About Me

Name: ilja
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Search

Masquerading Liberalism

Posted by ilja on Sunday, October 28, 2007 9:01:58 PM
With Halloween just around the corner and the primaries coming faster than ever before, I thought now would be a perfect time to discuss a phenomenon that I've been noticing lately in the race for the Republican Presidential nomination. That phenomenon is how to successfully masquerade your liberalism.

Here is my top 10 list of how it is done. Please feel free to add your own.

#10. When asked about your liberal record, cite George Will

#9. When accused of being to the left of Hillary Clinton, laugh really loud and change the subject

#8. When asked about your support of sanctuary cities, claim that you only did what you had to do to encourage illegal immigrants to come forward with information about other illegal immigrants who have broken other laws besides their in ital crime of entering the country illegally and say it all without ever using the word "illegal"

#7. When asked about your history of gun control, say that you understand that what worked for New York won't work elsewhere but you alone are responsible for the crime going down in New York and some of your best friends are hunters

#6. When asked about your support of abortion, your support of partial-birth abortion, your stance against parental notification and your donations to Planned Parenthood, state that you are going to appoint strict constructionist Judges so all of that shouldn't matter besides there are more important things like the War on Terror

#5. When asked how can Social Conservatives vote for you when you are obviously not in their camp, mention the 80/20 factor that no one agrees with someone 100% of the time but you figure 80/20 is enough to earn their support (of course never mention that it's really 20/80 and don't worry, the media is not going to correct you)

#4. When asked about your statement about being a liberal when you ran for Mayor of NY, bring up Hillary Clinton and that you are the only candidate that can beat her in the general election since you can attract those in the middle

#3. When asked about your multiple marriages, your ex-wife finding out you were divorcing her on TV or the member of you campaign staff who has been accused of pedophilia, say that you never claimed to be perfect but remind them that you single-handedly cleaned up New York City while still doing the things you are being accused of

#2. When asked any questions about how you plan to handle Social Security, healthcare or any other details of how you plan to solve any domestic issues, remind them that you were the Mayor of the largest and greatest city of the world and as such you are qualified to handle anything single-handedly

And the #1 way to masquerade your liberalism:

When asked how you plan on handling any foreign issues, including but not limited to Iran, bring up September 11th and how your experience as America's Mayor on that day qualifies only you as the next President of the United States

Elusively yours,
ilja
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A Divided Conservatism Will Not Stand

Posted by ilja on Sunday, October 21, 2007 3:39:39 PM
I don't know how many of you were listening, but talk-show host Laura Ingraham sent a message to us on the right this past Friday that I believe Conservatives of every stripe need to take to heart. She said that we need to find a Candidate that will satisfy Social Conservatives, Fiscal Conservatives and National Security Conservatives if we want a real shot at winning the Presidency.

But mainly, it seemed to me that she was talking to us Social Conservatives who are splitting our support among all the candidates except the one who is supposedly leading in the polls. She reminded us that we need a coalition of voters in order to have a chance of winning first the Republican Presidential nomination and then the actual Presidency with a Conservative candidate.

She admonished us for waiting to hear from the perfect candidate since obviously there is no such animal. She reminded us that we weren't going to get everything we want in one candidate.

Then she went on to admonish the actual candidates themselves for not going on the offensive against the one liberal candidate who is leading in the polls and yes she named names talking about Rudy Giuliani being the one liberal on our side of the aisle. She suggested that whichever of the Conservative candidates speaks out first with forcefulness and dares to call Rudy on the carpet for his liberal views would have a much better chance of gaining the support of those Conservatives who are still in limbo. She told them that they would need to fight for what they believe.

Here's an excerpt of what she said to the best of my transcribing abilities. In the first part, she is addressing the Republican candidates.

If you are going to stop Giuliani, if you want to stop Giuliani, maybe you don't but if you do, then you've got to come at him with everything you have and that means you've got [to] call him a liberal on the border, a liberal on spending, a liberal on immigration, a liberal on life, a liberal on marriage, a liberal on all these issues that frankly brought the Republican party together in 1980 . . .

If you are claiming to carry the conservative mantle, then you have got to on every front be hitting Giuliani and it's got to be hard enough that the media starts to pay attention to it, because the elites are lining up behind Giuliani one after the other . . .
In this next section, Laura starts to address us Conservatives.

The hand-wringing on the sidelines is really getting old . .oh well, Romney's not perfect . . . oh well, Thompson's not energetic enough . . . oh Huckleberry is this or that, . . . [if] you don't decide soon who you are going to support, or support Giuliani if you think he's your best shot too but you are going to be irrelevant, do people not get this, that they are going to never have their phone calls returned . . .
I could not agree more with her. I do believe that if we don't start getting it in gear, that we are going to be left out in the cold for decades to come.

Next, she goes back to addressing the candidates.

As an aside, please note that I left out portions of what she said mainly because I could not transcribe that much information but also because I am only addressing the united we stand, divided we fall portion of her message. While the parts you are reading may sound like she is totally bashing Giuliani, she did in fact address him in ways that were not always negative. She was mainly though speaking to us and to the other candidates.

Enough with the niceties, I'm beginning to think that everybody's just going through the motions here. Nobody wants to hit Giuliani . . . why are they afraid? I want a race here, I want the race for the people . . . I am campaigning for you.

Conservative principals are the winning principals they are not the losing principals . . . the person who I think is going to cut through all of this is going to drop the niceties and start going for the solar plexus, okay, you got to start going for the body blows, run, run, run . . . is nobody running for President out there?
Next Laura goes on to address us, once again. She is telling us to get it in gear.

Stand up for someone else, nobody's going to be perfect . . .

Nobody is going to be the answer to all of your prayers, nobody. So the question is who has the best chance to both carry forward the coalition, the Republican coalition, that means social conservatives, economic conservatives, & foreign policy hawk[s]?

Which candidate brings those people together the best? . . .

Which of these candidates can best bring together the Reagan coalition? . . .

You've got to get in this game and stop complaining that there's no real conservatives out there . . .
Amen sister!

Laura goes back to addressing the candidates below:

If you want to win this you've got to fight for it. . . If you think he's going to destroy the Republican Party then stand up and say it!

This party will never be the same, it will never be a majority party, this work that was laid, the foundation that was laid by Ronald Reagan over 30 years to bring these coalitions together is going to be destroyed period if this is what you do.
I personally think Laura is right on the money. I do believe that we are going to have to unite if we truly want someone who represents us in the White House. I also believe that we are going to have to decide on someone who not only more closely supports our main issues but who is also palatable to other Conservatives whose main concerns are different than our own.

As I'm sure most of you are aware, I believe that candidate is Fred Thompson. While he is not perfect, he is the only candidate that would be strong on Social, Fiscal and National Security issues. In addition, he would be a great candidate for the libertarians with his views on Federalism, though admittedly he is no Ron Paul.

