Posted on 02/03/2004 9:57:31 AM PST by AndyObermann
We are all pretty much aware of the Democratic presidential hopeful’s conflicting stances on our liberation of Iraq. We know that Senators Kerry and Edwards are hypocrites, Dr. Dean is an appeaser, Gen. Clark isn’t sure what he supports, and Dennis Kucinich is just a screwball. There is only one candidate with a respectable position on the issue— Sen. Joe Lieberman—and he is in fifth place. I realize by the time you read this, several of these candidates may not be candidates anymore, but let’s take a look at some of the domestic policies they might bring to the table in November, anyway.
As much as I respect and admire Gen. Clark’s military service, he is just not presidential material. His positions on issues, both foreign and domestic, are not only contradictory, but strengthen his neophyte image. For example, when asked by Joseph McQuaid (a Manchester, MA Union Leader) about his position on abortion, Clark commented that the law has no place whatsoever in the practice of abortion.
Clark: I don’t think you should get the law involved in abortion. McQuaid: At all? Clark: Nope. McQuaid: Anything up to delivery? Clark: Nope. Nope. McQuaid: Anything up to the head coming out of the womb? Clark: I say it’s up to the woman and her doctor, her conscience…you don’t put the law there.
Of course, Clark has since retracted his statements, but this exchange clearly demonstrates the General’s lack of thought in the serious issues of today and amateur political presence. Had he done so, he would have realized that if the head were out of the womb, the practice would be considered murder, not abortion (even though they are practically one in the same). Perhaps Gen. Clark just wants to save the woman the invasiveness of abortion. Just deliver the baby and…well, you get the idea.
Howard Dean has seemingly made a living making silly remarks and outrageous claims. Like this one on Sep. 25, 2003, after being asked what he felt would be the most unpopular move he might make as president, Dean replied, “As governor…I had to balance the budget during very difficult times. We have to balance the budget.” Interesting, a liberal Democrat, raving about balancing budgets. The problem is “President” Dean’s plans would only expand deficits to new, record levels. A study, conducted by the National Taxpayers Union, found that under Dean, the budget deficit would increase by a sum of $223 billion, after a full repeal of President Bush’s tax cut package. Among his spending plans is a “five to one match” for campaign contributions, a $30 billion contribution towards combating the spread of AIDS, same sex benefits for federal employees and a $100 billion “job creation" scheme. Typical for a tax and spend Democrat, but perhaps he should leave balancing budgets to the real conservatives.
Next up, John Edwards. According to Sen. Edwards, private school vouchers are dastardly because they promote “two school systems—one for the affluent and one for everyone else.” Let’s grant Mr. Edwards that this dichotomy in education does actually exist. Obviously, increased funding to public education over the past few decades hasn’t done the trick, so maybe incorporating something different will. You know what will make public education more effective? Competition. By breaking the monopoly of government schools, forcing competition with private schools for funding, public schools will have some incentive for improvement. So, in the mean time, since there are two school systems for our youth, why not allow “everyone else” the opportunity to join the “affluent” in private schools via government funded vouchers? It just makes sense.
It’s hard to attack Joe Lieberman, because by today’s standards, he is practically a Republican. The only difference is he wants to raise taxes and increase spending…well, I guess just raise taxes. President Bush and Congressional Republicans are doing a bang-up job increasing spending on their own.
Sen. John Kerry is another interesting one. Kerry seems to support opening our borders to any and all that wish to enter. “Anyone who has been in this country for five or six years…who has stayed out of trouble, ought to be able to [receive] American citizenship immediately.” Oh really? We should award illegal behavior with the gift of permanent and binding US citizenship? Even better, let’s wait until they have been here a few years before we do it, you know, so they are entrenched in our society. Hopefully they’ll even have a couple of kids, too. That sounds great. We’ll give them all Medicare and Food Stamps and Welfare to make sure they’ll vote for Democrats. That’s the ticket. Utterly ridiculous!
Speaking of ridiculous, let’s take this time to briefly talk about the other two candidates.
Dennis Kucinich…what can I say. On his official campaign website, Kucinich is proposing to create a new department in our government. To go along side the Department of Defense, the State Department, and the Department of Homeland Security, ole’ Dennis is proposing, get this, the Department of Peace and Tranquility. Through the new cabinet-level department, Kucinich hopes to, “…make of this world a gift of peace which will confirm the presence of universal spirit in our lives.” Enough said.
Finally we come to that old “race warlord” himself, Al Sharpton. When asked how his social activism would unite the country, Sharpton replied, “…my history of activism makes it easier for me than most. I am fighting for equal opportunity and protection under the law.” I guess his “fight” doesn’t apply to Jews who own businesses in Harlem. In 1995, Rev. Al led a protest against the store “Freddy’s” in Harlem. The storeowner, Freddy Harari, was forced to raise rent on a tenet, Sikhulu Shange—a black storeowner leasing from Harari. Harari’s rent had previously been raised—forcing him to take such action. The angry mob, led by Sharpton, targeted the Jewish Harari as a racist. Eventually they burst into the store, murdered four employees, and lit the place on fire, killing eight in total. So much for “equal protection under the law.”
Here’s the point; we must have a serious understanding of who these men are and what they represent. The damage they could do to the country, if elected, is unimaginable.
It bears repeating.
However, Lieberman is just as much of a squirrel as anyone else in the DemocRAT legion. In the last campaign, I heard him say that "in private" he was against abortion, but "in public" he was for it.
I wouldn't believe him for a minute even if he didn't sound like he was straining on a stool when he spoke!
If the President didn't support the troops even Jim Robinson would be screaming to get the sob out of the White House!
The short answer is that they stand for the same things the GOP does. Stealing as much treasure and infringing on as many God given rights as possible.
GAY MARRIAGE !!!
1. George W. Bush is a BAD, BAD person...If you created a clone using all the evil people in history it still wouldn't be as bad a George W. Bush.
2. Tax cuts are bad, bad, bad -- All american that didn't mail their tax cuts back to the IRS (or the DNC) should feel very guilty, the only way to absolve this guilt is by raising taxes twice the amount they were cut.
3. The War in Iraq and the War and Terrorism are Bad, Bad, Bad, Terrorism is a legal problem not a military one and Saddam should have been left in power, unless it was proven he planned to reduce taxes or donate to the Republican party.
4. The wealthiest 1% of Americans are almost as evil as President Bush. They deserve to have all their assets seized and be locked in prison or a least be taxed at the top marginal rate of 150%...(unless they make a sizeable donation to the DNC or MOVEON.ORG)
5. If elected president a democrat will provide universal health care, universal child care, universal welfare, universal housing, eliminate unemployment and provide 12 weeks a year of paid leave for all Americans... All while controlling spending and eliminating the deficit.
Unfortunately, I have to admit that I don't. I've seen too many Olympia Snows, Arlen Spectors, and Jacob Javits. None of them care about their oaths to obey the Constitution.
The short answer is that they stand for the same things the GOP does. Stealing as much treasure and infringing on as many God given rights as possible.
They believe in the aquisition of power through dividing our country into manipulable and bribable groups.
They have no real love for any system, but the success of capitalism helps the other side, and injecting socialism into it helps them acquire power.
They believe they are at once so smart and so compassionate that their quest for power justifies corruption and lies.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.