Just when we thought we had seen everything out of the 2008 primary season, Barack Obama reinforces his status as a political novice with an insensitive remark about middle America; a now infamous quote regarding people in small towns clinging to guns and religion as a means to explain their frustrations. This incredibly offensive message has found widespread airtime for the past couple of days, providing Mrs. Clinton with plenty of ammunition for Pennsylvania's primary election just a mere week away.
She has been hammering away at his characterization of small town voters, using his own words against him in a number of campaign speeches. She has labeled him as an "elitist"; a carefully chosen term by her campaign. When Mrs. Clinton throws the label "elitist" around in the Democrat party, the average voter will surely link Obama with former "elitists" the likes of Governor Dukakis, Vice President Gore and Senator Kerry. These were well-spoken, ambitious Ivy League men who were unsuccessful in connecting with the average American. Voters in the Democratic primaries are wary that Obama might fail to make that same connection and hand the presidency to the Maverick.
However for Mrs. Clinton to suggest that it is Barack Obama who is out of touch with middle America is rather pompous in itself as she is worth multiple times the wealth of Barack Obama and has been at the center of Beltway politics since 1992. She realized this was a dangerous charge to hurl at the newcomer so to prove she could connect with the average American she knew something had to be done.
Did she hold a town-hall meeting to discuss how tax breaks would directly benefit these rural voters and put more money into their pockets? Did she discuss how she would reduce our dependence on foreign oil, the very oil costing farmers outrageous amounts of money to operate their farms? Did she hold a press conference to address her solution to the housing crisis impacting so many Americans each day?
No, she did not do any of those things.
Over the weekend however she did go to a bar in Indiana; take a shot of whiskey and drink a beer.
The Democrats are falling far short of the campaign money being raised by the RNC currently.
If I were them I would start charging admission to shows like these.
Monday, April 14, 2008
Sunday, April 13, 2008
A Blast from the Past
Is it 1977? I only ask because the media has been dominated by the story of Jimmy Carter's upcoming meeting in Syria with the leader of Hamas. This is an organization hell-bent on the ultimate destruction of the state of Israel in the Middle East. They are unwavering in their objectives and will stop at nothing in order to accomplish them. They advocate attacks upon civilians and attempt to legitimize their outfit by running for public office in the Palestinian Authority. This is an entity listed by the United States along with other countries as a terrorist organization. The bedrock principle in modern American foreign policy is our refusal to negotiate with terrorists.
Jimmy Carter must have been absent from his high school civics class during that lesson.
For a man whose presidency will not intrigue too many historians, his life since being ousted from office by Ronald Reagan (489 electoral votes compared to Carter's 49, but who's counting) has been admirable. He has worked as a humanitarian on a range of issues and has established the Carter Center specifically to address human rights conditions throughout the world.
But he hasn't been quiet in his criticisms of his successors, particularly those on the other side of the aisle. He was critical of President George Bush (41) and his operation of the Gulf War. Carter threw considerable remarks at President Clinton (and rightly so) after his pardon of Mark Rich in 2001. And recently Carter has called the current Bush administration "the worst in American history". He has also labeled the religious voters of the right as threats to American democracy and advocates against their influence in elections.
President Carter no longer speaks on behalf of this country. He is a distinguished man with an impressive track record of humanitarian accomplishments. His popularity as a statesmen is certainly higher out of office than it was during his presidency. But he has no legitimate authority in conducting foreign policy initiatives that directly contradict the stance of this nation. If he wishes to be included in the very important dialogues of Middle East peace, then he must go through the proper channels i.e. President Bush. The administration has an agenda it wishes to accomplish with regards to the Middle East. It is far from perfect but there are individuals working tirelessly to further the peace in the region and Carter's visit only serves as another roadblock.
Two distinctly different foreign policies are far more dangerous than a single yet admittedly flawed one.
Jimmy Carter must have been absent from his high school civics class during that lesson.
