq.

Undersecretary for Policy Eric Edelman wrote to the New York senator last month that such discussion boosts "enemy propaganda." Clinton called that answer "outrageous" and accused the Pentagon of ducking a serious issue.

Edelman s right in that talks of pulling out in Iraq sends a message that all the bad guys have to do is keep on doing what their doing and they will, like in Vietnam and Southeast Asia, win. They just have to wait out the American will to achieve victory and let the pro-terrorist activists and their proxies in Congress win the war for them.

I hate using comparing Iraq to Vietnam, however the Democrats have politicized the war in Iraq to the point where it is, in the political sense, like Vietnam. If we pull out of there now, a million Iraqis will either be forced to flee to other countries, or they will die. We will then lose Afghanistan as the Taliban will be reinforced by jihadis and the will for the U.S. to win there will also erode, turning Afghanistan into a 21st Century Cambodia. We will lose Pakistan as an ally as well, and probably other countries in the region.

Hillary Clinton is an expert at playing politics with the lives of our troops as well as the lives of those who want our help in securing their liberties.

Tags:

Hillary Clinton Iraq War Cheney

Posted by Sqotty at 6:48 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Obama is talking tough on terrorism, but has he got the male equipment to do the walk or is he all wind? For some of his talk, it had better be whistling Dixie, as he is talking committing an act of war against Pakistan, who has been somewhat of an ally since 9/11.

From ABCNews (and other places to boot):

In a strikingly bold speech about terrorism scheduled for this morning, Democratic presidential candidate Illinois Sen. Barack Obama will call not only for a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, but a redeployment of troops into Afghanistan and even Pakistan - with or without the permission of Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf.

"I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges," Obama will say, according to speech excerpts provided to ABC News by his campaign, "but let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."

It is one thing to send troops into another country at their invitation, it is another to invade an ally, no matter how weak they are as an ally. That would be an act of war, just as Iran committed an act of war by taking over our embassy and holding our diplomatic staff hostage back in the '70s. Pakistan has nuclear weapons and would most likely use them in the event we did invade.

Obama attempts at talking tough shows a complete ignorance of what is at stake when it comes to the war on terror. He shows it when he claims our best bet at eliminating al-Qaeda leadership took place in 2005. Actually, the best chance was in the '90s when Sudan offered to extradite bin Ladin to the United States and Clinton turned them down. There were other opportunities to eliminate al-Qaeda early on that Clinton took a pass on as well.

The opportunity that Obama is referencing would have put a strain on our relations with Pakistan as well as carrying substantial risk, and may have failed.

Obama, whose father was Muslim, makes clear that he does not share the views of Democrats who downplay the risk of Islamist terrorism. In language rare for a Democratic presidential candidate, Obama will talk about Muslims who seek to create a repressive caliphate. "To defeat this enemy, we must understand who we are fighting against, and what we are fighting for."

And if Obama doesn't know that by now, he never will

Right now the debate is on as to who will be more dangerous to this country: Obama or Hillary. Right now it looks like Obama is the biggest threat to this country.

Tags:

Obama bin-Ladin al-Qaeda Pakistan Iraq War on Terror

Posted by Sqotty at 7:44 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Barack Obama, in a silly attempt to retaliate against Hillary Clinton and gain a few brownie points with the hard-left progressive/liberal Moonbats, used Hillary's own words. From BreitBart:

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama tried to turn rival Hillary Rodham Clinton's words back on her Wednesday, saying her vote to authorize the Iraq war was "irresponsible and naive."

Clinton had used the same language a day earlier to criticize Obama for saying he would be willing to meet with leaders of nations such as Cuba, North Korea and Iran without conditions within the first year of his presidency. Clinton said renegade leaders could use such a meeting for propaganda and that envoys below the presidential level should begin diplomatic work.

Actually, this is one of the few times where Hillary is right, and I hate to admit agreeing with her. When Obama came out publicly saying that he would meet with the murdering thugs running Cuba, North Korea and Iran, he was showing a serious lack of what is at stake and what kind of people they are.

