It is Sunday before the Tuesday election, and over 40 million Americans have already voted. Trump, who has violated a lot of the "rules" of running a political campaign is doing so again.
He is campaigning in the so-called "blue states" that rarely vote for Republican candidate. He is also drawing huge crowds there. Seven different states are on his schedule today.
Hillary Clinton, meanwhile, is following the "rules" and campaigning in two of the "battleground" states.
Seven appearances for Trump and only two for Clinton with two days left.
That raises the question: does she think she is that far ahead, or can she only physically do two appearances in one day?
Since the last post, Trump has become a much better candidate. He has gotten off of Twitter, and has kept on message. His speeches are smooth and coherent. His advertising is quite well done
He has drawn huge crowds everywhere he has gone. Enthusiastic crowds.
Clinton has been Clinton, with her team only drawing small, unenthusiastic crowds, except of course, when she has an entertainer with her to draw a crowd....entertainers like the crude, vulgar and racist Jay-Z, or the fanny wagging J-LO, or even anti-cop and vulgar Beyonce.
Strange bedfellows, indeed. But they say politics makes strange bedfellows.
Her money has bought the best advertising and "ground game" money can buy. Apparently the money cannot buy love, but it can buy votes. And the Democrat ground game has always been good at stealing votes.
The FBI gave Clinton another clean bill of health for breaking the laws with her email usage. That is not surprising. Obama has totally corrupted the Department of Justice, the FBI and just about every other Federal Agency in Washington. One cannot really believe what they say or do any more.
The polls, as usual, are all over the place, with the average giving Clinton a slight lead within the margin of error. Some are outliers and give Trump a lead. The individual state polls make it a very close race.
Who will win on Tuesday? Will we even know by Wednesday? This is so hotly contested, that barring the quite unexpected landslide for one of them, one can look for lawsuits and challenges from both sides. That, of course, will only divide our population even more. And the courts are not a good place to decide elections.
We should all hope and pray for a landslide for one or the other. Our country really needs to get this election behind us.
That does not seem to be in the cards.
Showing posts with label Hillary Clinton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hillary Clinton. Show all posts
Sunday, November 6, 2016
Monday, October 3, 2016
The Trump Phenomenon------Falling Into the Trap
After he had lost a lot of momentum after the conventions by taking on the Khans and other errors, Trump got things back together. He did very well most of August and into September, gaining momentum back and even edging past Hillary Clinton in a number of the polls.
The came the debate. It was watched by around 90 million Americans. It was Trump's opportunity to really put Hillary away.
Of course, everyone knew the debate was going to be set up for Hillary, and Trump should have known it as well, and prepared for it. Instead, he was an amateur and did not do the hours of preparation necessary.
The moderator, of course, did not ask Trump important questions. Instead Trump was asked about completely inconsequential things like birtherism and tax returns. Trumps answers were off the cuff and unprepared....just as one might expect from an amateur. There was no effort to turn the questions back on the moderator as he probably should have done.
On the other side, Hillary was asked softball questions that allowed her to give canned responses consisting of the age old Democratic gobbledygook that they have been saying for decades without there ever having been any positive change. Trump was unable to really inject himself into that side of the debate.
This gave the advantage to Hillary, and she ran with it. She clearly was the "winner" of the debate.
The most important part of the debate from her standpoint was that she was able to lay a trap for Trump by asking him about "Miss Piggy." Trump fell for it. This move got Hillary inside Trump's OODA Loop just like he got inside the loops of so many of his Republican opponents in the primaries
Not only did he fall into the trap, like with the Khans, he kept doubling down on the issue instead of moving on. It became the "news" on the mainstream media for a week or more.
Trump lost all of the momentum and gains he had made. He is now back to the post convention situation with a lost lead and lost momentum......and just a bit over a month to go.
There are two more debates. Trump has to take them seriously and prepare while still getting out and campaigning. He also needs to get off Twitter. It only makes him appear to be not serious.
Can he do it? Maybe. There will be a lot more attacks on him from all directions. Will his ego and nature allow him to respond properly, or will he over do the response?
He is doing a lot of advertising into the election as he should. Most of the ads seem effective, but will be only if they are well placed and reach enough undecided voters.
This is an election between two very flawed candidates, one a rank amateur in politics and the other an experienced, hardened politician with a very shady, perhaps even criminal, background.
Who will win?
It is pretty easy to see who will lose.
The came the debate. It was watched by around 90 million Americans. It was Trump's opportunity to really put Hillary away.
