My Daddy had a saying when things were becoming annoying, like my making too much noise or playing too rowdy, that enough was enough and too much was nasty. Well, while I am a long way from being as wise as my Daddy, I’d say to Mike Huckabee that enough is enough and too much is nasty. It’s time to call it a day and go on back to Arkansas. The race is over for you; you have lost and don’t know when to stop making a pest of yourself. You did the job that the religious right put you up to, and that was to take votes away from the best qualified Republican running, Mitt Romney. Now, enough is enough. You are finished, but it seems that you still don’t get it. You should have learned this lesson from your fiasco on the SNL (Saturday Night Live) Comedy show, when you didn’t know your time was up.
Quote from Huckabee on SNL: "Mike Huckabee does not overstay his welcome. When it's time for me to go, I'll know. And I'll exit out with class and grace." He then remained seated at the "Update" desk, even though Meyers made it clear that it was time for him to leave. Your time was up then and it’s up now! You have overstayed your welcome!
The only reason I can see for you staying in the race is to guarantee that a Democrat is elected in November. The longer you insist that a “miracle” will occur, the more divisive you and your religious far right group become. You can tell Dr. Dobson and Tony Perkins, the failed Kingmakers of the far right, that you’ve done the deed, placed the Judas kiss, and now it’s time to collect your thirty pieces of silver and go on home.
The point is, just go away! Maybe you are waiting around thinking that, by some “miracle,” John McCain might just pass on before election time and you would be the only one left in the running, or maybe “crawling” is the best word in your case. Perhaps a miracle of miracles—something equivalent to Lazarus’ resurrection—will happen, leaving you the Republican nominee in November. Stop dreaming; it won’t happen! The American people want a candidate who is intelligent enough to know when enough is enough and doesn’t wait for things to get nasty before moving on. It is plain to all those with any ability to think clearly that you are not the one! That lesson, learned and taught well, belongs to Mitt Romney, a man of character and the good graces to know when enough was enough.
Don’t think that by hanging around you will be the VP choice. You aren’t even on the longest list, much less the short list. The governors of Florida and Mississippi are making the list right now. Mel Watt from Oklahoma would indeed be a great pick, but then the Democrats would make a big deal about the Republicans picking an African-American for VP choice, as they would say it was to counter Obama. There are too many well-qualified candidates out there for Huckabee to even be considered.
Enough is enough!
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
"We The People" Speak Out
In East Tennesse folks have decided that enough is enough. The residents of Knoxville, Tennessee and Knox County have taken their government back. Corruption was rampant, nepotism was the rule of the day and government waste was the norm. Sounds just like Washington. If it can happen in Knoxville, Tennessee , why could it not happen on a national scale? I think it's time for this to happen in Washington.
What say you?
What say you?
Saturday, February 23, 2008
The NY Times, Eye on the Right but Blind to the Left
The NY Times, long time political rag for the far left and the Democrats seem to be suffering from blindness these days. While they were quick to jump on an old story concerning McCain and his alleged involvement with a lobbyist over 4 years ago and offer absolutely no facts to back up the allegations they have turned a blind eye to the goings on among the Democrat House leadership as well as the connection to these questionable activities by Hillary and Obama. You can read about it HERE.
Friday, February 22, 2008
Playing the McGovern Card
Will the Clinton camp play the McGovern card if they think they can get away with it? I say this in light of the history of the Democrat Party picking the wrong candidate at the wrong time.
Will Obama be the George McGovern of this era? George McGovern ran for President in 1968 on an anti-war platform and lost to Hubert Humphrey who ran on “return to law and order in Washington.” Humphrey then lost his bid to Richard Nixon. In 1972, McGovern once again ran on his anti-war platform and was not considered the front runner nor the favorite of the Democrat Party. The Democrats had another candidate running that year in George Wallace of Alabama who actually captured all the votes in the state of Florida for nomination. He was considered an outsider but was running a strong race when he was shot, thus ending his bid for President.
In the votes, Hubert Humphrey received 25.77% of the votes and McGovern received 25.34%. George Wallace received 23.48%. Sounds a bit similar to the current standings, at least from what we were seeing a few weeks ago and may yet see, depending on Texas and Ohio votes upcoming in March.
McGovern, like Obama, ran an anti-war campaign and also had a plank on Global hunger and poverty in his platform. Obama has sponsored a Bill that is now before the Senate on this very subject, a bill that would put the U.S. in a subservient position to the UN in extracting hundreds of millions of dollars from the U.S. taxpayer for the UN to spend as they see fit. Remembering the Oil for Food fiasco, I would have to wonder if this sounds like a good idea.
Of course, McGovern was considered to be somewhat of an elder statesman, while Obama is a freshman Senator. McGovern was viewed as a far left liberal for his time, just as Obama is known to be the most left of any of the current crop of leftist Senators.
Will the McGovern ghost come back to haunt the Democrats if they nominate Obama? Can McCain make the case that Obama is not qualified to be the Commander in Chief, as Nixon did with McGovern? Can McCain make the case that Obama is a tax and spend Democrat, while he stands for cutting spending and sound economic policy?
McGovern became known as the radical candidate of "acid, amnesty, and abortion." Could the same case be made against Obama when it comes to amnesty for illegals, his stand on abortion, and his admitted drug use as a youth?
Will the Clinton camp play this McGovern card if given the opportunity? I mention this since it was another Democrat who, during McGovern’s run for the White House, gave him the name of “the acid, amnesty and abortion candidate” during a conversation with a reporter. The irony is that he was the same individual that McGovern picked to be his first running mate, Thomas Eagleton. Eagleton, of course, removed himself as VP candidate after his history of mental problems and shock therapy arose. Will history repeat itself in 2008?
Will Obama be the George McGovern of this era? George McGovern ran for President in 1968 on an anti-war platform and lost to Hubert Humphrey who ran on “return to law and order in Washington.” Humphrey then lost his bid to Richard Nixon. In 1972, McGovern once again ran on his anti-war platform and was not considered the front runner nor the favorite of the Democrat Party. The Democrats had another candidate running that year in George Wallace of Alabama who actually captured all the votes in the state of Florida for nomination. He was considered an outsider but was running a strong race when he was shot, thus ending his bid for President.
In the votes, Hubert Humphrey received 25.77% of the votes and McGovern received 25.34%. George Wallace received 23.48%. Sounds a bit similar to the current standings, at least from what we were seeing a few weeks ago and may yet see, depending on Texas and Ohio votes upcoming in March.
McGovern, like Obama, ran an anti-war campaign and also had a plank on Global hunger and poverty in his platform. Obama has sponsored a Bill that is now before the Senate on this very subject, a bill that would put the U.S. in a subservient position to the UN in extracting hundreds of millions of dollars from the U.S. taxpayer for the UN to spend as they see fit. Remembering the Oil for Food fiasco, I would have to wonder if this sounds like a good idea.
Of course, McGovern was considered to be somewhat of an elder statesman, while Obama is a freshman Senator. McGovern was viewed as a far left liberal for his time, just as Obama is known to be the most left of any of the current crop of leftist Senators.
Will the McGovern ghost come back to haunt the Democrats if they nominate Obama? Can McCain make the case that Obama is not qualified to be the Commander in Chief, as Nixon did with McGovern? Can McCain make the case that Obama is a tax and spend Democrat, while he stands for cutting spending and sound economic policy?
McGovern became known as the radical candidate of "acid, amnesty, and abortion." Could the same case be made against Obama when it comes to amnesty for illegals, his stand on abortion, and his admitted drug use as a youth?
Will the Clinton camp play this McGovern card if given the opportunity? I mention this since it was another Democrat who, during McGovern’s run for the White House, gave him the name of “the acid, amnesty and abortion candidate” during a conversation with a reporter. The irony is that he was the same individual that McGovern picked to be his first running mate, Thomas Eagleton. Eagleton, of course, removed himself as VP candidate after his history of mental problems and shock therapy arose. Will history repeat itself in 2008?
What I Discovered About Obama's Talk of Change
I went online and took a look at Obama’s “Blueprint for Change” just to see if he actually said or offered anything that was original. The answer is actually NO! His so-called Blueprint for Change is just more of the same old Democrat garble that we have heard for the past umpteen years, with a bit of the more recent rhetoric on Iraq thrown in. His talk about changing Social Security as the same as the Democrats have put forth for the past 12 years — raise taxes. At first, Obama had said that all options were on the table when it came to Social Security, but it seems that when pushed on the subject, he starts taking the options off the table and leaving only the TAX INCREASE as the way to solve the Social Security problems.
George Stephanopolous stated in a recent conversation*: You've also said that with Social Security, everything should be on the table.
Obama: Yes.
Stephanopolous: Raising the retirement age?
Obama: Yes.
Stephanopolous: Raising payroll taxes?
Obama: Everything should be on the table.
Stephanopolous: Partial privatization?
Obama: Privatization is not something I would consider.
UH OH, what happened to EVERYTHING is on the table?
