McClintock Rawks

mcclintock

Tom McClintock is a well known California state legislator and a man after my own heart. Sadly, when the scandalous governor of California, Gray Davis, was recalled, rather than putting Tom in the driver’s seat, the people of California opted for the Governator. The fallout from whom we are still experiencing.

Tom gave a speech recently and I reprint it in full here. It’s worth the time to read, at least I think so.

The Eve of the American Reawakening

Rep. McClintock gave the following speech to the Council for National Policy in Washington DC on May 16, 2009.

Here, in the winter of our despair, I want to pause to take stock of the state of our nation on this date of May 16th.

Voters have swept our party from office after a failed Republican administration that abandoned conservative principles. The most left-wing President in our nation’s history has taken office with a 66 percent approval rating and strong majorities in both houses. His agenda includes radical intervention into energy markets, highly inflationary monetary policy, a determination to dramatically reduce our military spending while dramatically increasing overall domestic spending with deficits as far as the eye can see.

That was the state of our nation on May 16th…1977.

You remember those years. Jimmy Carter’s policies brought us double digit unemployment AND double digit inflation; interest rates at 21 percent, mile-long lines around gas stations, embassies seized with impunity and a military so weak it couldn’t even project a simple rescue mission.

But then, just a few years later, it was morning again in America. Four years of Jimmy Carter produced eight years of Ronald Reagan, and looking back on it, that wasn’t such a bad trade, was it?

Abraham Lincoln once said that if the voters get their backsides too close to the fire, they’ll just have to sit on the blisters for a while.

The American people have some very painful blisters to sit on for the next four years, but the good news is that they’re already starting to figure that out.

On inauguration day, the Rasmussen poll gave the President a net approval rating of 28 points. Yesterday, that figure was seven points. During the fall campaign, Rasmussen reported that the generic Democratic candidate for Congress had a 16-point advantage over the generic Republican candidate. As of May 10th, Rasmussen reports the generic Republican now has a one-point advantage over the Democrat.

Although the President’s personal popularity remains high, most polls are showing a decidedly increasing skepticism over his policies. For example, yesterday Rasmussen reported that by a margin of 57 to 19 percent, Americans say that tax increases will hurt the economy.

What we are seeing in the polls is the gradual awakening of the American people. When things are going reasonably well – or even reasonably poorly – most people don’t pay a lot of attention to politics because there are too many other pressing things going on in their lives. But when a crisis approaches, that’s when you see the strength of a Democracy emerge, and it is an awesome thing. One by one, individual citizens sense the approach of a common danger and rise to the occasion. They begin focusing a great deal of attention on politics and they start making very good decisions.

We saw that two summers ago, when the McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill was set to glide through both houses of Congress on broad bi-partisan majorities. But the American people had finally had enough of being told there was nothing the government cared to do to defend the integrity of our borders and the sovereignty of our nation. And McCain Kennedy didn’t even make it to a final vote.

We saw that last summer, when gasoline prices hit $4 a gallon and the American people had finally had enough of being told there was nothing the government cared to do to get out of the way of domestic oil production. And in the span of just a few months, they turned 180 degrees on the issue of offshore oil drilling and nuclear power.

We saw that just a month ago, when Rick Santelli told a routine cable broadcast that he was sick and tired of being forced to pay his neighbor’s mortgage – and the whole trading floor erupted in applause. He suggested that Americans need to rekindle the spirit that produced the Boston Tea Party, and suddenly, from every corner of America over 800 taxpayer protests erupted across the country on April 15th. These protests weren’t sponsored by parties or politicians. They were a grassroots uprising by a silent majority that will not remain silent any longer.

And yet I read the other day of a new chorus of hand-wringing that said we had to get over our nostalgia for Reagan, that we had to be mindful and respectful of the fact the “other side has something,” and that we have nothing, and that “you can’t beat something with nothing.

It’s the same kind of hand-wringing that Ulysses S. Grant confronted at the Battle of the Wilderness among generals overawed by Robert E. Lee’s aggressiveness, audacity and success. Grant, turned to his distraught generals, and said “Bobby Lee this, and Bobby Lee that! You’d think he’s going to do double somersaults and outflank us on both sides and the rear. Stop thinking about what Bobby Lee’s going to do to us, and start thinking about what we’re going to do to Bobby Lee. Now get some guns up here.”

