DMN: Democrats want Change; Republicans want Bill Clinton?

On December 23rd 2007, the Dallas Morning News endorsed Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee for President in 2008. Their justification was "both took a fresh approach".

That's the most ridiculous reason I've ever heard for justifying an endorsement. A fresh approach to the same old way of doing business? That's not what the American people want. They want CHANGE and that is very different than a "fresh approach".

All the candidates, both Democrat and Republican, bring a "fresh approach" to the table. Unfortunately, that "fresh approach" is just a different way of handling business as usual in Washington.

Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama want to end the war and bring the troops home. That is a different approach than George W. Bush has taken, but both also want to bring the troops home "over time" in a phased pull-out taking, in Obama's case, 16 months. A real fresh approach would be to pull them all out as quickly as we put them in. Make the Iraqis rise to the challenge or let them splinter into Sunni, Shiite, and Kurd fiefdoms: it doesn't matter.

Thanks to Mr. Bush's ill-advised invasion and incredibly poor handling of the "peace", we've lost any leverage we ever had over the Iraqi region. Our continued presence just inflames anti-American sentiment. Not to mention the billions and billions of dollars we're pouring down the drain over there.

Other than that, Obama has his own version of Universal Health Care, his own reworded version of "soak the rich-help the middle class". In fact, reading through his own list of positions on his own website, Obama offers little but rhetoric, rewarmed Big Government initiatives, and standard feel-good, 2 chickens in every pot (with the Government paying for the chickens while the rich pay for the pot).

Making Work Pay tax credit: that sounds positive. Real-world value to a taxpayer? Virtually nothing.

Saving 2 Billion dollars in tax preparer fees: that sounds good until you realize that accountants and middle class tax preparers for H&R Block and the like don't have jobs anymore. And we have to pay their unemployment insurance.

Taxes? Only more class warfare: "The Bush tax cuts give those who earn over $1 million dollars a tax cut nearly 160 times greater than that received by middle-income Americans". Of course Obama neglects to mention that the top 5% of taxpayers in this country pay 90% of the income tax. 40% of Americans pay no income tax. The remaining 55% pay 10% of the taxes.

The only fresh approach Barack Obama takes is in how he sells the snake oil. Status quo; business as usual.

Now, according to the Dallas Morning News, the Republicans long for the day when a Governor/Musician of the back-water state of Arkansas sits in the White House again.

This time he's is a conservative Christian, which the DMN made considerable apologies for in their endorsement article, and I guess the DMN feels that the only way for a Republican to be elected is for him to be a conservative Christian......definitely not from a Christian Cult like say, the Mormons.

At least Huckabee claims to be anti-illegal immigration and lists a long series of actions he would take to tackle illegal immigration. Obama, for no good reason, is completely pro-illegal immigrants, pro-amnesty program, and apparently against Black Americans who are hurt the most by the influx of illegals.

Huckabee is certainly not offering a fresh approach on Iraq. Reading his published position, you may as well be reading a brief offered by George W. Bush. Iraq and terrorism are inextricably entwined and we must WIN (again?) in Iraq.

Huckabee's position on Healthcare is just political doublespeak: focus on preventative healthcare. At least he doesn't support Universal Healthcare like Obama.

He talks a lot about religion and makes the accurate constitutional argument that while the state can not SUPPORT religion, neither can it REPRESS it.

But in the end, both Obama and Huckabee are traditional politicians. There will be no "fresh approach", just different paths and different judicial appointments. There will be no fundamental difference in the general path America is walking and the declining of America will continue.

Personally, I'd like to see a shot at REAL CHANGE. Policies so 180 degree different from the status quo which has led to America's continuing decline. that the entire world would sit up and says Wow ! I'd like to see America wake up to a REAL New Day.
Only one candidate from either party offers that chance and that's Ron Paul. Come on, America, the Executive Branch is one of three. There are checks and balances. It's not like a Paul Presidency could destroy the country in four years.

