CHANGE is a joke on the Democratic Party

Obama campaigned on a CHANGE ticket, but we got the first inkling that he was not really dedicated to CHANGE when he chose Washington insider, Joe Biden (aka 'Loose Change'), as his vice presidential candidate.

Now that he is our President-Elect, Obama is assembling a Cabinet that is a duplicate of the Clinton Administration. Heck, he's even embraced Hillary Clinton for Secretary of State! That is going to be an interesting juxtaposition as she is mightily power hungry. Obama is not giving any concessions to those who campaigned so hard for CHANGE.

The names he has chosen for his cabinet so far are surprisingly stale, as these people have failed in various moral and legal ways in the recent past.

Hillary Clinton has her own very visible skeletons and heavy baggage with Whitewater and a litany of dodgy choices.

Tom Daschle's represents humiliating defeat in his own state because of his failure to connect with his own party and people while Senate Majority Leader.

The possible choice of Bill Richardson, who leads the worst education system in the nation - better than only Puerto Rico in most areas of government service - speaks for itself.

Eric Holder, who oversaw the egregious Clinton pardons (Need I say more?) begs the question of his values.

Rahm Emmanuel, Chief of Staff and Democratic hatchet man who sends dead fish to people who disagree with him, does not represent positive change. He's a bully.

YEAH, THAT'S THE CHANGE WE NEED!!!!

Can we destroy the Democratic Party Dream by making the same mistakes over and over? "YES, WE CAN!!"

Don't take me wrong! We have dear friends in the Democratic Party. We want to have compassion on the poor, and we believe in stewardship of the environment and alternative energy sources. We believe in 'green' jobs. We believe that working people should not have to pay $500 - 1000 per month for medical insurance - of which probably half of that is lawyer fees. We don't understand why India can sell fuel cell vehicles for $5000 (here is more information of the REVA )when the Chevy Volt base price is going to be $40,000. We don't believe that American Car companies can do much right, and they should be run by the government until responsible leadership can take over - not by those inflated childish fat cats in their Lear Jets coming to Washington to beg for money so they can produce more cars we don't need and can't afford, like the Hummer, the Escalade, the ugly Ford Flex, and the hideous crossovers as well as other SUV types.

But will Obama's 'Back to the Future" cabinet bring about CHANGE? I doubt it and the joke is on the Democrats who elected him.

Republican Party Degeneration?

When I look at the field of presidential candidates on the Republican side, I wonder whose side they are running for. The 'front runner', Rudy Guiliani, has social views that line up with the Democrat front runner, Hillary Clinton. He's not a real conservative. Fred Thompson, seen as the 'great hope' for conservatives, doesn't seem to know how to run a campaign, nor what work to do in order to gain popularity. We wonder if he would be able to debate Clinton. Romney seems to have changed his mind about critical issues when convenient to do so.....like being "pro-choice" until deciding to run for President.

Is the Republican party so diluted that locally a person cannot clearly distinguish the party of a candidate by looking at their stand on issues alone? Why do we have to go to our party headquarters to find out who the candidates are? Are the candidates afraid to make their position clear?

The lack of clarity of position is evidenced by Republican dissatisfaction with the current slate of leading presidential candidates. I happened upon a poll in the sidebar of a random blog today. Here are the results:

Who is your favorite Republican Presidential Candidate?

• None of the above. I want a real Conservative! (38%, 279 Votes)
• Fred Thompson (28%, 207 Votes)
• Rudy Giuliani (16%, 116 Votes)
• Mitt Romney (8%, 59 Votes)
• Newt Gingrich (8%, 57 Votes)
• John McCain (2%, 17 Votes)

Total Voters: 735

There are so few Republican candidates that really exemplify what "conservative" means. The only one that talks the talk and has real world experience that will transfer to the role of President is Mike Huckabee. He would be a natural choice to lead the nation because of his successful experience as governor of Arkansas, and because he is a true conservative. I hope his hard work in Iowa and New Hampshire bears fruit, and that Republicans will not dismiss him as unelectable.

