Although not a mainstream television watcher since pay television was mandated by Congressional decree throughout America, I have unfortunately been recently residing with relatives that unfortunately have become rather homebound in their declining years, and on and off been subject to some of the political entertainment shows carried on pay TV. Unfortunately also, it has affected somewhat my elderly relatives grasp of reality since this really is there primary contact with the real world.
Of course, those shows and all those crime dramas and unreal "reality" shows that are fed to the American public as a steady diet.
There have been so many debates at this point by the Republicans it seems there should have been a new reality series scheduled by the networks entitled "The Presidential GOP Debates: Run for the Roses," limiting them to 13 weeks. My eyes glazed over after the first one.
I spent my time during the second one imagining alternative occupations for those "candidates" after they leave office, if they ever do before retirement age. Few, I'm sure, will but here's what I came up with...
Mitt Romney - Used car salesman or croupier in Vegas
Newt Gingrich - Pilsbury doughboy stand-in or the new face on Monopoly for Mr. Moneybags, the banker. (Or Hallmark Card writer).
Rick Perry - Howdy Doody's new partner or calf roper and bull rider.
Michelle Bachman - New face for Oil of Olay or Cruise Line Director
Ron Paul - He's already an obstetrician and that fits, or Santa Claus (with padding)
As far as the other political party, we all know what Mr. Obama's true calling is: Motivational speaker or union organizer. I think most Americans know by now he is not nor was a Constitutional lawyer.
While all these people are traversing the country, spouting their political ideology, I wonder...just how did our political system get so very, very profitable for the cable entertainment news networks (MSNBC, CNN, FOX) and those candidates?
I mean, just how many staff members and assorted individuals affiliated with these continous elections can now list on their job resume "political strategist?"
I mean, do they give degrees in that now too?
Our elections are becoming mirror images of last week's finale of Survivor.
He who wins the game, wins the coveted rose.
Come hook or crook.
Showing posts with label Republican. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Republican. Show all posts
Thursday, December 22, 2011
Friday, August 12, 2011
The Iowa Straw Poll: Been There, Done That
This week the mainstream media's primary focus has been on the Iowa Straw Poll which will be conducted in Ames, Iowa tomorrow, so as one who attended the last straw poll during the last presidential election cycle, let me just say that this Republican Party fundraiser is nothing more than that...
A fundraiser.
Not at all an indication of just where and what level of support most of those "candidates" for the Republican nomination lies.
First of all, during the one I attended four years ago, the cost to attend and cast your "vote" was $75 per person, or $150 per couple, and all the proceeds were earmarked for the corporate Republican Party's benefit. Most all of the candidates advertise in the local Iowa papers attempting to trump up attendance and support for this nonevent.
And last election cycle, Mr. Romney was the most well organized of all, even paying the cost of those tickets for those who committed to attend in advance, providing them with "Romney" tee-shirts and a free western style barbeque prior to the speechifying, and during the voting and subsequent ballot count. He even provided buses to and from the campus for those that wished to reserve a seat.
Upon arrival, the Romney contingent in their campaign provided golf carts which raced enmass to the buses as they arrived in order to escort them to Romney Central, and past any and all of those "other" Republican candidates, or their supporters.
In fact, the eventual winner of the nomination didn't even attend this event, and as has been suspected by most former Republicans cum Independents, the actual serious candidate that has the corporate support of the movers and shakers within that party, and their campaign backers, has already been selected, to be announced after Super Tuesday.
The "dark horse" candidate which will enter late, in order to "save the day" for the party and the nation running his campaign on a shoestring budget, or the Evangelical vote.
In other words, with Rick Perry's noncandidacy at this point, while being heralded as the write in candidate, look forward to another candidate from the erstwhile "Republican" Party to rerun the Bush years from the Bush state, with the Bush agenda and Bush constituents.
And don't look for "change" once again to be a campaign slogan for either Mr. Obama, or Bush III.
Rather, more of the same.
Or, "second verse, same as the first" only much, much worse.
After all, hitting bottom only applies to "people" not "governmental special interest corporations."
No matter how Mr. Romney or the Republican Party or Democratic Party (those labor unions, and THEIR other "corporate" backers) defines "people."
A fundraiser.
Not at all an indication of just where and what level of support most of those "candidates" for the Republican nomination lies.
