Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Sages for the Ages
What do Abraham Lincoln and P.T. Barnum have in common? Together they explain the Clinton phenomenon in American politics. Barnum commented that a fool is born every minute. Lincoln talked about fooling people: who, how many, and for how long. The Clintons have fooled ALL Barnum's fools for ALL of the last 16 years and the magic is still working. Unfortunately for the rest of us, they vote. Some, like Hollywood mogul David Geffen, who said the Clintons are "exceptionally good liars," stopped drinking the Kool-Aid in '07. I'm part of the some who were never fooled. Not because I am prescient, but because I lived in Germany for eight years. When Bill Clinton said in the summer of 1992 that the United States could have universal health just like Germany, I knew that if that was to be his model then he or someone should explain to the American people that their federal taxes would at least have to double. (In my naiveté I thought it would be Tom Brokaw) In 1992 Germans paid 50% plus of their wages in taxes in addition to 15% Value Added Tax on practically everything they bought, and at that their economy was beginning to falter. So, either the Clintons didn't know what they were talking about, or worse they did and were deliberately lying. We all know now-lying was the answer, and lying with the complicity of Tom Brokow and all the mainstream media. We should have paid more attention to P. T. and Honest Abe in '92 and then we would not be discussing the same lies with the same people all these years later.
When your adversary is self-destructing.....Get out of the Way
There have been numerous articles written about the Obama-Clinton feud and how the "Party" is upset-James Clyburn,a black Dem from SC and number 3 in the House, told Bill to Chill. Bill says he is Chill and he likes it when Hill and Barak fight-no doubt because for a change he is not the target of her wrath.
It is incumbent upon the conservative opposition to GET OUT OF THE WAY and let the Dems destroy each other. That possible destruction is the subject of the article below and could be decisive in November if Conservatives do not cloud the election with a purging fight of their own.
Not a sermon, just a thought
http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080123/NATION/218849601/1001
It is incumbent upon the conservative opposition to GET OUT OF THE WAY and let the Dems destroy each other. That possible destruction is the subject of the article below and could be decisive in November if Conservatives do not cloud the election with a purging fight of their own.
Not a sermon, just a thought
http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080123/NATION/218849601/1001
Saturday, January 19, 2008
Success in Iraq
>The Surge A Once Forlorn hope Now a big success
>By Ralph Peters
>As you read these lines, our troops are in the midst of Operation Phantom
Phoenix, a "mini-surge" to squeeze al Qaeda and its fast-dwindling band of allies
out of their few remaining safe havens in Iraq.
>Iraqi troops fight beside us against a common enemy. Vast swaths of the country
enjoy a newborn peace. Commerce thrives again. At the provincial and local
levels, the political progress has been remarkable.
>As for Operation Phantom Phoenix, our commanders expected terrorist dead-enders
to put up a fight. Instead, they ran,leaving behind only booby traps and disgust
among the Iraqis they tormented far too long.
>Well, they can run, but they can't hide. We dropped 20 tons of bombs on 40
terrorist targets yesterday, including safe houses, weapons caches and IED
factories. In a late-afternoon exchange with The Post, Gen. David Petraeus
characterized our current ops as "executing aggressively, pursuing tenaciously."
>The headlines at home? "Nine American Soldiers Killed." No mention of progress
or a fleeing enemy on the front pages. Just dead soldiers.
>Determined to elect a Democrat president, the"mainstream" media simply won't
accept our success."Impartial" journalists find a dark cloud in every silver
lining in Iraq. And the would-be candidates themselves continue to insist that we
should abandon Iraq immediately - as if time had stood still for the past year -
while hoping desperately for a catastrophe in Baghdad before November.
>These are the pols who insisted that the surge didn't have a chance. And nobody
calls 'em on it.
>Meanwhile, "Happy Birthday, Surge!"
>One year ago, "the surge" kicked off as a forlorn hope, our last chance to get
it right.
>The odds were against us. Terrorist violence was out of control. Baghdad was a
toxic wreck. Militias ruled, with ethnic cleansing rampant. And Iraq's
leaders couldn't even agree about which day of the week it was.
