Uhhhhhhhhhhhh
At the Texas debate last week, Hillary Clinton gloated when an Obama supporter couldn’t play the “Name One” game.
CLINTON: But there are differences between us. And I think, in our efforts to draw those contrasts and comparisons, we obviously try to let voters know how we see the world differently.
And I do offer solutions. That’s what I believe in and what I have done. And it’s what I offer to voters because it’s part of my life, over the last 35 years, working to get kids health care, working to expand legal services for the poor, working to register voters, working to make a difference. Because I think that this country has given me so much.
And there are differences between our records and our accomplishments. I have to confess, I was somewhat amused, the other night, when, on one of the TV shows, one of Senator Obama’s supporters couldn’t.
So I know that there are comparisons and contrasts to be drawn between us. And it’s important that voters get that information. So, yes, I do think that words are important and words matter, but actions speak louder than words.
Well, the tables have turned. Jennifer Skalka at Hotline On Call reports that Hillary supporters had their own stumped moment over their candidates’ foreign policy credentials.
Schadenfreude-licious!
Responding to the release of HRC’s new TX TV ad, which asserts in no subtle terms that only she has the experience to deal with a major world crisis, and, relatedly, to keep your children safe, Slate’s John Dickerson asked the obvious question:
“What foreign policy moment would you point to in Hillary’s career where she’s been tested by crisis?” he said.
Silence on the call. You could’ve knit a sweater in the time it took the usually verbose team of Mark Penn, Howard Wolfson and Lee Feinstein, Clinton’s national security director, to find a cogent answer. And what they came up with was weak — that she’s been endorsed by many high ranking members of the uniformed military.
Skalka’s got the audio. And the silence indeed speaks volumes.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Hillary Supports UN Investigation Into Gaddafi Death
October 23, 2011 03:08 PM by Doug Powers
142 Comments
Indiana Dem Resigns Amid Investigation of Fake 2008 Primary Petition Signatures
October 18, 2011 04:01 PM by Doug Powers
69 CommentsThey Don’t Call Them ‘Limousine Liberals’ For Nothing
June 1, 2011 09:42 AM by Doug Powers
38 CommentsHillary Photoshopped Out of ‘Situation Room’ Pic for Being Too Sexy
May 10, 2011 11:10 AM by Doug Powers
116 Comments
Hillary Stages ‘Kinetic Butinsky Action’ on Question Intended for SecDef
March 27, 2011 03:02 PM by Doug Powers
105 Comments
‘Drill, Baby, Drill’ Says… Bill Clinton?
March 12, 2011 03:18 PM by Doug Powers
102 Comments
Madame Secretary, Would You Let the TSA Touch Your Junk?
November 21, 2010 01:59 PM by Doug Powers
38 CommentsFirst ‘Hillary for President in 2012′ Ad Hits the Airwaves
September 2, 2010 11:16 PM by Doug Powers
67 Comments
Categories: Hillary Clinton
JustOneMinute
» I Guess I'm Still Stuck On StupidRiehl World View
» Whitney Houston: If I should stay I would only be in your wayPatterico
» Rick Santorum and the two playbooksRiehl World View
» Romney's Blood Is Blue, Not ConservativePundit & Pundette
» King Barack vs. the Nonconformists
This is a great moment where Hannity asks Obama supporters to name one single accomplishment of his.
Crickets*
Round Two
Well, she’s had a strong career of dealing with the Chinese. But I guess they want a foreign policy moment they can be proud of.
Evidently they missed where she is a commissioner on the commission for Security & Cooperation in Europe.
Something that struck me about that ad was — if it’s 3AM and the phone rings, why is she wearing a suit, make up in place, with jewelry, etc.?
If either Obama’s or Clinton’s camps were to be completely honest, neither of them have real “foreign policy credentials.”
No, Sen. Clinton. You cannot count your time as first lady. Your time is limited to the U.S. Senate from which to draw, as is Sen. Obama’s.
But, in all fairness, I don’t see Sen. McCain with an edge on “foreign policy” either.
This is a good reason why we don’t have many presidents that rise from the Senate ranks. They are bloviators. Their existence comes from expelling hot air either for or against issues and legislation.