First of all, during the one I attended four years ago, the cost to attend and cast your "vote" was $75 per person, or $150 per couple, and all the proceeds were earmarked for the corporate Republican Party's benefit. Most all of the candidates advertise in the local Iowa papers attempting to trump up attendance and support for this nonevent.
And last election cycle, Mr. Romney was the most well organized of all, even paying the cost of those tickets for those who committed to attend in advance, providing them with "Romney" tee-shirts and a free western style barbeque prior to the speechifying, and during the voting and subsequent ballot count. He even provided buses to and from the campus for those that wished to reserve a seat.
Upon arrival, the Romney contingent in their campaign provided golf carts which raced enmass to the buses as they arrived in order to escort them to Romney Central, and past any and all of those "other" Republican candidates, or their supporters.
In fact, the eventual winner of the nomination didn't even attend this event, and as has been suspected by most former Republicans cum Independents, the actual serious candidate that has the corporate support of the movers and shakers within that party, and their campaign backers, has already been selected, to be announced after Super Tuesday.
The "dark horse" candidate which will enter late, in order to "save the day" for the party and the nation running his campaign on a shoestring budget, or the Evangelical vote.
In other words, with Rick Perry's noncandidacy at this point, while being heralded as the write in candidate, look forward to another candidate from the erstwhile "Republican" Party to rerun the Bush years from the Bush state, with the Bush agenda and Bush constituents.
And don't look for "change" once again to be a campaign slogan for either Mr. Obama, or Bush III.
Rather, more of the same.
Or, "second verse, same as the first" only much, much worse.
After all, hitting bottom only applies to "people" not "governmental special interest corporations."
No matter how Mr. Romney or the Republican Party or Democratic Party (those labor unions, and THEIR other "corporate" backers) defines "people."
Friday, June 18, 2010
McCain, Hayworth Race Demonstrates Need For True Change
As a demonstration of the need for a true rewind and reinstituting the "campaign finance reform" that the founders envisioned, you need look no further than the current mud-slinging by two in one of the mainstream political parties for the Senate race in Arizona between the incumbent, John McCain, and a "viable" challenger, J.D. Hayworth.
Both have taken the low route and slung mud implicating both in illicit and illegal campaign contributions (when both accept out of district funding, so both are fundamentally in violation of the founders intent for a representative government from the outset, as are all candidates from that other corporate party, the "Democrats.").
Both represent corporate special interests due to their soliciting "bundlers" that are not even residents of the State of Arizona. Hayworth and McCain had out of district "bundlers" working for their campaigns, in clear violation of the Constitution's intent.
Both are affiliated with "corporate" political parties, diametrically opposed in their agendas to the stated law of the land, the U.S. Constitution in their platforms - and represent "corporate" interests most of all, not their true constituency.
And neither spent their formative years in Arizona, and thus were and are "carpetbaggers" if anything. Hayworth from North Carolina, and McCain from Virginia primarily.
The "representative" function of federal state representatives such s Senators, at this point in our history, wouldn't you think, would require a longer history there than a Ms. Clinton, Mr. McCain or Mr. Hayworth.
Since they are, after all, representing the state and should have a long term association with its history, not Washington's political games.
Formative years create the attachment, not deeds.
Much is rotten in Arizona, and those that talk the talk but don't walk the walk, are not worth listening to or voting for.
Which may be why the State of Arizona, at one point, had an initiative which would have created a lottery for those that participated in the voting process.
Since so many have come to the same conclusion I have, none of them represent me, or the Constitution.
And oaths of office demonstrate fealty and loyalty, not political parties.
Both have taken the low route and slung mud implicating both in illicit and illegal campaign contributions (when both accept out of district funding, so both are fundamentally in violation of the founders intent for a representative government from the outset, as are all candidates from that other corporate party, the "Democrats.").
Both represent corporate special interests due to their soliciting "bundlers" that are not even residents of the State of Arizona. Hayworth and McCain had out of district "bundlers" working for their campaigns, in clear violation of the Constitution's intent.
Both are affiliated with "corporate" political parties, diametrically opposed in their agendas to the stated law of the land, the U.S. Constitution in their platforms - and represent "corporate" interests most of all, not their true constituency.
And neither spent their formative years in Arizona, and thus were and are "carpetbaggers" if anything. Hayworth from North Carolina, and McCain from Virginia primarily.
The "representative" function of federal state representatives such s Senators, at this point in our history, wouldn't you think, would require a longer history there than a Ms. Clinton, Mr. McCain or Mr. Hayworth.
