Showing posts with label Bill Clinton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bill Clinton. Show all posts

Saturday, February 28, 2009

Comparison: Sarah Palin, Hillary, Barack

In making comparisons between the heroic Sarah Palin and the intensely political Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, one soon finds there is no comparison. "For Obama to be Commander-in-Chief is equivalent to Madonna entering a nunnery."

I believe Barack Obama is destroying America as a land of freedom, tolerance, and opportunity (the three terms are from speeches by Sarah H. Palin), and that all Americans who love this country, including "The Big Dog" (Bill Clinton) and his spouse, have a moral obligation to oppose him.

"I have a lifetime of experience. John McCain has a lifetime of experience. Barack Obama has a speech he gave in 2002." (HRC) And did she then endorse her "friend" John McCain and oppose her tormentor, Barack Obama? Did she ever defend a her under-attack political sister Sister Palin? We know the answer to that one. She did what was best for Hillary.

Mrs. Clinton has spent a lifetime with a husband who humiliated her consistently through constant acts of adultery? Why did she stay with such a man? He recognized it as a necessary "career move." Bill Clinton was her ticket to bigger (and better?) things.

The Palins? They have a marriage that most Americans regard as near ideal. The Palins have five children. The Clintons have a much more trendy one.

As a little boy many years ago, I had some wonderful Catholic nuns emphasize to me the need "to tell the truth." I am not God Almighty and sometimes I'm dead wrong, but I have always tried to tell the truth. At times, that has hurt my "career" (to say the least). On the Clintons4McCain BlogTalkRadio show, I defended Mrs. Clinton (and even Bill) on a couple of occasions where I believed participants had gone overboard in criticizing the Clintons.

I know many people (too many) who died for their country in war (mostly Viet Nam), including some of my best friends from childhood. My closest friend now in Pittsburgh won a Silver Star in 'Nam. They did not want to die (or get badly injured) in War, but they didn't hesitate to put their lives on the line. Of course, getting killed or damaged for life in war is not a "good career move."

My military friends have standards of courage and honor that I also find in Gov. Palin and her family. Her children have inherited toughness -- courage -- from Todd and Sarah. Her son Track is in Iraq now -- in an infantry unit -- and his life is very much on the line.

I know many politicians will shed a tear in expressing their love of country, but would they really put their lives on the line -- or encourage members of their family -- to do the same? Would Obama? Of course not. Would Speaker Pelosi or Majority leader Reid? Would Hillary Clinton? Guess.

Barack Obama's daughters, Malia and Sasha, would no more choose a military career than they would aspire to be pole-dancers. From all available evidence, Obama has never had even one good friend in the military.

During the campaign, he invented imaginary feats supposedly performed by his "uncles" -- saying they had liberated concentration camps that were in fact freed by the Soviet Union's Red Army. He sought almost desperately to establish personal links with the military, but never found any. For him to be Commander-in-Chief is equivalent to Madonna entering a nunnery.

"Country first," to coin a phrase. Career does not come last, but it's pretty far down the list for people of real integrity.


Sent the following out today to some hard-core Palinites:

I(I like Cindy R's concept that "the group with the most e-mail addresses wins in 2012)Hi:

I thought Rush Limbaugh's speech today was outstanding, quite a remarkable achievement. As he said, one of our greatest tools in voter recruitment is to remind everybody that we're advocatinng liberty, tolerance, and opportunity.

By 2011 (or earlier), the bloom will be off the Obama rose. He will still be handing out truckloads of cash, but fewer and fewer people will be fooled about what he's up to. "Let them eat speeches" will be his mantra.

I don't put much stock in CPAC's straw poll today (and I wouldn't have even if Sarah had won). I'm sure some CPACers were punishing Sarah for her temerity in actually fulfilling her duties as Governor.

I'm certain if Mitt Romney is the nominee in 2012, we will all go through the motions and vote for him as we watch him lose 46 states. His concession speech (delivered eight minutes after the polls close in the Northeast) will contin the immortal words, "Thank God for the good people of Utah, Idaho, Alabama, and Mississippi."

One way we will win is by having 20,000 real activists across the country -- at least 10 in every state, with emphasis on states like Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Ohio, Michigan, Colorado, New Mexico. Our activists will play major roles in winning the electoral vote. By 2012, we won't be ready to carry states like MA, NY, and CA, but we need activists who will reach out -- and, in some case, travel to -- contested states.

One thing I've been doing over the past several years is collecting names (and e-mail addresses) of such "real activists" -- people like Sharon Caliendo, who could run a national campaign if someone put a gun to her head. (Actually, if you asked her, she'd gulp twice and say yes).