So let’s see what is left on the table. Raising the retirement age and raising payroll taxes! The Democrats have been saying that for years. Hillary puts forth the same thing until she is cornered, and then she seems to take the same road as Obama.
After Hillary did her “rope a dope” dance with the same questions, it seems that Obama has changed his plan slightly. He got there by the simple process of elimination, as he learned that, in Democratic politics, there are some things one cannot even think about (partial privatization) and others that, on reflection, one should not consider during a campaign (benefit reductions).
That left Obama with only one option — the oldest idea in the Democrat book — even though he started his "new politics" campaign last year with his position that "everything should be on the table." So I have to ask … What is different, and where is the change? I see nothing different and certainly no change in the Democrat position on SS for the past quarter century.
On Iraq: He'll bring all our combat brigades home from Iraq in 16 months. The Democrats have been saying this, or something similar, for the past four years and, to date, nothing has happened. Obama, of course, can say that he never voted for the war and be truthful about it, rather than, as with John Kerry, he was against it before he was for it, and now he is against it. I give him that much at least! But what is he really saying about how he will do it? So far he’s said: There will be no permanent bases in Iraq. But, again, that is no more than what other Democrats have been saying they would do. Does he really mean it, or does he have a hedge? If al Qaeda "attempts to build a base in Iraq," he will use U.S. troops for "targeted strikes" on al Qaeda. SAY WHAT! I thought he was going to take all troops out, since he was against the war in the first place, come hell or high water? Sounds like typical Washington political posturing to me, and all good politicians always leave themselves a loophole through which they can wiggle should their plan fall apart. So, again, I have to ask … What is new or different, and where is the change?
Obama proposes universal health insurance to cover those presently uninsured. What is new with this, and how is he going to pay for it? I read the details, and from what I have read, he really doesn’t have a firm plan but seems to be attempting to copy the Romney Plan, except when it comes to how it will be paid for. Unfortunately, Romney won’t be able to introduce his plan since the far right wing has decided that being a Mormon is unacceptable and, thus, caused the early demise of any hope the GOP may have had to defeat whoever the Democrat candidate may be in November.
On education, Obama proposes a Zero to Five program of learning and care for children and families, adds funding to No Child Left Behind, and makes college more affordable. He doesn’t say how he will pay for this, especially in the light of his proposed tax cuts for the lower and so-called middle class. Nothing really new in the Zero to Five program, since it seems to be a warmed over version of the pre-school program under the Great Society of LBJ. Throwing more money at the NCLB, which has done more to dumb down the American education system than any other tried and failed program ever attempted. Making college more affordable for whom? There are grants and scholarships for those who are willing to apply for them and ways for anyone to go to college who really has the ability to go and the desire to do so. Short of freezing tuition or just giving anyone who wants to give college a shot a wad of money to waste, I don’t see anything really new in this program either. So, once again, I have to ask … What is new, what is different, and where is the change?
It seems that Obama is no different from most of what we already have in Washington and certainly no different from any Democrat that we have seen running for office since the ‘70s. He’s good at speechifying, but otherwise, I am afraid he is no more than an empty suit, filling empty heads with empty promises that will bring about, for the most part, empty pocketbooks, as we will once again be robbed to pay for programs for those who are not willing to put forth even a pittance of their share. The only change we will see is that little bit of change we now have left over flying out of our pockets.
*Stephanopolous and Obama conversation courtesy of “American Thinker.”
George Stephanopolous stated in a recent conversation*: You've also said that with Social Security, everything should be on the table.
Obama: Yes.
Stephanopolous: Raising the retirement age?
Obama: Yes.
Stephanopolous: Raising payroll taxes?
Obama: Everything should be on the table.
Stephanopolous: Partial privatization?
Obama: Privatization is not something I would consider.
UH OH, what happened to EVERYTHING is on the table?
So let’s see what is left on the table. Raising the retirement age and raising payroll taxes! The Democrats have been saying that for years. Hillary puts forth the same thing until she is cornered, and then she seems to take the same road as Obama.
After Hillary did her “rope a dope” dance with the same questions, it seems that Obama has changed his plan slightly. He got there by the simple process of elimination, as he learned that, in Democratic politics, there are some things one cannot even think about (partial privatization) and others that, on reflection, one should not consider during a campaign (benefit reductions).
That left Obama with only one option — the oldest idea in the Democrat book — even though he started his "new politics" campaign last year with his position that "everything should be on the table." So I have to ask … What is different, and where is the change? I see nothing different and certainly no change in the Democrat position on SS for the past quarter century.
On Iraq: He'll bring all our combat brigades home from Iraq in 16 months. The Democrats have been saying this, or something similar, for the past four years and, to date, nothing has happened. Obama, of course, can say that he never voted for the war and be truthful about it, rather than, as with John Kerry, he was against it before he was for it, and now he is against it. I give him that much at least! But what is he really saying about how he will do it? So far he’s said: There will be no permanent bases in Iraq. But, again, that is no more than what other Democrats have been saying they would do. Does he really mean it, or does he have a hedge? If al Qaeda "attempts to build a base in Iraq," he will use U.S. troops for "targeted strikes" on al Qaeda. SAY WHAT! I thought he was going to take all troops out, since he was against the war in the first place, come hell or high water? Sounds like typical Washington political posturing to me, and all good politicians always leave themselves a loophole through which they can wiggle should their plan fall apart. So, again, I have to ask … What is new or different, and where is the change?
Obama proposes universal health insurance to cover those presently uninsured. What is new with this, and how is he going to pay for it? I read the details, and from what I have read, he really doesn’t have a firm plan but seems to be attempting to copy the Romney Plan, except when it comes to how it will be paid for. Unfortunately, Romney won’t be able to introduce his plan since the far right wing has decided that being a Mormon is unacceptable and, thus, caused the early demise of any hope the GOP may have had to defeat whoever the Democrat candidate may be in November.
On education, Obama proposes a Zero to Five program of learning and care for children and families, adds funding to No Child Left Behind, and makes college more affordable. He doesn’t say how he will pay for this, especially in the light of his proposed tax cuts for the lower and so-called middle class. Nothing really new in the Zero to Five program, since it seems to be a warmed over version of the pre-school program under the Great Society of LBJ. Throwing more money at the NCLB, which has done more to dumb down the American education system than any other tried and failed program ever attempted. Making college more affordable for whom? There are grants and scholarships for those who are willing to apply for them and ways for anyone to go to college who really has the ability to go and the desire to do so. Short of freezing tuition or just giving anyone who wants to give college a shot a wad of money to waste, I don’t see anything really new in this program either. So, once again, I have to ask … What is new, what is different, and where is the change?
It seems that Obama is no different from most of what we already have in Washington and certainly no different from any Democrat that we have seen running for office since the ‘70s. He’s good at speechifying, but otherwise, I am afraid he is no more than an empty suit, filling empty heads with empty promises that will bring about, for the most part, empty pocketbooks, as we will once again be robbed to pay for programs for those who are not willing to put forth even a pittance of their share. The only change we will see is that little bit of change we now have left over flying out of our pockets.
*Stephanopolous and Obama conversation courtesy of “American Thinker.”
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Solutions, Change andTrains
"It's time to get real about how we actually win this election," Clinton declared at a fundraiser at Hunter College. "It's time that we move from good words to good works, from sound bites to sound solutions ..."
I knew I heard something about solutions from Bill Clinton the other day in one of his speeches. I believe he said something to the effect that this administration, speaking of Hillary being elected, would be an administration that would be one of solutions. I just can't let that one pass ... I thought his administration was one of solutions. We know of at least one solution during his administration ... the one in which part of the solution was left on a dress.
I'm not sure this country could take four more years of this type of administration. Folks say it couldn't be worse than the last seven years, but, yea, it could. It could be a repeat of the last 12 years and more of the same. Things were not as great as they seemed, and things are not as bad now as they are made out to be. Why would anyone want to go back to any of that?
Obama says he has a plan for change, but so far I haven't heard what the change is. So far it would be a change in dynasty, as far as name goes, but does he really have any plan for real change? He says we need to change Washington. My question is still, “How does he plan to do it?” I wrote on this subject a week ago and was hoping by this time to at least have one or two ideas of what the changes are that he is going to bring to Washington. I'm still waiting. All I have heard is rhetoric, and Obama is beginning to look more and more like an empty suit throwing out nice phrases and saying he has a better plan. Unfortunately, it seems that the voters are buying his rhetoric with no substance, but this is one voter who isn't. Maybe Hillary is right; maybe Obama is just about good words.
If John McCain is going to make his run, now is the time, before the Obama train gets to the top of the mountain. McCain needs to get on the tracks and make Obama blow the whistle to clear the tracks. Engineers on the old steam engines didn't like to have to blow the whistle going up hill, it takes away some of the steam and the power needed for the climb to the summit. McCain needs to start questioning Obama’s ability and knowledge on foreign policy and on military policy. How is Obama going to handle Putin, who is becoming bolder each day and knows that if the U.S. elects Obama, he will have the upper hand? How will Obama handle China after the Olympics and all the playing nice is over? Now the Balkans question is raising its ugly head once again. Do we leave it to an amateur to deal with the situation? I believe we tried that once before, and we are still trying to smooth that situation over 12 years later.
McCain needs to begin to show that he has the knowledge and expertise to answer these questions and Obama doesn’t. If McCain waits too long he will be like Hillary and out of the race before it begins. Obama says we need change, and he is the one to bring it. For McCain, it's time to pin Obama in the corner and make him say how he will handle tough situations, and get some real answers. So far, Obama hasn't shown that he has any.
In this day and time, OJT* in the Presidency just won't cut it.
*On the Job Training
FOOTNOTE:
I have finally discovered what the "Change" is that Obama has been preaching since Iowa. You can read it here!
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
October Surprise or Surrender.
Friend of mine and I recently had a converstation concerning the gathering of Hillary's and Obama's advisors in Damascus. Could this be the reason?
Is it too outlandish ?
Thanks to my buddy and fellow blogger Bubba at Noteworthy.
Is it too outlandish ?
Thanks to my buddy and fellow blogger Bubba at Noteworthy.
Saturday, February 16, 2008
More on Foreign Aid. It does nothing for the poor.
THE humanitarian case for aid has been patterned after the Western welfare state. The idea was that many people favor welfare to transfer wealth from the relatively rich to the relatively poor within a country, so they will favor welfare to transfer wealth from relatively rich countries to relatively poor ones.*
The humanitarian motive for giving aid may have justified transferring Western taxpayers' money to poor people, but not to poor governments: the latter may have no effects on the former.
Remember the likes of Ferdinand Marcos of the Philippines, Jean-Bedel Bokassa of the Central African Republic, Sani Abacha of Nigeria, Joseph Mobutu of the Congo, Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, and a host of other kleptocratic tropical gangsters in power, who simply stole aid money? Many African rulers rely on aid to feed their people, while they destroy their livelihoods through a neglect of, and even by destroying, their own infrastructure.*
According to New York University professor of economics, William Easterly, despite more than $2 billion in foreign aid being given to one African country for roads, the roads did not improve. What increased was the bureaucracy, with the government producing 2,400 reports for the 1,000 donor missions that visited each year.*
The poor of the world cannot claim a moral right for welfare transfers from the rich. While recipients of domestic welfare payments depend on the existence of a national society with some commonly accepted moral standard, there is no similar international society within which a right to aid can be established.
The vast majority of foreign aid efforts has failed to alleviate poverty. There are a few cases where it has improved the lot of poor people. The people of Martinique, for example, are probably better off because the French Government provides a very high percentage of their gross domestic product. Also, foreign aid has helped.*
A recent study found that foreign aid "appears to redistribute from the reasonably well-off in the West to most income groups in the Third World, except the very poorest." This is consistent with the evidence from both poor and rich countries that the middle classes tend to capture government transfers. Another study found that, after correcting for the link between aid and income levels and growth, the effect of aid on growth is often negative. A survey of other such studies concludes that "there is now widespread scepticism that concessional assistance does have positive effects on growth, poverty reduction, or environmental quality."
In badly run developing countries, governments channel aid to a small group of high ranking people who help keep them in power. Poor people in villages and shanty towns never see any aid. Infant and child death rates remain high and women still die in unattended childbirth in countries to which this aid is focused.
The foreign aid programs of the past half-century are a historical unusual. They were a response to the disastrous breakdown of the 20th-century liberal economic order during the interwar period. It has taken a long time to repair the damage. However, it seems a new liberal economic order is gradually being reconstructed. The Bill now coming before our Congress, “Global Poverty Act” (S.2433), sponsored by Sen. Obama is a prime example of this. Billions of dollars will be hijacked from the American taxpayer to be paid to the UN so they can redistribute OUR income to some foreign governments. The failed Oil for Food fiasco should be enough reason for us to cut off all funding to the UN much less burden the US Taxpayer with billions of more dollars of aide to unfriendly, uncaring and unappreciative countries.
I don’t know if there ever was a real time for foreign aid with the exception perhaps at the end of WW2, but it is certainly an idea whose time has passed, and it is time for the U.S. to “just say NO.”
*Facts and figures from an article written in 2006 by Deepak Lal, professor of international development studies at UCLA and professor emeritus of political economy at University College, London.
The humanitarian motive for giving aid may have justified transferring Western taxpayers' money to poor people, but not to poor governments: the latter may have no effects on the former.
Remember the likes of Ferdinand Marcos of the Philippines, Jean-Bedel Bokassa of the Central African Republic, Sani Abacha of Nigeria, Joseph Mobutu of the Congo, Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, and a host of other kleptocratic tropical gangsters in power, who simply stole aid money? Many African rulers rely on aid to feed their people, while they destroy their livelihoods through a neglect of, and even by destroying, their own infrastructure.*
According to New York University professor of economics, William Easterly, despite more than $2 billion in foreign aid being given to one African country for roads, the roads did not improve. What increased was the bureaucracy, with the government producing 2,400 reports for the 1,000 donor missions that visited each year.*
The poor of the world cannot claim a moral right for welfare transfers from the rich. While recipients of domestic welfare payments depend on the existence of a national society with some commonly accepted moral standard, there is no similar international society within which a right to aid can be established.
The vast majority of foreign aid efforts has failed to alleviate poverty. There are a few cases where it has improved the lot of poor people. The people of Martinique, for example, are probably better off because the French Government provides a very high percentage of their gross domestic product. Also, foreign aid has helped.*
A recent study found that foreign aid "appears to redistribute from the reasonably well-off in the West to most income groups in the Third World, except the very poorest." This is consistent with the evidence from both poor and rich countries that the middle classes tend to capture government transfers. Another study found that, after correcting for the link between aid and income levels and growth, the effect of aid on growth is often negative. A survey of other such studies concludes that "there is now widespread scepticism that concessional assistance does have positive effects on growth, poverty reduction, or environmental quality."
In badly run developing countries, governments channel aid to a small group of high ranking people who help keep them in power. Poor people in villages and shanty towns never see any aid. Infant and child death rates remain high and women still die in unattended childbirth in countries to which this aid is focused.
The foreign aid programs of the past half-century are a historical unusual. They were a response to the disastrous breakdown of the 20th-century liberal economic order during the interwar period. It has taken a long time to repair the damage. However, it seems a new liberal economic order is gradually being reconstructed. The Bill now coming before our Congress, “Global Poverty Act” (S.2433), sponsored by Sen. Obama is a prime example of this. Billions of dollars will be hijacked from the American taxpayer to be paid to the UN so they can redistribute OUR income to some foreign governments. The failed Oil for Food fiasco should be enough reason for us to cut off all funding to the UN much less burden the US Taxpayer with billions of more dollars of aide to unfriendly, uncaring and unappreciative countries.
I don’t know if there ever was a real time for foreign aid with the exception perhaps at the end of WW2, but it is certainly an idea whose time has passed, and it is time for the U.S. to “just say NO.”
*Facts and figures from an article written in 2006 by Deepak Lal, professor of international development studies at UCLA and professor emeritus of political economy at University College, London.
Friday, February 15, 2008
Obama's Bill: Fighting Global Poverty or a Step Closer to a New World Order?
Yesterday, I wrote about Barach Obama saying that if we want to change health care we need to change Washington. I agreed totally and said that we need to start with Congress. Today, I have even more reason to call for such action. From the bill that Senator Obama is sponsoring in the Senate, perhaps he is one of the first ones who needs to be replaced, certainly not elevated to leader of this country.
It seems that Senator Obama is sponsoring a nice-sounding bill called the "Global Poverty Act" that is up for a Senate vote on Thursday and could result in the imposition of a global tax on the United States. The bill, which has the support of many liberal religious groups, makes levels of U.S. foreign aid spending subservient to the dictates of the United Nations.
There were people recently who were questioning Hillary Clinton’s ambition to move the U.S. closer to becoming part of the New World Order. Obama seems intent on such by sponsoring a bill that would make theU.S
Some will say that we need to be involved in foreign aid, supposedly to wipe out global poverty, but too many forget that the U.S. is the most generous country in the world in this facet. The legislation would commit theU.S. to spending 0.7 percent of gross national product on foreign aid, which amounts to a whopping 13-year total of $845 billion over and above what the U.S.
But hold on before I am accused of being callous and Scrooge-like toward the poor in the world. I am not, but I am against anything that puts any part of this country under the auspices of the UN or any another foreign power. This bill goes farther than just global poverty, but the Senate is rushing to get it passed without making the American people aware of all that it does contain. The House did the same thing just recently, and most of those members had not even read the entire bill before passing the House version. The Senate is hoping to do the same with their version, which is basically a carbon copy.
Here is what else this bill contains that very few know about, and it seems its sponsors do not want you to be aware of: "The declaration commits nations to banning 'small arms and light weapons' and ratifying a series of treaties, including the International Criminal Court Treaty, the Kyoto Protocol (global warming treaty), the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child."
SAY WHAT?! Banning of small arms and light weapons? Not a good thing, I would say! That would virtually disarm theU.S.
If you were not aware of this situation, then I am glad that I could make you aware. If you were aware and have not written, e-mailed, and called your Senator to vote NO against this step toward the destruction of the sovereignty of theU.S.
It seems that Senator Obama is sponsoring a nice-sounding bill called the "Global Poverty Act" that is up for a Senate vote on Thursday and could result in the imposition of a global tax on the United States. The bill, which has the support of many liberal religious groups, makes levels of U.S. foreign aid spending subservient to the dictates of the United Nations.
There were people recently who were questioning Hillary Clinton’s ambition to move the U.S. closer to becoming part of the New World Order. Obama seems intent on such by sponsoring a bill that would make the
Some will say that we need to be involved in foreign aid, supposedly to wipe out global poverty, but too many forget that the U.S. is the most generous country in the world in this facet. The legislation would commit the
But hold on before I am accused of being callous and Scrooge-like toward the poor in the world. I am not, but I am against anything that puts any part of this country under the auspices of the UN or any another foreign power. This bill goes farther than just global poverty, but the Senate is rushing to get it passed without making the American people aware of all that it does contain. The House did the same thing just recently, and most of those members had not even read the entire bill before passing the House version. The Senate is hoping to do the same with their version, which is basically a carbon copy.
Here is what else this bill contains that very few know about, and it seems its sponsors do not want you to be aware of: "The declaration commits nations to banning 'small arms and light weapons' and ratifying a series of treaties, including the International Criminal Court Treaty, the Kyoto Protocol (global warming treaty), the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child."
SAY WHAT?! Banning of small arms and light weapons? Not a good thing, I would say! That would virtually disarm the
If you were not aware of this situation, then I am glad that I could make you aware. If you were aware and have not written, e-mailed, and called your Senator to vote NO against this step toward the destruction of the sovereignty of the
It’s time to let all your friends know and help stop this bill, the "Global Poverty Act” (S.2433). It is also time to question if this man, Senator Barack Obama, is the type of individual we want leading this country.
My question would be, "Where is he leading us?" What say you?
For the full story I am providing a link from the National Ledger:
http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/publish/article_272618845.shtml
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Time for Change? Yes! Starting with Congress!
It seems that Congress has set about to do nothing until after the elections. They did get around, finally, to passing the Stimulus Bill, but then, of course, that buys votes.
There are many problems facing this country: government over-spending, energy, health care, Social Security, immigration, and homeland security; the list can go on and on. The Congress, however, seems to find that the use of steroids and other body-building drugs by Roger Clemens and a few other players to be more important than any of the problems listed.
Congress, on a national level, WHO CARES if some overpaid jock used some enhancement drug to perform in a sport whose owners don’t care as long as the guy can swing a bat and catch a ball? He is old enough to know the danger involved in his decisions to indulge.
How does it improve this country for Congress to decide whether Clemens did or did not do the deed? Not one single thing, except to give a paycheck to another bunch of overpaid do-nothings who can’t seem to fathom the real problems facing this country, much less the solutions. Is this what we really pay these do-nothings for? If so, why do we continue to have a Congress, for it seems to me that they are good for nothing except spending money on things not needed, playing political games (to see who can out-lie the opponents on what they are going to do or not do at some unspecified point in the future), or wasting time on nonsensical things like the investigation of ball players. WHO CARES?!?
Then there is the Senate, whose primary game, it seems, is to hogtie the intelligence community. So today they passed another useless bill to stop the CIA from water boarding. SO WHAT! Do you people really think you can pass useless laws to stop needed methods for intelligence gathering? So far, all you have done is make the enemy look good and our intelligence and our country look bad. Of course, you believe you are taking the high road; you forget that the lower bowels of hell would be the high road for the enemy we face. Best thing you folks can do is let intel do its job, and you go back to doing something useful for the people whom you are elected to represent. You were not elected to represent the enemy. Oh, but I forget, it’s election time, and you need to posture, finger point, and try to look like you are busily accomplishing some good to the folks back home. WHO CARES!?! You are wasting my time and my money and the time and the money of the rest of the good people in this country who look to you to take some leadership in solving the problems faced by Mr. and Mrs. Smith each and every day. Guess what, Mr. and Ms. Senator? Water boarding is not high on the Smith agenda, nor is any of the other unnecessary meddling in the intelligence community’s business. Let them do their job of providing protection and intelligence, and you get on with dealing with energy, the economy, etc. So far, all you have done is try to load up the Stimulus Bill with your Pork, so you could look good for the folks and, hopefully, garner some votes.
Senator Obama said the other day during one of his TV moments that to change the country, we have to change Washington. It was a good sound bite but one of the few things he has said that makes sense. In order to change Washington we need to start with Congress. As long as the power-hungry, money-hungry, do-nothing career politicians are allowed to continue to sit on their back sides and continue their overpaid, underworked careers, Washington will never change.
I am and have been for some time a strong advocate of Term Limits, for both the Senate and the House. It is a travesty to allow those who do nothing to be re-elected over and over so they can continue to do nothing. The time has come to clean house in Washington, and if they will not pass a bill to begin Term Limits, then “We the People” can insure their limited terms at the ballot box until we can elect those who will do the will of the people.
There appears to be a way of circumventing the Constitutional Amendment that would be needed to change the term limits, and that is for the States to place limits on how long they will allow their representatives to serve. If it can be applied to the Electoral College, it can be applied to the Congress.
It’s time for a change, I agree, but I contend that the change must begin with Congress. Term Limits would certainly play a major role in reducing the do-nothingness of the Congress we have now. Think about it!
There are many problems facing this country: government over-spending, energy, health care, Social Security, immigration, and homeland security; the list can go on and on. The Congress, however, seems to find that the use of steroids and other body-building drugs by Roger Clemens and a few other players to be more important than any of the problems listed.
Congress, on a national level, WHO CARES if some overpaid jock used some enhancement drug to perform in a sport whose owners don’t care as long as the guy can swing a bat and catch a ball? He is old enough to know the danger involved in his decisions to indulge.
How does it improve this country for Congress to decide whether Clemens did or did not do the deed? Not one single thing, except to give a paycheck to another bunch of overpaid do-nothings who can’t seem to fathom the real problems facing this country, much less the solutions. Is this what we really pay these do-nothings for? If so, why do we continue to have a Congress, for it seems to me that they are good for nothing except spending money on things not needed, playing political games (to see who can out-lie the opponents on what they are going to do or not do at some unspecified point in the future), or wasting time on nonsensical things like the investigation of ball players. WHO CARES?!?
Then there is the Senate, whose primary game, it seems, is to hogtie the intelligence community. So today they passed another useless bill to stop the CIA from water boarding. SO WHAT! Do you people really think you can pass useless laws to stop needed methods for intelligence gathering? So far, all you have done is make the enemy look good and our intelligence and our country look bad. Of course, you believe you are taking the high road; you forget that the lower bowels of hell would be the high road for the enemy we face. Best thing you folks can do is let intel do its job, and you go back to doing something useful for the people whom you are elected to represent. You were not elected to represent the enemy. Oh, but I forget, it’s election time, and you need to posture, finger point, and try to look like you are busily accomplishing some good to the folks back home. WHO CARES!?! You are wasting my time and my money and the time and the money of the rest of the good people in this country who look to you to take some leadership in solving the problems faced by Mr. and Mrs. Smith each and every day. Guess what, Mr. and Ms. Senator? Water boarding is not high on the Smith agenda, nor is any of the other unnecessary meddling in the intelligence community’s business. Let them do their job of providing protection and intelligence, and you get on with dealing with energy, the economy, etc. So far, all you have done is try to load up the Stimulus Bill with your Pork, so you could look good for the folks and, hopefully, garner some votes.
Senator Obama said the other day during one of his TV moments that to change the country, we have to change Washington. It was a good sound bite but one of the few things he has said that makes sense. In order to change Washington we need to start with Congress. As long as the power-hungry, money-hungry, do-nothing career politicians are allowed to continue to sit on their back sides and continue their overpaid, underworked careers, Washington will never change.
I am and have been for some time a strong advocate of Term Limits, for both the Senate and the House. It is a travesty to allow those who do nothing to be re-elected over and over so they can continue to do nothing. The time has come to clean house in Washington, and if they will not pass a bill to begin Term Limits, then “We the People” can insure their limited terms at the ballot box until we can elect those who will do the will of the people.
There appears to be a way of circumventing the Constitutional Amendment that would be needed to change the term limits, and that is for the States to place limits on how long they will allow their representatives to serve. If it can be applied to the Electoral College, it can be applied to the Congress.
It’s time for a change, I agree, but I contend that the change must begin with Congress. Term Limits would certainly play a major role in reducing the do-nothingness of the Congress we have now. Think about it!
Monday, February 11, 2008
From Miracles To Bribes
Up to now, I have addressed the Republican camp. Now it is time for me to switch sides of the street. My last post was on Huckabee “Majoring in Miracles.” This time, we will look at Hillary “Majoring in Bribes”!
