16
Apr
He said in his remarks at the GOP dinner that he also recently participated in a “highly classified, national security simulation” with Obama.
“I’m going to tell you something: That boy’s finger does not need to be on the button,” Davis said. “He could not make a decision in that simulation that related to a nuclear threat to this country.”
A lot is being made of Representative Geoff Davis calling Barack Obama “that boy”. Liberal and Democrat sites are rushing to brand him a racist, other sites are rushing to his defense. I particularly read Outside The Beltway. They have several posts on the comment. Alex Knapp’s comment was just the most recent:
Then, of course, a lot of people chime in on something they have no clue what they are talking about:
So. Are you going to vote for him, jbenson2?
Here’s the skinny folks. I live in the general vacinity of Davis ( same state ) and the people he represents. So, I’m very aware of what it means when someone refers to “that boy” in the context Davis did. It has nothing to do with race. It’s an inference that the person is inexperienced at what they are doing. Once, and if, they are pereceived as experienced at what they are doing, the phrase isn’t appropriate and would be considered an insult. It simply amazes me how people look for a racial connotation to almost every single thing a white person says or does. Yeah, Davis was slamming Obama, but it had nothing to with race. Not one speck.
Geoff Davis is a lot more humble than I am. If someone had implied I was racist because I referred to someone’s experience as that of a kid, I’d told them to take a running jump. The fact that they saw nothing but race in the comment tells me a lot more about those people than it does Geoff Davis.
The only thing it tells me about Geoff Davis is that boy needs to choose his words better, or be prepared to stand behind them. Whoa! Did I call Davis “boy” you say? Sure I did, he’s obviously not a mature speaker. When he does learn how to choose his words more carefully, I doubt I’ll call him that any more.
Get it now? Do you want to?
Hillary Clinton had a fundraiser hosted by Sir Elton John. It went well, raising a couple of million dollars. It should have, Sir Elton has quite a bit of money and hangs around people with a lot of money as well. Only problem is, someone had a problem with it:
Judicial Watch has filed a complaint with the FEC asserting that Sir Elton is not a US citizen and therefore not allowed to contribute to US presidential candidates. My very cursory fact-check re-affirms their claim that Sir Elton is indeed still a British citizen. Now, for the most part I ignore campaign gaffes since there are so many minutae of regulations regarding even a campaign for dog-catcher. However, in Hillary’s case, it goes beyond this campaign for two reasons:
- This is not the first fairly obvious campaign infraction Hillary has committed. While calling on Bush to boycott China’s Olympics, Clinton’s China connections have been well documented and gotten her in trouble more than once in the past. So, enlisting a Brit to raise money should have raised all kinds of flags that she should have learned from Hsu. She’s either blindly greedy or just plain stupid to risk another flap that I think pretty much started her downfall in the fall.
- Hillary Clinton, lest we forget, is a lawyer by trade. However, her legal ethics have been questioned repeatedly in the past. Her repeated legal lapses in this campaign have been fodder for bloggers, but to me shows a much larger trend of being totally flippant about those laws she took an oath to uphold. Obama’s in the same set of standards as Clinton, McCain not. I will hold a higher standard for Obama and Clinton than I will a former soldier when it comes to respecting the law.
- Something’s just not right with Hillary for her to sign off on a very obvious foreigner raising money for her after the Hsu flap. I really don’t get it. Greed? Eliticism? Stupidity? Beats me.
- Ya gotta wonder why Hillary would even want Sir Elton being very visible with her in the first place. She’s had an issue with the conservative to moderates in this county. All she needs is another Elton tirade against religion during one of her rallies or another one of his misogynistic attacks against Madonna and the US, or generalized attacks against youthful pop stars. In simple words, he’s become a bitch
. Given Hillary’s struggles with that image herself, you’d think she’d avoid the connotation he brings to her image.
So, although I think Judicial Watch will probably win and get Hillary fined well within her financial capabilities to cover it, the over-all wisdom of teaming up with Sir Elton shows horrible judgement on many fronts to me.
Now, I would like to know who out there decided to vote for Hillary because Sir Elton asked them to?
And:
That’s the rhetoric you hear from two of the campaigners, who both happen to be Democrat. The part they don’t want you to consider is what came to me in the form of an anonymous email:
Remember the election in 2006?
�
Thought you might like to read the following:
�
A little over one year ago:
�
1 ) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;
2 ) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;
3 ) The unemployment rate was 4.5%.
