Monday, June 30, 2008
In response to McCain's assertion that he had commanded the largest squadron in the Navy, Clark replied that it was not enough to qualify someone for the Presidency. Clark asserted:
"He hasn't been there and ordered the bombs to fall."
In response to interviewer Bob Schieffer's reminder that McCain had been shot down over Hanoi in the Vietnam War, Clark responded:
"I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president."
Schieffer then asked a logical and pertinent question; what executive experience does Barack Obama have? To this, Clark demurred and said that Obama "was running on the strength of his character and good judgment."
A couple of sure things can be noted from this interview. First of all, the obvious thing, Clark wants to be on the ticket as Obama's Vice Presidential candidate. It is no coincidence that the weaknesses he noted in McCain's resume' are things that are present on his. Clark is very ambitious and demonstrated in the 2004 campaign that he is willing to say just about anything to promote himself or attack an opponent. One clearly remembers his attack on George W. Bush only to have it revealed that he had totally supported him months earlier.
Second, Clark was speaking with the full approval of the Obama campaign. In this day of scripted campaigns, no one, especially someone with the aspirations of Wesley Clark, would make such a controversial attack without the complete acquiescence of Barack Obama.
This is an extremely questionable tactic for the Obama campaign to take. The old adage saying, "People who live in glass houses should not throw stones" is a good one here. Whatever McCain's executive experience might be, Obama has none. Whatever McCain's military qualifications may be, and they are considerable, Obama has none. Why would Obama attack McCain's strengths in an area where he has none himself?
I suspect that, as much as anything, this Clark interview was about Clark showing himself to be "the indispensible man" to the Obama campaign with all his military experience. That the Obama campaign would allow Clark to make these attacks demonstrates how weak they view themselves to be with regard to military matters.
--Submitted by B. Bryant
Friday, June 27, 2008
However, when it comes to the issue of global warming, those on the Left seem to believe in this motto; "If you can't defeat your opponents, eliminate them!"
In a recent example, James R. Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and longtime global warming alarmist, told Congress this week that the executives of oil companies should be tried in court for their opposition to the view that humans are causing global warming. He said:
"Methods are sophisticated, including funding to help shape school textbook discussions of global warming. CEOs of fossil energy companies know what they are doing and are aware of the long-term consequences of continued business as usual. In my opinion, these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature."
Crimes against humanity? Keep in mind that this is an issue that is about 20 years old and for which the science is by no means settled. Many other distinguished scientists disagree with Hansen's conclusions. For these alarmists though, we do not have time to get it right...we must do something. (One could wish that the Left felt as strongly about the genocide of unborn children.)
Hansen, in the same testimony, said that coal plants should be phased out by 2025. Coal currently generates about 50% of electricity in the United States. How we would replace 50% of our electrical generation in 17 years is not something that Hansen mentioned in his testimony. It seems that the details are for the little people to work out but it would still amount to radical change in American lifestyle.
In another example, a couple of years ago, Heidi Cullen, then the host of the Weather Channel's Forecast Earth, suggested that those meteorologists who could not get on the global warming bandwagon should find themselves without work. She wrote in her blog:
"If a meteorologist has an AMS Seal of Approval, which is used to confer legitimacy to TV meteorologists, then meteorologists have a responsibility to truly educate themselves on the science of global warming. If a meteorologist can't speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn't give them a seal of approval."
James Spann, longtime Alabama meteorologist, responded by saying that, in 30 years of forecasting, he did not know of a single weather forecaster who believed that humans were causing global warming.
That's a lot of firings.
Kofi Annan, former UN Secretary-General (remember him?), spoke of the need for "climate justice."
"We must have climate justice. As an international community, we must recognise that the polluter must pay and not the poor and vulnerable. We cannot allow the extra cost of adapting to climate change to be siphoned off from the ongoing poverty challenge. We should act immediately to provide them with additional funding and appropriate technical assistance."
Any way you slice that, it amounts to income redistribution, which the Left, from the old Communists to the modern environmental extremists, have consistently advocated. They do not expect that this will come voluntarily but must be imposed by legislation or better, judicial fiat.
These examples demonstrate that the Left is more than willing to make up for their inability to win the global warming argument by an exercise of raw power that will impose their will upon the American people.
This is another reason why the Presidential election of 2008 is so important. We have a stake in this. Our children have a stake. Let's get out the vote and keep the radical Left out of the White House and out of our lives.
--Submitted by B. Bryant
Monday, June 23, 2008
The problem that the mainstream media is focusing on today - depending on which candidate they're referring to - is either (a) gas prices are more than $4 per gallon (this typically shows up in pro-Obama articles, suggesting that the Republicans have let the economy get out of control), or (b) idiots want to drill for oil offshore so they can destroy the environment (this typically finds its way into articles about Bush or McCain).
The real problem is this, folks. More than 75% of the oil consumed by the USA is sold to us by other countries (i.e., "imported oil"). Over the past twenty years, the percentage of imported oil has grown significantly. Our economy is driven by, and dependent upon, foreign countries to supply the USA with oil. What can we do?
Let me preface the rest of this posting with this mea culpa. I, too, was blinded by the media. I was not a supporter of off-shore drilling. However, my reasons were not because I wanted to save the three-legged fishtoad (or whatever it is that we're trying to save these days), but because I want true energy independence. I want to get away from oil, and I figured that if we as US citizens felt enough pain, we'd make the right decision to invest in alternative energy sources because, after all, we're industrious and highly creative. When we come upon an emergency situation, we unite and solve, as evidenced by over 230 years of history. (Note: I'm taking 1776 as the starting point, not the adoption of the Constitution in 1787.)
But now I see the light. And the solution is so simple, I should be slapping myself upside the head like they do in the old V-8 commercials.
Here's the solution: adopt a multi-staged approach - a short-term solution working in conjunction with a longer-term plan that yields more energy independence. First, you balance the higher prices (fueled, in part, by increased demand) with increased supply of domestic-supplied oil and natural gas. This may not increase the supply of oil immediately, as it takes years to yield oil once you start the process to explore and drill, but you will signal to the market that the supply will increase in the near future. This will impact the market, and drop the price of oil. But even more important - it starts us down the path to reduce our reliance on foreign countries for the lifeblood of our economy.
Second, you immediately invest in the energy infrastructure. You need to incent the energy industry, as well as invest in upgrading the infrastructure to adopt cleaner fuel technologies. We should be building more nuclear power plants and increasing R&D credits for companies who are creating new, more efficient alternative energy sources (solar, wind, etc). This will allow us to reduce the overall amount of energy supplied by oil, and will also help the tree huggers breathe easier when they drive their SUVs up scenic mountain stretches so they can ride their bikes. And please save your drivel about adopting the solar/wind solutions today. They just aren't efficient enough yet to be adopted widely. Get some good old fasioned American ingenuity working on that, and we'll have the solution in place before you can say "Obama is the emptiest suit I've ever seen".
Third, we need to continue to provide tax credits to consumers to adopt energy efficient practices at home. Upgrading boilers, water heaters, doors, windows, and insulation in the home will reduce oil and natural gas usage. Reward this behavior with tax credits - especially if the investments are being made in companies that are manufacturing the boilers, water heaters, etc in the USA. This is a win/win for everyone: tax savings for consumers, income for home heating equipment manufacturers, reduced demand for oil, and less pollution created so that Al Gore will have more carbon credits available to use in his mansion. (And just imagine if Big Al decided to use all of his hot air for the good of mankind - heating homes - rather than contributing to his "Global Warming" campaign. But we'll get to that topic another day.)
The solution is quite simple, but getting Congress to act is proving to be the biggest obstacle of all.
Email your Congress representative: enact an energy policy that makes sense.
-- Submitted by R Wellesley
Sunday, June 22, 2008
"We know what kind of campaign they're going to run. They're going to try to make you afraid. "They're going to try to make you afraid of me. He's young and inexperienced and he's got a funny name. And did I mention he's black?"
Obama is right that race has now been interjected into this campaign; he only got the culprit wrong. It is Barack Obama who has introduced race into the campaign. It is Barack Obama who is playing the "race card."
Neither the McCain campaign nor the Republican party has raised criticisms, or even innuendos, about Obama's race. If they had, the mainstream media, otherwise known as the Obama cheering section, would have published it far and wide.
This is obviously a cynical, and racist, attempt on the part of Obama and his campaign to insulate himself from the rightful criticism of his lack of experience to be the Chief Executive of the United States. Obama has no record to run upon so he must somehow invalidate that criticism of himself. He, and his campaign, knows that some media persons fear being called a racist more than anything and that will prevent them from taking him on.
It takes no courage to run such a campagn because it plays to the baser instincts of some people. In reality, it is the Obama campaign that is trying to stoke fear. He is doing it in the traditional Democrat way...scare minorities, scare old people, etc.
This kind of campaign is totally at odds with Obama's supposedly "post-racial" image. This irony is not lost on some African-Americans. Lt. Col. Allen West, candidate for Congress in Florida's 22nd district had this to say about Obama's remarks:
My advice to Senator Obama is to run as a Man and Leader, and the American people will evaluate you as such, not as a victim. This is a Presidential race, based solely on a capacity to lead the United States of America. It is not about skin tone...however, perhaps we should come to expect these immature statements.
It also seems rather humorous that the Presidential candidate who was supposed to be such a "uniter" and transcend race is the one talking about it the most. If Senator Obama was confident in his abilities and character, he would not need to create a crutch for failure. Senator Obama has just tipped his hand, any criticism of him and his policies will be directly attributed to racism. I congratulate Senator Obama for taking race relations in America back some 30 years.
Well said, Colonel.
Submitted by B. Bryant
Saturday, June 21, 2008
Never fear though, someone will always arise to fill that inglorious spot and, this time, it is Scott McClellan. The former White House spokesman appeared Friday before the House Judiciary Committee to testify against his former employers. McClellan’s testimony basically added nothing that was not mentioned in his recent book…which, incidentally, added little of substance to the discussion except McClellan’s opinions and suspicions. However, for a Democrat Party desperate for any information to hang upon the Bush Administration, that passes for prima facie evidence. Hence, the McClellan subpoena.
I have no idea if McClellan’s assertions about the President and Vice President’s respective characters are accurate or not. Time is the great revealer of all truths and history will ultimately make that assessment. McClellan’s character, however, is much easier to discern. That he would suddenly turn upon his former employer and write a tell-all book, guaranteed to generate massive sales, during a heated election year tells me all I need to know. That he would repeat his allegations in a hostile forum chaired by those attempting to consolidate their own power at the expense of the party that McClellan had once sworn loyalty to, tells me even more.
One hallmark of character is loyalty. If McClellan truly felt that he had a story to tell about the Bush Administration and conscience dictated that he should tell it, he should have waited the few months until President Bush vacated the office before having his book published. That would have demonstrated true character. It would not, however, have promoted large book sales, which seems to have been the primary objective.
Scott McClellan had better enjoy his day in the Democrat sun because one day, when his usefulness to them is finished, they will consign him to the scrap heap.
Submitted by B. Bryant
Thursday, June 19, 2008
This is nothing new. On May 22, in hearings with oil executives, Maxine Waters let slip that she wanted to "socialize" the oil industry. She realized that she had used a taboo word so she changed it to "take over." However, the cat was out of the bag. The video is below.
That members of a United States branch of government would openly call for the nationalization of a major industry is a clear sign that a watershed has been reached in America. In the past, such talk, the talk of communists and radical socialists, was openly spoken only in the fringe left. Now, it is the Democrat mainstream.
I fear that many Americans, children of the nanny state, might be open to such radicalism if the right salesperson comes along. It would be tragic if American democracy died over someone promising a cheaper tank of gas.
--Submitted by B. Bryant
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
This action once again highlights the "smoke and mirrors" nature of Barack Obama's campaign. In a previous event, African Americans were removed from behind the podium to make room for white people so that the candidate would appear to have a following of a more racially diverse nature. So much for the "new kind of politics."
In both cases, the persons removed, African Americans in the first instance and Muslims in the second, were understandably angry.
"I was coming to support him, and I felt like I was discriminated against by the very person who was supposed to be bringing this change, who I could really relate to," said Hebba Aref, a 25-year-old lawyer who lives in the Detroit suburb of Bloomfield Hills. "The message that I thought was delivered to us was that they do not want him associated with Muslims or Muslim supporters."
The previous incident occurred in April and was documented here by Grand Old Patriots. In that case, the campaign worker said, "Get me more white people. We need more white people."
To an Asian girl sitting in the back row, one coordinator said, “We’re moving you, sorry. It’s going to look so pretty, though.”
“I didn’t know they would say, ‘We need a white person here,’ ” said attendee and senior psychology major Shayna Watson, who sat in the crowd behind Mrs. Obama. “I understood they would want a show of diversity, but to pick up people and to reseat them, I didn’t know it would be so outright.”
Welcome to the "New Kind of Politics," 2008 version, where it is not what we say or do that counts but what we say that we mean. The new kind of politics looks very similar to the old kind practiced by Clinton & Clinton.
Sadly, these insights into Obama's campaign will likely go unnoticed by the mainstream media who are too busy waving pom-poms for him.
--Submitted by B. Bryant
Saturday, June 14, 2008
I'm referring to an article by Mark Morford that appeared on June 6 in the San Francisco Chronicle. In a column entitled, "Is Obama an Enlightened Being?", Morford offers, "Barack Obama isn't really one of us. Not in the normal way, anyway." Morford opines that Obama is one of those rare people who come along once in an age who have the power to change the world by their mere presence. He continues:
No, it's not merely his youthful vigor, or handsomeness, or even inspiring rhetoric. It is not fresh ideas or cool charisma or the fact that a black president will be historic and revolutionary in about a thousand different ways. It is something more. Even Bill Clinton, with all his effortless, winking charm, didn't have what Obama has, which is a sort of powerful luminosity, a unique high-vibration integrity.
Obama is not merely a politician from
Many spiritually advanced people I know (not coweringly religious, mind you, but deeply spiritual) identify Obama as a Lightworker, that rare kind of attuned being who has the ability to lead us not merely to new foreign policies or health care plans or whatnot, but who can actually help usher in a new way of being on the planet, of relating and connecting and engaging with this bizarre earthly experiment. These kinds of people actually help us evolve. They are philosophers and peacemakers of a very high order, and they speak not just to reason or emotion, but to the soul.
I guess by the "coweringly religious," Morford means those of us who believe in the God of the Bible who rules the universe by His just and righteous laws. Obviously, the "deeply spiritual" are those who reject such biblical claptrap for that which is truly spiritual, i.e., eastern mysticism that has no right and wrong and little frame of reference. It is cafeteria-style religion; believe what you like and it will be right for you. Excuse me for the digression, the Christian pastor in me is coming out.
So, Obama is a "lightworker" who can help us evolve. Many of us think he is out of his league just running for President. Add to that the responsibility of leading the world to the next evolutionary step. Seems heavy for me.
According to these "spiritual" persons, John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King were similar Lightworkers. These enlightened persons say that JFK was not assassinated for the normal reasons given.
Those attuned to energies beyond the literal meanings of things, these people say JFK wasn't assassinated for any typical reason you can name. It's because he was just this kind of high-vibration being, a peacemaker, at odds with the war machine, the CIA, the dark side. And it killed him.
Now, Obama. The next step. Another try. And perhaps, as Bush laid waste to the land and embarrassed the country and pummeled our national spirit into disenchanted pulp and yet ironically, in so doing has helped set the stage for an even larger and more fascinating evolutionary burp, we are finally truly ready for another Lightworker to step up.