For a man whose presidency will not intrigue too many historians, his life since being ousted from office by Ronald Reagan (489 electoral votes compared to Carter's 49, but who's counting) has been admirable. He has worked as a humanitarian on a range of issues and has established the Carter Center specifically to address human rights conditions throughout the world.
But he hasn't been quiet in his criticisms of his successors, particularly those on the other side of the aisle. He was critical of President George Bush (41) and his operation of the Gulf War. Carter threw considerable remarks at President Clinton (and rightly so) after his pardon of Mark Rich in 2001. And recently Carter has called the current Bush administration "the worst in American history". He has also labeled the religious voters of the right as threats to American democracy and advocates against their influence in elections.
President Carter no longer speaks on behalf of this country. He is a distinguished man with an impressive track record of humanitarian accomplishments. His popularity as a statesmen is certainly higher out of office than it was during his presidency. But he has no legitimate authority in conducting foreign policy initiatives that directly contradict the stance of this nation. If he wishes to be included in the very important dialogues of Middle East peace, then he must go through the proper channels i.e. President Bush. The administration has an agenda it wishes to accomplish with regards to the Middle East. It is far from perfect but there are individuals working tirelessly to further the peace in the region and Carter's visit only serves as another roadblock.
Two distinctly different foreign policies are far more dangerous than a single yet admittedly flawed one.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
McCain Shares his View
Senator John McCain shocked many today by appearing with the ladies of The View. He looked calm and relaxed, not fidgeting nearly as much as Senator Obama did last week. He spoke with the charisma and enthusiasm that had been lacking in his campaign.
Unlike Senator Obama's appearance, McCain was actually thrown hardball questions that required real solutions, not merely the empty rhetoric Obama has been spewing lately. The now infamous "100 years in Iraq" quote was the top issue for the ladies. In hindsight I am sure McCain regrets uttering that phrase which has been replayed countless times by the Clinton News Network and others like it. The sound byte they use however is completely out of context. The Maverick was merely talking about a United States presence in Iraq with military bases, not an ongoing war. He likens it to U.S. presence in South Korea, Germany and Japan: former sites of military conflict where the fighting has ceased but the United States remains an entity there.
The McCain/Rice ticket was also mentioned. The Senator acknowledged Secretary Rice as a great American but has said no talks have been initiated regarding the bottom half of the ticket. Interesting however, was McCain's characterization of the vice presidency. I recently wrote about how the role has been expanded in the last several years, but McCain considerably downplayed the scope of the office. He stated the only real duties of a vice president are to break a tie vote in the Senate and to check on the health of the president. Let me say this was a relief to hear. In an age where executive power and overreaching is rampant, it is refreshing for a politician like McCain to respect the Constitution and acknowledge that it is within the walls of Congress where legislation must be created.
It was uncomfortable at times to watch as the women pummeled him with questions, barely allowing time for a thought out response before the next was hurled his way. He conducted himself professionally and came out unscathed from the "interview". This was no interview, it was a forum for the ladies to bash President Bush and Senator McCain simultaneously.
When asked rather snidely by Joy Behar, "What's the difference between you and President Bush?" McCain went into a series of comparisons which showed they are truly two different politicians with conflicting agendas. But I am sure the liberal media turned a deaf ear on that response.
All things considered, conservatives should be proud of Senator McCain for his appearance this morning. He went on a very liberal show with a New York audience behind it and held true to his principles.
Senator Obama and the moveon.org liberals like him should be very intimated by McCain's political expertise.
Unlike Senator Obama's appearance, McCain was actually thrown hardball questions that required real solutions, not merely the empty rhetoric Obama has been spewing lately. The now infamous "100 years in Iraq" quote was the top issue for the ladies. In hindsight I am sure McCain regrets uttering that phrase which has been replayed countless times by the Clinton News Network and others like it. The sound byte they use however is completely out of context. The Maverick was merely talking about a United States presence in Iraq with military bases, not an ongoing war. He likens it to U.S. presence in South Korea, Germany and Japan: former sites of military conflict where the fighting has ceased but the United States remains an entity there.
