The Clinton-Obama Debate

from a very smart man, Paul Hollrah:

Before the Clinton-Obama California debate went on the air last week I jotted down five names and phrases on a ruled pad. I wrote: Usama bin Laden, al-Qaeda, Islamic fundamentalism, Islamic jihad, and Muslim extremists... intending to count how many times those names and phrases were used during the two hour debate. The Democrat candidates and their CNN questioners did not disappoint me. Not a single one of those names and phrases were used, either by questioners or by candidates, in the entire two hours. Is it possible that, during World War II, Clement Atlee or FDR could have gotten away with failing to mention Adolph Hitler or Emperor Hirohito during the course of a two hour debate?

Not likely.

I suppose this is just one more indicator of how far the Democratic Party has fallen.

Wearing Blinders

by Paul R. Hollrah

The Clinton-Obama debate from California promised to produce a lot of interesting “fireworks,” but it didn’t. With Wolf Blitzer moderating, it turned out to be just another CNN “softball game,” proving nothing more than that CNN actually does stand for “Clinton News Network.”

As usual, what the CNN questioners didn’t ask, and what Clinton and Obama didn’t say, was far more important than what they said. For those who are new to the political trenches and who are just beginning to understand liberals and Democrats, this is the most important thing to know about them. Liberals and Democrats will jump through hoops, turn themselves inside out, trying NOT to address the really important issues or actually tell the truth about anything if the truth will not help their cause.

For example, just minutes before the California debate, I jotted down five names and phrases with the intention of counting the number of times those names and phrases were used during the two hour debate. I wrote down: 1) Usama bin Laden, 2) al-Qaeda, 3) Islamic fundamentalism, 4) Islamic jihad, and 5) Muslim extremists.

Inasmuch as Islamic fundamentalists are sworn to either convert or slaughter every non-Muslim man, woman, and child on Earth, and since it is left to the United States to play the major role in preventing the total destruction of western civilization, one would think that Islamic jihad and the War on Terror would merit at least a mention in a debate between the leading candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination… but it didn’t. There was not a single mention of any of those five topics.

Instead of addressing the most deadly enemy ever faced by the civilized world, Clinton and Obama chose to ignore the threat and, instead, tossed bone after bone to the surrender monkeys of the radical left who now own their party. Ironically, less than twelve hours after Clinton and Obama walked off the stage at the Kodak Theater in Los Angeles, two mentally retarded Muslim women walked into the Ghazil animal bazaar and the New Baghdad bird market in eastern Baghdad. And when they had reached the most crowded section of the markets their radical Islamic handlers pressed the buttons on their remote devices and exploded the bombs strapped to the women’s bodies.

Ninety-nine innocent people… men, women, and children… were killed, and more than 115 were injured. A great many of those killed at the bird market were children who like to gather around the pigeon stalls to watch the birds.

These are the brothers of the suicide bombers who hijacked airplanes and flew them into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, killing 3,000 innocent people. These are the people that Democrats try very hard to ignore because they simply do not have the will or the courage to confront them. It is as if they were wearing blinders, their eyes focused on everything but the ugly realities of our day and time.

Instead, they compete to see who can be first to surrender to the Islamic fascists… to see who can be the fastest in getting American troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan where they are working very hard at ridding the world of religious fanatics… the kind of religious fanatics who would strap bombs to the bellies of mentally retarded women and send them to blow up crowds of children whose greatest crime is that they appreciate the beauty of birds.

These are the people that Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and their friends in the radical anti-war movement prefer to coddle. These are the people that Barack Obama thinks he can “sweet talk” into behaving themselves. As the New York Post said in a January 31 editorial endorsing Obama over Clinton, “For all his charisma and his eloquence, the rookie senator sorely lacks seasoning. And on national security, his worldview is beyond naïve – blithely unaware that America must defend itself against those sworn to destroy the nation.

“Meanwhile, Obama’s all-things-to-all-people approach to complex domestic issues also arouses scant confidence. ‘Change!’ for the sake of change does not a credible campaign platform make.”

(Remember, these are the things the Post said about the man they endorsed. We don’t have the space here to repeat what they said about Hillary Clinton, the candidate they oppose.)

Yes, it is the radical leftists of the Daily Kos, Moveon.org, and Code Pink, who tell Democrats what to think and say, who will decide who gets to represent their party and who does not. But they represent only a small percentage of the voting population. And when the American people finally focus their attention on either Clinton or Obama in the fall election, and they are finally confronted with the stark reality that one of these two people could actually be charged with the responsibility for protecting all of us, they will finally take off their blinders and make the right decision.

A New House Guest; Who Should We Invite?

by Paul Hollrah

Time Magazine writer, Joe Klein, the “anonymous” author of Primary Colors, has suggested that selecting a president is much like inviting a house guest into our home for an extended stay. In other words, which of the current crop of candidates would we most like, or least like, to have as a house guest for four years… or maybe even eight years? It’s an interesting question.