Honestly folks, you cannot make this up. That none of it matches up with the historical record of JFK is not important to these enlightened ones. If you are truly adventurous (and have a strong stomach), you can follow the link and read the entire article for yourself. I find it fascinating that a serious newspaper would print such new age tripe, even in
I'm actually glad for Morford's article. The best thing for John McCain's campaign would be for the public to see the train of flakes, nuts, and radicals that follow in Obama's wake. It would extend the gap between him and mainstream
Given the choice between the next leap in evolution and a sane and patriotic public policy, I'll take the latter any day.
--Submitted by B. Bryant
Friday, June 13, 2008
Problem #2: For the Republicans, a Weak Party and a Strong Candidate
Calling John McCain a “strong” candidate is, as are all things in 2008, relative. He is strong because he is the anti-Republican candidate in an anti-Republican year.
The year 2008 is a very bad year for Republicans. Some of that is the peril of being the party in power. Republicans held Congress for 12 years from 1994 to 2006. They have held the presidency for the past 8 years and 20 out of the past 28. There is a certain fatigue that comes with that, especially when times get difficult and the public is looking for someone to blame.
Add to that the fact that many Republicans got comfortable with power and forgot the fiscal responsibility that put them into power in the first place. President Bush’s low approval ratings and the unpopular war have also contributed to Republicans' problems with the electorate.
The Republican base is divided and disillusioned. The frustration that Republicans feel shows up in the paucity of donations to candidates for the fall. Normally, a Republican candidate can count on a large advantage in contributions. This year, John McCain will probably accept public financing while Barack Obama, flush with cash, will not (despite his promise to do so).
The Republican base has been frustrated by the big spending ways of Republicans in Congress. That frustration extends to President Bush because he failed to restrain it. President Bush has faithfully defended the country from attack in the post-911 world. For that, Republicans, as well as all Americans, owe him a debt of gratitude. However, President Bush did his part to divide the base. His nomination of Harriet Myers to the Supreme Court and his support for the amnesty bill caused great frustration and raised mistrust. The conservative base desperately needs someone with a clear conservative voice to unite them. Unfortunately, John McCain is not that man.
Most conservative Republicans are apathetic toward McCain, at best. His support for amnesty for illegal aliens (McCain-Kennedy) and campaign finance reform(?) (McCain-Feingold) are just part of his problem. He has jumped on the global warming bandwagon and supports cap-and-trade which has great potential to hurt the economy. His support for stem cell research makes many pro-lifers uneasy. McCain is far from the ideal candidate for Republicans. Still, by and large, conservative Republicans will vote for McCain because they simply have no choice. Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention said it well:
“What I hear from people is, 'John McCain was not my first choice, John McCain was not my second choice, John McCain was not my third choice. However, I would rather have a third-rate fireman than a first-class arsonist.' And they view Obama as a first-class arsonist."
That will be in many conservatives’ minds this fall and will compel them to vote McCain, despite their misgivings.
As weak as McCain appears to be from a Republican standpoint, those very things make him a strong candidate in an anti-Republican year, especially against Barack Obama. His “maverick” reputation helps him with an electorate that, for whatever reason, does not want to vote Republican. Also, when compared to the radical views of Obama, McCain looks like a right-winger.
To McCain’s credit, he is a true patriot and will never sell out
To paraphrase Dick Morris; “In the Democrats you have a candidate that can’t win and a party that can’t lose. In the Republicans, you have a candidate that can’t lose and a party that can’t win.” Morris sees it as a toss-up but thinks that the election will not be close either way.
I agree and disagree with Morris on this problematic election. I do not believe the election will be especially close but I think the winner will be John McCain. I have a difficult time believing that the general public will turn the reins of the
the American public will not like it.
At least that is the way I see it. I certainly hope I am right.
--Submitted by B. Bryant
Thursday, June 12, 2008
However, the election of 2008 is problematic for at least two reasons that we will examine over the next two posts.
Problem #1: For the Democrats, a Strong Party and a Weak Candidate
Entering the Fall elections, the Democrat party overall is sitting in the catbird’s seat. For various reasons—low public approval ratings for Republicans, high profile scandals, an unpopular President, an unpopular war, a questionable economy, high gasoline prices—the public as a whole would rather vote Democrat this Fall. As much as I might think that much of Republican unpopularity is driven by a hostile, pro-Democrat media, the facts on the ground are undeniable…this is a Democrat year.
However, despite their potential strength, the Democrats have nominated an extremely weak candidate. Barack Obama has zero experience. He is from the extreme left of a left-wing party. His primary supporters are the radical fringe of that party. Despite all the change rhetoric and positive media attention, his constituency remains primarily African-Americans and affluent white radicals. He has made practically no headway with middle-class whites (the “Reagan Democrats”) which form the core of the Democrat Party and which the Democrats must have to win the presidency. He won the nomination by a close 15 round decision through his superior organization in the caucus states coupled with terrible strategic blunders on the part of the
Add to that the non-race to become Obama’s VP. Early speculation had Obama seeking an experienced politician that could deliver an important state. Two immediate suggestions were Ted Strickland and Ed Rendell, both popular governors of
It is not hard to discern why either governor would decline the second seat on the ticket. Obama is, by no means, a shoo-in to win. Neither governor, both cagy politicians, wants to hitch their wagon to a horse that might not win and alienate the
Obama’s choice of a VP is very important for him because of the scarcity of his experience and his limited appeal. That the obvious choices are removing themselves is trouble for his campaign.
Democrats will likely strengthen their control over Congress this Fall. Some speculate that in the Senate they could even reach the magical, filibuster-proof number of 60. A mainstream Democrat nominee for President would cruise to victory in such an environment and greatly add to Democrat control of the government. However, in 2008, nothing is easy. The Democrats nominated a very problematic candidate who could suffer a landslide loss in a Democrat year.
Tomorrow…Problem #2: For the Republicans, a Weak Party and a Strong Candidate
--Submitted by B. Bryant
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Despite all of President Bush’s shortcomings, he has championed policies consistent with economic growth and he has had strong results. The U.S. economic growth and jobless rate under President Bush have been the best of all major industrialized nations, dwarfing the growth and job creation of the European Union and Japan.
What we can expect from a Democratic Congress and, potentially, a Democratic President next year are polices geared toward high taxes and wealth redistribution, which are certain to produce anemic growth and job creation. They will saddle the economy, already burdened with Medicare, social security and other entitlements, with an increased burden of new social programs including universal health care.
Ronald Reagan’s policies of low taxes created strong economic growth and job creation for twenty-five years. It has been proven that tax reductions in all tax brackets produce the best returns for the economy. We need to lower taxes, reduce spending and unburden the economy in order to ensure economic prosperity for us and for our children.
Submitted by D. B. Jackson
Monday, June 9, 2008
The Free & Liberal Press is claiming that the focus of the presidential campaign has shifted to the economy. Funny how the press goes along in this game, isn't it?
Anyway, let's just point out some obvious hyp-O-crisies.
-- The nation's spending and revenue (Tax) budgets and policies are enacted through Congress.
-- Congress is currently controlled - in both Houses -by the Party of SuperDelegates
-- B.H.O. is blaming Republican President GW Bush for the economic woes of this country.
Huh? Let's look at the facts.
What economic atrocities have Bush and the Republicans wrought on the USA?
-- GW Bush wants to increase oil drilling in the USA, which would ultimately increase oil supply. (Economics for Dummies note: increasing demand without increasing supply will lead to an increase in price. If you increase supply, you either reduce price, or maintain price while satisfying increased demand.)
-- GW Bush wants to reduce taxes, which would provide American families with more funds to pay for groceries, heating oil, and mortgage payments.
-- GW Bush called for a one-time tax rebate to try to stimulate the economy immediately.
What have the SuperDelegate representatives recommended?
-- B.H.O. wants to increase taxes on the upper-middle class incomes (as well as the upper-class incomes, which would include his wife's, I suppose), thus decreasing the amount of funds available for these families to pay for groceries, heating oil, and mortgage payments.
-- B.H.O. wants to institute a tax on oil companies. (Economics for Dummies note: a tax imposed on a business will ultimately be passed on to its customers. So, by instituting an additional tax on oil companies, B.H.O. will be increasing gas prices even more.)
-- The Party of the SuperDelegates has tried to stimulate the economy by passing the... ummm... by recommending passage of... uh..er... Well, they must be thinking about doing something, right?
So, to summarize... GW Bush and the Republicans want to try to reduce oil prices, reduce taxes, and put more money back into the pockets of the citizens of this great country. B.H.O. and the Party of SuperDelegates want to increase taxes, increase oil and gas prices, and figure that inaction is the best political action this year.
Which party is imposing their economic will on the country?
(Hint: The Party of the SuperDelegates has been in control of Congress during these challenging economic times. What have they done for you?)
-- Submitted by R Wellesley
Sunday, June 8, 2008
Hillary is GONE. Barring a long shot selection (over Michelle's dead body) as BHO's running mate, Hillary will be sidelined for a few weeks. Expect two things, a lukewarm supporter of B.H.O. AND a prime time, 'bring down the house of kooks' speech at the Dem convention. Both are intended by her to position Mrs. Bill Clinton for her ultimate goal and another run at it in 2012.
Be that as it may, there are many people happy to be rid of her, and a few even happier than me. Let's see...Dick Morris, Gennifer Flowers, Billy Dale, Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey. The #1 person, happy to be rid of Hillary Clinton is, posthumously, Barbara Olson.
Mrs. Olson was killed on the hijacked plane flown into the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. She was the wife of the former solicitor general Ted Olson. (Ted Olson also won for Bush/Cheney, the 2000 Florida Recount Case at the Supreme Court).
Barbara Olson wrote two books on the Clintons. "Hell to Pay" about Hillary Clinton and "The Final Days" about the abuse of power exhibited in the last days of the Clinton administration. The book was released after Mrs. Olson's death. It chronicles the unbelievable abuses of power and the destructive laws enacted during Bill Clinton's last months of power.
For anyone who isn't happy that Mrs. Bill Clinton was upset by B.H.O., please read this book. You may kiss Mr. Obama's feet.
In her words (from The Final Days: The Last Desperate Abuses of Power by the Clinton White House):
"My Research found Hillary involved in one form or another in virtually every White House scandal - even if just masterminding the defense and counterattacks as in the Lewinsky affair. In fact, Hillary was the consistent, stable and reliable guiding organizational hand for the entire Clinton presidency"
"Many of those who studied her career, as I did, concluded that that was precisely where her ambition was planning to take her as early as the 1992 presidential campaign. The only questions were how she would use her husband's presidency to realize that goal, and how he would help her get there"
"When Hillary was running for the Senate, she went to great lengths to portray herself as an active, involved partner in her husband's presidency. She claimed eight years worth of experience on the issues and ran her Senate race on the accomplishments of the Clinton administration, regaling reporters with the thorough detailed discussions she had with 'her husband.' But now, in matters of huge importance involving her husband and her brother, she claimed to know absolutely nothing at all. The first-rate scholar, veteran lawyer, graduate of Yale Law School, and eight year resident of the White House, with her own office in the West Wing, had only lately even learned about the president's constitutional power to pardon"
Mrs. Clinton has grown more appealing through this election cycle. Her hard edges were coached away and the contrast with the inexperienced and left-wing Obama gave her some inroads to many folks who wrote her off years ago as a "left-wing hate America" type. She is still the same Mrs. Clinton that defended the black panthers and hobnobbed with commies most of her life. The same one that masterminded the character assassinations of all of Bill's enemies. The same "I'm no Tammy Wynette" country girl that, to quote Ann Coulter, "foisted that horny hick on America on "60 Minutes' in 1992.
I hope she is gone. Like all scary movies, we expect a resurrection or two of the bad guy. Chris Cagle has a new country hit called 'What Kinda Gone." Like me, he ponders the different kinds of gone.
What Kinda Gone
"There's gone for good and there's good and gone
and there's gone with the long before it
I wish she'd been just a little more clear
well there's gone for the day and gone for the night
and gone for the rest of your dog gone life
is it whiskey night or just a couple beers
I mean what kind of gone are we talkin bout
What kinda gone are we talkin' 'bout
What kinda gone are we talkin' 'bout here"
Submitted by D. B. Jackson
Saturday, June 7, 2008
She thanked her supporters and forced us to endure several minutes of a monologue where she spoke as if her life's mission was to help those left behind by the current President. I doubt even her strongest supporters truly believed that. Political ambition and power are what motivate the Clintons. That attribute in them is exceeded only by their narcissisim.
When she got around to speaking nicely of Obama and endorsing him, it looked like she was chewing on green persimmons. Do not be fooled by the nice words; there is still bad blood between these two, their families, and their camps. It was a bruising campaign and neither camp is ready to forgive and forget.
This leaves the question open as to what the Clintons' [the plural was on purpose] intentions are now. There is little doubt that Hillary would like to be on the ticket as Obama's VP. There is also no doubt that Obama does not want her but can he hold her off? It is a testimony to the weakness of Obama that we wonder if Hillary can force herself onto the ticket.
Many Democrats see the combo ticket as the "dream team." I'm sure Obama sees it as a dream also...a nightmare. If elected, he could never trust her and Bill and, be sure, Bill comes with the package. They would be continually scheming behind his back rather than being the team players that the VP role requires. It is hard to see such a ticket coming together after such a difficult fight.
Much has been made of how Ronald Reagan took George H. W. Bush as his running mate after a tough campaign but it was not nearly as nasty as the Clinton-Obama slugfest. The Clinton team felt it was "their turn" and they have great anger at the Obama camp and the major media who were in the tank for him. It is hard to see this couple kissing and making up for the good of the Democrat party.
If Hillary does not get on the ticket, and I think that will be the case, what then will she do? It is hard to see her and Bill swallowing their pride and going on the stump for Obama. My guess is they will do the absolute minimum of support for Obama, continue to promote themselves, and hope for an Obama loss so she can run in 2012.
Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush came together in 1980 because they truly believed that the most important thing was for the Republicans to win. For the Clintons, the most important thing is that they win with party loyalty and what's best for the country coming in last.
--Submitted by B. Bryant
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Five tidbits that you should be aware of, as we start the five month journey to the Presidential Election of 2008:
- B H Obama has served a portion of one term in the US Senate, of which he has spent 2 years campaigning for the presidential nomination. Analysis: Inexperienced.
- B H Obama's wife, Michelle, became proud of her country - for the first time in her life - after her husband won some primaries in 2008. Analysis: Unpatriotic.
- B H Obama's "former" pastor and spiritual guide has been labelled as anti-American and prejudiced for many years. B H Obama "resigned" from his church a couple of weeks ago, after another religious leader, speaking at his "former" church, let loose another rant against whites and females. Analysis: Dangerous, and yet spineless.
- B H Obama has avoided all factual-based discussions and debates. In fact, B H Obama has not participated in a debate since he was asked tough questions - for the first time - by ABC during the Pennsylvania debate in April. Which he lost. Analysis: Overly sensitive, and is weak on solution details.
- B H Obama takes umbrage with the press for asking any tough questions about his positions or past. For evidence, see the March 3, 2008 press conference. (My favorite quote: "Come on guys; I answered like eight questions. We're running late." God Bless America if he wins the election and has to answer, say, nine questions about policies. He may launch missiles at the press corps.) Analysis: Overly sensitive, arrogant, and will walk if the going gets tough. Although his press conferences will provide a level of comedy we haven't seen in a long time.
Meet the nominee from the Superdelegate Party, B H Obama.
-- Submitted by R Wellesley