And last but most certainly not least, he is the strongest candidate by far, who has a chance of winning the nomination, on illegal immigration. Sure he's no Tom Tancredo but who is besides him and Duncan Hunter and neither one of them have a shot at the nomination.

I think the time has come or at least it's pretty close where us Social Conservatives truly need to unite behind one candidate else we are no longer going to have a seat at the table. Period, dot, bingo.

As for those of you Conservatives who aren't concerned about the Social issues, do you remember the last time we had a candidate who was not palatable to Social Conservatives, who caved to the pro-choice Republicans and what happened to him?

Elusively yours,
ilja
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The "Real" One-Issue Voters

Posted by ilja on Sunday, October 14, 2007 9:25:19 PM
We've all read those posts from people complaining about anyone who considers abortion to be too important an issue to compromise on when it comes to voting. Hardly a thread can go by pertaining to these particular voters where someone does not use the phrase "one-issue voters". Of course, these voters they are referencing will come in and explain why they are not one-issue voters but those posts seem to go in one ear and out the other.

I am not here to rehash that particular point especially since I know I won't convince anyone anyway who already holds this view. I am here to talk about the "real" one-issue voters.

While I am not here to rehash the former, I do need to point out parts of their argument in order to clarify the latter. The main reason that abortion foes give for not being a one-issue voter is that they consider a multitude of stances that a candidate holds before deciding for whom to vote. In other words, while many of them will not cross the abortion line and vote for someone who is pro-abortion, they will study other issues as well when making their decision. So while their choice of candidate must be anti-abortion, they must also be on the right side of the other major issues that these particular voters cares about.

On the other hand, the voters who I consider "real" one-issue voters don't seem to have a problem with their candidate of choice being on the opposite side of the other major issues that they claim to care about as long as he is perceived to be on the right side of the one issue on which they make their decision.

That issue is the War against Islamic Fascists.

Before you jump down my throat and give me the usual 'but none of the rest will matter if we don't defeat the Terrorists', give me a chance to explain.

I agree that we can NOT sit back and do nothing to aggressively defeat the Terrorists. I also agree that we need to go on both the offensive and the defensive when it comes to defeating Islamic Fascism. As a matter of fact, I will not vote for a candidate who believes the way to defeat the enemy and defend our homeland is through appeasement and amnesty.

Where I part with those whom I consider the "real" one-issue voters is that while as I've implied above, this issue is one of my most important issues, it is not my only important issue. Yet, I have noticed that nearly all of the candidates running for the Republican Presidential nomination are in agreement with us on this issue.

So why are these voters so quick to throw away their concerns on all the other issues while referencing this one issue that most of the candidates on the right agree?

I can't say for sure but I suspect it has to do with one of three motives. Either they have been so convinced by what they saw on video that their one candidate who is definitely not very conservative on the other major issues is superior above all the other candidates to such a degree on this one issue that the other candidates could not possibly do as good of a job as him. Or, the other issues never really mattered that much to them anyway and this is one way of supporting someone who is not strong on the other issues with the excuse that it won't matter what we do about the other issues if we are all dead. Or last but most defintely not least, they are really on the other side of these issues that they so easily dismiss.

The War against Islamic Fascism is likely going to last a long time, including past the next President's administration and even past many of our lifetimes. Are we suppose to not care about any of the other issues for decades to come or in some of our cases, the rest of our lives?

Elusively yours,
ilja
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

All the Conservative Pundits' Horses

Posted by ilja on Saturday, October 13, 2007 10:10:54 PM

This is a Blog done by a good friend of mine whom I have learned quite a bit from since I started paying attention to politics just a few short years ago. I thought it was well-worth the read.


by Sturm Ruger
Saturday, October 13, 2007
The Frederalist
Posted in it's entirety with permission

Used to be, you didn't need a scorecard to read a column written by a conservative pundit. But then along came Election 2008 two years early, and now you have to read 'em with a grain of salt. No, better make that a pound of salt.

Take Jennifer Rubin (please). She's regularly thrashed Fred Thompson for months in the American Spectator's AmSpec blog. And in a recent post on Race 4 2008, she explains that it's not just the NY Times that is bashing Thompson, but points to pundits David Frum, Robert Novak and George Will as conservatives who have been critical of the former Senator. What she fails to mention is that all three of those writers, plus Rubin herself, have their own horses in the race. More on that just a few paragraphs down.

Although Rubin is a regular at the conservative Spectator and is also published at Human Events, she wrote a piece for the liberal New York Observer titled Five Easy Arguments Against Fred Thompson.

That was not the first time Rubin has been helpful to the Democats in trying to take down Thompson. She has, in fact, been showing her anti-Frederalist bias since long before the big guy officially entered the presidential race. In an analysis for ABC News written last summer about Fred Thompson's testing-the-waters-campaign, she opined, "Thompson appears to have gone well beyond the limits imposed by federal law." Just a month later, former Democrat Party staff member Lane Hudson filed his FEC Complaint against Fred. Hudson, you may remember, is the liberal blogger who exposed the Mark Foley scandal. Never mind that Fred's testing-the-waters campaign had hired a former FEC chairman to advise them on precisely what it could and could not do under the law, quarterback Rubin felt the need to get something started, and the Democrats took the handoff and ran with it.

In another ABC article on Thompson from last spring, she harped on the "lazy" meme, saying that the charge translates into "speculation that maybe he will be a less committed and focused candidate, unwilling or unaware of the demands of the campaign." Gotta spread those DNC talking points, doncha know.

Indeed, one is led to ask, "Who's side is she on?" Rudy Giuliani's, actually. Rubin never has a harsh word for Hizzoner, and she sings his praises in forte voice. How about the trio she mentioned in the Race 4 2008 post? Novak has recently let it be known that he thinks Ron Paul would make a fine president; George Will is for any subcomponent of Rudy McRomney; and John Fund is backing Rudy. As a matter of fact, Fund has gone one step further and hired on with the Giulini campaign.

These four are not the only pundits who have jumped on various candidates' bandwagons early. Rich Lowry and Deroy Murdock at NRO are very Rudy-friendly. Townhall.com's Hugh Hewitt is shamelessly pro-Romney, and Michael Medved, also from Townhall, often expresses his great admiration for John McCain.

The problem is, not a one of these pundits will include a disclaimer in their columns informing the reader of which dog they have in the hunt, although Hewitt will at least tell you that he has written Romney's biography. You have to read a number of their columns before you realize that they have few unkind words to say about Candidate A and are almost always critical of Candidate B.

They should all take a lesson from John Hawkins, blogmeister of Right Wing News. Hawkins worked as a consultant to the Duncan Hunter campaign for a few months, and he took great pains to point out that fact with every post he made in which he expressed his opinion of a competing candidate. Hawkins even posted disclaimers about his former relationship with the Hunter campaign long after his relationship with Hunter's campaign was severed. Bloggers, in general, have been much more up front than their counterparts in the old media about which candidates they support in the presidential sweepstakes.