Truth be known, the persons with the ability to handle a foreign policy crisis like it is old hat probably never run for president. We just get those that like to think they are experts.
Of course, this is all just MHO.
This is Hillary Clintons foreign policy. Something I’ll never forget. Kissing the enemy. If I was bin Laden, I would run like hell. I would rather have a bunker buster dropped on me than those lips. For those that don’t know, that is Suha Arafat in the picture.
Lets see,….
Giving Red China our missile technology and pardoning FALN terrorists to get the Spanish vote.
Yup She has experience dealing with foreign nations.
Yes! I was wondering why she was in a pantsuit at 3:00am.
With all the objectivity my far-right mind can muster, I can’t think of one solitary thing she did, either as First Lady or NY Sen., that has positively impacted America. Not one.
Might I add: This is a huge “The Emperor has no cloths” moment. Hillary is trying to build an entire campaign on experience – saying that she is “tested and vetted, and ready on day one”, BUT she has absolutely no experience!
Can someone also explain to me how a question like this has not come up in any of the 30 or so debates thus far? Everyone who has ever done any hiring or interviewing of job candidates knows that the best way to gage a job cadidate is to ask them specifics like this. Way to do your job, MSM. Keeping them honest, indeed!
The only experience I can think of were all those vacations to foreign lands she would take on the taxpayer’ dime. I also remember her and Bill selling access disguised as White House coffee sessions, along with compromising the W-88 (warhead on the Trident missile), and other missile and satellite technologies to the Chinese too. As far as the Generals endorsing this shrew are the incompetent losers like Wesley Clark that was replaced due to his incompetence along with many Clinton era General Officers that owe their flag ratting that normally behaved more like politicians than competent commanding officers.
When the phone rang at the Clinton White House, they were told Osama Bin Laden was in the crosshairs. The Clinton response was to pass. They went back to bed. Osama kept on keepin’ on.
A: Anytime she caught Bill in bed with a non-citizen.
I listened to the audio of the call where Dickerson poses his question. The dead air is amusing. It’s a hoot when Penn tosses the question to Feinstein who attempts to delay, deflect and divert. You can just picture Feinstein giving the finger to Penn for tossing that live grenade to him.
I can see none of you understand liberalism. A liberal doesn’t have to have actually done something, they just have to sound convincing when they say they’ve done something. It’s all in the presentation.
You mean that somebody actually understands liberalism? I always just thought it was a total lack of common sense, simmering on a fresh bed of communism, garnished with sanctimony.
Bill was an empty suit with charisma when he won the Presidency, now the same thing is happening to Hillary.
I just hope the same thing doesn’t happen to us.
Sorry, I got carried away there for awhile. I’m better now.
She was the keynote speaker at the 1995 Beijing Women’s Conference. Hey, wait a minute. Was that a crisis? Well, you might think so from the conference’s Platform of Action, which has been Big Feminism’s “Communist Manifesto” ever since.
Hillary should be careful in pointing out Obama’s lack of experience. She has nothing to offer either except being the First Lady at both the White House and the Governor’s mansion in Arkansas.
Oh yeah, she’s a shrewd investor turning over a quick profit from insider trading years ago.
Then there’s her adept maneuvering around the Whitewater scandal.
There’s also her handling of the healthcare fiasco in the early Clinton White House years.
And what about her firing of the White House travel office staff when her husband assumed the Presidency?
It took her 2 or 3 years to find the papers from Vince Foster’s office and she still can’t find the address to the IRS to publicly show her family’s tax returns.
Let’s not forget all the silverware she made off with when departing the White House too.
The list of accomplishments goes on.
The good news is, we know about Hillary’s accomplishments. What’s scary is we know nothing about Obama.
I agree with #3 Ken M. and #7 Barry F.
Were 90% of America called at 3:00 am where would they be? Probably in bed with their significant other. Why is she fully clothed sitting at a desk? Did she place the call on hold until she got herself together?
Moreover, Sen Clinton and Sen McCain are talking about their foreign policy credentials and experience. Sen Clinton specifically mentioned our Embassy in Kosovo and Benazir Bhutto’s assassination. OK. What has she said should be done? What has Sen McCain said should be done? And, Sen Obama? I think they all prety much said the same thing. Nothing. Well, actually Sen Obama questioned why we supported having Bhutto return to Pakistan. And that is 20/20 hindsight. Why didn’t he say something before the fact?