For years the U.S. and Europe has attempted (and Europe is still attempting) to negotiate with Iran over concerns that Iran's nuclear program will soon make weapons material available to terrorist groups, including Hezbollah (an Iranian puppet) and al-Qaeda. Obama, by saying he is willing to talk with the ayatollahs and the dictator of Iran does not understand what is at stake here.

As for North Korea, the Clintons (with the aid of former president Jimmy Carter) cut a deal with the murdering thug there to provide them with nuclear technology on the condition it is not used to develop weapons. We all know how well that particular ruthless thug keeps his word.

Then there is the mass-murderer of Cuba, Fidel Castro. Ever stop to wonder why thousands of people flee that country every year? There isn't a mad rush to move there, either. We don't know how many people have died at the hands of Castro, nor how many political dissidents have been incarcerated.

Yet Obama wishes to meet with them without conditions.

Hillary at least initially got the war in Iraq right, even though now she has taken an pro-terrorist stand by calling for our withdrawal from Iraq. This is all politics to her, and has nothing to do with what is best (or right) for the U.S.; it's about her gaining and holding as much power as possible.

Obama would have done better if he had said that it is naïve for Americans to believe that either one of them understands the true responsibility involved with the office they currently have the privilege of serving in, let alone the greater responsibility carried by our Commander in Chief.

Tags:

Obama Clinton Cuba Iran Iraq North Korea

Posted by Sqotty at 6:14 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Elizabeth Edwards has shown her other ignorance on the issue of global warming by pushing an agenda of "eat locally" in order to reduce "carbon footprint."

From Politico:

The politics of global warming got very concrete, and oddly difficult, In a meeting with local environmentalists in the coastal town of McClellanville today, where Elizabeth Edwards raised in passing the importance of relying on locally-grown fruit.

"We've been moving back to 'buy local,'" Mrs. Edwards said, outlining a trade policy that "acknowledges the carbon footprint" of transporting fruit.

"I live in North Carolina. I'll probably never eat a tangerine again," she said, speaking of a time when the fruit is reaches the price that it "needs" to be.

Does this mean she is giving up orange juice and coffee? How about chocolate, tea, and anything that may contain alcohol?

As a general rule, I am okay with eating locally grown produce because it is generally in better condition as well as for taste. However there are a lot of fruits and vegetables that do not grow where I live, starting with citrus fruits. I do not advocate limiting one's diet to locally produced foods because of an unwarranted fear that carbon emissions is the cause of global warming.

Then, when John Edwards was questioned, he said:

"Would I add to the price of food?" he asked. "I'd have to think about that."

Such additional food costs would be in the form of adding carbon emission costs to the price of food.

I think that as a general rule all candidates should have studied the hard science about such issues as global warming before they are allowed to open their traps and show their ignorance. If they did, we wouldn't be hearing a word about "carbon footprints" but rather we would be hearing about the solar cycle and the impact of cosmic rays.

Tags:

Edwards Carbon Footprint

Posted by Sqotty at 6:54 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

This is news to me, probably because I don't follow Obama that closely, that Obama supports teaching sex-education to kindergartners. I find this disturbing. From ABC News online:

ABC News' Teddy Davis and Lindsey Ellerson Report: Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., told Planned Parenthood Tuesday that sex education for kindergartners, as long as it is "age-appropriate," is "the right thing to do."

"I remember Alan Keyes . . . I remember him using this in his campaign against me," Obama said in reference to the conservative firebrand who ran against him for the U.S. Senate in 2004. Sex education for kindergartners had become an issue in his race against Keyes because of Obama's work on the issue as chairman of the health committee in the Illinois state Senate.

Who is it that will determine what is age appropriate? The parents of the children or some group of bureaucrats with an agenda to push? And why at such a young age? Shouldn't it be up to the parents on when and how sex-education is introduced to their children?

"Keep in mind: I honor and respect young people who choose to delay sexual activity," Obama continued. "I've got two daughters, and I want them to understand that sex is not something casual. That's something that we definitely want to communicate and should be part of any curriculum. But we also know that when the statistics tell us that nearly half of 15 to 19 year olds are engaging in sexual activity, that for us to leave them in ignorance is potentially consigning them to illness, pregnancy, poverty, and in some cases, death."

