Leading Clinton Donor Stays Below Radar
Here is one of those stories that in the end will be much ado about nothing.
A Clinton receiving monies from dubious sources, from people with a shady past shouldn't be a surprising bit of news to anyone by now, and its unlikely to change a thing in her presidential election campaign. Maybe she'll give the money back. Big deal.
It would be a bigger deal if this story actually harmed her career, if the media in general will ask her one tough question regarding just this one money issue, if people who bleed blue were actually spending a moment in reflective thought about her character and ability to effect change in America.
Democrats outside the Beltway do not judge the politicians who have a 'd' next to their name the same way they do of those politicians who have an 'r'. Its true, much is said about this on the right leanings airwaves, but often times those radio heads are angling their tirade at the biased media and the DC crowd. Yet its all those common people who turn a blind eye to transgressions by Democrats who are really the problem.
There is no nicer way to state it.
You expect people with power to eventually get corrupt and you expect people who are giving us the news to have a bias. You can expect the two covering each other's back.
What should not be expected, or accepted is blind loyalty to a party. Yeah, its cuts both ways. However, for every one Democrat that has walked away from power in disgrace from a unflattering scandal there are handfuls of Republicans to match.
I'm not writing to attack Hillary Clinton, Mr. Hsu, or the biased media. At this point I've come to expect nothing better from her. This isn't her first suspicious donor.
I'm attempting to stir a civil dialogue with the people who only care about scandal when its a Republican in the wrong. That's not defending Republicans.
The people who nominated John Kerry because he was the most electable. The voters who deeply care about the environment, but shunned Ralph Nader. The lazy chair economists who are against a tax cut, but not when a Democrat proposes one. The peaceniks who don't flock to Dennis Kucinich. The class warriors who hate Republicans because they are for the rich and the Democrats are for the poor.
These people exist and they are the enablers of the corrupt culture of D.C.
When they are polled by Gallup their judgment comes to represent millions of Americans and then the media has their acquiescence to continue the bias.
Most troubling, generally speaking, its many of these same people who clamor for change. All the time.
In the meantime, I hear that Senator Larry Craig(r - Idaho) is getting his dose of toxic news coverage for acting like a gay man? Email me and I'll tell you how William Jefferson(d - LA) stole hundreds of thousands a couple of years ago and I bet you never heard of him.
Considering all the sensitivities on the left that gets those on the right in hot water, wouldn't it be a great show on election day if the rest of America judged all politicians equally?
Change isn't going to happen until then. . . .
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Gonzales Resigns, and this matters to what?
Embattled Gonzales Quits As Last.
Today Alberto Gonzales quit as Attorney General. For some life will never be the same. For others, they'll party through the night. I plan on getting some early sleep.
The only curiosity for me is that generally speaking the Congressmen and women who were pressuring this man to resign where eerily silent when a previous AG went about killing Americans.
Oh, well.
Its a big boy sport in D.C. and lawyers will protect their own, but outside the beltway the generalization also holds true.
Some, believe it or not, will act like they've won something today. As though a nefarious plotter has been laid away and liberty is yet again the word of the day.
Isn't it odd?
Janet Reno not only survived more disturbing scandals directly involving her, but to this day she is held in high regard by those who actually gave a hoot about this Gonzales getting away with firing a slew of attorneys.
How is this judgment balanced?
Likely left to be one of those great mystery of American politics.
Today Alberto Gonzales quit as Attorney General. For some life will never be the same. For others, they'll party through the night. I plan on getting some early sleep.
The only curiosity for me is that generally speaking the Congressmen and women who were pressuring this man to resign where eerily silent when a previous AG went about killing Americans.
Oh, well.
Its a big boy sport in D.C. and lawyers will protect their own, but outside the beltway the generalization also holds true.
Some, believe it or not, will act like they've won something today. As though a nefarious plotter has been laid away and liberty is yet again the word of the day.
Isn't it odd?
Janet Reno not only survived more disturbing scandals directly involving her, but to this day she is held in high regard by those who actually gave a hoot about this Gonzales getting away with firing a slew of attorneys.
How is this judgment balanced?
Likely left to be one of those great mystery of American politics.
Saturday, August 25, 2007
Brzezinski, Clinton, and the Obama Option
Brzezinski Embraces Obama Over Clinton
Its rare that I've agreed with such powerful Democrats, but its true, lately I've been agreeing with Obama, Clinton, and now Brzezinski.
Of course, all write ups about Democrat politics must include a Bush bash, so you'll enjoy that here, at the end when Brzezinski says the world hates us.
