J's Cafe Nette

Archive for November 28th, 2007

What in the name of blazes is this all about?

Open primaries ­ in which voters don’t have to be a member of a party to vote for its candidates ­ have long been a thorn in the sides of national Democrats and Republicans. Now, according to the Associated Press, Virginia’s G.O.P. is going to do something about it: “If you’re planning to vote in Virginia’s February Republican presidential primary, be prepared to sign an oath swearing your Republican loyalty. The State Board of Elections on Monday approved a state Republican Party request to require all who apply for a G.O.P. primary ballot first vow in writing that they’ll vote for the party’s presidential nominee next fall.”

Has the Virginia GOP completely lost their marbles? This is arrogance (or fear) beyond anything I would have expected from the party of which I have long been a member.

It’s not bad enough that we have excruciating, long campaigns and candidates whose positions are increasingly difficult to understand, now we have party leaders in one of our states asking voters to sign a vow to vote for a particular person in a Presidential election.

While I agree, (as stated in the article), this could not be enforced in any manner as once you enter that booth you are alone with your conscience, I would never sign my freedom to vote as I please away to anyone and I hope many GOP loyalists in the State of Virginia feel the same.

What utter nonsense that teters on a look of desperation.

Perhaps the Virginia GOP should worry more about finding credible candidates to run for open Congressional seats and less about attempting to influence the very personal decision of each and every voter.

Update: I have a great deal of respect for AJ Strata and his work at his blog. Knowing he is a Virginia resident and feels quite the same on this issue as I have expressed gives me hope that voters in Virginia will not stand for this nonsense.

Tweet This Post

Bill Clinton is the most shameless politician who is the least embarrassed at looking us square in the face and contradicting what is known on record to be his previous position on an issue.

He now claims he was always against the Iraq war. Always, since when?

Former president Bill Clinton said on Tuesday that he “opposed Iraq from the beginning,” apparently glossing over the more nuanced views of the war he has expressed over time. Clinton made the remarks while campaigning for his wife in Iowa – a largely anti-war state for Democrats — as he expressed bitterness over getting a tax cut with money that could have been spent on the military.

“Even though I approved of Afghanistan and opposed Iraq from the beginning, I still resent that I was not asked or given the opportunity to support those soldiers,” Clinton said. He said he “should not have gotten” the tax cuts he received as a wealthy earner.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton voted to authorize the war in Iraq, and has never apologized for her vote, even as the Democratic nominating process has reached fever pitch and she has been drawn into a three-way tie with more ardent Iraq war foes, Sen. Barack Obama and former Sen. John Edwards.

Sen. Clinton has, at times, even cited the experience her husband had dealing with the Iraqi regime in the 1990s as one reason she gave Pres. Bush the benefit of the doubt when she voted for the war in 2002….

…But past remarks made by the former president do leave open a question about how fervently Clinton opposed the war in real time and before it grew widely unpopular. In immediate hindsight, Clinton did not sound like a fierce critic. “I supported the president when he asked for authority to stand up against weapons of mass destruction in Iraq,” Clinton said on May 18, 2003, during a commencement speech at Tougaloo College in Mississippi.

Sometimes in a presidency it is necessary for a president to lie to us as when President Kennedy excused himself from an event in Chicago saying he had a cold when he was really dealing with the Cuban missile crisis in Washington.

That’s excusable, but for a former president to tell us a bald faced lie in order to make his presidential candidate wife look more favorable to the voters is inexcusable.

It’s all about power with this tag team. Remember the actual audio recording of Bill Clinton saying he was offered Osama bin Laden on a silver plate but refused because he hadn’t committed any crimes? He obviously knew he was behind the first World Trade Center bombing and other terrorist activities but he chose not to pursue him.

And who can ever forget watching that long, wagging finger as he told us he never had sex with that woman—Monica Lewinski when he knew he was telling a lie?

Who can forget he lied to a grand jury about his sexual harassment of women during the Paula Jones hearing and got a fine and loss of law license over that lie?

His wife, the aspiring president, is just as bad if not worse. Remember the cattle futures in which she invested a mere $1,000 and got a huge return in a short time? Blame it on beginner’s luck.

How about the Rose law firm billing records that couldn’t be found during the Whitewater investigation, but suddenly showed up on a table in the residence of the White House with no explanation and with her finger prints on them?

Now we have this coming from the Washington Post, not exactly a right-wing publication.

When Americans step into the voting booths next November we all need to ask ourselves if this is what we want for another four to eight years if she is the Democratic nominee as expected.

Now is the time for a gut check for all of us. Let’s pray we have the guts to check it and reject it.

Update: If ~J~ will indulge me, I’d like to add a link to this piece by Cassy Fiano which expounds on the thoughts in this post with further quotes from the former President. Among my favorites…

……Even though I approved of Afghanistan and opposed Iraq from the beginning, I still resent that I was not asked or given the opportunity to support those soldiers.”

Resent away Mr. Clinton..I can think of no reason you would except your own regrets for what you did not accomplish while in office.

Sue

Tweet This Post

Sometimes you read a line or a paragraph which you just want to share:

Quick, besides marrying a future president, what is it that Hillary has accomplished that hasn’t been accomplished by any number of women over two decades? In some ways, she has accomplished much less than many.

Yep!

Tweet This Post