So the next time you read a piece in the conservative media telling you that Fred Thompson has surely blown it this time and that his campaign may not be long for this world, consider the source and consider which candidate that source would like to see as the GOP nominee at the next Republican presidential convention. Also consider that most voters, unlike us political junkies, never read a word of what the pundits write, and these are the people who have placed Fred Thompson solidly in second place in all the polls.

The Frederalist
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Sincerely Fred

Posted by ilja on Friday, October 12, 2007 7:43:03 PM

The great white hope, their Savior, the next Reagan, the actor, no fire in the belly, the staff turnovers, the uhs, the Guccis, the lobbying, more uhs, the too-late entrance, the ups and downs of his campaign, the constant predictions of this is it, the make it or break it debate, and yet he's still here. He's still at least second in most polls and even first in some. He has always been a top-tier candidate even prior to his official entrance into the race.


But why? Why is Fred still doing so well if he hasn't started a firestorm? He's old. He get's tired. He's lazy. He's no Reagan. So why is he the brunt of so many attacks? Why do they keep writing about him if they all think he doesn't have a chance? Why did the other top-tier candidates pretend he wasn't in the room until Romney threw his obviously pre-written line about "Law and Order" into the debate?


Have you been listening? Have you been paying attention?


Speech after speech, paper after paper, interview after interview, they all include the same common theme but hardly anyone talks about it.


He said it in his speech to the VFW National Convention when talking about our national security.

We must have a frank and continuous conversation about this with the American people because, above all, we must have the support and unity of the American people if we are to succeed.

To reverse this situation we must reassess our national priorities and face the truth about what it will take to defend this country.

While this quote is from his prepared remarks, I noticed a little blurb that re-enforces what I've noticed.

Note: Senator Thompson departs frequently from prepared texts

Did you hear what Fred said at the Americans for Prosperity Summit? While I couldn't find a transcript of his speech, I do have a link to a YouTube video of it and did my best to transcribe some of what he said.

We have to make our case to the American people.

We sensed there was something going on . . . we took our case to them. We talked about first principals. Strong federalism, based on the proposition that not all solutions are found in Washington, DC.

In this second You-tube link Fred talked about speaking what he really believed?

I think the American people are waiting on us. I think they are waiting for us to take that case to them, as to what is responsible, what is the responsible thing to do for our generation?.


I don't think people are as selfish and self-centered as they think they are.


I think if politicians would be willing to take a risk a little bit every once and awhile you'd be amazed at how well that turns out for you even politically


I carried . . . TN twice by 20 points each and I think the thing that was most valuable to me is always I knew I had term limits I had put on myself and I knew I was going back home one of these days soon anyway regardless of how my thoughts were received. Not out of a sense of brashness but a sense of freedom to speak what you believe to be the truth.

Talk about refreshing! No wonder so many are confused by his speeches. People aren't use to a politician giving a speech anymore that is what they really believe. The American people are going to be able to tell the difference. That's the one thing I keep hearing people say about him, that they believe him.


This is what I believe to be the secret to Fred Thompson's success. He is speaking what he really believes and not worrying about how his words are going to be received or misinterpreted.


Start listening to him when he speaks and see if you don't notice it. He nearly always says something about needing to have an honest and open discussion with the American people. He keeps saying what he thinks, what he believes.I noticed in that last video that I posted, he said "I think" in nearly every sentence in the closing portion of his speech.


Fred Thompson may not be your cup of tea and he definitely is not perfect but he does say what he believes and I pray he never stops.


Elusively yours,
ilja

Edited for typos

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Is Debbie Schlussel Rudy's Attack Dog?

Posted by ilja on Monday, July 30, 2007 9:45:19 PM
Steve Gill, a Nashville Talk Radio Host and author of "The Fred Factor" had Debbie Schlussel on his show this morning to ask her about Spencer Abraham, the former Michigan Senator who was reported to have been hired as the new campaign manager for Fred Thompson.

According to Steve, the Thompson campaign staff called him this weekend and informed him that Abraham was not going to be their campaign manager. They said he would have nothing to do with affecting policy decisions for Fred. They said that he was hired for his political skills.

Since there has been such an uproar including from myself about Fred hiring Abraham, I have been keeping a close tab on the events surrounding this issue. Spencer Abraham received an award from the National Council of La Raza (the racist pro-illegal immigration group) and refused to sign a letter calling on President Clinton to condemn Palestinian terrorism and Yasser Arafat.

I was also aware that Debbie Schlussel had said that this was the "final nail in the coffin for me in opposing Fred Thompson's quest for the White House."

Therefore, when I heard Steve Gill was going to be interviewing her this morning, I called his show to ask him to ask her some questions for me. I didn't get to speak to Steve since he was interviewing her at the time but I did get to ask the person answering the phone to pass along my message to Steve.

I wanted him to ask Debbie, why she said that this was the final nail in Fred's coffin? I was wondering what else Fred had done to turn her against him?

I also wanted Steve to ask her who she was supporting?

And finally I wanted Steve to ask her why she was no longer a columnist for Townhall.com?

To my pleasant suprise, Steve did ask her my first two questions though he said that a couple of callers had suggested them so I can't take all the credit.

Debbie said that the reason this was her final nail for Fred was because of his previous lobbying for the abortion group, you remember the one that was reported from decades past and because of another reason that I can't remember at the moment but it was just as lame. Her main point was that Fred wasn't really Conservative.

When Steve asked her who she was supporting, she said Rudy Giuliani.

Steve challenged her by asking why she would hold the fact that Fred lobbied for a pro-abortion group against him but still support pro-abortion, pro-gay-marriage, pro-gun-control Rudy Giuliani?

That's when she went into the usual Giuliani spin about the most important issue is the War on Terror and nothing else really matters. Then why Debbie does it matter that Fred might have once lobbied for a pro-abortion group nearly 20 years ago?

While I agree the War on Terror is a very important issue, I don't think it's the only issue.

Don't get me wrong. I am still troubled by Fred hiring Spencer Abraham to have anything to do with his campaign. Still, it was rather revealing that Debbie is pro-Giuliani.

Elusively yours,
ilja
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

There's Something About Fred

Posted by ilja on Sunday, May 13, 2007 1:54:31 AM
 Someone asked recently what is it about Fred Thompson that has so many Conservatives excited? What has he got that the top three don't? Are you sure it's not just a case of the grass is greener on the other side?

There was even an article about his speech in Orange County not wowing the attendees. At least he didn't according to Bob Novack.

I've heard the stories about his disappointing role in the investigations of the Clinton fund-raising kurfluffle. And thanks to Ace of Spades HQ, I've discovered that Thompson earned a grade of "C" from the group "Americans for Better Immigration" for his Senate voting record in regards to illegal immigration. Mind you his negatives come from internal enforcements, while he has always been strong when it comes to our borders.

