Emptying the Folder II
Clintons as Nauseating Victims
Sen. Hillary Clinton is never so nauseating as when she is playing the victim, something she has perfected. Well, MSNBC personality David Shuster gave her the chance, again, last week when he made a comment that the Clintons were “pimping out” their daughter, Chelsea, “in a weird sort of way”. Yes, Mr. Shuster should not have invoked Ms. Clinton and, yes, the implication was that Ms. Clinton was the “prostitute” in the poor choice of words. But, my take is that Mr. Shuster was clearly talking about the unseemly behavior of Mr. and Mrs. Clinton, they, after all, were the subject of his sentence; Ms. Clinton was the object. Again, the comment was ugly but the Clintons always have a way of casting themselves as victims and they are getting significant mileage out of this. I think the Bush daughters are about 5 years younger than Ms. Clinton and I just don’t think they were ever as “protected” as Chelsea is.
Race Card No. 1
Sen. Hillary Clinton supporter and current Democratic Governor of Pennsylvania, Ed Rendell said this earlier this week in advance of Pennsylvania’s Democratic Primary, “You’ve got conservative whites here, and I think there are some whites who are probably not ready to vote for an African-American candidate.” I’m looking but so far I can find no outrage by the indictment of Pennsylvania’s Democratic voters. Oh, and no outrage by the Clinton campaign continuing to play the race card?
Race Card No. 2
Also playing the race card is NAACP Chairman, Mr. Julian Bond, who said the Democratic Party’s decision to not sit the delegates of Michigan or Florida (which would only benefit Sen. Clinton, hmmmmm), give rise to “great concern at the prospect that millions of voters in Michigan and Florida could ultimately have their votes completely discounted.” Refusing to seat the delegates would remind voters of the “sorid history of racially discriminatory primaries.” Refusing to seat the delegates would apparently have noting to do with following through on the Democratic Party’s promise to not seat the delegates if either state moved their primary too far ahead in the calendar. “Billy (he’s 7), if you don’t do your chores, I’m going to take away your Game Boy, I mean it this time.”
The Irrelevance of Obama’s Race
This was the published letter to the editor (of the Boston Globe) of Mr. Leonard C. Alkins, President Emeritus Boston Branch, NAACP, Roxbury, MA, on the column I reproduced just below by Mr. Jeff Jacoby:
Although I do not always agree with (Mr.) Jacoby's perceptions and opinions on race and politics, I give him kudos for this op-ed. He is right on point, and I want to thank him for writing this piece. (End of Mr. Alkins’ letter.)
Anti-McCain Sludge
In anticipation of what’s to come, I surfed the internet on a few selected themes and Sen. John McCain. Well, the lunatic, hate-filled, Left, has plenty of ugly spins on Senator McCain’s time in the U.S. Navy. No, the Democratic nominee will not promote it; the Democratic nominee will even claim the moral high ground and condemn it, but the Democratic nominee will most certainly benefit from it.
The U.S. Supreme Court
As I’ve written over and over again, the second most important responsibility of the President of the United States is to appoint judges, especially U.S. Supreme Court judges. I just finished reading Mr. Jeffrey Toobin’s, The Nine, Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court. Mr. Toobin is the fairly liberal senior legal analyst for CNN (Mr. Toobin thinks only President Bush was “going to do whatever it took to win” the 2000 election; apparently, Vice President Al Gore was indifferent to the election’s outcome, p. 145). Anyway, back on page 339, Mr. Toobin ends his book with a paragraph starting, “So one factor – and one factor only – will determine the future of the Supreme Court: the outcomes of presidential elections. Presidents pick justices to extend their legacies; by this standard, George W. Bush chose wisely.” Though I think President Bush picked justices who were thought to share his judicial philosophy and to fulfill directly-related, presidential campaign promise, Mr. Toobin could not agree with me more. President Bush did appoint wisely (Justices Roberts and Alito), and his appointments will ultimately add to the argument that President Bush was a “great” President (see December 8, 2007 post).
