Hillary Speculation Won’t Die

Photo courtesy of Marc Nozell

If Julia Louis-Dreyfus can be “Veep,” then why not Hillary Clinton?

The notion has been kicked around in the media for more than a year, and pooh-poohed by both the secretary of state herself and the Obama campaign, but as the 2012 race heats up the possibility of an Obama-Clinton ticket is likely to be given renewed consideration.

Mrs. Clinton looks refreshed these days, with a new hairstyle and bounce in her step � so perhaps she’s studying the polls that show the president in a neck-and-neck race with Mitt Romney. She’s also aware of her standing as the most admired woman in America. According to Gallup, no other woman has been so named for as many years (16), and her approval rating of 66 percent makes her among the nation’s most popular politicians.

For the record, Clinton has said she intends to leave government after this year. She has also stated repeatedly that she has no further plans to seek elective office, telling CNN, “I think Joe Biden, who’s a dear friend of ours, has served our country and served the president very well. And so I’m out of politics, but I’m very supportive of the team that we have in the White House going forward.”

Spoken like a good soldier. But doth she protest too much?

The last wave of Obama-Clinton speculation came in January, spurred by Bill Keller’s column in The New York Times arguing that placing Sec. Clinton on the ticket “does more to guarantee Obama’s re-election than anything else the Democrats can do.” That was back when the GOP field was crowded with pretenders, and Romney seemed incapable of sounding presidential.

It was also before Biden ruffled feathers by upstaging the boss on the matter of gay marriage.

The Obama campaign has a tough row to hoe and all that really matters is which running mate offers the best chance for victory, Biden or Clinton? Other considerations � dropping Biden would look panicky; the Clintons don’t really like Obama, etc. � are irrelevant.

An online poll by U.S. News and World Report shows respondents favoring Clinton over Biden by about 4 to 1.

Replacing Biden, who has served the administration well, would have to be carefully choreographed. But six previous presidents replaced their running mates while seeking a second term, the last being Gerald Ford in 1976 when he dumped Nelson Rockefeller in favor of Bob Dole.

Although Biden’s name is on the ticket, a recent day’s home page of the Obama campaign’s Website showed dozens of photos and stories, but not a word about Joe Biden. If President Obama asked Biden to step aside and asked Clinton to step in � each for the good of the nation and the party � would either say no? Not likely.

The reason Obama-Clinton has not percolated beyond the punditry stage is that it didn’t seem necessary. The Republicans were in disarray and the anyone-but-Romney bandwagon appeared to be rolling. Amazing how quickly things change. Romney looks stronger, and if he makes an aggressive choice for vice president, such as New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, then the importance of the second slot will grow dramatically.

In 2008 hope, change and electing the nation’s first black president were magic. In 2012, the prospect of a female vice president might rekindle Democrats’ excitement.

It’s a long shot. But if we’ve learned anything about politics in recent years, it’s that life is often much stranger than HBO.

Peter Funt is a writer and speaker and can be reached at www.CandidCamera.com. 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Evoluting Fabulously

Photo courtesy of Joshua Wanyama

A thousand rainbows of congratulations to Barack Obama for bursting out of his own personal policy closet and fabulously proclaiming he believes “same sex couples should be able to get married.” Sir! Welcome to the third year of the second decade of the 21st century, sir! You also might want to check out some of the strides we’ve been making in communications.

The president went on to explain he was slow in using his powers for good because it had taken a while for those thoughts to go Darwinian. Sadly, he stopped short of endorsing transmutation and neglected to hail Hugh Jackman as the best entertainer on the face of the PLANET!

What we witnessed was no eon eating, natural selection-type evolution; this native political animal spontaneously grew flippers and walked on dry land, prodded only by a nudge from the Biden fossil. Come to think of it, maybe flippers aren’t the only body parts BHO grew.

You might even call it a chrysalis, with a caterpillar emerging from its cautious cocoon to sprout wings and fly to a lonely position atop the moral high ground previously inhabited by such disparate denizens as Tammy Baldwin, Barney Frank and, unaccountably, Dick Cheney. Facing extinction.

