The latest from GeekLove (in association with Dr. Lynette Long). Once again, it will give you a good cardio workout by raising your blood pressure! Just follow the money...
Monday, August 18, 2008
Sunday, August 17, 2008
Saddle Up
There was a big event last night, one that has not received a lot of press yet. No, I am not talking about the Saddleback Forum in which McCain schooled Obush (see, that's what happens when Obush doesn't have Hillary to follow and say, "Uh, what SHE said, except, uh, ah, uh...(Incoherent ramblings which continue for 10 minutes uninterrupted by the fawning Campbell Brown - heck, insert ANY MSM host there.)" Obama/Obush made a BUNCH of ridiculous statements. Here are just a very few, and then I'll get to the big event: Here is just one:
Say WHAT, OBush?? YOU did not have to make ANY decisions on the War in Iraq! YOU were not in the SENATE yet!! How in the WORLD does this guy get away with these blatant lies and mind-boggling (delusional) revisionist history??
Wait - here's another goody. Oh, dear goddess, McCain is going to have a FIELD day with this statement come August 28th. I'll show you why after the question and answer:
Ready? Here is a letter from Senator John McCain to Senator Barack Obama from FEBRUARY 06, 2006 issued as a Press Release:
The Honorable Barack Obama
United States Senate
SH-713
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Senator Obama:
I would like to apologize to you for assuming that your private assurances to me regarding your desire to cooperate in our efforts to negotiate bipartisan lobbying reform legislation were sincere. When you approached me and insisted that despite your leadership’s preference to use the issue to gain a political advantage in the 2006 elections, you were personally committed to achieving a result that would reflect credit on the entire Senate and offer the country a better example of political leadership, I concluded your professed concern for the institution and the public interest was genuine and admirable. Thank you for disabusing me of such notions with your letter to me dated February 2, 2006, which explained your decision to withdraw from our bipartisan discussions. I’m embarrassed to admit that after all these years in politics I failed to interpret your previous assurances as typical rhetorical gloss routinely used in politics to make self-interested partisan posturing appear more noble. Again, sorry for the confusion, but please be assured I won’t make the same mistake again.
As you know, the Majority Leader has asked Chairman Collins to hold hearings and mark up a bill for floor consideration in early March. I fully support such timely action and I am confident that, together with Senator Lieberman, the Committee on Governmental Affairs will report out a meaningful, bipartisan bill.
You commented in your letter about my “interest in creating a task force to further study” this issue, as if to suggest I support delaying the consideration of much-needed reforms rather than allowing the committees of jurisdiction to hold hearings on the matter. Nothing could be further from the truth. The timely findings of a bipartisan working group could be very helpful to the committee in formulating legislation that will be reported to the full Senate. Since you are new to the Senate, you may not be aware of the fact that I have always supported fully the regular committee and legislative process in the Senate, and routinely urge Committee Chairmen to hold hearings on important issues. In fact, I urged Senator Collins to schedule a hearing upon the Senate’s return in January.
Furthermore, I have consistently maintained that any lobbying reform proposal be bipartisan. The bill Senators Joe Lieberman and Bill Nelson and I have introduced is evidence of that commitment as is my insistence that members of both parties be included in meetings to develop the legislation that will ultimately be considered on the Senate floor. As I explained in a recent letter to Senator Reid, and have publicly said many times, the American people do not see this as just a Republican problem or just a Democratic problem. They see it as yet another run-of-the-mill Washington scandal, and they expect it will generate just another round of partisan gamesmanship and posturing. Senator Lieberman and I, and many other members of this body, hope to exceed the public’s low expectations. We view this as an opportunity to bring transparency and accountability to the Congress, and, most importantly, to show the public that both parties will work together to address our failings.
As I noted, I initially believed you shared that goal. But I understand how important the opportunity to lead your party’s effort to exploit this issue must seem to a freshman Senator, and I hold no hard feelings over your earlier disingenuousness. Again, I have been around long enough to appreciate that in politics the public interest isn’t always a priority for every one of us. Good luck to you, Senator.