First off, the statistics that Obama is using are skewed to include legal adults, those who are 18 and older. Getting married straight out of high school may not be as prevalent as it once was, but there are still those who do.

There is also a significant difference between an 18 year old being sexually active versus a 15 year old, not just looking at age, but also maturity, knowledge and the ability to take on responsibilities in the event there is a pregnancy.

This is not to say that sex-education is not important, however it is not only important, but critical, that any and all materials used in these programs be approved by the parents, and at what age they are introduced.

For the record, when my daughter hits kindergarten in a couple of years, there better not be any sex-education programs being taught.

Tags:

Obama Sex Ed

Posted by Sqotty at 6:50 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Yesterday, the Senate Democrats pushed for an overnight debate on a proposed timetable for troop withdrawal from Iraq.

Just out of curiosity, why wasn't Barack Obama present? Where was he during this important debate?

Obama has been a major opponent of the military operations in Iraq, yet when his party needed his vote, and his voice, on this issue, he was conspicuously absent.

Apparently, he was too busy campaigning at a Planned Parenthood conference (http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post_group/ObamaHQ/CtN5) to perform the job the people of Illinois elected him to do.

Tags:

Obama Defeat-O-Thon Senate

Posted by Sqotty at 7:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

The campaign for the Democratic nomination is heating up, so is the GOP nomination.

Hillary Clinton, stomping around in Iowa, made it clear that we can expect to see a return of HillaryCare. From BreitBart:

Clinton said she soon will meet with doctors, nurses, hospital administrators and patients to get their input on her health care plan.

The disturbing thing about the Democratic Primary is not that Hillary intends to take away our healthcare rights and place it in the hands of government bureaucrats (and we know that then we will lose our medical privacy rights as well…look how they've been doing with social security number security lately), it's that all of the major front-runners want to do the same thing: Degrade our healthcare the responsibility of the government.

Why am I not surprised?

Tags:

Billary Hillary Clinton Health Care

Posted by Sqotty at 7:48 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

A lot has been written across the blogosphere on the various contenders (of both parties) for the 2008 Presidential Election. Although I haven't quite taken sides, I have limited the field of players that I would support down some.

Okay, let's face it, you won't find me saying anything favorable about who is being fielded by the Democrats. After all, Zell Miller isn't running.

As for the GOP, I have eliminated a few from the pool of contenders, most notably John McCain. Why? Two major reasons: McCain-Feingold Campaign Reform, also known as "Limiting Freedom Of Speech" or the "Incumbent Protection Act," as well as McCain's participation in the "Gang of Fourteen" in regards to preventing the GOP from changing Senate rules (the "Byrd Option") so that judicial nominees could be brought to the floor for a vote. McCain, although strong on National Defense and the Liberation of Iraq, has made it impossible for me to support him (although if he is the one on the ballot in November 2008, I would reluctantly vote for him).

Yesterday, at the MN-CD2 convention, McCain had a campaign representative speak on McCain's behalf. The applause for him was stunningly lacking. Whether or not McCain himself would have been better received is debatable.

I suspect that he would lose that debate as one of the CD2's delegates took the mic and spoke on behalf of Fred Thompson. He received a lot of cheers and applause. I guess that's a pretty good indicator as to how my district feels about McCain.

Tags:

McCain Thompson

Posted by Sqotty at 7:12 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)
View blog reactions

Hillary Clinton, while stomping through Iowa, criticized President Bush for his planned veto of the Democrat’s legislation that set a date for U.S. and Iraqi defeat, also known as Terrorist Victory Day.

From Yahoo News:

"This is vetoing the will of the American people," Clinton said. "It is time for us to get them out of the middle of this sectarian civil war."

Actually, I think this is vetoing the will of the Party of Defeat and the left-wingnuts that control the Democratic Party. Not all of the People are in favor of cutting and running like the Dems. Many of us believe in supporting the rise of democracy in Iraq, and helping our fledgling ally achieve liberty.