As predictable as a brush-back pitch following a grand slam, Republicans began to howl from eight different vantages. One right-wing rag claimed he “Buckled” on the issue. Others called him the First Waffler. Might be difficult to hide Mitt Romney‘s 8000 waffles behind this big one of Obama’s, but they’ll give it the old prep-school try.

Besides, isn’t a waffle when you expediently move to a more popular position to curry votes? Meaning this swing- state polarizer is the exact opposite of a waffle. More of an elffaw. Which is waffle backwards. A polf- pilf. Or a yrrek.

Rush Limbaugh jumped into the fray accusing Obama of waging a “War on Marriage.” Everything’s a “War” with this guy. Bet he calls breakfast a War on Pancakes. Not to mention being a tad disingenuous coming from a multi- millionaire who hired Elton John to sing at his fourth wedding.

The president’s supporters worry he offended the black church-going community, one of his inviolate bases. But come on, really? Don’t you suspect he could be caught naked in a dumpster with a goat and a Portuguese seamstress and still carry the black church-going community? Just the goat? Male seamstress?

Opening a conspiratorial can of mutating worms, it has been suggested someone at The Washington Post leaked the Mitt Romney high school gay-pranking story and Obama knew he had to poop or get off the pot before it hit. Adding to Romney’s image problems: do we really want him tackling Belgium and cutting off its hair because he didn’t like the way it looked?

Michelle Obama’s husband disavowed any desire to legalize gay marriage on a federal level, maintaining it should be a states-rights issue. Of course, interracial marriage was illegal in 16 states until a Supreme Court decision in 1967 and some people still consider that an abomination. Guess who’s whining about this? Same marine invertebrates.

Fine. Let all gay people move to California. We’ll take ‘em. Then just try to get your hair cut in Mississippi. Or take ballet lessons in Montana. Or raise money in D.C. And that right there might be the origin of the species.

Check out willandwillie.com for the latest podcast. Will Durst’s book, “The All American Sport of Bipartisan Bashing,” is available from Amazon and better bookstores all over this great land of ours. Don’t forget to check out his rooftop comedy minutes at: http://www.rooftopcomedy.com/shows/BurstOfDurst.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Time to Declare a War on Stupid

Photo courtesy of John Haslam

America is not the “social issue fixer-upper in disrepair” Progressives make her out to be. Instead, America is the “world’s last great hope,” and will continue to be, just as soon as we are able to get our head above the water economically.

The wave upon wave of “wars” on race, women, class and now gay marriage — were devised to sink this magnificent “city on a shining hill” into the depths of the sea and replace her with a European-style socialistic utopian theme park I affectionately call “Progressive World.”

Progressives, there is a much simpler way to get to that happy place filled with e-ticket rides and no work: Hop on a plane to Greece and send us a postcard to let us know how it’s working out for you.

God bless them, it seems Progressives honestly thought the sun, moon, and planets had lined up just for them that magical Greek column-themed Inauguration night in 2009 when Democrats owned Washington.

President Obama and Democrats had two years to do something about gay marriage, if they wanted to. Instead, the president waited to make his “public service announcement” until now. Obama made no promises; he simply stated his opinion. The shrewd politician he is, Obama understood the power of words and threw out a few to rally his base and raise Hollywood big-dollar campaign donations — which goes to show you intelligence is not a prerequisite for fame.

Rally, he did; within days, Newsweek canonized Obama as America’s “First Gay President,” and plastered his face on their front page, rainbow flag colored halo and all. I shall bite my tongue here for further comment, and leave the editorializing to readers.

Especially during these days of pending economic ruin, the “war” on gay marriage is a waste of time. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand that as long as gays stay within the same legal boundaries we are all bound to; they can do whatever they want behind closed doors. It’s their business. I’m sure the GOP would be happy to accommodate them with reasonable things like hospital visitation rights. Sexual activity is between an individual, God, and the fly on the wall and has nothing to do with civil rights.

Conservatives must sit this one out and let nature take its course. If liberal men marry men and liberal women marry women and those who want to abort their babies do so, it won’t be long before liberals will “social right” themselves out of existence. In this case, patience is a virtue conservatives should wholeheartedly embrace.

Meanwhile, our ship is sinking, and Democrats are dressing themselves for dinner.