To those who say we should put the Reagan era behind us – I have a better idea. Let’s put the Bush era behind us.

To those who say we should redefine our principles, I have a better idea: we don’t need to redefine our principles; we need to return to them.

To those of the Republican establishment, who misled our party for years, who dismantled so much of what Ronald Reagan accomplished and now tell us “the other side has something” and we have nothing. To them I can’t improve upon Cromwell’s words: “You have sat here too long for any good you have been doing; it is not fit that you should sit here any longer. You shall now give way to better men. Now depart and let us have done with you, I say, in the name of God, GO!”

“The other side has something and we have nothing?”

What is the something the other side has – that some say we have to be respectful and mindful of?

Statism. Shortage. Paternalism. That’s their “something” that seems to so overawe and over-impress these scions of a failed party establishment.

Statism, Shortage and Paternalism is what we are told to be mindful and respectful of? I don’t think so.

Their statism is “something” so extreme that the entire national debt accumulated from the first day of the George Washington administration to the very last day of the George W. Bush administration will literally double in the next five years and triple in the next ten.

The tax increases already proposed to support it will rob every family of more than $2,500 from its purchasing power every year. We’re supposed to respect that? The American people don’t respect it. The American people know that you cannot spend your way rich; that you cannot borrow your way out of debt and you cannot tax your way to prosperity. And they know that if you live well beyond your means today, you must of necessity live well BELOW your means in the future. And that’s not a future we want for our children.

Their entire policy is predicated on maintaining shortages of everything from health care to energy and then using the force of government to ration that shortage according to their own whims. The “something” that they propose to solve their government-induced shortages is having bureaucrats tell us what medical treatments our kids may have and when they may have them; raising energy prices until we bicycle to work; telling us what kind of light bulbs to use, where to set our thermostats, when to use our appliances.

And then there’s Paternalism. That’s what Rick Santelli was talking about. When your neighbor buys the house he can’t afford – it’s now your job to pay his mortgage. When the fraternity brothers of Paulson and Geitner party their investments into the ground – now it’s your job to cover their losses. When the reckless country-clubbers of General Motors and Chrysler give away the farm to the UAW – now it’s your job to make up the difference, and by the way, now it’s Barney Frank’s job to tell you what kind of car you may buy.

That is the “something” that seems to send these self-described “New Republicans,” into paroxysms of awe and policy-envy.

That’s the “something” that some people are so deathly afraid of saying “NO” to. Churchill said, “Alexander the Great remarked that the people of Asia were slaves because they had not learned to pronounce the word “NO.” Let that not be the epitaph of the English-speaking peoples or of parliamentary democracy … There, in one single word, is the resolve which the forces of freedom and progress, of tolerance and goodwill, should take.”

What is the “nothing” that we have that so dismays and disgusts these same messiahs of mediocrity – this “nothing” that’s convinced them that we must wean ourselves from our unseemly nostalgia with such irrelevant has-beens as Reagan, and Lincoln and Jefferson – I add the others because they stood for exactly the same principles as Reagan.

We stand for freedom.

We stand for abundance.

We stand for individual responsibility.

Freedom. Abundance and Responsibility. That is our platform.

Those who call that “nothing” are the same failed leaders who disdained it during the Reagan years and dismantled it as soon as the Reagan years were over.
They stand for statism. We stand for freedom: The God-given right to enjoy the fruit of our own labor; the right to raise our children according to our own values; the right to express our opinions and our faith freely and without reserve; the right to defend ourselves and our families; the right to enter into voluntary associations with each other for our mutual betterment without an army of busy-bodies telling us what is best for us.

They stand for the rationing of shortage. We stand for abundance: what happens when free men and free women enjoy the liberty to go as far as their desire, talent and imagination can guide them and as far as their labor, industry and enterprise can take them. Societies prosper when freedom protects the rights of each of us to decide on our own what we will produce and what we will consume. Government exists to protect the conditions that produce abundance, not to ration shortages that government has caused.

They stand for paternalism. We stand for personal responsibility. That means you stand by your promises. That means you tell your customers the truth about your products and investments. It means if you bring a child into the world then by God you look after that child. And it means if you make a bad decision, you set it right and you learn from it – and you realize that the bad decisions we all make from time to time is the price we pay for the freedom to make all the good decisions in our lives.

Freedom. Abundance. Responsibility. Ladies and Gentlemen, that ain’t “nothing.” That’s everything.