Tags:

Hillary Clinton Iraq War On Terror Hillary

Posted by Sqotty at 6:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

It's refreshing to see Rick Santorum back in the spot light. From the Politico:

"The only one I wouldn't support is McCain," Santorum said during an interview in his office at the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, where he is a senior fellow.

"I don't agree with him on hardly any issues," Santorum said. "I don't think he has the temperament and leadership ability to move the country in the right direction."

Quite frankly, I agree with Santorum. I can't think of many issues I agree with McCain on, but there are quite a few I disagree with, beginning with the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform that passed a few years back.

It would be nice to see Santorum run for our highest office, as I was quite disappointed when he was voted out due to the political backlash many Republicans were hit by. Perhaps he'll look to become Governor of Pennsylvania first.

Tags:

Santorum McCain

Posted by Sqotty at 9:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

America’s favorite Chicken Dove, Barack Obama, is hot on the campaign trail, denouncing competitors for past support of the war to Liberate Iraq. From Examiner.com:

Obama spoke out sharply against the war as an Illinois state senator in October 2002, just as the U.S. Senate was voting to authorize the conflict. He later adopted a magnanimous attitude toward pro-war Democrats, only to curtail such forbearance upon entering the presidential race. ... "The decisions we make in Washington have consequences," the junior U.S. senator from Illinois told reporters in New Hampshire. "Obviously if the senators [had] voted down the authorization, we wouldn’t be in the situation we’re in now."

Burton went even further, telling the New Hampshire Union Leader newspaper: "Only Barack Obama opposed the war in Iraq from the start."

Actually, that last bit about only Obama being opposed to the war from the get go is not quite true. Saddam Hussein, his supporters, and many of the chicken doves in Hollywood were also against the war. This would explain why Obama is such a hit with Geffen and other Hollywood elites with immense wealth.

It is also wrong in regards to the Congressional votes in 2002, where 23 Senators voted against the authorization of military action against Saddam Hussein and Iraq. were Byrd, Boxer, Durbin, Feingold, and Kennedy, just to name a few.

Obama President Iraq War

Posted by Sqotty at 8:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

It looks like John Edwards may well have stepped in it big time. From Variety:

There are other emerging fissures, as well. The aggressively photogenic John Edwards was cruising along, detailing his litany of liberal causes last week until, during question time, he invoked the "I" word -- Israel. Perhaps the greatest short-term threat to world peace, Edwards remarked, was the possibility that Israel would bomb Iran's nuclear facilities. As a chill descended on the gathering, the Edwards event was brought to a polite close.

Israel "the greatest short-term threat to world peace," has got to be the most ludicrous statement I have heard in a long time. Israel has been fighting for its existence since it was formed in 1948. From terrorist bombings (and other attacks) by Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and other Palestinian terrorist groups, many that are backed by either Syria or Iran, sometimes both, as well as the pre-liberation Iraq when Hussein was still in power, to Hezbollah’s continued rocket attacks from Lebanon. Yet, despite the fact that the hostility towards Israel has been fueled by intolerant, totalitarian regimes, Edwards blames Israel.

I would think that Edwards had enough moxy to realize that the biggest threats to peace would be Iran’s nuclear ambitions, Syria, Hezbollah, al-Qaeda, destabilization and civil war in Iraq (which can draw in the neighboring countries, setting the Middle East in flames), to name a few hot spots.

Edwards is proving the John Kerry is not the only person to run for President who suffers "foot-in-mouth" disease.

Tags:

John Edwards Israel Iran al-Qaeda

Posted by Sqotty at 7:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Over on the Washington Post, Harold Meyerson has come up with an interesting analogy on the Hillary’s bid for the Presidency in 2008.

As the ancient or merely studious among us will recall, the Democratic senator from Maine, who'd been Hubert Humphrey's running mate in 1968, entered his party's presidential contest in 1972 as the front-runner. His prospects were dashed in the New Hampshire snows, however. As popular memory has it, an indignant Muskie started crying while refuting a silly attack on him (though whether he was genuinely upset or merely sniffling during a frigid outdoor news conference was never authoritatively resolved). Muskie's more serious problem, however, was the Vietnam War, which he opposed.

