About Me

Name:Roxanna M.
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

Not A Parody

 
The following could be a skit from Saturday Night Live.  Unfortunately, it's all too tragically true.
 
I just read an article stating that the House of Representatives passed a bill intended to reduce the number of elderly people who fall down.  That sounded rather frightening until further reading revealed that the bill is intended to reduce falls among the elderly, not the elderly themselves.
 
The Safety of Seniors Act was passed by the Senate in August and now that it has been passed by the House of Representatives, it will go to President Bush for signature.  Hopefully, he will veto it.  Why? Because it's nothing more than a money grab.
 
According to Leo Carey, vice president of government affairs for the National Safety Council, "This action is a strong signal that Congress not only recognizes that falls among older Americans are a growing public health concern but that Congress is committed to addressing this problem."
 
According to the Falls Free Coalition, a collection of nonprofit groups that pressed for the bill's passage, the legislation will develop "education strategies to raise awareness about elder falls, encourage research to identify at-risk populations, and support demonstration projects aimed at preventing falls among older Americans."
 
The Falls Free Coalition's Advocacy Work Group is led by the National Council on Aging, the National Safety Council, the Home Safety Council, AARP, the American Occupational Therapy Association, and the American Physical Therapy Association.  No special interest groups there.
 
According to Patricia Adkins of the Home Safety Council, the next step is to "appropriate additional funding" for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's falls-prevention budget.  Of course it is.  "If we are to make a meaningful difference for older adults, we must communicate to Congress and the White House that more resources are needed to adopt programs that are working."
 
AARP Senior Vice President David Sloane said this:  "Among the greatest financial challenges facing the U.S. government, its citizens and their employers is stemming the rising cost of healthcare services.  Our 31 organizations, representing millions of older Americans, want to ensure sufficient funding for the CDC so that significant progress can be made to reduce the frequency and severity of falls among older Americans."
 
And just what constitutes "sufficient funding"?  The Falls Free Coalition Advocacy Work Group and 25 other organizations called on Congress to add $20.7 million in Fiscal Year 2009 for the CDC to address the growing problem of falls among older Americans.
 
Grunt, grunt!
 
Is it really going to cost $20.7 million to tell people:  don't stand up too fast; wear sensible shoes; watch your step; have adequate lighting; use a cane if you're unsteady on your feet; don't stand on things you shouldn't stand on to do things you probably shouldn't be doing in the first place; don't use a ladder while alone; if you get lightheaded, sit down until it passes.  In other words, use common sense.
 
There, send me the $20.7 million.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

P.S.

 
"What I was saying is that when economic hardship hits in these communities, what people have is they've got family, they've got their faith, they've got the traditions that have been passed onto them from generation to generation.  Those aren't bad things.  That's what they have left."
 
In other words, all we have left is our family, our faith, and our traditions.
 
Forgot the word guns, didn't he?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Open Mouth, Insert Foot

 
The oratorical skills that account for most of his appeal to the public are beginning to fail him.  We're starting to see the real man behind the mask.
 
First we had to deal with his wife who was never proud of her country until she thought it was going to put her in the White House.  Pretty rude thing to say about a country that has been so good to you.
 
Then we had to deal with his pastor and mentor, whose wild conspiracy theories concerning AIDS and 9/11, as well as his profanity from the pulpit, shocked the sensibilities of many.  Bottom line, the only way Obama didn't know what was going on in his church was if he wasn't paying attention.  Maybe he's one of "those" guys.  You know the kind I mean.  The ones who go to church every Sunday because it's the "right" thing to do, because it projects the "right" image, because it's what people "expect."  Bill Clinton was one of "those" guys.  The guy who walked out of church with his Bible under one arm, his wife under the other, and Monica Lewinsky waiting in the Oval Office. 
 
Then we hear he's "friendly" with some folks involved in the bombing of the Pentagon, the Capitol, and a police station in New York, some folks who said they "didn't do enough."  Bottom line again, no senator of the United States, especially one who aspires to the White House, should even associate with such individuals, let alone be "friendly" with them. 
 
Now comes the latest gaffe from Pennsylvania, where the golden boy had this to say:  "It's not surprising then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." 
 
He did nothing to help himself when he tried to defuse the situation by saying there was a "political flare-up because I said something that everybody knows is true, which is that there are a whole bunch of folks in small towns in Pennsylvania, in towns right here in Indiana, in my hometown in Illinois, who are bitter."
 