That’s everything our country is, everything our country stands for. That’s everything ten generations of Americans have fought to defend. That is everything that the happiness and prosperity of society depends upon. That is everything that we have – everything that we are – everything that we hope as Americans.

Jefferson called it the “sum of good government” which he described as “a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.”

At the risk of politically incorrect nostalgia, nine years before he became Governor of California, Reagan put it this way during a commencement address to his alma mater. He said, “This is a simple struggle between those of us who believe that man has the dignity and sacred right and the ability to choose and shape his own destiny and those who do not so believe. This irreconcilable conflict is between those who believe in the sanctity of individual freedom and those who believe in the supremacy of the state.”

Lincoln said much the same. He said, “That is the real issue. That is the issue that will continue in this country when these poor tongues of Judge Douglas and myself shall be silent. It is the eternal struggle between these two principles – right and wrong – throughout the world. They are the two principles that have stood face to face from the beginning of time; and will ever continue to struggle. The one is the common right of humanity, and the other is the divine right of kings. It is the same principle in whatever shape it develops itself. It is the same spirit that says, ‘You work and toil and earn bread, and I’ll eat it.’ No matter in what shape it comes, whether from the mouth of a king who seeks to bestride the people of his own nation and live by the fruit of their labor, or from one race of men as an apology for enslaving another race, it is the same tyrannical principle.”

And today, our country faces this tyrannical principle in actual practice.

The Left would condemn our children to the failure of government schools run by teacher unions. We would liberate parents to select the school and the teacher that best meets their child’s needs and hold the school and the teacher accountable for the results.

The Left would condemn our families to sky-high energy prices; we would free America’s vast energy reserves and limitless supplies of clean, cheap electricity through nuclear power, hydro-electricity and clean coal.

The Left would condemn our health care to bureaucrats who’ll decide what treatments we may have and when we may have them. We would provide the tax credits to bring a basic health plan within the financial reach of every family – a health plan they could chose, they could own, and they could change if it failed to serve them.

The Left would deny union members the right to a secret ballot; we would free employers to pay bonuses to union members above and beyond their union contract.

The Left would plunder our children of their prosperity tomorrow to pay for the unprecedented expansion of government today. We insist on a government that does what families do every day: work hard, waste not and live within our means. And that promise needs to begin with renouncing the failed Bush administration that violated every one of these tenets.

The Left offers stifling central planning to manage every aspect of our lives; they offer higher and higher taxes and more and more costly regulations. We offer freedom.

It’s ironic that the same rocket scientists who say we have to listen more to the opposition’s message obviously haven’t been listening to our own.

We have the most powerful message in the history of mankind. It is freedom. And to those who say we have no messengers – look around at each other. Yes, Ronald Reagan was a great communicator, but as William Saracino has said, “He wasn’t communicating cookie recipes.” And if we learned anything at all from that great man, it was that every one of us needs to be a messenger.

In February of 1861, Abraham Lincoln’s inaugural train paused in Indianapolis and he spoke these words: “Of the people when they rise in mass on behalf of the Union and the liberties of their country, it may be said ‘The gates of hell shall not prevail against them. I appeal to you constantly to bear in mind that not with the President, not with the office-seekers, but with you is the question, ‘Shall the liberties of this country be preserved to the latest generation.’”

That is our clarion call. Ladies and Gentlemen, what has happened to our nation has happened on our generation’s watch, and it is our generation’s responsibility to set things right.

Does anyone here have any doubt how this battle will end as long as we stand firm? I think the Left is starting to figure that out too, and behind the smarmy smirks of superiority, their real sentiments are showing through.

The Department of Homeland Security refuses to use the word “terrorist” to describe Al Qaeda. It has replaced the term “acts of terrorism” with the term “man-made disaster” so as not to offend Islamic extremists. But it doesn’t hesitate to declare every American who believes in Constitutional principles or who defended those principles on far off battlefields as “potential domestic terrorists.”

That offers real insight into the Left. Churchill put it this way: “They are afraid of words and thoughts. Words spoken abroad, thoughts stirring at home – all the more powerful because forbidden – terrify them. A little mouse – a little tiny mouse – of thought enters the room and these mighty potentates are thrown into panic. They make frantic efforts to bar out thoughts and words; they are afraid of the workings of the human mind.”

Think about what terrifies the Left. Letters to the editor. Calls to talk shows. Blogs on the internet. Comments after newspaper editorials. Taxpayer tea parties.