The people we need to recruit are individuals who are, in many ways, like Sarah herself: women, mothers, military families, Christians, supporter of women's rights, members of union families, athletes, small towners, and on and on. Sarah is so many things, has so many positive qualities, that it should be very possible to build her a huge, solid group of supporters.

We also need to offer help to candidates who will back Sarah. They include Saxby Chambliss and his GA Senate mate, Rick Perry of Texas, Mary Fallin of Oklahoma, Sonny Perdue of Georgia, Rudy Giuliani, and others.

We do not need to bash Romney and Huckabee, who will do a great job, as usual, of bashing each other. They both have a low ceiling of support, and they will be gone when Sarah wins Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina (or whatever the exact order is by then). If I'm not wearing a barrel by that time, I expect to be in Iowa, NH, and SC. (I will buy a barrel in SC). I hope the Greyhound Corp. is still operating.

Bobby Jindal? He's a media creation, and the media is now busily "uncreating" him.

I'm not at all concerned that Sarah is taking some time to avoid the spotlight. Hard as it is to believe, it's only 2009.

We need to figure out ways to recruit more young people, including high school age types who will be able to vote in 2012. We also need to recruit more Hispanics (tough) and women (easy). As the bandwagon gains speed, the recruits will be seeking us out.

Wednesday, February 11, 2009

HILLARY IS NO SARAH PALIN

"I have a lifetime of experience. Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience. Barack Obama has a speech [against the Iraq War] he delivered in 2002." (Hillary Rodham Clinton) I'll keep adding to this column on Wednesday and finish the "Hillary comments" on Thursday. I'd very much like to get your comments on a deeply flawed human being, Hillary R. Clinton.

I have many friends who were Hillary Supporters. One former friend, Robin, listened to my positive comments on Sarah Palin after she was named McCain's running mate. Robin then said, "Steve, I don't like all the praise of Palin because it makes Hillary sound bad by comparison." That's when Robin, a woman incapable of taking a clear-eyed look at HRC, became a former friend. "Yes, Robin, HRC is no Sarah Palin -- not by a longshot."

My sad impression is that most Hillary Supporters don't want to discuss the woman's actions in any serious way. Apparently, they feel that if they look deeply into this woman's heart and soul, they'll end up like the madman in Conrad's Heart of Darkness, who finally recognizes the evil of what he's done and blurts out, "The horror! The horror!" Horror and Hillary are more than alliterative.

John Edwards, another mindless left-wing Democrat, limply said of his affair that he had become "egotistic" and "narcissistic." John Edwards, meet Hillary Clinton, a card-carrying narcissist.

Hillary Clinton has spent a lifetime accepting, rationalizing, and even defending (yikes) her husband's chronic adultery and abusive behavior toward women, including Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, and Kathryn Willey. Of course, that didn't stop the gentle ladies of NOW and NARAL from endorsing Bill . . . or Hillary. Abuse of women is apparently okay as long as you're "right on the issues." Of course, without a demand for basic decency all the "issues" become practically irrelevant.

Many Hillary Supporters are now spending their lives defending HRC's decision to value her career over her country. In fact, what do you call a woman who values career more than the nation? Why, for services rendered, you call her "Madame Secretary of State," that is Secretary of . . . the Country.



As a member of Alaska's Oil and Gas Commission, Sarah Palin cited the head of the Alaska Republican Party (Randy Ruedrich) for an ethics violation. Such acts continue to make her enemies in the state, one long synonymous with political corruption. . Hillary Clinton has NEVER done anything remotely comparable in her long career. The sad reality is that most of Hillary's supporters have much higher standards for themselves than they do for their tinsel candidate.

I fear that if Mrs. Clinton appeared without clothes, such supporters would be marveling over how good she looks in a pants suit.

In the election, Clinton was a major factor in helping Obama carry Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida. To say that she must have had a good (but of course, unstated) reason for doing so is to give her credit she in no way deserves. Over a lifetime, she has always done what is best for Hillary. Period.


During and after the election, I regularly asked people why HRC had supported her tormentor -- her abuser -- Obama. Perhaps for the same reason she'd always supporter her marital abuser, Bill, "the Big Dog?" No one ever gave an answer that made Mrs. Clinton seem like anything other than a moral weakling.

More than one Hillary backer told me, "Well, she had to. They [unnamed] threatened her. They threatened her MOTHER. They threatened CHELSEA." There is not one scrap of evidence any such thing ever happened. Moreover, anyone who would cave into threats has no business aspiring to the presidency.

People like Hillary Clinton are despicable. The fact that she's a woman is not exculpatory. Anyone who's so easily intimidated should not be occupying a high position of any kind.