�
Since voting in a Democratic Congress in 2006 we have seen:
�
1 ) Consumer confidence plummet;
2 ) The cost of regular gasoline soar to over $3.50 a gallon;
3 ) Unemployment is up to 5% (a 10% increase ) ;
4 ) American households have seen $2.3 trillion in equity value evaporate (stock and mutual fund losses ) ;
5 ) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $1.2 trillion dollars;
6 ) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure.
�
America voted for change in 2006, and we got it!
�
Remember it’s Congress that makes law not the President. He has to work with what’s handed to him.
A liberal is a person who will give away everything they don’t own.
The letter doesn’t come right out and say it, but the main theme for 2006 was “change”. This is the change we’ve gotten so far. Change for change sake never guarantees change for the better. In this case, it’s been change for the worse, obviously. Now Obama is running his entire campaign on change for change sake. Not sure about you, but I’ve had about all the change I can afford in the last two years. Clinton is running hers pretty much on the “failed Bush economics” without once mentioning the failed economic policies of Nancy Pelosi and her own party. This is a boogeyman argument that very few people seem to want to explore. If Clinton as President has no desire to reign in Nancy Pelosi, we can only expect things to continue to get much worse. Being liberal with social values is one thing, and can work. Being liberal with budgets never works. Nancy Pelosi is simply the latest example of why. Seems to me the last time we had these same circumstances of inflation AND recession at the same time was 1979 when the Democrats controlled the House as well and we had a very liberal Democrat President.
Anyone up for 1979 again?
Think before you vote. Don’t vote for generics and unquestioned claims. Vote for what you know. If you don’t make any effort to know the issues, why bother even voting? Voting for “change” when the “change” keeps making things worse is not terribly smart. But, I’ll bet more people vote for “change” than any other single issue this fall.
Care to challenge my assertion?
If I’m wrong, I’ll be more than happy to “change”.
12
Apr
That sounded bad. So, he elaborated more:
“And of course they’re bitter. Of course they’re frustrated,” Obama told a crowd of supporters. “You would be too — in fact many of you are, because the same thing has happened here in Indiana. … Nobody is thinking about you.”
He also said that this disillusionment with government’s inaction on economic issues makes people base their votes on other issues, such as guns, gay marriage and religion.
Obama is completely clueless. I mean, he is 100%, Michael Moore like clueless. That’s fine and good for Hollywood actors. But, for someone to be dictating national policies and such, it’s not. He’s been traveling the country promising change for a year now, but all we get is the same tired stigma. People in small towns don’t “cling” to anything. We have the same differences Obama sees in uppity urban places. We have liberals here too. Just not as many concentrated in one place. However, what you have in rural areas is people a little more grounded in reality because you can’t hide among the masses here. You can’t just be a raving lunatic and not have everyone in your community know about it. This forces a certain amount of personal responsibility on each person in a small community. When that happens, people tend to become more conservative in real issues. We don’t “cling” to guns, we “cling” to the rights given us by the Constitution. We don’t “cling” to religion, we “cling” to the right to be whatever religion we choose to be. We don’t “cling” to antipathy towards others who are not like “us” or immigrants, we expect them to be responsible citizens as we do anyone else.
These statements by Obama are really, really, disappointing to me. If this is the “change” Obama has promised, we don’t need it. It strikes me as being elitist, racist, and showing a preferencet towards urban areas when at this time in the United States it makes a lot more sense, and the reality is, moving resources to rural areas is a lot more economically logical. The reason Washington has skipped over developing a lot of rural US is because of the attitude expressed by Obama. What change does he represent for anyone not living in a city at this point?
Remember the 1951 flick The Day the Earth Stood Still
- We have a very visible conflaguration occuring in Afghanistan and Iraq.
- We have this global problem of extreme violence being perpetrated in the name of God.
- We have mass starvation in Africa while rich rockers fly expensive jets telling everyone else to pay for their food.
- We have genocide in Africa while the world worries themselves sick over the Olympics.
In other words, we have all kinds of disgusting, horrible, world-wide problems to deal with. So, what does Klaatu bring in his message from another planet to Man to enlighten us?
Global warming.
Yup, that’s right. Aliens are so worried about Man’s impact on the his own environment that Klaatu comes from another planet millions of miles away to tell us that if we don’t stop killing ourselves by destroying the planet, they’ll kill us all by destroying the planet. Of course, Keanu “Neo
That folks is what you get when Hollywood tries desperately to infer their morals into what is supposed to be entertainment.
