Re: Lies, evasions will sink Democrats

On Mar 31, 9:51 am, babeejm <jmtsm...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 31, 11:45 am, jose <josefsop...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:





Lies, evasions will sink Democrats

By PETER WORTHINGTON, TORONTO SUN

Here's a prediction: Republican John McCain will be the next U.S.
president.

Of course, a lot can happen between now and then that could make the
above statement ridiculous, but assuming there's no momentous disaster
in Iraq, it's hard to see Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama beating
McCain.

Put another way, I can't see McCain losing.

So uniting the party, once seen as almost impossible for McCain, is
now duck soup. Fractious conservatives are already on side.

The main problem for Democrats is their candidates, Hillary and Obama,
both with flaws and potential weaknesses.

First, Hillary. As of this writing, she seems hell-bent on taking her
campaign to the floor of the convention in August, risking a fatal
split in the party if she can't get her way. As it stands now,
whichever side loses a convention fight, a lot of the loser's
supporters will likely opt for McCain.

This time last year Hillary and America were persuaded that her
nomination would be a coronation. Today that certainty has not only
vanished, but shifted to where Obama is now almost a sure thing, even
if he doesn't quite have the delegates to give him the majority that
even the Clintons would have to accept.

I'd argue that what's likely to sink Hillary is her lying about
herself and her record.

*** Morris, the political guru who helped the Clintons win the U.S.
presidency and before that the Arkansas governorship, has compiled a
scorecard showing that "Hillary simply cannot tell the truth."

When it comes to the actual presidential campaign, her record of lying
would damage her even more than it is hurting her now.

The lie (and no euphemism can disguise it as anything else) that will
damage her more than any other is her claim on at least two occasions
in 1996 when as First Lady she visited Bosnia, she "landed under
sniper fire" and had to "run with our heads down to waiting cars."

Video shows an 8-year-old greeting her and daughter Chelsea with
flowers, and no sign of danger. She also claimed Bosnia was too
dangerous for the president, so he sent wife and daughter instead. You
figure out that whopper.

When caught out, Hillary said she had "misspoke" the truth (whatever
that means), forgetting that never in her life has she faced gunfire
and that people rarely forget being under sniper fire.

Other "lies" on her resume include claiming she was named after Sir
Edmund Hillary for his conquest of Everest in 1953, apparently
forgetting she was born, and named, in 1947.

Her lexicon of lies, compiled by Morris, include such as claiming
daughter Chelsea was jogging around the World Trade Centre and heard
the planes coming in on 9/11 -- a claim refuted by Chelsea, who said
she saw it on TV.

In Bill's first run for the White House, Hillary explained she made a
killing in the futures market ($100,000 from a $1,000 investment) by
reading the Wall Street Journal, which didn't cover the market back
then!

She now claims she always opposed NAFTA, when the record shows she
enthusiastically supported it. She has said she urged Bill to
intervene in Rwanda, which she didn't, and has even claimed to be a
life-long Yankees fan.

So it goes. Big, small or in between, Hillary adjusts truth to the
needs of the moment. As a consequence, polls show her trustworthiness
at about half of McCain's or Obama's.

As for Obama vs. McCain, apart from his dubious handling of the
"Pastor Disaster" -- Rev. Jeremiah Wright's anti-Americanism and
blatant racism -- there are unknown aspects of Obama still to be
revealed. He has answered the racist issue in Pastor Wright's
rantings, but has yet to deal with the "patriotism" factor.

When Obama declared he can no more abandon Pastor Wright than he can
repudiate his white grandmother, he is not being fair. Or honest.
Obama had no choice in his grandmother; Pastor Wright was his personal
choice.

McCain has been around so long that he is who he is, and there are few
surprises left. He admits to being an "imperfect" human being, who all
his life has sought to serve his country -- a claim that few deny.

Even Obama calls him "a hero." And he is prepared to co-operate with
Democrats, if he feels it'll benefit his country. (Pity we in Canada
have few politicians like that).

Most significant, perhaps, is that McCain is personally liked by many
Democrats, many independents, blacks and Latinos. Polls show that 22%
of Hillary's or Obama's declared supporters intend to vote for McCain
if their candidate isn't the Democratic nominee.

As yet, the public knows little about what Obama believes, or what he
would do. While, as he says, "Words are important," so are policies -
which he hasn't yet outlined, and which will be analyzed when he
does.

What happens in Iraq could derail the McCain campaign, which right now
looks solid. McCain even looks more presidential and certainly fits
the commander-in-chief role better than any rival.

If Obama were president, it's likely that certain nasty regimes would
"test" American and Obama's resolve - as the Soviet Union tested Jimmy
Carter in Africa, Latin America and South America. (Carter failed the
test).

Before that, Khrushchev tested the young Jack Kennedy in Vienna and
Cuba. (Khrushchev failed.)

No one risked testing Ronald Reagan. But Clinton was tested -- and
failed to recognize Osama bin Laden as a terrorist, or the 1993 World
Trade Centre bombing as a terrorist act. Ditto the embassy bombings in
Africa, and the attack of the USS Cole.

If McCain becomes president, no stable country is likely to "test"
him. North Korea, maybe, but that country is run by a fruitcake.

If for no other, this seems sufficient reason to hope McCain is the
next U.S. president, which, barring the unforeseen, I can't see him
missing.
Until and unless people start wondering what Obama would do as president...

the man just can't win...How shallow have we become that a man's
good looks and the way he talks indicates what kind of president
he would make.  One of these days..the chickens will come home
to roost and Obama will have to tell us exactly what he wants to
accomplish
as president..I hope this won't be a case of Obama saying "NOW WHAT?"
on the evening of November 4, 2008...like Robert Redford in the move
The Candidate
should he win.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Unfortunately, too many Americans operate on emotion and not
deliberate thought. They experience orgasm whenever they see
or hear Obama. Even a veteran Democrat pundit like Chris
Matthews felt a twinge run up his leg when thinking about Obama.
How scary can things get?
.

Quantcast