As someone who hails from a small town in Indiana, I am outraged at his condescenion, which he's doing a really poor job of concealing.
 
Bitter?  You bet your bippy we're bitter!  Every day we watch a government that's supposed to be of the people, by the people, for the people treat the people like an annoyance. 
 
A government that refuses to let us use our own resources for our benefit.  A government that is putting the global warming hoax before the well-being of this nation.  A government that doesn't care how much we pay for a gallon of gas or a loaf of bread.  A government that wants to legalize illegal immigrants in order to broaden its voter base, regardless of the consequences.  A government that refuses to fix what it has broken, i.e., Social Security and Medicare.  A government that thinks it has the right to send our tax dollars overseas when they could be better spent here. 
 
And now comes someone who thinks we're bitter because we're too stupid to know what's going on and need things explained to us in a slow and soothing manner, all the while we suck our thumbs and cling to our "bankies" of guns and religion.
 
NEWSFLASH, Mr. Obama, our belief in God is our bedrock in good times as well as bad, not just something we do on Sunday.  Sometimes our faith is all we have after a day of watching you and your ilk in action.  We cling to our guns because the Constitution says that we have a right to do so. 
 
We're a country blessed with an enormous amount of people with common sense, although you'd never know it from who we send to DC.  We know what's going on, we know why we're bitter, and we know when we're on the receiving end of an arrogant jerk's condescension.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Conservative Disinformation

 
I just read a column entitled "Trial Lawyers Threaten Patients' Health" by David A. Ridenour of the National Center for Public Policy Research, "a conservative, nonpartisan think tank on Capitol Hill".
 
One would think that somewhere in this article, mention would be made of just how trial lawyers are doing this, and one would be wrong.  Instead, the column contained the following:
 
     "After settlement talks failed, he took the medical center to court and won a $25 million award from local jurors."
 
     "A Chicago jury rendered a $22 million verdict against a hospital and a doctor . . ."
 
     "An exodus of top physicians is already occurring in New York, in large part because of rising malpractice insurance premiums . . ."
 
     "Hawaii's medical association says climbing malpractice insurance costs have created a physician shortage . . ."
 
     "A decade ago, Philadelphia had 19 hospitals that delivered babies.  Today, only eight obstetric facilities remain, in part because of the relentless rise of malpractice premiums . . ." 

Tell a lie long enough and loud enough and people will start to believe it, and people believe that trial lawyers are the root of all evil.  But as this column makes abundantly clear, juries and rising malpractice insurance rates are causing the problem. 

Contrary to what many believe, trial lawyers have no control over the award in a jury trial.  They can ask for whatever they want, but juries render the verdicts.  To blame juries, however, would be to blame ourselves .  Therefore, we relieve ourselves of any responsibility for the problem by blaming evil trial lawyers. 

There's a large and vocal segment of the population that wants us out of Iraq because the death toll is mounting, even though the death from the war in Iraq can't even begin to compare to the slaughter of the innocents here in America. 

One doctor once pegged deaths from medical malpractice at 400,000 a year.  I have heard 100,000 a year.  I have also heard 200,000 a year.  Nobody knows for sure because nobody wants to talk about it.  Taking the higher figure, that's nearly 1,100 people per day being killed by health care providers.  Even at the lower figure, that's nearly 275 people per day.  Are we supposed to take this lying down?  Is a medical license also a license to kill?  No.  We are entitled to be compensated when a loved one is wrongfully taken from us.

Trial lawyers don't commit medical malpractice, and they are not responsible for what juries award.  They are the middle men in the process and to keep blaming them for all the woes is ignorant and simply disgraceful.
 
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Not To Be Believed

 
Uber liberal Phil Donahue, looking and acting none too steady, recently appeared on the Hannity & Colmes show touting his movie "Body of War".
 
Of course, Donahue is against the war in Iraq, that goes without saying.  It's heresy for a liberal to be in favor of anything military. If you're a liberal and want to stand out in the crowd, show some independence and say the surge is working.  Of course, there's no such thing as independence on the Left.  You think and speak what you're told to think and speak or the "tolerant" Left will throw you under the bus.  Exhibit 'A':  Joe Lieberman.
 
Anyway, during the interview Donahue bemoaned the fact that 10 soldiers had died in the past couple of days in Iraq.  Who does he think he's kidding. 
 
Democrats are the party of abortion at any time for any reason, right up to and including birth.  The democrats see nothing wrong with pulling a full-term baby out by its feet, sticking a sharp instrument in the back of its neck, sucking out its brain, and then collapsing it's skull for the completion of the "birth".  This, they say, is a woman's "right". 
 
