Archive for the ‘Presidential Race’ Category
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.
By Thomas Lindaman
January 3rd came and went…and the political world didn’t end! Oh, Joe Biden and Chris Dodd both dropped out of contention for the Democrats after the Iowa Caucuses, but they weren’t exactly lighting up the Democrat side that much. Besides, in Biden’s case, I think he was just copying Dodd’s strategy.
Yet, to hear some people out there, the Iowa Caucuses are some sort of monstrosity that threatens the fabric of our democracy. (Of course, if we had a democracy, we might have a reason to be worried.) People from California to Florida, New York to Los Angeles, have questioned why Iowa gets to go first in the nation and have had some not-so-nice things to say about the Hawkeye State in the process. Californians have even said that they should go first in the nation because of their size and, thus, political significance. Since Californians are the ones complaining the most about the Iowa Caucuses, the majority of this column will address their complaints about them.
One of the major complaints from politically minded Californians is that Iowa doesn’t represent the racial diversity of the nation. To them, Iowa is predominantly white, culturally homogeneous, and out of touch with the rest of the country. That’s as may be, but those same descriptors could be used to talk about another part of the country, one that’s equally white, homogeneous, and out of touch.
That’s right. I’m talking about Beverly Hills.
Furthermore, since when is a state’s caucus or primary required to reflect the racial and cultural diversity of the country? Race and culture play some role, but the larger role will be played by political ideology. For example, right around Berkeley, I’m pretty sure there’s a greater than average concentration of white kids who think socialism is the best socio-economic system out there (so long as Mommy and Daddy keep sending the tuition checks). Applying California’s exclusionary mindset in this case, the entire city of Berkeley, California, could be discounted from the California primaries because it doesn’t reflect the ideological leanings of this country. Then again, I’m thinking the California Republican Party wouldn’t have any complaints about that.
Another common complaint is that it’s not fair that a small state like Iowa has so much power over the process because many campaigns shut down if they don’t fare well in Iowa. The argument here is that Californians go so late in the primary season that they don’t get the same choices Iowans get, so in order to be fair in their minds, they should go first so Californians would have a wider field from which to choose. With this election, though, I’m thinking it’s like choosing between a dog poop sandwich and a bear poop sandwich.
The main argument against this notion is campaign cash. Say Hillary Clinton wants to run a 30-second television spot in Sacramento, the capitol of California. It’s going to cost more to run the ad in Sacramento than it will in Des Moines, the capitol of Iowa, because Sacramento is so much bigger. Same thing with radio and print ads and mass mailings. In short, if California were to go first, it would cost campaigns more to accomplish the necessary tasks to run for President. Some smaller, lesser-funded campaigns would either skip California altogether or fold up shop because they couldn’t spend the money to be competitive, which means…Californians would pretty much get the same choices than if those candidates dropped out after the Iowa Caucuses.
By Christopher Adamo
Perhaps it is overly limiting to discuss the present state of our nation, and thus its prospects for the future, without broadening the topic to include all of Western civilization. Nevertheless, for at least the past century as well as a goodly portion of the century before that, America provided the primary defining force of Western culture. So it is no overstatement to assert that life in the free world will live or die based on the direction America takes in the upcoming years.
Corrosive forces are hard at work to ensure that the former power with which this nation moved the rest of the world is diluted and eventually neutralized. Worst of all, many who express outward belief in the worthiness of the American experiment are nonetheless helping to eradicate its founding philosophies, seemingly oblivious to the fact that they too will fall if it falls.
It is as if they think they can selectively remove the sometimes inconvenient building blocks of the American foundation without ever weakening the overall integrity of that foundation. And if they believe thus, they believe what is not and will never be.
The present, absurd nature of the presidential race, daily exhibiting less and less substance while any real consideration of the issues is increasingly being replaced by a media circus reminiscent of American idol (but possessing far less genuine talent), did not evolve overnight. Rather it has resulted from an ongoing effort of the mainstream media to shift the focus from a thoughtful consideration of weighty issues (which would leave the Democrats at a disadvantage) to ever more frivolous assessments of prospective candidates.