Sincerely,
John McCain
Ahem. So it would seem that, once again, Obama was lying through his teeth. Like his "My mother was a poor single mother and I grew up without a daddy," which is ALSO in this transcript regarding his "moral failings."
Okay - as promised, here is the big event of the night in California. Ellen and Portia Get Married, Obama, on this night, also touched on same-sex marriage. When asked to define marriage, he told Warren, "It's a union between a man and a woman."
"For me as a Christian, it is a sacred union. God's in the mix," he said.
Obama added that he does support same-sex civil unions, saying, "I can afford those civil rights to others even if I don't have ... that view."
Gosh, Obush - don't tell Ellen and Portia that you think MARRIAGE is between a "man and a woman"! The night you made this pandering comment they did just that - so what are you saying to THEM?!?! And how freakin' magnanimous that you are willing to "afford civil rights to others..." What a guy!! Gee - it must be hard to sleep at night with all that twisting and turning, flipping and flopping...
No wonder Obushits are becoming worried, seeing a tougher path than they thought...We could have told them. Wait - we HAVE been telling them!! After performances like last night's, this should be another big ol' WAKE UP CALL for the Superedelegates. This man is NOT COMPETENT to be the Democratic nominee, much less the PRESIDENT. *Ring, ring* - it's the clue phone, SDs, and it's for YOU!!!!
Q. WHAT'S THE MOST SIGNIFICANT -- LET ME ASK IT THIS WAY: WHAT'S THE MOST GUT WRENCHING DECISION YOU'VE EVER HAD TO MAKE AND HOW DID YOU PROCESS THAT, COME TO THAT DECISION?
A. WELL, YOU KNOW, I THINK THE OPPOSITION TO THE WAR IN IRAQ WAS AS TOUGH A DECISION THAT I'VE HAD TO MAKE NOT ONLY BECAUSE THERE WERE POLITICAL CONSEQUENCES BUT ALSO BECAUSE SADDAM HUSSEIN WAS A BAD PERSON AND THERE WAS NO DOUBT THAT HE MET AMERICA ILL, BUT I WAS FIRMLY CONVINCED AT THE TIME THAT WE DID NOT HAVE STRONG EVIDENCE OF WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND THERE WERE A LOT OF QUESTIONS THAT AS I SPOKE TO EXPERTS KEPT ON COMING UP, DO WE KNOW HOW THE SHIITES AND THE SUNNIS AND THE KURDS ARE GOING TO GET ALONG IN A POST SADDAM SITUATION, WHAT'S OUR ASSESSMENT AS TO HOW THIS WILL AFFECT THE BATTLE AGAINST TERRORIST LIKE AL-QAEDA, HAVE WE FINISHED THE JOB IN AFGHANISTAN SO I AGONIZED OVER THAT AND I THINK QUESTION OF WAR AND PEACE GENERALLY ARE SO PROFOUND YOU KNOW WHEN YOU MEET THE TROOPS, THEY ARE 19, 20, 21-YEAR OLD KIDS AND YOU ARE PUTTING THEM INTO HARM'S WAY THERE IS A SOLEMN OBLIGATION THAT YOU DO EVERYTHING YOU CAN TO GET THAT DECISION RIGHT. AND NOW AS THE WAR WENT FORWARD, VERY DIFFICULT ABOUT HOW LONG DO YOU KEEP FUNDING THE WAR IF YOU STRONGLY BELIEVE THAT IT'S NOT AMERICA'S NATIONAL INTEREST AT THE SAME TIME YOU DON'T WANT TO HAVE TROOPS WHO ARE OUT THERE WITHOUT THE EQUIPMENT THEY NEED. SO THAT ALL THOSE QUESTIONS SURROUNDING THE WAR HAVE BEEN VERY DIFFICULT FOR ME.