>We had never applied a coherent military or political policy in Iraq.Dithering
leaders, civilian and in uniform, squandered American and Iraqi lives. A unique
opportunity to jump start change in the Middle East had collapsed amid ideological
fantasies, a looting orgy for well-connected contractors and Washington's simple
unwillingness to really fight.
>Even the new US jefe maximo for Iraq, Petraeus,was a dark horse. He'd just
signed off on a counterinsurgency manual suggesting that the key to defeating
terrorists is to learn to pronounce Salaam aleikum (Peace be with you)properly.
>And then it all went right. Confounding Dems who expected him to preside over a
retreat, Petraeus took the fight to the enemy like a rat terrier on meth.
Jettisoning all the p.c. dogma, he turned out to be the first true warrior we put
in command in Iraq.
>Luck turned our way, too - and luck matters in war. Al Qaeda had managed to
alienate its erstwhile Sunni Arab allies in record time. Former insurgents
decided that the Great Satan America made a better dancing partner than Osama &
Co.
>Although analysts have missed it completely,the execution of Saddam Hussein
helped, too: It took away the rallying figure for Sunni hardliners and made it
easier for former insurgents to switch allegiance. The shock of Saddam's hanging
jarred Iraq's Sunni Arabs back to reality:Big Daddy with the mustache wasn't
coming back.
>Meanwhile, the rest of the population was just sick of the violence. The
merchant class wanted to get back to business. Tribal sheiks felt betrayed by
foreign terrorists. And mashallah! We had veteran commanders on the ground who
recognized the shifts underway in Iraqi society and capitalized on them.
>Petraeus manifested two stages of military genius: 1) He recognized exactly what
had to be done. 2) He didn't imagine he could do it all himself.
>Our new man in Baghdad had the wisdom to give subordinate commanders a long
leash when they caught a good scent.
>Without in any way detracting from Petraeus, the indispensable man, our
success this past year rested heavily upon field commanders far from the
flagpole having the savvy to realize that the local sheik just needed one last
bit of encouragement to jump sides.
>Oh, and the left turned out to be dead wrong,as usual. We hadn't created
an unlimited supply of terrorists. In fact, the supply turned out to be
very finite, to al Qaeda's chagrin. And killing themworked.
(One of the great untold stories of 2007 was the number of al Qaeda corpses.)
>And our former enemies have been killing them for us.
>Iraq still faces massive problems, of course. Thirty years of murderous
tyranny under Saddam followed by four years of Coalition fumbling left the
country a shambles. But Iraqis want it to get better.
>The military situation is well on the way to being under control. Now the
question is whether Iraq's leaders, especially those from the newly empowered
Shia, can put their country above their personal and parochial interests
(something that we don't expect of our own politicians these days).
>On our side, the immediate problem is that we lack diplomats as visionary and
capable as our soldiers. After almost a century, the Foggy Bottom fops still
can't see beyond a world gerrymandered by their European idols at Versailles.
>So here we are: The surge worked. It achieved all that we can expect of our
military. 2008 will tell us whether the politicians and diplomats, US and Iraqi,
can do their part.
>And a final note: The Post had over a week's advance warning of Operation
Phantom Phoenix, but didn't publish it. We don't share our nation's secrets
with our enemies.
>Ralph Peters' latest book is"Wars Of Blood And Faith."
> Ralph Peters, a retired Army Lt. Col., writes for the New York Post
>By Ralph Peters
>As you read these lines, our troops are in the midst of Operation Phantom
Phoenix, a "mini-surge" to squeeze al Qaeda and its fast-dwindling band of allies
out of their few remaining safe havens in Iraq.
>Iraqi troops fight beside us against a common enemy. Vast swaths of the country
enjoy a newborn peace. Commerce thrives again. At the provincial and local
levels, the political progress has been remarkable.
>As for Operation Phantom Phoenix, our commanders expected terrorist dead-enders
to put up a fight. Instead, they ran,leaving behind only booby traps and disgust
among the Iraqis they tormented far too long.