If you say you are superior in your foreign policy and credentials then you are obligated to say what you will, or will not, do when referencing a specific event. Yes, a few markers have been thrown down by the candidates as to what they will, or will not, do with regards to foreign policy. This is a good thing and we should take that into consideration when casting our vote.
Finally, there are standing orders for the Marines and fixed obligations for the host country when one of our Embassies is attacked. Now, there is a question for the candidates. Should those orders and obligations be revised in any way? Another question, what should our reaction be when an opposition leader is assassinated?
And, should the President be properly coiffed before taking a phone call at three in the morning?
What would spark a true cisis would be the sight of her at 3 a.m. in a nighty!
Whoa! That’s a vision we can ALL live without.
I would say that should include the time(s) that as co-Pres. she and Bill traded hi-tech to the Chinese for their political benefit (including various benefits that seem to be of in continuance in nature).
Remember folks, the WAR ON TERROR is just a bumper sticker, not real, no need to get up at 3am.
The Dems are too busy beating up on America and how doomed we are all to look at anything that resembles a real problem.
Well, you see, Bill was entertaining company in the residence, and the Lincoln Bedroom has been leased out, and besides, she has to call Beijing on Chinese time…..
Perhaps the experience she’s referring to would be accessed by rolling over, tapping Bill on the shoulder, and saying, “Honey, could you get that…”
The New York Times alluded to Hillary Clinton’s kissing session with Suha Arafat today. But the Times did not go into the specifics of what happened in that infamous encounter. Suha Arafat gave a speech with Hillary Clinton at her side in which Suha Arafat accused Israel of poisoning Palestinian children. I believe she said Israel was deliberately poisoning the drinking water. Suha Arafat was repeating a slur from the Middle Ages in which Jews supposedly poisoned the wells of Europe. That garbage is still repeated in the Arab world and that is probably where Suha Arafat got her story from. But back to Hillary’s behavior. She did not say a word in protest of Arafat’s remarks. She sat there with her frozen smile, occasionally nodding. After the speech, Hillary and Suha warmly kissed one another. When Hillary was safely home, she saw that her behavior was not well received. So she quickly lied and said her translator was incompetent. Typical of the Clintons, she blamed the staff. Then she said that anybody who knew as much about foreign policy as she did would understand the importance of diplomacy. When that didn’t fly, the White House issued a tenuous statement not condemning Suha Arafat but only a statement slightly critical of one sentence in Suha Arafat’s speech. Ever since that time, Hillary has said she condemned Suha Arafat. She is, as usual, prevaricating. Lately she has been claiming that she was a major player in the Northern Ireland peace negotiations although George Mitchell doesn’t recall seeing her at any negotiations. Another Clinton lie.
Must…resist…vomit – blaaahhHHHH!
Thanks, tim zank. I’m now going to have to find a way to unremember something.
When Bubba was president, Hillary was only the first lady (or in Hillary’s case, person of possible female gender). She was NOT in the chain of command and if she attempted to exercise any control over gov’t affairs, she would be in violation of federal law.
So, a do-nothing career in the U.S Senate and a stint as someone married to a president. Yeah, those are excellent credentials for a socialist to be president!
Unfortunately, McCain’s do-nothing career in the U.S Senate isn’t any better.
It’s not the lesser of two evils. It’s the evil of two lessers.
Much as the Democratic side pains liberal wanks sometimes, they are in a different league from Republicans. Bush doesn’t know the price of gas. McCain “doesn’t know much about economics”.
Listen to the tape. The pause is a few seconds (“which, for an android, is practically an eternity” — Star Trek). In the end they came up with something. It may seem weak by Democratic standards, but Hillary did more as First Lady to promote women’s rights than Bush did as President.
I always play the “name one” game with the liberal profs and students at my college. It is just too satisfying to see them sputter and stammer in an attempt to answer a question they just answered with their silence!
OH, I can’t pass this up!
And you think that Hillary gets out of her Prius and pumps her own gas, or better, drives around looking for the cheapest gas in town? Howls of derisive laughter! Do you think that Obama knows diddley squat about economics? The “golden child” has had a free ride up to now.
The bottom line is that all of them, Republican or Democrat, are going to rely on selected experts to guide them in these topics. It is the selection I worry about.
You mean the fact that Hillary got everthing, let me repeat: everything, from the fact that she is Mrs. Bill Cllinton (and let us not even mention how many of those blew up in her face). How does that inspire “women’s rights” or make them feel that their self worth is not tied to their husbands?
No matter what she has done to “promote women’s rights,” the fact that she has really done nothing, either as First Lady of AK, First Lady of the USA, or Senator of NY, erases all of that.
Dimsdale said (#29):
None of them pumps their own gas. But those who worry about the economy know the price of gas. Bush thinks the economy is fine but doesn’t know whether gas is $2 or $4/gal. A good President also would know numbers about mortgage default rates, and health care costs. Nobody is accusing Bush of being a good President in this sense, or McCain a good candidate.
Fair enough. McCain has Kemp. The supply side guru who convinced first Reagan then Bush, Jr. that tax cuts reduce deficits. OK, maybe it was an idea worth trying once (Reagan). Oops, deficits went up! Twice (Bush). Oops again! At some point you have to suspect something’s wrong, but not McCain. And, look here before you say Bush was better for the economy than Clinton.
#29 Dimsdale:
Excellent advice I learned from another blogger here, on-my-soapbox, regarding the opposite-worldview trolls:
JUST
IGNORE
HIM(THEM)
I’m one of the 10%. I’m up at 3 a.m., through no choice of my own. I might put “a crisis” on hold, until I get a cup of coffee first though. Hilliary’s handling of a crisis consists of 2 things: Give them “a hug” and blame on Bush (usual liberal response) or cry into a tissue. Hilliary is sure to be the laughingstock of diplomatic circles. She could also send Bill as an “observer” to settle her problem. Personally, if I had Bill around the WH, one of my first functions would be to make him an ambassador…preferably someplace like Mongolia, or Bhutan.
Excellent advice granite. Ignore those with whom you disagree. Avoid debate whenever possible. Only listen to points of view consistent with your own. You know, the whole “world view” thing. Good stuff…makes for a lively and interesting blog. Oh, almost forgot. Soak up all of the accumulated wisdom of the brilliant and sage On-my-soap-box.
Someone say something?
I thought I heard talkng.
Nope, just a noise.
Nothing to see here, folks…move on.
I just can’t ignore one final attempt:
lgm, deficits result from spending, not income.
No one here is going to absolve either period (Reagan or Bush II) of excessive spending, but you really need to get this through your head: Tax income has nothing to do with spending!
The concept is true whether you are sapeaking of individuals, corporations or governments: No matter how much you take in, you can always spend more. The Gov’t did exactly that. The income figures for the 1980′s, for example, show a smooth and steady increase in income. The deficits came from a sharper increase in spending.
You can blame Reagan or Bush II if you want for that, and that would be a separate arguement, but you need to get the idea that tax rates and deficits just aren’t joined at the hip.
lgm, you have no comprehension of taxes and spending. If you want proof that lowering taxes and cutting spending works, just look at Ireland from 1985-2000. All they did was cut taxes, reduce the socialist income tax rates, and cut spending. It took a while because socialism can destroy an economy in a year but it take decades to recover from socialism.
The gov’t in Ireland just kept cutting taxes and their revenue went up considerably. In 1993 their corporate tax rate was 40% and their revenue was about 1.5 billion. In that year they cut the corporate tax rate to 20%. Five years later in 1997 their revenue was 5.1 billion.
Deficits only go up when socialists spend too much! As Margaret Thatcher said, “Eventually, socialists run out of other people’s money.”
If you are so ignorant to believe that raising taxes will reduce deficits, you need to learn the Laffer curve and the truth about how, when tax rates go up, the people that pay the most taxes will find ways to hide it. A “rich” person will pay an accountant a 6-figure income to cut their 50% tax rate to an effective rate of say 18%. If the tax rate is 20%, why bother? Just pay the 20% and save the 6-figure income payment, too. In this case, the gov’t just got an extra 2% out of this person by cutting taxes. YES!! This does happen! Not in your socialist mind, but it does in the real world.