The McCain/Rice ticket was also mentioned. The Senator acknowledged Secretary Rice as a great American but has said no talks have been initiated regarding the bottom half of the ticket. Interesting however, was McCain's characterization of the vice presidency. I recently wrote about how the role has been expanded in the last several years, but McCain considerably downplayed the scope of the office. He stated the only real duties of a vice president are to break a tie vote in the Senate and to check on the health of the president. Let me say this was a relief to hear. In an age where executive power and overreaching is rampant, it is refreshing for a politician like McCain to respect the Constitution and acknowledge that it is within the walls of Congress where legislation must be created.
It was uncomfortable at times to watch as the women pummeled him with questions, barely allowing time for a thought out response before the next was hurled his way. He conducted himself professionally and came out unscathed from the "interview". This was no interview, it was a forum for the ladies to bash President Bush and Senator McCain simultaneously.
When asked rather snidely by Joy Behar, "What's the difference between you and President Bush?" McCain went into a series of comparisons which showed they are truly two different politicians with conflicting agendas. But I am sure the liberal media turned a deaf ear on that response.
All things considered, conservatives should be proud of Senator McCain for his appearance this morning. He went on a very liberal show with a New York audience behind it and held true to his principles.
Senator Obama and the moveon.org liberals like him should be very intimated by McCain's political expertise.
Monday, April 7, 2008
McCain/??? in 2008
With each day exposing another ugly story that has become the norm of the politics from the Democrat Party, Mr. McCain is in the enviable position (at least to Senators Clinton and Obama) of selecting a running mate. The Maverick broke word of this last week to a group of reporters; admitting his campaign was actively searching to fill the bottom half of the ticket.
Since Al Gore's first stint as vice-president the American people have witnessed the expansion of that particular office. Certainly the case can be argued that no one better personifies the growth of VP power more than Dick Cheney. With every election we see the name on the bottom half of the ticket gain more prestige and therefore the electorate has no choice but to recognize it as a legitimate political office. In the past, comparisons were even made between the American Vice President and the Queen of England; possessing power in title only.
Being in a new political era, polling is now being conducted to attempt to gauge public approval in a potential VP nominee. Speculation was rampant on the Sunday Morning talk shows regarding Secretary Rice's desire to fill the void in the GOP ticket. Also a new poll was published in the Washington Post asking "Who do you support as John McCain's running mate?" 453 republicans said:
Mike Huckabee 18%
Mitt Romney 15%
Condoleezza Rice 8%
Fred Thompson 4%
Ron Paul 2%
Rudy Giuliani 2%
Charlie Crist 2%
Joe Lieberman 2%
Colin Powell/John Edwards/Tim Pawlenty/Newt Gingrich/Bill Richardson 1% each
Cannot Name Anyone 31%
As Chris Cilliza (analyst of the poll) suggests, this does not necessarily represents a candidate's popularity or likability. This was used as a tool to determine name recognition and how familiar the electorate might be with an individual.
Mike Huckabee certainly benefits from being the last man to bow down to McCain, leading the poll here. He is certainly likable on both sides of the aisle but has shortcomings that could prove fatal to McCain's campaign.
In my opinion Governor Romney is the front-runner for VP and the job is his if he so desires. He has the charisma McCain lacks and is capable of carrying the conservative base of the party. He also possesses the economic expertise that is absent within the McCain camp. But these two men loathed each other for over a year and it will be difficult to relinquish any grudges. Romney has made it clear he has not given up on his presidential aspirations yet, but two losses (a primary run and as VP in the general) in the same year would certainly sabotage those expectations.
Condoleeza Rice has been a pioneer and crusader her entire life. She was the first woman to ever occupy the role of National Security Advisor and the first African-American woman to become Secretary of State. There is no question she is immensely qualified in terms of foreign experience, a pivotal platform in McCain's bid. With arguably the most daunting task facing McCain being winning over the conservative base of the GOP, Rice would certainly have to explain why she was a registered member of the Democrat Party until 1982, not a bright public relations move by McCain. She has also proven quite wobbly on abortion, a key issue to "values voters".
