“I think he’s regretting not picking her now, I do,” said Governor Palin in her interview with Charles Gibson. “What, what determination and grit and even grace through some tough shots that were fired her way — she handled those well.”
“Fair or unfair—and I do think that it’s a more concentrated criticism that Hillary gets on so many fronts; I think that’s unfortunate. But fair or unfair, I think she does herself a disservice to even mention it, really. You have to plow through that and know what you’re getting into. I say this with all due respect to Hillary Clinton and to her experience and to her passion for changing the status quo.”
Please note: The postings of "G. Morris", written by John K. Bush and which end in 2016, stated his views as of the dates of posting and should not be understood as current assertions of his views. The postings, which have not been altered since they came to an end, remain on this blog to preserve the historical record. In 2017, Mr. Bush took a position that precludes further public political comments or endorsements. He will no longer be contributing to this blog.
Showing posts with label Clinton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Clinton. Show all posts
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Biden's S.O.S. For Hillary
Senator Biden made this admission today, as reported by CNN, emphasis added:
Make no mistake about this, Hillary Clinton is as qualified or more qualified than I am to be vice president of the United States of America. Let's get that straight.
She's a truly close personal friend and she is qualified to be president of the United States of America; she's easily qualified to be vice president of the United States of America and quite frankly [she] might have been a better pick than me.
Could it be that Biden is about to walk the plank so that Hillary can be commissioned the new first mate on the U.S.S. Barack OTitanic?
Please note: The postings of "G. Morris", written by John K. Bush and which end in 2016, stated his views as of the dates of posting and should not be understood as current assertions of his views. The postings, which have not been altered since they came to an end, remain on this blog to preserve the historical record. In 2017, Mr. Bush took a position that precludes further public political comments or endorsements. He will no longer be contributing to this blog.
Make no mistake about this, Hillary Clinton is as qualified or more qualified than I am to be vice president of the United States of America. Let's get that straight.
She's a truly close personal friend and she is qualified to be president of the United States of America; she's easily qualified to be vice president of the United States of America and quite frankly [she] might have been a better pick than me.
Could it be that Biden is about to walk the plank so that Hillary can be commissioned the new first mate on the U.S.S. Barack OTitanic?
Please note: The postings of "G. Morris", written by John K. Bush and which end in 2016, stated his views as of the dates of posting and should not be understood as current assertions of his views. The postings, which have not been altered since they came to an end, remain on this blog to preserve the historical record. In 2017, Mr. Bush took a position that precludes further public political comments or endorsements. He will no longer be contributing to this blog.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Perhaps Democrat Superdelegates Should Reconsider and Nominate Hillary?
Governor Steve Beshear and other Democratic superdelegates have to be wondering whether they will be voting for another presidential candidate disaster when they select Senator Barack Obama to be their nominee next week. According to a Reuters/Zogby poll released today, Senator John McCain now leads Obama by five percentage points -- at a point in the presidential election year when, thanks to media bias, the Democratic candidate typically has a double digit lead over his Republican counterpart (for those old enough to remember, recall that 20 point lead Michael Dukakis had over George H.W. Bush at the end of the summer of 1988 before the helmeted tank photo-op fiasco). According to Reuters:
McCain leads Obama among likely U.S. voters by 46 percent to 41 percent, wiping out Obama's solid 7-point advantage in July and taking his first lead in the monthly Reuters/Zogby poll.
. . . .
McCain now has a 9-point edge, 49 percent to 40 percent, over Obama on the critical question of who would be the best manager of the economy -- an issue nearly half of voters said was their top concern in the November 4 presidential election.
. . . .
Heck, McCain's even gaining ground among those who were toddlers when Dukakis imploded:
Obama's support among voters between the ages of 18 and 29, which had been one of his strengths, slipped 12 percentage points to 52 percent. McCain, who will turn 72 next week, was winning 40 percent of younger voters.
And, unlike in 1992, when Ross Perot's third-party candidacy doomed Bush I's reelection bid, the third-party candidates, when factored in the poll, do not erase McCain's lead:
McCain still held a 5-point edge over Obama, 44 percent to 39 percent, when all four names were included. [Libertarian Party candidate Bob] Barr earned 3 percent and [independent Ralph] Nader 2 percent.
And here's another significant development: McCain now leads Obama in RealClearPolitics.com's current projected Electoral College outcome, with 274 votes to Obama's 264. It takes 270 to win.
These numbers confirm what Senator Hillary Clinton said would happen once Obama had to face the Republican candidate. This is going to be a fun election after all.
Update: Susan Estrich, who was Dukakis's campaign manager, provides her analysis of the latest poll numbers here. Regarding Dukakis's demise, she writes:
By the summer of 1988, the country had turned from believing we were on the wrong track to thinking we were on the right track. They thought my candidate, Governor Dukakis, was more conservative than he actually was -- that's what beating Jesse Jackson every Tuesday will do for you.
By the fall, it was clear: right or wrong, they didn't like him. Of course, you never say that to the candidate; you tell him "they don't know you," not that "they don't like you." You say it's a communications problem, which is why being the communications director is the hot seat in a losing campaign.
It will be fascinating twenty years from now to read what the Obamites write to explain why their man lost.
Please note: The postings of "G. Morris", written by John K. Bush and which end in 2016, stated his views as of the dates of posting and should not be understood as current assertions of his views. The postings, which have not been altered since they came to an end, remain on this blog to preserve the historical record. In 2017, Mr. Bush took a position that precludes further public political comments or endorsements. He will no longer be contributing to this blog.
McCain leads Obama among likely U.S. voters by 46 percent to 41 percent, wiping out Obama's solid 7-point advantage in July and taking his first lead in the monthly Reuters/Zogby poll.
. . . .
McCain now has a 9-point edge, 49 percent to 40 percent, over Obama on the critical question of who would be the best manager of the economy -- an issue nearly half of voters said was their top concern in the November 4 presidential election.
. . . .
Heck, McCain's even gaining ground among those who were toddlers when Dukakis imploded:
Obama's support among voters between the ages of 18 and 29, which had been one of his strengths, slipped 12 percentage points to 52 percent. McCain, who will turn 72 next week, was winning 40 percent of younger voters.
And, unlike in 1992, when Ross Perot's third-party candidacy doomed Bush I's reelection bid, the third-party candidates, when factored in the poll, do not erase McCain's lead:
McCain still held a 5-point edge over Obama, 44 percent to 39 percent, when all four names were included. [Libertarian Party candidate Bob] Barr earned 3 percent and [independent Ralph] Nader 2 percent.
And here's another significant development: McCain now leads Obama in RealClearPolitics.com's current projected Electoral College outcome, with 274 votes to Obama's 264. It takes 270 to win.
These numbers confirm what Senator Hillary Clinton said would happen once Obama had to face the Republican candidate. This is going to be a fun election after all.
Update: Susan Estrich, who was Dukakis's campaign manager, provides her analysis of the latest poll numbers here. Regarding Dukakis's demise, she writes:
By the summer of 1988, the country had turned from believing we were on the wrong track to thinking we were on the right track. They thought my candidate, Governor Dukakis, was more conservative than he actually was -- that's what beating Jesse Jackson every Tuesday will do for you.