His opposition, though, had none of the fervor or long-term consistency of another Democratic senator and presidential aspirant, George McGovern. By 1972, seven years had elapsed since the United States had sent ground forces to Vietnam, and Richard Nixon, through his invasion of Cambodia and stepped-up bombing campaigns, had made clear that the road to de-escalation would entail periodic escalations, at least as long as he was president. The Democratic base was in no mood for temporizing on Vietnam.

Party voters wanted out, and they wanted a nominee who'd been right on the war (almost) from the start: McGovern. Sic transit gloria Muskie.

Today, Hillary Clinton seems almost uncannily positioned to become the Ed Muskie of 2008. She opposes the U.S. military presence in Iraq but not with the specificity, fervor or bona fides of her leading Democratic rivals. As Muskie did with Vietnam, she supported the legislation enabling the U.S. invasion of Iraq, and she has been slower and more inconstant than her party rivals in coming around to opposing the continued U.S. occupation.

Meyerson continues the comparison between Hillary today and Muskie of 1972. It makes for good reading and poses some interesting possibilities. Will Hillary be able to galvanize the Far-Left that makes up the base of the modern Democratic party while continuing to support current operations in Iraq, or will she abandon Middle-America in the hopes of appeasing the party base, and throw Iraq to the wolves, siding with the Liberal-Left in pushing for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq? Will the fact that it was the Clinton Administration that set the U.S. policy on Iraq to one of deposing Hussein have a negative impact on Hillary?

We all know where she stands on many social issues, and there she has no problem with appealing to the Democratic Hard-Left core. However, it is the anti-war crowd (who are also Hard-Left) that dominates the core of the party, may well be looking for a hard-core anti-war candidate, just as Meyerson writes was done in 1972 when McGovern one the nomination. If so, that may well mean Barack Obama, will be at the top of the DNC ticket come November 2008.

Obama has all the charisma that Hillary lacks, and he has shown himself to be to the left of Ted Kennedy and John Kerry (and that is hard to do). Obama, unlike many of the Liberal-Left serving in the Senate, has always been against the war, and lacks the baggage Hillary is carrying for having voted in support of Liberating Iraq and continued military operations in that country.

It’s also interesting to note that in 1992, Bill Clinton was not even in the top three, let alone considered the front-runner when he was campaigning.

Ultimately, the question will come down to: does Hillary have the stamina to stay up front and overcome the baggage she is carrying in regards to Iraq; or will she succumb to one of the middle tier candidates who has been vocal against the war since before the invasion.

No matter how you slice and dice it, it’s going to be a very interesting and heated election cycle. Not to mention a long one.

Tags:

Hillary Obama Iraq

Posted by Sqotty at 6:34 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

One of the things that irritates me the most about the Liberal-Left is their constant whining about the need to "take our country back." Obama has now proved himself to be one of the whiners on the Liberal-Left. From FoxNews:

In a video message on his Web site Friday, Obama said he was launching "a journey to take our country back and change the fundamental nature of our politics."

According to this kind of rhetoric, Obama must mean he wants to take America from freedom loving Americans. It means increases in taxes, government control, welfare, and poverty. It also means abandoning our allies in the Middle East, especially the people of Iraq.

He introduced a bill to prevent President Bush from increasing troop levels in Iraq and to remove U.S. combat forces from the country by March 31, 2008 - legislation that has virtually no chance of becoming law while Bush is president.

Obama was not yet elected to the U.S. Senate when Congress voted to give Bush the authority to go to war, but he gave a speech in 2002 opposing the war. He said Saddam Hussein posed no imminent threat to the United States and predicted the invasion would lead to an occupation with undetermined costs and consequences.

In other words, Obama would happily have left a mass-murdering dictator in power. He would have left the weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological weapons remain in the hands of an oppressive regime that has a history of using such weapons against civilian populations. Obama was also okay with Hussein's torture chambers and the rape rooms run by Hussein's sons. It is also possible had Hussein been left in power, we would not only be facing a nuclear armed North Korea, and the developing potential of Iran with nuclear weapons, Iraq would also be in possession of such weapons.

