Will be delivered on February 18:
Ex-Pres. Carter will give a speech on "the Carter presidency's greatest moments," (hat tip: Powerline) during a Presidents' Day event 2/18 in Plains, GA.
Thanks to the National Journal for bringing this to our attention!
Showing posts with label Democrats. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Democrats. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Thursday, January 3, 2008
And we're off...
Obama. Huckabee.
The Republicans:
I admit that in these closing days leading up to Iowa, I thought that Mitt's Millions would close the gap and maybe put him back on top of Gov. Huckabee. McCain must be dancing (or, well, whatever McCain would do if he would dance) in New Hampshire right now. Despite coming in third/fourth at the caucuses, McCain has been pulling back in New Hampshire, and seeing his biggest rival in NH (Romney) fall is only good news for him. As Mort Kondracke mentioned, it's like a baseball pennant race - you always want the guy who is ahead of you in the division to lose, so you can move forward. Huckabee should certainly spend some more time in New Hampshire now, but he also needs to pour a lot of time and money into South Carolina. And let me tell you - Mitt's folks on the ground in SC will not take this lying down. Huckabee for President better be ready for the gloves to come off down there, and be prepared to get their knuckles a little bloody too.
The Democrats:
But Obama. Wow. This is a huge day in American politics - an African-American man won Iowa. You know, Iowa. The 95% Caucasian state in the middle of the country. It's not like Iowa has a huge minority population to put Barack Hussein Obama over the top. HRC and her minions must be shaking in their boots right now. Oh yeah - and the son of the mill worker is done. D.O.A. One silver lining I am hoping that comes out of this Obama win is it hopefully puts the first (final?) nail in the coffin of the divisive politics of race that come from the ilk of Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. I hope they see his win as what it is - a rejection of them, not as black men, but as liberal, fear-and-hate mongering cretins.
The Republicans:
I admit that in these closing days leading up to Iowa, I thought that Mitt's Millions would close the gap and maybe put him back on top of Gov. Huckabee. McCain must be dancing (or, well, whatever McCain would do if he would dance) in New Hampshire right now. Despite coming in third/fourth at the caucuses, McCain has been pulling back in New Hampshire, and seeing his biggest rival in NH (Romney) fall is only good news for him. As Mort Kondracke mentioned, it's like a baseball pennant race - you always want the guy who is ahead of you in the division to lose, so you can move forward. Huckabee should certainly spend some more time in New Hampshire now, but he also needs to pour a lot of time and money into South Carolina. And let me tell you - Mitt's folks on the ground in SC will not take this lying down. Huckabee for President better be ready for the gloves to come off down there, and be prepared to get their knuckles a little bloody too.
The Democrats:
But Obama. Wow. This is a huge day in American politics - an African-American man won Iowa. You know, Iowa. The 95% Caucasian state in the middle of the country. It's not like Iowa has a huge minority population to put Barack Hussein Obama over the top. HRC and her minions must be shaking in their boots right now. Oh yeah - and the son of the mill worker is done. D.O.A. One silver lining I am hoping that comes out of this Obama win is it hopefully puts the first (final?) nail in the coffin of the divisive politics of race that come from the ilk of Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. I hope they see his win as what it is - a rejection of them, not as black men, but as liberal, fear-and-hate mongering cretins.
Thursday, November 1, 2007
Boo Hoo - Clinton can't have it both ways
I've been wanting to write about this for days - ever since it happened really - but real life and work seem to have a funny way of getting in the way.
Let's re-cap:
All the Democrats running for president were in a debate. A question came up about whether they were supportive of Governor Spitzer's (D-NY) plan to give legal, government-issued driver's licenses to illegal aliens. Each candidate got to say what they thought. Except Hillary. She was for it, sort of, against it, maybe, understood why he would propose it, I guess... In other words, she answered this question like all the others - she didn't. But this time was different - she wasn't let off the hook. The moderator (Tim Russert, I think) asked her to clarify her position. Her fellow candidates jumped on her for not having a "yes" or "no" answer. So finally she says she's for it.
Only to say the next day she wasn't. Or was it the other way around?
See, it doesn't matter. Because in typical "I want it all" Hillary-fashion, the next day she came out swinging. Or whining, actually. About how all the "boys" had ganged up on her.
What is appalling to me is not her stance on the issue (OK, it is actually, but it's not the point of this post) but on her immediate retreat to hide behind her own skirts. I got news for ya' lady - you think that the boys here in America are tough? Wait until you get onto the world's playground! You think the "boys" in Iraq, North Korea, Iran and China are going to treat you like a fragile little doll? If you can't handle debating with men who mostly agree with you, how are you going to defend America against the plots of the people who want to overthrow it?
It's completely offensive that the first words out of her mouth were about gender, and how she was essentially being picked on. Hard to imagine a real female leader crying like Hillary was. Bet you wouldn't have seen Golda Meir, Margaret Thatcher or Indira Gandhi pull that nonsense. They would put on their big girl panties and realize that they were leaders first, foremost and only.
Hillary can't have it both ways - she can't want to be the most powerful woman in the free world, and cry about how the boys are picking on her.
Let's re-cap:
All the Democrats running for president were in a debate. A question came up about whether they were supportive of Governor Spitzer's (D-NY) plan to give legal, government-issued driver's licenses to illegal aliens. Each candidate got to say what they thought. Except Hillary. She was for it, sort of, against it, maybe, understood why he would propose it, I guess... In other words, she answered this question like all the others - she didn't. But this time was different - she wasn't let off the hook. The moderator (Tim Russert, I think) asked her to clarify her position. Her fellow candidates jumped on her for not having a "yes" or "no" answer. So finally she says she's for it.
Only to say the next day she wasn't. Or was it the other way around?
See, it doesn't matter. Because in typical "I want it all" Hillary-fashion, the next day she came out swinging. Or whining, actually. About how all the "boys" had ganged up on her.
What is appalling to me is not her stance on the issue (OK, it is actually, but it's not the point of this post) but on her immediate retreat to hide behind her own skirts. I got news for ya' lady - you think that the boys here in America are tough? Wait until you get onto the world's playground! You think the "boys" in Iraq, North Korea, Iran and China are going to treat you like a fragile little doll? If you can't handle debating with men who mostly agree with you, how are you going to defend America against the plots of the people who want to overthrow it?
It's completely offensive that the first words out of her mouth were about gender, and how she was essentially being picked on. Hard to imagine a real female leader crying like Hillary was. Bet you wouldn't have seen Golda Meir, Margaret Thatcher or Indira Gandhi pull that nonsense. They would put on their big girl panties and realize that they were leaders first, foremost and only.
Hillary can't have it both ways - she can't want to be the most powerful woman in the free world, and cry about how the boys are picking on her.
Monday, August 13, 2007
Where did we get off track?
"When good news is awful news," by Wes Pruden, is a must-read in its entirety. However, I'll do you a favor and pull out the most demoralizing and infuriating quote regarding the war in Iraq and the reaction of some of our elected (!) officials:
'Nevertheless and grudging or not, things are reported to be better than they used to be, and seem to be getting a little better every day. It's enough to make a partisan Democrat weep. Some are. Nancy Boyda of Kansas, a freshman in the House, was so unnerved by good news from the front that she stalked out of a committee hearing when a retired general described developments in Iraq as encouraging. Good news like that, she said, only "further divides the country." Jim Clyburn of South Carolina, the Democratic majority House whip, was even more revealing: If things improve in Iraq, that would be "a real problem for us [Democrats]." '
No, Mr. Clyburn, you are wrong. Iraq improving is not a problem for any one. Period. It is a good thing for Iraqis, a good thing for our troops and a good thing for Americans. Your myopic view of our country, your ability to only see it in terms of blue and red (that is, the election map), has caused you to lose sight of what is truly of value. Freedom. Life. Liberty. Before our troops, the average Iraqi had none of those. Now there is at least hope - another value that was in short supply in the Saddam years.
As for Ms. Boyda, I can only hope that her constituents throw her out of office. Not because she is a democrat, but because she is, to be kinder than how I really feel about her, not the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree.
'Nevertheless and grudging or not, things are reported to be better than they used to be, and seem to be getting a little better every day. It's enough to make a partisan Democrat weep. Some are. Nancy Boyda of Kansas, a freshman in the House, was so unnerved by good news from the front that she stalked out of a committee hearing when a retired general described developments in Iraq as encouraging. Good news like that, she said, only "further divides the country." Jim Clyburn of South Carolina, the Democratic majority House whip, was even more revealing: If things improve in Iraq, that would be "a real problem for us [Democrats]." '
No, Mr. Clyburn, you are wrong. Iraq improving is not a problem for any one. Period. It is a good thing for Iraqis, a good thing for our troops and a good thing for Americans. Your myopic view of our country, your ability to only see it in terms of blue and red (that is, the election map), has caused you to lose sight of what is truly of value. Freedom. Life. Liberty. Before our troops, the average Iraqi had none of those. Now there is at least hope - another value that was in short supply in the Saddam years.
As for Ms. Boyda, I can only hope that her constituents throw her out of office. Not because she is a democrat, but because she is, to be kinder than how I really feel about her, not the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)