By the fall, it was clear: right or wrong, they didn't like him. Of course, you never say that to the candidate; you tell him "they don't know you," not that "they don't like you." You say it's a communications problem, which is why being the communications director is the hot seat in a losing campaign.
It will be fascinating twenty years from now to read what the Obamites write to explain why their man lost.
Please note: The postings of "G. Morris", written by John K. Bush and which end in 2016, stated his views as of the dates of posting and should not be understood as current assertions of his views. The postings, which have not been altered since they came to an end, remain on this blog to preserve the historical record. In 2017, Mr. Bush took a position that precludes further public political comments or endorsements. He will no longer be contributing to this blog.
Monday, June 2, 2008
Obama Loses Again
Senator Hillary Clinton whalloped Senator Barack Obama again yesterday, this time in the Puerto Rico primary. According to CBS News, "[w]ith 85 percent of precincts reporting, Clinton was leading Obama 68 percent to 32 percent." We're waiting for the Obama apologists to issue a press release explaining that the Puerto Ricans are as "racist" as Kentuckians, West Virginians, etc.
Friday, May 30, 2008
Squirrel Alert
Just when Senator Barack Obama thought he had finally buried the Reverend Wright's rantings, now comes word that even more problematic friends from Obama's past have been dug up: ACORN. As Riehl World View explains,
There's a lot of buzz being generated about Obama, ACORN and Obama's first political party - The New Party. How did the Oba-messiah get this far without anyone reporting he was a member of a fringe Leftist political party?
Relying on Sol Stern’s 2003 City Journal article, “ACORN’s Nutty Regime for Cities”, Stanley Kurz of National Review Online provides a good synopsis of ACORN's history:
Sol Stern explains that Acorn is the key modern successor of the radical 1960’s “New Left,” with a “1960’s-bred agenda of anti-capitalism” to match. Acorn, says Stern, grew out of “one of the New Left’s silliest and most destructive groups, the National Welfare Rights Organization.” In the 1960’s, NWRO launched a campaign of sit-ins and disruptions at welfare offices. The goal was to remove eligibility restrictions, and thus effectively flood welfare rolls with so many clients that the system would burst. The theory, explains Stern, was that an impossibly overburdened welfare system would force “a radical reconstruction of America’s unjust capitalist economy.” Instead of a socialist utopia, however, we got the culture of dependency and family breakdown that ate away at America’s inner cities — until welfare reform began to turn the tide.
While Acorn holds to NWRO’s radical economic framework and its confrontational 1960’s-style tactics, the targets and strategy have changed. Acorn prefers to fly under the national radar, organizing locally in liberal urban areas — where, Stern observes, local legislators and reporters are often “slow to grasp how radical Acorn’s positions really are.” Acorn’s new goals are municipal “living wage” laws targeting “big-box” stores like Wal-Mart, rolling back welfare reform, and regulating banks — efforts styled as combating “predatory lending.” Unfortunately, instead of helping workers, Acorn’s living-wage campaigns drive businesses out of the very neighborhoods where jobs are needed most. Acorn’s opposition to welfare reform only threatens to worsen the self-reinforcing cycle of urban poverty and family breakdown. Perhaps most mischievously, says Stern, Acorn uses banking regulations to pressure financial institutions into massive “donations” that it uses to finance supposedly non-partisan voter turn-out drives.
According to Stern, Acorn’s radical agenda sometimes shifts toward “undisguised authoritarian socialism.” Fully aware of its living-wage campaign’s tendency to drive businesses out of cities, Acorn hopes to force companies that want to move to obtain “exit visas.” “How much longer before Acorn calls for exit visas for wealthy or middle-class individuals before they can leave a city?” asks Stern, adding, “This is the road to serfdom indeed.”
Kurtz also details Obama's close association with ACORN's activities in Chicago and concludes:
Obama’s ties to Acorn — arguably the most politically radical large-scale activist group in the country — are wide, deep, and longstanding. If Acorn is adept at creating a non-partisan, inside-game veneer for what is in fact an intensely radical, leftist, and politically partisan reality, so is Obama himself. This is hardly a coincidence: Obama helped train Acorn’s leaders in how to play this game. For the most part, Obama seems to have favored the political-insider strategy, yet it’s clear that he knew how to play the in-your-face “direct action” game as well. And surely during his many years of close association with Acorn, Obama had to know what the group was all about.
So why hasn't Senator Hillary Clinton said anything to criticize Obama's ties to ACORN? To answer that question requires understanding a little history of the group. ACORN -- which stands for Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now -- began in Little Rock in the early 1970s with the original name of "Arkansas Community Organization for Reform Now", as a puff piece explains. With the word Arkansas in the group's name, need we say more? Of course, the Clintons were involved.
At ACORN's 2006 National Convention, Senator Clinton confessed:
You know, I am one of those who remembers the beginnings of ACORN in Arkansas all of those years ago. The headquarters for ACORN was near the Governor’s mansion. And I started a group called Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families and we worked on a lot of important issues . . .
Unlike Clinton, McCain won't have that inconvenient piece of the past deterring his asking tough questions of Obama regarding his left-wing nuttery.
Please note: The postings of "G. Morris", written by John K. Bush and which end in 2016, stated his views as of the dates of posting and should not be understood as current assertions of his views. The postings, which have not been altered since they came to an end, remain on this blog to preserve the historical record. In 2017, Mr. Bush took a position that precludes further public political comments or endorsements. He will no longer be contributing to this blog.
There's a lot of buzz being generated about Obama, ACORN and Obama's first political party - The New Party. How did the Oba-messiah get this far without anyone reporting he was a member of a fringe Leftist political party?
Relying on Sol Stern’s 2003 City Journal article, “ACORN’s Nutty Regime for Cities”, Stanley Kurz of National Review Online provides a good synopsis of ACORN's history:
Sol Stern explains that Acorn is the key modern successor of the radical 1960’s “New Left,” with a “1960’s-bred agenda of anti-capitalism” to match. Acorn, says Stern, grew out of “one of the New Left’s silliest and most destructive groups, the National Welfare Rights Organization.” In the 1960’s, NWRO launched a campaign of sit-ins and disruptions at welfare offices. The goal was to remove eligibility restrictions, and thus effectively flood welfare rolls with so many clients that the system would burst. The theory, explains Stern, was that an impossibly overburdened welfare system would force “a radical reconstruction of America’s unjust capitalist economy.” Instead of a socialist utopia, however, we got the culture of dependency and family breakdown that ate away at America’s inner cities — until welfare reform began to turn the tide.
While Acorn holds to NWRO’s radical economic framework and its confrontational 1960’s-style tactics, the targets and strategy have changed. Acorn prefers to fly under the national radar, organizing locally in liberal urban areas — where, Stern observes, local legislators and reporters are often “slow to grasp how radical Acorn’s positions really are.” Acorn’s new goals are municipal “living wage” laws targeting “big-box” stores like Wal-Mart, rolling back welfare reform, and regulating banks — efforts styled as combating “predatory lending.” Unfortunately, instead of helping workers, Acorn’s living-wage campaigns drive businesses out of the very neighborhoods where jobs are needed most. Acorn’s opposition to welfare reform only threatens to worsen the self-reinforcing cycle of urban poverty and family breakdown. Perhaps most mischievously, says Stern, Acorn uses banking regulations to pressure financial institutions into massive “donations” that it uses to finance supposedly non-partisan voter turn-out drives.