So what does all this mean? Exactly what the poll suggests possibly. The right man (or woman) for the job has yet to step into the spotlight. One thing is certain: Senator McCain needs to make a decision quickly so the GOP can have its house in order while there is still bedlam running rampant within the Democrat Party. McCain & Company would have a significant advantage in getting fund raising flowing at optimum levels as well as perfecting the message of the campaign.
The clock is ticking Senator McCain. But I would like to leave by advising everyone out there that regardless of how optimistic and uplifting the political climate might be for the GOP right now:
Never underestimate the unique ability the Republican Party possesses in blowing an election.
Since Al Gore's first stint as vice-president the American people have witnessed the expansion of that particular office. Certainly the case can be argued that no one better personifies the growth of VP power more than Dick Cheney. With every election we see the name on the bottom half of the ticket gain more prestige and therefore the electorate has no choice but to recognize it as a legitimate political office. In the past, comparisons were even made between the American Vice President and the Queen of England; possessing power in title only.
Being in a new political era, polling is now being conducted to attempt to gauge public approval in a potential VP nominee. Speculation was rampant on the Sunday Morning talk shows regarding Secretary Rice's desire to fill the void in the GOP ticket. Also a new poll was published in the Washington Post asking "Who do you support as John McCain's running mate?" 453 republicans said:
Mike Huckabee 18%
Mitt Romney 15%
Condoleezza Rice 8%
Fred Thompson 4%
Ron Paul 2%
Rudy Giuliani 2%
Charlie Crist 2%
Joe Lieberman 2%
Colin Powell/John Edwards/Tim Pawlenty/Newt Gingrich/Bill Richardson 1% each
Cannot Name Anyone 31%
As Chris Cilliza (analyst of the poll) suggests, this does not necessarily represents a candidate's popularity or likability. This was used as a tool to determine name recognition and how familiar the electorate might be with an individual.
Mike Huckabee certainly benefits from being the last man to bow down to McCain, leading the poll here. He is certainly likable on both sides of the aisle but has shortcomings that could prove fatal to McCain's campaign.
In my opinion Governor Romney is the front-runner for VP and the job is his if he so desires. He has the charisma McCain lacks and is capable of carrying the conservative base of the party. He also possesses the economic expertise that is absent within the McCain camp. But these two men loathed each other for over a year and it will be difficult to relinquish any grudges. Romney has made it clear he has not given up on his presidential aspirations yet, but two losses (a primary run and as VP in the general) in the same year would certainly sabotage those expectations.
Condoleeza Rice has been a pioneer and crusader her entire life. She was the first woman to ever occupy the role of National Security Advisor and the first African-American woman to become Secretary of State. There is no question she is immensely qualified in terms of foreign experience, a pivotal platform in McCain's bid. With arguably the most daunting task facing McCain being winning over the conservative base of the GOP, Rice would certainly have to explain why she was a registered member of the Democrat Party until 1982, not a bright public relations move by McCain. She has also proven quite wobbly on abortion, a key issue to "values voters".
So what does all this mean? Exactly what the poll suggests possibly. The right man (or woman) for the job has yet to step into the spotlight. One thing is certain: Senator McCain needs to make a decision quickly so the GOP can have its house in order while there is still bedlam running rampant within the Democrat Party. McCain & Company would have a significant advantage in getting fund raising flowing at optimum levels as well as perfecting the message of the campaign.
The clock is ticking Senator McCain. But I would like to leave by advising everyone out there that regardless of how optimistic and uplifting the political climate might be for the GOP right now:
Never underestimate the unique ability the Republican Party possesses in blowing an election.
Thursday, April 3, 2008
How Quickly We Forget
Why has the Reverend Wright story disappeared so quickly from the liberal media? The rants made by this man should have people of all faiths and colors deeply offended and cause the electorate to be suspicious of Senator Obama's own beliefs.