Of course, everyone knew the debate was going to be set up for Hillary, and Trump should have known it as well, and prepared for it. Instead, he was an amateur and did not do the hours of preparation necessary.
The moderator, of course, did not ask Trump important questions. Instead Trump was asked about completely inconsequential things like birtherism and tax returns. Trumps answers were off the cuff and unprepared....just as one might expect from an amateur. There was no effort to turn the questions back on the moderator as he probably should have done.
On the other side, Hillary was asked softball questions that allowed her to give canned responses consisting of the age old Democratic gobbledygook that they have been saying for decades without there ever having been any positive change. Trump was unable to really inject himself into that side of the debate.
This gave the advantage to Hillary, and she ran with it. She clearly was the "winner" of the debate.
The most important part of the debate from her standpoint was that she was able to lay a trap for Trump by asking him about "Miss Piggy." Trump fell for it. This move got Hillary inside Trump's OODA Loop just like he got inside the loops of so many of his Republican opponents in the primaries
Not only did he fall into the trap, like with the Khans, he kept doubling down on the issue instead of moving on. It became the "news" on the mainstream media for a week or more.
Trump lost all of the momentum and gains he had made. He is now back to the post convention situation with a lost lead and lost momentum......and just a bit over a month to go.
There are two more debates. Trump has to take them seriously and prepare while still getting out and campaigning. He also needs to get off Twitter. It only makes him appear to be not serious.
Can he do it? Maybe. There will be a lot more attacks on him from all directions. Will his ego and nature allow him to respond properly, or will he over do the response?
He is doing a lot of advertising into the election as he should. Most of the ads seem effective, but will be only if they are well placed and reach enough undecided voters.
This is an election between two very flawed candidates, one a rank amateur in politics and the other an experienced, hardened politician with a very shady, perhaps even criminal, background.
Who will win?
It is pretty easy to see who will lose.
Thursday, August 4, 2016
The Trump Phenomenon-----The Conversationalist
In my 58 year experience in politics, I have found that one thing that is learned by practicing politicians is to be careful and precise in the language used in a campaign. If one does not, then the candidate leaves oneself open to misconstruction of what is said. And opponents will leap at the opportunity.
The prior two posts talk about how Donald Trump has broken all of the rules of politics, and yet he has emerged as the nominee of the Republican Party for the office of President of the United States. Given the circumstances, that is an amazing feat for someone who is clearly a novice at retail politics.
Once he secured the nomination, he needed to pivot a bit away from the style of campaign he had been running. During the primaries, the media really gave him a lot of exposure that other Republican candidates didn't get. The reason, of course, is that the media is almost entirely Democratic, and they viewed Trump as the easiest for their candidate to beat.
Prior to the nomination, Trump's approach to the campaign was more conversational than a prepared group of talking points. When he spoke, it was right off the top of his head. He talked more like he was having a conversation at a cocktail party (after a couple of hours of drinking). His statements were broad and imprecise. He got away with it because the press let him.
Trump's big mistake has been not realizing that the minute he got the nomination, the press would turn on him with great vigor. He should have seen it coming, but he clearly did not.
Instead of turning his attention toward Hillary and Obama, the morning after he attacked Ted Cruz. Then he gets involved with criticizing the Khans.
He has not seen yet that he must have some discipline over his mouth or let the media destroy him. They will happily do so, and are proceeding with that as I write.
Every undisciplined thing he says will be parsed, misconstrued, and misquoted by almost every media outlet in the world.
Get smart, Mr. Trump. Put a governor on your mouth. Get on message and stay there. Let petty stuff go. You are on the big stage now. Act like it, or you will make Hillary Clinton the next President of the United States.
The prior two posts talk about how Donald Trump has broken all of the rules of politics, and yet he has emerged as the nominee of the Republican Party for the office of President of the United States. Given the circumstances, that is an amazing feat for someone who is clearly a novice at retail politics.
Once he secured the nomination, he needed to pivot a bit away from the style of campaign he had been running. During the primaries, the media really gave him a lot of exposure that other Republican candidates didn't get. The reason, of course, is that the media is almost entirely Democratic, and they viewed Trump as the easiest for their candidate to beat.
Prior to the nomination, Trump's approach to the campaign was more conversational than a prepared group of talking points. When he spoke, it was right off the top of his head. He talked more like he was having a conversation at a cocktail party (after a couple of hours of drinking). His statements were broad and imprecise. He got away with it because the press let him.