According to Stern, Acorn’s radical agenda sometimes shifts toward “undisguised authoritarian socialism.” Fully aware of its living-wage campaign’s tendency to drive businesses out of cities, Acorn hopes to force companies that want to move to obtain “exit visas.” “How much longer before Acorn calls for exit visas for wealthy or middle-class individuals before they can leave a city?” asks Stern, adding, “This is the road to serfdom indeed.”
Kurtz also details Obama's close association with ACORN's activities in Chicago and concludes:
Obama’s ties to Acorn — arguably the most politically radical large-scale activist group in the country — are wide, deep, and longstanding. If Acorn is adept at creating a non-partisan, inside-game veneer for what is in fact an intensely radical, leftist, and politically partisan reality, so is Obama himself. This is hardly a coincidence: Obama helped train Acorn’s leaders in how to play this game. For the most part, Obama seems to have favored the political-insider strategy, yet it’s clear that he knew how to play the in-your-face “direct action” game as well. And surely during his many years of close association with Acorn, Obama had to know what the group was all about.
So why hasn't Senator Hillary Clinton said anything to criticize Obama's ties to ACORN? To answer that question requires understanding a little history of the group. ACORN -- which stands for Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now -- began in Little Rock in the early 1970s with the original name of "Arkansas Community Organization for Reform Now", as a puff piece explains. With the word Arkansas in the group's name, need we say more? Of course, the Clintons were involved.
At ACORN's 2006 National Convention, Senator Clinton confessed:
You know, I am one of those who remembers the beginnings of ACORN in Arkansas all of those years ago. The headquarters for ACORN was near the Governor’s mansion. And I started a group called Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families and we worked on a lot of important issues . . .
Unlike Clinton, McCain won't have that inconvenient piece of the past deterring his asking tough questions of Obama regarding his left-wing nuttery.
Please note: The postings of "G. Morris", written by John K. Bush and which end in 2016, stated his views as of the dates of posting and should not be understood as current assertions of his views. The postings, which have not been altered since they came to an end, remain on this blog to preserve the historical record. In 2017, Mr. Bush took a position that precludes further public political comments or endorsements. He will no longer be contributing to this blog.
Friday, May 9, 2008
Obama's "Substance" And Lawyers' Subsistence
The Courier-Journal today reprints yesterday's editorial from The Washington Post that praises Senator Barack Obama's "appealing but also insubstantial" phrases on the campaign trail but notes that "as Obama moves into general-election mode, whether and how he adds substance will be key."
One thing that should be evident from Obama's list of contributors is that his "substance", if ever articulated, will translate into more intrusive regulation of our lives by Washington, D.C. bureaucrats. That should be clear from this month's issue of The American Lawyer, which includes not only a scorecard of lawyer contributors to Obama and Senators Hillary Clinton and John McCain, but also its annual AmLaw 100 list of the biggest and most profitable law firms in the country.
First, the list of contributors from big law firms tilts dramatically in favor of Obama (and Clinton) over McCain. Of the twenty major firms analyzed from data provided by the Center for Responsive Politics, 1,794 lawyers had contributed to Obama, 1,282 lawyers had donated to Clinton, and only 356 had given to McCain.
Second, Obama supporters come from law firms that perform immensely profitable work. For example, Obama's former law firm -- Sidley Austin, based in Chicago -- has the most lawyers who contributed to Obama: 217 (compared to 63 Clinton donors and 10 McCain donors). Last year Sidley Austin's profits per partner were $1,380,000.00. Or consider New York-based Skadden, Arps, where 170 attorneys donated to Obama, 113 to Clinton and only 26 to McCain: Skadden's profits per partner were $2,280,000.00.
We are not suggesting that the lawyers at these big firms have not honestly earned what they take home. But given how intelligent lawyers are (or at least think that they are), one would expect them to donate to the candidate who the lawyers think has their best interests in mind. The devil may be in the details of Obama's new government regulations -- if he ever reveals their "substance" as WaPo would like -- but rest assured lawyers will be well employed to interpret and litigate them.
Please note: The postings of "G. Morris", written by John K. Bush and which end in 2016, stated his views as of the dates of posting and should not be understood as current assertions of his views. The postings, which have not been altered since they came to an end, remain on this blog to preserve the historical record. In 2017, Mr. Bush took a position that precludes further public political comments or endorsements. He will no longer be contributing to this blog.
One thing that should be evident from Obama's list of contributors is that his "substance", if ever articulated, will translate into more intrusive regulation of our lives by Washington, D.C. bureaucrats. That should be clear from this month's issue of The American Lawyer, which includes not only a scorecard of lawyer contributors to Obama and Senators Hillary Clinton and John McCain, but also its annual AmLaw 100 list of the biggest and most profitable law firms in the country.
First, the list of contributors from big law firms tilts dramatically in favor of Obama (and Clinton) over McCain. Of the twenty major firms analyzed from data provided by the Center for Responsive Politics, 1,794 lawyers had contributed to Obama, 1,282 lawyers had donated to Clinton, and only 356 had given to McCain.
Second, Obama supporters come from law firms that perform immensely profitable work. For example, Obama's former law firm -- Sidley Austin, based in Chicago -- has the most lawyers who contributed to Obama: 217 (compared to 63 Clinton donors and 10 McCain donors). Last year Sidley Austin's profits per partner were $1,380,000.00. Or consider New York-based Skadden, Arps, where 170 attorneys donated to Obama, 113 to Clinton and only 26 to McCain: Skadden's profits per partner were $2,280,000.00.
We are not suggesting that the lawyers at these big firms have not honestly earned what they take home. But given how intelligent lawyers are (or at least think that they are), one would expect them to donate to the candidate who the lawyers think has their best interests in mind. The devil may be in the details of Obama's new government regulations -- if he ever reveals their "substance" as WaPo would like -- but rest assured lawyers will be well employed to interpret and litigate them.
Please note: The postings of "G. Morris", written by John K. Bush and which end in 2016, stated his views as of the dates of posting and should not be understood as current assertions of his views. The postings, which have not been altered since they came to an end, remain on this blog to preserve the historical record. In 2017, Mr. Bush took a position that precludes further public political comments or endorsements. He will no longer be contributing to this blog.
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Why Hillary Slogs On
The Indiana and North Carolina primaries went about as well for Senator Hillary Clinton as did her Derby. She squeaked out a win in a State she should have won handily (Indiana) and was walloped in a State where her campaign had claimed she was closing the gap (North Carolina).
The numbers now are clearly against her. There is no way she will win a majority of the States' primaries and caucuses, and barring an astounding miracle, she has no chance of winning a majority of the votes cast by Democratic voters when all the contests are added up, even if Florida and Michigan are included.
But the news this morning is that Hillary will press on. As the Associated Press reports:
Politically wounded and financially strapped, Clinton plunged back into the presidential campaign Wednesday even as Barack Obama declared that Tuesday's primary results left him with a "clear path to victory."
. . . .
But even as Obama planned to take the day off from the campaign trail Wednesday, Clinton showed no public signs of easing her pace. The campaign added a noon Wednesday appearance in Shepherdstown, W. Va., to her schedule. On Thursday, she planned to campaign in West Virginia, South Dakota and Oregon.