>Well, they can run, but they can't hide. We dropped 20 tons of bombs on 40
terrorist targets yesterday, including safe houses, weapons caches and IED
factories. In a late-afternoon exchange with The Post, Gen. David Petraeus
characterized our current ops as "executing aggressively, pursuing tenaciously."
>The headlines at home? "Nine American Soldiers Killed." No mention of progress
or a fleeing enemy on the front pages. Just dead soldiers.
>Determined to elect a Democrat president, the"mainstream" media simply won't
accept our success."Impartial" journalists find a dark cloud in every silver
lining in Iraq. And the would-be candidates themselves continue to insist that we
should abandon Iraq immediately - as if time had stood still for the past year -
while hoping desperately for a catastrophe in Baghdad before November.
>These are the pols who insisted that the surge didn't have a chance. And nobody
calls 'em on it.
>Meanwhile, "Happy Birthday, Surge!"
>One year ago, "the surge" kicked off as a forlorn hope, our last chance to get
it right.
>The odds were against us. Terrorist violence was out of control. Baghdad was a
toxic wreck. Militias ruled, with ethnic cleansing rampant. And Iraq's
leaders couldn't even agree about which day of the week it was.
>We had never applied a coherent military or political policy in Iraq.Dithering
leaders, civilian and in uniform, squandered American and Iraqi lives. A unique
opportunity to jump start change in the Middle East had collapsed amid ideological
fantasies, a looting orgy for well-connected contractors and Washington's simple
unwillingness to really fight.
>Even the new US jefe maximo for Iraq, Petraeus,was a dark horse. He'd just
signed off on a counterinsurgency manual suggesting that the key to defeating
terrorists is to learn to pronounce Salaam aleikum (Peace be with you)properly.
>And then it all went right. Confounding Dems who expected him to preside over a
retreat, Petraeus took the fight to the enemy like a rat terrier on meth.
Jettisoning all the p.c. dogma, he turned out to be the first true warrior we put
in command in Iraq.
>Luck turned our way, too - and luck matters in war. Al Qaeda had managed to
alienate its erstwhile Sunni Arab allies in record time. Former insurgents
decided that the Great Satan America made a better dancing partner than Osama &
Co.
>Although analysts have missed it completely,the execution of Saddam Hussein
helped, too: It took away the rallying figure for Sunni hardliners and made it
easier for former insurgents to switch allegiance. The shock of Saddam's hanging
jarred Iraq's Sunni Arabs back to reality:Big Daddy with the mustache wasn't
coming back.
>Meanwhile, the rest of the population was just sick of the violence. The
merchant class wanted to get back to business. Tribal sheiks felt betrayed by
foreign terrorists. And mashallah! We had veteran commanders on the ground who
recognized the shifts underway in Iraqi society and capitalized on them.
>Petraeus manifested two stages of military genius: 1) He recognized exactly what
had to be done. 2) He didn't imagine he could do it all himself.
>Our new man in Baghdad had the wisdom to give subordinate commanders a long
leash when they caught a good scent.
>Without in any way detracting from Petraeus, the indispensable man, our
success this past year rested heavily upon field commanders far from the
flagpole having the savvy to realize that the local sheik just needed one last
bit of encouragement to jump sides.
>Oh, and the left turned out to be dead wrong,as usual. We hadn't created
an unlimited supply of terrorists. In fact, the supply turned out to be
very finite, to al Qaeda's chagrin. And killing themworked.
(One of the great untold stories of 2007 was the number of al Qaeda corpses.)
>And our former enemies have been killing them for us.
>Iraq still faces massive problems, of course. Thirty years of murderous
tyranny under Saddam followed by four years of Coalition fumbling left the
country a shambles. But Iraqis want it to get better.
>The military situation is well on the way to being under control. Now the
question is whether Iraq's leaders, especially those from the newly empowered
Shia, can put their country above their personal and parochial interests
(something that we don't expect of our own politicians these days).