On the other hand, consider the possibilities of turning the clock back to the America the Founders actually envisioned. Consider smaller government, no more foreign police actions, no more deficit. no more IRS......

Ron Paul raised over $20 million dollars in the 4th quarter to Mike Huckabee's $5 million: doesn't that show Paul's electability? $20 million dollars while the mainstream press does everything it can to show Ron Paul in a bad light.....or not at all.

You are right, Dallas Morning News, America does want change, but they want SIGNIFICANT, REAL, YOU CAN'T MISS IT change. They don't want a "fresh approach": they want a NEW approach.

You blew a perfect opportunity to express that in your endorsement but you're so out of touch with real America that someone just phoned in the cynical endorsements and went back to bed.

You should have endorsed Ron Paul. If your media friends made fun of you, you could have fallen back on the fact that Dr. Paul is a Texan and you felt obligated to support him. You'd still get invited to the media dinners and such.

Instead you copped out, took the easy approach, abandoned your usual favorite, Hillary Clinton, and without saying it directly, supported Obama because he's black, but doesn't flaunt it. How Hip of you.

And on the other side, you supported a white evangelical Christian because you think all Republicans would vote for any evangelical Christian, and since Bill Clinton was from Arkansas, a Governor from that state, the last of whom enjoyed the boom times of the 1990's as President, would bring back warm capitalist memories in these troubled economic times.

In other words, Dallas Morning News, you played it safe, endorsed the status quo, and called it a "Fresh Approach". It's about as fresh as day-old flowers from a funeral.

Dr. Paul is not a "fringe candidate". He has a lot more support then the press reports. He stands for REAL change. I don't agree with all his positions, but like millions of Americans, I'm sick and tired of the Status Quo. I'm sick of the choreographed campaigns, the phony emotional up's and down's, the so-called suspense, and the inevitable conclusion. Let's shake it up this time with some REAL change. Let's put Ron Paul in the White House and see what happens. It won't be boring and it won't be Status Quo.

Technorati Tags:barack obama, black, christian, dallas morning news, endorsement, mike huckabee, ron paul, status quo
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator

del.icio.us Tags:barack obama, black, christian, dallas morning news, endorsement, mike huckabee, ron paul, status quo
Generated By del.icio.us Tag Generator

Del.icio.us Add to del.icio.us Digg DiggIt! Reddit Reddit Stumbleupon Stumble This Google Bookmarks Add to Google Bookmarks Yahoo My Web Add to Yahoo MyWeb Technorati Add to Technorati Faves Slashdot Slashdot it

The Selling Out of America: John, Hillary and Barack; Atrocious Illegal Immigration VOTING Records of ALL TOP 3 Democratic Presidential Candidates:

Marc Chamot wrote an incredible piece on the Illegal Immigration voting records of the three top Democrat candidates. We all know about Hillary's views although reading all the quotes was chilling. John Edwards bores me and it's no surprise he's pro-illegal.

But Barack Obama? Yes, he would make the occasional one sentence comment indicating he leans pro-illegals, but read the quotes by Obama in Marc's story and your hair will stand on end!

How can Black America, the group most hurt by the illegal alien invasion, even THINK of supporting Obama, let alone the other Democrat voters who are anti-illegals?

Click on the title of this story to be taken to Marc's article. It's well worth the trip!

Technorati Tags:marc chamot, 2008 election, democrat, edwards, election 2008, hillary clinton, illegal aliens, illegal immigration, obama, barack obama
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator

del.icio.us Tags:2008 election, democrat, edwards, election 2008, marc chamot, hillary clinton, illegal aliens, illegal immigration, obama, barack obama
Generated By del.icio.us Tag Generator

Del.icio.us Add to del.icio.us Digg DiggIt! Reddit Reddit Stumbleupon Stumble This Google Bookmarks Add to Google Bookmarks Yahoo My Web Add to Yahoo MyWeb Technorati Add to Technorati Faves Slashdot Slashdot it

Meet the Press: Russert 1, Paul 0

I started out this campaign season with a very simple premise: All politicians are self-serving, self aggrandizing, hold your nose when you vote for them, sellouts....except Hillary Clinton. She was the political Devil incarnate. So my goal was to support ANYONE who could beat Hillary Clinton in the general election. Better the Devil we know than the Devil herself.

Initially I was very critical of Ron Paul, seeing him as a spoiler with no chance of winning the Republican nomination, let alone the White House. But as I researched him and the other so-called candidates more, I found myself starting to like Dr. Paul. I didn't agree with all his policies and I doubted he would ever be gain enough congressional support to do away with the IRS. But he did have some real good ideas and a base philosophy I could understand and agree with. I found myself becoming a Ron Paul supporter and had planned to write an article this morning on the phenomenon that is Ron Paul and the dire condition the country is in which makes him not only viable, but electable.

Like most Ron Paul supporters, I lamented the mainstream presses attempts to ignore him. The internet is great, but Ron needs to be seen and heard on mainstream media sources if he's going to attract the number of voters he's going to need to win. This morning, I got my wish and it was a disaster.

I overslept so I hit DIGG knowing a video of his appearance would show up somewhere. And sure enough it did. The poster talked about Dr. Paul's "beautifully thought-out answers" and I could hardly wait to hit the play button. What started out as a DIGG comment to the poster has turned into this article.

Now no one hits a home run every time at bat. Dr. Paul is human and he's going to have good interviews and not so good interviews. That's the way it goes. And those of us that support Dr. Paul need to be honest enough with ourselves to acknowledge that. But how the poster of the video could call Meet the Press a win for Dr. Paul is absolutely beyond me. And all the Paul supporters who will slam me for heresy once this is posted need a reality check as well.

I actually was embarrassed for Ron Paul versus Tim Russert in this interview. Dr. Paul spoke in broad terms which may be appropriate for campaign speeches but showed a shocking lack of knowledge concerning numbers key to his primary positions.

For example, Dr Paul often uses the line of how we have X number of military bases in Y number of countries as he explains how much money we'll save when he brings them all home.But when Russert asked him how many total troops we had overseas, Paul had no idea. He couldn't even venture a guess. Russert had to tell him. Personally, I would have been OK if Dr. Paul could have given a real close estimate but he had absolutely no idea! How can that be when the savings he talks about directly corresponds to the size of the force we have overseas?

There were a couple of other times when he had no idea on numbers as well. I don't want another Hillary-style policy wonk in the White House, but the questions he couldn't answer were directly related to his position of reducing the government by one half. Did he just make up the "reduce by one half" number? Did he or his staff actually compute how much Dr. Paul's policies, if enacted, would save?

Dr Paul's answer to the probing by Russert on earmarks for his congressional district was also weak, made little sense, and WAS akin to, as Russert put it, "I voted for it before I voted against it". Dr. Paul's response was nonsensical: there's no other way to put it.

Having pictures of himself with Ronald Reagan in his campaign literature on the screen while Russert detailed how Paul came to distance himself from Reagan: one quote said Dr. Paul called Reagan a traitor (which Paul denied) is at best hypocritical. Paul's answer to the charges was, again, weak. He was starting to look like a............ politician.

Russert showed a video of Dr. Paul's response to a Huckabee campaign commercial which positioned the camera in such a way as to make the bookcase behind Huckabee look like a cross. Dr. Paul in the video had a very strident retort; using words like fascism.

Yet when pressed by Russert, Paul admitted he had never seen the commercial, was caught off-guard, and tried to defend his remarks by saying he never accused Romney by name of being a fascist. Ronald Reagan....even Barack Obama, would have just told the interviewer "I've never seen the commercial so I'm not prepared to comment on it." Now the smell of a ...........politician.

Russert pounded him on other statements from the past, especially those made during Paul's 1988 run for the Presidency. Paul's responses were weak, if not at times incoherent.

When Russert hit him with " you broke with Ronald Reagan, you called Bush 41 "a bum" (picture of article with quote on screen), you admit to not voting for Bush 43 in either election, you mailed your resignation to the Republican Party and your membership card back to the RNC (picture of letter and card on screen), and you ran as a Libertarian. So how can you call yourself a Republican and run for the Republican nomination", Paul's response was that he was running as a "Taft Republican". Anyone remember President Taft? Of course not...he didn't do anything.

And it left Dr. Paul wide open for Russert's question "So you think we never should have fought the Civil War to end Slavery?" Paul's reply that Lincoln was wrong, the 600,000 Americans died (at least he had the number for that one) and we should have just bought all the slaves from the South and given them their freedom.......as if the Civil War was only about slavery and if we hadn't had slavery, there would have been no Civil War. And then Paul followed up with a "some of my best supporters are black" type of statement which just made me cringe. By this time, Dr. Paul was looking a lot more Libertarian than Republican, Taft or not. But the best (worse) was to come.

This I must have missed in my research of Dr. Paul and might help explain all the college-age support: Legalize all drugs? Philosophically, I see where he's coming from but philosophy doesn't often work in the real world. I freely admit that in my youth, I experimented with drugs. I know first hand what it's like to be high and drive. How I survived my youth is only through the grace of God, but Dr. Paul wants to legalize all drugs "for adults"? And not because he believes in drug use or freedom, but because the Constitution doesn't allow for it? He went on to quote (without any numbers, unfortunately) how alcohol causes so many deaths and tragedies in this country, but he was OK with Prohibition because at least we amended the Constitution.

Like Dr. Paul, I do not believe that the Constitution is a living document, subject to the whims of the times. But I also don't believe that it's a strait-jacket binding us to the 18th century.

Congress does have the right to enact laws, and so long as they don't conflict with the Constitution and are signed by the President, to enforce them. To keep falling back on the refrain "those powers not specifically granted shall remain the rights of the people" is naive and impractical....and not in keeping with the Founder's intent..not down to that micro a level.

I agree we must constantly be on-guard against fascism. As Ben Franklin said, "those who would trade liberty for security shall enjoy neither". I think Dr. Paul made some great points about the Patriot Act and if you don't support the war, you don't support the troops rhetoric.

But when he started talking about the evil Military-Industrial Complex controlling Government, I thought I was watching a colorized version of a 1950's interview.

I've seen Ron Paul in other venues and in other interviews and I think by far this was his worst showing. He came off as uninformed and sometimes befuddled......and not as a serious Republican candidate, but as a half-baked Libertarian. Obama would eat his lunch in a one-on-one debate, let alone Hillary.

I for one, was very disappointed in Dr. Paul and while I'll still vote for him, it's now motivated more by the "lesser of evils" concept than the "he's the best man". We do need to turn inward as a nation and stop policing the rest of the world and Dr. Paul is the only one I would trust on that account.

And before I start getting slammed by the other Ron Paul supporters, remember that only one perfect man ever walked this earth. That was Jesus Christ. So lets admit our guy took one to the chin, hopes he learns from it, and move on. But lets not live in denial. There is no way any serious Ron Paul supporter can call this Meet the Press interview a "win".

Technorati Tags:2008 election, meet the press, tim russert, anyone but hillary in 2008, digg, election 2008, mitt romney, ron paul
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator

del.icio.us:2008 election, meet the press, tim russert, anyone but hillary in 2008, digg, election 2008, mitt romney, ron paul
Generated By del.icio.us Tag Generator

Del.icio.us Add to del.icio.us Digg DiggIt! Reddit Reddit Stumbleupon Stumble This Google Bookmarks Add to Google Bookmarks Yahoo My Web Add to Yahoo MyWeb Technorati Add to Technorati Faves Slashdot Slashdot it