Did I Mention Hillary Is a Socialist?

Here is a shocking list of questions which I shall quote in their entirety. Thanks to Right Truth for posting this eye-opening list.

Who said this? (answers at the bottom, but don't look)

1) "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

A. Karl Marx
B. Adolph Hitler
C. Joseph Stalin
D. None of the above

2) "It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few...and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity."

A. Lenin
B. Mussolini
C. Idi Amin
D. None of the Above

3) "(We)...can't just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people."

A. Nikita Khrushev
B. Josef Goebbels
C. Boris Yeltsin
D. None of the above

4) "We have to build a political consensus and that requires people to give up a little bit of their own...in order to create this common ground."

A. Mao Tse Dung
B. Hugo Chavez
C. Kim Jong Il
D. None of the above

5) "I certainly think the free-market has failed."

A. Karl Marx
B. Lenin
C. Molotov
D. None of the above

6) "I think it's time to send a clear message to what has become the most profitable sector in (the) entire economy that they are being watched."

A. Pinochet
B. Milosevic
C. Saddam Hussein
D. None of the above

Answers:

(1) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/29/2004
(2) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 5/29/2007
(3) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007
(4) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007
(5) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007
(6) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 9/2/2005

These views do not represent the vision of America - the land of the free and the home of the brave. These are overtly communist values which represent redistribution of wealth and complete nationwide entitlement. Communism is a failed system. We've known that for years now. How sad that the Democratic "frontrunner" is so blatantly against the free market system that has been economically successful and has done the most good for this world in motivating people to aspire to be the best they can and work hard to achieve great goals.

Voters, if you want a nanny that will take care of your every need without the necessity of you having to work for what you have, then vote for Hillary. I will save my vote for a candidate who will inspire me to work for my dreams because I will achieve them by my own merit and not based on the 'equal share' of what a government will give me.

You become like the ones ya hang with!

Hillary Clinton is coming under fire for seeking advice from good old Sandy "is that a classified document in my pants" Berger. Here's a quote from Newsweek columnist Michael Hirsch:

The more experienced Hillary Clinton, meanwhile, has relied largely on her husband and a triumvirate of senior officials from his presidency—former secretary of state Madeleine Albright, former U.N. ambassador Richard Holbrooke and former national-security adviser Sandy Berger (who tries to keep a low profile after pleading guilty in 2005 to misdemeanor charges of taking classified material without authorization).

My question is this - did Clinton go bad like Berger or did Berger go bad like Clinton.

Rush Limbaugh is not News

Rush Limbaugh is not news. What is news is the loss of common sense and dignity in Congress.

Congress, the current Democratic Congress, has the lowest approval rating of any Congress in the history of the United States. They are rivaling the kind of demagoguery and outright partisanship for their own selfish ambitions that led to the Civil War. This Congress can be compared to the Pre-Civil War Congress where they were so morally weak and indecisive that they allowed the "Great Compromise" - that some states should be slave states and some should be free. I fear that we could be on the edge of another civil war with such incompetent and self serving leadership.

On both sides, we have clear and open evidence of pettiness, viciousness, corruption, bribery and sexual perversion. When the top leaders of our country act like animals, selfish children and whiny brats – attempting to screw strangers in public bathroom stalls, hiding money in freezers, using native Americans for their own corrupt political purposes, sleeping and drooling and ranting on public TV the American public knows its time for a change. (I’ll let you guess who they are. They are from both sides of the House and Senate and they have one thing in common – they love themselves and money more than they love the American they are hired to serve and defend.)

Most in Congress on both sides have an attitude of extreme treachery toward the very military THEY desperately need to keep their "candy asses" from being blown sky high on the way to work. The Carpetbagger from New York is using her senatorial office for no other reason than to run for president (and yes, she'll probably win - I believe the American people are overall just that stupid). Under this current Congress, which has put off any meaningful debate about illegal aliens and protection of our homeland, murderous illegal aliens can get more health and government benefits than a Hardworking US citizen who has paid their dues all their life, it is possible that freedom is not just being eroded, but is being destroyed.