Say WHAT, OBush?? YOU did not have to make ANY decisions on the War in Iraq! YOU were not in the SENATE yet!! How in the WORLD does this guy get away with these blatant lies and mind-boggling (delusional) revisionist history??
Wait - here's another goody. Oh, dear goddess, McCain is going to have a FIELD day with this statement come August 28th. I'll show you why after the question and answer:
Q. ABOUT THE COMMON GOOD, THE COMMON GROUND AND COMMON GOOD. CAN YOU GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE OF A TIME YOU KNOW A LOT -- I'VE SEEN A LOT OF GOOD LEGISLATIONS GETS KILLED BECAUSE OF PARTY LOYALTY. CAN YOU GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE OF WHERE YOU WIN(went) AGAINST PARTY LOYALTY AND MAYBE EVEN WIN (went) AGAINST YOUR OWN BEST INTEREST FOR THE GOOD OF AMERICA?
A. WELL, I'LL GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE THAT IN FACT I WORKED WITH JOHN MCCAIN ON AND THAT WAS THE ISSUE OF CAMPAIGN ETHICS REFORM AND FINANCE REFORM. THAT WASN'T PROBABLY IN MY INTEREST OR HIS FOR THAT MATTER BECAUSE THE TRUTH WAS BOTH DEMOCRATS OR REPUBLICANS OR OF LIKE THE STATUS QUO AND I WAS NEW TO THE SENATE AND IT DIDN'T NECESSARILY ENGENDER A LOT OF POPULARITY WHEN I STARTED SAYING YOU KNOW WE'RE GOING TO ELIMINATE MEALS AND GIFTS FROM CORPORATE LOBBYISTS. I REMEMBER ONE OF MY COLLEAGUES WHOSE NAME WILL BE UNMENTIONED WHO SAID, WELL, WHERE DO YOU EXPECT US TO EAT MCDONALD'S? AND I THOUGHT WELL, ACTUALLY, A LOT OF OUR CONSTITUENTS PROBABLY DO EAT AT MCDONALD'S SO THAT WOULDN'T BE SUCH A BAD THING. BUT I THINK THAT WE WERE ABLE TO GET A BILL PASSED THAT HASN'T MADE WASHINGTON PERFECT BUT AT LEAST IT MOVING THINGS FORWARD.
Ready? Here is a letter from Senator John McCain to Senator Barack Obama from FEBRUARY 06, 2006 issued as a Press Release:
The Honorable Barack Obama
United States Senate
SH-713
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Senator Obama:
I would like to apologize to you for assuming that your private assurances to me regarding your desire to cooperate in our efforts to negotiate bipartisan lobbying reform legislation were sincere. When you approached me and insisted that despite your leadership’s preference to use the issue to gain a political advantage in the 2006 elections, you were personally committed to achieving a result that would reflect credit on the entire Senate and offer the country a better example of political leadership, I concluded your professed concern for the institution and the public interest was genuine and admirable. Thank you for disabusing me of such notions with your letter to me dated February 2, 2006, which explained your decision to withdraw from our bipartisan discussions. I’m embarrassed to admit that after all these years in politics I failed to interpret your previous assurances as typical rhetorical gloss routinely used in politics to make self-interested partisan posturing appear more noble. Again, sorry for the confusion, but please be assured I won’t make the same mistake again.
As you know, the Majority Leader has asked Chairman Collins to hold hearings and mark up a bill for floor consideration in early March. I fully support such timely action and I am confident that, together with Senator Lieberman, the Committee on Governmental Affairs will report out a meaningful, bipartisan bill.
You commented in your letter about my “interest in creating a task force to further study” this issue, as if to suggest I support delaying the consideration of much-needed reforms rather than allowing the committees of jurisdiction to hold hearings on the matter. Nothing could be further from the truth. The timely findings of a bipartisan working group could be very helpful to the committee in formulating legislation that will be reported to the full Senate. Since you are new to the Senate, you may not be aware of the fact that I have always supported fully the regular committee and legislative process in the Senate, and routinely urge Committee Chairmen to hold hearings on important issues. In fact, I urged Senator Collins to schedule a hearing upon the Senate’s return in January.