I swear I didn’t know whether to put this in the Space blog for science-fiction, here for its political content, or the main blog under “idiot of the day”.
Jimmy Carter is reportedly going to Syria to meet with Hamas leaders. Now, just a thought here. If Hamas is designated a terrorist organization, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are part of the overall War on Terror, wouldn’t that make JImmy Carter a traitor? Can’t we shoot traitors? Last I recall, we can. Now, I’m not condoning shooting Carter any time soon. I am however, calling him a self-promoting traitor. His trip will accomplish nothing but getting him praised for meeting with enemies of the United States. That’s it. While he’s wining and dining with Hamas leaders, the followers of those leaders will be blowing themselves up in order to kill innocent women and children. Will Carter discuss that with these people? Will he discuss how wrong it is to even think like that? What is the point if this meeting? If Obama or Clinton win the general in November will they name Carter the Ambassador to Hamas?
There are so many things wrong with this. And, best I can tell, not one single thing could be made right. What the hell is he thinking?
4
Apr
Man, there is nothing more I’d love to see this fall than a McCain/Rice ticket. Talk about ending this race mucho prompto? Think ahout it.
- Condi would, to say the least, neuter the race issue that so far is exclusive domain of Obama. It’s there, for sure, and will be a factor in November. However, Hillary is completely unable to mention it. That would be true with McCain as well in the fall. Every single time McCain would mention a social issue, I’m sure there will be plenty of Obama minions ready to play the race card. Doubt me? Look how many times Clinton’s peeps, who were part of the 60′s equality fights, have been inferred as racists for simply even mentioning the fact that Obama is not pasty white. Now, if Condi were front and center with McCain, it would make the entire issue moot. Which, in my opinion, is what the issue should be in the first place if we truly believe there is equality. If there truly is not, then all races should be allowed to discuss that fact, not just one.
- Condi I think would completely neuter the gender issue as well. She is a woman. She is an attrative woman. She is a strong woman. She is a woman that women can like ( except Barbara Boxer ), and men can respect as well. The problem with Hillary is not too many people perceive her as being too womanly these days.
- Condi is an icon of conservatism. Now, this is where it gets weird. The most powerful conservative Republican in the country would be a black female. Not exactly the stereotype Hollywood is used to painting either Republicans or conservatives as. Given the options at this time, convervatives are not exactly happy with any of the candidates. IF they do vote, it will be the lesser of evils. With Condi, they could get excited. I know I would.
- Condi has unbelievable foreign policy experience. And, she very quietly gets things done. To say the least, it would put a stop to Hillary’s 3am commercials.
- Lastly, although McCain is an icon of male America, owning his own beer company, shooting big guns in war situations, being held prisoner of war, banging models, and the whole bit, Condi gives other kids something to shoot for. Well versed, well educated, speaks multiple languages, trained in classical music. In other words, a symbol of the United States for kids that want to be something a little more ethereal. We need this in the worst possible way right now.
Now, with Condi, we get the entire package of what America is. We get more minority representation, gender equality, moderate AND conservative values, macho symbolism AND brains. It’s just too perfect.
For that reason, it will never happen. Politics just doesn’t usually work that way. However, I’m willing to push that button here. Help me if you will:
I have picked on Debbie Stabenow quite a bit here. I think she’s an idiot. So far, just here, I have picked on her for:
- Running for reform but voting against eliminating earmarks. ( That’s called hypocrisy, or lying )
- For sticking pullout requirements into a funding bill, having it vetoed, and not being able to do anything about it even with the majority.
- Voting against stem cell research.
- Voting against certain military weaponry without having the other side agree to get rid of theirs first.
- For flogging herself publicly for some perverse, sick, reason:
However, I am going to give her some kudos today. She has done one thing right. She apparently married a man who knows the proper price to pay for a blow job:
$150 Hooker For Senator’s Husband
Cops: Debbie Stabenow’s spouse paid 20-year-old for oral sex at hotel
I love Smoking Gun!
I hear Nancy Pelosi will give a major speech on the continuing saga of the Democrat Culture of Corruption. For expediency, she’s held off on the New York Governors so she could lump them in with Debbie’s hubby.
You guys have a REAL winner there in Michigan!
Here’s the ugly headlines making the rounds at this time:
“This is gonna go down as the biggest theft in all of financial history, said William Smith, portfolio manager of Smith Asset Management and a former Bear employee. “The $2 a share stock price is more symbolic than anything because the alternative is nothing.”