The biggest complaint seems to be that he lacks that 'fire in the belly' that most who run for the most powerful position in the world have, seeing as you have to really want it in order to put up with all the bull that goes along with it.

Yet I seem to recall that one of the things we most admired about George W. when he was running was that he was not like Gore as far as wanting to be President was concerned. Don't you remember how sickening Gore was in his obviousness of always wanting to be President? Is our most current candidate who has always wanted to be President any more attractive as a Presidential hopeful? Surely you don't believe that the fact that she has always wanted to be President that she would do anything, including staying with a philanderer, to do so is what Fred needs?

What is it about Fred then that has so many Conservatives chomping at the bit for him to run? Why are we so enthused about Fred?

First and foremost, with all due respect to the top tier (according to the polls & MSM), a far-left liberal who was a good mayor for one of the 'bluest of the blue' blue states with one bright shining moment, a media darling who'd stab his mother in the back for camera time who was once a prisoner of war and a former Governor of the first State in the Union to legalize Gay Marriage but has since turned into a Social Conservative, we think, are not exactly the things that dreams are made of.

Next you have to consider what we have all been through as Conservatives the last few years. We won the Presidency with what we were told was a Conservative. Since supposedly the reason Conservative issues were not being addressed was because the Republicans needed a majority to accomplish their goals, we followed that up with delivering the majority in both Houses of Congress to the GOP. Unfortunately, they failed to warn us that even with a majority of Republicans, that does not equate to having a majority of Conservatives.

Plus the leadership was so busy either amassing power or kowtowing to the left in order to be bipartisan (yes I know it's redundant), that they did not even seriously try to pass much substantial Conservative legislation. Give me a break. All that time in the majority and the only legislation they passed dealing with illegal immigration was an unfunded border fence at the last minute. Just how stupid did they think we were?

And now they are falling for the media's lies that the reason they lost the majority was because they were too Conservative? Sometimes I can't help but think that the real reason they were so ineffective in passing a Conservative agenda was because they did not want to. I think they rather enjoy playing the role of the victim in the minority so that they can use that as an excuse for doing nothing.

Why did I even mention all of this when I am suppose to be explaining why we are so desirous of a Fred Thompson run for the Gold?

Because I needed to lay down the foundation of where we are coming from in order to explain why settling for Rudy McRomney is so repugnant to most Conservatives.

Prior to the whole overblown Macaca incident, many of us on the right had our hopes on George Allen. I could beat myself up now taking so long to decide that he was the 'real thing'. Oh how I wish he had won his Senate seat.

Then the whole pushing of Rudy and McCain down our throats by the media and the beltway boys was enough to make me consider investing in a pharmaceutical company that specialized in nausea medicine. So when Duncan Hunter came along who was nearly perfect on the issues, I jumped on that bandwagon quicker than you can say Shazam!

Unfortunately, he didn't even make a dent in the polls, that is if they are correct? Who knows at this point? I wish I knew. I wish I could communicate with more Americans about what is really going on in the world that is not being reported by the not-even-trying-to-hide-it-anymore, leftist-extremists, biased media.

So by the time that someone mentioned the name of Fred, were were not only ripe for the pickin', we were hungrier than the last survivors on Fiji Island.

But why Fred, you still ask? Well it's like this. Fred has a record that we are able to peruse so that at least he isn't a 'stealth' candidate. While he is not the most Conservative of candidates, he is probably the closest we can get to the real thing at this point in time.

Sure he is no Ronald Reagan . . . but who is? Yet he is Fred Thompson, former Senator from Tennessee, major player in the investigation and downfall of a corrupt Governor, strong believer in State's rights as shown by his dissenting vote against the Good Samaritan Law because he thought it was the responsibility of the State instead of the Federal Government.

Yes we know that he once filled out a questionnaire that he was pro-choice. But his voting record on abortion is perfect.

While yes we believe he is Conservative enough to earn our votes without us having to hold our noses while voting, that is not the only reason we want and need Fred Thompson as our next President. The reason that we need and are so excited about Fred Thompson running for President is because we have learned the hard way that in order to do what needs to be done during this most dangerous of times, we need a 'true' leader.

We need a leader that can motivate and inspire our fellow citizens to not give up in this war on Islamic Terrorism. We need a leader that is not afraid to speak to the media or the world and explain where they can understand why we are doing what we are doing. We need a leader that can speak in such a way that the media is going to have a hard time twisting his words to say what he did not say. We need a leader that will come back after the media has done their best to slander him and us with fighting words that will put them in their place.

We need someone who has gained the kind of wisdom that only comes with age and life experience. We need someone who we can trust. We need someone who is even attractive on the boob tube since that is where most of his communication will be seen.

So while yes Fred is an actor, he has done and is doing so much more. If you don't believe me, check this out.

Fred is exactly what we need at this time in our history. Fred is the man for the times. Of all the candidates that are running or are even talking about running for President of the United States, it is only Fred that has the 'it' factor that will attract enough voters to get 'er done. It is only Fred who even after winning, can lead this crazy world of ours into a more perfect union. Heck, even my democrat-voting sister who doesn't keep up with politics said that she liked Fred.

So Fred Thompson if you are reading this, we are calling your name. The time has come and we are a knocking on your door. Run Fred Run and be the leader that we know you can be.

Elusively yours,
ilja
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Boycott the Boycotts!

Posted by ilja on Monday, April 16, 2007 5:15:51 PM
I think it's time that those of us on the right and on the left started boycotting the Boycotts. It has gotten to where we are boycotting everything these days and sometimes for the most inane of reasons. I look at it as a fight where you should pick your battles else your tactic will lose it's impact.

When I first started considering this, the main reasons I thought we should boycott the Boycotts was so that people would not get so used to them they would start ignoring them and so that others might be more willing to join in if they weren't already sick of them.

Fortunately or what I thought was unfortunate at the time, I lost my original Blog on this topic. Since then in particular with what has happened to Imus in losing his job for something that he said, I am beginning to believe that we are causing more harm than good when we boycott.

The most immediate harm that we do albeit unintentionally is that we might very well be hurting people who had nothing to do with the original event that instigated our ire.

For instance, in the case of Imus, while I personally think it's ridiculous that he lost his job for what he said even though what he said was disgusting, he was hired to be a shock jock, which is exactly what he was. To be honest, it probably would not have bothered me nearly as much if MSNBC & CBS had given him more time to see how the market would react instead of caving so quickly to criticism.

Though from what I hear, he is not exactly a very nice person, I do believe that financially he is not going to have any problems if he has been wise with the bakoodles of money he has made over the years. Not that that excuses what happened to him but he is not the point I was trying to make. The ones who I am most concerned with are all the other people that made a living from his show. While some of you may have no problem finding another comparable job if you lost your current one, a lot of us are not in that situation.

Sure you can say but that's what these people deserve for working for such a despicable man. I disagree wholeheartedly. What if one of these people was a family member of yours? What if they depended on that paycheck to support their family and it was highly unlikely they could find another job that even came close to the same salary as they were making on his show? Is our anger at someone for saying something that we find disgusting and/or totally disagree with more important than the livelihood of people who just might feel the same way as ourselves? Even if they don't and even if they totally agree with the disgusting thing that someone said, does that mean they deserve to lose their job?

I am also concerned that if we keep boycotting or at least organize boycotts where a lot of people get involved whenever someone says something we don't like then it is going to backfire and bite each of us where the sun don't shine.

I am not saying that you have to shop somewhere where you don't want to or watch someone who you can't stand. I am saying that we seem to have taken this boycotting to an entirely new dimension when someone can't say something totally stupid on TV without fear of losing their job. Do you have any idea how difficult it is to shoot from the hip like that and not say something stupid ever?

For instance as disgusting as I find all the anti-American slurs that Rosie has been making, if Conservatives are such believers in Capitalism and Liberty, then why would you insist that someone be fired simply because you don't like their words? Sure I know that words have power but aren't we acting just like a liberal when we want to hurt someone personally rather than answer back with the facts?

As for the left, do you really want to insist that your Presidential Candidates avoid a cable TV station just because you disagree with it's format when I thought you guys were the arbiters of diversity and freedom of speech? Not to mention that you are hurting your own's chances of winning if they don't appear on stations that someone other than their base watches.

It appears to me that we are heading down a road that once we go, we can never turn back.

The greatness of America was not achieved by people who were so afraid of their shadow that they would dare not take any risks or chances. The greatness of America was and is obtained by people stepping out of their comfort zones and daring to challenge the status quo. How can we possibly expect to remain a free nation if we keep stifling the voices of those with whom we disagree? As repelling as we might find someone's ideas, wouldn't we achieve much more success if we quit hiding behind our offenses and dare to come up with ideas of our own to challenge them?

Why not join me in this newfangled idea of boycotting the boycotts and let us come up with solutions instead of roadblocks?

Elusively yours,
ilja
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Hannity, You're On Your Own Kiddo

Posted by ilja on Monday, April 16, 2007 1:29:31 AM
For months and months when I've heard others complain about Sean Hannity, I would think to myself 'yeah but he sure loves the troops'. Sure I knew he was a partisan but he was so nice and sweet and good to those in need that I just didn't care. After all, he does those concerts every year for the children of those who gave all to further their education. Not only that, you can hear it in his voice whenever he talks to a member of the armed forces or to one of their family members.

When someone would complain about his supposed unending support of the GOP, I would remember his tirade about Dubois Ports and about the borders. Shoot he even went down to the border and filmed several episodes from there right when the GOP was hoping that the issue would die down. When he disagrees with the administration, he is not afraid to speak his mind.

Plus he's just so darn cute. He comes across as one of the nicest people you'll ever meet. I've heard Greta Van Susteren talk about him and she is most definitely a full-blown leftist but you can tell just by her voice that she thinks the world of him. I really do believe that he and Alan Colmes have a genuine friendship which shows me that he is able to keep his politics in perspective.

To be honest, I'm not really surprised with his latest actions seeing as I already knew he was not nearly as Conservative as he makes himself out to be. I can't remember which issue it was but I suspect it probably had to do with federal funding of embryonic-stem cell research. I realize there are a lot of people who don't consider that an important issue but it's funny how the ones that aren't really strong on life issues, often end up disappointing those on the right who are Social liberals. It appears to me that Social Conservatives who are major players have a much stronger backbone when it comes to other issues than those who are Social liberals.

The part about all of this that bugs me the most is that Sean has said over and over again how he is a Reagan-Conservative. He has said that his Conservatism comes first and foremost yet here he is endorsing with every bit of his power the least Conservative candidate of them all running for the Republican Presidential nomination.

Don't get me wrong, I like Giuliani. I thought he did a wonderful job on and after September 11th as New York's mayor. I even thought he did a great job as Mayor of NY prior to 9/11.

Plus I like him much better than McCain and supposedly McCain is more Conservative than Rudy. Yet I trust McCain about as much as I do my ex's. Not to mention that I just can't stand him.

But I digress, this is suppose to be about my disappointment with Sean in regards to his obvious support of Giuliani. Simply because he said he would appoint Justices like Alito and Roberts, that doesn't mean that they are the only type of Judge's he would appoint. I keep remembering his praise of Ginsberg and the fact that he is pro-abortion.

Shoot, did you hear Rudy mention guns? He thought it was necessary to enforce some of the strictest gun control laws in the country. He even mentioned how he believes in the second amendment and that he has no intentions of interfering with our rights to hunt. Did you hear that? He thinks the second amendment is about hunting.

Then he goes on to explain how he thinks gun control laws are just fine and even necessary in certain parts of the country. Can someone please point out to me where it states in the Constitution that our Bill of Rights only apply in certain parts of the country?

Oh and have you heard Sean try and explain away Rudy's liberal stands on the issues? I'm sure you have if you have listened to him at all since he has become a regular Rudy apologist. He acts as if the President has no influence whatsoever on life issues but he conveniently forgets about Bush signing the Partial Birth Abortion Ban that was vetoed by Clinton (who Rudy admired by the way) and the Mexico City Policy that prohibits monies from going to federal agencies that perform abortions as a method of family planning in other nations. Can you see Rudy taking either of those stances?

Then what about the borders? I thought Sean cared about this issue but he simply describes Rudy's stance on the borders as being like President Bush's. Rudy seems to like the idea of a virtual fence. I have come to see virtual fence in the same light that I see guest worker program. Mainly what they are saying is that they don't support a "real" fence on the border just like they support "amnesty" for illegals.

Sean, Sean, Sean please remember your promise to us your listeners that you would never forsake your Conservative values. Please stop putting your desire to win at all costs above advancing Conservatism.

Elusively yours,
ilja
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Ostrich & the Teenager

Posted by ilja on Tuesday, January 30, 2007 12:09:47 AM
 I have decided after much consternation that both major Political Parties in the U.S. need to change their symbols. Forget the Donkey and the Elephant. They have long outlived their usefulness. While the donkey's other well-known nomenclature still fits and the GOP is still trying to get votes via the elephant's ideal of voters too afraid to vote for democrats, I think it's time for some truth in politics and have concluded that the Ostrich and the Teenager would be much more fitting.

I'll start with the Ostrich. The first and most obvious reason that the Democrats should adopt the Ostrich as their symbol is because their idea of defending our nation can be described in the same way that the Ostrich is most well-known for when it comes to facing danger. They both like to hide their heads in the sand and believe that if they ignore the enemy, they will go away. Mind you, the idea that an Ostrich sticks his head in the sand when scared is merely a myth but since when did the truth ever really matter to Democrats?

Additionally, though the head hiding in the sand may be a myth, when threatened Ostriches do run away. Sound familiar?

Those aren't the only traits the Democrats have in common with the Ostrich. Just like the Ostrich, Democrats eyes are larger than their brains which might explain why they think entitlement programs help those most in need. It doesn't matter if it doesn't make sense, if it causes people to not be self-sufficient or if it is even Constitutional. If they see something they want to heck with what's best, they are going after it.

Another little known fact about Ostriches is that they reach sexual maturity between two to four years old. When was the last time you heard a Democrat talk about sex in a mature fashion? Why do you think the worship at the altar of abortion? They still think like a toddler who doesn't care about the consequences or even considers responsibility. They want what they want when they want it.

And do you know what the Bible says about the Ostrich?

"The wings of the ostrich flap joyfully, but they cannot compare with the pinions and feathers of the stork. She lays her eggs on the ground and lets them warm in the sand, unmindful that a foot may crush them, that some wild animal may trample them. She treats her young harshly, as if they were not hers; she cares not that her labor was in vain, for God did not endow her with wisdom or give her a share of good sense. Job 39:13-17 (New International Version)

Hmmmm, no wonder the Democrats want the Government to raise their children. They are too busy warming themselves in the sun.

Now on to the Teenager. For those of you who have had teenagers, I imagine you are fully aware of what I am about to mention. For those of you who do not, perhaps you can recall when you were a teenager and did this. Teenagers are well known for being ashamed of being seen with their parents.

I remember when my own son first became a teenager and he suddenly didn't want to spend time with me. Though he didn't mind at all taking my money and my being his taxi. However he did want me to drop him off where his friends couldn't see that he had gotten a ride with his mom.

That is the number one reason why Republicans should change their symbol to a Teenager. Republicans love taking money and votes from their base. They also love us volunteering our time without compensation unlike the Democrats. Yet once they are elected to office, they can hardly wait to separate themselves as far from us as possible. Shoot, if David Kuo's book "Tempting Faith" has any truth in it, some in the White House even make fun of us.
From pages 229-230: At the White House, "They know 'the nuts' were politically invaluable, but that was the extent of their usefulness.….National Christian leaders received hugs and smiles in person and then were dismissed behind their backs and described as 'ridiculous,' 'out of control,' and just plain 'goofy.'"

When then-Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle called to give a green light to a faith bill, Bush aides, concerned about its cost, said "maybe next year." (p. 196) Privately, aides called the legislation "the f---g faith-based initiative" (p. 243), and the president "knew it was languishing and had no problem with that." (p. 257) link
Hmmmph. Imagine that? The GOP concerned about spending. Speaking of which, another reason that they should change their symbol to a teenager is because they both enjoy spending our money. Forget any promises of smaller government. Just like a teenager thinks they have to have all the right clothes and electronic gadgets to be popular, the Republicans think they have to build every bridge to nowhere to win at the ballot box.

Teenagers have always had a hard time not succumbing to peer pressure since they want more than nearly anything to be liked. Republicans have started having this same type of relationship with the media. Can you say John McCain or even President Bush stating that he regrets saying "Bring it on!"

All in all, if the two major political parties were being honest, they would change their symbols to the Ostrich and the Teenager.

What say you? Do you agree with my assessment? Do you have some better suggestions . . . that you can use in polite company?

Elusively yours,
ilja
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Where Were You When You Heard "Not Guilty"?

Posted by ilja on Sunday, November 19, 2006 1:06:24 PM
I remember the day that the jury came back with the "Not Guilty" verdict for O.J. Simpson.

Please forgive me for even writing this as I know how much he craves attention, obviously. dry.gif I guess it's just on my mind and I've been wondering about the rest of you.

Let me give a little background so maybe my story might make more sense.

I fell in love with football when I was in High School quite by accident. You see there was this certain, hunky football player that always sat in front of me in Math class that I had this really big crush on. Unfortunately, he had a girlfriend from another school.

Anyhow, due to my crush on this rather hunky and very friendly to me jock, I started attending the football games whenever they were played at home. Mind you, I didn't have a clue what football was all about. In the beginning the only part that I really enjoyed besides being with my friends and ogling Anthony was watching the band because I could understand music. blush.gif

Yet I went to so many games, that I couldn't help but start to learn about first downs, offsides, field goals and touchdowns. I got so good at it and enjoyed it so much that I started watching professional football on TV. I slowly but surely developed a real love for the game. It was so exciting especially when it was a team that I cared about that was playing.

Well back in those days, Tennessee didn't have a professional football team and I had still not learned to like UT so I simply developed favorite teams by how exciting the games were.

There were two players that I enjoyed most of all. Naturally they played offense since they are the ones that score and get all the glory. One of them was Fran Tarkenton from the Minnesota Vikings. He was so much fun to watch because he was wonderful at pulling out a win in the last 2 minutes of a game what with his fantastic arm. I still have a special place in my heart for him. wub.gif

The other player that I particularly liked was O.J. Simpson. I loved how he could run and run and get those first downs simply by pushing his way through the line. He was amazing and tenacious. He was one of the best running backs I ever saw. Plus he had a personality off the field that was easy to like. I absolutely adored O.J. Simpson.

Then there was the issue of domestic violence. Prior to Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman's murder, I was a flaming lib. In addition, I had been in a previous marriage where my husband hit me once and I later learned and believed that he beat his first wife several times. At the time of the murders I was still married to my second husband who threw either myself or a dresser drawer (I can't remember at the moment) across the room. I just knew that I was scared of making him too mad.

So naturally, I was really into paying attention to all the news there was in regards to Domestic Violence in the mainstream media which was the only news source at the time. The common viewpoint was that it was much more dangerous and deadly for a woman facing domestic violence to leave her husband than to stay.

So then here comes the murder of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman and of course, I assumed that O.J. did it what with his history of domestic violence against Nicole and my knowledge of how likely it was for a husband or ex to kill their wives in this situation.

Then there came the infamous White Bronco chase (if you can call it that at such a slow speed). It was like everyone knew at that moment by his decision to run from the police, O.J. was pretty much admitting his guilt in the murder of his wife and Ron. Shoot, at the time I still had a special place in my heart for O.J. and I was desperately afraid that he would kill himself. I believe that was the reason that the police didn't simply pull him over or block his way because they were afraid of the same reaction. I'm ashamed to admit it now but I was praying that he wouldn't kill himself because I could understand (or so I thought) a temporary moment of insanity and rage against a spouse and their lover.

So he didn't kill himself and eventually turned himself in to the police.

Then came the "Trial of the Century". I didn't really watch much of it but I'm not sure why. I probably didn't have much access to cable at that time because believe it or not, that was about the same time that people were just starting to get cable and I was still married to the 2nd husband who was so tight that he squeaked when he walked and I simply didn't have the time and inclination to watch the trial.