Since they are, after all, representing the state and should have a long term association with its history, not Washington's political games.
Formative years create the attachment, not deeds.
Much is rotten in Arizona, and those that talk the talk but don't walk the walk, are not worth listening to or voting for.
Which may be why the State of Arizona, at one point, had an initiative which would have created a lottery for those that participated in the voting process.
Since so many have come to the same conclusion I have, none of them represent me, or the Constitution.
And oaths of office demonstrate fealty and loyalty, not political parties.
Saturday, December 26, 2009
Political Incorrectness: MSM Continues Misdefinition of A Conservative
While gathering some research for additional evidence with respect to just how far afield our mainstream news sources and media have become, and nothing more now than branches of their owners and Boards of Directors political beliefs or both mainstream political parties, I came across an article and review of the new movie, "Avatar" directed by James Cameron.
In the review it indicated that several critics have made references to the content in labeling it as anti-war and pro-environmentalist although visually very entertaining.
Mr. Cameron is an avowed environmentalist that was also quoted as indicating that the United States has a habit of "raping natural resources and invading countries and displacing indigenous peoples without giving anything back."
The only thing I can state with that particular comment as a displaced Arizonan, whose political landscape has fundamentally changed into one of pro-liberalism due to the influx of mostly Californians from Mr. Cameron's home state who have left theirs due to most of the laws which have been passed due to the liberalism which have progressively bankrupted them, and now in Arizona creating the very same scenario, along with those from Canada and the East Coast, with their demands also for jacuzzi's and fountains in the desert, and propensity to also be one of the states in which most of those "displaced" refugees are also funneled after many of the prior wars of the last few decades, it would appear the same comment would apply to what is now occuring in this country with the displacement of many natural born and naturalized Americans from their jobs and homes due to now "globalization" and not only starting these wars and then taking in those refugees, but providing many with benefits and tax breaks that the average American is not entitled to.
Such as the Bosnians who attended my children's school (mostly with parents in the "science and technology" fields) and who were given brand new cars in order to attend classes.
But what was really unbelieveable in the article was that it also referred to the fact that Ed Morrissey, a supposed "Conservative" commentator, had mentioned on the website "Hot Air" that most "conservatives" would be staying away from the movie due to its anti-war stances.
I would like to know just what Mr. Morrissey's definitions of "conservative" are, because a true American Conserve-ative does believe in preserving the Constitution as it is written with the intent of the founders ever present, unless lawfully amended through the amendment process, which also includes acknowleding the 9th Amendment and placing any and all such amendments before the people of this country for their voice and vote.
And believes in Constitutional interpretation with respect to the Supreme Court's powers and duties in the common law and American jurisprudence precedent which stood for over a hundred years in "Res Ipsa Loquitor" or "the thing as it is written (or speaks)."
Not inserting words, or amending it without going through the formal amendment process in any and all such "opinions" and determinations, such as expanding presidential or Congressional power and authority without any basis in Constitutional provision.
And that Supreme Court decisions are applicable only to the "case at bar" or facts of the matter before it. Not broad based precedent throughout the land with respect to American Bill of Rights issues, especially.
And since this country was founded on the "just war" doctrines and made provision for "defense" of THIS country, would also dispute that any true American Conserve-ative would still be in support of the Middle East War on Terror since it is not at all at this point a truly "just war" nor a "defensive" one.
Conservatives believe in conserving both the blood and treasure of this nation, and not exploiting its people and their "property" for global gain or the "greater good."
Which is actually more global communism which is where we are about now, not American conservatism.
Facilitating wars in order to increase dominion most of all in the name of "democracy," a form of government the U.S. fundamentally is also not.
Barry Goldwater, the former Senator and U.S. presidential candidate from my former home state of Arizona, was a Conservative - probably THE Conservative of the boomer generation and before.
Who, even after the whipping he took in the 1964 election branded a "war monger," actually became more Conservative in his elder years in calling that war what it actually was - a horrendous mistake that was entered into also as our first major interventionist conflict (although Korea also somewhat) and for which the boomer generation has never seen a true end to war in some part of the world, particularly the Middle East since World War II and which continuing conflicts are based on a British agreement and accord, no less, entered into between a British Lord and European banker even prior to World War I (the Balfour Doctrine).