In his acting career Ronald Reagan appeared in more than 130 feature films and television programs, and when he ran for Governor of California in 1966 the people felt they already knew him… and trusted him. That trust and those feelings of good will followed him through all of his years in Sacramento and through all of his years in the White House.

His successor, George H.W. Bush, was said to be a very nice man. Writer Gail Sheehy explored Bush’s “niceness” in an October 1986 Vanity Fair article titled, “Is George Bush Too Nice to be President?” While interviewing some forty of his closest friends, aides, and family members she asked each of them, “Exactly what is it that George Bush feels passionately about?”

Nearly everyone she questioned, including his wife, Barbara, was stuck for an answer. Most responded with lame generalizations such as, “peace,” “justice,” and “fairness.” Bush’s lack of passion was evident and after just four years in office the people invited him to leave.

Bush was succeeded by Bill Clinton. However, it didn’t take long for people to realize that they had invited a real “low-life” into their house, so they impeached him and his colleagues took away his license to follow his chosen profession. But Clinton had one major advantage: he was the voyeur’s favorite president.

As teenagers, my friends and I occasionally roamed the streets of downtown St. Louis, drawn by the numerous strip joints that flourished on the seedier side of the downtown area. But since we weren’t allowed inside we stood on the sidewalks, our noses pressed against grimy windows, watching the strippers do their thing. Watching the Clinton presidency was a lot like that.

Clinton was followed into the White House by George W. Bush, probably someone we’d all like to have as a friend or a golfing buddy, but not the kind of man we’d look for when the times demand strong and assertive leadership. Like his father, Bush seemed driven to hold high public office, even though, like his father, he was far from being an inspirational leader. The people tired of him after one term, but the Democrats tried to replace him with a traitorous ex-Navy officer and he won a second term… setting himself up as the house guest who is scheduled to leave, but not soon enough to satisfy his host and hostess.

But now it’s time to invite someone else into our house. Who will it be? On the Republican side, it appears that we will choose between Mayor Rudy Giuliani and former Senator Fred Thompson.

Giuliani is a likeable guy and a strong and decisive leader. But, like most New Yorkers, he thinks and speaks about twice as fast as most of us are capable of listening. After four years of Giuliani, most people would be physically and emotionally exhausted.

Of the two, Thompson seems to be the guy we’d most like to have as a long term house guest. He’s everybody’s favorite uncle. He has real gravitas, he has a wonderful sense of humor, and he gives the impression that, no matter what the circumstance, we could always trust him to do the right thing.

On the Democrat side, the race appears to be between Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, Senator Barrack Hussein Obama, and former Senator John Edwards.

Most divorced men will understand when I say that, having Hillary Clinton as a long term house guest would be very much like having a vindictive ex-wife show up at the front door, asking if she could move in and stay for a while. Not!

Former Senator John Edwards? Is it possible to imagine having a super-slick trial lawyer living with us every day for four years? Imagine making his breakfast coffee every day… worrying all the while that he might spill it into his lap, scald his private parts, and sue us for negligence. And how could we be sure he wouldn’t steal our silverware? After four years of that we’d all be nervous wrecks.

And Barrack Obama? Of the three, he’d probably be the easiest on our nerves over a long period of time, but as young and inexperienced as he is would he be any more competent as leader of the free world than, say, Paris Hilton? On the positive side, he’d probably make an excellent playmate for our children and grandchildren.

All things considered, it looks like we’d best invite Uncle Fred to stay for a while.

Fred Thompson Faces Critics on the Right

This is the last paragraph of the linked article:

While it is not in the realm of public policy, Thompson's reputation as a lady's man between the nearly two decades he was divorced and remarried could also come up in the presidential race.

During a meeting with House Republicans in April, he reportedly said: " I was single for a long time, and, yep, I chased a lot of women ... And a lot of women chased me. And those that chased me tended to catch me."

Wright is not sure the issue will be a liability for Thompson. "I've heard a lot of people respond that at least he did it when he was single," Wright said. "He seems to have been a faithful husband when he was married."

Ya gotta love it...Fred's da MAN!!!!!!!!!

Senator Fred Thompson on the Issues

Here it is, courtesy of FreeRepublic. A website that gives you the opportunity to see Senator Thompson's voting record in one place.
My only issue, so far, is his support of the McCain-Feingold Bill.
A stupid piece of legislation that does nothing but limit free speech.

Many on the right remain angry he supported the campaign finance law sponsored by his friend John McCain. “There are problems with people giving politicians large sums of money and then asking them to pass legislation,” Mr. Thompson says. Still, he notes he proposed the amendment to raise the $1,000 per person “hard money” federal contribution limit.

Conceding that McCain-Feingold hasn’t worked as intended, and is being riddled with new loopholes, he throws his hands open in exasperation. “I’m not prepared to go there yet, but I wonder if we shouldn’t just take off the limits and have full disclosure with harsh penalties for not reporting everything on the Internet immediately.”

That last statement is what I want to hear. Unlimited donations, full and immediate disclosure. Jail time for violations. The technology is available.