Clintons as Nauseating Victims
Sen. Hillary Clinton is never so nauseating as when she is playing the victim, something she has perfected. Well, MSNBC personality David Shuster gave her the chance, again, last week when he made a comment that the Clintons were “pimping out” their daughter, Chelsea, “in a weird sort of way”. Yes, Mr. Shuster should not have invoked Ms. Clinton and, yes, the implication was that Ms. Clinton was the “prostitute” in the poor choice of words. But, my take is that Mr. Shuster was clearly talking about the unseemly behavior of Mr. and Mrs. Clinton, they, after all, were the subject of his sentence; Ms. Clinton was the object. Again, the comment was ugly but the Clintons always have a way of casting themselves as victims and they are getting significant mileage out of this. I think the Bush daughters are about 5 years younger than Ms. Clinton and I just don’t think they were ever as “protected” as Chelsea is.
Race Card No. 1
Sen. Hillary Clinton supporter and current Democratic Governor of Pennsylvania, Ed Rendell said this earlier this week in advance of Pennsylvania’s Democratic Primary, “You’ve got conservative whites here, and I think there are some whites who are probably not ready to vote for an African-American candidate.” I’m looking but so far I can find no outrage by the indictment of Pennsylvania’s Democratic voters. Oh, and no outrage by the Clinton campaign continuing to play the race card?
Race Card No. 2
Also playing the race card is NAACP Chairman, Mr. Julian Bond, who said the Democratic Party’s decision to not sit the delegates of Michigan or Florida (which would only benefit Sen. Clinton, hmmmmm), give rise to “great concern at the prospect that millions of voters in Michigan and Florida could ultimately have their votes completely discounted.” Refusing to seat the delegates would remind voters of the “sorid history of racially discriminatory primaries.” Refusing to seat the delegates would apparently have noting to do with following through on the Democratic Party’s promise to not seat the delegates if either state moved their primary too far ahead in the calendar. “Billy (he’s 7), if you don’t do your chores, I’m going to take away your Game Boy, I mean it this time.”
The Irrelevance of Obama’s Race
This was the published letter to the editor (of the Boston Globe) of Mr. Leonard C. Alkins, President Emeritus Boston Branch, NAACP, Roxbury, MA, on the column I reproduced just below by Mr. Jeff Jacoby:
Although I do not always agree with (Mr.) Jacoby's perceptions and opinions on race and politics, I give him kudos for this op-ed. He is right on point, and I want to thank him for writing this piece. (End of Mr. Alkins’ letter.)
Anti-McCain Sludge
In anticipation of what’s to come, I surfed the internet on a few selected themes and Sen. John McCain. Well, the lunatic, hate-filled, Left, has plenty of ugly spins on Senator McCain’s time in the U.S. Navy. No, the Democratic nominee will not promote it; the Democratic nominee will even claim the moral high ground and condemn it, but the Democratic nominee will most certainly benefit from it.
The U.S. Supreme Court
As I’ve written over and over again, the second most important responsibility of the President of the United States is to appoint judges, especially U.S. Supreme Court judges. I just finished reading Mr. Jeffrey Toobin’s, The Nine, Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court. Mr. Toobin is the fairly liberal senior legal analyst for CNN (Mr. Toobin thinks only President Bush was “going to do whatever it took to win” the 2000 election; apparently, Vice President Al Gore was indifferent to the election’s outcome, p. 145). Anyway, back on page 339, Mr. Toobin ends his book with a paragraph starting, “So one factor – and one factor only – will determine the future of the Supreme Court: the outcomes of presidential elections. Presidents pick justices to extend their legacies; by this standard, George W. Bush chose wisely.” Though I think President Bush picked justices who were thought to share his judicial philosophy and to fulfill directly-related, presidential campaign promise, Mr. Toobin could not agree with me more. President Bush did appoint wisely (Justices Roberts and Alito), and his appointments will ultimately add to the argument that President Bush was a “great” President (see December 8, 2007 post).
posted by Zack at 7:07 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home