Americans in the military today are there by their own free will.  Babies don't ask to be conceived, and they certainly don't ask to be murdered. 
 
Those on the Left should really quit pretending that they are the least bit interested in life, especially of anyone in the military.
 
 
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Just A Thought

 
I believe that only the most stupid among us actually believe that Bill Clinton is earning millions from Yucapia for giving investment advice.  (That people actually pay to listen to this guy or buy his books are something else entirely.)  Cynic that I am, I believe those millions are a down payment on services expected to be rendered once Hillary Clinton is president, a possibility that looked a heckuva lot better before she actually started to run and her "inevitability" was challenged.  (Wouldn't you just love to be a fly on the wall to hear what Hillary really thinks about Obama?)
 
Consider that Bill "works" for a company that has as one of its investors the Sheikh of Dubai.  Now consider that Hillary has promised that oil will go down to $60 a barrel after she's elected, which is a pretty serious promise to make.  Coincidence? 

I have always taken a dim view of the honesty of these two, as my previous blog demonstrates.  For instance, I never believed that all Bill got for selling our nuclear secrets to China was the paltry sums paid into his campaign coffers.  I always believed that much larger sums went into secret, off-shore accounts.  And, now, he "works" for a company that invests in or manages off-shore accounts.  Coincidence? 

Has some deal already been struck?  Is there a quid pro quo we don't know about?  I read an article not too long ago that talked about the unusually large bodyguard contingent with which Bill was traveling.  What would happen if he and the missus can't deliver on promises already paid for that can't be kept? 

Call me a right-wing nut, call me a conspiracy theorist, call me what you will.  But, can you honestly say you would be surprised if any of this was true?
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Is This A Great Country Or What!

 
We have just learned that two of the most successful con artists in history have been able to amass $100 million in about 6 years.  And then, for a tax break, they gave millions to their own "charitable" foundation.  Giving credit where credit is due, they paid about $34 million in taxes, leaving them an astonishing $56 million.  And she could only loan her campaign $5 million?  Chump change.
 
According to these tax documents, Bill Clinton has earned about $15.4 million from the Yucapia Companies, an investment firm whose investors include the Sheikh of Dubai.  What has he done to earn this money?  Well, according to a spokesman, he "provides his best advice on potential investments, advocates generally on behalf of the funds, and seeks to create opportunities for investors to consider investing in the fund."  Hillary made a killing in cattle futures, maybe she passed her wisdom on to her husband, who has suddenly become an investment counselor.  Yea, right!  If you believe that, come see me about some oceanfront property I've got here in the mountains.
 
Interestingly enough, Yucaipa controls funds in the Cayman Islands, which doesn't charge income tax and has strict secrecy laws.  Are you thinking what I'm thinking? 
 
These people turned the Lincoln Bedroom into a fundraising tool and the Oval Office into a bordello.  They took whatever they felt like when they left the White House and even registered like newlyweds so that all of their friends could help them furnish their new homes.  And still, and still, they keep finding people who are stupid enough to pay them for their shtick.  

I guess P.T. Barnum was right.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Clueless, Absolutely, Completely, and Utterly Clueless

 
Read any newspaper, America is headed for a recession.  And for the more pessimistic, a depression.  High prices for food and gas.  The sub-prime mess.  The credit squeeze, which might be the same thing as the sub-prime mess, but I'm not sure.
 
So, what do I read today?  The House wants to boost funding for the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief from $30 billion to $50 billion.  That's right folks, billion with a bold capital "B".  Rep. Howard Berman (D-CA) said, "We have a moral imperative to act, and to act decisively." 
 
He couldn't be more wrong if he tried.  America's first moral imperative is to America, and we shouldn't be giving one thin dime to anyone or anything when America is headed for a crisis.  Americans who are losing their homes and losing their jobs don't give a rat's rear end about somebody in Africa getting AIDS.  And, quite frankly, neither do a lot of people who are doing quite well.  And that's just a fact.
 
So the way I see it is that:  (1) America isn't headed for an economic crisis; or (2) America is headed for an economic crisis and Congress is:  (1) too stoopid to see it; (2) doesn't feel the need to do anything about it; and/or (3) doesn't care one way or the other.
 
And, let's not forget, the House invited oil execs to come on up to Capitol Hill to explain the high cost of gas.  Nothing like sitting around in a circle pointing fingers.
 