Please stop insulting our collective intelligence. We know that cutting taxes feeds an economy. The best way to increase revenue is not to increase taxes; it’s to increase tax payers. And the only way to do that is let business do what it does best. Create jobs and wealth. What does gov’t do best? Destroy jobs and wealth through taxation.
The gov’t needs taxes to operate. I will not deny that. They just need to be limited. Very limited.
Ya know, I have to pose a question concerning Clinton’s “Wmoen’s Rights” record:
Where was she when the “bimbos” were erupting? (Her choice of words, not mine.)
Where was she when Juanita Broderick was raped?
Where was she when Monica was making some high-level, umm, calls of her own?
Clinton might be able to claim some esoteric activities globally on women’s rights, but when she had a chance to stand up and face these actual occurances, she chose to stand next to the culprit, not to face him and demand an acconting.
Some record.
granite, see SHoward and JohnHolliday above. That’s how it’s done. Put your head back in the sand and return to your echo chamber.
Well, Dakine, if you have anecdotal evidence that we are wrong, let’s hear it. All the better if you have facts and figures.
If not, back under your bridge. At least lgm has more to say than you.
I think most of us can agree that the bulk of Hillary’s experience leading up to their Whitehouse stints (gak…) seemed to be managing Billy Jeff’s “affairs”, i. e. “bimbo eruptions”. The problem being, they existed at all. She couldn’t manage HIM at all as they kept occurring. She should have castrated him after the first one, whenever and whoever that was. But she didn’t. Obviously she didn’t learn anything by it or, as we also can agree on, she had bigger things in mind…POWER by association with him, scoundral/dipstick that he was/is. No, she couldn’t manage Bill, she SURE can’t manage the country/Congress/foreign dignitaries. Forget it Hil.
On the economic comments above, yes, we should all be familiar with JFK’s success with tax cuts and of course Reagan’s cuts. Both increased revenues hugely. In all instances, the Congress..THE CONGRESS…spends the money. The responsibility is all theirs. For how many years did we see that fat, obnoxious southern congressman say of President Reagan’s budget that it’s “dead on ah ri vull”. Blech. Wanted to reach through the TV and smack his sassy/blabby mouth right into the wall. Grrrrr.
No, ain’t gonna be no more Clintons. Not now. Not ever. Nada. Zilch. May they be sent forever packing. Git, y’all!
Sorry. Get carried away, sometimes.
We are fortunate to have a current example of Hillary’s foreign policy acumen with the current noise over the Obama photo and the tribal garb.
Apparently no one on her staff or the Queen herself thought far enough ahead (you know, like in the game chess?) to see what the consequences of putting out the picture would be. They may have thought out 2 or three steps but not beyond.
Now we have Kenya demanding an apology from the US government AND the tribe wants livestock reparations from Queen Hillary.
If this is an example of her foreign policy heft, she is just at lame as the O-messiah.
SHoward said:
Start with a balanced budget.
Plan D: Increase spending without raising taxes.
Plan R: Cut taxes without cutting spending.
Either way you get a deficit. The US is not seriously considering cutting entitlements. Republicans want to increase military spending. “Wasteful government spending” (items that McCain actually could cut) are a tiny fraction of the budget.
#40 Floyd R. Turbo:
Correct.
As I’ve said before, unless one subscribes to a different worldview (there’s that dratted term, again!), one cannot have confidence in a President Hillary Clinton (sshudderr!):
1) If she stayed with Bill Clinton despite all his escapades, and thereby allowed herself be to be humiliated, because she was too weak and meek to control him, or to kick him the hell out of the house; do we want someone like that as President?
2) If she stayed with Bill Clinton despite all his escapades because they were no big deal to her, and her attitude was something like, “what’s all the fuss about?…don’t be so judgmental”; do we want someone like that as President?
3) If she stayed with Bill Clinton despite all his escapades because she had such an uncontrollable desire for power, such a drive to run for President, and she figured that putting up with this “Billy”goat, despite all the humiliations, was a readymade, sure-fire headstart to obtaining that power; do we want someone like that as President?