However there are actually polls out in Pennsylvania showing Obama gaining considerable ground on Mrs. Clinton's lead. How is this no longer a story? Obama sat in that church for twenty years and listened to this man preach relentlessly about intolerance and hate. Are you telling me this rhetoric had no impact or effect on the Senator whatsoever? Even Mrs. Clinton remarked "I'd switch churches".
The antics of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson are well-documented in the media and seem to be constantly finding air time. Years after Robertson's infamous remarks regarding homosexuality as a cause for 9/11, we still hear that sound byte. So why in an election year is the media turning the other cheek on this one? I still have not heard an acceptable excuse from Senator Obama as to why he did not get up and leave that church.
Tuesday evening members of the congregation held a vigil for the retired reverend, vowing to come to his defense. This story must not be allowed to fade from the front page. It is far too important to be overlooked; especially now as we are a mere seven months away from the election. The New York Times has plenty of space to print malicious stories regarding McCain's temper, but they do not consider Barack Obama having an abhorrent segregationist as a mentor to be newsworthy.
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Another Free Pass?
When an individual takes time to go out and campaign for a certain political candidate, message, ideology, etc. he or she is open to criticism from the public. This has always been the case and it gets particularly dirty as the campaigns draw closer to election day. So why is Chelsea Clinton consistently able to dodge the questions regarding her father's infidelity?
Candidates and their families are constantly vetted by the media and the electorate (unless of course you are Barack Obama), and the higher office being sought after the more thorough the investigations will be. This is not an unfair standard; presumably a candidate will rely upon the people he or she loves and trusts and will turn to them for guidance and support during trying times. It is reasonable for those closest to the candidate to answer tough questions.
Lynne Cheney, the lesbian daughter of Vice President Cheney, faced a barrage of attacks from both the Christian right and the liberals about her sexuality. She faced these questions head on, not shying away from the biased attacks being thrown at her. John McCain's daughter Meghan was forced to answer hardball questions when she admitted to agreeing with some of Obama's positions. Even Mayor Giuliani's wife Judith was put in the unfortunate position of trying to justify her husband leaving his wife in order to marry her.
When a member of a candidate's family goes on the campain trail, they have to accept the repercussions of advocating a particular position. They have to understand the opposition will now be coming after them as well, that's the nature of American politics. Chelsea Clinton is 28 years old and should provide answers to reasonable and valid questions, even those regarding her adulterous father. Can you imagine the firestorm that would have ensued if Mrs. Giuliani, Ms. McCain or Ms. Cheney dodged the rather personal and intimate questions posed by the media with a simple "no comment"?
The double-standard the liberal media continues to operate under never ceases to amaze me...
Candidates and their families are constantly vetted by the media and the electorate (unless of course you are Barack Obama), and the higher office being sought after the more thorough the investigations will be. This is not an unfair standard; presumably a candidate will rely upon the people he or she loves and trusts and will turn to them for guidance and support during trying times. It is reasonable for those closest to the candidate to answer tough questions.
Lynne Cheney, the lesbian daughter of Vice President Cheney, faced a barrage of attacks from both the Christian right and the liberals about her sexuality. She faced these questions head on, not shying away from the biased attacks being thrown at her. John McCain's daughter Meghan was forced to answer hardball questions when she admitted to agreeing with some of Obama's positions. Even Mayor Giuliani's wife Judith was put in the unfortunate position of trying to justify her husband leaving his wife in order to marry her.
When a member of a candidate's family goes on the campain trail, they have to accept the repercussions of advocating a particular position. They have to understand the opposition will now be coming after them as well, that's the nature of American politics. Chelsea Clinton is 28 years old and should provide answers to reasonable and valid questions, even those regarding her adulterous father. Can you imagine the firestorm that would have ensued if Mrs. Giuliani, Ms. McCain or Ms. Cheney dodged the rather personal and intimate questions posed by the media with a simple "no comment"?
The double-standard the liberal media continues to operate under never ceases to amaze me...
The Conservative Casanova Endorses Senator Obama for President of the United States
HAPPY APRIL FOOL'S DAY!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