Several members of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming urged the companies to invest more in biofuels, wind and solar power, and other renewable energy sources.  According to what I've read on the anthropogenic global warming "crisis", biofuels actually make it worse.  So, what we have here is:  (1) a body that knows there's a global warming crisis and is actually encouraging people to make it worse; (2) a body that knows there's not a global warming crisis but wants to tax us anyway in order to "fix" it; and/or (3) doesn't care one way or the other.
 
And, let's not lose sight of the fact that producing biofuels increases the price of food, which is putting a strain on the economy.  This is the clearest sign of the utter cluelessness in DC.  The House is actually demanding that oil companies do something that will strain the economy.
 
For those who are leading us to rack and ruin, I guess all that matters is that they look good on camera.  We truly do live in a world gone mad.
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Dang, Them Voters Are Mean

 
A few years back, the voters of California got tired of a Supreme Court Justice who used her philosophical opposition to the death penalty as justification for voting to overturn every single death penalty case that came before the high court.  When she came up for re-election, the good people of California voted Rose Byrd right on out of office.
 
Well, the good people of Wisconsin just did the same thing, sending an incumbent justice packing for the first time in four decades.
 
Louis Butler, an appointment of Governor Jim Doyle (D), has been described as "ultraliberal" and credited for the "sharp political turn" the court took after he took the bench.  Governor Doyle has described this election as a "tragedy".
 
Yea, it's always a tragedy when We the People, in the exercise of our constitutional rights, vote out of office a person we don't think should be there anymore.  That's mighty unfair, and somebody should do something about it.
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Once Upon A Time . . .

 
Hollywood made good movies, I mean really good movies.  And, a lot of those movies starred the Duke himself, John Wayne.  The Bible says that the only unforgivable sin is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.  In our house, it was blasphemy of John Wayne.
 
One of the best of these movies was "The Train Robbers" with Wayne, Ann-Margret, and Ben Johnson.  The Ann-Margret character introduced herself as "Lilly, with two L's."  Well, to make a long story short, we learn at the end of the movie that Lilly has been less than honest with our heroes who are, understandably, unhappy.  I don't remember his exact words, but the Johnson character says something to the effect that "the second L must stand for liar."
 
Doesn't Hillary have two L's?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

What A Revoltin' Development


I just heard that the latest polls show the following:
 
If Hillary Clinton is the nominee, 35% of Obama supporters will either vote for McCain or stay home.
 
If Barack Obama is the nominee, 44% of Clinton supporters will either vote for McCain or stay home.
 
It was not stated how much of that 35% is the black vote.  That's important because I believe that if Hillary somehow wrangles the nomination from Obama, the black vote will be lost.  I do not believe for one second that it will go to McCain, although I do believe that some of it will go to Hillary.  Can democrats win without this bloc?
 
I'm having a real hard time with the 44% figure.  I simply cannot believe that nearly half of Hillary's supporters will desert the democrat party if Obama is the nominee.  That would be suicide.
 
A poll is only a snapshot of the moment in which it was taken, but democrats might want to start getting worried.  The longer this thing goes, the uglier it is going to get.  And I, for one, do not expect either of these two to go quietly into that good night.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

You Know What . . .

 
I'm sick and tired of being told that I'm the one who doesn't get it.  Another film regarding Islam has been released and, once again, the muslim world is in an uproar and issuing vague threats of violent retaliation.  How exactly does their ordinary, everday violence differ from their retaliation violence?  Aren't they just killing and destroying for the sake of killing and destroying?
 
Saleh S. Al-Wohaibi of the World Assembly of Muslim Youth says that the film is "a new obstacle to block any sensible dialogue between religions . . . Islam . . . advocates peace and co-existence."  In what alternate universe?
 
The fanatical element of Islam has declared war on the west.  It wants nothing less than world domination.  It has no desire whatsoever to peacefully co-exist with anyone.  It sheds blood for the sheer thrill of it, cloaking its butchery in the name of its God.  I would be willing to bet that, through the ages, more blood has been shed in the name of some god than for any other reason.
 
Mr. Al-Wohaibi adds, "I am afraid that the Western world has failed to understand the severity of the problem" and actually blames us for trying to create conflict.
 
It wasn't Christians or Jews who killed 3,000 people on 9/11.  It isn't Christians or Jews who are kidnapping, torturing, and killing people all over the world.  It isn't Christians or Jews whose plots to maim, kill, and destroy are coming to light on a daily basis.  And guess what, it isn't Christians or Jews who have a tantrum and go on killing sprees every time someone mocks our God.  We're perfectly willing to co-exist with anyone who isn't hell bent on killing us.
 
