More Liberal Than a Clinton!

I can't say that I was totally shocked by this news, but if you had asked me to name Senators more liberal than Hillary Clinton back in 2007, I would have been stumped (outside of Ted Kennedy, that is). Lucky for people like me, the National Journal has the facts:

"Overall in NJ's 2007 ratings, Obama voted the liberal position on 65 of the 66 key votes on which he voted; Clinton voted the liberal position 77 of 82 times. Obama garnered perfect liberal scores in both the economic and social categories. His score in the foreign-policy category was nearly perfect, pulled down a notch by the only conservative vote that he cast in the ratings, on a Republican-sponsored resolution expressing the sense of Congress that funding should not be cut off for U.S. troops in harm's way. The Senate passed the resolution 82-16 with the support of both Obama and Clinton. The 16 opponents included mostly liberals, such as Sens. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., and Sanders. "

Obama's "composite liberal score" was 95.5, compared to Clinton's 82.8. That seems like a pretty sizeable difference to me. So I wanted to compare it to a few Republicans - unfortunately, data was limited (either the candidate wasn't in the Congress - such as Romney - or wasn't present for enough votes to qualify for the composite score - such as McCain). So I was able to look over the "lifetime" scores for McCain (71.8), Chuck Hagel (71.5), and Ron Paul (51.7)... although, truth be told, over the last 5 years McCain is 57.9 and Paul is 41.9, which are solid Conservative figures.

Obama's score indicated that he was the most liberal Congressman in 2007. Anybody remember that embarrasment of a Presidential candidate named John Kerry? He was the most liberal Congressman in 2003 - apparently, in order to run for President as a Democrat, you have to run hard to the left before the primaries. Good thing they don't cater to extremists over there.

What did I conclude? First, that Obama scares the living heck out of me with his liberal voting record. Second, why wasn't McCain around to cast enough votes to qualify for the ranking? Third (and finally), I am praying for a repeat of 2004, when America stiff-armed the most liberal Congressman and forced him to retreat home (to his multi-millionaire wife, cushy Senate job, and all of the other liberal "thought leaders").

To think that Hillary was only the 16th most liberal person in Congress in 2007... wow.

-- Submitted by R Wellesley

I Miss Him Already

I recorded President Bush's last State of the Union address last night. I transferred it to a DVD, labeled it "George W. Bush, POTUS, State of the Union, January 28, 2008, " and put it in a safe place. This will provide comfort to me in the event that a President Obama or a President Clinton is giving the State of the Union in two years.

I have liked George W. Bush since I first encountered, observed and heard him. He was my candidate since 1999, long before he won South Carolina in 2000. And his seven years of presidency has not changed my opinion.

While, I am familiar with his shortcomings - his accomplishments and his character have more than outweighed all of them.

He recognized the true nature of the threat of Islamic Terrorism, while others were trying to justify the 9/11 attacks as isolated events. While this threat has been with us since Jimmy Carter watched the hostile takeover of Iran and the year-long hostage crisis, the attempt to kill fifty thousand people was taking terrorism to a new level - and the president needed to respond.

President Bush responded with changes to our government agencies and their rules of engagement, laws regarding financial transactions and, most importantly, he sent the military after the two most dangerous exporters of terror...Afghanistan and Iraq. There is a fledgling democracy in both of these countries today.

Since 9/11/2001, the country has not been attacked once...despite the regular cadence of terrorist attacks under the presidency of Bill Clinton.

President Bush presided over an economy which has been a job growth engine, outpacing by orders of magnitude anything in the European Union. The stock market rise and the economic growth numbers of the past seven years would be the envy of any president. Had he been a Democrat, the New York Times would have gushed each time the quarterly numbers were reported.

He has appointed conservative justices.

He has nixed human cloning and federal research on human embryos.

He has been a moral leader and, despite a constant barrage of mind-numbing reports, has been the most honest president of the last hundred years.

He has appointed minorities and females to the highest levels of his cabinet including the first black secretary of state and the first black female secretary of state.

He has pushed education funding and reform despite steady criticism from his own party

He was not perfect, no one ever is. He held fast to his beliefs and that alone distinguishes him from 98 out of 100 members of our government. He has treated his friends and his enemies with respect.