Focusing on non-issues intended to pit Americans against each other rather than acknowledging the iceberg we’re about to crash into was an exercise in futility. How far this one, who once promised to bind us together, has fallen.

It truly is “still about the economy, stupid.” Maybe someone needs to declare a war on “stupid.”

Enhanced by Zemanta

Editorial Cartoon of the Day: May 11, 2012

Cam Cardow

Our View: Deport Criminals, Not Schoolgirls

Photo courtesy of Craig Cloutier

Oh, the outrage. President Barack Obama wants to deport criminals, before ousting schoolgirls with immigration problems. The audacity of this man.

The Colorado Springs Gazette laid out last Sunday the extraordinary similarities of Obama and former President George W. Bush, which speak poorly of each on most counts. These big-spending interventionists are the same on nearly all important issue, distinguished more by red-team/blue-team affiliation than anything of substance.

On one policy, however, we applaud the similarity. Each man has a rational approach to immigration.

Bush, a Texan fluent in Spanish, has an affinity for Mexico. As president, he wanted reasonable immigration reforms that would enable our country to benefit from productive, noncriminal aliens. He was pressured by extremists on the right — mostly talk radio hosts pandering for ratings — to show more hostility toward illegal immigrants. Deport them all and keep them out, the talking heads demanded. Don’t adjust quotas. View all immigrant babies as mere “anchors,” unworthy of their citizenship. Bush mostly held his ground, understanding that we have outgrown old immigration quotas and need immigrant productivity and procreation in order to thrive.

Obama’s immigration philosophy is nearly identical. He would like to see order at the border but refuses to demonize illegal immigrants and their kids. He understands that visas expire. He knows that crossing the border without permission is a misdemeanor, while subsequent residency is a noncriminal civil infraction. He views America’s immigration dilemma with a healthy perspective.

Talk radio hosts are riling up the masses this week because Obama said deportation efforts should focus on criminals. He was at a town hall meeting in a Washington school, when a student using Skype asked why students like her continue to receive deportation letters.

Obama said: “We have redesigned our enforcement practices under the law to make sure that we’re focusing primarily on criminals, and so our deportations of criminals are up about 70 percent. Our deportations of non-criminals are down, and that’s because we want to focus our resources on those folks who are destructive to the community. And for a young person like that young woman that we just spoke to, who’s going to school doing all the right things, we want them to succeed.”

The moderator asked if Obama could use an executive order to stop student deportations. Obama explained that it would “not conform with my appropriate role as president.”

“That does not mean, though, that we can’t make decisions, for example, to emphasize enforcement on those who’ve engaged in criminal activity,” Obama said.

That’s about as benign and commonsensical as a statement can be. Our country hasn’t the wherewithal to deport all illegal immigrants, but it can and should deport some. Our country, therefore, gets the most benefit by first deporting those who commit crimes. Lose the criminals, then worry about successful schoolgirls.

Leading radio jocks and bloggers went berserk. How dare Obama suggest any of them succeed? The normally sound-minded radio host Jason Lewis told us they’re all criminals.

No, they are not. A student is not a criminal for overstaying a visa, not by any stretch. It is illegal to double park, but not a crime. Likewise, it is illegal to reside in the United States without permission, but not a crime. To focus deportation efforts on criminal immigrants is like placing more emphasis on drunk drivers than on jaywalkers. We are a country of civil law and criminal law. Not all illegal activity is crime, and the vast majority of illegal immigrants have not been caught committing crimes. Let’s worry most about those who have. It’s common sense.

Bush and Obama are similar and weak. On immigration, they are wise and strong.

Republished from the Colorado Springs Gazette

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Bill O’Reilly: Leadership

This time next year, we could have the two presidential candidates in play. Only God knows who the Republicans will decide upon, but President Obama is a lock on the Democratic side. The big issues that will most likely decide the election of 2012 are the economy and leadership. And now there’s new data on the leadership front.

According to a Gallup poll released this week, Obama has fallen more than 20 points in the leadership category in less than two years. Right now, 52 percent of Americans believe he is a strong and decisive leader, while 47 percent say he is not. Bad news for the prez.