It looks to me from the above that Hillary either:
1) Is weak, or;
2) Has absolutely no morals or character to speak of, or;
3) Has an apparently limitless, addictive lust for power.
Thanks for responding, lgm.
You’re right: balancing the budget is the path to eliminating the deficit.
The question is: would raising taxes increase revenue? If it were a straight line equation, yes.
The problem is that when taxes go up, economic activity can decrease as a result. It all depends on just how much they go up or down.
The Laffer curve was mentioned above. While it has both supporters and critics, the key is always to find the happy medium of tax rates and gov’t revenue. Reagan cut the confiscatory tax rates of the Carter era, yet gov’t revenue increased.
We probably agree on the idea of reducing spending being the best way to go. You and I would have to do that if our income went down. It really isn’t any different at the federal gov’t level.
I believe my point still stands: tax rates have far less to do with deficits than spending rates.
(Yes, many of the things conservative commenters point out as wasteful are not as large a part of the budget as we think. Also, until we get serious, on both sides about entitlements, we’ve got a problem. As for military spending, remember that the rest of the world is gonna keep on turnin’. If we stop, someone that really doesn’t like us is going to wind up stronger. Do we want that?)
Si Vis Pacem, Parabellum. — If you want peace, you must prepare for war.
Flavious Vegetus Renetus, Rome, 4th Century A.D.
I wonder if any of the Democrats who want to make “who is the most experienced?’ the central criteria in this election cycle realize that McCain easily wins in that arena?
They better stick to vague smiley-faced “hope” and “change” talk.
My favorite was when the guy said being black was an accomplishment, lol.
I think we’re going to find out about the experience card and who holds it during the general, purplepeep.
Funny thing is, I think both Clinton and Obama have had pretty un-remarkable careers. Clinton’s biggest resume item is her husband. Obama’s is…..What is Obama’s again?
Although McCain is un-remarkable as a Republican, he has a lot of bills his name is on, for better or for worse. Since the media generally likes what McCain has done, they sure are going to be fighting within themselves about who really turns them on the most.
Are you seriously that dense? Something is wrong alright: SPENDING!! You could raise the tax rate to 90% if you want, but you’ll still have deficits if you spend more than you bring in.
Tax cuts have produced record revenues to the government under Bush. Only problem is he is offsetting it with record spending.
Man do I hate anyone with a passion who believes the government has more right to someone’s money than that someone who earned it. Maybe if government stopped taking so damned much money from people, so many people wouldn’t have to turn to the government for help.
But then, that’s kinda the object, isn’t it, libs?
SHoward:
Your point is well taken. Setting taxes too high might stifle the economy and lead to less revenue. It all comes down to where we are on the Laffer curve. Two times (Reagan and Bush II) we cut taxes without cutting spending. Had we been on the far side of the Laffer curve, the deficit would have shrunk. Instead it grew.
You have to conclude that if the next President cuts taxes without cutting spending, the deficit will grow more.
I hear you guys screaming cut spending. But McCain won’t any more than Obama or Clinton. Even the “dream team” of Bill Clinton/Newt Gingrich didn’t cut spending very much.
Bottom line: if McCain says we will balance the budget by cutting taxes, he’s got the wrong advisers.
The democrats “worship” JFK. He was the one who delivered the “paradox of economics” speech at the Economic Club in NYC. You cut taxes to increase revenue. Businesses and people have more money to spend and more for research and development. That’s why he called it a paradox. First thing is that. Then you start deregulating industry and commerce. Get the gov’t off of everyone’s back. Get back to “free markets and enterprise”. Then you start slashing spending. Like Gregory Peck in the movie “Marooned”, when he was presented with pages of backups to check. He just started through the pages “x-ing” everything. Wishing thinking, I know. You need a cooperative House and Senate. But, it would be fun to see the “wailing and gnashing of teeth” from all the lobbyists and pork dealers. Not to mention all the freeloaders living off of the taxpayers.
And the question was…?
To be fair…
Hillary has probably had a ton of 3A.M. crisis phone calls…
Bill with dead hooker…Bill with live boy…witness against Bill has been dealt with…
At the risk of continuing the threadjack,
Yeah, lgm, I don’t think McCain will do any better. A lot of people on this blog and many other places have indicated that we (the Right) don’t have much of a condidate we can really get behind this year.