He must be watching a lot of Fox, since it appears his definition aligns more with the British version of "Conservative."
In the review it indicated that several critics have made references to the content in labeling it as anti-war and pro-environmentalist although visually very entertaining.
Mr. Cameron is an avowed environmentalist that was also quoted as indicating that the United States has a habit of "raping natural resources and invading countries and displacing indigenous peoples without giving anything back."
The only thing I can state with that particular comment as a displaced Arizonan, whose political landscape has fundamentally changed into one of pro-liberalism due to the influx of mostly Californians from Mr. Cameron's home state who have left theirs due to most of the laws which have been passed due to the liberalism which have progressively bankrupted them, and now in Arizona creating the very same scenario, along with those from Canada and the East Coast, with their demands also for jacuzzi's and fountains in the desert, and propensity to also be one of the states in which most of those "displaced" refugees are also funneled after many of the prior wars of the last few decades, it would appear the same comment would apply to what is now occuring in this country with the displacement of many natural born and naturalized Americans from their jobs and homes due to now "globalization" and not only starting these wars and then taking in those refugees, but providing many with benefits and tax breaks that the average American is not entitled to.
Such as the Bosnians who attended my children's school (mostly with parents in the "science and technology" fields) and who were given brand new cars in order to attend classes.
But what was really unbelieveable in the article was that it also referred to the fact that Ed Morrissey, a supposed "Conservative" commentator, had mentioned on the website "Hot Air" that most "conservatives" would be staying away from the movie due to its anti-war stances.
I would like to know just what Mr. Morrissey's definitions of "conservative" are, because a true American Conserve-ative does believe in preserving the Constitution as it is written with the intent of the founders ever present, unless lawfully amended through the amendment process, which also includes acknowleding the 9th Amendment and placing any and all such amendments before the people of this country for their voice and vote.
And believes in Constitutional interpretation with respect to the Supreme Court's powers and duties in the common law and American jurisprudence precedent which stood for over a hundred years in "Res Ipsa Loquitor" or "the thing as it is written (or speaks)."
Not inserting words, or amending it without going through the formal amendment process in any and all such "opinions" and determinations, such as expanding presidential or Congressional power and authority without any basis in Constitutional provision.
And that Supreme Court decisions are applicable only to the "case at bar" or facts of the matter before it. Not broad based precedent throughout the land with respect to American Bill of Rights issues, especially.
And since this country was founded on the "just war" doctrines and made provision for "defense" of THIS country, would also dispute that any true American Conserve-ative would still be in support of the Middle East War on Terror since it is not at all at this point a truly "just war" nor a "defensive" one.
Conservatives believe in conserving both the blood and treasure of this nation, and not exploiting its people and their "property" for global gain or the "greater good."
Which is actually more global communism which is where we are about now, not American conservatism.
Facilitating wars in order to increase dominion most of all in the name of "democracy," a form of government the U.S. fundamentally is also not.
Barry Goldwater, the former Senator and U.S. presidential candidate from my former home state of Arizona, was a Conservative - probably THE Conservative of the boomer generation and before.
Who, even after the whipping he took in the 1964 election branded a "war monger," actually became more Conservative in his elder years in calling that war what it actually was - a horrendous mistake that was entered into also as our first major interventionist conflict (although Korea also somewhat) and for which the boomer generation has never seen a true end to war in some part of the world, particularly the Middle East since World War II and which continuing conflicts are based on a British agreement and accord, no less, entered into between a British Lord and European banker even prior to World War I (the Balfour Doctrine).
He must be watching a lot of Fox, since it appears his definition aligns more with the British version of "Conservative."
Sunday, July 26, 2009
America: Returning To Constitutional Representative Government Again
Since Barack Obama assumed the Office of Presidency in January, there has been much activity going on in Washington in attempt to reportedly "fix" the economic and other problems which were facilitated under the former Bush administration and salve the discontent in the United States that the majority of the citizens now have with the goings on in our nation's capitol.
While Obama has been on whirlwind tours of the United States and Europe promoting his economic solutions, and throwing money right and left at whatever fire springs up (such as the GM bailouts, and his "foreclosure" solutions), his policies have left much to be desired and actually have further sunk this country into an economic quagmire without truly addressing any of the problems which lead to this.
Self-serving politicians who have consistently for decades acted for their own political interests and benefactors, rather than the Constitution and citizens of the nation in their proscribed duties and functions.
It is difficult in this day and age to get elected to state of federal offices without a huge campaign war chest. This was not so in prior generations and it got me to investigating just why, particularly in this last half century, most campaign elections have become more and more costly, and yet less and less effective in bringing about any true change in governmental policies, or even sound and Constitutional government.
And the answers I found were actually quite simple and enlightening.
You cannot have a true Constitutional Republic and "representative" government when those "representatives" are not "representatives" of the districts of citizens they are elected to represent.
And this has been the case now for well over seventy-five years.
How did this distortion of our true intended form of representative government come about?
By veering from the "intended" provisions of the founders of the country in the election of the leaders at both the state and federal levels. Although not "written in stone" in the Constitution, it was a very simple restriction and gentlemen's agreement that the founders felt didn't even bear inclusion in the Constitution at all, since it was assumed within the framework of the document itself.
Any and all donations to candidates running for elective office for any seat in any public service position throughout the country would necessarily have to be both a resident of the district in which he represented, and also restricted to financing and promotion by only those living within his respective district.
In other words, a candidate could not accept any sponsorship or donations from outside his legislative district, in order that he truly was a representative of his constituency within that district.
And returning to those "legal" yet unstate provisions once again would turn help also dilute the influence of the "corporate" and special interest groups that reside on K Street and hang around the Halls of Congress with their hands out seeking their "corporate" welfare on the backs of the American people rather than working for a living.
Such as those now in the energy and health care field, and Wall Street, who are looking for handouts at the American public's expense, when they have already made a good portion of the population right now literally homeless and jobless.
Congress had no inherent authority to institute "campaign finance" laws at all, other than to restate the obvious: Any and all candidates for federal or state office must both reside in their districts, and were precluded from accepting ANY outside donations other than from those in their own representative district. And for any and all "corporate" donations (which were precluded since "corporations" were not people actually at all), then the address of the principal or statutory office would be used as their district.
Wake up, America. These Congressman and Senators have been accepting unlawful campaign donations and been in violation of the true campaign finance laws for literally decades, in order to pick and choose which industries will benefit them personally the most and ensure their political survival.
And rewinding to the "intent" within the framework of our Constitution, might just bring about true change, rather than the Obama (Bush in drag) version.
While Obama has been on whirlwind tours of the United States and Europe promoting his economic solutions, and throwing money right and left at whatever fire springs up (such as the GM bailouts, and his "foreclosure" solutions), his policies have left much to be desired and actually have further sunk this country into an economic quagmire without truly addressing any of the problems which lead to this.
Self-serving politicians who have consistently for decades acted for their own political interests and benefactors, rather than the Constitution and citizens of the nation in their proscribed duties and functions.
It is difficult in this day and age to get elected to state of federal offices without a huge campaign war chest. This was not so in prior generations and it got me to investigating just why, particularly in this last half century, most campaign elections have become more and more costly, and yet less and less effective in bringing about any true change in governmental policies, or even sound and Constitutional government.
And the answers I found were actually quite simple and enlightening.
You cannot have a true Constitutional Republic and "representative" government when those "representatives" are not "representatives" of the districts of citizens they are elected to represent.
And this has been the case now for well over seventy-five years.
How did this distortion of our true intended form of representative government come about?
By veering from the "intended" provisions of the founders of the country in the election of the leaders at both the state and federal levels. Although not "written in stone" in the Constitution, it was a very simple restriction and gentlemen's agreement that the founders felt didn't even bear inclusion in the Constitution at all, since it was assumed within the framework of the document itself.
Any and all donations to candidates running for elective office for any seat in any public service position throughout the country would necessarily have to be both a resident of the district in which he represented, and also restricted to financing and promotion by only those living within his respective district.
In other words, a candidate could not accept any sponsorship or donations from outside his legislative district, in order that he truly was a representative of his constituency within that district.
And returning to those "legal" yet unstate provisions once again would turn help also dilute the influence of the "corporate" and special interest groups that reside on K Street and hang around the Halls of Congress with their hands out seeking their "corporate" welfare on the backs of the American people rather than working for a living.
Such as those now in the energy and health care field, and Wall Street, who are looking for handouts at the American public's expense, when they have already made a good portion of the population right now literally homeless and jobless.
Congress had no inherent authority to institute "campaign finance" laws at all, other than to restate the obvious: Any and all candidates for federal or state office must both reside in their districts, and were precluded from accepting ANY outside donations other than from those in their own representative district. And for any and all "corporate" donations (which were precluded since "corporations" were not people actually at all), then the address of the principal or statutory office would be used as their district.
Wake up, America. These Congressman and Senators have been accepting unlawful campaign donations and been in violation of the true campaign finance laws for literally decades, in order to pick and choose which industries will benefit them personally the most and ensure their political survival.
And rewinding to the "intent" within the framework of our Constitution, might just bring about true change, rather than the Obama (Bush in drag) version.
Monday, May 4, 2009
National Council For A New America: "New" Face Of The Republican Party?
In a recent edition of the liberal Washington Times there was an article devoted to the activities of a new group of Republican leaders traversing the country now in order to offer their message of "hope and change" in an effort to gain support for the fractured Republican Party.
What was interesting were the members of this new Republican Party outreach group, all liberals: Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, Sen. John McCain of Arizona and Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney. Neocon and globalists all. In other words, "New World Order" Republicans.
Mr. Bush and Mr. Romney acted as the spokesmen on a whistle stop at a pizza parlor. Their focus, they indicated, was not to recast the Republican Party - but to bring it and its former conservative members into the 21st Century. It was time, they said, to put the Reagan era to rest.
Interesting in that in this writer's opinion, there hasn't really been a true Conservative in federal office since Barry Goldwater in the 1960's. And while the Republican Party has been in the past a proponent of fiscal conservatism - these new spokesmen are certainly not in that mold, but Big Business CEO types that also view the American people and their wallets as a means to enlarging the riches of USA, Inc. and their own in the process. Nor are they small federal government believers.
It appears they have forgotten that the only reason Mr. Obama won the election was that many in this country were voting against the very platform this National Council For A New America represented - more years of war, and a bigger federal government.
Although Mr. Obama has betrayed at this point his campaign positions and rhetoric with respect to significantly drawing down our involvement in the Middle East war and instead merely focusing on bin Laden, and cutting federal spending, it was clear in their rejection of Mr. McCain, a member of this outreach program, that their message clearly was not that which Americans wanted any part of. NeoConservatism, or the "New World Order."
I think the "change" Americans were seeking was a "change" back to fundamental Constitutional principles once again, and faces which were not a part of the problems. Mr. Obama held himself out to be a Constitutional lawyer and packaged himself in Lincoln.
In four more years, as demonstrated by the recent Tea Parties throughout the nation, I don't think near as many Americans are going to be so readily fooled by either the Democrats or Republicans once again.
Or the National Council for A New America.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/03/gop-listens-in-drive-to-thrive/
What was interesting were the members of this new Republican Party outreach group, all liberals: Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, Sen. John McCain of Arizona and Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney. Neocon and globalists all. In other words, "New World Order" Republicans.
Mr. Bush and Mr. Romney acted as the spokesmen on a whistle stop at a pizza parlor. Their focus, they indicated, was not to recast the Republican Party - but to bring it and its former conservative members into the 21st Century. It was time, they said, to put the Reagan era to rest.
Interesting in that in this writer's opinion, there hasn't really been a true Conservative in federal office since Barry Goldwater in the 1960's. And while the Republican Party has been in the past a proponent of fiscal conservatism - these new spokesmen are certainly not in that mold, but Big Business CEO types that also view the American people and their wallets as a means to enlarging the riches of USA, Inc. and their own in the process. Nor are they small federal government believers.
It appears they have forgotten that the only reason Mr. Obama won the election was that many in this country were voting against the very platform this National Council For A New America represented - more years of war, and a bigger federal government.
Although Mr. Obama has betrayed at this point his campaign positions and rhetoric with respect to significantly drawing down our involvement in the Middle East war and instead merely focusing on bin Laden, and cutting federal spending, it was clear in their rejection of Mr. McCain, a member of this outreach program, that their message clearly was not that which Americans wanted any part of. NeoConservatism, or the "New World Order."
I think the "change" Americans were seeking was a "change" back to fundamental Constitutional principles once again, and faces which were not a part of the problems. Mr. Obama held himself out to be a Constitutional lawyer and packaged himself in Lincoln.
In four more years, as demonstrated by the recent Tea Parties throughout the nation, I don't think near as many Americans are going to be so readily fooled by either the Democrats or Republicans once again.
Or the National Council for A New America.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/03/gop-listens-in-drive-to-thrive/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
