comMITTed to Romney!

I miss our liberal ambulance chaser.

— THIS CLIP HAS BEEN VIEWED OVER 1,000,000 TIMES —

This is about John Edwards. Since he is officially immaterial now, you may want to just skip this. If however, 1) you have nothing better to do with the next two minutes of your life, and 2) you love really good music, then you gotta watch this.

I must admit I love her voice and the song she sings.

Have any of you ever seen a man primp like this and for long? How long does it take to comb your hair? It takes like 11 seconds. Not for Edwards!

Watch Edwards’ hands. His hand movements are effeminate. The guy primps like a girl. He even uses a little mirror, what, from his fanny pack?

Johnny, Johnny, Johnny! This is just so unbecoming a tort lawyer.
.

.
You can tell he feels pretty.

~ Vic

Share on Facebook

Share This

Hugh Hewitt is the Executive Producer of a new documentary, the trailer of which you may have seen a few weeks ago. The first time I saw the trailer was December 6th. Well, it is finally premiering nationwide (see other locations by clicking CONTINUE READING at the bottom of this post)

Want to attend the premiere? For free? This post is intended promote the film in the Los Angeles, San Diego, and Riverside metropolitan areas. See details and RSVP information below the poster of the film.

The date of the California premiere is Monday, January 14, 2008 — Newport Beach, CA

Check-in Begins at 6:00 p.m. — Show Time is 7:00 p.m.

— See trailer and RSVP details below —

Hugh Hewitt will be at this showing next Monday. I plan to attend with my wife (she knows I like a cheap date!). This afternoon (1/10), I was told the theater hold about 500 people and they have received 200 RSVPs.

Southern California Premiere:

Regency Lido Theatre
3459 Via Lido
Newport Beach, CA 92651

RSVP Required by telephone (M-F, 8-5): 949-296-1520 or via email: rsvpoc@outsideeyes.com

Information: Click here —–> ABOUT THE MOVIE

Watch the Trailer: Click here ——-> TRAILER

This one time viewing in California, next Monday, is free of charge (in fact, all premiere locations are free).

OTHER PREMIERE LOCATIONS: The film is also being shown in these cities on various dates: New York, Atlanta, Washington, DC, Shreveport, and Salt Lake City. For more information for these cities, click CONTINUE READING just below.

~ Vic

More »

Share on Facebook

Share This

Artwork by Michael Ramirez — Courtesy of IBD Editorials

Share on Facebook

Share This

Yesterday, I reviewed how the Economy is a vital issue for both Repubs and Dems–also pointing out there is increasing concern of a looming recession and how McCain’s not quite up to snuff on this issue (even by his own admission)

But who would be best for the economy? Barron’s Online back in July said that Romney would be the best GOP candidate and McCain the worst GOP candidate for the economy (Huck’s lucky that he wasn’t included in their rankings back then). Their cover story article was called “The Mitt and Bill Show” Parts One and Two.

Some notable quotes:

Romney would be the best Republican candidate for stocks, bonds and the economy

“Based on our report card, the optimal match-up for Wall Street would be Richardson versus Romney, because both candidates favor low taxes and sound fiscal policy.”

“Romney, formerly governor of Massachusetts and once a top private-equity investor, garnered 3.8 points out of a possible 4″

“Polls show that most Americans consider estate taxes to be unjust. Nevertheless, Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani are the only candidates who favor total elimination. Romney told us, “I believe that it is unfair to tax income when it is earned, then again when it is saved and then again when it is passed on to one’s children and grandchildren.”

. . .

McCain’s answer was ambiguous. On one hand, he supported extending all Bush tax cuts. But then he said the estate tax should be “low, simple, predictable and unobtrusive.”

Folks, if the Economy takes a turn south we need a nominee who can make a convincing case that he can help turn it around. Only Romney can make that sale IMO (his resume is quite impressive in his education on ecomomics). As far as who I’d trust to with the Economy Romney’s first, Rudy’s a distant second, then Fred, then McCain, then Richardson, then Clinton tied with Huckabee, then Obama, then Edwards. We should keep in mind that there’s a far greater chance of a economic downturn than many other variables or possibilities that people talk about a POTUS may face.

Jeff Fuller

Share on Facebook

Share This

In this Op/Ed piece, that will first appear in print Saturday, Noonan covers all the candidates on both sides. Click here to read the entire online article:

PEGGY NOONAN — Be Reasonable — As Iowa sizes up the candidates, so do I — Friday, December 28, 2007

Ms. Noonan’s assessment of Mitt Romney as being a reasonable choice is simply not good enough for me. By the way, look at the words she uses to describe him by comparison to the others — I think she is biased to Romney. Of course, we all know Governor Romney to be an outstanding leader, even a statesman among the few executives. Huckabee is barely mentioned with “not reasonable” on “demerits.”

This is my 2008 slogan: Reasonable Person for President. That is my hope, what I ask Iowa to produce, and I claim here to speak for thousands, millions. We are grown-ups, we know our country needs greatness, but we do not expect it and will settle at the moment for good. We just want a reasonable person. We would like a candidate who does not appear to be obviously insane. We’d like knowledge, judgment, a prudent understanding of the world and of the ways and histories of the men and women in it.

Mitt Romney? Yes. Characterological cheerfulness, personal stability and a good brain would be handy to have around. He hasn’t made himself wealthy by seeing the world through a romantic mist. He has a sophisticated understanding of the challenges we face in the global economy. I personally am not made anxious by his flip-flopping on big issues because everyone in politics gets to change his mind once. That is, you can be pro-life and then pro-choice but you can’t go back to pro-life again, because if you do you’ll look like a flake. The positions Mr. Romney espouses now are the positions he will stick with. He has no choice.

To the points Noonan makes next, I completely agree. I agree in every way. But I just hope to no end that she is the Dem’s choice for their nomination. She is the one that well bring the Republicans together faster and in more numbers than any of the other Dems.

Hillary Clinton? No, not reasonable. I concede her sturdy mind, deep sophistication, and seriousness of intent. I see her as a triangulator like her husband, not a radical but a maneuverer in the direction of a vague, half-forgotten but always remembered, leftism. It is also true that she has a command-and-control mentality, an urgent, insistent and grating sense of destiny, and she appears to believe that any act that benefits Clintons is a virtuous act, because Clintons are good and deserve to be benefited.

But this is not, actually, my central problem with her candidacy. My central problem is that the next American president will very likely face another big bad thing, a terrible day, or days, and in that time it will be crucial–crucial–that our nation be led by a man or woman who can be, at least for the moment and at least in general, trusted. Mrs. Clinton is the most dramatically polarizing, the most instinctively distrusted, political figure of my lifetime. Yes, I include Nixon. Would she be able to speak the nation through the trauma? I do not think so. And if I am right, that simple fact would do as much damage to America as the terrible thing itself.

Duncan Hunter, Fred Thompson, and Bill Richardson are all reasonable–mature, accomplished, nonradical. Mike Huckabee gets enough demerits to fall into my not-reasonable column. John Edwards is not reasonable. All the Democrats would raise taxes as president, but Mr. Edwards’s populism is the worst of both worlds, both intemperate and insincere. Also we can’t have a president who spent two minutes on YouTube staring in a mirror and poofing his hair. Really, we just can’t.

I forgot Rudy Giuliani. That must say something. He is reasonable but not desirable. If he wins somewhere, I’ll explain.

Good luck, Iowa. The eyes of the nation are upon you.

I believe the good people of Iowa, including every evangelical, will use their minds to make this important decision and will listen to reason. I can’t imagine that thinking, intelligent Iowans would now vote for Huckabee when virtually every top conservative voice in America has opted against the man. With the way he has been speaking up on foreign affairs lately, even he does not really want to be President.

~ Vic

Help Governor Romney get his message out — PLEASE CONTRIBUTE NOW, HERE

More »

Share on Facebook

Share This

Well, presidential straw polls will be a thing of the past in the very near future — do I hear a resounding applause? This is a rather clever poll and is fairly sophisticated. It is a very simple vote that takes 1.2 seconds to take.

This one is probably a very big one considering the shear number of AOL eyeballs. I just entered my vote for Governor Romney and he came out at 15%. Let’s change that. Here are the results at the time I pulled the lever:

RP — 28%
RG — 17%
MH — 16%
MR — 15%
JM — 14%
FT — 9%
DH — 1%

This AOL poll is open December 21st to January 4th. Click here to vote:

America Online Presidential Poll

~ Vic

Share on Facebook

Share This

Ben Shapiro TOWNHALL.COM

Fine article by Ben Shapiro highlighting the “richly experienced” candidates on the Republican side versus the green beans on the Democratic side.

I don’t like Obama’s politics, but ya gotta love him for the way he is responding to Hillary’s attacks.

Here’s a sample.

“The fact of the matter is that Sen. Clinton is claiming basically the entire eight years of the Clinton presidency as her own, except for the stuff that didn’t work out”, Obama said.

“There is no doubt that Bill Clinton had faith in Hillary and consulted with her on issues, in the same way that I would consult with Michelle, [Obama's wife] if there were issues. I don’t think Michelle would claim that she is the best qualified person to be a United States Senator by virtue of me talking to her.”

Three years ago Barack Obama was a state Senator from Illinois. Now he wants to lead the world’s largest enterprise. He has not run a corner drugstore.

Hillary Clinton is the junior Senator from New York. Now she wants to lead the world’s largest enterprise. She has not run a corner drugstore.

John Edward’s served one term in the U.S. Senate before joining John Kerry’s losing presidential campaign. Now he wants to lead the world’s largest enterprise. He has not run a corner drugstore.

Mitt Romney turned Bain & Co. around and molded it into a highly successful business. He founded Bain Capital and his success there is legendary. He turned the Winter Olympics around and converted a $400,000,000 deficit into a $100,000,000 surplus. He rescued the state of Massachusetts from a $3 billion deficit and left office with a surplus.

The “Experience Gap” is overwhelming. While nobody can predict the future, I do believe that “what is past is prologue.”

That being said, I have to conclude that the “Performance Gap” between Mitt Romney and the Democratic light weights will be so enormous, that for the good of the country, the only viable option we have is to work for a Romney win in the primaries and then win the general election.

~~John Cronin~~

Share on Facebook

Share This

Many say that we will have a Democrat President in 2009 simply because it is time; that over decades, whenever we have a President of a given party for two terms, the next President is of the other party. The one exception is when America wanted Reagan for a third term and elected GHW Bush. They say that will not happen this time because nobody wants Pres. Bush for a third term. In other words, history will continue the pattern and we will have a Democrat in 2009. I strongly disagree. Why?

What America wants this time in its President is change; big change. The Democrats are proposing change to simply end the war and they want change from anything related to President Bush. Clearly, Americans expect change and they will elect a person who will deliver change; of that, I have no doubt. But who is the best person to set a strategy for change and who is the person to execute against that strategy?

Here I examine the most viable candidates as to their track records as change agents and why they don’t measure up to Governor Romney’s record, talent, skills, and abilities in this regard. The order in which I placed these candidates is the order in which I think they are most likely to effectuate change, whether to the liberal or conservative.

Mitt Romney: If one had to assign a single, generic label to Mitt Romney that would typify his entire career since college, that label would likely be “change agent,” above all others. From his first days at Bain & Company in which he quickly succeeded as a gifted consultant to the days as a principal at Bain Capital, Romney has been directly instrumental in effectuating change in enterprises that were either failing outright or that had lackluster performance for years. Of the many dozens of examples of successful change he led, his taking the helm of the 2002 Winter Olympics and turning it around was nothing short of stunning. It was nearly $400 million in the red when dozens of naysayers told him that taking on that challenge was career-suicide; that the probability of failure was too high. That venture could easily have imploded at any time in his first 12 months as CEO. He not only ended with over a $50 million surplus, but received accolades that it was the most successful Olympics of its kind in history. His election as governor of Massachusetts, his first government service, is amazing as well for the changes he made; from eliminating a huge deficit (ending in a large surplus) to cutting duplicative government departments; all with the most liberal legislature in the country trying to trip him at every turn. The many dozens of ventures Mitt Romney has completely reinvented would literally require hundreds of pages to illustrate. I dare say, no other presidential candidate in our lifetime has had nearly the track record of successful change as Romney; certainly nobody among the current presidential candidates. Additionally, of all the Republican candidates, Romney has made the most sweeping course change proposals from the current administration.

Rudy Giuliani: A distant second choice is Giuliani. He has a record of change in his city, but at what cost? Based on how some Americans perceive the last seven years with Pres. Bush, do we need an autocratic authoritarian as President? Do we really want to entrust the next two to five Supreme Court appointments to a pro-choice candidate who makes us promises of conservative appointments (check his NYC record with judges)? What about his breaking the budget in NYC as spending went through the roof (excluding Sept 11th!)? Do we want to entrust change to a person whose perspective his entire career was that of atypical New York City alone? No, Rudy Giuliani would effectuate change, but unlike Romney, it would not be by disciplined analysis, but by mandate. His mandate, his way. I believe, though Giuliani would govern to the right of Clinton, he would not govern anywhere close to the strong conservative principles so desperately needed now. His experience and his track record as a change agent are mixed at best. He is a distant second choice.

Hillary Clinton: I chose her as third in line, not because of her record for change, but because I think if she were to be President, she would effectuate big change in many sectors across this nation. She has never been a true leader of any entity. Her record is thin as a change agent, but the one thing we have to review is her proposed health plan. Under her husband’s protecting wing, she was permitted to set out a detailed strategy to change the health care system forever. Fortunately, she was stopped by congress from implementing a disastrous strategy. So, I think it is fair to say that the changes she would oversee would include much bigger government spending, higher taxes, a gutting of the military (she hates them), myriad new government programs and entitlements, etc. To compare Clinton’s experience and skill to the talent of Romney as a change agent is like comparing a high school computer nerd to Steven Jobs.

John McCain: He is fourth in my book for no other reason than he is a long-time member of congress who has authored many important bills that have led to change or which proposed major change, including McCain-Feingold and the latest immigration bill. Few senators have the lengthy record of passing new legislation as he. Still, McCain is a senator; a bureaucrat. Though he knows how to work the inside-Washington system to make change the “Senate way,” it is still a legislature. “Change” is not a word that anyone thinks of when considering the work of congress or of any career politician in Washington, D.C. Except as an officer in the Navy, McCain has never led any real change as the executive of any enterprise. If by some miracle McCain were to become President, I believe we would see either no change to the status quo in American government, or change would be nominal.

Barak Obama: As a possible change agent, I place him fifth. The only reason he is fifth (as opposed to eighth) is because he has the most persistent and consistent message of change and he is a viable candidate. But his message of change is only rhetoric. He has virtually no experience at driving change or effectively challenging the status quo. He has no executive experience leading any entity of any kind. But of all the candidates talking of change, he is one of the most viable and it would not take a miracle for him to end up in the Democrat saddle.

John Edwards: He is sixth and ahead of Thompson and Huckabee based solely on his longer years as a senator, his influence in the national debate, and his current rhetoric for change. His candidacy is almost over, but his viability is still greater than that of Thompson and Huckabee. Edwards has no experience as a change agent to speak of and if somehow he were to become President, he would probably try to bring about change, but I believe he would be relatively ineffective at doing so. Edwards has no experience driving change as an executive maybe with the exception of directing his law firm as partner. I think it would be a disaster if Edwards were handed the reins of power as President.

Mike Huckabee: As a governor, he has executive experience and therefore has experience leading change. He is therefore placed as seventh in this line-up ahead of Thompson. Why not place Huckabee ahead of the senators above? Because Huckabee is not as viable. Sure, he is the flavor of the month but he has no depth or staying power. And what about the kinds of changes Huckabee has led as governor? His record is horrible on immigration all the way around. He supports benefits for illegal aliens. Huckabee’s record on keeping taxes unchanged is terrible. Government spending under Huckabee went up 50% and the number of government employees rose 20%. The next President will have to be strong against illegal aliens and tough on cutting taxes. Huckabee simply does not measure up in either of these important areas.

Fred Thompson: He is eighth among eight candidates. Thompson has led no change of any kind at any time in his life. Of the 100 or so bills he authored, it is maybe a handful he led into law. He has one of the most anemic records as a senator in driving any kind of change. It makes one wonder why he is now proposing new policy when he has virtually no experience at effectuating change in government. Thompson has never been a leader of any enterprise and therefore has no real idea how to implement change, let alone plan it. As well, he is almost not a viable candidate any longer. Yesterday on one of the talk shows, Mike Murray summed it up best in describing Thompson when he said, “Fred is like a bear trying to stand up on ice.” Also, on the Mike Wallace show after Thompson was criticized in two Fox clips by commentators, he lashed out in the most defensive replies I have seen of any candidate this whole year; it was as stunning to Mike Wallace as it was to me. Wallace asked Thompson to name any person today who is saying Thompson is running a good campaign and Thompson had no answer to that question.

Mitt Romney has more actual, real life experience in driving meaningful change in large enterprises than all of the candidates above combined.  The other candidates are novices by comparison.

~ Vic

[Because power corrupts] “Society’s demands for moral authority and character increase as the importance of the position increases.”

— John Adams, American Founding Father and second U.S. president (1735-1826)

Please Help Mitt Get His Message Out —-> MAKE A DIFFERENCE!

Share on Facebook

Share This

I know that we usually leave the religion-oriented posts to our colleagues at Evangelicals for Mitt, but here are a couple really great columns by Kathryn Jean Lopez (of National Review Online but via Townhall.com) and Steven Stark (of the Boston Phoenix, of whom I was not previously familiar, but a quick peruse of his blog suggests that he should be on our bookmarks).

First, K-Lo’s column is entitled “A Mormon Can Be President.” Full text after the jump, but here are some key excerpts:

Commentators suggest he give a speech on his religion, comparing it to John F. Kennedy’s 1960 speech to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association. However, Romney’s not likely to pull a Kennedy by defensively distancing himself from his religion. As Romney said to a colleague of mine in November, “I know there are some people hoping that I will simply declare in some way that my church is all well and good, but that I don’t really believe it and I don’t try to follow it. That’s not going to happen. I’m proud of my faith. I love my faith. It is the faith of my fathers and mothers. I do my best to live by its teachings. And it in every way would teach me to follow the Constitution and follow the rule of law and recognize that my duty is to my country.”

That is the American answer to the question about whether one’s religion indicates one’s fitness to lead this nation. We have no established religion, and we have no religious tests in our constitutional system. Romney’s religion is a topic for religious conferences, not for talk shows. And it certainly should not keep a man from the White House.

If you are not going to support Republican Mitt Romney for president because you don’t think he is the guy to win the war on terror, that is your call. If you are pro-life and you do not buy his abortion conversion story, it’s a free country. But if you are not going to support Mitt Romney for president because he is Mormon, or because you think he will not be elected president because he is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, say your prayers for America.

Next Steve Stark provides a really perceptive and poignant perspective on what all of the controversy over Mitt’s Mormonism says about the rest of the candidates. Again, full text after the jump, but some key excerpts:

But the real question is why another candidate hasn’t stepped forward to defend Romney against the religious bigotry he’s facing – not with an offhand comment or two – but with a major Mormon speech of his own. True, doing so might seem like a risky political maneuver, since it would aid a fellow contender. But it’s the right thing to do — and could even help the campaign of the candidate who rises to Romney’s defense.

It’s understandable why Romney has hesitated to give the speech up to this point. It’s odious that in 21st-century America a candidate has to defend his religion. And Romney’s faced with the difficult task of writing and delivering such a speech without sounding self-pitying. Then there’s the question of timing: should he give the speech now or wait for later in the campaign, when more voters will be paying attention? (For the record, JFK gave his Houston Ministers speech in September of the election year, after he had been nominated.) Of course, Romney will inevitably be compared with Kennedy, and that’s a comparison that’s hard to measure up to.

But none of the other candidates have these excuses — which makes one wonder exactly what kind of people we have seeking the nation’s highest office this year. As potential leaders of the nation, don’t they think religious prejudice is something they ought to confront, especially since the issues of religion and politics are currently so intertwined?

What’s most discouraging, of course, is that we don’t seem to have anyone in the field who views attacking religious prejudice as the proper — or, for that matter, a politically sensible — thing to do. An unfortunate consequence of this lengthy campaign — and its intensive press coverage — is that it’s turned most of the candidates into risk-averse robots, afraid of doing anything unconventional for fear of making a mistake. But great candidates and leaders — whether we’re talking about FDR or Reagan — always rewrite the rule book.

Needless to say, we’re going to need a leader like that in 2009. Too bad that on this key test — and it’s not a difficult one compared with what lies ahead for the eventual winner — the entire field gets a failing grade.

Read the entire articles after the jump…

More »

Share on Facebook

Share This

The Democrats want to take your baby and offer birth-control to your 12 year old. This is a statement ready made for good, old-fashioned propaganda except for one thing. It’s true and it has already happened.

Just last week the Anaya family of Omaha, Nebraska filed a lawsuit against the state health department director and two people who oversee the newborn screening program. The Anaya’s had religious objections to having their newborn son undergo a state-mandated blood test. Nebraska, like 3 other states in the country, has no provision for parents to opt out of the test. So earlier this month, a judge signed an order and sheriff’s deputies entered the Anaya’s home and forcibly took the 5 week-old infant. The baby was not returned to his family until the state received the results of the test, six days later.

This story comes just on the heels of the controversy over the King Middle School Health Center decision to offer contraceptives to students who admit to being sexually active. While a parent permission slip is needed to use Health Center services, doctors are not required to notify parents if a child seeks help for sex, drug, or mental health issues.

The health care system of our nation has become a major issue among presidential candidates. The Democrats are falling all over themselves promising bigger and more lavish government health plans than the one before. John Edwards has already proposed that every person in the US be required to attend a health check-up once a year. If they can take a baby from his home for a required blood test, what will they do to an adult who misses his government-mandated annual check up?

Even some of the Republicans seem to want in on the action of proposing to fix health care problems. Earlier this year Governor Rick Perry of Texas signed an executive order mandating that all girls from the sixth grade up be given vaccinations against cervical cancer. (A parental opt-out was included in the mandate.)

In my estimate, his position on health care is one of Mitt Romney’s biggest weaknesses. He speaks with glowing pride of his accomplishments with the health care of Massachusetts. And with some reason. In the first place, he worked with a Democrat controlled state legislature and he was able to implement the plan without raising taxes. In the second place, his approach shows a new train of thought about the problem of governments role in the health care process.

However, the answer to any problems with the health care of this nation are not going to be fixed by more government involvement. If they are to be fixed at all, it will need to be with less government regulations and restrictions. Much of this is tied up in the tax code. The way that health insurance is bought and sold in this country revolves around the tax benefits, or penalties, associated with it. Changing these laws so that the health insurance market can operate in a more traditional marketplace setting would be a great advantage to the American people.

I do not pretend to be an expert on health insurance or taxes. But this seems to be pretty apparent. In the first place, health insurance purchased through an employer is purchased with “before-tax” dollars. This means that taxes are not deducted from the money going to pay for your health insurance. Should you purchase health insurance from another source, the money is considered taxable income and the government expects a percentage of it.

In the second place, as your salary goes up, so does your tax rate. Not only your personal tax rate, but also the taxes that the company who employs you is expected to pay on your behalf. So it is in the company’s interest to pay you less cash and, instead, offer you benefits that are not subject to taxation. This, in essence, raises your salary without raising your taxes. In the instance of health care, however, it limits you to whatever plan or plans your employer wishes to offer.

Naturally, overhauling the tax code is messier work and more difficult to explain to voters than simply promising that no matter what the government will make sure they have health insurance. But as Romney points out, making promises without explaining the costs rings hollow in the ears of the American people.

In this case, the cost will not just be in money and increased taxation, but in the quality and availability of health care for everyone. We have examples of socialized medicine readily available for study in Canada and in the UK. In both countries, wait times for routine procedures are ridiculously long and delays for life-saving treatments cost people their lives. People from these nations with serious illnesses are coming to the US in large numbers because they cannot depend on the government system at home to give them the kind of care they need to save their lives and restore their health. To paraphrase a famous quote: to implement the same policies and expect different results is insane.

But most of all, allowing the government control, any control, over our health care system means giving up personal freedom. The freedom to care for our health and the health and well-being of our children according to our own desires and beliefs.

The Anaya family is not seeking any money in their lawsuit against the State of Nebraska officials. Instead, they simply want to make sure that none of their children can be taken from them again for following their religious beliefs. And for that matter, none of your children either.

Additional Reading:
Journalstar
MSNBC
Rush Limbaugh

Share on Facebook

Share This

Yesterday’s Journal published a front-page article in the print edition about the impact of the primaries in the presidential race and the importance of the early state strategies versus the large states strategies. The article is outstanding for those who wish to know more about the process. The primary season is fast approaching.

I believe this link should work without a subscription. Click here ——> Primary Rush Forces New Tack For Campaigns
And what about this chart? I love it!:

If the link does not work, you can read the entire article by clicking below on “Continue Reading.”

~ Vic

More »

Share on Facebook

Share This

What about Senator Clinton’s millions of ideas for government? I find it fascinating that while Europe is stuck in stagflation, they are trying to lower their taxes, the Dems want to surpass European nations with higher taxes.
.

~ Vic

Share on Facebook

Share This

Roger Simon POLITICO

It seems that Hillary Clinton laid an egg at the latest Democratic debate. Click on over to the Politico site to get all the juicy details.

Obama and Edwards had a field day with her as she came across as evasive, uninspiring and over rehearsed.

I have long believed that Hillary has a sense of entitlement, that this is not an election, but rather a coronation for her. It appears that she is not reacting well to the news that she will actually be asked tough questions during this campaign and that she is expected to give clear answers.

It looks like Hill will have to dip into that boatload of cash she has been sitting on, in order to do some damage control, damage that she caused with her shabby debate performance.

~~John Cronin~~

Share on Facebook

Share This

From Carl Cameron at Fox…

So far, the Democratic presidential candidates debate shows just how unrealistic Hillary Clinton and her band of Democrats are when it comes to facing down the serious threats the nation faces in the world today.

The Democrats want to reduce our foreign policy and military posture to a garden party with just carrots and sticks, choosing empty rhetoric over any semblance of a detailed vision for safety and security. Governor Romney, on the contrary, firmly believes that America’s place in the world is defined by its strength and purpose, not carrots and sticks held by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

He doesn’t mince words, does he? He’s telling it just like it is. No holding back, just the way I like him to be.

Goooooooo Romney!

Share on Facebook

Share This

From The Washington Post

What a horse race we have on the Democratic side!!

Hillary Clinton……….29%

Barack Obama………27%

John Edwards……….20%

If Obama wins Iowa by a nose and gives Hill a run for the money in New Hampshire, the dynamics on the Democratic side changes big time. I honestly don’t think Hillary can handle that kind of pressure. I would be looking for some sort of meltdown by HRC if she has lost momentum going into Tsunami Tuesday. Her aura of “inevitability” will be gone and she will be seen as just another politico, not some sort of legendary figure going where no woman as gone before.

When you have been preparing to run for the Presidency since your high school/college days, had to put up with a philandering husband for over 30 years in order to stay close to the levers of power and now it seems that there is a chance the brass ring may just elude your grasp, it’s just too much to bear for someone like HRC whose ambition knows no bounds.

On the Republican side, I see that Mitt Romney has almost triple the support that Giuliani does. Thank goodness nobody on Team Romney and none of the contributors on this site believed the the Giuliani/Thompson hype from a few months ago.

~~John Cronin~~

Share on Facebook

Share This