Archive for the ‘Presidential Race’ Category
By Thomas Lindaman
The recent stories about Hillary Clinton’s campaign spending money like a lonely male Lotto winner at a strip club have given us a new look at the woman who would be President. We already suspected that she wasn’t ready to run the country, but the ways she’s spent campaign cash have pretty much solidified it. Seriously, $1300 for Dunkin’ Donuts? That’s what Michael Moore spends for his pre-pre-pre-post-pre-post-post-pre-post-post-pre-post-pre-mid-morning brunch, for the love of Pete!
Yet, I can’t help but feel sorry for Hillary at this point. You read that right, folks. I feel sorry for Hillary Clinton. And, surprisingly, the straitjacket is very comfortable. And the men in the nice white coats bring me all sorts of wonderful drugs!
Seriously, I’m wincing as each new story about Hillary and her campaign comes out because it’s becoming clear that her campaign is the worst one a Democratic candidate has ever run without hiring Bob Shrum. Overspending, bad post-Super Tuesday strategy, awkward lines about “35 years of experience” and “change you can Xerox,” and Bill’s ill-advised and ham-handed forays into racial politics notwithstanding, Hillary seems to have counted on being granted the Democratic nomination by virtue of…well, being Hillary.
Part of this expectation stems from the fact Hillary has never had to run a campaign in a competitive race until now. In 2000, her chief competition, Rudy Giuliani, dropped out due to cancer, leaving Rick Lazio to pick up the pieces, but not the Senate seat. Then in 2006, the Republican who ran against Hillary had less of a chance than John McCain does of being caught in a sex scandal. Okay, bad example, but Hillary has been pretty much untouchable in her Senate races. Now, with Barack Obama making waves like Michael Moore doing a cannonball into the ocean, Hillary’s finding out the hard way that she’s not nearly as untouchable as she has been.
By Frank Hyland
Every generation firmly believes that, because they’ve got all the answers, it’s time for their predecessors, their elders to step aside and out of the way to make way for them. All the calls for "Change" tell us that once again those in their 20s, 30s and 40s are panting to take over the lead from the "old codgers" who are making all the mistakes. Many of the youngsters, though, display a words-deeds dichotomy that speaks loudly that they can use a bit more "seasoning" before they take the reins.
Added to the daily barrage of calls for "Change," we’re now told that it is once again time for a new generation to assume the leadership of the United States. We are told this by no less an authority on young people than Senator Edward Kennedy, age 76. Senator Kennedy, for those not intimately familiar with him, is also a paramount example of truthfulness, marital fidelity, and non-partisan politics. Nevertheless, it is always helpful to look at the day-to-day behaviors of the younger generation to see if there are clues there, clues to how they would act in the Oval Office. The younger generation clamoring for change and to take the reins of power, like all other generations before it, needs to be willing to look in the mirror and to be honest with itself as to the image it sees there.
There is a way to at least get an indication of how Young Folks would act in the Oval Office, The US Senate, or the House of Representatives: Their predecessors’ behavior in office has been very similar, identical actually, to the way they acted before being elected. In most cases, to be fair, the behavior in office has been honorable (or at least the Mainstream Media hasn’t yet uncovered the truth). It’s the behavior of Young Folks in society at large that can be alarming.
Essentially, we must be able to trust the word of our public officials. Well, what we used to call wedding "vows" seems to have taken on a new meaning, as divorce rates soar. Promissory notes for bank loans take a back seat more and more as bankruptcy rates soar. Realtors must wonder at night how many of the "15-year" mortgages these days will be honored longer than 15 weeks; moving out in the middle of the night and bringing in hogs to take your place, because you’re upset at being foreclosed, may become even more of a trend. The horror stories about abuse of others, children and adults, are made more horrible by the growing number of police officers, priests and ministers, counselors, health professionals and teachers who are convicted of perpetrating the crimes.
By Warner Todd Huston
Proving once again in good European form that they think nothing American is democratic, good or fair, Reuters gives us a pity party for CAIR who is whining that they "feel left out" of the 2008 presidential elections. With the headline blaring "Some non-Christians feel left out of election," Reuters gives us a tale of woe guaranteed to make Europeans shake their heads knowingly that we Americans are really just Christian nuts out to oppress all minorities. One does wonder, however, how CAIR would like it if Muslims did become a focus of the 2008 elections? In light of current events it is doubtful if such a focus would be favorable to them, so, were I them, I’d be happy no one is paying attention to them!
In a U.S. election campaign where presidential candidates from both major parties have talked openly about their Christian faith, some non-Christians feel shut out or turned off.
Listen, this is a majority Christian nation and anyone wanting to get elected is naturally going to talk as closely as possible to that majority. This country is still over 75% Christian, so it is a logical presumption that citizens whose religion represents only a few percentage points would not be a focus of a politician’s efforts!
But not being a focus does not equate to oppression or their rights being squelched, it must be pointed out.
And here we go with the tsk tsking:
"Non-Christians are concerned that they will be excluded from the process," said Ahmed Rehab, a spokesman with the Council on American-Islamic Relations.
Naturally, Reuters gives the perpetual whiners in CAIR the upfront chance to let Europe know how disappointed they are that America is so hateful. Where, though, is the American Buddhist organization that is constantly "concerned" that Americans will "exclude" them from the process? Nowhere to be seen. No, it turns out that the "some non-Christians" end up being mostly just CAIR to so many in the MSM.
By Alan Caruba
There always comes a time at some point in the process by which Americans select the next “leader of the free world” that one experiences the nausea incurred by too much political rhetoric. There is an impolite word for this that begins with the word “bull.”
Depending on one’s age, fortitude, gullibility, gender, et cetera, the nausea can set in early or late, but it will arrive and, with it, what is generally called wisdom. There is that quiet voice in the back of your head that says these are the same people that put the nation in the mess we’re in and we’re arguing over which one of them should dig the hole deeper.
How much change will either Sen. Obama, McCain or Clinton bring about when they have all been part of the gang that managed to add 55,000 “earmarks” over Bush’s seven years in office that cost Americans more than $100 billion? When the President sent a $13 trillion dollar budget to Congress this year, not one of them rushed to the microphone to suggest we’re broke. The government keeps itself in business by borrowing millions every day.
By Alan Caruba
The ugly little secret of Election 2008 is that it does not matter which candidate becomes your next President because all of them, Democrat and Republican, have energy policies that will keep America moving down the road to an inevitable lack of electrical energy and the oil, i.e., gasoline and diesel, needed to keep cars and trucks on the road. Throw in the need to heat homes and other structures in the winter and cool them in the summer, and you have a bad choice no matter who your choice may be.
In a recent Washington Times editorial, the energy proposals of the candidates were compared. All subscribe to the hoax of global warming and, with it, the notion that carbon dioxide (CO2), a greenhouse gas, has to be reduced or sequestered. Given that CO2 constitutes 0.038% of the Earth’s atmosphere, this might seem strange to anyone with any sense, but we are talking about politicians here.
John McCain is the biggest believer in global warming among those still running. He has co-sponsored a bill with Sen. Joe Lieberman that would impose an economy-killer in the form of a “cap-and-trade” arrangement on American business and industry that would have them wasting money on emissions “credits” they could use, trade or sell. This plan has been a total failure in Europe and, of course, ignores all the emissions being produced in places like China, India, Russia, the continents of Africa, South America, etc. It is idiotic.
Hillary Clinton hates “Big Oil”, possibly because they may not be among her biggest contributors. She is calling for increased fuel-efficiency standards, but I keep telling people there is just so much energy that can be squeezed out of a gallon of gasoline. It's called the Law of Thermodynamics. Much of the current energy is wasted in the form of heat and the rest keeps your pistons providing power to the wheels. This isn’t rocket science, but there are limits to efficiency, even if there are no limits on stupidity.
By Thomas Lindaman
I was chatting online with a friend of mine watching CNN’s coverage of the South Carolina Republican Primary when my friend mentioned something said by one of the political experts they had. One of the experts said, hopefully with tongue planted firmly in cheek, that John McCain and Fred Thompson are working together to weaken the other candidates. Yeah, because as we all know, Thompson is secretly a liberal Republican who is only acting like a conservative Republican to undermine Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee.
For the people who believe CNN is the epitome of fine political reporting and analysis, that was sarcasm.
Is it just me, or have the media done a horrible job covering this election? Reading the online newspapers and magazines and watching the cable news coverage has been more painful than watching any of the recent "American Pie" sequels, but with many more exposed boobs. I know journalistic standards have declined in recent years, but there’s a big difference between declining and devolving. And from where I sit, the New York Times is only a couple steps up from the Weekly World News as far as journalistic quality.
Part of the reason is what the media do every time there’s a national election. In order to generate interest in the coverage, the media love to set up a horse race mentality. Which candidate is ahead? Which candidate is starting to fall back? Which candidate will be turned into glue at the end of the election?
WASHINGTON, February 13, 2008 — Accuracy in Media editor Cliff Kincaid disclosed today that a hugely expensive bill called the "Global Poverty Act," sponsored by Democratic Senator Barack Obama, was quickly passed by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Wednesday and could result in the imposition of a global tax on the United States. Kincaid said that the major media's cover-up of the bill, which makes levels of U.S. foreign aid spending subservient to the dictates of the United Nations, demonstrates the media's desire to see Senator Obama elected to the presidency.
In a column posted on the AIM web site, Kincaid noted that Senator Joe Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, was trying to rush Obama's "Global Poverty Act" (S. 2433) through his committee without hearings. The legislation would commit the U.S. to spending 0.7 percent of gross national product on foreign aid, which amounts to a phenomenal 13-year total of $845 billion over and above what the U.S. already spends. It was scheduled for a Thursday vote but was moved up a day, to Wednesday, and rushed through by voice vote. Kincaid learned, however, that conservative Senators have now put a "hold" on the legislation, in order to prevent it from being rushed to the floor for a full Senate vote.
The House version (H.R. 1302) was suddenly brought up on the House floor last September 25 and was passed by voice vote. House Republicans were caught off-guard, unaware that the pro-U.N. measure committed the U.S. to spending hundreds of billions of dollars. Kincaid's column notes that the official in charge of making nations comply with the U.N. Millennium Goals, which are prominently highlighted in the Obama bill, says a global tax will be necessary to force American taxpayers to provide the money.
By Thomas E. Brewton
The experience of the Soviet Union, Japan, and China should, but will not, cause liberal activists to proceed with caution.
According to the New York Times:
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton said that if she became president, the federal government would take a more active role in the economy, to address what she called the excesses of the market and of the Bush administration…
Reflecting what her aides said were very different conditions today, Mrs. Clinton put her emphasis on issues like inequality and the role of institutions like government, rather than market forces, in addressing them.
The logical end of Senator Clinton's prescription was first articulated by the followers of Henri de Saint-Simon, who in 1829 addressed the following to the President of the French Chamber of Deputies:
The sole effect of [the free market place] system is to leave the distribution of social advantages to a chance few who are able to lay some pretence to it, and to condemn the numerically superior class to deprivation, ignorance, and misery. [Socialists] ask that all the instruments of production, all lands and capital, the funds now divided among individual proprietors, should be pooled so as to form one central social fund…
By Nancy Salvato
While a great number of people do not see the value in the Electoral College (And "W" Takes the Series), it is possible an even greater number of people don’t fully comprehend how each political party selects their candidate for president. During the Iowa Caucus, after I heard several people draw a blank when asked to explain how a Caucus works, I decided it might be time to put together a primer on the nominating process. The Republican and Democratic political parties "officially nominate their candidate for President at their respective national conventions, usually held the summer before the election." In order to win the nomination, a Democrat must win 2,025 delegates out of 4,049 possible and a Republican must win 1,191 delegates out of 2,381 possible. Leading up to the national conventions, there are a series of presidential caucuses and primary elections which take place across the nation. Traditionally, this begins with the Iowa caucus, held in early January of the presidential election year, and is quickly followed by the New Hampshire primary."Most [Emphasis mine] of the delegates in each party are awarded based upon election results in any given state."
"Depending on state law and state party rules, when voters cast ballots for a candidate in a presidential caucus or primary, they may be actually voting to award delegates bound to vote for a candidate at the state or national convention or may simply be expressing an opinion that the state party is not bound to follow in selecting delegates to the national convention." [Emphasis mine]
Furthermore, "Not all of the delegates in either party are selected by voters in primaries or caucuses. There are quite a few delegates that automatically go to each convention. They might be a member of Congress, a governor, or even a party official. They get automatic berths to the convention, and can vote for whomever they choose. Already, some of those automatic delegates have pledged to the candidate they support. But, they can also change their minds at any point for any reason."
The format of the presidential caucuses and primary elections varies between the states.
By Ken Marrero
With Poll numbers showing the Democrat led Congress is enjoying the worst approval numbers since I don’t know when, the Democrat’s strategy to combat this perception in the minds of voters would seem to be – more of the same behavior that earned them abysmal ratings originally.
The widely trumpeted mandate for change the Left claims American voters overwhelmingly handed them in November 2006 was rooted, in part, in Democrat charges the then GOP controlled Congress was out of touch with the American people. Evidence of the GOP’s disconnectedness was found in polling numbers that showed Congress with 35%-45% approval numbers leading up to the elections. As the election approached, those numbers began dropping as the the perception Republicans were poorly serving the interests of the nation gained traction. At election time, 2006, approval for the GOP Congress was at 25%-35%.
The nation "threw the bums out" and polls immediately evidenced the optimism Democrats like to point back to with approval numbers rising to the 35%-45% levels earlier enjoyed by the GOP. However, as Democrats failed to keep their promises on the War; wallowing in meaningless non-binding resolutions and neglecting their duties to debate, craft and pass a budget, the worm turned. Gone were the glories of 40%+ approval. By May of 2007, Democrats watched the 30s evaporate and hit bottom, sluggishly floundering in the 20%-25% range with occasional dips into the high teens! The worst was July, 2007 where Reid, Pelosi and company hit record setting lows at 14% and then 11% barely escaping a nightmare plunge into single digits!
You would think such messages would be taken seriously by Democrats. They certainly took notice when they perceived GOP numbers were down and made sure we all noticed, too. But you’d be wrong. After 8 months of what is arguably the worst ever performance for a Congress, Democrats continue to bluster and posture in the same ways that first earned them the disrespect of voters.
Two stories illustrate the inexplicable behavior of the Party that claims to be leading our nation. CQ Today reports Harry Reid is talking tough to get his party’s agenda addressed.