>On our side, the immediate problem is that we lack diplomats as visionary and
capable as our soldiers. After almost a century, the Foggy Bottom fops still
can't see beyond a world gerrymandered by their European idols at Versailles.
>So here we are: The surge worked. It achieved all that we can expect of our
military. 2008 will tell us whether the politicians and diplomats, US and Iraqi,
can do their part.
>And a final note: The Post had over a week's advance warning of Operation
Phantom Phoenix, but didn't publish it. We don't share our nation's secrets
with our enemies.
>Ralph Peters' latest book is"Wars Of Blood And Faith."
> Ralph Peters, a retired Army Lt. Col., writes for the New York Post
Thursday, January 17, 2008
To Stimulate or Not
Stimulating Proposals unlikely to have much effect
TALK of a slowing economy is causing talk of a stimulus package in Washington. Congress and the White House are venting proposals to spend $100 billion or more in response to growing concern we’re headed for a recession.
Our hearts are warmed by Washington’s compassion. But facts caution against getting too excited over anything the federal government might do.
There’s the issue of size — of the U.S. economy. The total value of all goods and services produced last year probably will top $14 trillion. While $100 billion is a lot of money, compared with the overall economy it’s small. Any expectation that a $100 billion stimulus package will turn the economy is like saying a nuclear aircraft carrier can be turned by a solitary tugboat.
Government can and should foster a better economic environment. The Federal Reserve has been cutting interest rates and has indicated it will keep trimming them to help the troubled real estate and lending markets.
Tax cuts also help. Congress should make the Bush tax cuts permanent, sparing individual Americans and U.S. businesses anxiety over whether reductions in income tax and capital gains rates and other features will expire after 2010 as currently scheduled, resulting in the greatest tax increase in U.S. history. The mere mention of the possibility chills spending and investment.
Instead, the White House and Congress are looking at one-time tax rebates for middle- and lower-income brackets — not exactly the folks who’re generating the capital and jobs integral to sustainable growth.
Thankfully, no one’s talking about gimmicks like a jobs program. At least not yet. Democrats would extend unemployment benefits, home-heating subsidies and food stamps. While those may provide some localized relief, in general Washington’s horizon is too near and small, and the remedies it’s likely to craft won’t have much effect on the aircraft carrier.
Reprinted from The Oklahoman
TALK of a slowing economy is causing talk of a stimulus package in Washington. Congress and the White House are venting proposals to spend $100 billion or more in response to growing concern we’re headed for a recession.
Our hearts are warmed by Washington’s compassion. But facts caution against getting too excited over anything the federal government might do.
There’s the issue of size — of the U.S. economy. The total value of all goods and services produced last year probably will top $14 trillion. While $100 billion is a lot of money, compared with the overall economy it’s small. Any expectation that a $100 billion stimulus package will turn the economy is like saying a nuclear aircraft carrier can be turned by a solitary tugboat.
Government can and should foster a better economic environment. The Federal Reserve has been cutting interest rates and has indicated it will keep trimming them to help the troubled real estate and lending markets.
Tax cuts also help. Congress should make the Bush tax cuts permanent, sparing individual Americans and U.S. businesses anxiety over whether reductions in income tax and capital gains rates and other features will expire after 2010 as currently scheduled, resulting in the greatest tax increase in U.S. history. The mere mention of the possibility chills spending and investment.
Instead, the White House and Congress are looking at one-time tax rebates for middle- and lower-income brackets — not exactly the folks who’re generating the capital and jobs integral to sustainable growth.
Thankfully, no one’s talking about gimmicks like a jobs program. At least not yet. Democrats would extend unemployment benefits, home-heating subsidies and food stamps. While those may provide some localized relief, in general Washington’s horizon is too near and small, and the remedies it’s likely to craft won’t have much effect on the aircraft carrier.
Reprinted from The Oklahoman
Monday, January 14, 2008
Social Security Facts
Perhaps we should think about fixing this mess before we add to entitlements and the deficit as per Hillary's plan to keep us from "sliding into recession" by bailing out Wall Street.
Not a sermon, just a thought.
Not a sermon, just a thought.
FYI - Just in case some of you aren't aware of this! Its easy to check out if you don't believe it. Be sure and show it to your kids. They need a little history lesson on what's what regarding our Social Security.
_____________________________________________
Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social
Security (FICA) Program He promised:
1.) That participation in the Program would be
completely voluntary,
2.) That the participants would only have to pay
1% of the fir st $1,400 of their annual
incomes into the Program,
3.) That the money the participants elected to put
into the Program would be deductible from
their income for tax purposes each year,
4.) That the money the participants put into the
independent "Trust Fund" rather than into the
General operating fund, and therefore, would
only be used to fund the Social Security
Retirement Program, and no other
Government program, and,
5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees
would never be taxed as income.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month -- and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to "put away" -- you may be interested in the following:
-------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the
independent "Trust Fund" and put it into the
General fund so that Congress could spend it?
A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratic
controlled House and Senate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax
deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?
A: The Democratic Party.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social
Security annuities?
A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the
"tie-breaking" deciding vote as President of the
Senate, while he was Vice President of the US.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving
annuity payments to immigrants?
AND MY FAVORITE:
A: That's right! Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party.
Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65,
began to receive Social Security payments! The
Democratic Party gave these payments to them,
even though they never paid a dime into it!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Then, after doing all this lying and thieving and violating
of the original contract (FICA), the Democrats
turn around and tell you that the Republicans
want to take your Social Security away!
And the worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it!
==============================================
If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of
awareness will be planted and maybe changes will
evolve Maybe not, some Democrats are awfully
sure of what isn't so.
Thursday, January 3, 2008
IOWA CAUCUS-WHO GOES, WHO STAYS
The Iowa Caucus is more a media event than an accurate predictor of presidential success. Since 1972 when George McGovern's campaign manager engineered the early January date for the caucus that was picked up and played up by the New York Times, the caucuses have been useful in determining who is competitive; that is who stays in and who drops out of the race. Since then for the Democrats on five occasions the winner of the caucus became the nominee for the party (1980, Carter; 1984, Mondale; 1996 Clinton; 2000 Gore; 2004 Kerry) Only once has that nominee won the Presidency. For the Republicans six winners became the nominee (1976 Ford; 1984 Reagan; 1992 HW Bush; 1996 Dole; 2000 and 2004 W. Bush). Three times the caucus has been predictive for the presidency on the Republican side: Reagan in 1984, and W. Bush in both his races. In fact, George W. Bush is the only non-incumbent to win the caucus, the nomination, and the Presidency. No incumbent has had opposition in the caucus except Jimmy Carter in 1980 (Ted Kennedy). With no incumbent in the caucus, winners only get the nomination half the time. In 1988 in both parties, it was the men in third place who went on to become the nominee.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Duking It Out
Publication:The Oklahoman;
Date:Nov 20, 2007;
Section:Opinion;
Page Number:12
Clinton answers the bell Hillary Clinton’s tendency is to call disagreements personal attacks.