In the 1960 Nixon/Kennedy debate, the first such event to be broadcast on television, public opinions were swayed by Nixon’s appearance of discomfort in front of the cameras, "darkness" of facial features, and five o’clock shadow. Nixon’s real qualifications notwithstanding, these were extremely weak reasons to support or oppose a particular candidate.
In the same vein, Hillary’s crying episode last week (for those able to recognize its transparency) was no more about bolstering America’s standing in the world than it was a genuine outpouring of emotion. Rather, it was only a matter of jumping through whatever hoops was necessary to claim a dubious victory in the New Hampshire primary. In the process, America’s greatness was lowered a notch in the eyes of the world. And more of the same is likely to follow.
Furthermore, to listen to the catcalling that has erupted between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama since then, one can only fear for the future of the country if either assumes the reins of power by offering such morally and intellectually vacant ideas. But sadly, they are not alone.
By Daniel Clark
Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk has decided to postpone the construction of an American missile defense base in his country, a move that news reports have attributed to his being less pro-American than his predecessor, Jaroslaw Kaczynski. Tusk’s reason for this change in policy, however, does not indicate an erosion of the Poles’ loyalty to their American allies. Rather, it is based on their concerns about America’s wavering dedication to its own missile defense project.
Tusk wants to delay the deployment of the missile shield until after this year’s U.S. presidential election, and it’s hard to argue with his judgment. Everybody knows that if the Democrats win the presidency, they will mothball our missile defense plan, just as Bill Clinton did for the entire eight years of his administration. Russia, the powerful and cantankerous neighbor to Poland’s east, has protested the U.S. missile shield from the outset. If Tusk proceeds with the project, only to see it abandoned by our next president, he’ll have antagonized the Kremlin for no good reason.
It’s not as if the Poles would have a hard time believing that the Democrats would hang them out to dry. That’s because Poland has been among our most trusted allies in Iraq – you know, the ones that John Kerry slandered as "the coalition of the bribed and coerced." Those allies can’t help but be leery of Kerry’s party, members of which have threatened to cut off funding for the war, demanded a "redeployment" to Okinawa, and refused to accept the delivery of good news from General Petraeus.
With the prospect of a Democrat victory in November, Poland risks angering not only Russia, but also a newly elected, Democrat-controlled government here in the U.S.
The real story out of Poland, then, is that the Democrats have succeeded in deterring an ally from helping the United States. This is important not only insofar as their obstruction of our missile defenses are concerned, but also in serving as a parallel to their effect on another important American ally – the people of Iraq.
By Warner Todd Huston
In an article that is ostensibly supposed to be about the many Iowa homeschoolers that are supporting Mike Huckabee, the Washington Post pins the reason to the fact that homeschooling parents must hate Mormons! This has easily become the MSM’s favorite theme as they try to divide and anger portions of the GOP primary voting base against each other. In this MSM meme, anyone who votes against Romney or questions the relative Christian merits of the Mormon faith is a bigot who hates Mormons and won’t vote for Romney merely because he is one. They are also unanimous in pinning support for Huckabee to an anti-Mormon sentiment. The MSM is doing their level best to start a religious war on the right.
In the Post’s article, religion is the central theme of pro-Huckabee homeschool advocates. Here the Post reveals the efforts of a homeschooling Mother named Julie Roe (bet they chose her for her familiar name: Roe) who has stumped for Huckabee by making homemade buttons and making numerous phone calls.
Julie Roe, an early believer in Mike Huckabee, worked with what she had… With no buttons, no yard signs and no glossy literature from his nearly invisible Iowa campaign, she took a pair of scissors and cut out a photograph of the former Arkansas governor. She pasted it on a piece of paper, scribbled down some of his positions, made copies and launched the Huckabee for President campaign in rural Hardin County.