Why did they react so viscously to the tea parties? You remember the tale of the “Emperor’s New Clothes” – once the townspeople realized that there were many others who believed as they believed, the façade collapsed.

So let’s not disappoint our friends on the left. Let us all here today resolve that we’re going to spend at least ten hours a week agitating and educating in every forum we can find.

When the American Founders adopted the Declaration of Independence, they pledged to each other their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor. They were speaking quite literally. When they pledged their lives, they meant it. The King had already warned that a noose awaited every one of them. When they pledged their fortunes, they meant it. Lewis Morris had just received word that his estate in New York had been burned to the ground, that his family had become refugees and that his two sons had enlisted in the rag-tag army around General Washington.

How little history demands of our generation in defense of those same principles. We aren’t asked to pledge our entire fortunes – just a small portion of our earnings in support of the causes and candidates we believe in. We aren’t asked to pledge our lives – only a small portion of our lives until we have set things right.

But our sacred honor – that history demands of us in full. That we leave today highly resolved not to fail or falter until we have restored freedom as the cornerstone of our government. Because if we fail to do that, then what history will demand of our children and grandchildren is unthinkable.

So let us honor the memory of Reagan and Lincoln and Jefferson and all those placed freedom above security and principle above politics. To those among us who would do otherwise, as Shakespeare said, “He who hath no stomach for this fight, let him now depart.”

And then let us together write the next chapter of the American Republic: that just when it appeared that the principles of American freedom were faltering, this generation rediscovered them, rallied to them, revived them, restored them, polished them and passed them on shining and inviolate to the many succeeding generations that followed.

If you’d like to know more about Tom, click here.

Advertisements

Love Her or Hate Her…

Sarah Palin, the pubbie VP candidate is certainly the topic of discussion around the old water cooler. Personally, I dig her for a variety of reasons but this is not about that. Well maybe it is a little. Click the link and watch one of the best Saturday Night Live skits I’ve seen in a while.

UPDATE: For those of you who can’t get the first link to work try this one – apparently YouTube is blocking all the Sarah Palin vids???? Strange, eh?

You have to give her a little credit on this one and it’s pretty damn funny. Have a good weekend. 😉

Is Hillary Still Gasping for Air or is She Dead in the Water?

I read this article today. It’s mild and a bit bitchy, true. But I have to wonder why it was written at all, if there is no real threat perceived. I know for months many have subscribed to the view that an Obama(nomi)nation is inevitable and frankly, Hillary wasted all that money and those black pant suits for nothing. Apparently she was only there to make it look like he had competition, right?

Hmm…here’s the thing, we all know Hil and she isn’t a quitter. Far from it. I mean the woman who coined the phrase “vast rightwing conspiracy” has always had many tricks up her sleeves and I doubt we even know the half of them. She stuck it out with Bill through 2 or 3 dreary govenortarial terms in Arkansas, then the campaigning, that tacky Fleetwood Mac soundtrack, Monica-Gate, Impeachment, parsing over the meaning of the word is – White Water, the Rose Law Firm, Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Vince Harris and lots of bad hairdo’s, so now when her lifelong dream is actually on the table, she’s gonna nod, pat Barack on the fanny and say, you go, guy? Doesn’t sound like Hillary to me. Seriously, does it sound like Hillary to you?

The Dem rules for their convention and nomination process are so complex and contingent on such a wide range of variables that I doubt most scholars could even understand them, much less know when they are being violated. And there is this whole super-delegate thing which apparently (start biting your nails, folks) we won’t know the result of until the actual convention (and when the hell is that?). Conceivably, they could all decide they are going to vote for her. Many of them are not telling who they plan to vote for and since they’ve now decided that Hil will somehow be part of the nomination process, who the hell knows what might happen?

Sure, the Obama camp seems cool and not worried but the fact that they just keep repeating that makes me think they aren’t so cool and could be worried. Plus there are a lot of very bitter Hil supporters who might just want to teach somebody a lesson.

Since you all know I have no vested interest in either candidate because I’d rather extract my own teeth than vote for either one, I just find this an amusing and interesting proposition. Having watched Hil over the years manage to skirt prosecution, jail time and a much needed makeover, I have a very hard time believing this is just going to go clippity clop. Actually, secretly, I’m hoping it doesn’t if for no other reason than this has been the boringest presidential season I have ever witnessed in my entire life. The candidates on both sides couldn’t be more predictable, nor more boring if they tried.

Anyway, I’m wondering what y’all think – any opinions, does the Barack-man have it in the bag or will we be witness to some bizarre out of left field smashdown the likes of which we’ve never seen before? I hope so, I have a lot of popcorn and diet coke waiting and there’s nothing on television worth watching.

And as a bonus sidenote – Grit has got a wailing good tale to tell, which dovetails with this in a twisted nice way.

UPDATE: For a much harder hitting piece with well researched info and abundant links go see what Ange has to say on Mr. Obama. Spoiler: did you know that Obama pays his bloggers? What’s up with that?

It’s a Taxing Situation…

You know, rather than discuss the candidates per se – let’s look at an issue for a change. There has been, over the years, a lot of rhetoric about taxes – good and bad.

The Dems are fond of saying that the Pubbies, particularly Bush, only want to give tax breaks to the rich. While I think that most of us realize that at best, this is an exaggeration – I think a little actual information is a better way to consider things.

And as they say, the truth shall set you free. Honestly, I didn’t realize myself that there was such a difference – I did notice my taxes have been lower for the last several years, but since I’ve never really made much money, I guess the change didn’t really hit me.

But I do think it is noteworthy. The following information came from here, if you want to check it out.

Taxes under Clinton 1999 Taxes under Bush 2008
Single making 30K – tax $8,400 Single making 30K – tax $4,500
Single making 50K – tax $14,000 Single making 50K – tax $12,500
Single making 75K – tax $23,250 Single making 75K – tax $18,750
Married making 60K – tax $16,800 Married making 60K- tax $9,000
Married making 75K – tax $21,000 Married making 75K – tax $18,750
Married making 125K – tax $38,750 Married making 125K – tax $31,250

It is interesting when you consider that many people believe that Bush is not giving them a break tax wise, and that Bill Clinton was the one who was looking out for them. That Clinton had such a great economy and Bush ruined it. The truth is, that the unemployment rate has been consistently lower under Bush than it ever was under Clinton, the stock market has reached all time highs under Bush and despite the trillions of dollars that 911 cost us, we have thrived. Part of the reason for this is the tax cuts.

Both Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama have said they intend to end the Bush tax cuts, if elected. So, if that comes to pass, instead of paying 15%-25% of your income – you will be paying 28%-31% of your income – providing they go with the previous Bill Clinton levels. However, knowing politicians as we do – they will likely justify even higher rates based on inflation, cost of living and cost of all their new programs – so we may well see tax levels closer to 40% on the high end.

Yep, I’d have to agree – they surely do want change. The question are you willing to pay for it?

WC

(H.T. to Ger for passing on the info. )

This is a graph for Grace and connects to my response to her comment. WC

Super Tuesday

I would be lying if I said I wasn’t absolutely obsessed with politics right now. I am. Poor me, because really the long and short of it is, what will be will be. Not that I’m fatalistic really, but I do realize that all I can control are my own actions – not those of others and I suppose we will see what in fact, the American people really want.

While all of the candidates leave much to be desired, some are much worse than others.

Since most of you know that I am a conservative, it’s not likely I would vote for a liberal and if I were a liberal I would cringe at my choices. Hillary is like coffee, either you love it or you hate it. And while Barack Obama scores high marks in the personality department and the presence department and the intelligence department – he still has a nearly identical platform as Hillary. If you removed the personality factor – in terms of the issues there really isn’t much difference. And while I know that there are those who feel this is a very important election because it may result in either the first woman or the first African-American to hold the office – I honestly don’t believe that is a significant enough reason to vote for either of them. That being said, I would vote for Barack, if he were a conservative – I actually like the guy and think regardless of what happens has a definite future in politics in a big way.

As to my side of the aisle – I haven’t been excited about any of them very much. Except McCain and that is in a bad way. Read this. Frankly, I don’t understand why he isn’t running against Hillary and Barack right now -because if you close your eyes – again one doesn’t see much difference.

But now that the field has thinned considerably for the conservative side I am on board with Romney. While he has things that don’t thrill me – he is intelligent, well mannered, has proven track records in management, turning deficits into surpluses and something else I can’t really put my finger on. There is something about the man that makes me feel he can be trusted in the important issues. I don’t know why – perhaps it is the fact that he is even tempered, seems virtually unflappable and seems presidential. Or maybe it’s something else. At any rate – I can’t vote for McCain, Huckabee is a poor imitation of Clinton and Ron Paul is just to loopy to take seriously. So there you have it.

Who are you pulling the lever for on Tuesday and why? I’d really like to hear people’s thoughts on this if you care to share.

WC

Dear Editor

(Imagine my delight, when I discovered yesterday that the NY Times had some advice for Republican/conservative voters. Quotes from article in italics and block quoted. WC)


Dear NY Times Editor,
Thank you so much for taking the time out of your busy schedule to do an in-depth analysis on which Republican candidate is best suited to become the President of the United States and for whom I (we) should vote.

We have strong disagreements with all the Republicans running for president. The leading candidates have no plan for getting American troops out of Iraq. They are too wedded to discredited economic theories and unwilling even now to break with the legacy of President Bush. We disagree with them strongly on what makes a good Supreme Court justice.

Still, there is a choice to be made, and it is an easy one. Senator John McCain of Arizona is the only Republican who promises to end the George Bush style of governing from and on behalf of a small, angry fringe. With a record of working across the aisle to develop sound bipartisan legislation, he would offer a choice to a broader range of Americans than the rest of the Republican field.

Being the backward, bible-thumping, cousin-marrying, gun-toting, truck-driving, beer- drinking, country-music-listening, grade school-educated moron that I am, I truly appreciate your going through the pain of the selection process for me (us).

After all, there are only twenty four hours in the day and formulating vast right wing conspiracies take up a good portion of that, with precious little left for bible study and refining effective approaches to perpetrating hate crimes. So, as you can see, I don’t have the time to contemplate anything as inconsequential as who might lead the free world for the next four years.

To say that I am deeply touched by your concern for my political welfare doesn’t begin to describe my feelings about your ever-so-helpful article (endorsement) about/of Senator John McCain.

And what a candidate you have selected for me (us)! There is no Republican on Earth more like Hillary Clinton than Citizen McCain. His uncanny ability to co-opt liberal causes and betray his party and principles of same are unparallelled in the civilized world.

But Mr. McCain took a stand, just as he did in recognizing the threat of global warming early. He has been a staunch advocate of campaign finance reform, working with Senator Russ Feingold, among the most liberal of Democrats, on groundbreaking legislation, just as he worked with Senator Edward Kennedy on immigration reform.

Like Mrs. Clinton, Senator McCain has truly mastered the skill of talking out of both sides of his mouth whilst never moving his lips.

We have shuddered at Mr. McCain’s occasional, tactical pander to the right because he has demonstrated that he has the character to stand on principle. He was an early advocate for battling global warming and risked his presidential bid to uphold fundamental American values in the immigration debate. A genuine war hero among Republicans who proclaim their zeal to be commander in chief, Mr. McCain argues passionately that a country’s treatment of prisoners in the worst of times says a great deal about its character. …

Mr. McCain was one of the first prominent Republicans to point out how badly the war in Iraq was being managed. We wish he could now see as clearly past the temporary victories produced by Mr. Bush’s unsustainable escalation, which have not led to any change in Iraq’s murderous political calculus. At the least, he owes Americans a real idea of how he would win this war, which he says he can do.

For all I know, he is actually a marionette getting his jollies by having your hand up his ass. Which could explain that silly, goofy grin he often wears, as well as his Howdy Doody voice

You make a fine case for endorsing the Senator who never met a liberal cause he didn’t like and a very convincing argument to vote for him – And iff’in I was a Democrat, I certainly would.

Still, I do appreciate that a newspaper with the stature of The New York Times, would have my back in terms of my electorate health and I will check back later to see who you might be endorsing for the upcoming election of the local dogcatcher and the Hunkiest Garbage Man Contest.

It’s nice to know that a main stream publication can be fair and objective in its recommendations to one and all.

Sincerely,
Writer Chick – who apparently fell off the turnip truck yesterday.

If you want to read the article, you can find it here.

Update:

To read a little about McCain’s legendary temperment check this out.

Ah, the Primaries – Coming to a Town Near You

Okay, this post won’t mean much to you if you don’t reside in California – but for those of you who do, I thought I’d give you my take on what’s on the ballot for we who live in the land of nuts and twigs. 😉

I don’t know about you guys but I tend to be pretty suspicious of the propositions they place on the ballot, particularly when there are other more important things like picking candidates. But this year’s props are particularly smelly to me and I just had to weigh in on them.

In a nutshell I am voting no on all of them. The particulars below:

Proposition S
Is essentially a scam to reinstate a previous illegal tax hike from 2003, which was thrown out by the Supreme court. Right now the tax does not exist. If you vote yes, you will enact the tax. They present it as though it is a tax cut but what that really means is that they are deciding to add only $9 onto your telephone bill rather than $10. Oh and as an added bonus, this prop will also tax internet use. Yay!

Proposition 91
It attempts to make a new law of one that already exists and protects our transportation funding taxes. There is probably some loophole that enables the policitians to get their hands on it – so vote no.

Proposition 92
It is essentially locking California into committed spending with no way to pay for it and will require a tax hike of some sort to fund it. It also provides more funding to public colleges so that college students pay less for courses, which mean our taxes are paying the part they aren’t paying. Not to mention the fact that they will create a new formula which will require a new infrastructure to administer it. Which of course means somebody has to pay for it and it will be you and me, make no mistake.

Proposition 93

This is another scam dressed in what appears to be restricting career politicians from holding office for years and years. It offers a max of 12 years of service, HOWEVER, that 12 years doesn’t include time served. So, let’s say politician X has already served for 12 years, enacting this law would enable him to serve an ADDITIONAL 12 years. You see, it’s a scam to enable termed out politicians more time on the public payroll. And they thought we weren’t paying attention. Tisk, tisk.

Propositions 94, 95, 96 & 97

On the face of it, these seem like good ideas. I mean what better way to asuage our white guilt than to let the Indian tribes increase their revenues, right? And all that revenue means more revenue for the state in the form of taxes, right? Not really. First of all, it cherry picks only 4 tribes – the largest and most prosperous – the other tribes are left out in the cold on these. Also, the revenue projections are greatly inflated and there are loopholes in the language that would allow these particular tribes to get out of paying much of this supposed revenue for the state.

As to a candidate?????

I have to honestly say, I’ve yet to really pick a candidate. There are a couple I am leaning toward but I’m still not decided. For me, so far, there is no clear choice. Which doesn’t thrill me, but there you have it. So, for now, Writer Chick endorses no particular candidate. Shocked? Me too.

Boo Hoo, Hillary

Okay, so Hillary had a great photo op today and managed to get her eyes to well up enough to fool people into believing she might actually be crying. Right, and I just won a million bucks on Deal or No Deal. If she was feeling any emotion, I’m sure it was sourced more in the fact that her lead over Obama has evaporated. And apparently, Bill who has been a notorious brilliant campaigner isn’t doing her any favors either – word has it he is speaking to half empty meeting halls and some people even snuck out halfway through his speech. Maybe Hillary is just too brilliant, eh Bill?

Could it possibly be that Obama is right and it really is time for a change? Is it possible that people are finally through with the Clintons? I dare not let myself get too excited about that prospect, since the Clintons are notorious for comebacks and their opponents and detractors often end up ill, injured, disappeared and in some cases, dead. I surely hope Mr. Obama has a good security detail – you can never be too careful.

But whatever happens, I’m pretty sure Hillary is starting to feel a little desperate, since this guy is supporting her. One of the worst mayors ever. A guy who though he was able to take advantage of many affirmative action programs failed the bar the first four times he took it. Oh yeah, and then there was that extramarital affair with the Telemundo reporter. Funnily enough, the reporter was demoted and yet the Mayor received not even a formal rebuke from the state congress.

Will the tears and emotion work? I dunno, I seem to recall an emotional outburst regarding the vast right wing conspiracy some years back. And then there was all that betrayal and shit she felt when Bill cheated on her – so maybe just maybe this emotional tactic will work for her for a little while. But the thing about Hillary which is really her downfall is that she cannot maintain this sort of thing for any amount of time. All it will take is for her to beat Obama in some primary. Then she’ll be the bullet-proof, teflon-coated, come-back-kid. Her taste for blood will return and the shit will start to fly once again. Quote: Now the fun part starts. (Hillary Clinton) So, are we having fun yet, Hillary?
No, my friends, we can’t count her out yet. And I think Mr. Obama still has a tough road ahead of him because he is tangling with one resourceful, manipulative and relentless woman who likely won’t quit until they carry her away in an ambulance and even then it’s doubtful.

Boo hoo, Hillary. Nice try. Got anything a little more convincing?

WC

Meet Your Candidates!

I guess you could say that election 2008 is in full swing now. At least, that’s what the media seems to think. Yawn. I don’t know about you, but I can’t really get excited about any of them, regardless of race, creed, political persuasion, dietary needs or style sense.

Nonetheless, let me introduce them:

Barak, jr. senator from Illinois

How this fellow has gotten into the front runner section, I’ll never know. He is, I believe, a first time senator, inexperienced and makes some statements don’t make a whole lotta sense to me. And while it may be cool to see the first black president (though Bill Clinton seems to think that’s him) I think there might have been better choices. Still, he’s good looking, charming and the ladies seem to dig him. Will it be enough?

McCain bitter, indecisive senator from Arizona:

Embittered and resentful loser of the 2000 run for president – a man who espouse conservative values when it’s convenient but whose voting record shows an inclination toward whininess and socialism. His love-hate relationship with the president, his party and his constituents makes him a volatile choice in anyone’s book. Though I respect the fact that he is a war hero who survived unimaginable indignities during the Vietnam war, he may have too many ocd tendencies to be put in charge of things like bombs and budgets.

John Edwards, senator from S. Carolina

While the man has great hair (if you don’t believe me, just ask him) and some may find him cute in a leave it to beaver sort of way – the guy doesn’t seem to understand that suing people who don’t agree with you is not the way to go when it comes to national politics. He is a dichotomy at best and an idiot at worst, who uses cliche slogans to get his message across.

Rudy Guliani, former Mayor of New York, named Mayor of America by some magazine whose name I forget

I have to admit I like Rudy. He seems like a nice enough guy, has a fair amount of personal scandal in his past and handled what happened to his city on Sept 11th as well as I think anyone could have. But he’s awfully liberal for a conservative and will likely just confuse the voters with his widely diverse positions.

Hillary Clinton, senator from New York, former First Lady

Her ability to change positions on issues and to speak out of both sides of her mouth are her strong suits. Certainly the most polarizing of the ‘candidates’ this woman seems to elicit strong reactions – you love her or hate her but there seems to be no in-between. How or why the people of New York decided to elect her to represent them in the Senate and how or why anyone would think she has any qualifications to run a country is beyond me, but apparently some people think her proximity to Bill Clinton is enough. Like Barak, it would be a milestone in American politics to see our first woman president, but I can think of several other women who have more experience, knowledge, and ability to lead than this woman.

Other candidates:

Fred Thompson – he’s an actor, he’s a senator, he’s an actor, he’s a private citizen. What is he? And why does anyone think this guy would make a good president? And how on earth can they compare him to Ronald Regan? It’s all beyond me. He is beyond boring and couldn’t be bothered to attend the debate, opting instead to appear on a late night talk show to announce. So, I say, no picture for him.

Mitt Romney – governor of Massachusetts. Good looking, a bit indecisive and apparently the fact that he is a Mormon worries folks that we may end up with multiple first ladies. Interestingly enough, no one worries about Barak being a Muslim and his insistence on swearing in on the Koran. Go figure.

Dennis Cucinich – still trying to figure out what he is – I think he is in Congress, though I can’t imagine why. But I like a little fruit every now and then, so why not?

Joe Biden – mean Joe. Even when he smiles he looks like he wants to slug you.

Ron Paul – more froot loops anyone? This dude just seems pissed off and condescending to everyone and everything. Seems like he just wants to hermetically seal off the borders, forget that there is a whole big world out there and have us all stick our heads up our collective butts.

Tom Tancredo – Congressman from Colorado? Intelligent and passionate about his one issue, but one all-consuming issue ain’t gonna fly.

Finally….Algore – former Vice President, former loser of at least two presidential elections and perhaps still the senator from Tennessee.

While he insists he isn’t running, the rumbling and rumors continue to fly. Apparently those in the Dem party who don’t like Hillary want him. Since he is now a celebrity, a film maker and the green God of the universe he may indeed feel that the presidency is beneath him. Time will only tell.

So there you have it, the candidates as we know them. I may have overlooked a couple but if I have it’s only because they haven’t really hit anybody’s radar. To say I am disappointed in our apparent choices puts it mildly – I haven’t seen a such a large group of yawn-meisters in quite a while. In my mind, our only hope is that some dark horse, independent will appear out of the blue and save us from this sorry lot of wannabes and bring the country to a new era of American politics.

So…what do you think?

WC