Trump's big mistake has been not realizing that the minute he got the nomination, the press would turn on him with great vigor. He should have seen it coming, but he clearly did not.
Instead of turning his attention toward Hillary and Obama, the morning after he attacked Ted Cruz. Then he gets involved with criticizing the Khans.
He has not seen yet that he must have some discipline over his mouth or let the media destroy him. They will happily do so, and are proceeding with that as I write.
Every undisciplined thing he says will be parsed, misconstrued, and misquoted by almost every media outlet in the world.
Get smart, Mr. Trump. Put a governor on your mouth. Get on message and stay there. Let petty stuff go. You are on the big stage now. Act like it, or you will make Hillary Clinton the next President of the United States.
Saturday, June 18, 2016
The Trump Phenomenum----Breaking the Rules
It has been a year since Donald Trump announced for the presidency. In that year he has gone from being laughed at for thinking he could actually win to being at least the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party. Amazing.
How did he do it? Certainly not in a conventional way. In fact, he broke many of the "rules" for running for office.
My first experience in politics was in 1958, when a student in college. Since then I have been engaged in politics, though I am retired now. As a candidate in eight elections and an active participant in many other campaigns, there were certain rules that one learned the follow.
The first was "money is the mother's milk of politics." In other words, money, and raising a lot of it, is usually the key to winning. Advertising is costly, and has grown even more so as the years go by. As the population has risen, advertising has become more and more the only way to reach most voters. This is why our elected officials spend so much time fund raising. Money provides them the power.
Though not completely, Trump has ignored this rule for the most part. Self funding, with some money volunteered, has financed his campaign to date. He has done very little advertising, and none in the major media. Instead, he worked the media, freely giving interviews to all comers. He has held rallies, but no ad buys.
Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, has raised nearly $200 million, and has already reserved large ad buys for the general election.
The second rule that one learns early on in politics is "you don't pick a fight with someone that buys ink by the barrel and paper by the ton." Of course, that refers back to an earlier time before the electronic media became so dominant, but the point remains the same. Don't fight the media. They can kill you if they want.
Trump, of course, has ignored that rule as well. Every speech I have heard, he has taken on the media, even though they gave him all of the free publicity. Now that he is the presumptive nominee of the GOP, most of the media has now turned on him, and will demonize him as best they can. I suspect it will make what they did to Sarah Palin look mild in comparison.
Another rule in politics is that "you have to go along to get along." That essentially means that you don't fight the party establishment or its powerful members if you want to be successful.
Trump, of course, has done the opposite. He has turned the party establishment on their collective ears. He has apparently won the nomination having done that.
That has embittered most of them, and they continue to oppose him. That means that although he beat them in the primaries, they can still deny him the election. We will just have to wait and see.
In any event, I believe this at least marks the beginning of the end of the Republican Party as it has been. It can either morph into a broader based party with considerably less influence by its old establishment, or go the way of the Whigs.
What Trump has done is hit a real nerve with a large segment of the population. Bernie Sanders has hit much the same nerve, with just a different constituency. Americans have grown tired of the "business as usual" in Washington.
It remains to be seen if enough of them vote to change it.
How did he do it? Certainly not in a conventional way. In fact, he broke many of the "rules" for running for office.
My first experience in politics was in 1958, when a student in college. Since then I have been engaged in politics, though I am retired now. As a candidate in eight elections and an active participant in many other campaigns, there were certain rules that one learned the follow.
The first was "money is the mother's milk of politics." In other words, money, and raising a lot of it, is usually the key to winning. Advertising is costly, and has grown even more so as the years go by. As the population has risen, advertising has become more and more the only way to reach most voters. This is why our elected officials spend so much time fund raising. Money provides them the power.
Though not completely, Trump has ignored this rule for the most part. Self funding, with some money volunteered, has financed his campaign to date. He has done very little advertising, and none in the major media. Instead, he worked the media, freely giving interviews to all comers. He has held rallies, but no ad buys.
Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, has raised nearly $200 million, and has already reserved large ad buys for the general election.
The second rule that one learns early on in politics is "you don't pick a fight with someone that buys ink by the barrel and paper by the ton." Of course, that refers back to an earlier time before the electronic media became so dominant, but the point remains the same. Don't fight the media. They can kill you if they want.
Trump, of course, has ignored that rule as well. Every speech I have heard, he has taken on the media, even though they gave him all of the free publicity. Now that he is the presumptive nominee of the GOP, most of the media has now turned on him, and will demonize him as best they can. I suspect it will make what they did to Sarah Palin look mild in comparison.