So, why Huckabee? (My emphasis added throughout).
Huckabee’s name is no longer a mystery to Iowa’s Republican voters, in large part because of an extensive network of home-schoolers like Roe who have helped lift his underfunded campaign from obscurity to the front of a crowded field. Opinion polls show that his haphazard approach is trumping the studied strategy of Mitt Romney, who invested millions only to be shunned by many religious conservatives such as Roe, who see the former Baptist preacher from Hope, Ark., as their champion.
But, even the Post contradicts this religious basis only a few paragraphs later.
WASHINGTON, January 9, 2008 — Accuracy in Media editor Cliff Kincaid said today that he was not surprised by the poor performance of the polls and the press in predicting the outcome in the Democratic New Hampshire primary. The media in general have been terrible at analyzing political races and predicting outcomes, he said.
"The conservative media were out of touch with Republican voters in Iowa and missed the real reasons for the Mike Huckabee phenomenon," Kincaid noted. "They have also been mystified, even horrified, by the conservative limited-government appeal that lies at the heart of the Ron Paul revolution. So it is not surprising that the liberal media would miss the story of what was happening on the Democratic Party side. The results demonstrate that the American people have decided to have their say in the process, despite what the media say and write."
The AIM editor said that the conservative media, including most of talk radio, many bloggers, and Fox News, have clearly lost their influence with the grassroots and are at risk of becoming marginalized or irrelevant as the presidential process goes forward. "From their perspective," Kincaid said, "the more moderate candidates, McCain and Huckabee, are doing the best, and the most conservative candidate, Romney, who should have won Iowa and New Hampshire, is barely hanging on. If Romney, who was endorsed by the conservative National Review, continues to lose, many in the conservative media may have to throw up their hands in despair."
In terms of the liberal media, Kincaid said they are divided in their loyalties to Clinton and Obama but will eventually settle for a Clinton-Obama ticket. "Then the liberal media will do what they do best � attack Republicans," he said. The question becomes, on the Republican side, whether conservative media will rally around McCain if he is the nominee. "It's doubtful," the AIM editor said. "They may go AWOL."
Accuracy in Media is a citizens' media watchdog organization whose mission is to promote fairness, balance, and accuracy in news reporting. Founded in 1969, AIM is the oldest non-profit press watchdog group in America. For more information, please visit www.aim.org.
By Bob Parks
Every year, people come out with their "New Year’s Resolutions"; their wish lists of things they hope to either accomplish or see accomplished during the coming year.
As we all know, many of these wishes, or "pledges", are broken within days, so I don’t hold much optimism that these will hold, but there’s nothing wrong with hoping….
The End Of Campaign 2008
Because of the "early" start, many of us are already sick of this campaign season. There are political ads flooding our markets with presidential candidates making promises they know they can’t keep, as they don’t know what the political make up of the Congress will be.
Yet, they’re all over our television sets making promises (and threats), and in the coming months, we’ll "meet" their wives, husbands, and homely kids. They’ll tell us how great we are as Americans, and how much better everything will be if we just trust them with our vote.
Let’s not forget, as we go down this road every four years.
Presidents, outside of during a time of war, have very little to do with our day-to-day lives. The president doesn’t hire all of us. The president doesn’t feed us or pay our rents or mortgages. The president doesn’t heat our homes.
Usually, it’s the Congress that forces us to do things we don’t want to do, and thanks us by taking money directly from our paychecks before we even see them.
But here’s something to watch for.
In the coming months, your local congressional candidates will attempt to show us all their softer sides. However, have you noticed how down right arrogant and mean they can get when while on committees to testifying citizens? These candidates are acting for us now. Too bad they think so little of us they have to "act" in order to get elected.
Hire More Male News Directors
While there’s nothing wrong with having what could be a glut of females at the helm of many news broadcasts, there are many "takes" on news items that are getting real old, especially when "the children" are constantly interjected into the stories.