The race so far is neck and neck with Obama hitting Hillary in areas least expected. It seems that Hillary has gotten tired of losing and has switched campaign managers. She is falling back into the old method of attacking Bush and this Congress. Do we need to remind you, Hillary, that Bush is not running and neither is this Congress. You are!
On top of that, she has fallen back into the typical Democrat mantra “when all else fails, buy the votes,” as she did in Maine today. She blamed Bush and Congress for not giving more heating assistance to those poor, cold folks in Maine. Listen folks, if you live in Maine, you know how to handle cold. Of course, there have been a lot of city folks from NY and Boston who have moved there recently, and this plays real well with them. It seems that Hillary wants to spend more money that isn’t there in order to garner a few votes. She calls for at least a $650 check for each family in Maine to pay for fuel this winter. That, of course, is on top of the rebate they will be getting, thanks to Bush and Congress. She stated that this country needs a new energy policy and that Bush and Congress have failed to deliver.
It would appear that Hillary has been delving into the DNC Pharmaceutical’s medicine chest and taking some “Tryphorgetin.“ Wonder where the energy policy change was when she was in the White House with her hubby back in the 90s, along with, of course, Mr. Energy himself, Al Gore, who was VP at the time. Guess she must have forgotten that nothing was done then and that was a time of relative peace and prosperity. Why didn’t the Clintons push for such a policy then and use Al Gore to promote the idea to the American people? It was because we were enjoying low oil prices then, and it would seem that the Clintons decided this was good enough. Besides that, there were no votes to pander toward with such a policy.
It looks like the opportunity at leadership was available when “they” were President, but Mrs. Clinton failed to pursue it. Instead, she choose to infer that stay-at-home moms were somehow lesser persons than she as a “working” mom. As Senator Clinton, I suppose that she found other things more important, such as running for President. Wonder why she wants yet another opportunity to fail the people? Looks too as if she is reading some of Huckabee’s lines when she said concerning beating McCain, "I've been vetted, tested and proven as a winning candidate against tough opposition," and "that's a big advantage in the general election." No, Hillary, Bill was elected President, you got elected to the Senate against one good candidate and one very weak one. So where is your vetted, tested battle scars, unless you are referring to the tough hide you developed by coping with the Whitewater affair, sex scandals, and other controversies of your husband's eight-year administration. Your scars don’t match Sen. McCain’s scars, and you haven’t even seen the battles he has endured.
Obama just keeps adding the delegates up, one small state at a time, and not depending on the big block vote states as Hillary has done. So far, he has said that he is a new light, or something new, rather than the same old politics as usual. Excuse me, Mr. Obama, but you got elected in Illinois where it has always been the same old politics as usual. You are new in DC, perhaps too new, and so far, the people haven’t heard much about what makes you the candidate of choice and the one to lead the country. Obama claims he doesn’t have ties to lobbyist money, indicating that Sen. Clinton does, but I suppose that is in large part due to the fact that he hasn’t been around long enough or been in a position to help the lobbyists long enough, so he hasn’t been offered enough ... yet!
Obama has done a good job of tying Hillary to the past. He says she comes from the worst time in Democrat history — when the country turned against the Clinton policies, and the Republicans gained control of the Congress, and the country became gridlocked. He says that shows her to be from the old divisive past while he is a new breath of fresh air. Nice sound bites, Mr. Obama, now what are you really all about?
The race so far is neck and neck with Obama hitting Hillary in areas least expected. It seems that Hillary has gotten tired of losing and has switched campaign managers. She is falling back into the old method of attacking Bush and this Congress. Do we need to remind you, Hillary, that Bush is not running and neither is this Congress. You are!
On top of that, she has fallen back into the typical Democrat mantra “when all else fails, buy the votes,” as she did in Maine today. She blamed Bush and Congress for not giving more heating assistance to those poor, cold folks in Maine. Listen folks, if you live in Maine, you know how to handle cold. Of course, there have been a lot of city folks from NY and Boston who have moved there recently, and this plays real well with them. It seems that Hillary wants to spend more money that isn’t there in order to garner a few votes. She calls for at least a $650 check for each family in Maine to pay for fuel this winter. That, of course, is on top of the rebate they will be getting, thanks to Bush and Congress. She stated that this country needs a new energy policy and that Bush and Congress have failed to deliver.
It would appear that Hillary has been delving into the DNC Pharmaceutical’s medicine chest and taking some “Tryphorgetin.“ Wonder where the energy policy change was when she was in the White House with her hubby back in the 90s, along with, of course, Mr. Energy himself, Al Gore, who was VP at the time. Guess she must have forgotten that nothing was done then and that was a time of relative peace and prosperity. Why didn’t the Clintons push for such a policy then and use Al Gore to promote the idea to the American people? It was because we were enjoying low oil prices then, and it would seem that the Clintons decided this was good enough. Besides that, there were no votes to pander toward with such a policy.
It looks like the opportunity at leadership was available when “they” were President, but Mrs. Clinton failed to pursue it. Instead, she choose to infer that stay-at-home moms were somehow lesser persons than she as a “working” mom. As Senator Clinton, I suppose that she found other things more important, such as running for President. Wonder why she wants yet another opportunity to fail the people? Looks too as if she is reading some of Huckabee’s lines when she said concerning beating McCain, "I've been vetted, tested and proven as a winning candidate against tough opposition," and "that's a big advantage in the general election." No, Hillary, Bill was elected President, you got elected to the Senate against one good candidate and one very weak one. So where is your vetted, tested battle scars, unless you are referring to the tough hide you developed by coping with the Whitewater affair, sex scandals, and other controversies of your husband's eight-year administration. Your scars don’t match Sen. McCain’s scars, and you haven’t even seen the battles he has endured.
Obama just keeps adding the delegates up, one small state at a time, and not depending on the big block vote states as Hillary has done. So far, he has said that he is a new light, or something new, rather than the same old politics as usual. Excuse me, Mr. Obama, but you got elected in Illinois where it has always been the same old politics as usual. You are new in DC, perhaps too new, and so far, the people haven’t heard much about what makes you the candidate of choice and the one to lead the country. Obama claims he doesn’t have ties to lobbyist money, indicating that Sen. Clinton does, but I suppose that is in large part due to the fact that he hasn’t been around long enough or been in a position to help the lobbyists long enough, so he hasn’t been offered enough ... yet!
Obama has done a good job of tying Hillary to the past. He says she comes from the worst time in Democrat history — when the country turned against the Clinton policies, and the Republicans gained control of the Congress, and the country became gridlocked. He says that shows her to be from the old divisive past while he is a new breath of fresh air. Nice sound bites, Mr. Obama, now what are you really all about?
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Huckabee majored in miracles? It will take one!
Mike Huckabee, Baptist preacher, former Governor, and wannabe President said he is not quitting. “I didn’t major in math, I majored in miracles.”
Well, Mike, if you plan on pulling out some miracles, then you’d better learn to walk on water, turn water to wine, and while you are at it ,maybe you can raise a few voters from the dead because you have already lost the nomination. You may have won Kansas today, but Dorothy and Toto were out of town, or out voting for Obama.
Then Huckabee pulls out the “whomever is nominated had better be battle tested.” Well, Mike, where did your battle test happen? While I am no fan of McCain, I’d put his battled-tested background up against yours any day of the week.
It seems as though Huckabee went to a second-rate Baptist college in Arkansas, entered Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, and dropped out after a year. Not much of a sign of commitment, if you ask me. Wonder how he would have held up as a POW for five years, as did McCain? How about a Naval Combat flyer with over 20 missions in Vietnam? Did he say battle tested? Come on, Mike, what battle? Running for Arkansas Baptist Convention President, running for Governor, getting your degrees awarded to you? Looks like McCain has a bit more battle experience in that arena as well, given the fact that he has been in Congress for over 20 years. So, Mike, find a better comparison than “battle tested.” McCain wins hands down on that one.
I can’t say much for either man when it comes to the immigration question. McCain wants to let ‘em come on in, as do you, Mike. Remember, you felt sorry for an illegal and decided to give away the farm to them with a mess of scholarships, grants, and in-state tuition. So, Mike, if you want to get elected to anything, you had better find a different road on this subject. All you have are the wedge issues of Dobson Inc. And, Mike, that ain’t what Mr. and Mrs. Smith are interested in.
Of course, you ran well where the preachers got in their pulpits on Sunday morning before Super Tuesday and told their congregations that voting for Mitt Romney was voting to have the Mormons running the country in a year. I bet some of these same old preachers were preaching that mantra about JFK in 1960 and claiming that if he was elected, the Pope would be running the country. Well, Mike, it didn’t happen, but your buddy preachers sure scared “hell” out of, or at least panicked, their congregants on Sunday, now didn’t they. How pathetic.
So much for standing on your own merits, Mike. Looks like you still have someone fighting your fights for you. When are you going to get battle tested, Mike?
Well, Mike, if you plan on pulling out some miracles, then you’d better learn to walk on water, turn water to wine, and while you are at it ,maybe you can raise a few voters from the dead because you have already lost the nomination. You may have won Kansas today, but Dorothy and Toto were out of town, or out voting for Obama.
Then Huckabee pulls out the “whomever is nominated had better be battle tested.” Well, Mike, where did your battle test happen? While I am no fan of McCain, I’d put his battled-tested background up against yours any day of the week.
It seems as though Huckabee went to a second-rate Baptist college in Arkansas, entered Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, and dropped out after a year. Not much of a sign of commitment, if you ask me. Wonder how he would have held up as a POW for five years, as did McCain? How about a Naval Combat flyer with over 20 missions in Vietnam? Did he say battle tested? Come on, Mike, what battle? Running for Arkansas Baptist Convention President, running for Governor, getting your degrees awarded to you? Looks like McCain has a bit more battle experience in that arena as well, given the fact that he has been in Congress for over 20 years. So, Mike, find a better comparison than “battle tested.” McCain wins hands down on that one.
I can’t say much for either man when it comes to the immigration question. McCain wants to let ‘em come on in, as do you, Mike. Remember, you felt sorry for an illegal and decided to give away the farm to them with a mess of scholarships, grants, and in-state tuition. So, Mike, if you want to get elected to anything, you had better find a different road on this subject. All you have are the wedge issues of Dobson Inc. And, Mike, that ain’t what Mr. and Mrs. Smith are interested in.
Of course, you ran well where the preachers got in their pulpits on Sunday morning before Super Tuesday and told their congregations that voting for Mitt Romney was voting to have the Mormons running the country in a year. I bet some of these same old preachers were preaching that mantra about JFK in 1960 and claiming that if he was elected, the Pope would be running the country. Well, Mike, it didn’t happen, but your buddy preachers sure scared “hell” out of, or at least panicked, their congregants on Sunday, now didn’t they. How pathetic.
So much for standing on your own merits, Mike. Looks like you still have someone fighting your fights for you. When are you going to get battle tested, Mike?
Saturday, February 9, 2008
McCain Refines Plan for General Election
McCain came out late Friday stating how he would run his campaign for the general election. According to the AP, he said he would “run as a candidate who is a steadfast protector of the U.S. in the face of terrorism and a crusader against big government. He is treading in a mine field, especially on the last one, since he has been in Congress for 20-plus years and is part of the big-spending government.
On being strong on Iraq, he is again in the middle of a mine field, since most of the American people are tired of this war and want someone who will show a vision as to how to end it. The only thing going in his favor on this subject is the fact that Hillary voted for the war as well and has said she would do whatever is necessary in Iraq. What she says and what she does may be two different things. Obama, of course, is the anti-war candidate who says he was against it from the beginning, even though he was not in Congress at the time. He again put forth the rhetoric of being the one to pull out the troops and bring them home, but he is in danger here since circumstances can change, and if he goes against the tide and places this country in danger, his days in the WH will be over at the end of his first term. The American people don’t forget things like this. Remember Carter? He blew it during the Iranian Hostage Crisis, and it cost him re-election.
McCain needs not to make Iraq the cornerstone of his platform. Instead, he needs to make his statement and assure that the people understand that Hillary has no room to talk since she voted for the war the same as he. She has voted for funding, and he has voted against it. Enough said. Let Hillary defend her stand on this and not accept John Kerry’s analogy, “I was against it before I was for it, but now I am against it” … because it will garner me some votes. This is were McCain nails Hillary on that subject. She will have to retreat and no longer use such an argument as her minders are currently doing. Obama can continue his anti-war, bring-them-home-now, all he wants. Remember McGovern and Eugene McCarthy who preached the same message?
McCain needs to pull out the main differences, such as spending, as he did Friday afternoon when he addressed the earmark issue and said, not one earmark, zero dollars for pork. At the same time, he pointed out Hillary’s useless expenditure for a Woodstock memorial — a monument to the biggest pot-fest and love-in in history. He needs to attack on the cost of Hillary’s health care program and her statement that coercion could be needed to make folks buy her insurance. Make her defend that statement and defend the cost of her plan. Her plan has changed little since the disastrous plan she put forth in the early 90s, and even the Democrats of her husbands Party turned it down as a bankrupting plan. How will she pay for her plan ... raise taxes? Again, attack on that. Most people don’t like folks who raise taxes. Remember George Bush, Sr.
Since McCain has seen the light on the immigration issue, he needs to pound his NEW idea and make Hillary and Obama defend their open border concept and defend the cost associated with it.
McCain needs to be the one always on the attack on the issues, not the individual, and stay away from being on the defense. He does not do well in that role and allows his temper to override his brain, which causes him to say things that cost him dearly. He is not one who apologizes well. He is an attack dog, not a junkyard dog sitting under a tree ready to defend the junk that is not worth defending. He needs to take the attack on the issues that concern Mr. and Mrs. Smith of the USA if he hopes to have any chances of winning. Of course, I don’t see him listening to what those in very powerful positions are saying on this issue either, and it will be costly if he doesn’t.
On being strong on Iraq, he is again in the middle of a mine field, since most of the American people are tired of this war and want someone who will show a vision as to how to end it. The only thing going in his favor on this subject is the fact that Hillary voted for the war as well and has said she would do whatever is necessary in Iraq. What she says and what she does may be two different things. Obama, of course, is the anti-war candidate who says he was against it from the beginning, even though he was not in Congress at the time. He again put forth the rhetoric of being the one to pull out the troops and bring them home, but he is in danger here since circumstances can change, and if he goes against the tide and places this country in danger, his days in the WH will be over at the end of his first term. The American people don’t forget things like this. Remember Carter? He blew it during the Iranian Hostage Crisis, and it cost him re-election.
McCain needs not to make Iraq the cornerstone of his platform. Instead, he needs to make his statement and assure that the people understand that Hillary has no room to talk since she voted for the war the same as he. She has voted for funding, and he has voted against it. Enough said. Let Hillary defend her stand on this and not accept John Kerry’s analogy, “I was against it before I was for it, but now I am against it” … because it will garner me some votes. This is were McCain nails Hillary on that subject. She will have to retreat and no longer use such an argument as her minders are currently doing. Obama can continue his anti-war, bring-them-home-now, all he wants. Remember McGovern and Eugene McCarthy who preached the same message?
McCain needs to pull out the main differences, such as spending, as he did Friday afternoon when he addressed the earmark issue and said, not one earmark, zero dollars for pork. At the same time, he pointed out Hillary’s useless expenditure for a Woodstock memorial — a monument to the biggest pot-fest and love-in in history. He needs to attack on the cost of Hillary’s health care program and her statement that coercion could be needed to make folks buy her insurance. Make her defend that statement and defend the cost of her plan. Her plan has changed little since the disastrous plan she put forth in the early 90s, and even the Democrats of her husbands Party turned it down as a bankrupting plan. How will she pay for her plan ... raise taxes? Again, attack on that. Most people don’t like folks who raise taxes. Remember George Bush, Sr.
Since McCain has seen the light on the immigration issue, he needs to pound his NEW idea and make Hillary and Obama defend their open border concept and defend the cost associated with it.
McCain needs to be the one always on the attack on the issues, not the individual, and stay away from being on the defense. He does not do well in that role and allows his temper to override his brain, which causes him to say things that cost him dearly. He is not one who apologizes well. He is an attack dog, not a junkyard dog sitting under a tree ready to defend the junk that is not worth defending. He needs to take the attack on the issues that concern Mr. and Mrs. Smith of the USA if he hopes to have any chances of winning. Of course, I don’t see him listening to what those in very powerful positions are saying on this issue either, and it will be costly if he doesn’t.
Friday, February 8, 2008
Where Does the GOP Go from Here
It seems the reigning question on the Republican side of things is now, "Where do we go from here?" One might say the race for the nomination is over, done, complete, finished, and McCain has been declared the winner. The excitement is over, if there was ever any actual excitement in the Republican nomination process. Romney couldn’t get it going standing on his wobbly “Three-Legged Stool” that was borrowed partially from Reagan and partially from the Tony Perkins far right wing Focus on the Family group. Ron Paul created excitement only among the kooky, who would vote for the likes of a cigar-chomping Texan like Kinky Friedman. There may have been some who could have stirred up some excitement, but it seems the LSM did not give them the opportunity.
Huckabee will continue to plod on with the hope that the votes he gathers will make it nearly impossible for McCain to pick any other but him for second place on the ticket. He will claim that he can carry the evangelical south, but will he be enough to overcome the animosity felt toward McCain by the rest of the more moderate conservative Republicans? Doubtful.
The Conservative Moderates in the party are tired of the religious far right being the “Kingmakers” in the party, and giving in to the Huckabee camp by declaring him VP nominee would be to yet again surrender to them. The conservative moderates, as well as the centrists, showed their displeasure with this faction of the Party in the '06 Congressional elections by weeding out some of the more right-leaning candidates who were up for re-election. Look for more to fall. Hopefully, the GOP has broken the stranglehold that the religious far right has held since ’96 and will move back to the roots of real GOP. Perhaps then they will find the unity necessary to allow them to govern once again without having to bow to the altar of the far right.