Truthfully, much of the leadership issue these days is driven by style. The last strong leader America had was President Reagan, who came across as tough but not belligerent. Reagan fired the air traffic controllers, thereby busting the union, demanded that the Soviets tear down the wall in East Germany, and generally governed with a good-natured confidence. His acting experience helped him project authority and benevolence at the same time — not an easy thing to do.

President Bush the Elder came across rather fatherly, even when waging war against Saddam Hussein. Bill Clinton had little authority because of his controversies. And Bush the Younger‘s battlefield setbacks eroded his leadership image.

Obama is a deliberative leader, a man who seeks consensus before acting. He took months before committing more troops to Afghanistan, did not alter the Bush strategy in Iraq even after criticizing it, and seemed to be indecisive about Libya. French President Nicolas Sarkozy was the guy who drove the military action, with Obama hitching a ride on the Frenchman’s passion.

In turbulent times, people naturally look for leaders who can bring them comfort and reassurance. At this point, Obama is having trouble doing that, and the Gallup poll reflects that reality. Obama’s style is cool and sometimes distant. When waging war or trying to prevent economic disaster, detachment can be detrimental. Rallying the troops usually wins the day.

President Lincoln was the nation’s strongest leader, with George Washington second and Franklin Roosevelt third. All three had huge problems to solve and did so with courage and bold decision making. Lincoln, in particular, was constantly under siege. If the Confederates had won the Battle of Gettysburg, the union might have been shattered forever. Lincoln knew that. Yet, he remained strong and in control and did what he had to do to hold the country together — even suspending habeas corpus.

Obama is a big admirer of Lincoln, as is George W. Bush. Both men understand that true leadership requires stone-cold courage and brilliant decision-making capability. Most human beings fall short in both categories, which is why true leadership is rarely on display.

But if it is in 2012, the person who shows it will be president.

Veteran TV news anchor Bill O’Reilly is host of the Fox News show “The O’Reilly Factor” and author of the book “Pinheads and Patriots: Where You Stand in the Age of Obama.” To find out more about Bill O’Reilly, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com. This column originates on the website www.billoreilly.com.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Editorial Cartoon of the Day: March 30, 2011

Chuck Norris: Obama Triangulates on Gun Control

Loyal readers will recall that I warned last year of the perfect storm approaching on gun control. Now, with the Tucson, Ariz., tragedy as a steppingstone and with eyes firmly focused on his re-election, President Barack Obama has opened a campaign to appease his base on the polarizing issue.

Let me completely disclose my position: I am a strong Second Amendment advocate. I believe in protecting our fundamental rights, including our Second Amendment rights, through the political process. To that end, I serve as honorary chairman of the “Trigger The Vote” voter registration campaign.

That campaign is funded by the National Rifle Association‘s Freedom Action Foundation. We work in every election cycle to register gun owners and hunters to vote and add them to the ranks of millions of grass-roots voters who have established Second Amendment issues as the new “third rail” of American politics. Those voters and the newly registered voters we can add to their ranks between now and November 2012 will have their job cut out for them in the next election cycle.

The 2012 election now looms large for this administration. Even while the president’s top aides are deserting the White House to staff up his campaign office, those left behind seem to be working from a mandate to begin patrolling the divided Democratic base.

Up until now, the Obama White House had given a wide berth to the gun control debate, abandoning campaign promises to pursue new restrictions on our gun rights. This avoidance does not reflect any shift in position; it is merely recognition of the political reality that most members of his party have no interest in having yet another political loser of an issue crammed down their throats.

At the same time, those in Obama’s liberal base have grown restless and rancorous over his first two years in office because he hasn’t done everything they’ve wanted, at least regarding more restrictions on our Second Amendment rights. They resent the president’s avoidance of fulfilling his campaign rhetoric.

Gun control groups have thrown tantrums for months that Obama wouldn’t champion their agenda, with one group resentfully awarding him an F. So only now is Obama sticking his toes into the swirling currents of the Second Amendment debate.

His campaign kicked off in the Arizona Daily Star, with a subtle op-ed that was intentionally vague. The words could be read as a broad endorsement of proposed gun control measures; they also could be read as embracing the NRA mantra that enforcement of current laws is what’s needed. But Obama’s attempt to place himself at the center of an ideological divide over guns is pure political positioning, and it comes with the rank odor of cold, crass calculation. One can almost hear the tearing of another page from the Clinton playbook.