While not a good politician nor an eloquent speaker, he can boast that he has never lost an election. In fact, he won four and three of them very tough. He beat a popular Ann Richards, incumbent V.P. Al Gore and the anti-war John Kerry...and he started all of three of these by trailing in the polls by double digits.

Even Dan Rather has to respect that.

What is most appealing about President Bush is that he has never let any of the negative coverage of him and his presidency get him down. He has not changed. He remains upbeat, optimistic and as patriotic as ever. His legacy is intact and he will be remembered as a decisive and moral leader. He will be missed. I miss him already.

Submitted by D.B. Jackson

Flip Flopping toward Romney

Last week, Hillary looked stoppable. Obama was surging. And Bill Clinton was playing the part he plays so well; a man whose actions and demeanor are beneath that of a president - or ex-president (according to Tom Daschle). There is still turmoil among the Democrats - both Obama and Hillary are stepping all over themselves to outdue each other in redistributing more wealth from those in high-income brackets to those who vote for Hillary and Obama. We'll have to wait this one out.

In the meantime, the Republican turmoil, albeit more civil, has caused me to rethink my first choice and second choice for president. It is not that the candidates are not good. They all have their strengths and experience and all are 'head and shoulders' above the populist ranters on the Democrat ballot. Vote for Race (Obama). Vote for Gender (Hillary). Vote for Class Warfare (Edwards). Vote for good ideas and experience (well, you need to go to the Republican ballot for that).

As of yesterday, I ordered a few dozen Romney Bumper stickers for my truck, my car and for my friends. While Romney faces the real challenge of a general election, especially through the contiguous-red-state coalition in Dixie, his fresh face, his energy, his ideas... coupled with his experience make him the best option for a conservative ticket this year. In fact, they make him a pretty darn good candidate. He is a supply-sider with a moderate to conservative social perspective (and will govern as a conservative). He intends to continue to prosecute the war on terror - as opposed to run from it. And, by all indications, he is a patriotic and moral family man.

He'll have to solve the electibility issue, maybe through his choice for Veep...but in the meantime, I am planning to head to the Fire House down the road on Super Tuesday to help make Mitt the candidate.

As someone told me yesterday..."Mitt, he fits like a glove."

(and, as always, I will support any of these guys from Rudy to Paul, against their "tax and spend" "soft on terror" "soft on crime" "socialist" "citizenize the illegals" challengers)

Submitted by D.B. Jackson.

"Romney's Turn !!!!" The Real Story

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/Story?id=4139301&page=1

The Base turns out for Romney. Economics the issue?

The story in Michigan was a landslide, in favor of Mitt Romney - at least when you look at the core Republican base (especially at the conservative wing). The conservatives don't like McCain (no wonder)

"Sixty-eight percent of voters were Republican regulars, and they supported Romney by 41-27 percent over McCain, with 17 percent for Huckabee. McCain won independents by 6 points, but they accounted for just 25 percent of voters, vs. 35 percent in 2000. He also prevailed by 8 points among Democratic crossover voters. But there were fewer of them, too; suggestions that they'd vote in the Republican race given the lack of a real Democratic contest were not borne out. Just 7 percent of GOP voters were Democrats, down from 17 percent in 2000."

The base comes through for Mitt.

Submitted by D. B. Jackson

She's Baaaack !!!

If someone told Obama two weeks ago that he would be within three percentage points of Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire...he would have done a happy dance and everyone would be talking about Hillary's vulnerability and spending levels. Instead, the media and the pollsters have given her the exhiliarition of Limbergh landing in France. Damn those Pundits.

If the win wasn't depressing enough, listen to what Clinton flack Terry McAuliffe said about the 'bounce:'

Terry McAuliffe, national campaign chairman for Clinton, said the New Hampshire comeback had spurred nearly $750,000 in donations to her campaign overnight and sparked more than 500 hits per minute on her Web site.

"It was a big, big win for this campaign. I cannot tell you how excited we are as we move forward," he said.

Well...better luck to Mr. Obama in S.C.

Submitted by D. B. Jackson

Victim of the VRC??

Blaming her husbands problems with Monica, Perjury and Stained Dresses on a 'Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy' that was dogging poor Bill Clinton for his entire presidency was a stretch, to say the least.