When a bridge collapses, how will it affect the children? When an assassination occurs overseas, how will it affect the children? When a new bill is introduced on Capitol Hill, how will it affect the children? When Nancy Pelosi became Speaker of the House, she surrounded herself with children, and it became apparent that all legislation would have them in mind.
Now while there’s nothing wrong with children (that is, until you have some of your own), some of us are getting tired of hearing about the effect some news item will have on "the children". Some of us just want to get the news. Whether or not it will affect the children or not will be up to people who have them.
Maybe if we place less public emphasis on them, they won’t act as if it’s all about them. If a news director or anchor is pregnant, that doesn’t mean we’ll all see a story through the prism of "How will it affect my child."
Just a suggestion.
Less Public Advertisements of ED
Ever notice how you can find more commercials, during primetime, about male member enhancement? Besides the fact that Elvis is probably rolling over in his grave due to the misuse of the song "Viva Las Vegas, I’m growing tired of all the ads during sporting events and early evening viewing for things that make you get bigger.
Seeing imagery of horny old people is kind of gross.
By Christopher Adamo
As the 2008 Campaign Season shifts from jockeying and publicity stunts to actual voting, it is all important to consider what America is likely to actually reap by electing any particular candidate. Honesty being a commodity of ever dwindling supply, it is dangerous to rely solely on the words of many candidates. All is not as it seems once the cameras and spotlights are turned off, or once the primary season is concluded.A couple of glaring recent examples, when considered in comparison to each other, tell the grim story. Washington is not about the business of the American people or, as the Declaration so eloquently puts it, securing the God-given rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Rather, it seeks to put a public face of mock concern and "compassion" on its increasingly self-serving endeavors.
Cynical and depressing as such an assessment may sound, the facts nonetheless speak for themselves. Beltway reactions to the ongoing hemorrhage at America’s southern border, when contrasted against the ostensibly monumental subprime mortgage "crisis," provide the necessary evidence for such a claim.
Despite a vast array of excuses and obfuscations intended to convince the American public that the ongoing flood of illegal immigrants is either no real problem, or is simply unfixable, common citizens see their country, its traditions, and its heritage disappearing from before their very eyes. By margins of more than seventy percent, Americans demand action to secure their nation’s border in an effort to curb this invasion.
But what have they gotten in response from Washington? In 2006, after a hard-fought battle in the Congress, a measure was grudgingly passed that assured the construction of 700 miles of border fence. The event was promoted with great fanfare as proof of decisive leadership within a Congress intent on dealing effectively with border security. From the start, the situation lacked credibility, since its principals had been so reluctant to truly confront the border issue. Not surprisingly, things only deteriorated from there.
To begin with, a little elementary math is all it takes to recognize that even if the entire fence were built as promised, more than sixty-five percent of the border would remain open. Does anyone really believe this token effort constitutes border "security"? Moreover, those doubters whose reflexive reaction was to cynically insist that the fence would never be built are being validated daily.
Somehow, according to the way business is conducted inside D.C., the "actual" fence requirement magically diminished from 700 miles down to 370, which would leave 81% of the border unchecked. Yet even that length of fence is an empty promise, with deadlines for construction completely ignored. To date, the government claims that 70 miles of fence has been installed, hardly a "Manhattan Project" to restore our national integrity and sovereignty. But it still gets worse. The actual length may be less than ten miles.
The American people should never forget that, in the beginning, Congress only conceded to the notion of a border fence as a means of throwing a few crumbs to those citizens who otherwise rejected any immigration "reform" measures (read: amnesty) without first securing the border. Apparently, the illegal immigration problem is simply too overwhelming for the U.S. Government to honestly and effectively address it.
So, one might ask, just what are all of those bureaucrats and officials back in Washington paid to accomplish for the American people? The abominable answer can be found in their response to the "subprime mortgage" debacle, a real (we are told) crisis that requires their immediate attention.
