1. Did anyone else feel an eerie connection to Oliver North at the Iran-Contra hearings when they saw Roger Clemons at the baseball "juicing" hearings
2. If Hilary's campaign keeps up with the mostly distorted ads and public comments about Obama's record and positions, doesn't it hurt both of them and feed into McCain's seeming more competent than them, even though he isn't?
3. Did anyone see Michelle (is that her first name?) Obama in the interview with Katie Couric on CBS news tonight, and if you did, wasn't she great, in a way that made her look like a much greater asset to Barak's campaign than Bill does to Hilary's?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
answers;
1. somewhat - short of having anything of real substance (bin laden, impeachment, voter fraud, the issues behind school shootings, constitutionality of recent lawmaking, etc.), congress seems to like to 'pose' these 'reality' controversies for the public - tax dollars at work i guess ...
2. about two weeks ago my confidence in hilary hit a wall when i heard her using the exact rhetoric of the bushies - [: "it's going to be hard work" - theses are "tough" problems, yakity yak :]
duhhhh?... the job is president of the usa - one of the largest political contradictions ever ...
all mccain has to do is 'truth out' the smears to look competent ...
3. both obamas seem refreshingly untainted by the survivalist double-speak of high octane politics - part of what makes them 'hopeful' - bill on the other hand is a wonderful acrobat - who knows - anything but more of the same past eight years ...
On question 1: I really have no idea why it is the job of the U.S. Congress to investigate baseball. The Waxman should keep focused on the war criminals in the Bush White House of Un-American Activities. This is analagous, IMO, to the Washington Post devoting unbelievable amounts of time and investigative resources to produce long & deep pieces on how the directors of Smithsonian museums may be spending too much time traveling, while giving ephemeral and superficial attention to, again, the criminal enterprise running the country.
__TPW
I hate to interrupt the gushing, but does anyone think that this legislation is a good idea for America?--------------------------------------------------------------
ELECTION 2008
Obama bill: $845 billion
more for global poverty
Democrat sponsors act OK'd by Senate panel
that would cost 0.7% of gross national product
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: February 14, 2008
3:53 pm Eastern
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
Barak Obam
Sen. Barack Obama, perhaps giving America a preview of priorities he would pursue if elected president, is rejoicing over the Senate committee passage of a plan that could end up costing taxpayers billions of dollars in an attempt to reduce poverty in other nations.
The bill, called the Global Poverty Act, is the type of legislation, "We can – and must – make … a priority," said Obama, a co-sponsor.
----------------------------------
Obama seems to be Daniel Ortega's choice for president. This should comfort folks like Kennedy and Kerry who trooped Nicragua in the 80's to show support for Communism over democracy.
Nicaraguan leader calls Obama's campaign 'revolutionary'
The Associated PressPublished: February 14, 2008
MANAGUA, Nicaragua: President Daniel Ortega, who led the 1979 revolution in Nicaragua, says Barack Obama's presidential bid is a "revolutionary" phenomenon in the United States.
"It's not to say that there is already a revolution under way in the U.S. ... but yes, they are laying the foundations for a revolutionary change," the Sandinista leader said Wednesday night as he accepted an honorary doctorate from an engineering university.
Ortega led a Soviet-backed government that battled U.S.-supported Contra rebels before he lost power in a 1990 election. He returned to office last year via the ballot box.
In statements broadcast on Sandinista Radio La Primerisima, Ortega said he has "faith in God and in the North American people, and above all in the youth, that the moment of great change in the U.S. will come and it will act differently, with justice and equality toward all nations."
Obama, a senator from Illinois, is locked in a tight race with Sen. Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination.
Where are the Obama groupies on this site. He has co-sponsored the "Global Poverty Act", which would cost .07% ($845 billion over and above the current US forign aid) of our Gross National Product over 13years. Don't you want to defend this? After all it would be "CHANGE".
Jim, I suspect the reason no one responded was because it seems like a petty argument in light of the issues facing this country and economy etc. Every candidate will have impractical and/or unpopular ideas (not that this one is, if the figures are even true, it is still dwarfed by Bush's miscalculations and government growing and war spending without asking for national sacrifice etc.) and we can spend endless amnounts of time and energy and language arguing specific points. But it's the overall impression people get of a candidate, plus their overall message that voters respond to. Reagan was a failure in terms of his promises when entering the presidency (instead of "balancing the budget" he grew the largest deficit in history, only to be dwarfed by W.'s, the government grew under his presidency etc. etc.) but h\is overall message that this country had great ideals and goals to achieve etc. resonanted with the voters. I think Obama has the same kind of charisma and inspirational power, and is more likely to accomplish his goals, if things keep going as they have been. And, by the way, one of the surest ways to grow our economy, as you "capitalists" love to say (like it's a lawn or something) is to elevate those in poverty into the so-called "middle class (i.e. working class in my terminology) so that they can afford to buy the products and services you "capitalists" supply. (I'm tweaking you a little with the terminology, since I know anything left of Limbaugh is considered by you guys "Marxist" or "socialist" etc.)
PS: the comparison I was making between North and Clemons was their chutzpah in proclaiming their inncoence in the light of so much evidence to the contrary, and the ways their support broke down along party lines. I.e. Republicans, most of, seem to not care what the evidence and facts prove, they care about ideology and maintaining their power.
Michael My Lad,
Iran Contra is so last millennium; At least, when there were Reagan excesses, the goal was for the betterment of the US and the world’s democracies. Nicaragua was in the Cuban Soviet sphere of influence which attempted to prevent new democracies and to undermine freedom in the world. Ronald Reagan knew how to use force and the threat of force to advance democratic and US goals in the world. It was not by accident that the “Evil Empire” disappeared. Military spending, as a percent of the budget, was actually quite mild as compared to the Eisenhower Kennedy years. Unfortunately Reagan was faced by a Democrat congress with no concept of fiscal discipline. The value of Star Wars spending was vindicated again with the shoot down of the satellite last night. Kim Jung Il and Ahmadinajhad may think twice before they launch missiles at the US or our allies. For examples of the use military force by the Democrat party, we can look to ‘Jimma” and crashed helicopters in the desert and total lack of respect and fear of American might in the world. We can also remember “Bubba’s disgraceful retreat and defeat from Somalia. Not to be overlooked is Clinton’s hope of vigorous court action against terrorists. To give the man credit he did wage, robust action against aspirin factories and empty tents in the desert. Jimma and Bubba’s use of power seem to have the goal of not offending anyone , including terrorist and Communists.
Mike, you were unclear about Barak’s ( I am a rock star), co-sponsored legislation increasing foreign aid to the world’s poor by an astounding $850 BILLION. Was it impractical and or unpopular (accept with Democrats, since it was approved in committee) or just the normal BS from him about “Change and Hope”.
By the way, how about that Michelle Obama and the fact that she has not been proud of America in her adult life. The defeat of the USSR, fall of the Berlin wall, the fall of the Taliban and economic recovery of the US since 9/11 has left her unmoved. Sure, she’d make a grand first lady in the “Blame America First’ tradition of the modern Democrat party.
Post a Comment