She later claimed that the 2002 election was also influenced by the VRC. Accusing the right wing of jamming phones, closing roads and suppressing the black vote, she credited the VRC with the Congressional mid-term pickups. Investigations proved that all the fraud and election tampering was in favor of the Democrats.

I hope Mrs. Clinton blames the VRC one more time. Is it too early to write her off in NH, SC and all the way to Super Tuesday? Probably. But if she blames the VRC this time, she'd still be wrong...but at least there is some evidence to back it up.

Sean Hannity calls his radio show the 'Stop Hillary' express. Mark Levin and Monica Crowley have devoted 80% of their respective radio show to comparing (accurately, I might add) Hillary's policies with that of Chairman Mao and Joseph Stalin. (note: she shares clothiers with Mao).

Of course, if the VRC exists, it has had little to do with Hillary's 'New York Mets' style collapse. It is the left wings own doing. The left has created a monster and the monster has turned on it. The electoral process has increasingly favored the extreme ends of both parties, but over the last six years, the democratic base has reinvented itself. Don't think Hubert Humphrey, John F. Kennedy or Joseph Lieberman, think Cindy Sheehan, George Soros and MoveOn.org.

The Democrats have fanned the flames of the wildest theories to hit mainstream politics in a hundred years. They have filled the minds of their new base with ideas about stolen elections, an innocent Iraq minding its own business, U.S. troops committing rape and genocide, the president tapping our phone lines and on and on and on.

Why is Mrs. Clinton surprised to find that this base found her too mainstream to get her vote? Why is she surprised to see them turn to the eloquent newcomer, who more accurately projects their view for change?

As I have always said, the VRC doesn't exist. If it did exist, I'd be the leader...

But if the VRC does exist, they have very little say on how the lunatic fringe in Iowa and New Hampshire vote. I seriously doubt that Sean Hannity sent a single Clinton supporter to Barack Obama.

In the meantime, I am hoping that Mr. Obama helps us rid ourselves of the Clintons forever. I hope Mrs. Clinton hangs in for a long time...and eventually withdraws and blames her favorite scapegoat.

Submitted by D. B. Jackson

Now the Fun Begins?

As the reverberation of the stunning Iowa results slowly fades and attention turns to the Granite State, we see that the world of politics has changed dramatically over the past few months. The seeming Obama surge and Clinton slide was very real…painfully real for the Clintons. Clinton’s distant third place finish behind Obama (and Edwards though by a small margin) was the worst possible result for her. It totally shatters her already cracked image of “inevitability” and transforms her into a politician desperately in need of a win.

Clinton always had high negatives among the public which put questions in many Democrats minds of whether she could be elected or not. Despite those questions, many Dems supported her because they thought she stood the best chance of delivering the victory in November that they want so badly. Most Dems liked Obama much better but really did not think he could pull it all off. The Iowa debacle was devastating on both fronts for Clinton. First, it exacerbates the latent feelings that she is unelectable. If she could not win in Iowa where she had the organization and had unleashed her secret weapon (the Bill bomb), can she win in the general election. Secondly, Obama’s victory in vanilla-white Iowa demonstrated an across-the-board appeal that many Dems thought he lacked.

All of this translates into New Hampshire being an almost must-win for Clinton. If she loses there, she faces the prospect of going into South Carolina, where the primary electorate is about 50 percent black, with an 0-2 record. In that case, a South Carolina loss to Obama would almost certainly finish her candidacy. Clinton would not drop out and has the money to continue to make a fight of it but Obama should cruise to victory.

The Clinton camp faces a Hobson’s Choice. They can continue to do things as they are doing them and hope that her razor-thin lead in the New Hampshire polls holds out…not a good prospect for victory in view of the momentum that Obama will surely gain with his victory…or they can go negative, hoping to bring down Obama’s favorable ratings by direct challenges to his honestly, electability, and experience. The second route is surely the one the Clintons will take because it holds the best prospects for success though it also risks raising her negatives even higher and giving the nomination to Obama. The Clintons’ have never been the types to leave things to chance so they will definitely roll the dice for the big gains with the hopes that their allies in the media will cover for them. It is a risky option but probably the only one open to them now.

Like Hillary said, “Now the fun begins.”

-- Submitted by B. Bryant

Couldn't Have Said It Better Myself

The Grand Old Patriots have been pointing out for months now that we don't see any viable Presidential candidates in the Democratic Party, not because we don't think that they're good people (some are, reportedly), but because we don't think that they're good people to be running the most powerful country in the world.

It's nice to see that we're not alone.

From Senator Joe Lieberman, (Ind/Dem - CT, 12/18/07):
''I think (McCain)'s got this extra dimension and proven record of working across party lines to get things done. We're not gonna solve our problems -- healthcare, education, environment, the economy -- unless we start working with one another.'

''You're not even going to have a chance to try to solve domestic problems unless the American people have confidence that you will protect them in a dangerous world. And I worry that the Democratic candidates in the primary have been drawn so far left that in the general election it's going to be hard to convince a lot of people in the middle that they're able to support a strong defense.''

From Massachusetts (Boston Herald, 12/21/07):
"And so this newspaper too will break with its decades-old tradition of endorsing candidates in both the Republican and Democratic primaries. In doing so we also address our words particularly to those millions of independent voters here, in New Hampshire and around the nation who can choose to cast their ballot in either party primary.

The choice this year is indeed clear. John McCain should be the next President of the United States and the Boston Herald is proud to endorse his candidacy."

From the Granite State (New Hampshire Union Leader, 12/31/07):
"IT IS OUR HOPE every four years to recommend a candidate in both the Republican and Democratic primaries. This year, we have opted to endorse only one: Sen. John McCain.
In this race, our most important consideration is electing the candidate most likely to bring American victory in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the greater war on Islamic extremists in general, and keep America's enemies and rivals in check. John McCain is that man. None of the Democrats approaches McCain's experience and vision on that subject."

It's a shame that the Donkey Party is only able to wheel out asses (er, donkeys) for candidates in 2008.

-- Submitted by R Wellesley

The Ron Paul Revolution (aka Isolationism)

Happy New Year!

With the new year upon us, I figured it was time to espouse my feelings about the Ron Paul candidacy (the Ron Paul Revolution is upon us!). While I agree with some of his positions, there's just been something about his candidacy that leaves me feeling uneasy. No, not uneasy...queasy. And while I was gathering my thoughts (these days, that takes a lot longer than it used to), I stumbled upon this editorial from October 2007 that I think captures many of my reservations about the Revolutionaries.

From the New Hampshire Union Leader (Oct 5, 2007)
Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, the libertarian darling running for the Republican nomination for President, seems to think that the only national security threat America faces is from a direct military assault on our soil. Nothing else -- Chinese expansion, Iranian nuclear development, Russian imperial ambitions -- is any concern of ours.

In a Wednesday interview, Rep. Paul suggested closing most of our overseas military bases. The military exists to protect our national security, not our economic interests, he said. Asked if the United States did not have national security interests in containing Chinese or Russian or Iranian or North Korean ambitions, he said no. "Nobody would attack us militarily," he said.

Paul offers our victory in the Cold War as an example of how we can win wars by "diplomacy." But our victory in the Cold War was not diplomatic. Ronald Reagan's military buildup topping decades of military interventionism around the globe were critically important components of our defeat of the Soviet Union.

Asked if we should let Iran obtain nuclear weapons, he shrugged and said, "Well, that's not the end of the world." Iran is no threat to us, he said, because it can't invade us. He never acknowledged that Iran is a state sponsor of terror, and a nuclear Iran could one day supply terrorists with nuclear technology or weaponry.

Paul's repeated insistence that "There would be no risk of somebody invading us" is just what the isolationist Republicans of the 1930s believed -- right up until Pearl Harbor. Paul's idea that we can maintain peace by halting our projection of military strength has been proven wrong by history. But Rep. Paul is not about to let historical reality get in the way of his ideologically pure position.

So there you have it, in a verse well better choreographed than this writer could put to paper (or blog). The leader that I support must understand that the world of 2008 requires participation in world affairs, including military participation where the security of US citizens is concerned - threats that are real both today and tomorrow. Reagan understood this, and strengthened both our military and military presence in order to win the Cold War.

Count me out of the Ron Paul Revolution.

-- Submitted by R Wellesley