McCain walks a narrow path because he cannot win the evangelical south on his own record and his sudden “change of heart” midway into the nomination process. He must now choose an individual who will buy that voting strength he needs in his weak areas of the country. He will have to pick someone who can match the excitement in the Democrat camp with the Hillary/Obama battle. The battle between a White woman and a Black man is the thing that has created the excitement and brought out more Democrat voters than any election in the last 30 years. If the Democrats sustain that type of turnout in November, it will spell victory for them and a devastating defeat for the Republicans.
Has Howard Dean realized that in order to maintain the Dems' excitement, he will have to broker a Hillary/Obama or Obama/Hillary ticket? With only one of them in the running, the excitement fades. With Hillary running, it falls apart. Obama can continue to create the excitement in the rich Black community and the more liberal left of the Party, but will that be enough? He doesn’t seem to be able to carry the Hispanic vote at all nor the women’s vote. However, the excitement is still there, and we are only halfway through the season of nomination.
So far, the Republicans have not created that kind of excitement and voting has been lukewarm, to say the least. Not a good sign. So where does McCain go? Does he pick Huckabee and divide the Party even more, or does he pick someone outside of the loop and hope they can build the enthusiasm needed to bring the factions within the Party together? Who would you pick if you were McCain?
Huckabee will continue to plod on with the hope that the votes he gathers will make it nearly impossible for McCain to pick any other but him for second place on the ticket. He will claim that he can carry the evangelical south, but will he be enough to overcome the animosity felt toward McCain by the rest of the more moderate conservative Republicans? Doubtful.
The Conservative Moderates in the party are tired of the religious far right being the “Kingmakers” in the party, and giving in to the Huckabee camp by declaring him VP nominee would be to yet again surrender to them. The conservative moderates, as well as the centrists, showed their displeasure with this faction of the Party in the '06 Congressional elections by weeding out some of the more right-leaning candidates who were up for re-election. Look for more to fall. Hopefully, the GOP has broken the stranglehold that the religious far right has held since ’96 and will move back to the roots of real GOP. Perhaps then they will find the unity necessary to allow them to govern once again without having to bow to the altar of the far right.
McCain walks a narrow path because he cannot win the evangelical south on his own record and his sudden “change of heart” midway into the nomination process. He must now choose an individual who will buy that voting strength he needs in his weak areas of the country. He will have to pick someone who can match the excitement in the Democrat camp with the Hillary/Obama battle. The battle between a White woman and a Black man is the thing that has created the excitement and brought out more Democrat voters than any election in the last 30 years. If the Democrats sustain that type of turnout in November, it will spell victory for them and a devastating defeat for the Republicans.
Has Howard Dean realized that in order to maintain the Dems' excitement, he will have to broker a Hillary/Obama or Obama/Hillary ticket? With only one of them in the running, the excitement fades. With Hillary running, it falls apart. Obama can continue to create the excitement in the rich Black community and the more liberal left of the Party, but will that be enough? He doesn’t seem to be able to carry the Hispanic vote at all nor the women’s vote. However, the excitement is still there, and we are only halfway through the season of nomination.
So far, the Republicans have not created that kind of excitement and voting has been lukewarm, to say the least. Not a good sign. So where does McCain go? Does he pick Huckabee and divide the Party even more, or does he pick someone outside of the loop and hope they can build the enthusiasm needed to bring the factions within the Party together? Who would you pick if you were McCain?
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Romney's Three-Legged Stool Toppled
In January, I addressed Romney's big mistake, and it looks as if time has proved me right, unfortunately.
Romney adopted the Three-Legged Stool approach, much like Tony Perkins and his Focus On The Family, far-right, agenda-driven group had put forth. I sent my summation on the Three-Legged Stool approach to Governor Romney's campaign headquarters and stated that a three-legged stool is a wobbly tool at best. It is not a foundation on which to stand to reach any height, certainly not that of the nomination or the door of the White House. While he won 4 million votes to McCain's 4.7 million and won 11 states to McCain's 13, the stool was not a steady enough platform, nor was it high enough, proving once again that size does matter.
So today it has toppled over, and Governor Romney has withdrawn from the race. Rather than adopt the sturdy ladder approach, which I put forth, he stuck with the unbalanced stool and fell. In doing so, he not only fell, but he failed this country. We now have three very liberal candidates running for office. None has a realistic view of the economy, and none has the experience to start fixing it.
The economy was the biggest issue, according to voters at exit polls, but it would appear that the electorate is as uninformed on the solutions as those we now have running for President. It would appear that the voters also failed by not being informed or, perhaps, by voting according to the word from the pulpit, especially in the evangelical south.
It appears the former Southern Baptist minister turned liberal governor is going to run for second place. If McCain is dumb enough to name him as his running mate, a Hillary or Obama victory will be assured in November.
Regardless of who is elected, be it McCain, Hillary, or Obama, there won't be a lot of difference.
Romney adopted the Three-Legged Stool approach, much like Tony Perkins and his Focus On The Family, far-right, agenda-driven group had put forth. I sent my summation on the Three-Legged Stool approach to Governor Romney's campaign headquarters and stated that a three-legged stool is a wobbly tool at best. It is not a foundation on which to stand to reach any height, certainly not that of the nomination or the door of the White House. While he won 4 million votes to McCain's 4.7 million and won 11 states to McCain's 13, the stool was not a steady enough platform, nor was it high enough, proving once again that size does matter.
So today it has toppled over, and Governor Romney has withdrawn from the race. Rather than adopt the sturdy ladder approach, which I put forth, he stuck with the unbalanced stool and fell. In doing so, he not only fell, but he failed this country. We now have three very liberal candidates running for office. None has a realistic view of the economy, and none has the experience to start fixing it.
The economy was the biggest issue, according to voters at exit polls, but it would appear that the electorate is as uninformed on the solutions as those we now have running for President. It would appear that the voters also failed by not being informed or, perhaps, by voting according to the word from the pulpit, especially in the evangelical south.
It appears the former Southern Baptist minister turned liberal governor is going to run for second place. If McCain is dumb enough to name him as his running mate, a Hillary or Obama victory will be assured in November.
Regardless of who is elected, be it McCain, Hillary, or Obama, there won't be a lot of difference.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Pork Galore on the Stimulus Package.
Remember my saying back on January 25th that the Democrats would try to load up the Stimulus Bill with Pork? I was right! Read more on the subject by clicking on this link to the original topic.
http://afticker.blogspot.com/2008/01/stimulus-package.html
UPDATE:
Looks like the Senate Democrats are playing both sides against the middle. They backed away from much of the pork they wished to put into the Stimulus Bill in order to bring it to a vote.
Now that plays well for them. They can say, "Look we compromised so that the poor folks could get their Stimulus checks." "Ain't we great!"
On the other hand they Harry Reid can stand and say, "More of the Republican obstructionism. They have shown they do not care if you are cold or not."
Well Harry, tough, cause it won't fly, at least with those who don't fall for your line. You see those folks getting the checks could spend the money on heating instead of cell phones, Air Jordons, lottery tickets or having a party. Of course, with those to which you wish to appeal they will only see their good time flying out the window and now they must spend the money for something useful. The victims will always see themselves as Victims as long as the "Harry Reid's" are around.
http://afticker.blogspot.com/2008/01/stimulus-package.html
UPDATE:
Looks like the Senate Democrats are playing both sides against the middle. They backed away from much of the pork they wished to put into the Stimulus Bill in order to bring it to a vote.
Now that plays well for them. They can say, "Look we compromised so that the poor folks could get their Stimulus checks." "Ain't we great!"
On the other hand they Harry Reid can stand and say, "More of the Republican obstructionism. They have shown they do not care if you are cold or not."
Well Harry, tough, cause it won't fly, at least with those who don't fall for your line. You see those folks getting the checks could spend the money on heating instead of cell phones, Air Jordons, lottery tickets or having a party. Of course, with those to which you wish to appeal they will only see their good time flying out the window and now they must spend the money for something useful. The victims will always see themselves as Victims as long as the "Harry Reid's" are around.
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
SUPER TUESDAY
What does it mean, and who will win? Some of the states have closed primaries, which means voters have to vote as registered; others are open, which means independents or other non-registered may vote either way; others are semi-closed or semi-open, which means you can vote for whomever you want, but you have to declare an affiliation to get a ballot.
Does it make a difference in closed, open, or semi when it comes to who carries the state?
Looking at the GOP race, it shows that it could make a difference. You decide based on these results so far:
Nevada Caucus (34 delegates) (Party members only)
Romney won this one with 51% of the vote.
Wyoming Caucus (14 delegates ) (Party members only)
Romney won this one with 67% of the vote.
Iowa Causus (40 delegates) (Party members only)
Huckabee won this one with 34% of the vote.
Michigan Primary (30 delegates) (closed PMO)
Romney won this one with 38.9% of the vote.
New Hampshire Primary (12 delegates) (a modified closed-open to indep and others)
McCain won with 37% of the vote.
South Carolina Primary (24 delegates) (Open)
McCain won with 33% of the vote.