AFTER performing dismally in the Democrats’ previous presidential debate, front-runner Hillary Clinton looked to write a new storyline when the field gathered for another round last week in Nevada. And she did. If anything, the news out of Las Vegas was that the lady can take a punch and knows a thing or two about hitting in the clinches. Caught with her gloves down when Democrats debated Oct. 30 in Philadelphia, Sen. Clinton went after her rivals in Nevada. And she didn’t hit like a girl. She caught “Gentleman” Johnny Edwards walking in, flush on the nose, when he accused her of waffling on the issues. Mudslinging, Clinton called it, and what’s more, she branded it inaccurate mudslinging. She tagged “Bomber” Barack Obama on the chin, suggesting he wasn’t strong enough on health care. Grrrrr! Fightin’ words. And so it went. If the other campaigns thought Clinton had a glass jaw after Philadelphia, they were mistaken. Clinton was ready this time around, made the most of a friendly crowd and demonstrated why she’s leading the Democratic pack. Certainly, it’s good to see her get away from complaining about “piling on,” which her campaign did after the mugging in Philly. In the City of Brotherly Love, Clinton got no love. She took some shots — especially on immigration — but drawing fire is to be expected by the front-runner. Later, her husband said it was the men ganging up on the girl. But it was more like the kids’ game of kill the man with the ball. Having the ball draws a crowd. The senator does better when she demonstrates command of the issues with detailed answers. Spewing fog is safer; Republican ad men watch from the tall grass for sound bites to use against her in the general election campaign, to say nothing of YouTube. But she has to do more than equivocate. Clinton also should show a thick skin. Her tendency is to call disagreements personal attacks. Her opponents are obliged to call her out, but that doesn’t make each contrast a personal attack. Indeed, Team Clinton is better than most at bare-knuckle brawling. So it’s a little hypocritical to seek immunity from criticism by claiming someone is engaging in the “politics of personal destruction,” as the Clintons coined it while Bill was president. Politics is a full-contact sport. As Sen. Clinton showed last week in Las Vegas, it’s all about the give and take — and being sure to do more of the giving than the taking.
Publication:The Oklahoman;
Date:Nov 20, 2007;
Section:Opinion;
Page Number:12
Duking it out
Clinton answers the bell Hillary Clinton’s tendency is to call disagreements personal attacks.
AFTER performing dismally in the Democrats’ previous presidential debate, front-runner Hillary Clinton looked to write a new storyline when the field gathered for another round last week in Nevada. And she did. If anything, the news out of Las Vegas was that the lady can take a punch and knows a thing or two about hitting in the clinches. Caught with her gloves down when Democrats debated Oct. 30 in Philadelphia, Sen. Clinton went after her rivals in Nevada. And she didn’t hit like a girl. She caught “Gentleman” Johnny Edwards walking in, flush on the nose, when he accused her of waffling on the issues. Mudslinging, Clinton called it, and what’s more, she branded it inaccurate mudslinging. She tagged “Bomber” Barack Obama on the chin, suggesting he wasn’t strong enough on health care. Grrrrr! Fightin’ words. And so it went. If the other campaigns thought Clinton had a glass jaw after Philadelphia, they were mistaken. Clinton was ready this time around, made the most of a friendly crowd and demonstrated why she’s leading the Democratic pack. Certainly, it’s good to see her get away from complaining about “piling on,” which her campaign did after the mugging in Philly. In the City of Brotherly Love, Clinton got no love. She took some shots — especially on immigration — but drawing fire is to be expected by the front-runner. Later, her husband said it was the men ganging up on the girl. But it was more like the kids’ game of kill the man with the ball. Having the ball draws a crowd. The senator does better when she demonstrates command of the issues with detailed answers. Spewing fog is safer; Republican ad men watch from the tall grass for sound bites to use against her in the general election campaign, to say nothing of YouTube. But she has to do more than equivocate. Clinton also should show a thick skin. Her tendency is to call disagreements personal attacks. Her opponents are obliged to call her out, but that doesn’t make each contrast a personal attack. Indeed, Team Clinton is better than most at bare-knuckle brawling. So it’s a little hypocritical to seek immunity from criticism by claiming someone is engaging in the “politics of personal destruction,” as the Clintons coined it while Bill was president. Politics is a full-contact sport. As Sen. Clinton showed last week in Las Vegas, it’s all about the give and take — and being sure to do more of the giving than the taking.
Date:Nov 20, 2007;
Section:Opinion;
Page Number:12
Clinton answers the bell Hillary Clinton’s tendency is to call disagreements personal attacks.
AFTER performing dismally in the Democrats’ previous presidential debate, front-runner Hillary Clinton looked to write a new storyline when the field gathered for another round last week in Nevada. And she did. If anything, the news out of Las Vegas was that the lady can take a punch and knows a thing or two about hitting in the clinches. Caught with her gloves down when Democrats debated Oct. 30 in Philadelphia, Sen. Clinton went after her rivals in Nevada. And she didn’t hit like a girl. She caught “Gentleman” Johnny Edwards walking in, flush on the nose, when he accused her of waffling on the issues. Mudslinging, Clinton called it, and what’s more, she branded it inaccurate mudslinging. She tagged “Bomber” Barack Obama on the chin, suggesting he wasn’t strong enough on health care. Grrrrr! Fightin’ words. And so it went. If the other campaigns thought Clinton had a glass jaw after Philadelphia, they were mistaken. Clinton was ready this time around, made the most of a friendly crowd and demonstrated why she’s leading the Democratic pack. Certainly, it’s good to see her get away from complaining about “piling on,” which her campaign did after the mugging in Philly. In the City of Brotherly Love, Clinton got no love. She took some shots — especially on immigration — but drawing fire is to be expected by the front-runner. Later, her husband said it was the men ganging up on the girl. But it was more like the kids’ game of kill the man with the ball. Having the ball draws a crowd. The senator does better when she demonstrates command of the issues with detailed answers. Spewing fog is safer; Republican ad men watch from the tall grass for sound bites to use against her in the general election campaign, to say nothing of YouTube. But she has to do more than equivocate. Clinton also should show a thick skin. Her tendency is to call disagreements personal attacks. Her opponents are obliged to call her out, but that doesn’t make each contrast a personal attack. Indeed, Team Clinton is better than most at bare-knuckle brawling. So it’s a little hypocritical to seek immunity from criticism by claiming someone is engaging in the “politics of personal destruction,” as the Clintons coined it while Bill was president. Politics is a full-contact sport. As Sen. Clinton showed last week in Las Vegas, it’s all about the give and take — and being sure to do more of the giving than the taking.
Publication:The Oklahoman;
Date:Nov 20, 2007;
Section:Opinion;
Page Number:12
Duking it out
Clinton answers the bell Hillary Clinton’s tendency is to call disagreements personal attacks.
AFTER performing dismally in the Democrats’ previous presidential debate, front-runner Hillary Clinton looked to write a new storyline when the field gathered for another round last week in Nevada. And she did. If anything, the news out of Las Vegas was that the lady can take a punch and knows a thing or two about hitting in the clinches. Caught with her gloves down when Democrats debated Oct. 30 in Philadelphia, Sen. Clinton went after her rivals in Nevada. And she didn’t hit like a girl. She caught “Gentleman” Johnny Edwards walking in, flush on the nose, when he accused her of waffling on the issues. Mudslinging, Clinton called it, and what’s more, she branded it inaccurate mudslinging. She tagged “Bomber” Barack Obama on the chin, suggesting he wasn’t strong enough on health care. Grrrrr! Fightin’ words. And so it went. If the other campaigns thought Clinton had a glass jaw after Philadelphia, they were mistaken. Clinton was ready this time around, made the most of a friendly crowd and demonstrated why she’s leading the Democratic pack. Certainly, it’s good to see her get away from complaining about “piling on,” which her campaign did after the mugging in Philly. In the City of Brotherly Love, Clinton got no love. She took some shots — especially on immigration — but drawing fire is to be expected by the front-runner. Later, her husband said it was the men ganging up on the girl. But it was more like the kids’ game of kill the man with the ball. Having the ball draws a crowd. The senator does better when she demonstrates command of the issues with detailed answers. Spewing fog is safer; Republican ad men watch from the tall grass for sound bites to use against her in the general election campaign, to say nothing of YouTube. But she has to do more than equivocate. Clinton also should show a thick skin. Her tendency is to call disagreements personal attacks. Her opponents are obliged to call her out, but that doesn’t make each contrast a personal attack. Indeed, Team Clinton is better than most at bare-knuckle brawling. So it’s a little hypocritical to seek immunity from criticism by claiming someone is engaging in the “politics of personal destruction,” as the Clintons coined it while Bill was president. Politics is a full-contact sport. As Sen. Clinton showed last week in Las Vegas, it’s all about the give and take — and being sure to do more of the giving than the taking.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)