If there are Muslims out there who really believe that Islam is a religion of peace, then it is their responsibility to get that message out.  They should be condemning the acts of their brethren all around the world.  They should be rising up in rejection of the violence and bloodshed.  How much of that do you see going on?
 
The truth is, the so-called "good" Muslims are simply kicking back waiting for their big, bad brothers to do all the heavy lifting so they can all enjoy the worldwide caliphate they think is coming.
 
Well, here's a newsflash:  Muslims can't rule the world.  Violence and death are the only things they're any good at.  Osama in Hidin' couldn't run Afghanistan.  Who makes the cars they drive?  The cellphones they use?  The computers they use?  The planes they fly?  Who makes it possible to get the oil out of the ground they live on?
 
Even with all the oil revenue from the West, these third-world, jerkwater countries can barely function.  If they destroy the west. they destroy their income.  Then what?  How do they propose to rule the world when they can't do anything except cause trouble?
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

How Stupid Are We?

 
Apparently, the omnipresent "they" thinks that Americans are stupid.  Judging from the jokers we keep electing to public office, "they" just might be right.  Here are examples of some TV commercials that illustrate what I'm talking about.
 
1.  PetMeds: just order your pet's medication on line and save a trip to the vet.  If I don't take my animal to the vet, how will I know what's wrong with it and what medications it needs?
 
2.  American Express:  A man tries to use his "other" card to pay for a business dinner, but he's over his limit and his card's declined.  He should get an American Express card.  Why?  If he's over his limit, it's either because he doesn't have a very big limit or he isn't paying his bill in full every month.  If he doesn't have a very big limit, it's because he's not a good credit risk.  So, what makes him think American Express will even give him a card?  If he's not paying his bill in full every month, why get an American Express card, most of which require payment in full every month?
 
3.  Purina dog food:  They did a groundbreaking 14-year study which shows that if you feed your dog Purina dog food, you'll add two years to its life.  Are you kidding me?
 
4.  "We'll put your money in a high interest earning account":  This one had a couple of different variations.  This is my favorite:  Just spend $10.15 on your credit card, and we'll put $.85 in an account for you.  Yea, and if I spent $10.96, you'll put $0.04 in an account.  I should be rich in no time!
 
It isn't just advertisers and companies who think we're stupid.
 
1.  Hillary Clinton says that when she's elected, oil will go back down to $60 a barrel.  Why?  Because America will be so busy developing alternate energy sources that the oil producers will keep the price low just to keep us hooked on their product.  Please!  This might be somewhat believable if it had come from someone NOT from the party that has refused to allow America to become energy independent.  We could have had these one-trick ponies quaking in the boots a decade ago if Billy Boy had allowed drilling in ANWR.  Create the problem, or contribute to the problem, and then claim you're going to fix it? 
 
2.  Alan Colmes trying to talk down the Obama/Wright problem.  It's "guilt by association."  He's said that so many times, that it's almost lost its meaning.  According to the proudly liberal Colmes, Obama should not be having to explain himself.  Why not?  He spent two decades in a church whose pastor spouted some pretty awful things.  It's not guilt by association, it's guilt by action, or inaction if you prefer.  We all know that Colmes would have a field day bashing McCain if he went to a white supremacist church.  Colmes wouldn't have a problem in the world excusing Obama and bashing McCain at the same time.  Why?  Because liberals are the biggest hypocrites on the planet.
 
How stupid are we?  Let's see what happens in November.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

THERE ARE NONE SO BLIND . . .


"Clinton Struggling With Her Likability Problem" screamed a headline from earlier this week.  A NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found that 48% of democrats view her in a negative manner versus 37% in a positive manner. The numbers in a Quinnipiac University poll were 47% negative to 46% positive.  And, the numbers in a Public Policy Institute of California poll were 52% negative to 45% positive.  A USA Today/Gallup poll found that 53% did not consider her honest and trustworthy versus 44% who did.

A Pew poll found that a majority of democrats think she is "phony" and "hard to like" and that what democrats most dislike about her are her personality, her baggage, and her ambition.  Well, doesn't that sum things up.

There are those of us out here who believe that Hillary Clinton has been angling for the White House pretty much her whole adult life, using those who can help here, tossing aside those who can't, and trampling on anyone in her way.  We think that's why she married Bill and why she stays with him, even going so far as to enable his serial philandering.*

Bill Clinton has called her the smartest woman in the world, so has Rush Limbaugh.  So, why does it seem that it has never occurred to her that it was important to get people to like her?  To trust her?  To believe her?  Has it really never occurred to her that people would be put off by her arrogance and belief that the nomination was hers for the asking?  Doesn't she understand that it's not a good idea to make up stories, especially when you know that people already view you as dishonest? 
 
No one controls his/her own destiny.  We contribute, we grease the wheels but in the end, each person's destiny hinges on the destinies of others.  Hillary's ruthless ambition alone will not get her to the White House, she must get the votes of millions of people.  It's impossible not to know this.  So why, despite poll after poll, does she continue to behave in a manner that turns people off?

. . . AS THOSE WHO WILL NOT SEE.

_____________________
* I am of the opinion that she didn't care a whit about Monica or any other woman Bill abused or misused through the years.  I believe that her only concern was what would happen if he got caught.  As well she should.  If the democrats hadn't been so intent on keeping one of their own in the White House after 12 long years in the wilderness, Bill Clinton could have been bounced in 1999 and that would have been an end to Hillary's political dreams.
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

What Do They Do?

 
It is 221 days to election day in November, and a lot can happen between now and then.
 
Right now, all political eyes are focused on the fight between Hillary and Obama, and things are getting ugly.  Hillary can't explain the lack of sniper fire in Bosnia, and Obama can't explain how he went to a church for 20 years and didn't know what his pastor was saying.  We hear that there's going to be a fight at the convention the likes of which we haven't seen since 1968, if then.  We hear that the fight is going to destroy the democrat party altogether.  We hear about the voters who are going to cross over to McCain if "their" candidate does not get the nomination.  Whether voters will actually cross over or just stay home remains to be seen, but it doesn't bode well for democrats either way.  Meanwhile, McCain is coasting along under the radar.
 
Come on, let's get real.  This situation is not going to last forever.  Come the last primary in June, we're going to know which democrat has the votes and the delegates.  Given that the democrat hunger to regain the White House is almost palpable, would they really spend the two months until their convention bickering amongst themselves?  Unfortunately, they may have no choice.
 
Nightmare scenario #1:  Obama is ahead in delegates but behind in the popular vote.  In this case, Hillary can plausibly make the assertion that she's the peoples' choice.  Then what?  Do they ask Obama to quit and risk alienating their biggest voting bloc?  Or, do they ask him to be #2?  If so, will he?  Will Hillary accept him or exact vengeance for his impudence in daring to challenge her?  On the flip side, will they ask Hillary to be #2?  If so, will she?  Will Obama accept her or exact vengeance of his own?
 
Nightmare scenario #2:  Hillary is ahead in delegates but behind in the popular vote.  In this case, Obama can plausibly make the assertion that he's the peoples' choice.  Then what?  Do they ask Hillary to quit and risk alienating . . . who?  Or, do they ask her to be #2.  If so, will she?  Will Obama accept her or exact vengeance?  On the flip side, will they ask Obama to be #2?  If so, will he? 
 
Nightmare scenario #3:  Obama is ahead in both votes and delegates.  Then what?  How does the party not give him the nomination?  And, in that event, what do they do with Hillary?  She's been priming for this run pretty much her whole life, and I do not for one minute believe that she would go quietly, let alone - gasp! - concede.  Do they ask her to be #2?  If so, will she?  She was already second once, and it doesn't appear that that's a role in which she's happy.
 
Which brings us to the superdelegates.  What on earth do they do?  How do they not go with the one who is ahead in delegates?  On the flip side, how do they not go with the one who is ahead in the popular vote?  Do they wait until the convention to voice their preferences, thereby continuing to direct the focus onto themselves rather than McCain right up to just weeks before the election?  Or, will the party force them to choose in June so that a nice orderly convention can be had in August?  If so, will the losing candidate claim that this is not appropriate and still bring the fight to the convention floor?  
 
One thing is sure:  Hillary doesn't give a whit about the democrat party.  If she's going down, then by golly she's taking someone, or something, with her.  In the interests of saving itself, will the democrat party allow itself to be bullied by a former president and his grasping wife?  Will it say it's had enough of the Clintons?  Will it tell Obama to wait his turn?
 
They'd better decide soon so that the MSM can turn its attention to its natural focus:  Republicans.
 
 
 
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive