The interesting thing on the Democrat side of the presidential primaries, other than the infighting, is the amount of money being raised for this incredibly tight race. Hillary Clinton soaked up $35 million in February alone while Barak Obama trumped her with his own $55 million - a record.
Where is this bonanza coming from? MoveOn.org, for one. Trial Lawyers are another group that has a vested interest in seeing the Democrat Socialist agenda succeed. And of course, we can't forget about all the Hollywood crowd.
The labor unions are also bedding down with both candidates, but that's just to be expected. There was a time when labor unions really did serve an important purpose in this country, but in most cases it's pure nostalgia (and big business) now.
Last year I spent some time at a Lyondell refinery and it was a very eye-opening experience. There was a very real emotional and political wall between management and the workers but it was all very surreal. It was literally the only place I have ever been where workers without college degrees pulled down 100K per year and still moaned about how "the man is keeping me down." The word crybabies comes to mind.
But back to campaign finance. How are things faring on the Republican side? Senator McCain is the only man left standing on this side of the fence which gives him a decided advantage at this point.
The focus of his fund gathering can be for the general election, not the nomination. Also, unlike Obama and Hillary, he doesn't have to spend gobs of money courting superdelegates.
Monday, March 31, 2008
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Clinton Superdelegates Threaten the Will of the People
Why does the whole idea of Superdelegates give most citizens the heebie-jeebies? Because the whole concept goes against what we perceive as the American election process that we're so proud of: one citizen, one vote.
Unfortunately, since 1984, the Democrat party has allowed the use of superdelegates; these are nearly 800 party insiders and elected officials who are allowed to back whichever candidate they please.
This not only implies that the party is free to appoint individuals who are free to work as party agents, but it renders the entire Democrat primary system a sham.
For example, a group of 20 prominent Clinton supporters delivered a letter to Nancy Pelosi, House of Representatives Speaker, in which they spanked her for her recent public comments regarding the superdelegate process.
So what was her egregious statement? She said that the superdelegates should support whoever emerges from the primaries with the majority of pledged delegates. That sounds reasonable, right? The problem is that it's becoming increasingly likely that that candidate will be Barak Obama.
And that's got the Clintons running scared. That's right, the same Clintons that have proven over and over again that scruples shouldn't stand in the way of getting what one wants.
The letter states, "This is an untenable position that runs counter to the party's intent in establishing superdelegates in 1984." Huh? And we thought they were intended to be tie-breakers.
It should be noted that all the signers are wealthy Clinton backers. It's obvious that this snarling pack of Hillary zealots care little for the "will of the people." If the delegate count is close at the convention with Obama leading, these wealthy Clinton insiders intend to sweep aside one of the most basic premises of a free society - one of the tenets we preach to the world.
Sometimes it doesn't really take a village, Hillary, it just takes a couple dozen of your stooges.
Unfortunately, since 1984, the Democrat party has allowed the use of superdelegates; these are nearly 800 party insiders and elected officials who are allowed to back whichever candidate they please.
This not only implies that the party is free to appoint individuals who are free to work as party agents, but it renders the entire Democrat primary system a sham.
For example, a group of 20 prominent Clinton supporters delivered a letter to Nancy Pelosi, House of Representatives Speaker, in which they spanked her for her recent public comments regarding the superdelegate process.
So what was her egregious statement? She said that the superdelegates should support whoever emerges from the primaries with the majority of pledged delegates. That sounds reasonable, right? The problem is that it's becoming increasingly likely that that candidate will be Barak Obama.
And that's got the Clintons running scared. That's right, the same Clintons that have proven over and over again that scruples shouldn't stand in the way of getting what one wants.
The letter states, "This is an untenable position that runs counter to the party's intent in establishing superdelegates in 1984." Huh? And we thought they were intended to be tie-breakers.
It should be noted that all the signers are wealthy Clinton backers. It's obvious that this snarling pack of Hillary zealots care little for the "will of the people." If the delegate count is close at the convention with Obama leading, these wealthy Clinton insiders intend to sweep aside one of the most basic premises of a free society - one of the tenets we preach to the world.
Sometimes it doesn't really take a village, Hillary, it just takes a couple dozen of your stooges.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Tibet, China, and Presidential Hopefuls
The nation of Tibet has been much in the news lately as Red China seeks more control there. China, of course, sees Tibet's culture and religious views as a threat to an orderly, centrist, Chinese government.
Now, as the focus of the world shifts to that region as publicity for the upcoming Olympic games increases, Tibet's separatist faction has taken the opportunity to showcase their struggle against China's oppressive policy. No doubt it would have happened anyway, but coincidentally...
China, for her part, is caught in a vice. She must quell the outbursts to maintain credibility in the region (oppressive regimes must retain face, above all else, lest the mindset slips), and yet not mar the world's view of the grandiose Olympic host.
In the most transparent of all cop-outs, China is trying to paint the Dalai Lama as a violent behind-the-scenes puppeteer.
Surely, this is an opportunity for presidential hopefuls Clinton, McCain, and Obama to give the voters an inkling of what they would do in an uprising that could very well lead to a reinactment of Tienanmen Square.
Predictably (or interestingly, depending on your personal bias), they are all three marching in lockstep. None are calling for any harsh action against China. Whether this is based on a policy of cautious diplomacy, waiting for one of the others to go overboard, or concerns over keeping Walmart stocked with Chinese schlock merchandise in our teetering economy is unclear.
In a (bold?) statement, Clinton says, "I think that what's happening in Tibet is deeply troubling, and this is a pattern of the Chinese government with respect to their treatment of Tibet." Try bland next time, Hillary.
McCain adds, "It's not correct that the people there are being subjected to mistreatment. That is not acceptable conduct from a world power, which China is." A nod to a trading partner?
And Obama, a graduate of Pastor Wright's theological tutelage, chimes in, "We can start now by speaking out for the human rights and religious freedom of the people of Tibet." God**** China, God**** China, their chickens are coming home to roost!
Now, as the focus of the world shifts to that region as publicity for the upcoming Olympic games increases, Tibet's separatist faction has taken the opportunity to showcase their struggle against China's oppressive policy. No doubt it would have happened anyway, but coincidentally...
China, for her part, is caught in a vice. She must quell the outbursts to maintain credibility in the region (oppressive regimes must retain face, above all else, lest the mindset slips), and yet not mar the world's view of the grandiose Olympic host.
In the most transparent of all cop-outs, China is trying to paint the Dalai Lama as a violent behind-the-scenes puppeteer.
Surely, this is an opportunity for presidential hopefuls Clinton, McCain, and Obama to give the voters an inkling of what they would do in an uprising that could very well lead to a reinactment of Tienanmen Square.
Predictably (or interestingly, depending on your personal bias), they are all three marching in lockstep. None are calling for any harsh action against China. Whether this is based on a policy of cautious diplomacy, waiting for one of the others to go overboard, or concerns over keeping Walmart stocked with Chinese schlock merchandise in our teetering economy is unclear.
In a (bold?) statement, Clinton says, "I think that what's happening in Tibet is deeply troubling, and this is a pattern of the Chinese government with respect to their treatment of Tibet." Try bland next time, Hillary.
McCain adds, "It's not correct that the people there are being subjected to mistreatment. That is not acceptable conduct from a world power, which China is." A nod to a trading partner?
And Obama, a graduate of Pastor Wright's theological tutelage, chimes in, "We can start now by speaking out for the human rights and religious freedom of the people of Tibet." God**** China, God**** China, their chickens are coming home to roost!
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Clinton Tries to Dodge the Bullet - From the Media, not Bosnian Snipers
The whopper of all whoppers! When Hillary claimed a major role in the Irish peace talks and that was debunked, at least we could always say, "Wellllllll, perhaps she had Bill's ear, and that's what she really meant."
But I don't really believe that anyone dodging bullets under sniper fire could mistake that from reality. Conversely, interpreting a greeting ceremony on the tarmac as "running with our heads down" is just psychotic. "Psst, Hilly, in the spirit of your proposed Woodstock museum, don't take the bad acid!"
Even Sinbad, who accompanied her on this USO trip, testifies that her statement is just wacko. And yes, at least Sinbad admits he's a professional comedian and performer.
Well, it seems there are three possible explanations for Hillary's tenuous grasp of simple facts. One - she's simply delusional. This may be true seeing as how she stood by her man as he sought to be the poster boy for Viagra.
Two - she'll say anything to make it look like she has real experience and can keep cool under "fire". After all, who do you trust to answer that phone at 3 AM while your innocent child sleeps? I'll take Sinbad over Clinton.
Three - She's just a professional politician, ready to do anything to pander to anyone who'll sell their vote. (She does mimic a fairly good southern accent when she entertains the crowd in black churches.) I hope she's still got Bill's Rolodex; I'll bet it's packed with Chinese phone numbers. We've still got some missile secrets up for sale, don't we?
But I don't really believe that anyone dodging bullets under sniper fire could mistake that from reality. Conversely, interpreting a greeting ceremony on the tarmac as "running with our heads down" is just psychotic. "Psst, Hilly, in the spirit of your proposed Woodstock museum, don't take the bad acid!"
Even Sinbad, who accompanied her on this USO trip, testifies that her statement is just wacko. And yes, at least Sinbad admits he's a professional comedian and performer.
Well, it seems there are three possible explanations for Hillary's tenuous grasp of simple facts. One - she's simply delusional. This may be true seeing as how she stood by her man as he sought to be the poster boy for Viagra.
Two - she'll say anything to make it look like she has real experience and can keep cool under "fire". After all, who do you trust to answer that phone at 3 AM while your innocent child sleeps? I'll take Sinbad over Clinton.
Three - She's just a professional politician, ready to do anything to pander to anyone who'll sell their vote. (She does mimic a fairly good southern accent when she entertains the crowd in black churches.) I hope she's still got Bill's Rolodex; I'll bet it's packed with Chinese phone numbers. We've still got some missile secrets up for sale, don't we?
Monday, March 24, 2008
Bad Blood between Clinton, Richardson
It was hardly a surprise when Bill Richardson made such a big production about endorsing Barak Obama. It was becoming increasingly obvious that while the two remaining viable Democrat candidates were scratching and clawing for the remaining delegates in the Democratic primaries, John McCain, the Republican candidate has been busy doing the work of actually running for the presidency.
Richardson said as much on Fox News yesterday. I paraphrase, "While Obama and Clinton are busy trying to win the nomination, McCain is going international. This has to stop."
He has a point. McCain has been using the time remaining before the conventions to project the image of being the president - as a foregone conclusion. Mana from heaven. But that's the way it played out.
But what's been going on in the background? Richardson said on NBC Nightly News that when he broke the news to Hillary via a phone call, the discussion about his decision to endorse Barack Obama was "heated" and "tough". One can well imagine. Senator Clinton is well known for her shrillness and sense of entitlement. Who can forget, "We are the President!"
Richardson, for the moment, is the party's most visible champion for party unification; and he's taken his stand. Of course, it would have been too dangerous to trot out a has-been like John Kerry.
But Richardson is different. He's up and coming, he seems to have no skeletons in the closet, and... well, he's Hispanic. Well, half Hispanic, but let's not quibble. This is just a long range speculation of course, but it would be interesting to see if a successful Obama puts him on the ticket. After all, the two would represent the very two groups of constituents the Dems need to spark with just now - Hispanics and Blacks.
Richardson said as much on Fox News yesterday. I paraphrase, "While Obama and Clinton are busy trying to win the nomination, McCain is going international. This has to stop."
He has a point. McCain has been using the time remaining before the conventions to project the image of being the president - as a foregone conclusion. Mana from heaven. But that's the way it played out.
But what's been going on in the background? Richardson said on NBC Nightly News that when he broke the news to Hillary via a phone call, the discussion about his decision to endorse Barack Obama was "heated" and "tough". One can well imagine. Senator Clinton is well known for her shrillness and sense of entitlement. Who can forget, "We are the President!"
Richardson, for the moment, is the party's most visible champion for party unification; and he's taken his stand. Of course, it would have been too dangerous to trot out a has-been like John Kerry.
But Richardson is different. He's up and coming, he seems to have no skeletons in the closet, and... well, he's Hispanic. Well, half Hispanic, but let's not quibble. This is just a long range speculation of course, but it would be interesting to see if a successful Obama puts him on the ticket. After all, the two would represent the very two groups of constituents the Dems need to spark with just now - Hispanics and Blacks.
Sunday, March 23, 2008
Dutch Anti-Muslim Film Soon to be Released
Geert Wilder, member of the Dutch Parliament, has recently completed a new film that explores the rambling Koran as the basis for modern day Islamo-fascist terrorism and other current Muslim atrocities.
Although the film is a short, reputedly only fifteen minutes max, he can't get any Dutch television stations to touch it. Perhaps too many of them remember the aftermath of the Danish political cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed. Perhaps the Dutch feel it easier to lay down hoping to be spared as the more radical elements of the Muslim faith seek to establish themselves as they have in "inclusive" countries like France and the UK.
Wilder has been known to draw parallels between Hitler's Mein Kampf to the Koran, and Muhammed to Hitler himself. Is he far off the mark? Although the spread of Nazism was accompanied by uniformed troops and tanks, the spread of militant Islam today is accompanied by plain clothed terrorist cell members and child suicide bombers.
Mohamed Rabbae, chairman of the Dutch Moroccan Council, put it this way, “Wilders is a little bit crazy, if I may say it in this way, because he is fighting against somebody who has been living in the sixth century, not in our time.”
Which is exactly the point - the current threat to modern society is not Islam as a religion, just those fringe Islamic throwbacks that seek to establish a ruthless international Caliphate and return to the days of Fred Flintstone. Except with all the beheading and stoning, of course.
Although the film is a short, reputedly only fifteen minutes max, he can't get any Dutch television stations to touch it. Perhaps too many of them remember the aftermath of the Danish political cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed. Perhaps the Dutch feel it easier to lay down hoping to be spared as the more radical elements of the Muslim faith seek to establish themselves as they have in "inclusive" countries like France and the UK.
Wilder has been known to draw parallels between Hitler's Mein Kampf to the Koran, and Muhammed to Hitler himself. Is he far off the mark? Although the spread of Nazism was accompanied by uniformed troops and tanks, the spread of militant Islam today is accompanied by plain clothed terrorist cell members and child suicide bombers.
Mohamed Rabbae, chairman of the Dutch Moroccan Council, put it this way, “Wilders is a little bit crazy, if I may say it in this way, because he is fighting against somebody who has been living in the sixth century, not in our time.”
Which is exactly the point - the current threat to modern society is not Islam as a religion, just those fringe Islamic throwbacks that seek to establish a ruthless international Caliphate and return to the days of Fred Flintstone. Except with all the beheading and stoning, of course.
Saturday, March 22, 2008
Pennsylvania Primary Critical to Obama, Clinton
As the Pennsylvania primary draws near on April 22, the focus is on Hillary rising in the polls against Obama. According to a March 20 Franklin & Marshall poll, the breakdown is:
February - Hillary: 44%, Obama: 37%
March - Hillary: 51%, Obama:35%
Where is the difference coming from? Obama has remained relatively stable while Clinton has risen somewhat. Most of her higher numbers are the result of the ranks of the undecided and "other" respondents shrinking.
The poll reports that the issues that have driven the change are not the current controversial Barak and Pastor Wright revelations, but solid domestic issues. The respondents are more interested in Clinton's focus on the economy and healthcare than Obama's "get out of Iraq no matter what the consequence" stance.
Still, April 22 is still a long way off, politically speaking. Any number of things could happen betwixt now and then to further polarize the Dems. If one or the other manages a landslide, it could push momentum in that direction.
But if remains this close in Pennsylvania and subsequent primaries, a bloodbath at the Democratic National Convention is a very real possibility.
February - Hillary: 44%, Obama: 37%
March - Hillary: 51%, Obama:35%
Where is the difference coming from? Obama has remained relatively stable while Clinton has risen somewhat. Most of her higher numbers are the result of the ranks of the undecided and "other" respondents shrinking.
The poll reports that the issues that have driven the change are not the current controversial Barak and Pastor Wright revelations, but solid domestic issues. The respondents are more interested in Clinton's focus on the economy and healthcare than Obama's "get out of Iraq no matter what the consequence" stance.
Still, April 22 is still a long way off, politically speaking. Any number of things could happen betwixt now and then to further polarize the Dems. If one or the other manages a landslide, it could push momentum in that direction.
But if remains this close in Pennsylvania and subsequent primaries, a bloodbath at the Democratic National Convention is a very real possibility.
Friday, March 21, 2008
Richardson Endorses Obama
Well, it was no big surprise today when New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson endorsed Obama. In his endorsement speech he alluded to the fact that he and Obama both sprung from the loins of mixed-race parents, and therefore, they both understood that things had to be changed to do things not the Democrat way, not the Republican way, but the American way.
He went on to say that that was the reason we won the cold war - because we confronted them in that context. Certainly, other events led up to the collapse of the "other side", but I was around, and I could have sworn that Reagan was the man that kicked them out of the saddle. I'm pretty sure Reagan was a conservative Republican.
Bush Cruel to Immigrants
Richardson also informed the audience that the Bush administration has kept its boot firmly on the backs of immigrants. I'm sorry, Bill, they're not immigrants, they're illegal aliens. Immigrants "emigrate"; they don't sneak across the border. And Bush has been anything but hard on them. Believe me, I live in a sanctuary city.
Clinton Adviser Downplays Richardson Endorsement
Of course, the Clinton camp was quick to respond. And well they should. They've been counting on courting the Hispanic vote, and this endorsement has tapped them soundly in the solar plexus.
Senior Clinton strategist Mark Penn explained, “I think the time that he could have been effective has long since passed. I don’t think it is a significant endorsement in this environment.”
I beg to differ. Ever since Richardson dropped out of the Democrat primary, both camps have been courting him. The fact that he drifted to Obama's side speaks volumes. Like it or not, both Blacks and Hispanics think of themselves of being out of the mainstream - no matter how wealthy or privileged they might be.
It would be easy for them to join forces against the uber-White Clinton. In so doing, it's not a far reach that they could form a sort of coalition of voters as the last primary states make the delegate hunt more critical. Time will tell.
He went on to say that that was the reason we won the cold war - because we confronted them in that context. Certainly, other events led up to the collapse of the "other side", but I was around, and I could have sworn that Reagan was the man that kicked them out of the saddle. I'm pretty sure Reagan was a conservative Republican.
Bush Cruel to Immigrants
Richardson also informed the audience that the Bush administration has kept its boot firmly on the backs of immigrants. I'm sorry, Bill, they're not immigrants, they're illegal aliens. Immigrants "emigrate"; they don't sneak across the border. And Bush has been anything but hard on them. Believe me, I live in a sanctuary city.
Clinton Adviser Downplays Richardson Endorsement
Of course, the Clinton camp was quick to respond. And well they should. They've been counting on courting the Hispanic vote, and this endorsement has tapped them soundly in the solar plexus.
Senior Clinton strategist Mark Penn explained, “I think the time that he could have been effective has long since passed. I don’t think it is a significant endorsement in this environment.”
I beg to differ. Ever since Richardson dropped out of the Democrat primary, both camps have been courting him. The fact that he drifted to Obama's side speaks volumes. Like it or not, both Blacks and Hispanics think of themselves of being out of the mainstream - no matter how wealthy or privileged they might be.
It would be easy for them to join forces against the uber-White Clinton. In so doing, it's not a far reach that they could form a sort of coalition of voters as the last primary states make the delegate hunt more critical. Time will tell.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