Furthermore, I have consistently maintained that any lobbying reform proposal be bipartisan. The bill Senators Joe Lieberman and Bill Nelson and I have introduced is evidence of that commitment as is my insistence that members of both parties be included in meetings to develop the legislation that will ultimately be considered on the Senate floor. As I explained in a recent letter to Senator Reid, and have publicly said many times, the American people do not see this as just a Republican problem or just a Democratic problem. They see it as yet another run-of-the-mill Washington scandal, and they expect it will generate just another round of partisan gamesmanship and posturing. Senator Lieberman and I, and many other members of this body, hope to exceed the public’s low expectations. We view this as an opportunity to bring transparency and accountability to the Congress, and, most importantly, to show the public that both parties will work together to address our failings.
As I noted, I initially believed you shared that goal. But I understand how important the opportunity to lead your party’s effort to exploit this issue must seem to a freshman Senator, and I hold no hard feelings over your earlier disingenuousness. Again, I have been around long enough to appreciate that in politics the public interest isn’t always a priority for every one of us. Good luck to you, Senator.
Sincerely,
John McCain
Ahem. So it would seem that, once again, Obama was lying through his teeth. Like his "My mother was a poor single mother and I grew up without a daddy," which is ALSO in this transcript regarding his "moral failings."
Okay - as promised, here is the big event of the night in California. Ellen and Portia Get Married, Obama, on this night, also touched on same-sex marriage. When asked to define marriage, he told Warren, "It's a union between a man and a woman."
"For me as a Christian, it is a sacred union. God's in the mix," he said.
Obama added that he does support same-sex civil unions, saying, "I can afford those civil rights to others even if I don't have ... that view."
Gosh, Obush - don't tell Ellen and Portia that you think MARRIAGE is between a "man and a woman"! The night you made this pandering comment they did just that - so what are you saying to THEM?!?! And how freakin' magnanimous that you are willing to "afford civil rights to others..." What a guy!! Gee - it must be hard to sleep at night with all that twisting and turning, flipping and flopping...
No wonder Obushits are becoming worried, seeing a tougher path than they thought...We could have told them. Wait - we HAVE been telling them!! After performances like last night's, this should be another big ol' WAKE UP CALL for the Superedelegates. This man is NOT COMPETENT to be the Democratic nominee, much less the PRESIDENT. *Ring, ring* - it's the clue phone, SDs, and it's for YOU!!!!
Saturday, August 16, 2008
"Half of House Democrats May Vote For Hillary..."
I was at Memeorandum.com, and came across the following story. Prior to that, I had been at Dr. Lynette Long's Caucus Fraud site, looking at how many representatives who had received money from Pelosi's PAC voted AGAINST their consituents and their states when they endorsed Obama. Very interesting. Add to that Pelosi giving money to far more men than women, indicative of her, I think. Anyway, so I was reading all of these pieces following the money, and documented cases of caucus fraud when I stumbled upon this Politico piece. It makes for some interesting reading. I cannot resist interspersing some comments (in bold) - the comments by the Obama people are just too much...Anywho, here it is, and ROCK ON, Representative Loretta Sanchez - you are my hero today!!
Rep.: Half of House Dems may vote Hillary at DNC
By AMIE PARNES & BEN SMITH | 8/15/08 5:58 PM EST Text Size:
(Additional reporting by Glenn Thrush.)
Rep.: Half of House Dems may vote Hillary at DNC
By AMIE PARNES & BEN SMITH | 8/15/08 5:58 PM EST Text Size:
On Friday, the Obama campaign confirmed that the floor vote in Denver, intended to assuage Clinton supporters still stewing over her narrow loss, will be conducted as a state-by-state roll call. (Um, NO - we are not stewing over "her narrow loss," we are stewing at loss of democratic process; voter theft, fraud, and intimidation; and caucus irregularities, to name just a few.)