Florida Primary (57 delegates) (Closed)
McCain won with 36% of the vote.
Here is what is up for grabs today:
Alabama (48) Open Huckabee Clinton
Alaska (29) Open Romney Obama
Arizona (53) Closed McCain Clinton
Arkansas (34) Open Huckabee Clinton
California (173) Closed (R) Open (D) McCain Clinton
Colorado (46) Closed Romney Obama
Connecticut (30) Closed McCain (g) Obama
Delaware (18) Closed McCain (g) Obma
Georgia (72) Open Huckabee Obma
Illinois (70) Semi-open McCain Obma
Massachusetts (43) Semi-open Romney Clinton
Montana (25) Republican only Romney Obama
Missouri (58) Open McCain Obama
Minnesota (41) Closed Romney Obama
North Dakota (26) Closed Romney Obama
New York (101) Closed McCain (g) Clinton
New Jersey (52) Semi-open McCain (g) Clinton
Oklahoma (41) Closed McCain Clinton
Tennessee ( 55) Open Huckabee Clinton
Utah (36) Closed Romney Obama
West Virgina (30) GOP only Huckabee -
The following are Democrat only:
New Mexico Obama
Idaho Obama
Kansas Obma
We will take a look and compare how well the candidates did in the open, closed, and semi and determine if it makes a difference.
At this point it's your guess, so if you feel like making a prediction based on closed, open, or semi or just want to say who will take all the cookies, have your say.
Does it make a difference in closed, open, or semi when it comes to who carries the state?
Looking at the GOP race, it shows that it could make a difference. You decide based on these results so far:
Nevada Caucus (34 delegates) (Party members only)
Romney won this one with 51% of the vote.
Wyoming Caucus (14 delegates ) (Party members only)
Romney won this one with 67% of the vote.
Iowa Causus (40 delegates) (Party members only)
Huckabee won this one with 34% of the vote.
Michigan Primary (30 delegates) (closed PMO)
Romney won this one with 38.9% of the vote.
New Hampshire Primary (12 delegates) (a modified closed-open to indep and others)
McCain won with 37% of the vote.
South Carolina Primary (24 delegates) (Open)
McCain won with 33% of the vote.
Florida Primary (57 delegates) (Closed)
McCain won with 36% of the vote.
Here is what is up for grabs today:
Alabama (48) Open Huckabee Clinton
Alaska (29) Open Romney Obama
Arizona (53) Closed McCain Clinton
Arkansas (34) Open Huckabee Clinton
California (173) Closed (R) Open (D) McCain Clinton
Colorado (46) Closed Romney Obama
Connecticut (30) Closed McCain (g) Obama
Delaware (18) Closed McCain (g) Obma
Georgia (72) Open Huckabee Obma
Illinois (70) Semi-open McCain Obma
Massachusetts (43) Semi-open Romney Clinton
Montana (25) Republican only Romney Obama
Missouri (58) Open McCain Obama
Minnesota (41) Closed Romney Obama
North Dakota (26) Closed Romney Obama
New York (101) Closed McCain (g) Clinton
New Jersey (52) Semi-open McCain (g) Clinton
Oklahoma (41) Closed McCain Clinton
Tennessee ( 55) Open Huckabee Clinton
Utah (36) Closed Romney Obama
West Virgina (30) GOP only Huckabee -
The following are Democrat only:
New Mexico Obama
Idaho Obama
Kansas Obma
We will take a look and compare how well the candidates did in the open, closed, and semi and determine if it makes a difference.
At this point it's your guess, so if you feel like making a prediction based on closed, open, or semi or just want to say who will take all the cookies, have your say.
Sunday, February 3, 2008
Giant Super Bowl Upset -
Final Score 17-14
Giants end Pat's hopes for perfect season! Was that an excuse for Belichick to leave the field without the perfunctory congratulatory hand shake, or was it just more of his arrogance showing through in this act of poor sportsmanship?
Saturday, February 2, 2008
GREAT SUPER BOWL SNACK
WHAT YA COOKIN UP FOR SUPERBOWL?
Give Ticker's Chicken Tortillia Soup a Try! (Serves 8 well and with smaller bowls it will serve 10)
4-6 large chicken breast, diced, chopped, cut, however you like.
Chopped Cilantro
1/4 can of chicken bullion or one chicken bullion cube
2 8oz. cans of Black Beans
2 TablespoonS (more or less depending on taste) of Chicken Taco seasoning.
Handfull of tortillia chips( 2 cups, more or less)
Condiments (see below)
Use a large pot, 6qt or larger filled slightly over half with water. Add the chicken breast, cut chopped or however you like and fresh chopped cilantro. Add liquid bullion or one bullion cube and Chicken Taco seasoning. Bring to boil, reduce heat and cook until chicken is done. Add 2 cans of Black Beans and continue to cook until beans are done then add the handfull of tortilla chips and cut to simmer. Allow mixture to continue to simmer until you are ready to serve if you are not making this ahead of time. This can be made a day ahead and then heated the next day for serving. Suit yourself on that.
Condiments:
In the mean time prepare the condiments for the soup. Some people add these to the soup while cooking but I have found that for a group some folks don't always like the same things I like in the soup so I place them on the side to be added at serving.
Chop fresh cilantro, fresh green onions, fresh green, red, yellow bell peppers, Burmuda onion, tomatoes, lettuce, avocado fresh limes and jalepeno peppers. Place each in their own serving bowls. Also add a bowl of salsa and a large bowl of shredded
When serving, add a few chips to the bottom of the bowl, fill with Chicken Tortilla Soup, top with shreded Fiesta Cheese( or allow the guest to do so) then allow guest to dress up their soup to suit their taste. As for me, I throw in the who sheebang and add a bit of salt and pepper to taste.
I fix up a bunch of cheese quesadilla’s to serve with the soup as well.
To prepare, I use two large corn tortillia's one side buttered slightly (I use the spray butter and spray them generously on one side. Place one tortillia in a hot skillet butter side down. Cover generously with shreded cheese and top with remaining tortilla. Brown on both sides until cheese is melted well. I usually cut these into small triangle shape and place on serving platter. A half dozen Tortilla's will make enough for at least 10 . If you prefer you may use the small tortilla's. Make enough for each guest to have at least one and 1/2.
A good bean dip goes well with this as well. It's simple, use canned refried beans heated in a large pot or in a crockpot and add your favorite cheese to the mix along with a bit of chili seasoning to taste. Keep it warm and it comes out nice and thick and dips great.
Now give my recipe a try and let me know how your Super Bowl Party turns out.
Give Ticker's Chicken Tortillia Soup a Try! (Serves 8 well and with smaller bowls it will serve 10)
4-6 large chicken breast, diced, chopped, cut, however you like.
Chopped Cilantro
1/4 can of chicken bullion or one chicken bullion cube
2 8oz. cans of Black Beans
2 TablespoonS (more or less depending on taste) of Chicken Taco seasoning.
Handfull of tortillia chips( 2 cups, more or less)
Condiments (see below)
Use a large pot, 6qt or larger filled slightly over half with water. Add the chicken breast, cut chopped or however you like and fresh chopped cilantro. Add liquid bullion or one bullion cube and Chicken Taco seasoning. Bring to boil, reduce heat and cook until chicken is done. Add 2 cans of Black Beans and continue to cook until beans are done then add the handfull of tortilla chips and cut to simmer. Allow mixture to continue to simmer until you are ready to serve if you are not making this ahead of time. This can be made a day ahead and then heated the next day for serving. Suit yourself on that.
Condiments:
In the mean time prepare the condiments for the soup. Some people add these to the soup while cooking but I have found that for a group some folks don't always like the same things I like in the soup so I place them on the side to be added at serving.
Chop fresh cilantro, fresh green onions, fresh green, red, yellow bell peppers, Burmuda onion, tomatoes, lettuce, avocado fresh limes and jalepeno peppers. Place each in their own serving bowls. Also add a bowl of salsa and a large bowl of shredded
When serving, add a few chips to the bottom of the bowl, fill with Chicken Tortilla Soup, top with shreded Fiesta Cheese( or allow the guest to do so) then allow guest to dress up their soup to suit their taste. As for me, I throw in the who sheebang and add a bit of salt and pepper to taste.
I fix up a bunch of cheese quesadilla’s to serve with the soup as well.
To prepare, I use two large corn tortillia's one side buttered slightly (I use the spray butter and spray them generously on one side. Place one tortillia in a hot skillet butter side down. Cover generously with shreded cheese and top with remaining tortilla. Brown on both sides until cheese is melted well. I usually cut these into small triangle shape and place on serving platter. A half dozen Tortilla's will make enough for at least 10 . If you prefer you may use the small tortilla's. Make enough for each guest to have at least one and 1/2.
A good bean dip goes well with this as well. It's simple, use canned refried beans heated in a large pot or in a crockpot and add your favorite cheese to the mix along with a bit of chili seasoning to taste. Keep it warm and it comes out nice and thick and dips great.
Now give my recipe a try and let me know how your Super Bowl Party turns out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)