I guess Germany and France may not be on that list, considering the recent election of pro-American heads of state, but read into that what you will.
In any event, yet another mindful analyst who doesn't see much change coming from a Clinton, as if change came from the first one!
Its rare that I've agreed with such powerful Democrats, but its true, lately I've been agreeing with Obama, Clinton, and now Brzezinski.
Of course, all write ups about Democrat politics must include a Bush bash, so you'll enjoy that here, at the end when Brzezinski says the world hates us.
I guess Germany and France may not be on that list, considering the recent election of pro-American heads of state, but read into that what you will.
In any event, yet another mindful analyst who doesn't see much change coming from a Clinton, as if change came from the first one!
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
This is Hillary's Time to Shine
Video of Mrs. Clinton at VFW convention.
Writeup of Mrs. Clinton at VFW convention.
Well it didn't take long for Hillary Clinton to come over to my way of thinking did it? The problem for her loyalist is that my way of thinking isn't exactly what they have clamoring for for years.
I've been saying that we can't just pull out of Iraq and leave a blight on the U.S., especially after all the precious resources we've spent, in terms of life and money. Also, in the larger context of the War on Terror, we can't just hand a victory over to the enemy -- what we face in Iraq is not such a big hurdle, we can possible face much more dire and catastrophic attacks any day.
I've have argued for victory, and yet I'm open for the interpretation of withdrawal as a necessary movement based on the squandering of the opportunity the Iraqi's were given and that they are squarely to blame for any such short comings in their stability.
Its seems Hillary is moving toward my position.
However, much of Hillary's support is, and no doubt will be, from voters who like to fancy themselves as peaceful Americans who wanted the U.S. troops out of Iraq as of yesterday.
Its usually these people who like to sermonize what the future holds in Iraq, i.e. civil war, eventual defeat, another Vietnam, they can't understand Democracy. Today, I'll do a little sermonizing.
Hillary Clinton will be the next Democrat nominee for President. She'll get 45-51% of the vote. She may win, she may not. But she will get the support of most everyone of the these Americans who have a placard in their front yard or a bumper sticker on their automobiles that proudly states, "Support the Troops. End the War."
It its these American's who when polled in 2004 said the main reason they were voting for John Kerry was that he was electable. If you recall, this reason for voting for Kerry was the top reason. Above the war, taxes, social security, health care, the environment, deficit, debt. Above everything.
Is it any wonder why Bush won?
Its not to Ralph Nader, nor is it to me.
In 2008, whether the republican wins or not, one thing is almost certain, Hillary Clinton will get the support of the peaceniks despite the fact that she'll speak in terms of not ending the war immediately.
Exactly what they condemned Bush for.
Writeup of Mrs. Clinton at VFW convention.
Well it didn't take long for Hillary Clinton to come over to my way of thinking did it? The problem for her loyalist is that my way of thinking isn't exactly what they have clamoring for for years.
I've been saying that we can't just pull out of Iraq and leave a blight on the U.S., especially after all the precious resources we've spent, in terms of life and money. Also, in the larger context of the War on Terror, we can't just hand a victory over to the enemy -- what we face in Iraq is not such a big hurdle, we can possible face much more dire and catastrophic attacks any day.
I've have argued for victory, and yet I'm open for the interpretation of withdrawal as a necessary movement based on the squandering of the opportunity the Iraqi's were given and that they are squarely to blame for any such short comings in their stability.
Its seems Hillary is moving toward my position.
However, much of Hillary's support is, and no doubt will be, from voters who like to fancy themselves as peaceful Americans who wanted the U.S. troops out of Iraq as of yesterday.
Its usually these people who like to sermonize what the future holds in Iraq, i.e. civil war, eventual defeat, another Vietnam, they can't understand Democracy. Today, I'll do a little sermonizing.
Hillary Clinton will be the next Democrat nominee for President. She'll get 45-51% of the vote. She may win, she may not. But she will get the support of most everyone of the these Americans who have a placard in their front yard or a bumper sticker on their automobiles that proudly states, "Support the Troops. End the War."
It its these American's who when polled in 2004 said the main reason they were voting for John Kerry was that he was electable. If you recall, this reason for voting for Kerry was the top reason. Above the war, taxes, social security, health care, the environment, deficit, debt. Above everything.
Is it any wonder why Bush won?
Its not to Ralph Nader, nor is it to me.
In 2008, whether the republican wins or not, one thing is almost certain, Hillary Clinton will get the support of the peaceniks despite the fact that she'll speak in terms of not ending the war immediately.
Exactly what they condemned Bush for.
Thursday, August 16, 2007
Obama. A Kindred?
Obama Says Bush Not Solely to Blame
I'm not for any politician at this point, in fact I've just about convinced myself to go back to my third party roots in this next go round, but what Obama say in the first two paragraphs tickles me.
To be sure, he's probably just sealing his fate as a footnote in this race by saying Bush isn't to blame for everything -- those who hate Bush just can't see clearly anymore to acknowledge that there were problems before Bush. They'll rail against Obama and enjoin Hillary to change the country hereafter.
Obama is right about one thing, we can't just change the party in the White House and expect change.
All these Peace advocates are gathering around Hillary? I've personally experienced it with acquaintances.
If we intend to keep our military in the 100 other countries where troops are stationed, then peace ain't coming anytime soon.
I don't hear Hillary talking about that kind of change, so she's a vote for the same old same old.
To hell with change, more of the same!
I'm not for any politician at this point, in fact I've just about convinced myself to go back to my third party roots in this next go round, but what Obama say in the first two paragraphs tickles me.
To be sure, he's probably just sealing his fate as a footnote in this race by saying Bush isn't to blame for everything -- those who hate Bush just can't see clearly anymore to acknowledge that there were problems before Bush. They'll rail against Obama and enjoin Hillary to change the country hereafter.
Obama is right about one thing, we can't just change the party in the White House and expect change.
All these Peace advocates are gathering around Hillary? I've personally experienced it with acquaintances.
If we intend to keep our military in the 100 other countries where troops are stationed, then peace ain't coming anytime soon.
I don't hear Hillary talking about that kind of change, so she's a vote for the same old same old.
To hell with change, more of the same!
Sunday, August 12, 2007
On Betrayal and the Causes
Democrats Say Leaving Iraq May Take Years - New York Times
I have this acquaintance whom I run into on just about a daily basis. John is about as loyal a Republican as you can get, and there is nothing else keeping him up at night than the thought of a Hillary Clinton Presidency.
I do not at all share his concern over this matter. It's not that I don't think that she has a chance, for I think she has a tremendous chance of winning election, its that I don't think she'll change anything once in office, if she indeed does claim a victory.
I ask John, are you worried that she'll get the nation into a war? No, he says. I could of pointed out she did vote for war. I ask, John? Are you worried she'd spend more money than the government brings in, the classic big spending liberal? No, he says. I could of pointed out that she voted in favor of most Bush proposals during her terms.
He's worried that she'll raise taxes.
And that has nothing to do with the NY Times story I linked to, other than to point out that 'they' are on both sides of the isle.
But I tell John of why I think he'll get his worst fear realized anyways.
It's because roughly 40-45% of the population is going to vote for the Democrat in the election regardless of who it is. If not more this time around due to the real discontent with the Bush Administration.
Loyalty to the little 'd' is one of the persistent characteristics of life in America over the last 60 years.
Obviously, it cuts both ways. Many people will vote Republican, almost as loyally.
However, with a little help from a conservative third party candidate, and just the right blend of voter turnout, a Democrat would be assured a victory. Without a third party candidate, its still more likely than a republican winning, no matter who that is.
No doubts, Bill Clinton can testify, and who could question his integrity?
But as I said, I don't think she'll change a thing, and considering the leftist special interests are already quietly accepting betrayal of their causes, this only further convinces me that a democrat administration, regardless of who it is, will not only retain the loyalty vote but will also experience not a squawk from the corners of the liberal nation.
Without this pressure from the interest who expect change in federal government, its probable that the new President will do little. Why stir the basket when all the discontented are so at ease?
We only have to look at her husband's 8 years to understand how this plays out. About the only thing he changed were gays in the military and funding of overseas abortions, yet he sure made a lot of promises on his road to the White House.
Its horrible. All these people have been complaining for years. Since the first days of Bush's Administration, and yet they are already muting themselves for the benefit of a party. To hell with the ideals and principles.
Look at the environmentalist. Gore wrote "Earth in the Balance" in 1992. By 2000 Ralph Nader stood up and ran for president, as a Green Party candidate. He got about 5% of the vote. Al Gore got 50%. Thanks for nothing.
So I don't fear a Hillary Presidency, and I expect a full 8 years from her. I just don't expect her to change much, which is what is sorely needed anyways. Its simple logic, if the squawkers are lacking the courage to vote for someone other than a democrat, who they always vote for anyways, then they sure aren't going to do something that takes a lot more courage than that -- standing up to betrayal.
But voting for Hillary Clinton is a betrayal itself, if you've been against the War in Iraq, or a slew of other issues you have with the Bush Administration.
But considering what an act of betrayal to our allies is by quiting the War in Iraq abruptly, this indicates to me that some are very comfortable with the concept.
I have this acquaintance whom I run into on just about a daily basis. John is about as loyal a Republican as you can get, and there is nothing else keeping him up at night than the thought of a Hillary Clinton Presidency.
I do not at all share his concern over this matter. It's not that I don't think that she has a chance, for I think she has a tremendous chance of winning election, its that I don't think she'll change anything once in office, if she indeed does claim a victory.
I ask John, are you worried that she'll get the nation into a war? No, he says. I could of pointed out she did vote for war. I ask, John? Are you worried she'd spend more money than the government brings in, the classic big spending liberal? No, he says. I could of pointed out that she voted in favor of most Bush proposals during her terms.
He's worried that she'll raise taxes.
And that has nothing to do with the NY Times story I linked to, other than to point out that 'they' are on both sides of the isle.
But I tell John of why I think he'll get his worst fear realized anyways.
It's because roughly 40-45% of the population is going to vote for the Democrat in the election regardless of who it is. If not more this time around due to the real discontent with the Bush Administration.
Loyalty to the little 'd' is one of the persistent characteristics of life in America over the last 60 years.
Obviously, it cuts both ways. Many people will vote Republican, almost as loyally.
However, with a little help from a conservative third party candidate, and just the right blend of voter turnout, a Democrat would be assured a victory. Without a third party candidate, its still more likely than a republican winning, no matter who that is.
No doubts, Bill Clinton can testify, and who could question his integrity?
But as I said, I don't think she'll change a thing, and considering the leftist special interests are already quietly accepting betrayal of their causes, this only further convinces me that a democrat administration, regardless of who it is, will not only retain the loyalty vote but will also experience not a squawk from the corners of the liberal nation.
Without this pressure from the interest who expect change in federal government, its probable that the new President will do little. Why stir the basket when all the discontented are so at ease?
We only have to look at her husband's 8 years to understand how this plays out. About the only thing he changed were gays in the military and funding of overseas abortions, yet he sure made a lot of promises on his road to the White House.
Its horrible. All these people have been complaining for years. Since the first days of Bush's Administration, and yet they are already muting themselves for the benefit of a party. To hell with the ideals and principles.
Look at the environmentalist. Gore wrote "Earth in the Balance" in 1992. By 2000 Ralph Nader stood up and ran for president, as a Green Party candidate. He got about 5% of the vote. Al Gore got 50%. Thanks for nothing.
So I don't fear a Hillary Presidency, and I expect a full 8 years from her. I just don't expect her to change much, which is what is sorely needed anyways. Its simple logic, if the squawkers are lacking the courage to vote for someone other than a democrat, who they always vote for anyways, then they sure aren't going to do something that takes a lot more courage than that -- standing up to betrayal.
But voting for Hillary Clinton is a betrayal itself, if you've been against the War in Iraq, or a slew of other issues you have with the Bush Administration.
But considering what an act of betrayal to our allies is by quiting the War in Iraq abruptly, this indicates to me that some are very comfortable with the concept.
Thursday, August 2, 2007
Eerie Atlas Shrugged Parallels
I've been reading Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand and while I'm not nearly finished with the book, I can't help but have this feeling that reality is mimicking the book.
All these goods from China are bad. I can't began to tell you the stories behind all the things lately that I've bought, that are imported from China, that have had to be returned. I can't because I don't have the time, and its really quite aggravating. A short list of items include a handful of 18 inch girl bicycles, a garden hose(s), a pepper grinder, and a coffee maker(s).
But anyways, I just wanted to put that out there in case anyone else has had similar experiences. However, if you're going to lay it all out on Bush, we'll I can't do that. I could blame him for a lot, but I'm not going to blame him for us buying Chinese, and I won't blame him for hurricanes either.
All these goods from China are bad. I can't began to tell you the stories behind all the things lately that I've bought, that are imported from China, that have had to be returned. I can't because I don't have the time, and its really quite aggravating. A short list of items include a handful of 18 inch girl bicycles, a garden hose(s), a pepper grinder, and a coffee maker(s).
But anyways, I just wanted to put that out there in case anyone else has had similar experiences. However, if you're going to lay it all out on Bush, we'll I can't do that. I could blame him for a lot, but I'm not going to blame him for us buying Chinese, and I won't blame him for hurricanes either.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