Another rule in politics is that "you have to go along to get along." That essentially means that you don't fight the party establishment or its powerful members if you want to be successful.
Trump, of course, has done the opposite. He has turned the party establishment on their collective ears. He has apparently won the nomination having done that.
That has embittered most of them, and they continue to oppose him. That means that although he beat them in the primaries, they can still deny him the election. We will just have to wait and see.
In any event, I believe this at least marks the beginning of the end of the Republican Party as it has been. It can either morph into a broader based party with considerably less influence by its old establishment, or go the way of the Whigs.
What Trump has done is hit a real nerve with a large segment of the population. Bernie Sanders has hit much the same nerve, with just a different constituency. Americans have grown tired of the "business as usual" in Washington.
It remains to be seen if enough of them vote to change it.
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Is Egypt Iran Redux?
We are at the 32nd anniversary of the overthrow of the Shah of Iran, sped along by Jimmy Carter when he abandoned the Shah to the Ayatollahs. That had a great result, putting one of the chokepoints for the world's oil supplies in the hands of radicals who hate the United States.
Now we see the same thing going on in Egypt. And sure enough, our bowing and scraping President is abandoning our long time ally Mubarak.
To be sure, both the Shah and Mubarak are/were SOBs. But they were OUR SOBs. Those that replace(d) them hate us. And they are still SOBs.
Carter had no plans for the aftermath of the Iranian Revolution, and now, our government is apparently going to allow the Iranians to produce nuclear weapons, as well.
Obama? Where does he stand on Egypt? Unprepared, quite obviously. When the phone rings, there is nobody to answer it, not even Hillary.
Egypt has been the linchpin of our Mideast policy, helping to keep the shaky peace between the Israelis and the Arab nations. It also controls another major chokepoint for the worlds's oil supply, the Suez Canal.
And Obama........well, he opines that the Muslim Brotherhood would be fine in the new government. That is the grandfather of all Jihadis groups, and has just this week called for war between Egypt and Israel.
What could go wrong?
Now we see the same thing going on in Egypt. And sure enough, our bowing and scraping President is abandoning our long time ally Mubarak.
To be sure, both the Shah and Mubarak are/were SOBs. But they were OUR SOBs. Those that replace(d) them hate us. And they are still SOBs.
Carter had no plans for the aftermath of the Iranian Revolution, and now, our government is apparently going to allow the Iranians to produce nuclear weapons, as well.
Obama? Where does he stand on Egypt? Unprepared, quite obviously. When the phone rings, there is nobody to answer it, not even Hillary.
Egypt has been the linchpin of our Mideast policy, helping to keep the shaky peace between the Israelis and the Arab nations. It also controls another major chokepoint for the worlds's oil supply, the Suez Canal.
And Obama........well, he opines that the Muslim Brotherhood would be fine in the new government. That is the grandfather of all Jihadis groups, and has just this week called for war between Egypt and Israel.
What could go wrong?
Sunday, July 19, 2009
What are they smoking?
Hillary is in India, trying to convince the Indians that they should cut their carbon emissions according to the Washington Post. While there, she told the Indians:
"No one wants to in any way stall or undermine the economic growth that is necessary to lift millions more out of poverty," Clinton countered. "We also believe that there is a way to eradicate poverty and develop sustainability that will lower significantly the carbon footprint."
Yeah. And I have a bridge in Brooklyn I would like to sell you. The world's economies from ours all the way down to the smallest depend upon fossil fuels to operate their economies. If other nations are to continue to grow and expand their economies, they will have to use more, not less.
Incidently, Hillary was responding to India's very predictable and definite "No" to her proposals.
It seems that, unlike our current government, India has done a cost/benefit analysis of reducing emissions, and found, like anyone would, that the costs of such a program would far outweigh any benefits. Particularly in a world that has been cooling for over ten years now.
Reuters says that our Secretary of Commerce Gary Locke said in China that the US taxpayers should pay for Chinese emissions:
" “It’s important that those who consume the products being made all around the world to the benefit of America — and it’s our own consumption activity that’s causing the emission of greenhouse gases, then quite frankly Americans need to pay for that,” Commerce Secretary Gary Locke told the American Chamber of Commerce in Shanghai."
That, of course, is after the Chinese have made clear that they are not going to pay for any of it.
So let me see if I can get this straight.