Except for their likely willingness to cut military spending, the Left doesn’t offer much fiscal improvement either. It still comes down to a need to cut spending, and that may hurt a little, but I really believe we as a nation will survive.
As I recall, during the Democrat control of Congress during the 40 years leading up to their defeat in ’94, spending and the bloating of the gov’t's size and reach increase in huge gobs. The trouble was, as I observed it, the Repubs learned well from their “captors” during those years, and didn’t know how to behave any differently than the dems did, philosophically anyway. They got power back and squandered it, acting/spending just like the dems. As a result, over the last 10+ years, they lost both houses through much of their ineptness of leadership. Somewhere they need to find their, um, GONADS again. They knew the Repub philosophy of small limited government and free market economics and moral values, but they didn’t remember how to put them out there with kick-ass boldness. Down the tubes they (and US) went. God help us. Someone needs to put out a political documentary on the right and title it “Finding the Republicans’ Lost Gonads”.
…and she has the tumerity to call Obama an empty suit? Her advisors had no answers, only generalizations…”five years on the Armed Forces Committee…”, okay, what has she done? D-u-u-u-u-u-h-h-h….Yep! Ready at day one! NOT.
SHoward, you misunderstood my comment (my fault, as I wasn’t particularly clear). I was directing my point to granite and using your response to lgm (and the subsequent back and forth was great) as an example of informative discourse between two folks who don’t necessarily agree on an issue. Good stuff, and I agree with most of what you’ve had to say.
At work, I simply asked why a few of my co-workers were democrat. We’re talking 40+ parent types.
One said jokingly chastised me for asking so brazen a question.
One was Obama supporter. His primary reason, and I’m not kidding, said that if Obama was good enough for Oprah, then he’s good enough for him. I was just like…wow. I wanted to say, um, did you know that you’re like, a big fat lemming? Err, do you even know what a lemming is? Sigh…it’s a sad state of affairs.
Heads up folks, I just heard Hillary was going to be on Saturday night live…
If foreign policy experience… and getting legislation thru Congress… Heck, if experience PERIOD is what we should look for in our votes… McCain blows them both away.
I can’t believe that Hillary is doing these ads, because a smart McCain campaign will simple re-run those ads in their favor come fall.
Alright someone has to say it–Vampires don’t sleep at night.
Fixed that one. What general or admiral on active duty would publicly endorse any candidate?
Hey, what ever happened to the PERFECT PROFILE photograph of her kissing ARAFAT straight on the mouth, and I remember that Bill and his wife WERE NOT THERE – because of the Muslim Shari’a thingy, she didn’t get mutilated and executed for being a whore – yet these days, the only photo to be found is of her kissing Arafat’s WIFE instead of HIS FAT LIPS!
I’m sure they couldn’t convince even the muslims that Hillary is a “WHORE” – still!
And she wasn’t even GREEN when she did it!
So barfing!!!
I remember it was on Hillary’s first trip to the Middle East and she did not set foot in the Israeli side of Israel – or speak to any of our allies in Israel.
It was the epitome of the Clinton administration.
Since Ombre Rose brought up the Isreali-Palestinian thing, I’ll add that the deal was struck between those two before Slick even got involved. He basically just jumped in and convinced them to seal the deal here and sign it in the Rose Garden.
Hmmm. Not even an accomplishment for him. I’m sure she’ll claim it as one for herself, though.
OOPS! AFTER MORE SPENDING DID FIRST! DUH!
Go read Davy Crockett’s essay, “NOT YOURS TO GIVE!”
And move yourself to a Socialist Communist nation, if that is the kind of govt you love so much.
Get this, Davy Crockett and a lot of good men gave their lives to stop men such as you adore so. And the nation that rose from that is a nation worth having.
The kind of nation, and citizen/subject formed from your type of chosen politics is not.
And you can paint McCain anyway you want to – but he is a Socialist, whether Kemp is beside him or not, and whether Kemp the Dole chimp is worth having along, anyway.
Ombre Rose, any rational thought that might possibly be found buried deep within your incoherent ramblings is overwhelmed by your vitriol and hyperbole. Referring to Sen. Clinton as a “whore”? Really? Whatever is wrong with you is no small thing.
Hillary should thank her lucky stars that she is a woman who happens to be married to a former president…. given the truly paltry nature of her ‘experience’,I simply can’t imagine most Democrats voting for a middle aged white bread male lawyer named Hillyard Dion Rodham for President…or any other elective office for that matter
I’m so desperate for a real candidate that I am looking at Ron Paul. If he ran as an independent he might make it.
Modern Problems Associated with Illegal Immigration Now at a Crisis Point
By Congressman Ron Paul, 2/19/2008 9:26:21 AM
For decades we have welcomed new immigrants to our American “melting pot.” We respect those who come here peacefully to pursue their American Dream. But Americans have noticed lately that modern problems associated with illegal immigration are at a crisis point. Taxpayers are now suffering the consequences.
Costs of social services for the estimated 21 million illegal immigrants in this country are approaching $400 billion. We educate 4.2 million children of illegals at a cost of $13.8 billion. There have been almost 2 million anchor babies born in this country since 2002, with labor and delivery costs of between $3 and 6 billion.
There are currently 360,000 illegals in our prisons and we have spent $1.4 billion to incarcerate them since 2001. In Prince William County near DC, ICE can’t deport criminal illegals fast enough and has actually asked its local jails to slow down on referring them. Jurisdiction over illegal immigration lies at the federal level, yet many municipalities are struggling with the compounding problems of mandated costs and tied hands.
My office has heard from at least one sheriff in my district considering seeking compensation from the Federal government for the cost of so many illegal immigrant inmates that wouldn’t be here if the Federal government was doing its job and protecting our borders. The problems are widespread.
One thing is certain: If we subsidize them, they will come. We have rolled out the social services red carpet, so it is no surprise that many from other countries are eager to come take advantage of our very generous system.
We must return to the American principle of personal responsibility. We must expect those who come here to take care of themselves and respect our laws. Not only is this the right thing to do for our overtaxed citizens, but we simply have no choice. We can’t afford these policies anymore. Since we are $60 trillion in debt, there should be no taxpayer-paid benefits for non-citizens.
My bill, the Social Security for American Citizens Only Act, stops non-citizens from collecting Social Security Benefits. This bill, by the way, picked up three new cosponsors this week and is gaining momentum.
Also, we should not be awarding automatic citizenship to children born here minutes after their mothers illegally cross the border. It just doesn’t make sense. The practice of birthright citizenship is an aberration of the original intent of the 14th amendment, the purpose of which was never to allow lawbreakers to bleed taxpayers of welfare benefits. I have introduced HJ Res 46 to address this loophole. Other Western countries such as Australia, France and England have stopped birth-right citizenship. It is only reasonable that we do the same. We must also empower local and state officials to deal with problems the Federal government can’t or won’t address. Actions like this are a matter of national security at this point.
Illegal immigration is draining and frustrating the American taxpayer. I will continue to work for a solution that does not reward those who break our laws.
Congressman Ron Paul, R-Texas, is a candidate for President in 2008.
The old saying that “the best thing about being a Republican is getting to run again Democrats” has never been so true. It isn’t because they are so inherently evil or so fundamentally inept–many aren’t. It is because the press pulls so many punches, or worse, doesn’t bother to dig deep enough to uncover any wrongdoing, that they are woefully unprepared for the kind of scrutiny that is inevitable in a presidential general campaign.
AntiEm,a link to that Ron Paul crap would have been good enough.
Bush may not know the price of Gas but unlike democrats he does know the price of freedom.
I watched someone interviewing “probable Hillary voters.” One of them said that Hillary was better prepaired to create a universal healthcare system because she had tried once and failed.
This voter thought that past failure was the best evidence of future success…unbelievable. How do you use logic against that?
Well, if Clinton loses the nomination there is a job she can try that she hasn’t done before…being a senator from NY. I admit, being a junior senator isn’t much, but it will keep her in the government. Those naive and gullible voters up there will fall for anything she says. They did once, they’ll do it again. She ought to try it…at least it’s something new for her. She’ll have to go up there and find out what they want, of course.