No wonder one Hillary supporter from Oklahoma thinks Tim Russert should be shot.
Saint Hillary is not to be queried on anything of substance or be held to her words.
Posted by
LewWaters
at
10:27 AM
Never give in, never give in, never, never, never, never, in nothing, great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honor and good sense. - Winston Churchill
“A veteran - whether active duty, retired, national guard, or reserve - is someone who, at one point in his or her life, wrote a blank check made payable to The 'United States of America', for an amount of 'up to and including my life.'” (Author unknown)
---------------------------------
I stood up, I showed up, I stepped forward. I raised my right hand, I stood in the gap, I walked in the fire. I did not run, I did not hide, I did not dodge, I did not evade.
Consequently...
I have nothing to prove, no one to convince, those who matter, already know. Those who don't, never will. (Author Unknown)
-----------------------------------
Clark County Conservative Clark County and Southwest Washington Conservative issues.
The U.S. Army Historical Foundation
African-Americans, are you tired of being short-changed by the Democrats you keep voting for? Fed up with their empty promises while you stay poor? Can’t understand why your lives never improve? You will find answers at the National Black Republican Association
The Myth of the Racist Republicans
Move On Up.org a beacon for African-Americans who value individual freedoms, the traditional institute of the family, and building a strong country on moral values and free enterprise.
Posts
6 comments:
Hillary's Defense of her Gaffe
It's been a bad week for Hillary Clinton. Seemingly on her way to a Democratic coronation as the nominee for president, she had a horrible debate with her comments about giving driver licenses to illegal aliens in New York. ("I am for it and against it."- or something like that), as well as her weak response to a question as to whether she would agree to the release of documents pertaining to her actions as First Lady. Well she and her defenders have been quick to mount a great defense. First, it was the fault of the media (Tim Russert) for directing hard questions only to her, a woman. Then, it was the fault of her competitors-all men-who have ganged up on a woman. Neither of these arguments holds any water whatsoever.
Let me address the first complaint about Tim Russert. Mr Russert is a liberal Democrat. To his credit, he usually tries to be fair and ask relevant questions, unlike most of his colleagues. As Senator from New York, it was entirely relevant to ask Senator Clinton her opinion of the decision by New York State Attoney General, Elliot Spitzer to give driver licenses to illegal aliens. When she tried to answer the question in her usual evasive manner that would offend no one, she was called on it and Russert, appropriately, asked a follow up question to pin down her position. It should be added that may be the first time any member of the media has ever tried to pin her down with a hard question.
Does Mrs Clinton want to see licenses given to illegal aliens? Of course she does. She doesn't want to offend the Hispanic lobby-not that all Hispanics favor such a move. Also consider this: If Clinton goes up against Giuliani in the general election, she is going to need all the votes she can get to carry New York. Make no mistake. A US state driver license is the main form of picture ID in our country. With that piece of ID, other doors open up-including voter registration, where many states including California, are prohibited from checking a voter's citizenship or even ID at the polls.
Yesterday, Clinton appeared at her alma mater, Wellesley University, where she made a pointed reference to the "Boy's Club"-meaning her male colleagues in the debates- a brazen move to gain sympathy as a woman being ganged up on by the "Boys". It sparked loud applause. Indeed, aside from the fact that Obama, Edwards and Dodd jumped on her during the debate, Obama has now criticized her for wanting to be treated in a preferential manner. His criticism is appropriate. Here is why.
Mrs Clinton is running for President- Commander-in Chief of the Armed Forces. In fact, she is the front-runner by a wide margin. It is she who would take us into war. It is she who we expect to stand up to Iran, North Korea and world-wide Islamic terror. If she cannot stand up to this kind of give and take from her male competitors for the nomination, then how can we expect her to be the strong kind of leader that we need in these troubled times? As Obama said, she cannot say, "Don't pick on me." and expect to be considered a serious candidate for president. As front-runner, she should expect to be attacked by the others.
To me, this is further evidence that Clinton would be annihilated in a debate with any of the Republican front-runners. Behind all the glitter, spin and propaganda about her, she is a dishonest charlatan who cannot be truthful about where she really wants to take this country (into socialism). Her shifty lies and evasions should be obvious to anyone watching her on TV or in person. No wonder many Republicans want her to win the nomination.
gary fouse
fousesquawk
I couldn't agree more, Gary. While we may be somewhat used to politicians talking out of both sides of their mouths, Hillary doesn't possess the skill and charisma of her husband to be able to talk out of both sides at the same time.
While this incident exposed a defect we on the right have known was there all along with Hillary, I hope similar hard questions will be put directly to the others in the Democrat field so America may see just what they really are.
So far, most of them have faced very soft questions revealing little of their nature to voters.
That little calculator thing, does nothing.
It comes out with the exact same results, even if I give it opposite answers.
I don't think it gave me any results at all, just averages, of which my own answers had nothing to do with.
I thought it was going to tell me which candidate most agreed with me.
Odd experience, Coboble. I tried it a couple times and got different results with different answers. Did you set the importance of the answers you gave?
Answering truthfully of how I think and feel, I was told Duncan Hunter, which I already knew was who I support. Answering as liberal as I could think and not setting the importance of the replies, I was shown Mike Gavel.
Setting the importance to most answers as 'high' gave me Kucinich
Go figure. I don't know why you got the same results.
I think that Duncan Hunter needs someone to fix up his mySpace page.
He seems like an all right guy.
Do you think he even has a chance?
I think if Hillary gets the D nomination and Rudy the R nomination that the chances of a viable 3rd party candidate will go up.
The more people that hear his words, Coboble, the more support he is getting. It is growing, slowly, but surely. If he receives enough remains to be seen, but it won't be because we aren't trying.
As for his MySpace page, I'm sure they would appreciate any help or ideas to improve his chances. Why not contact them with your ideas?
If, as assumed by many, it comes down to a Hillary vs Rudy election, my guess is a third and possibly even a fourth, party candidacy will occur. And I don't mean in a small way. What remains to be seen is just how well they would do, but I imagine they would fair a lot better this tiime than ever before.
Post a Comment