In our country, we have laws - Don't murder. Don't steal. Don't lie.. The list goes on. But then we have our Congress and our political leaders decrying the "Two Americas", where, in reality, "if you are rich and famous you can break all the laws you want, maybe write a book, and get a ton of cash for it. But woe to you if you are a poor person of color! One false step and you are going down for 20 years because you felt sorry for yourself one day and just had to steal a bike.

According to God's Word, the true sign of the end times is that people would be evil, and this is how we would know what evil is - very simply: people would be lovers of themselves, and call what is evil good and what is good evil. I believe our Congress is in that camp and that they should all resign. Every last one of them. When people who represent our freedoms sacrifice them for their own power lust and personal ambition, are we really safe?

"What's in Your Wallet?"

That's what I want to know from Democratic candidates in this election cycle. Who's providing them the big bucks to promote their "Progressive" Socialist agenda?

Consider the Democrats who won't speak out against the MoveOn.org ad, including Hillary Clinton. MoveOn is generously supported by George Soros - a man who wants to be a political chessmaster in the world, and who uses his capital to influence elections. This was obvious during the last presidential election and is still continuing.

So, Soros wants to spend money to over throw what he considers 'fascist regimes' and has an obsessively negative view of the United States. Should he be allowed to 'buy' elections? Should he become the defacto King of America (and the world)?

A fair warning to Democratic candidates - What is in your wallet and who is controlling you with their dollars?

Dems Debate on Raising Taxes for Healthcare

Tonight on the AARP debate, Democratic candidates were touting their fabulous comprehensive and universal health care plans.....all paid for by raising Taxes on the "Rich" and by raising Capital Gains Tax from 15% to 27%.

I don't think Edwards, Richardson,Clinton, Biden and Dodd really have a background in economics. What they propose may satisfy the itching ears of the "poor" who are bitter and have a grudge against those who are blessed with the ability to accumulate wealth, but in reality it is those who have a little extra capital who can start businesses without borrowing and who can create jobs which increases the revenue base from which people pay more taxes. They don't realize that "Bush's Tax Cuts" - they speak that like a derogatory word - are what have fueled the strong economy we have now.

In their lofty and even pompous proclamations about health care, they fail to address the one great unmentionable in Democratic politics - Illegal aliens are sucking the health care system dry and not contributing via taxes. If that issue were dealt with, along with tort reform and a purging of corruption form the Medicare system that still pays our $12 for a tylenol, it would go a long way toward solving some of our health care issues.

Yes, Bill Richardson is just another Liberal but...

Yes, Bill Richardson is just another liberal. What sets him apart is his success as a governor of New Mexico as well as his vast experience as a former cabinet member and his international diplomatic experience, which the other Democratic candidates sorely lack.

Here in New Mexico he has cut taxes and been very pro-business. This has improved living circumstances immensely. I live in one of the cities that is experiencing tremendous growth and a rise in the standard of living (although, admittedly, vast poverty exists south of us due to the swell of illegal immigration.)

I am not a Democrat, but if my values were in agreement with theirs, I would consider Richardson the most qualified candidate of all in the field. Here’s hoping Hillary’s skeletons come out of the closet to haunt her, and that Obama’s charm is a thin veil revealing his shocking lack of experience and extreme views.

Presidential Quiz

This was a fun way to waste a little time. Try this quiz and let me know what your results were.

Here are my results:

1.		Theoretical Ideal Candidate (100%)
		2.	Fred Thompson (63%) Information link
		3.	Mitt Romney (62%) Information link
		4.	Tom Tancredo (62%) Information link
		5.	Duncan Hunter (61%) Information link
		6.	John McCain (61%) Information link
		7.	Jim Gilmore (61%) Information link
		8.	Chuck Hagel (58%) Information link
		9.	Newt Gingrich (58%) Information link
		10.	Sam Brownback (57%) Information link
		11.	Tommy Thompson (55%) Information link
		12.	Mike Huckabee (52%) Information link
		13.	Ron Paul (50%) Information link
		14.	Rudolph Giuliani (48%) Information link
		15.	Kent McManigal (36%) Information link
		16.	Christopher Dodd (35%) Information link
		17.	Al Gore (34%) Information link
		18.	Michael Bloomberg (34%) Information link
		19.	John Edwards (31%) Information link
		20.	Bill Richardson (31%) Information link
		21.	Hillary Clinton (28%) Information link
		22.	Wesley Clark (24%) Information link
		23.	Joseph Biden (23%) Information link
		24.	Barack Obama (20%) Information link
		25.	Dennis Kucinich (18%) Information link
		26.	Alan Augustson (18%) Information link
		27.	Mike Gravel (17%) Information link
		28.	Elaine Brown (10%) Information link

Last Word on the Fairness Doctrine

Diane Feinstein was photographed leaving Congress after the Fairness Doctrine was voted down.

Can there be any doubt???

Some people say that Islam is the "Religion of Peace." I know a few muslims who live here who are "peaceful." That is because they appreciate the freedoms and lifestyle of the United States of America. Sheik Ahmad Bahr would be killing them if he were here right now. In fact, Bahr wants all of us dead. Every American and Israeli. And they call them selves adherents of a "Religion of Peace."

Here are his very words. Read them and shake yourself free from ignorance. Realize that there is no possibility of peace between Israel and the Palestinians. Realize that there is an aggressive contingency prepared to behead you and destroy your loved ones simply because you are not a Muslim.

Ahmad Bahr began: "You will be victorious" on the face of this planet. You are the masters of the world on the face of this planet. Yes, [the Koran says that] "you will be victorious," but only "if you are believers." Allah willing, "you will be victorious," while America and Israel will be annihilated. I guarantee you that the power of belief and faith is greater than the power of America and Israel. They are cowards, who are eager for life, while we are eager for death for the sake of Allah. That is why America's nose was rubbed in the mud in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Somalia, and everywhere.

Bahr continued and said that America will be annihilated, while Islam will remain. The Muslims "will be victorious, if you are believers." Oh Muslims, I guarantee you that the power of Allah is greater than America, by whom many are blinded today. Some people are blinded by the power of America. We say to them that with the might of Allah, with the might of His Messenger, and with the power of Allah, we are stronger than America and Israel.

The Hamas spokesperson concluded with a prayer, saying: "Oh Allah, vanquish the Jews and their supporters. Oh Allah, count their numbers, and kill them all, down to the very last one. Oh Allah, show them a day of darkness. Oh Allah, who sent down His Book, the mover of the clouds, who defeated the enemies of the Prophet defeat the Jews and the Americans, and bring us victory over them."

What will you do? Can there be any doubt that we have an enemy? Any Democrats listening? Pelosi? Reid? Clinton?

Not your Father's definition of Multilingualism

Hillary Clinton is an interesting bird. She wants so badly to be president that she caters her every speech to her audiences, even to the point of putting on what sounds like a very fake southern accent.

Don't get me wrong - she is a smart woman. Some would even say shrewd. And because of this I expect her to have a very strong command of the English language. Discovering that she considered herself "multi-lingual" because she can switch accents just made her lose political capital with me. Doesn't she realize that President Bush really "is" (and we are not talking about what the definition of "is" is) multilingual since he speaks Spanish very well. I am multilingual as a German speaker. My husband is as well, being able to communicate in Greek as well as his native tongue, English.

Now the Associated Press calls her a "... linguistic polyglot—a Chicago native turned New York resident who works in Washington and spent two decades living in Arkansas when her husband, Bill Clinton, was governor." What an ignorant farce for Hillary as well as the ignorant reporters of the Associated Press.

What are Democrats trying to accomplish?

I am an unabashed conservative. Not a Rush Limbaugh ditto-head. Not a right wingnut. Not a Phred Phelps Pflamer. Just a conservative leaning toward moderate that is trying to understand what is happening on the political scene.

I'm one of the people that Democrats would want to woo to their side. I'm not enamored with Bush, although I have supported him and do support (with only a little reservation) the war effort. I'm not happy with the leftward swing of those who call themselves conservative. I have strong feelings about social issues and care about the environment.

But I have to wonder what the Democrats are doing to attract people like me. First consider their leading presidential candidates. Hillary Clinton, based on her past baggage and association with "only the second president to be impeached in all of US history" (I'm quoting my dear husband), with her failed health care plan from the Clinton administration, and with her socialistic leanings does little to inspire trust in voters like me. She might rise to the occasion if she were elected, but she has no clue what to do with the war. Nor do the other Democratic candidates. It's complicated, but there is no "plan," as Kerry would say, on the Democrat side to end the war (nor any clear vision of the consequences of such action) outside of the "death by a thousand cuts" agenda.

Barak Obama is a man with so little experience who got lucky to be catapulted to national attention. He is more liberal than Hillary Clinton, and the church he claims to belong to has a statement of faith that appears to promote a bigoted form of reverse discrimination (everywhere you see the word "black" replace it with "white" and it could be the statement of faith of a racist white supremacist church.) Where DO the Democrats get these "leaders"? Don't they vet them first? Or maybe their leading candidates really do represent the views of the Democratic leadership. I find that possibility concerning!

Speaking of 'Death by a Thousand Cuts,' the flood of subpoenas demanded by the Democrats because of the legitimate firing of a few attorneys is this side of ridiculous. Here are some comments by Mark Davis:

What they seek to destroy is this presidency they loathe with their every breath. Mr. Gonzales has plenty to answer for, but the elevation of these attorney dismissals to a Watergate-caliber controversy is wholly without basis.

Add the irony that the voices stoking the scandal imagery are from the same congressional and journalistic outposts that have sugar-coated the Clinton years for more than a decade, and the spectacle borders on the obscene.

I've not even gotten into the shenanigans of Pelosi, (Barely had Pelosi been sworn in as Speaker of the House when the Dems began their assault on gun rights, free speech, freedom of religion, the right of bloggers to alert readers to contact Congress concerning pending legislation, and a host of other subversive legislation) Murtha and Dean, but to me they are equally disappointing for their pandering to the left wing of their party.

I'm not one of those voters who decides to skip voting in despair and disgust, but it may be that, again, I vote for the lesser of two evils in hopes that some real leadership will rise up in the next six years.

Some candidates will do anything for a vote

Well, here is the latest offering by Hillary Clinton. I'm not impressed by the fake drawl- nor the fake spirituality. Drudge aptly called this Kentucky Fried Hillary. I know the song "I don't get no ways tired" and have sung it many times. It is very inspirational, or at least was until it was drawled-out by Clinton at a black church in Kentucky. Who does she think she is fooling??? I think I would be turned off by this even if I did believe in her politics.

Update:

A little more commentary about the Drawl. Here's more from ABC news.

Democrats doing the flip flop again

On October 11, 2002, the Democrats voted to go to war with Iraq. They had been given all the intelligence information available. They knew of Saddam Hussein's continued defiance of the UN resolutions against him and his country. There was a list of 23 reasons to come into conflict with Iraq on the Iraq War Resolution. Nobody fooled them into this. Their words and reasons for choosing to do battle with Iraq are very well documented. Reid, Kerry, Clinton, Schumer, Biden and the rest of the Donkey Crew all were enthusiastic in their support for the war.

Now, leading Democrats are trying to say they did not mean to vote the way they did.

The enemy is still the same and just as fierce (yeah, yeah, Saddam is out of the way) The threat to our nation is still there, and these politicians think they can run away from a war they approved with a few little non binding resolutions, and the threat of pulling out all the purse strings.

What do the Democrats want? Would they be happy to see us lose? Haven't they the foresight to know that if we lose because of their spite for all things Republican, that they will lose even more? Do the Democrats know they might incite another, worse, conflict at their doorstep. The price for such a temporary victory would be people crying "peace, peace when there is no peace".

More Than a Little Presumptuous

An interesting story came across the news wires today. Some top Democratic leaders are already planning a continuing political career for Bill Clinton should his wife, Hillary, become the President of the United States. Paul Begala and Larry Sabato believe Bill would make a wonderful senatorial replacement in New York as Hilary would have to vacate her seat in the middle of a term.

This possibility should raise not a few eyebrows. There are several things to consider:

Isn't this presumptuous of Democratic leadership? What about the will of the people of New York? The governor of New York, Eliot Spitzer, is the one who will make the choice - not the DNC or the Clinton machine.

From the article:

So far, speculation about potential successors has focused on New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo and environmental lawyer Robert F. Kennedy Jr., whose father once held the same Senate seat.

The other concern is the compromise of the balance of powers in American government. If Hillary is chosen by the American people to be President, and Bill is appointed to finish her Senate term, there will be the appearance of nepotism. Also, will Bill's fellow senators be afraid of working with him because of the power he may wield as the husband of the President? He will never be treated like a freshman Senator. There is no precedent for this type of situation. Additionally, senators who were involved in the impeachment proceedings are still in office in the Senate. What will his relationship with them be like? In the Senate, it is necessary to work out compromises for legislation to be passed. The rules of the Senate foster a spirit of debate. Senators need a sense of collegiality to work together, and it is likely that giving Bill Clinton a Senate seat would stifle the process because of the fear and awe he would inspire. Mostly fear, unfortunately.

I would not be pleased with this situation if it were happening with a Republican presidential hopeful and spouse.

I would love to know what my readers think about this. Please leave a comment.

When Democrats run as Republicans and Republicans run as Democrats

What would really be political news?

Something most are trying to ignore. Democrats are running on Republican issues to gain votes, and Republicans are running on Democrat issues to gain votes. This causes fusion of the moderates of both political parties, and not a little confusion.

Take the election last November. The Democrats who were successful in taking Republican seats ran on predominately conservative issues - cut taxes, strong on defense, pro-business, and one or two were actually anti-abortion. While Republicans were running on conventional democratic issues - socialized medicine, pro-government entitlements, the raising of the minimum wage and anti-war positions.

Here are two articles from the midterm election season before the election that discuss this:

In Key House Races, Democrats Run to the Right

Republicans Running As Democrats

Who did this benefit? Well, the Democrats, for sure! And it says a lot about Americans in general. Average Americans are neither far right or far left in their political views. They usually vote for someone who is similar to them and who makes them feel safe. They want someone in elected office who is fair and reasonable and able to meet their personal needs.

Now, who in this presidential race is leaning in which direction? Let's look at the major contenders for the 2008 Presidential race:

On the Republican Side: John McCain, Mitt Romney, Rudy Guiliani

On the Democrat Side: Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama, John Edwards, Bill Richardson

The rest, discounting the possibility of a dark horse candidate, are small potatoes and will probably be eliminated in the primaries - not because they are bad candidates, but simply because they don't have the money or the political organization behind them.

Let's examine the candidate list more closely based on prior political history.

John McCain, who tags himself as a conservative, is, in fact, politically a Democrat. So much so that John Kerry DID ask him to be his vice-presidential running mate during Kerry's failed bid for the presidency. The likely reason McCain turned Kerry down was not that he was not interested, but that he wanted to run for the presidency himself. His pro-tax and spend attitude, and deliberate votes against the Bush tax cuts (while flip-floppingly voting to extend them) speak for themselves.

Mitt Romney was pro-abortion before he was anti-abortion. What is more confusing is his stance for or against gay marriage. This has him at odds with conservative groups all across the country. How else would a Republican be elected as Governor of Massachusetts! Goodness!!!!
Note, the art of flip-flopping has been honed to perfection in that state!

Rudy Guiliani never saw a tax he didn't like, but we should forgive him since he is from New York and can't help it . He is openly pro-choice and very liberal. Despite his left leaning views, he will probably become the Republican nominee and will probably be elected because we like to choose a president to keep us safe, and Guilani has proven himself as a leader in post-9/11 New York. The man is gifted and articulate in speech craft and is a likable human being. (unlike a nameless former presidential candidate that had a "plan" but no answers!)

Now it's time to skewer the Democratic hopefuls.

Hillary Clinton leaned conservatively in several issues but recently has been leaning more to the left to appease the radical elements of her party. She carefully researched and voted for the Iraq war before she decided to change her mind to please the Cindy Sheehan branch of her party. In the early days of her Senate career, she voted very conservatively on immigration.
If she wants the conservative vote, she is going to have to become even more centrist. (Or start praying in a Baptist Church - no, she just has to be seen praying in a Baptist church.)


Barak Obama - Well, what's to say about him? He's good looking and well spoken. If you are a Democrat, you really should vote for this guy. Not only does he totally toe the social-democrat line, but if he gets in office he will change the United States into a leftist socialist utopia that Hugo Chavez would stand up and salute.

John Edwards is the pretty boy in the bunch. Nice teeth, too. Why is he even running? He could not even carry his own state (then again, neither could Gore). And his repetitive "Two Americas" stump campaign is true - His American ,which is super wealthy,......and the rest of us wage slaves. His only advantage is that he holds the keys of the "plan" of the nameless failed presidential candidate!

Then there's Bill Richardson. He is the only Democratic governor that actually cut taxes. He did this for the people of New Mexico before he decided to run for President because he knew it would be best for his state. He was right. Economically, New Mexico is a pro business and pro growth state, and jobs abound here. He's been pro education, the roads are superior, he has used justice and common sense in the Immigration situation, and would have been a tremendous asset if Bush had not been so stubborn concerning a reliable and compassionate guest worker program. Although he will allow abortion to continue as the established law of the land, there is an aggressive pro abstinence program in New Mexico, and funding so women who choose to keep their babies can have reasonable options.

Richardson is very eloquent, and I believe he would decimate Hillary Clinton in open debate based on his personal integrity, experience and character alone. He is the true moderate of all the candidates, and is more conservative than the top Republican contenders for the office of president. He only lacks the money and the political machinery to have a fair contest against Hilary Clinton. This is a David and Goliath story - the Clinton machine being the Goliath. Richardson can win if he can get his message out. Good thing he has name recognition. Many Christian Conservatives, given a choice between left leaning Republicans Guiliani or Romney vs. right leaning Democrat Richardson, would discover, with chagrin, themselves voting Democrat.

We look forward to the upcoming political contest. What we want is a good man or woman to be President, and the American people would like (not that we are going to get) someone that is honest and effective as a leader.


Here is a Blog that will tell you more about this man. Better than I can tell you, any day.

Americans for Richardson

People should take a careful look at Bill Richardson as the next President of the United States because he is the very best Democrat running as a stealth Republican that we have ever seen.

Why the Name Dropping???

Even though I disagree with Hillary Clinton politically, I know she is a formidable presidential candidate. She is highly intelligent, persuasive and influential. My husband and I see her as a shoo-in as the Democratic nominee for the next presidential election. Hillary has so much going for her!

Why does Hillary choose to lean on her husband's name as her campaign is gaining steam? We know Bill Clinton was one of the best in his speech craft and his way of connecting to people.

But Bill has the legacy of being only the second US president in history to be impeached (not threatened with impeachment, but truly impeached) And his impeachment was not for some horrific treasonous act, but for perjury! He lied about his extra-marital affair with that....that.....blue dress wearing dark haired girl!!! (Yes, I know her name!) (If that had been my husband, he would have been out on his ear and I would have gone on with life)

The New York Times has an article about Hillary campaigning in New Hampshire, and all the while mentioning Bill here and there. Does Hillary think Democratic voters will not love her without the fragrance of Bill on her? I think she is strong enough to stand on her own, and so do many others!

Choosing to "Billify" her campaign only confirms my belief that she married him merely to catapult her into political prominence. The Bill perfume she wears may stain what should be a successful campaign for the presidential nomination.