By Jim Kouri
(Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton made headlines on Monday with a display of being close to tears while she campaigned in New Hampshire. Her friends in the media especially those on CNN attempted to put a positive spin on her demeanor. Perhaps Americans should refresh their memories of Bill and Hillary Clinton as more state primaries and caucuses occur.)
Presidential hopeful Senator Hillary Clinton once again displayed how she can talk out of both sides of her mouth depending on whom she’s addressing. For example, in New York City, Senator Clinton in a blatant her attempt to re-invent herself, told a cheering crowd that the United States had to protect our borders and deal with illegal immigration.
But, according to the Washington Times, Clinton and her fellow New York Democrat Senator Chuck Schumer turned thumbs down on two amendments to a Department of Homeland Security spending bill, which would have funded 2,000 new Border Patrol agents and more than 5,000 new detention beds to house illegal aliens.
According to NewsMax, the former first lady blasted President Bush on border security in a statement posted on her official Senate Web site. NewMax quoted Madam Hillary as saying, "This administration has failed to provide the resources to protect our borders, or a better system to keep track of entrants to this country," she complained, adding, "I welcome the addition of more border security." In the past she has repeatedly claimed to be "adamantly against illegal immigrants."
Yet Senator Clinton and her liberal-left comrades voted against border security enhancements, once again displaying her propensity for double-speak. Meanwhile, Senator Schumer’s explanation — once you cut through all the bull — is that there’s just not enough pork in such a bill for New York, since states such as California, Texas and Arizona stand to gain increased funding to control the borders.
Senator Clinton, on the other hand, does what she does best: refuses to comment on her actions. She’s probably once again studying the situation to see how she feels about it, a familiar Democrat Party trick to avoid telling the American people what she really believes.
Clinton, like so many in her party, attempts to appear as if she’s a national-security hawk. The reality is these Democrats are trying once again to pull the wool over American’s eyes. It’s a strategy the Democrats tried when they ran John Kerry for president. They spent a lot of capital to build up Kerry as a war hero who would fight a better terrorism war, when in fact Kerry was nothing more than a recycled war protester and propaganda master.
The mainstream news media tried as best they could to explain the Massachusetts Senator’s inconsistancies by saying his replies were "nuanced." If so, then Senator Hillary Rodham-Clinton is the Queen of Nuance.
By Jim Kouri
Republicans in Name Only, or RINOs, are a great asset to the Democrat Party and the news media. The liberals know they have little if any credibility, therefore when they wish to make a point they mention that Republicans also want what they want.
But by Republicans they mean RINOs. Democrats believe Iraq is another Vietnam? Well, so does Republican Senator Chuck Hagel. Democrats are fearful that a Justice Alito may overturn Roe v. Wade? Well, so does Republican Senators Arlen Specter, Olympia Snow and Lincoln Chaffee. The Democrats fear we might be "abusing" terrorists? Well so does Senator John McCain
Another example of RINOism is the breaking news by Matt Drudge and the New York Sun that after 10 years and over $23 million dollars the Independent Counsel investigation into Clinton Administration officials who may have used the IRS to intimidate or investigate threats to the Bill Clinton.
According to the Drudge Report, in Monday’s edition of the New York Sun, reporter Brian McGuire and contributor R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr., gave readers a first look at the long-anticipated report from Independent Counsel David Barrett.
The Sun outlines the reports details surrounding the alleged illicit activity and cover up that involved former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Henry Cisneros before and during his time in the Clinton Administration.
The Sun revealed that the Barrett report connects the dots that allege that senior officials of the Clinton Administration initiated investigations by the IRS in both Texas and Washington. Also, there were investigations of a grand jury examining the independent counsel’s evidence.
The full report, more than 400 pages, with more than 100 pages of redacted material, hits the street on Thursday morning at 9 am. However, what’s in those 100 pages that we won’t see?
Democrats in the House and Senate have been fighting for months to block the release of the report and keep the 100 pages of highly damaging redacted material from ever seeing the light of day. That’s understandable since they are hypocrites of the first order. However, where are the Republican outcries over this continued cover-up?