Clinton backers appeared on early morning television programs to stress that she was still in the race and to urge party leaders and elected officials known as superdelegates not to flee to Obama.
"This candidacy and this campaign continues on," Clinton communications director Howard Wolfson said Wednesday on CNN.
Why does she continue? Ego is a good answer. But here's another guess: Hillary recognizes what Republicans are increasingly coming to understand, which is that the Democrats are setting themselves up for disaster in November by nominating Senator Barack Obama.
Though we once thought Hillary would be the easier one to beat, many factors -- including Barack's ineptness in dealing with the Reverend Wright, Michelle Obama's vitriolic statements on the stump, and Barack's inability to articulate any policy other than vacuous assertions of "change" and "hope" -- have old-school Democrats like the Clintons fearing that Barack is another left-of-center loser like George McGovern, Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis and John Kerry. Republicans are going to have a field day with Obama, who doesn't seem to have the fire in his belly to fight back like the Clintons would, and the Clintons to their credit are smart enough to know this and want to do something about it before it is too late.
Hillary is no conservative, but she is married to someone who understood the need to adopt -- or as they called it, triangulate -- conservative ideas in order to govern effectively. Though they may be fooled, voters have come to view her as a more moderate candidate than Obama, which likely explains why she has better numbers than he does when matched up against McCain.
So Hillary is hanging in there, hoping she can convince enough superdelegates to vote for her before the party nominates another leftist candidate whom voters will reject in November. It will be fun to watch whether the superdelegates can be persuaded to vote with their heads or not.
Please note: The postings of "G. Morris", written by John K. Bush and which end in 2016, stated his views as of the dates of posting and should not be understood as current assertions of his views. The postings, which have not been altered since they came to an end, remain on this blog to preserve the historical record. In 2017, Mr. Bush took a position that precludes further public political comments or endorsements. He will no longer be contributing to this blog.
The numbers now are clearly against her. There is no way she will win a majority of the States' primaries and caucuses, and barring an astounding miracle, she has no chance of winning a majority of the votes cast by Democratic voters when all the contests are added up, even if Florida and Michigan are included.
But the news this morning is that Hillary will press on. As the Associated Press reports:
Politically wounded and financially strapped, Clinton plunged back into the presidential campaign Wednesday even as Barack Obama declared that Tuesday's primary results left him with a "clear path to victory."
. . . .
But even as Obama planned to take the day off from the campaign trail Wednesday, Clinton showed no public signs of easing her pace. The campaign added a noon Wednesday appearance in Shepherdstown, W. Va., to her schedule. On Thursday, she planned to campaign in West Virginia, South Dakota and Oregon.
Clinton backers appeared on early morning television programs to stress that she was still in the race and to urge party leaders and elected officials known as superdelegates not to flee to Obama.
"This candidacy and this campaign continues on," Clinton communications director Howard Wolfson said Wednesday on CNN.
Why does she continue? Ego is a good answer. But here's another guess: Hillary recognizes what Republicans are increasingly coming to understand, which is that the Democrats are setting themselves up for disaster in November by nominating Senator Barack Obama.
Though we once thought Hillary would be the easier one to beat, many factors -- including Barack's ineptness in dealing with the Reverend Wright, Michelle Obama's vitriolic statements on the stump, and Barack's inability to articulate any policy other than vacuous assertions of "change" and "hope" -- have old-school Democrats like the Clintons fearing that Barack is another left-of-center loser like George McGovern, Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis and John Kerry. Republicans are going to have a field day with Obama, who doesn't seem to have the fire in his belly to fight back like the Clintons would, and the Clintons to their credit are smart enough to know this and want to do something about it before it is too late.
Hillary is no conservative, but she is married to someone who understood the need to adopt -- or as they called it, triangulate -- conservative ideas in order to govern effectively. Though they may be fooled, voters have come to view her as a more moderate candidate than Obama, which likely explains why she has better numbers than he does when matched up against McCain.
So Hillary is hanging in there, hoping she can convince enough superdelegates to vote for her before the party nominates another leftist candidate whom voters will reject in November. It will be fun to watch whether the superdelegates can be persuaded to vote with their heads or not.
Please note: The postings of "G. Morris", written by John K. Bush and which end in 2016, stated his views as of the dates of posting and should not be understood as current assertions of his views. The postings, which have not been altered since they came to an end, remain on this blog to preserve the historical record. In 2017, Mr. Bush took a position that precludes further public political comments or endorsements. He will no longer be contributing to this blog.
Monday, May 5, 2008
Derby Day Was Not A Good Day For Hillary
Derby day did not start out well for Senator Hillary Clinton, and it just got worse. Based upon an admittedly unscientific survey of the crowd arriving at Churchill Downs on Saturday, Clinton supporters were few and far between. Fans of Senator Barack Obama, in contrast, were everywhere to be seen.
Obama had a small army of volunteers holding up signs for passing motorists and marching up and down Central Avenue handing out lapel stickers, which were accepted by a wide range of racing fans dressed in everything from infield t-shirt attire to the most expensive suits, dresses and hats.
I spotted only one lonely Clinton volunteer lamely holding up a campaign sign, which prompted me to wonder what the Clinton camp was thinking not to have more people on the ground talking up Hillary at the event that probably drew more Kentucky and Indiana voters than any other this year. Maybe she thought she already has the Kentucky and Indiana primaries sewn up, and that a cameo appearance of Chelsea Clinton on Millionaire's Row would suffice. My sense from the crowd, however, is that Hillary's level of support in this region may not be as strong as she thinks.
Then, of course, there was the outcome of the Derby itself. Hillary's gender politics play -- picking Eight Belles to win -- boomeranged on her in a big way. One could not help but wonder whether the tragic outcome of the race foreshadowed a disastrous finish for the Clinton campaign. To be sure, unlike Eight Belles, Hillary would survive a second place finish and come back to fight another day (the Clintons always do), but the analogy Hillary brought on herself did little to create momentum in the closing stretch of her current race.
Hillary can take solace in the fact that Barack's pick -- Colonel John -- did not even finish in the money. But even so, Derby 134 simply was not Hillary's day and it was largely of her own doing.
Please note: The postings of "G. Morris", written by John K. Bush and which end in 2016, stated his views as of the dates of posting and should not be understood as current assertions of his views. The postings, which have not been altered since they came to an end, remain on this blog to preserve the historical record. In 2017, Mr. Bush took a position that precludes further public political comments or endorsements. He will no longer be contributing to this blog.
Obama had a small army of volunteers holding up signs for passing motorists and marching up and down Central Avenue handing out lapel stickers, which were accepted by a wide range of racing fans dressed in everything from infield t-shirt attire to the most expensive suits, dresses and hats.
I spotted only one lonely Clinton volunteer lamely holding up a campaign sign, which prompted me to wonder what the Clinton camp was thinking not to have more people on the ground talking up Hillary at the event that probably drew more Kentucky and Indiana voters than any other this year. Maybe she thought she already has the Kentucky and Indiana primaries sewn up, and that a cameo appearance of Chelsea Clinton on Millionaire's Row would suffice. My sense from the crowd, however, is that Hillary's level of support in this region may not be as strong as she thinks.