Obama is also the darling of the anti-war crowd, with rhetoric like "What I am opposed to is a dumb war." (Anti-war rally in 2002.) According to Obama, our troops are fighting, and dying, in a dumb war.

Obama's qualifications to lead this country are also lacking. He touts as one of his major qualifications that he has lived in foreign countries (lots of people have, including me) and he has a degree (again, lots of people have degrees). His ego has been pumped up by an easy victory n the 2004 Senate race in which he was virtually unopposed, save for a token effort by a GOP candidate imported to Illinois in order to have a Republican on the ballot in that race. What makes him believe he can pull off a national electoral victory, especially with Hillary in the mix? Perhaps Obama is positioning himself for the number 2 slot.

Obama is a man who has lived the American Dream. It is too bad he doesn't understand what the American Dream is, and that other countries should be helped in shedding the shackles of oppression and tyranny so that they can pursue Liberty as well.

Tags:

Obama Hillary Iraq

Posted by Sqotty at 7:44 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Looks like Senator Hillary Clinton is making the rounds again, this time want to seize profits from "Big Oil" in order to pay for some of her favorite projects. From Las Vegas Review Journal:

Today, Venezuela has a communist dictator. When Hugo Chavez doesn't like the way things are going with his country's oil, telecommunications and power industries -- or if he merely craves their wealth -- he simply seizes them, calling it "nationalization."

Is that the way many in the American press and public would like to see things done here, despite the wreck that such policies made of Eastern Europe?

… Has Sen. Clinton really changed her tune? Exxon Mobil last week announced that it earned $39.5 billion in 2006, for a profit of about 10 percent -- the most profitable year any company has ever had.

The bulk of that money goes to stockholders who invested in the firm, either directly or through a company 401(k) plan. That profitability offers assurance that the company will keep developing new oil fields and refineries -- where politicians allow them -- to keep us supplied with gasoline and heating oil at historically low rates (once adjusted for inflation.)

But speaking last Friday at the Democratic National Committee's winter meeting in Washington, Sen. Clinton said: "I want to take those profits and put them into an alternative energy fund that will begin to fund alternative smart energy, alternatives that will actually begin to move us toward the direction of independence."

According to Investor's Business Daily, she made the remarks "with wide, glowing eyes that suggested the mere thought of taking money that didn't belong to her gave her a thrill."

But, "Threatening to hijack private property in the energy industry is a serious matter," the business daily points out, in a mild understatement. "If (Sen.) Clinton were able to seize profits, shareholders would suffer harm and Americans who use energy -- that's all of us, except maybe Ted Kaczynski in his Unabomber days -- would be saddled with higher prices and lower supplies."

Will set aside Hillary's greed for the sake of big government aside for the moment, although the gleam in her eye when talking about seizing these profits makes for interesting imagery.

To Clinton, and others like her on the Liberal-Left, a 10% profit, much of which is paid out to shareholders (which means most Americans) is an outrage. Yet a 10% profit is not all that unreasonable when you get down to it, and it is a company's duty to return profits to their investors. This is the American way.

Oil is what moves Americans and America, not to mention the rest of the world. It fuels our trucks that move products from one place to another, our cars (although there are some alternatives, like all electric vehicles, however, they have a very limited range), and our aircraft, which allows rapid transit from one region to another, including movement overseas.

Sure, I'd like to see America less dependent on foreign oil imports, however, so called "green" alternatives, such as wind and solar, can't get the job done. And they can't run our transportation. Ethanol, which is also a darling of the Liberal-Left is very inefficient, and expensive. The only reason it is priced lower at the pump is due to all the subsidies that Americans are taxed in order to provide. Even at its lower price at the pump, its lower fuel efficiency makes it moderately more expensive to move your car than regular gasoline.

There are answers to the energy question: nuclear energy technology has vastly improved over the last several decades; there are also untapped oil reserves within our borders, such as ANWR, as well as within reach on the outer continental shelf.

Instead of allowing oil companies to explore these fields, or leveraging nuclear technology, Hillary and the Liberal-Left continue to hogtie America, forcing it to be dependent on foreign imports. Or pushing Americans to use less energy, thus reducing our standard of living and having a negative influence on our economy.

Tags:

Hillary Clinton Exxon Big Oil

Posted by Sqotty at 5:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

From Yahoo News:

Democrat John Edwards, who has made an anti-poverty message the theme of his 2008 presidential campaign, is taking heat for the lavish home he has constructed in Orange County, N.C.

In December, Edwards chose the modest backyard of a New Orleans woman who had lost her home to Hurricane Katrina as the image that best underscored his campaign theme.

Now voters are seeing another, sharply contrasting image of Edwards: his own home.

Sitting on 102 secluded acres — surrounded by trees and defended by no-trespassing signs — the 28,000-square-foot estate that Edwards and his family call home has presidential privacy.

A main home has five bedrooms and six-and-a-half baths. It's connected by a covered walkway to a bright red addition known as "The Barn," that includes its own living facilities along with a handball court, an indoor pool and an indoor basketball court with a stage at one end. Nearby, the family has cleared space for a soccer field.

With a current building value of $4.3 million, the unfinished Edwards estate is already about $1 million more expensive than any other house in the county, according to tax records. It sits on land worth about $1.1 million.

Edwards first purchased the land in 2004, during his failed run as vice president. He recently sold his mansion in Washington's tony Georgetown neighborhood for $5.2 million.

It must be nice to have that kind of wealth. Living on 102 acres would be fine if it were a working farm or ranch, but just to show off your immense wealth? And then claiming to be for the poor. Right!

What's even better about the piece is that the guy who lives across the street placed a Guiliani sign right there by the driveway, so that Edwards, or at least his chauffuer, will have to look at it everyday.

Tags:

John Edwards

Posted by Sqotty at 7:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Interesting column on The Blue Streak, discussing the strong and weak points of the '08 Presidential Campaign, and speaking well of Barrack Obama. The piece focuses on two points: the experience of the current main contenders (Hillary, Edwards, Obama) and the potential of the Internet to influence the election. It makes some good points.

The internet will decide this election. Whoever figures out how to use it best, whoever is helped most or hurt least by its reach, will win.

It could be Obama.

The internet makes it possible to communicate with more people at less cost than ever before. It makes it possible for an unknown to become well known faster than ever before, for an organization to grow at warp speed, for money to be raised in buckets with the flash of a click. It has the potential to engage people in politics who would never go to events, are on no one's old list, are outsiders to the political process. It intensifies the scrutiny and magnifies the result, which is both a risk but also a vital opportunity for a candidate who most Americans know virtually nothing about.

With the internet, Everything that happens, what goes right and what goes wrong, will be instantly available to everyone. Mistakes will be magnified, viewed by millions literally in moments; but so will triumphs. Momentum will be built or lost with speed we once could barely imagine.

As seen in the '06 election, the Internet, especially the blogosphere, and new tech such as youtube.com. Youtube and similar video sharing sites made it possible for people with digital cameras to capture some quite damning footage and make such videos available for wide and rapid distribution.

The is no doubt that the Internet will continue to play a significant role in future elections as it is the new media, or, as some would say, the new Liberty Tree, the place where like minded patriots in the Revolutionary period gathered and discussed ideas.

The issue will not be whether Obama has good enough experience, but whether he is good enough as a candidate. He can't afford to say the wrong thing. A mistake will be read as not ready. But he has no record of bad votes to defend, no troublesome inconsistent statements from past campaigns to explain away.

The piece also hits on Obama's experience favorably, stating that he has held elected office longer than either of the other two front runners, etc. This is not, nor should it be, a quality one looks for when electing experience. Time in office does not equate experience. All it means is they have shown up for work. As for bad votes to defend, that is a matter of point of view. There are those of us who still believe that Liberating Iraq was the right thing to do. Susan Estrich is one of those that believes otherwise. That's her privilege and right.

What is important is Statesmanship, values, honor integrity. Do any of these so called "rock stars" have these qualities? That's the deciding factor for me, regardless of political party affiliation. Are they Statesmen?

Tags:

The+Blue+Streak Obama Edwards Hillary

Posted by Sqotty at 7:18 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)
View blog reactions