“This is one of the unfortunate stories on Wall Street. I’m a former Bear guy. I have friends over there. My friends just watched their fortunes vaporize,” Smith added.
Pretty ugly stuff. Hillary Clinton immediately urged a bailout and tighter regulation of the subprime market. Of course, she almost as immediately took heat for having a subprime board member as one of her chief advisors in Maggie WIlliams. That didn’t fly too well.
However, to me, the proof is in the pudding. Employees are losing pretty much everything. Careers are being ruined. So, how has this impacted the various candidates? Here’s a breakdown of who has taken what from Bear Stearns employees, usually executives:
| Giuliani, Rudolph W | $ 130,091.00 | 24.67% |
| Clinton, Hillary | $ 122,160.00 | 23.17% |
| Dodd, Christopher J | $ 118,050.00 | 22.39% |
| McCain, John | $ 58,650.00 | 11.12% |
| Obama, Barack | $ 40,925.00 | 7.76% |
| Romney, Mitt | $ 31,550.00 | 5.98% |
| Edwards, John | $ 6,850.00 | 1.30% |
| Richardson, Bill | $ 5,700.00 | 1.08% |
| Biden, Joseph R Jr | $ 4,050.00 | 0.77% |
| Paul, Ron | $ 2,700.00 | 0.51% |
| Vilsack, Thomas J | $ 2,300.00 | 0.44% |
| Gilmore, Jim | $ 2,300.00 | 0.44% |
| Brownback, Sam | $ 750.00 | 0.14% |
| Thompson, Fred | $ 500.00 | 0.09% |
| Huckabee, Mike | $ 450.00 | 0.09% |
| Kucinich, Dennis J | $ 210.00 | 0.04% |
Now, granted giving the money back probably won’t fix anything, this Bear Stearns mess has been nrewing for a while. It’s hard for me to take seriously someone who has been profiting from their demise while it’s been happening. Here’s the list since 1/1/08:
| candidate | Total | Count |
|---|---|---|
| Obama, Barack | $19,300.00 | 32 |
| McCain, John | $18,850.00 | 12 |
| Clinton, Hillary | $8,000.00 | 11 |
| Romney, Mitt | $6,900.00 | 4 |
| Giuliani, Rudolph W | $2,000.00 | 2 |
| Huckabee, Mike | $450.00 | 2 |
| Edwards, John | $250.00 | 1 |
When any of these candidates talk about reforming the subprime mess, take it with a grain of salt.
( Disclaimer, this is only as current as opensecrets.org’s records. )
2
Apr
Yesterday was another one of those mundane days where Congress passed a whole bunch of stuff that means nothing to anyone. Two bills kinda stuck out to me for one very goofball reason:
H. Res. 1021: Supporting the goals, ideals, and history of National Women’s History Month
and
H. Res. 1005: Supporting the goals and ideals of Borderline Personality Disorder Awareness Month
Now, here is the goofy part.
HR 1021 passed 413-0, with 17 not voting.
HR 1005 passed 414-0, with 16 not voting.
Now, these two bills were presented to the floor sequentially ( votes 151 and 152 ). And, I gather there was little to no discussion. So, the question I gotta ask is why Lee Terry, a Republican from Nebraska, would take the risk of showing support for borderline personalities, but not women?
For what it’s worth, I am fine with Lee Terry not voting on one of these meaningless wastes of our taxpayer money. Congress “showing support” means nothing. It means no funding, it means no legal change, it means absolutely nothing. It is a waste of their time, and therefore our money. And, because the practice is already established and no one in leadership has the balls to put a stop to it, people like Lee Terry will continue to be put at risk for missing one of these goofball wastes of time and money.
Other notes:
- Now I’m waiting to see who votes to support the Supporting the goals, ideals, and history of National Men’s History Month act. I’m quite sure Barbara Lee and Nancy Pelosi won’t be the ones to do it.
- Do they really mean “ideals”, or is it “ideas”? I mean, who’s interpretation of “ideal” would we use? They can’t all be the same I would think. ( Poorly written legislation that means nothing just makes it all that much worse to me. )
- And, slap me for being rude and insensitive, but it just strikes me as just a little ironic that Congress supports the “ideals” of borderline personality. For those that have worked with them, as I have, it is their “ideals” that cause the problem in the first place.