Then, of course, there was the outcome of the Derby itself. Hillary's gender politics play -- picking Eight Belles to win -- boomeranged on her in a big way. One could not help but wonder whether the tragic outcome of the race foreshadowed a disastrous finish for the Clinton campaign. To be sure, unlike Eight Belles, Hillary would survive a second place finish and come back to fight another day (the Clintons always do), but the analogy Hillary brought on herself did little to create momentum in the closing stretch of her current race.
Hillary can take solace in the fact that Barack's pick -- Colonel John -- did not even finish in the money. But even so, Derby 134 simply was not Hillary's day and it was largely of her own doing.
Please note: The postings of "G. Morris", written by John K. Bush and which end in 2016, stated his views as of the dates of posting and should not be understood as current assertions of his views. The postings, which have not been altered since they came to an end, remain on this blog to preserve the historical record. In 2017, Mr. Bush took a position that precludes further public political comments or endorsements. He will no longer be contributing to this blog.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Hillary Hopes Money Talks
Boston.com reports that "[t]he 20 Hillary Clinton supporters who sent House Speaker Nancy Pelosi a letter telling her to keep hands off the superdelegate fight warned ominously that they had been enthusiastic financial backers of the Democratic Party." And these were just ordinary mom-and-pops supporters: "the letter-signers, along with their spouses, have contributed $23.6 million to Democrats since 1999, the Center for Responsive Politics said." This is what should be called "pay to pray (she still has a chance) politics".
Please note: The postings of "G. Morris", written by John K. Bush and which end in 2016, stated his views as of the dates of posting and should not be understood as current assertions of his views. The postings, which have not been altered since they came to an end, remain on this blog to preserve the historical record. In 2017, Mr. Bush took a position that precludes further public political comments or endorsements. He will no longer be contributing to this blog.
Please note: The postings of "G. Morris", written by John K. Bush and which end in 2016, stated his views as of the dates of posting and should not be understood as current assertions of his views. The postings, which have not been altered since they came to an end, remain on this blog to preserve the historical record. In 2017, Mr. Bush took a position that precludes further public political comments or endorsements. He will no longer be contributing to this blog.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Family Ties
The Associated Press reports that "[r]esearchers at the New England Historic Genealogical Society found some remarkable family connections for the three presidential candidates — Democratic rivals Obama and Clinton, and Republican John McCain."
It turns out that "Barack Obama is a distant cousin of actor Brad Pitt, and Hillary Rodham Clinton is related to Pitt's girlfriend, Angelina Jolie." Does that make Barack and Hillary "dissing cousins"?
And not only that, there are other unexpected finds in the presidential candidates' respective genealogies:
Clinton, who is of French-Canadian descent on her mother's side, is also a distant cousin of singers Madonna, Celine Dion and Alanis Morissette. Obama, the son of a white woman from Kansas and a black man from Kenya, can call six U.S. presidents, including George W. Bush, his cousins. McCain is a sixth cousin of first lady Laura Bush.
The AP further elaborates on Obama's family ties:
Obama has a prolific presidential lineage that features Democrats and Republicans. His distant cousins include President George W. Bush and his father, George H.W. Bush, Gerald Ford, Lyndon Johnson, Harry S. Truman and James Madison. Other Obama cousins include Vice President Dick Cheney, British Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill and Civil War General Robert E. Lee.
It looks like Barack has the most blue-blood connections. In comparison, Hillary (whose only notable relations appear to be musicians) is a woman of the people.
Please note: The postings of "G. Morris", written by John K. Bush and which end in 2016, stated his views as of the dates of posting and should not be understood as current assertions of his views. The postings, which have not been altered since they came to an end, remain on this blog to preserve the historical record. In 2017, Mr. Bush took a position that precludes further public political comments or endorsements. He will no longer be contributing to this blog.
It turns out that "Barack Obama is a distant cousin of actor Brad Pitt, and Hillary Rodham Clinton is related to Pitt's girlfriend, Angelina Jolie." Does that make Barack and Hillary "dissing cousins"?
And not only that, there are other unexpected finds in the presidential candidates' respective genealogies:
Clinton, who is of French-Canadian descent on her mother's side, is also a distant cousin of singers Madonna, Celine Dion and Alanis Morissette. Obama, the son of a white woman from Kansas and a black man from Kenya, can call six U.S. presidents, including George W. Bush, his cousins. McCain is a sixth cousin of first lady Laura Bush.
The AP further elaborates on Obama's family ties:
Obama has a prolific presidential lineage that features Democrats and Republicans. His distant cousins include President George W. Bush and his father, George H.W. Bush, Gerald Ford, Lyndon Johnson, Harry S. Truman and James Madison. Other Obama cousins include Vice President Dick Cheney, British Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill and Civil War General Robert E. Lee.
It looks like Barack has the most blue-blood connections. In comparison, Hillary (whose only notable relations appear to be musicians) is a woman of the people.
Please note: The postings of "G. Morris", written by John K. Bush and which end in 2016, stated his views as of the dates of posting and should not be understood as current assertions of his views. The postings, which have not been altered since they came to an end, remain on this blog to preserve the historical record. In 2017, Mr. Bush took a position that precludes further public political comments or endorsements. He will no longer be contributing to this blog.
Friday, March 21, 2008
NRCC Targets Yarmuth
As the Ditch Mitch movement runs out of steam, Kentucky Democrats' election-year strategy will need to shift from offense to defense to protect their most vulnerable member in the state's Washington, D.C. delegation. The Southern Political Report notes that Congressman John Yarmuth is on Republicans' target list for defeat in November:
The National Republican Congressional Campaign Committee (NRCC) has included five Southern congressional districts among its 24 targets for making US House gains in this fall’s elections. The five Democratic incumbents that the GOP will focus on in Dixie are Nick Lampson (TX 22), Tim Mahoney (FL 16), Jim Marshall (GA 8), Ciro Rodriguez (TX 23) and John Yarmuth (KY 3). All are freshmen, when incumbents are traditionally most vulnerable, except Marshall, who was elected in 2002.
Yarmuth's vulnerability is undoubtedly enhanced by the poor showing of both Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama with Kentucky voters:
A SurveyUSA poll of Kentucky voters released March 19 shows John McCain leading both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton by significant margins. McCain beat Obama 64% to 28%, a whopping 36-point margin, and beat Clinton by a still healthy 53% to 43%.
The National Republican Congressional Campaign Committee (NRCC) has included five Southern congressional districts among its 24 targets for making US House gains in this fall’s elections. The five Democratic incumbents that the GOP will focus on in Dixie are Nick Lampson (TX 22), Tim Mahoney (FL 16), Jim Marshall (GA 8), Ciro Rodriguez (TX 23) and John Yarmuth (KY 3). All are freshmen, when incumbents are traditionally most vulnerable, except Marshall, who was elected in 2002.
Yarmuth's vulnerability is undoubtedly enhanced by the poor showing of both Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama with Kentucky voters:
A SurveyUSA poll of Kentucky voters released March 19 shows John McCain leading both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton by significant margins. McCain beat Obama 64% to 28%, a whopping 36-point margin, and beat Clinton by a still healthy 53% to 43%.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Wright Takes Toll On Obama's Poll Numbers
There is no doubt the flap over the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's outrageous statements has hurt his most famous parishioner's popularity.