I do recall losing my admiration for O.J. because I had foolishly expected him to admit his guilt and throw himself on the mercy of the court. rolleyes.gif I know, I know, Naive Nellie.

At that time I was working at a company where the majority of employees were black. I didn't really think much of it at the time seeing as I had grown up at the time when it was becoming pretty common for people to no longer consider the color of a person's skin to make a difference. Plus the fact that I was half-Mexican probably contributed to the fact that I didn't think any of that stuff mattered. But I was wrong.

When the verdict was announced that O.J. was found "Not Guilty" of the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman, I was devastated. I just knew that he did it since he was a former abuser and since he had taken that ride in the White Bronco.

Yet at my place of employment, a great cheer went out when the verdict was announced.

I couldn't believe it. I was shocked that so many of my fellow coworkers and many of which I considered my friends were happy that O.J. had just gotten away with murder.

It was pretty obvious how disappointed and shocked I was by their reaction. A coworker who I was training at the moment, tried to explain to me the reason for the cheer. She asked me if I had ever been on a Jury. I admitted that I had not. She went on to explain how hard it is to convict someone beyond a reasonable doubt since she had served on a Jury.

I was too shy, embarrassed and private at the time to ask her if she had ever been a victim of Domestic Violence. I was too shy to ask her if she knew how likely it was for a former abuser to murder their wives after they left.

It was also pretty amazing how the girl that was trying to explain to me why people were happy about O.J. being found "not guilty" that she never implied that she thought he was innocent.

Needless to say the cheers from my fellow coworkers broke my heart. Here I was thinking that color or race had nothing to do with anything as far as I was concerned but to my fellow coworkers it made all the difference in the world in how they reacted to the verdict.

I hope that I haven't offended anyone with my words. That was most definitely not my intent particularly since I have been the recipient of prejudice. I just wanted to tell my story.

How about you? Where were you when the verdict of "Not Guilty" was announced and how did you react to it? unsure.gif

Elusively Yours,
ilja
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

She's A Lady . . . or is she?

Posted by ilja on Saturday, November 18, 2006 10:55:30 AM
With all the recent talk about the woman who was kicked off a plane for refusing to cover herself with a blanket while breastfeeding her baby, once again the subject of 'what is a lady' came up. I thought I would try and tackle that question here.

When I was growing up, many, many, many rolleyes.gif moons ago, I was raised to believe that one of the most important goals in life for any young girl worth her weight in gold was to be a lady . . . particularly in public. What one did behind closed doors with their spouse was no one's business. There's a joke that goes along with that but I'll leave it out at this point since it's not very ladylike to say it in mixed company.

I believe that a lady is a female who is thoughtful and considerate of others. I believe that a lady doesn't show herself in public by speaking in a crass and disrespectful way to others. I believe that a lady rarely uses foul language.

I believe that a lady doesn't act or dress in ways that would lead someone to believe that she is easy. I believe that a lady doesn't intentionally try to tempt or seduce married men by wearing extremely revealing clothing in their presence. I believe that a lady would never wear something revealing in front of her parents and most of her family members excluding her husband, of course. As a matter of fact, I was raised to believe that daughters should always wear housecoats in front of their fathers regardless if their nightwear is revealing or not. It use to drive me crazy that my little sisters would wear my dad's t-shirts as nightgowns without a house coat and didn't think anything about sitting around in a not very ladylike position where it often was snowing down south. blush.gif

I know, I know, I'm old-fashioned.

I believe that a lady is concerned about her reputation, therefore she doesn't sleep around. Besides, she considers herself and her body to be too special to give herself to just anyone. I believe the ultimate sign of a lady is one who saves herself for marriage and she highly values her virginity as will her future husband if he is indeed a gentleman worthy of her special gift that she has saved just for him.

I believe that a lady shows respect to others, particularly those in authority and the elderly. I believe that a lady has good manners or at least tries to use the ones that she does know and/or has been taught. I believe that a lady is classy and demands respect when she enters a room, not by saying "respect me or else" but simply by the way she presents herself. Most times, anyone (especially males) that has an inkling of good manners, recognizes a lady when she walks in a room and automatically apologizes to her if they slip up and say something out of line or utters a curse word.

Mind you, most of the things I have mentioned, or at least a lot of them are not practiced by most women or young girls these days. I can't even say that I do or have done all of them, unfortunately but I wish I had. Yet I still remember what it meant to be a lady, how special and important that word is and do attempt to be one . . . most alot more often than not. ph34r.gif

What about you? What do you believe is the definition of a "Lady"? Is it important to you? Do you want to raise your daughter to be a "Lady"?

Elusively yours,
Lady IPB Image ilja
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The House May Have Crumbled But We Won't

Posted by ilja on Wednesday, November 08, 2006 9:13:17 PM
When I finally started admitting to myself that Fox was right that the Republicans really were losing the majority in the House, I must admit that I was greatly disappointed. Shoot, Nancy Pelosi! So many Americans don't have a clue what she represents. What about the War on Terror? I'm sure Osama is having a good ole-time partying in his cave tonight with the thought that his cheerleaders won. Okay, so I exaggerate . . . just a little.

Still, as I told a couple of friends tonight, it's still okay. We'll still be okay. How can I say this you ask since we are both well aware of how inaffective the Dem's are against fighting much less recognizing our need to fight the Terrorists?

I say this because our hope is not in our government, or in any political party as they are nothing but sinking sand. Our hope is built on nothing less than Jesus Christ. He IS our solid Rock and nothing shall prevail against Him. As long as we remember who it is that is truly sitting on the throne of God, we have no real reason to worry.

I had this same thought on September 11th. While I was devastated with what happened, I knew that I knew that I knew that God was still in Control and that He can be trusted.

I remember the words of Shadrack, Meshack and Abednego, "If we are thrown into the blazing furnace, the God we serve is able to save us from it, and he will rescue us from your hand, O king. But even if he does not, we want you to know, O king, that we will not serve your gods or worship the image of gold you have set up." (Dan. 3:17-18)

What about you? How are you doing about this recent loss to the Dem's? Do you think anyone is going to be going to their shrink to deal with the loss or that a new syndrome will be created for helping people to deal with it?

As for the Senate, well . . . I'll cross that bridge when I come to it.

Elusively yours,
ilja
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

If Ford Loses, Tennesseans Are Bigots

Posted by ilja on Friday, November 03, 2006 11:41:24 PM
It seems everytime I turn around lately, I hear another claim that if Harold Ford loses his bid for the Senate here in Tennessee that would be further proof that Tennesseans are still a bunch of racists. rant.gif

Even the "Fair and Balanced" network has had more than one guests claim that we will be able to see if Tennessee has gotten over her racist past, depending on if Ford wins or not. So you think I'm exaggerating? Take a look at this article from the Washington Post.
Ford announced his Senate campaign 18 months ago with three strikes against him: He was a Democrat, he was black, and he carried family baggage. The five-term congressman was wildly popular in his Memphis House district and was viewed as a rising star in the Democratic Party. But statewide office seemed beyond reach in Tennessee, a state with a history of racially divided voting where Republicans had won recent Senate races.
So because people vote for Republicans that means we have a history of racially divided voting.

From the ever reliable New York Times:
WASHINGTON, Oct. 26 — When an advertisement mocking Representative Harold E. Ford Jr. set off controversy in the Tennessee Senate race last week, a question quickly arose: Who was behind the provocative and, critics said, racially loaded television spot? <snip>

The advertisement in question suggested a flirtation between a young bare-shouldered white woman, played by a blond actress, and Mr. Ford, the Democratic candidate in Tennessee for the Senate. It was supposed to stop running on Thursday amid complaints that it seemed intended to stir racial hatred, though there were reports that it was being broadcast on some stations.
I saw this ad several times and I had no ideal it had anything to do with race until I started hearing this claim from the left. Apparently they claim it's race-baiting because it has a white woman in the ad telling Ford to call her. blink.gif

The Swamp, from The Chicago Tribune's Washington Bureau in the article appropriately titled "Is Senate campaign ad racist?" noted a conversation on CNN's Situation Room addressing this very issue.
COHEN: I think the Republicans have to be careful, also, in terms of not engaging in conduct. And I was watching the -- the Tennessee race, specifically. It reminded me of what happened in North Carolina with Harvey Gantt, a purely overt racist approach.

BLITZER: You are talking about the new RNC ad which has this white woman talking about Playboy and the -- the African-American candidate, Harold Ford Jr., the Democratic candidate.

COHEN: It's -- to me, at least as I watch that, is a very serious appeal to a racist sentiment. And when the question is always asked, why -- he would be the first African-American since Reconstruction elected to the Senate, you say, well, why is that the case? So, why is the South different? Why would they not elect someone...

BLITZER: So, you're a former Republican senator. Is the RNC playing the racial card against Harold Ford in Tennessee right now?

COHEN: I think they are coming very close to it, if not doing it exactly. And I think they ought to stop it. I think that they have a candidate, and discuss the -- the issues on the merits, and not get into that kind of personal type of an attack.
What I find most ironic about the above is that while Blitzer and Cohen are complaining that "they" need to discuss the issues, they are avoiding doing the same themselves by this constant charge of racism.

Of course Former President Clinton had to weigh in on this issue as reported by the AP at KansasCity.com:
"You know what it will mean if Harold gets elected on Tuesday," Clinton told the crowd. "It won't mean what all those columnists and commentators say. It won't mean that it's a victory of race; it will be a victory of going beyond race."
And last but most definitely not least, Paul Waldman over at TomPaine.common sense had a few points to make in his column titled "Courting the Bigot Vote". dry.gif

We’ve all heard about the ad directed against Senate candidate Harold Ford in Tennessee, in which a ditzy young woman squeals, “I met Harold Ford at the Playboy party!” and closes the ad with, “Harold, call me!”—and you know what they’ll be doing if he does. But that isn’t even the most racist ad that has been aired in that state, nor is the one that features thumping jungle drums every time Ford’s name is mentioned. The most racist ad would have to be this radio spot, aired by a group called “Tennesseans for Truth” :

“His daddy handed him his seat in Congress and his seat in the Congressional Black Caucus, an all-black group of congressmen who represent the interests of black people above all others ... Ford's Congressional Black Caucus secretly prepares and presents their own alternative budget to Congress each year to fund aid to black Americans. Discrimination at its worst ... Tennesseans want a color-blind senator, a real Tennessean representing all of us without discrimination.” <snip>


Faced with a dynamic, skilled candidate in Ford and a mediocre one of their own in Corker, combined with a national mood decidedly unfavorable to Republicans, the GOP decided to hitch its wagon one more time to the bigot vote. <snip>

But the Republican Party doesn’t “try to benefit politically from racial polarization,” they stoke and exploit racism and hatred. The “southern strategy ,” Willie Horton and the biennial efforts to prevent black people from voting are something more than “looking the other way.” When election time approaches, they just can’t help themselves. The GOP is addicted to the bigot vote, addicted to suppressing the votes of people whose skin is not white. Like every addict, they tell themselves they can stop whenever they want—I’ll kick next year, I just need it one more time to get me through this election.
The bad part about all of this is that I wonder how many Tennesseans are going to let their "white guilt" influence their vote instead of judging an official by his stance on the issues.

Yes I know I'm overly-sensitive when it comes to another charge of racism against the South. The thing is, I'm sick and tired of these claims being made as an excuse for the leftist ideology not selling in the South. In the words of one who said it much better than I ever could:
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."
-- Martin Luther King Jr, "I Have a Dream" speech, August 28, 1963
Elusively yours,
ilja
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Do Losers Ever Change?

Posted by ilja on Wednesday, November 01, 2006 7:32:46 PM
I heard a new unsure.gif song this week by Montgomery Gentry that really touched my heart and thought I would share a few of my thoughts with you. The song is "Some People Change" and it pulled me in right from the start.
His ol' man was a rebel yeller,
Bad boy to the bone, he'd say,
Can't trust that other feller,
He'd judge em’ by the tone of their skin,

He was raised to think like his dad,
Narrow mind full of hate,
On the road to no where fast,
Til’ the grace of God got in the way,

And he saw the light,
And hit his knees, and cried, and said a prayer,
Rose up a brand new man,
And left the old one right there,
Apparently this is about an old bigot that saw the error of his ways only after he had a road to Damascus moment.

Next he goes on to sing about an alcoholic:
She was born with her mother’s habit,
You could say it’s in her blood,
She hates that she’s got to have it,
As she fills her glass up,

She’d love to kill that bottle,
But all she can think about,
Is a better life, a second chance,
And everyone she’s letting down,
She throws that bottle down,
The main message of his song is that yes, some people who may seem hopeless really can and do change so don't stop hoping. Plus, the few that do make it can be a light to those who are still trapped in their self-imposed prisons.
Don’t give up hope,
Some people change,
Against all odds,
Against the grain,
Love finds a way,
Some people change.

Thank God for those who make it,
Let them be the light,
My question is do you believe that people who are so entrenched in their addictions, self-destructive ways and/or hatreds really can change? Do you hold out hope that someone you love will one day see the light for themselves and finally be all right? Do you advise others to keep hoping or do you advise them to give up on those they love who have really crossed the line?

I am not saying that we should let people abuse or use us. I am just wondering what you think about these so-called losers? Do you think it's possible that one day even the most hopeless case might change the error of their ways?

Were you ever lost? Did you change? Did someone hold out hope for you?

Elusively yours,
ilja

Btw, I'm sorry it's been so long since I've posted. I deleted my cookies and couldn't remember my password.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous123Next »