Rep. Loretta Sanchez says she’s happy for the chance to vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton at the Democratic National Convention — and she predicts that as many as half of the Democrats in the House could join her. (WOOHOO!!!! About damn time y'all got yourselves some backbone!!! Not you, Rep. Sanchez - you have always been a stand-up woman!)
Just how many former Clinton supporters will vote for the former first lady during the symbolic first ballot is anybody’s guess, but each of them will be called upon to do so — whether they want to or not.
On Friday, the Obama campaign confirmed that the floor vote in Denver, intended to assuage Clinton supporters still stewing over her narrow loss, will be conducted as a state-by-state roll call. Under proposed convention bylaws, delegates would be forced to register their votes on a tally sheet with the convention secretary — the rules could be altered or suspended before the start of the convention.
“By putting her name in nomination, you're putting people on the spot,” said former delegate counter Matt Seyfang, adding a second potential drawback: “Having a roll call ... just chews into your broadcast time.” (Oh, dear, goddess - yes, that bothersome little democratic process is so TIME consuming! Don't the little people know it is all about OBAMA?!?!?! We cannot be bothered with things like actual VOTES and a smidgen of transparency!! C'mon, already - sheesh!!)
Lower-key options were available. For example, Clinton’s name could have been entered into nomination, followed by laudatory speeches, ending with her release of delegates to Obama and proposal that he be nomination by acclamation, Seyfang said.
Obama spokesman Bill Burton said the “mechanics” of the roll call vote are still being worked out, but he conceded that Clinton probably will garner many votes on the first ballot. ("Mechanics"?? You mean, like how much they can strong-arm Clinton to just throw over her delegates to The One as quickly as possible without letting it LOOK like that is what they are doing?)
For Obama’s camp, the roll call is a ritual that will defuse any potential tension with Clinton or her supporters without affecting the outcome or the theater of Obama’s dramatic nomination. (Oh, I see - the whole roll call thing isn't really a necessary part of the Democratic, or even Republican, Party electing its nominee, it is simply a "ritual"! Well, I have to tell you, I have learned something new today! All along, I thought the "ritual" of the roll call was to allow the respective delegates to vote for their candidate, thus representing the actual will of the people. Silly me!!! What a goof...)
Said Sanchez: “I believe there are a lot of supporters for Hillary among the superdelegates, especially now that they’ve agreed to place her name in nomination. I think half the House Democrats would probably be Hillary supporters, especially women. ... I felt she was the most experienced and the best candidate and I still feel that way.” (Hell to the YES!!!)
Clinton herself has said she plans to vote for Obama. (Honestly, what else is she going to say? Poor thing - she is so between a rock and a hard place...)
A longtime Clinton adviser said it was “crazy” to guess at numbers but estimated that the former first lady would garner between 600 and 1,200 delegates — considerably short of the approximately 1,800 she had collected at the time of her departure from the race in early June.
“It’s a bizarre strategy,” said one Democratic strategist of the roll call. “It could backfire and show that her influence is waning. Chances are, she’s not going to have as many delegates vote for her on the floor as she had in the primary.”
Indeed, many Hillary diehards, including at least one member of the New York delegation, are reluctant to vote for Clinton after switching over to Obama.
“I think that most superdelegates, including myself, are going for Obama,” said New York Rep. Anthony Weiner, who campaigned with Clinton around the country. “I made my decision for Obama, and I’m not switching again.”
Other onetime Clinton backers are reluctant to reverse course for fear of angering their black constituents.
“My boss is totally conflicted about it — and pissed Hillary is putting us in this position,” said a congressional staffer for another New York House member. “We still haven’t made up our mind and I don’t know when we are going to.” (I'm sorry, s/he's PISSED that HILLARY is putting him/her in this position?!?!? Golly gee willkers, pal - that democratic process thing just SUCKS for you, doesn't it?? You are mad at HER for what, getting the majority of popular votes so that you might have to actually take a stand and piss some people off? Wowie zowie - you poor little things. But see, this was never supposed to be a SELECTION anyway, so for people to act like Obama should get it just so the AA community doesn't get pissed off is just plain cowardice. And it's insulting. To the AA community and the rest of us. This is NOT American Idol - really. It is about the highest job in all the land, and voting for the least competent candidate ever is a sacred duty. It is not one to be used to placate people who might get MAD at you if you vote the way the majority of people voted. Again, it's called a SPINE - look into it, Congressional Staffer. Oh, and stop the blaming of HILLARY for being the candidate the PEOPLE want! That is assholic on oh-so-many-levels. Talk about blaming the victim - good grief.)
Another New York delegate, speaking on condition of anonymity, predicted that as much as 30 percent to 40 percent of the New York delegation would pick Clinton over Obama during the symbolic vote.
Obama’s decision to accept a roll call vote, which came after weeks of talks with the Clinton camp, doesn’t mean he’ll let the process get out of hand, observers say. (I'm sorry, does this say Obama is going to ACCEPT a roll call vote?!?!?! Oh, what a great guy! He is actually going to allow a DEMOCRATIC process that has existed for over a hundred years to take place?? How benevolent of him. Cough. Choke. Gimme a break already - this is the way Conventions are SUPPOSED to work. If a candidate with 1 delegate can be on a ballot, the only question is why they thought Clinton SHOULD NOT HAVE been in the first place!!!! THAT is the question, not how magnanimous Obama is being by following PROTOCOL!! What is WRONG with these people?!?!?!?)
“The convention is about nominating Barack, so his people want to speed through the vote as fast as possible so it won’t take too much TV time,” said a Democratic delegate who plans to vote for Clinton. “They also want to avoid a scenario where she’s leading at any point.” (Again, silly me. I thought the Convention was about nominating the candidate who is best for the country, the one for whom the majority of people voted. I did not realize before this year that the DNC has become synonymous with Barack Obama. I still cannot wrap my head around how this fledgling senator, with virtually no record, dangerous associates, and astonishing secrecy who will not even provide his REAL birth certificate, is the one the DNC hand-picked. It just boggles my mind. But this convention, this "show," is all about OBAMA, not the Democratic National Party, or so it appears. What a tragedy that the DNC is morphing into the RNC. I never thought I'd see the day, and I sure wish I never had...)
(Additional reporting by Glenn Thrush.)
Friday, August 15, 2008
"Caucus Fraud"
Dr. Lynette Long has created a new website dedicated to issues of caucus fraud. She has had a number of posts at No Quarter on this issue, and has just expanded with this new site. Below is the Introduction to Caucus Fraud:
INTRODUCTION
In two weeks the Democratic Party will formally nominate Barack Obama as its candidate for President of the United States.
It's the triumph of fraud.
I've spent the past two months immersed in data from the 2008 Democratic caucuses. After studying the procedures and results from all fourteen caucus states, interviewing dozens of witnesses, and reviewing hundreds of personal stories, my conclusion is that the Obama campaign willfully and intentionally defrauded the American public by systematically undermining the caucus process.
This site represents the fruits of my research. It's a work in progress, obviously, and also a central repository for a vast array of data: articles and blog posts from around the web, personal emails to me, interviews with witnesses, affidavits and testimonials, campaign communications, and videos of the caucuses themselves.
I have elected to make this information public. I hope that it sheds light on the caucus process and inspires reform or total elimination of the caucuses. I also hope it gives pause to those Democrats who believe that Barack Obama is the rightful nominee and that Hillary supporters should just "get over it." I have been a Democrat my entire life, but I will not support the Democratic Party at the cost of democracy.
Lynette Long
August 2008
I encourage you to go by and take a look. She has all kinds of valuable resources available at her site, such as: eyewitness reports; videos; analysis, and all KINDS of interesting information! Check it out!
INTRODUCTION
In two weeks the Democratic Party will formally nominate Barack Obama as its candidate for President of the United States.
It's the triumph of fraud.
I've spent the past two months immersed in data from the 2008 Democratic caucuses. After studying the procedures and results from all fourteen caucus states, interviewing dozens of witnesses, and reviewing hundreds of personal stories, my conclusion is that the Obama campaign willfully and intentionally defrauded the American public by systematically undermining the caucus process.
This site represents the fruits of my research. It's a work in progress, obviously, and also a central repository for a vast array of data: articles and blog posts from around the web, personal emails to me, interviews with witnesses, affidavits and testimonials, campaign communications, and videos of the caucuses themselves.
I have elected to make this information public. I hope that it sheds light on the caucus process and inspires reform or total elimination of the caucuses. I also hope it gives pause to those Democrats who believe that Barack Obama is the rightful nominee and that Hillary supporters should just "get over it." I have been a Democrat my entire life, but I will not support the Democratic Party at the cost of democracy.
Lynette Long
August 2008
I encourage you to go by and take a look. She has all kinds of valuable resources available at her site, such as: eyewitness reports; videos; analysis, and all KINDS of interesting information! Check it out!
"Another One Bites the Dust"
Or two, or three - kinda hard to keep up with Obama and all of the people he throws under the bus on a daily basis. Whew! The latest one is the Mayor of Detroit, Kwame Kilpatrick, the one who is having some legal trouble in Detroit (a little perjury here, a little assault there...). He's a big buddy of Obama's, and was worried he could not make the Democratic National Convention because of his pesky little ankle bracelet keeping him around home. Oh, but WAIT! He got a judge to "modify" his bond to allow him to go! Yippee for him!! No doubt, he was very happy about that (the prosecution not so much - they planned to fight it). Now he gets to go see his good buddy, the Presumptuous Nominee, speak before his adoring Kool Aide drinking throngs!! Lucky guy!
Until...Obama decided he does not WANT his good buddy there! Sorry, Kwame! The Obama Camp is afraid Kilpatrick might be a "distraction" at the Convention. Move over Grandma, Wright, Rezko, Ayers - oh, crap - I do not have time to write everyone's name out - here comes Kilpatrick, the man once considered a potential VP candidate! Yet another exampe of Obama's GREAT judgment!!! Might as well go put that pretty little bracelet back on - you're not going ANYWHERE!!
Kilpatrick is not the ONLY one to go under the bus. Nope, you can add Rep. Charlie Rangel under there, too. Now, I know that Rangel was a big Hillary supporter - she is a senator from New York, after all. But, hey, he quickly threw HER under the bus, demanding that she concede, so that should get him some points with His Majesty, right? Oh, and he is the a big muckety muck in the House of Representatives, so you would think that would give him some importance to the Obama Camp, right? A distinguished representative who has served for many years surely should have a voice in the Democratic National Convention! Um, no. No, he won't. One of Rangel's aides said:
“It’s crazy. … This man [Rangel] controls tax policy in the United States [Rangel is Chairman of Ways and Means]. He’s a lot bigger than just a regular member of Congress. He deserves more respect than this,” said a Rangel confidant. “Basically they have told us they can’t help us, that there are too many Obama supporters ahead of Charlie on the line.”
The Obamites are mighty pissy that he chose the qualified candidate, and not Obama, so they are making him pay and pay and pay. I admit, there is just just dessert the way he spoke about Hillary Clinton when he wanted her to concede, so yeah - kinda serves him right. BUT - this level of vindictiveness the Obam camp has demonstrated time and time again makes Bush look like a freakin' BOY SCOUT!!! For someone who brings so little to the table to be so vengeful and vindictive paints a clear picture of Obama, and to what we will have to look forward should he actually maneuver his way into the White House. (And we have already seen this behavior from him before - just ask the New Yorker!!)
So, that asphalt under the bus is filling up! I wonder who's next?? Time will tell, I reckon. I would bet good money that there WILL be more before the Convention is done (okay, okay - the Clintons don't count - that would be too easy, like taking candy from a baby for that money). Any guesses?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)