In the new Gallup poll, Sen. Hillary Clinton has "a 49 percent to 42 percent edge over Obama" among Democratic voters. The Times (as in London) reports "a 13 point shift to the former First Lady in less than a fortnight."
And while in a poll of likely voters from both parties, Clinton is statistically tied with Sen. John McCain (actually McCain edged her 48 percent to 45 percent, but his lead was close to the margin of error), McCain is clearly ahead of Obama in a similar match-up (47 percent to 43 percent).
Please note: The postings of "G. Morris", written by John K. Bush and which end in 2016, stated his views as of the dates of posting and should not be understood as current assertions of his views. The postings, which have not been altered since they came to an end, remain on this blog to preserve the historical record. In 2017, Mr. Bush took a position that precludes further public political comments or endorsements. He will no longer be contributing to this blog.
In the new Gallup poll, Sen. Hillary Clinton has "a 49 percent to 42 percent edge over Obama" among Democratic voters. The Times (as in London) reports "a 13 point shift to the former First Lady in less than a fortnight."
And while in a poll of likely voters from both parties, Clinton is statistically tied with Sen. John McCain (actually McCain edged her 48 percent to 45 percent, but his lead was close to the margin of error), McCain is clearly ahead of Obama in a similar match-up (47 percent to 43 percent).
Please note: The postings of "G. Morris", written by John K. Bush and which end in 2016, stated his views as of the dates of posting and should not be understood as current assertions of his views. The postings, which have not been altered since they came to an end, remain on this blog to preserve the historical record. In 2017, Mr. Bush took a position that precludes further public political comments or endorsements. He will no longer be contributing to this blog.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Ferraro Reprises Role That Rhymes With "Rich"
Sen. Hillary Clinton bid farewell a few hours ago to Geraldine Ferraro, the former vice presidential candidate. The Associated Press reports that "Ferraro notified Clinton by letter" earlier today "that she would no longer serve on Clinton's finance committee as "Honorary New York Leadership Council Chair."
Ferraro's fall stemmed from her telling an interviewer: "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."
According to AP,
Obama has called Ferraro's comments "ridiculous" and his campaign aides have called on Clinton to denounce the statement.
"I think they were wrong-headed," he said at a Chicago news conference. "The notion that it is a great advantage to me to be an African American named Barack Obama and pursue the presidency, I think, is not a view that has been commonly shared by the general public."
It was Barbara Bush, of course, who when asked how she would characterize Ferraro's style after her vice-presidential candidate debate against George H.W. Bush, famously remarked: "I can't say it, but it rhymes with rich." Barbara Bush later telephoned Ferraro to apologize for referring to her as a "witch." In hindsight, Barbara, maybe no apology was necessary. Truth can be an absolute defense, you know.
Please note: The postings of "G. Morris", written by John K. Bush and which end in 2016, stated his views as of the dates of posting and should not be understood as current assertions of his views. The postings, which have not been altered since they came to an end, remain on this blog to preserve the historical record. In 2017, Mr. Bush took a position that precludes further public political comments or endorsements. He will no longer be contributing to this blog.
Ferraro's fall stemmed from her telling an interviewer: "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."
According to AP,
Obama has called Ferraro's comments "ridiculous" and his campaign aides have called on Clinton to denounce the statement.
"I think they were wrong-headed," he said at a Chicago news conference. "The notion that it is a great advantage to me to be an African American named Barack Obama and pursue the presidency, I think, is not a view that has been commonly shared by the general public."
It was Barbara Bush, of course, who when asked how she would characterize Ferraro's style after her vice-presidential candidate debate against George H.W. Bush, famously remarked: "I can't say it, but it rhymes with rich." Barbara Bush later telephoned Ferraro to apologize for referring to her as a "witch." In hindsight, Barbara, maybe no apology was necessary. Truth can be an absolute defense, you know.
Please note: The postings of "G. Morris", written by John K. Bush and which end in 2016, stated his views as of the dates of posting and should not be understood as current assertions of his views. The postings, which have not been altered since they came to an end, remain on this blog to preserve the historical record. In 2017, Mr. Bush took a position that precludes further public political comments or endorsements. He will no longer be contributing to this blog.
Friday, March 7, 2008
David Hawpe, Queen-maker
The 2008 class of Leadership Louisville met with the Courier-Journal's editorial board yesterday and learned that all the editors present support Barack Obama -- except David Hawpe. (Jill Johnson Keeney was out of town.) Hawpe backs Hillary.
But Hawpe has veto power. So if the C-J endorses Hillary, we will know that Hawpe has exercised his prerogative as a Super-editor. And as late as the Democratic primary threatens to drag out, perhaps Hawpe's opinion actually will matter for once.
But Hawpe has veto power. So if the C-J endorses Hillary, we will know that Hawpe has exercised his prerogative as a Super-editor. And as late as the Democratic primary threatens to drag out, perhaps Hawpe's opinion actually will matter for once.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Waiting Out The Castros
Ill health led to Fidel Castro's resignation yesterday, which in turn gave democracy lovers a glimmer of hope for Cuba. The responses of Republican and Democratic leaders gave U.S. voters a glimpse of which party will best capitalize after the next election (which will not be in Cuba) on the Communist dictator's mortality.
As the Guardian reports,
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama highlighted a subtle division in their Cuba policies that could prove significant come the November presidential election.
Both Democratic presidential hopefuls described the end of Castro's reign as an opening to press for democratic reforms in Cuba rather than a meaningful change in itself. But Obama was the only candidate to directly discuss a possible end to the US economic embargo against its island neighbour.
Senator Obama apparently hopes that coddling Raul through trade will lead him to change his brother's 50-year-old tired Communist ways. Imagine "Kumbaya" set to Barry Manilow's "Copacabana" beat.
Republicans, on the other hand, remember from President Ronald Reagan that the best way to defeat Communism is to call a spade a spade. Just as Reagan rightly characterized the Soviet Union an "Evil Empire", Senator John McCain minced no words in describing the political, economic and moral bankruptcy that is Castro's regime:
McCain, who earned a personal rebuke from Castro this month for suggesting that Cubans tortured US soldiers during the Vietnam war, called the communist leader's resignation "nearly half a century overdue" today.
. . . .
"For decades, Castro oversaw an apparatus of repression that denied liberty to the people who suffered under his dictatorship," McCain said. "Yet freedom for the Cuban people is not yet at hand, and the Castro brothers clearly intend to maintain their grip on power."
Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell echoed McCain's sentiment, when he noted Fidel's transfer of power to Raul was simply "replacing one dictator with another".
Unlike Obama and Senator Clinton, McCain and McConnell understand the reality of Cuba. The United States just needs to wait out the Castros rather than prop up their failed economy. Fidel and Raul will both be arguing their case before St. Peter in a short while, and Cuba will finally be free just as surely as the Wall came down in Berlin.
Please note: The postings of "G. Morris", written by John K. Bush and which end in 2016, stated his views as of the dates of posting and should not be understood as current assertions of his views. The postings, which have not been altered since they came to an end, remain on this blog to preserve the historical record. In 2017, Mr. Bush took a position that precludes further public political comments or endorsements. He will no longer be contributing to this blog.
As the Guardian reports,
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama highlighted a subtle division in their Cuba policies that could prove significant come the November presidential election.
Both Democratic presidential hopefuls described the end of Castro's reign as an opening to press for democratic reforms in Cuba rather than a meaningful change in itself. But Obama was the only candidate to directly discuss a possible end to the US economic embargo against its island neighbour.
Senator Obama apparently hopes that coddling Raul through trade will lead him to change his brother's 50-year-old tired Communist ways. Imagine "Kumbaya" set to Barry Manilow's "Copacabana" beat.
Republicans, on the other hand, remember from President Ronald Reagan that the best way to defeat Communism is to call a spade a spade. Just as Reagan rightly characterized the Soviet Union an "Evil Empire", Senator John McCain minced no words in describing the political, economic and moral bankruptcy that is Castro's regime:
McCain, who earned a personal rebuke from Castro this month for suggesting that Cubans tortured US soldiers during the Vietnam war, called the communist leader's resignation "nearly half a century overdue" today.
. . . .
"For decades, Castro oversaw an apparatus of repression that denied liberty to the people who suffered under his dictatorship," McCain said. "Yet freedom for the Cuban people is not yet at hand, and the Castro brothers clearly intend to maintain their grip on power."
Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell echoed McCain's sentiment, when he noted Fidel's transfer of power to Raul was simply "replacing one dictator with another".
Unlike Obama and Senator Clinton, McCain and McConnell understand the reality of Cuba. The United States just needs to wait out the Castros rather than prop up their failed economy. Fidel and Raul will both be arguing their case before St. Peter in a short while, and Cuba will finally be free just as surely as the Wall came down in Berlin.
Please note: The postings of "G. Morris", written by John K. Bush and which end in 2016, stated his views as of the dates of posting and should not be understood as current assertions of his views. The postings, which have not been altered since they came to an end, remain on this blog to preserve the historical record. In 2017, Mr. Bush took a position that precludes further public political comments or endorsements. He will no longer be contributing to this blog.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Republicans Do The Right Thing; Democrats Do Not
When one considers Super Tuesday's results in light of the latest poll numbers for head-to-head match-ups of potential Republican nominees versus Democratic nominees, it appears that (at least judging by ability to win in November) Republicans are voting like smart individuals and Democrats are voting like, well, Democrats.
Setting aside discussion of the substantive positions of the respective candidates, an objective observer would say based on current polling that (1) of the three remaining major candidates on the Republican side, Sen. John McCain has the best chance of beating a Democrat in the general election; and (2) of the two remaining major Democratic candidates, Sen. Hillary Clinton has the least chance of beating the Republican nominee.
So, if the goal for each party is to increase the probability of its nominating a candidate who, based on poll numbers, has the best chance of winning the White House, then the Republicans did the right thing yesterday and the Democrats did not.
Please note: The postings of "G. Morris", written by John K. Bush and which end in 2016, stated his views as of the dates of posting and should not be understood as current assertions of his views. The postings, which have not been altered since they came to an end, remain on this blog to preserve the historical record. In 2017, Mr. Bush took a position that precludes further public political comments or endorsements. He will no longer be contributing to this blog.
Setting aside discussion of the substantive positions of the respective candidates, an objective observer would say based on current polling that (1) of the three remaining major candidates on the Republican side, Sen. John McCain has the best chance of beating a Democrat in the general election; and (2) of the two remaining major Democratic candidates, Sen. Hillary Clinton has the least chance of beating the Republican nominee.
So, if the goal for each party is to increase the probability of its nominating a candidate who, based on poll numbers, has the best chance of winning the White House, then the Republicans did the right thing yesterday and the Democrats did not.
Please note: The postings of "G. Morris", written by John K. Bush and which end in 2016, stated his views as of the dates of posting and should not be understood as current assertions of his views. The postings, which have not been altered since they came to an end, remain on this blog to preserve the historical record. In 2017, Mr. Bush took a position that precludes further public political comments or endorsements. He will no longer be contributing to this blog.
Monday, January 21, 2008
Ronald Reagan and Sam Walton Are Laughing In Heaven
Tonight's Democratic presidential debate must have caused the Gipper and Mr. Sam to chuckle.
Barack Obama snarled that Hillary Clinton had served as a "corporate lawyer for anti-union Wal-Mart," reports the Associated Press. So Hillary fired back that Barack had represented "a Chicago slumlord."
Later in the debate, according to AP,
[a]s Obama tried to defend his recent comments about Republican ideas and Ronald Reagan, Clinton interrupted and said she has never criticized his remarks on Reagan.
"Your husband did," said Obama, who has accused the former president of misrepresenting his record.
"I'm here. He's not," she snapped.
"Well, I can't tell who I'm running against sometimes," Obama said.
There you go again, Hillary and Barack. You are making the Republican candidates look better and better.
Barack Obama snarled that Hillary Clinton had served as a "corporate lawyer for anti-union Wal-Mart," reports the Associated Press. So Hillary fired back that Barack had represented "a Chicago slumlord."
Later in the debate, according to AP,
[a]s Obama tried to defend his recent comments about Republican ideas and Ronald Reagan, Clinton interrupted and said she has never criticized his remarks on Reagan.
"Your husband did," said Obama, who has accused the former president of misrepresenting his record.
"I'm here. He's not," she snapped.
"Well, I can't tell who I'm running against sometimes," Obama said.
There you go again, Hillary and Barack. You are making the Republican candidates look better and better.
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
Filibuster Flip-Flops
Here's a pop quiz (with answers) for left-wing blogger Joe Sonka, who rants at Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell today for the use of filibusters -- what Sonka calls "the most cynical and selfish of tactics within the Senate":
1. Who wrote the following?
"The filibuster is one of our democracy's oldest and most important checks on the power of the majority. It preserves two of our bedrock values: protecting the rights of the minority and promoting compromise."
Answer: People for the America Way. This organization (which even The New York Times acknowledges is "a liberal group") also wrote: "For two centuries, our leaders have supported the tradition of the filibuster in order to promote cooperation and compromise, and because they have recognized the dangers of one party control and the importance of protecting the rights of the minority."
2. Who wrote the following and on what on-line blog did he write it?
"Do I support a filibuster? The answer is yes."
Answer: Senator John Kerry (D-MA) at dailykos.com (where Sonka's blog is cross-posted today). Kerry and Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) were all for the filibuster in a last-ditch effort to defeat the confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito.
3. Who said the following?
"As matters stand now I could not support it and I would support a filibuster absent additional information coming forth that would convince me differently."
Answer: Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY). Neither she nor Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) had any problem with a filibuster in October, when they both sought to block enactment of pending FISA legislation.
4. Who wrote the following?
"There is not enough time to fix these bills, especially since the few Republicans who call themselves moderates have been whipped into line, and the Democratic leadership in the Senate seems to have misplaced its spine. If there was ever a moment for a filibuster, this was it."
Answer: The New York Times Editorial Board. The quote comes from an editorial in The New York Times opposing certain proposed anti-terrorism legislation when the Republicans held the majority in the Senate. Last Sunday, however, Times reporter David Herszenhorn bemoaned the filibuster and likely gave Sonka the idea for his piece, which quotes Herszenhorn's article.
Here's a recommendation for Sonka before taking on any new blogging assignments: study those "progressive" sources more.
Please note: The postings of "G. Morris", written by John K. Bush and which end in 2016, stated his views as of the dates of posting and should not be understood as current assertions of his views. The postings, which have not been altered since they came to an end, remain on this blog to preserve the historical record. In 2017, Mr. Bush took a position that precludes further public political comments or endorsements. He will no longer be contributing to this blog.
1. Who wrote the following?
"The filibuster is one of our democracy's oldest and most important checks on the power of the majority. It preserves two of our bedrock values: protecting the rights of the minority and promoting compromise."
Answer: People for the America Way. This organization (which even The New York Times acknowledges is "a liberal group") also wrote: "For two centuries, our leaders have supported the tradition of the filibuster in order to promote cooperation and compromise, and because they have recognized the dangers of one party control and the importance of protecting the rights of the minority."
2. Who wrote the following and on what on-line blog did he write it?
"Do I support a filibuster? The answer is yes."
Answer: Senator John Kerry (D-MA) at dailykos.com (where Sonka's blog is cross-posted today). Kerry and Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) were all for the filibuster in a last-ditch effort to defeat the confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito.
3. Who said the following?
"As matters stand now I could not support it and I would support a filibuster absent additional information coming forth that would convince me differently."
Answer: Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY). Neither she nor Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) had any problem with a filibuster in October, when they both sought to block enactment of pending FISA legislation.
4. Who wrote the following?
"There is not enough time to fix these bills, especially since the few Republicans who call themselves moderates have been whipped into line, and the Democratic leadership in the Senate seems to have misplaced its spine. If there was ever a moment for a filibuster, this was it."
Answer: The New York Times Editorial Board. The quote comes from an editorial in The New York Times opposing certain proposed anti-terrorism legislation when the Republicans held the majority in the Senate. Last Sunday, however, Times reporter David Herszenhorn bemoaned the filibuster and likely gave Sonka the idea for his piece, which quotes Herszenhorn's article.
Here's a recommendation for Sonka before taking on any new blogging assignments: study those "progressive" sources more.
Please note: The postings of "G. Morris", written by John K. Bush and which end in 2016, stated his views as of the dates of posting and should not be understood as current assertions of his views. The postings, which have not been altered since they came to an end, remain on this blog to preserve the historical record. In 2017, Mr. Bush took a position that precludes further public political comments or endorsements. He will no longer be contributing to this blog.
Monday, December 3, 2007
"Rose is a rose is a rose is a rose"
"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers." So said Shakespeare's King Henry VI, who never had to run for political office to rule his country. But for those who must be elected head of state, it can be a source of pride to tout the lawyers in your camp -- unless you're Hillary Clinton.
The magazine published by the American Bar Association, the ABA Journal, reports on rafts of high-powered attorneys and law school professors signed up to assist Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney, John Edwards and Barack Obama. All of these candidates also happen to be lawyers themselves, as is Hillary.
Hillary, however, "didn't get back to" the Slate.com reporter who compiled the lawyer information. Maybe she is still putting it together. Bill doesn't count, given that the Supreme Court unanimously revoked his bar license -- even his own nominees voted to disbar him.
But we don't need her list to make this safe prediction: If Hillary is elected, count on her being the only attorney with a regular view of the White House garden with any Rose Law Firm experience.
Please note: The postings of "G. Morris", written by John K. Bush and which end in 2016, stated his views as of the dates of posting and should not be understood as current assertions of his views. The postings, which have not been altered since they came to an end, remain on this blog to preserve the historical record. In 2017, Mr. Bush took a position that precludes further public political comments or endorsements. He will no longer be contributing to this blog.
The magazine published by the American Bar Association, the ABA Journal, reports on rafts of high-powered attorneys and law school professors signed up to assist Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney, John Edwards and Barack Obama. All of these candidates also happen to be lawyers themselves, as is Hillary.
Hillary, however, "didn't get back to" the Slate.com reporter who compiled the lawyer information. Maybe she is still putting it together. Bill doesn't count, given that the Supreme Court unanimously revoked his bar license -- even his own nominees voted to disbar him.
But we don't need her list to make this safe prediction: If Hillary is elected, count on her being the only attorney with a regular view of the White House garden with any Rose Law Firm experience.
Please note: The postings of "G. Morris", written by John K. Bush and which end in 2016, stated his views as of the dates of posting and should not be understood as current assertions of his views. The postings, which have not been altered since they came to an end, remain on this blog to preserve the historical record. In 2017, Mr. Bush took a position that precludes further public political comments or endorsements. He will no longer be contributing to this blog.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Giuliani Leads Clinton In The Bluegrass
Lost in the Democrats' ballyhoos of last week's election were some poll numbers that show Kentucky is likely to remain Republican in the '08 presidential election, at least if Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton are the nominees. The latest Rasmussen poll in the Bluegrass, conducted November 1, shows Giuliani defeating Clinton 47% to 41%. His lead was outside the margin of error (+/- 4.5 %).
The percentage of surveyed voters who viewed Hillary unfavorably was an even worse number for her -- 47%, compared to Rudy's 38%. His favorable rating was 54%; hers, 48%.
The same survey found Fred Thompson in a statistical dead heat with Clinton, 44% versus 43%. The poll apparently did not study the match-up between Mitt Romney and Clinton or between a Republican and any of the other Democratic contenders.
Hillary Clinton's latest poll numbers in Kentucky are less than the highest percentage that Bill Clinton achieved in the Commonwealth -- 45.84%, in the 1996 election. (In 1992, Clinton received 44.55%.) For Democrats who are still spinning Steve Beshear's victory last week, the sober fact remains that not a single Democratic presidential nominee has garnered more than 50% of Kentucky voters in a general election since the days of Jimmy Carter.
Please note: The postings of "G. Morris", written by John K. Bush and which end in 2016, stated his views as of the dates of posting and should not be understood as current assertions of his views. The postings, which have not been altered since they came to an end, remain on this blog to preserve the historical record. In 2017, Mr. Bush took a position that precludes further public political comments or endorsements. He will no longer be contributing to this blog.
The percentage of surveyed voters who viewed Hillary unfavorably was an even worse number for her -- 47%, compared to Rudy's 38%. His favorable rating was 54%; hers, 48%.
The same survey found Fred Thompson in a statistical dead heat with Clinton, 44% versus 43%. The poll apparently did not study the match-up between Mitt Romney and Clinton or between a Republican and any of the other Democratic contenders.
Hillary Clinton's latest poll numbers in Kentucky are less than the highest percentage that Bill Clinton achieved in the Commonwealth -- 45.84%, in the 1996 election. (In 1992, Clinton received 44.55%.) For Democrats who are still spinning Steve Beshear's victory last week, the sober fact remains that not a single Democratic presidential nominee has garnered more than 50% of Kentucky voters in a general election since the days of Jimmy Carter.
Please note: The postings of "G. Morris", written by John K. Bush and which end in 2016, stated his views as of the dates of posting and should not be understood as current assertions of his views. The postings, which have not been altered since they came to an end, remain on this blog to preserve the historical record. In 2017, Mr. Bush took a position that precludes further public political comments or endorsements. He will no longer be contributing to this blog.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)