We spend the last two or three decades shipping our manufacturing jobs to China, and a lot of high tech jobs to India, and they are going to get off scot-free on this global warming idiocy? And then we will have to pay for it ourselves?
With what?
I propose that Obama and his cadre get off the dope they are smoking and get back to the real world.
"No one wants to in any way stall or undermine the economic growth that is necessary to lift millions more out of poverty," Clinton countered. "We also believe that there is a way to eradicate poverty and develop sustainability that will lower significantly the carbon footprint."
Yeah. And I have a bridge in Brooklyn I would like to sell you. The world's economies from ours all the way down to the smallest depend upon fossil fuels to operate their economies. If other nations are to continue to grow and expand their economies, they will have to use more, not less.
Incidently, Hillary was responding to India's very predictable and definite "No" to her proposals.
It seems that, unlike our current government, India has done a cost/benefit analysis of reducing emissions, and found, like anyone would, that the costs of such a program would far outweigh any benefits. Particularly in a world that has been cooling for over ten years now.
Reuters says that our Secretary of Commerce Gary Locke said in China that the US taxpayers should pay for Chinese emissions:
" “It’s important that those who consume the products being made all around the world to the benefit of America — and it’s our own consumption activity that’s causing the emission of greenhouse gases, then quite frankly Americans need to pay for that,” Commerce Secretary Gary Locke told the American Chamber of Commerce in Shanghai."
That, of course, is after the Chinese have made clear that they are not going to pay for any of it.
So let me see if I can get this straight.
We spend the last two or three decades shipping our manufacturing jobs to China, and a lot of high tech jobs to India, and they are going to get off scot-free on this global warming idiocy? And then we will have to pay for it ourselves?
With what?
I propose that Obama and his cadre get off the dope they are smoking and get back to the real world.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
This and that
Hillary and the Times
While perusing the New York Times today (yes, I go there) I note with great interest that the two most emailed pieces in today's paper were editorials that were pretty unfavorable to Hillary. Maureen Dowd asks "Hillary or Nobody?" and hints that Hillary will wreck the other Democrat's chances.
David Brooks weighs in with "The Long Defeat" meaning Hillary is just going to drag things out unnecessarily, thereby hurting the Democrats' chances in November.
I suspect that she probably will drag it out, and that it will hurt Obama's chances in November. But not as much as the Reverend Wright will.
This is going to get more interesting as time moves along.
Iraq
Also in the Times is an article on Iraq. Apparently the Iraqi government is undertaking to look out for itself more strongly. They are attacking Shiite militias in Basra (where the Brits pulled out) and have given them an ultimatum to lay down their arms or face the consequences. These are the militias controlled by Moktada al-Sadr, who has long been a thorn in everybody's side, and who I thought the US should have taken out years ago. No American forces are involved on the ground except as advisors. Air cover is being provided. But this is an Iraqi operation. Good for them. The sooner they can handle their defense, the better.
Nancy Reagan
Mrs. Reagan publicly endorsed John McCain this week. That reporting was noticeably absent in the New York Times. Guess it wasn't news. And the Times' shareholders wonder why the newspaper is losing circulation and ad revenue.
Clicking on Links
Better be careful what you click while surfing. It seems the FBI, having nothing else to do, I suppose, is putting up links that purport in some way to be links to porn. If you just click on the link, get ready for a raid on your house. Read the whole post by Eric at Classical Values blog. (via Instapundit) In my day (long ago) we called that sort of thing fishing expeditions. Sigh. Well, you shouldn't be clicking on porn sites, anyway.
More Hillary Stuff
I now see on Real Clear Politics that our old Texas Democrat Bob Beckel is joining Dowd and Brooks and urging Hillary to cool it and take the Veep slot. Seems nobody thinks Hillary can win. What should she do? Please, Hillary, don't spoil the fun!
There is also a piece referenced by Dick Morris, the old Clinton hand, who must really hate Hillary. Its called "Hillary's List Of Lies" and therein he proceeds to name some of them. This must be shoot Hillary day in the media. He does have an unkind thing to say about Obama as well:
"...Obama has looked weak handling the Rev. Wright controversy. His labored explanation of why he attacks the sin but loves the sinner comes across as elegant but, at the same time, feeble. Obama's reluctance to trade punches with his opponents makes us wonder if he could trade them with bin Laden or Ahmadinejad...."
And then compliments McCain:
"...We have no doubt that McCain would gladly come to blows and would represent us well, but about Obama we are not so sure."
Will There Always Be an England?
Don't be too sure. Political correctness and worship of "diversity" is doing them in. Read the excellent article by Tony Blankley of the Washington Times. His conclusion:
"...England, in her tolerance, has admitted into her midst -- and given succor -- those who loathe her. But more loathsome yet are the natural born Englishmen -- most in high places -- who have forgotten the simple truth of another World War II song:
"There'll always be an England,
And England shall be free,
If England means as much to you
As England means to me.""
Hillary, the Gift That Keeps on Giving
Now its the AP on her case over the "exaggerations" about her trip to Bosnia some years ago. Ron Fournier says:
"Why wasn't the truth good enough for Hillary Rodham Clinton?
That's a question worth considering as the former first lady tries to contain damage to her credibility after getting caught exaggerating the danger of her 1996 trip to Bosnia......"
Maybe Dick Morris is on to something.
More later.
While perusing the New York Times today (yes, I go there) I note with great interest that the two most emailed pieces in today's paper were editorials that were pretty unfavorable to Hillary. Maureen Dowd asks "Hillary or Nobody?" and hints that Hillary will wreck the other Democrat's chances.
David Brooks weighs in with "The Long Defeat" meaning Hillary is just going to drag things out unnecessarily, thereby hurting the Democrats' chances in November.
I suspect that she probably will drag it out, and that it will hurt Obama's chances in November. But not as much as the Reverend Wright will.
This is going to get more interesting as time moves along.
Iraq
Also in the Times is an article on Iraq. Apparently the Iraqi government is undertaking to look out for itself more strongly. They are attacking Shiite militias in Basra (where the Brits pulled out) and have given them an ultimatum to lay down their arms or face the consequences. These are the militias controlled by Moktada al-Sadr, who has long been a thorn in everybody's side, and who I thought the US should have taken out years ago. No American forces are involved on the ground except as advisors. Air cover is being provided. But this is an Iraqi operation. Good for them. The sooner they can handle their defense, the better.
Nancy Reagan
Mrs. Reagan publicly endorsed John McCain this week. That reporting was noticeably absent in the New York Times. Guess it wasn't news. And the Times' shareholders wonder why the newspaper is losing circulation and ad revenue.
Clicking on Links
Better be careful what you click while surfing. It seems the FBI, having nothing else to do, I suppose, is putting up links that purport in some way to be links to porn. If you just click on the link, get ready for a raid on your house. Read the whole post by Eric at Classical Values blog. (via Instapundit) In my day (long ago) we called that sort of thing fishing expeditions. Sigh. Well, you shouldn't be clicking on porn sites, anyway.
More Hillary Stuff
I now see on Real Clear Politics that our old Texas Democrat Bob Beckel is joining Dowd and Brooks and urging Hillary to cool it and take the Veep slot. Seems nobody thinks Hillary can win. What should she do? Please, Hillary, don't spoil the fun!
There is also a piece referenced by Dick Morris, the old Clinton hand, who must really hate Hillary. Its called "Hillary's List Of Lies" and therein he proceeds to name some of them. This must be shoot Hillary day in the media. He does have an unkind thing to say about Obama as well:
"...Obama has looked weak handling the Rev. Wright controversy. His labored explanation of why he attacks the sin but loves the sinner comes across as elegant but, at the same time, feeble. Obama's reluctance to trade punches with his opponents makes us wonder if he could trade them with bin Laden or Ahmadinejad...."
And then compliments McCain:
"...We have no doubt that McCain would gladly come to blows and would represent us well, but about Obama we are not so sure."
Will There Always Be an England?
Don't be too sure. Political correctness and worship of "diversity" is doing them in. Read the excellent article by Tony Blankley of the Washington Times. His conclusion:
"...England, in her tolerance, has admitted into her midst -- and given succor -- those who loathe her. But more loathsome yet are the natural born Englishmen -- most in high places -- who have forgotten the simple truth of another World War II song:
"There'll always be an England,
And England shall be free,
If England means as much to you
As England means to me.""
Hillary, the Gift That Keeps on Giving
Now its the AP on her case over the "exaggerations" about her trip to Bosnia some years ago. Ron Fournier says:
"Why wasn't the truth good enough for Hillary Rodham Clinton?
That's a question worth considering as the former first lady tries to contain damage to her credibility after getting caught exaggerating the danger of her 1996 trip to Bosnia......"
Maybe Dick Morris is on to something.
More later.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)