One thing he definitely got wrong, however, was his arrogant statement that he had “expanded” the rights of gun owners. The Bill of Rights is guaranteed and can’t be “expanded” by government, as it contains fundamental natural rights. Those rights can, however, be restricted by illegitimate government fiat, which is why the clear language of the Second Amendment prohibits even “infringement” upon it. But infringement is clearly on the agenda, despite Obama’s rhetorical vacillations.

Implementation of the goals set out in his article came via phone calls from Justice Department operatives seeking to arrange a series of “active listening” meetings for groups on both sides of the gun control debate, as well as industry companies and groups. The proposed meetings were intended to develop an agenda of new legislative and regulatory proposals for the White House to embrace and push in Congress.

Let’s tally the results thus far.

First, my friends Wayne LaPierre and Chris Cox at the NRA not only declined the invitation but did so in the form of a strong letter that gave lie to many of the article’s core assertions.

Second, gun control groups eagerly attended their meeting, reporting on the process in glowing tones, which must have brought a rosy glow to the White House operatives assigned to the realignment of the political base. They continue their private muttering about a “lack of leadership” from the White House.

Third, the media panned the Obama strategy and operation. The White House must have been particularly stung by criticism from the editorial board of the Arizona Daily Star itself.

The meetings with other groups will continue. You can bet that we haven’t heard the last of this issue. But so far, all that Obama has proved is this old political adage: The only thing accomplished by sitting in the middle of the road is that you can be hit from both sides.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Editorial Cartoon of the Day: March 28, 2011

Bill O’Reilly: The Triumph of Evil

The opposition to military action in Libya is fascinating. President Obama is taking incoming fire from both the left and the right as various agendas collide against neutralizing Moammar Gadhafi. The dissent is all over the place, so let’s try to simplify the situation.

We begin with a quote from Edmund Burke: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

That’s true. We have seen it time and again throughout history. When evil is not confronted, it can win, often with devastating results.

There is no question that Gadhafi was on the verge of slaughtering his opposition. His mercenaries and highly paid military were closing in on rebel strongholds, and amnesty would not be forthcoming, as the colonel himself publicly proclaimed.

Finally, the U.N. acted, and a no-fly zone was approved. After waffling for weeks, Obama swung into action, ordering U.S. planes and missiles into the skies. Then he went to Brazil.

Immediately, the far left erupted. Ralph Nader is calling for impeachment. Michael Moore has suggested that Obama give back the Nobel Peace Prize. Congressman Dennis Kucinich wants to cut off funding for any military action against Libya.

On the right, Pat Buchanan banged the isolationist drum: “Why is the United States, all the way across the ocean, got to go in and stop Arabs from killing Arabs? … Why are we in there?”

To prevent a massacre? I believe that’s the reason, Mr. Buchanan.

Congressman Ron Paul was equally blunt: “What are we doing? We are in this crisis, and they decide to spend all this money. It makes no sense at all.”

Here’s my question for Paul: Would you be comfortable, congressman, watching thousands of human beings being slaughtered by a terrorist dictator when you know that your country had the power to prevent it?

In fact, the no-fly zone was up and running in hours, and Gadhafi’s forces have been seriously damaged. Now the rebels have a chance to eventually overthrow the dictator, and mass murder has been avoided at least for the time being.

This is not a complicated issue. If America is indeed a noble country, it should act to save lives when it can. That doesn’t mean getting bogged down in quagmires like Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam. But when quick, decisive action can defeat evil, it should be taken.

I believe in the basic nobility of America. I also believe few other nations have the motivation and power to confront evil that this country does. If it’s all about us, if all we think about is our own sacrifice, then American exceptionalism disappears.

We did the right thing in Libya.

Veteran TV news anchor Bill O’Reilly is host of the Fox News show “The O’Reilly Factor” and author of the book “Pinheads and Patriots: Where You Stand in the Age of Obama.” To find out more about Bill O’Reilly, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com. This column originates on the website www.billoreilly.com.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta