Advertisements
Home

Former DNC Chair Gets Schooled After Calling Scott Walker This One Word For Not Finishing College

1 Comment

This is from Independent Journal Review.

So Scott Walker did not finish college and is not qualified to be president.

Let’s look at some as Sgt. Andy Micklin used to call them college boys that were president and look at their record.

Barack Obama the worst president ever, Jimmy Carter  the second worst president, Gerald Ford,Richard Nixon and Lyndon Johnson.

These the college boys that are/were president that their term in office that was less than stellar.

 

After former DNC Chair Howard Dean calls Scott Walker “unknowledgeable” and unqualified to be President of the United States for not having a college degree, the MSNBC panel reminds him of all the presidents who would have also been unqualified for office with those same standards.

Three stand out Presidents who never graduated college? George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and Harry Truman.

According to the Lumina Foundation over 60% of Americans haven’t graduated college. A match up of Hillary Clinton vs. Scott Walker would offer many contrasts, but an interesting wrinkle would be who could better connect with the majority of Americans without a degree.

Would you vote for a presidential candidate who didn’t finish college?

Advertisements

Jimmy Carter Accidentally Predicts Obama Presidency 30 Years Ago? (VIDEO)

1 Comment

This is from The Tea Party Bulletin.

While Jimmy Carter was speaking about things under then President Gerald Ford.

Fast forward to today, these things describe Barack Obama.

 

Jimmy Carter is known as a nice guy. Ineffective as a President and world leader, but nice.

Which means that you know you’re in trouble when Jimmy Carter, the former President who has done more actual good in the world after he left office than when he was in office, can only manage to give you a backhanded compliment. It’s pretty harsh when the best that Jimmy Carter can sayabout you is:

“He’s done the best he could under the circumstances. His major accomplishment was Obamacare, and the implementation of it now is questionable at best.”

Yep. “[Q]uestionable at best.” And, “He’s done the best he could under the circumstances.”

Sounds rather like a “thank you for playing!” kind of compliment. The kind of situation where you give the little kid a trophy just for showing up, not for actually playing or winning any games.

And Carter knows about doing the best he can under difficult circumstances. I mean, many of us remember the gas lines, the Iran hostage crisis, runaway inflation, the lack of American confidence in our leadership and our country. Change a few dates and names, and this sounds suspiciously like the last six years.

See, when Carter was in office, we remember praying that something would change and that we would get out of this economic bog and again feel like a people that could appreciate being American. We remember hoping for change. When Obama was sworn into office, it didn’t take long before we were doing the same thing.

It’s painfully apparent that Carter and Obama are cut from the same cloth. Maybe Obama means well (many would question that) and, I think, Carter meant well. But the road to Hell is paved with those good intentions.

Steven R. Covey tells the story of being asked which he would prefer: a doctor with good character who would be honest and have good intentions or a doctor who is competent. Covey said the ideal is to have both.

I’ve known many liberals with good intentions. They genuinely meant well. What they lacked was competence in the sense that they misunderstand the world and human nature. And without competence, their good intentions just leave a mess that the competent have to clean up.

The video below says it all.

ROMNEY LOYALISTS HYPING COMEBACK: ‘REPUBLICANS ARE DYING TO BE ASSOCIATED WITH HIM’

Leave a comment

This is from Breitbarts Big Government.

While I held my nose and voted for Mitt Romney in 2012 I Will Never Do It Again!!

Romney is a Northeast Liberal and a political loser.

 

 

Mitt Romney loyalists are trying to gin up the narrative that Republicans just can’t get enough of Romney.

“Democrats don’t want to be associated with Barack Obama right now, but Republicans are dying to be associated with Mitt Romney,” Spencer Zwick, “a longtime Romney confidant who chaired his national finance council,” claimed to the Washington Post. The Chamber of Commerce, which has vowed to wage war on the Tea Party and push through amnesty legislation, glowingly praised Romney, alleging he would be in a “commanding position” if he entered the 2016 race.

Romney is reportedly set to make trips to West Virginia, North Carolina, Arkansas, Colorado, and Virginia to campaign for Republicans. Yet besides the media, most of the people clamoring for another Romney “comeback” are his loyalists and closest advisers, who defied all statistical models to lose an election many thought should never have been lost.

In a July article for Politico Magazine, Emil Henry, who “served in multiple roles in the 2012 campaign, including adviser to the economic team, television surrogate and fundraiser,” laughingly alleged that “Romney is re-emerging as the de facto leader of the Republican Party.”

Henry claimed that Romney could make a comeback like Nixon, apparently missing that Nixon appealed to cloth-coat conservatives, while Romney, as his father did, represents to many the mink-coat, Rockefeller wing of the GOP which conservatives have been battling since the 1950s. Establishment candidates like Romney traditionally lose (Gerald Ford, George H.W. Bush in 1992, Bob Dole, John McCain) – unless they are lucky enough to win “Reagan’s third term,” which advisers like Roger Ailes and Jim Pinkerton understood rallies blue-collar Americans (George H.W. Bush in 1988). Bush was also lucky in 1988 to face an opponent like Michael Dukakis, another Massachusetts governor who gave a scholarly, Romney-esque answer when CNN’s Bernard Shaw asked him if Dukakis would want the death penalty for someone who “murdered and raped” his wife.

Others alleging that Romney is “poised for a comeback” have quickly forgotten how Romney made President Barack Obama, one of the most elitist and crony capitalist presidents in recent memory, seem like a common man who cared about average Americans when compared to him.

Henry, in Politico Magazine, also tried to assert that Romney is “not a career politician,” but didn’t note that Romney can only claim that because he lost his Senate race to Ted Kennedy, the GOP presidential nomination in 2008, and the presidential race in 2012. Perhaps Romney is an “attempted career politician.” Moreover, Romney’s waffling on a myriad of issues ranging from health care, abortion, his support for Ronald Reagan, and his primary state of residence is the characteristic that defines him and career politicians like John Kerry, Al Gore, and Hillary Clinton.

In 2012, Romney did not excite the conservative base, turned off working-class voters who believed he did not care about their concerns, and lost minority voters by huge landslides. He wasn’t even good at the inside-the-beltway game – he actually thought Donna Brazile was Gwen Ifill.

Republicans need blue-collar Reagan Democrats and more minorities to win presidential elections. Romney – and his loyalists – disastrously proved in 2012 that he can attract neither, and there is no indication Romney would be able to do so in 2016.

 

3 Surprising Facts About U.S Presidents That You Were Probably Never Taught In History Class

1 Comment

This is from Independent Journal Review.

 

 

Most of us would think we know a good deal about the Presidents of the United States. Still, there are a few facts that won’t be found in history books:

1.) George W. Bush is a distant cousin with Playboy founder Hugh Hefner.

bush and hef 2

2.) John F. Kennedy was buried without his brain after it was lost during the autopsy.

kennedy

3.) Barack Obama descended from the first documented African slave in colonial America.

obama

4.) George H.W. Bush threw up on the Japanese Prime Minister.

hw bush

5.) Calvin Coolidge liked having petroleum jelly rubbed on his head every morning while eating breakfast in bed.

coolidge final

6.) Jimmy Carter only has one testicle.

carter

7.) Franklin D. Roosevelt’s wife, Eleanor, was actually his fifth cousin.

fdr

8.) Gerald Ford worked as a fashion model during college, appearing on the cover of Cosmopolitan.

ford 2

9.) Herbert Hoover’s son had two pet alligators, which were occasionally permitted to run loose through the White House.

actual hoover

10.) Harry Truman does not have a middle name; the ‘S’ often included as his middle initial stands for nothing.

truman

11.) In one poker game, Warren Harding bet the White House china collection and lost it all in one hand.

warren 2

12.) Bill Clinton was born William Jefferson Blythe III.

blythe

13.) George W. Bush was head cheerleader in high school.

bush cheering

Mind blown?

GIF

Always expect the unexpected, even when it comes to the leaders of our country.

WILL NEW YORK CITY BECOME THE NEXT DETROIT?

1 Comment

This is from Human Events.

It will be a close race between New York City, Chicago and Los Angeles to be the next Detriot.

People that are old enough will remember  New York City got bailed out by Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter.

Will Jimmy Carter Jr. (Obama) bail out New York City?

 

New York City just elected a proud and ambitious left-winger, Bill de Blasio, to be the mayor. He plans to raise taxes again and spend yet more money.

Will New York City become the next Detroit?

Detroit was once the center of American manufacturing. Ford, Chrysler, and General Motors stood astride the world economy. Michigan and Detroit’s high standards of living seemed immortal, immune to economic challenge.

But decades of liberal mayors brought the city to bankruptcy and moved much of automobile manufacturing overseas or into Right to Work states. The population of Detroit fell from 1,850,000 in 1950 to 701,000 today. It continues to fall.

Is New York City next? Is Wall Street immortal? Immovable?

The storm petrels have given warning for years.  John Lindsay, the liberal Republican who then ran for the Democrat nomination for president, gave municipal labor unions a blank check. Surely the financial center of the world could pay for gold-plated pensions and benefits without breaking a sweat. Taxes rose. The middle class began to flee crime and taxes.

New York City has the largest big city tax burden in the nation. The highest income earners owe 12.7% of their personal income to the government, second in the nation only to California. With a 2013 budget of about $69 billion and just over 8.3 million residents, the city is spending more than $8,273 per resident. The second largest US city, Los Angeles, by comparison spends $1,137 per resident.

Between 1992 and 2010, on net,  New Yorkers leaving the city to work and live elsewhere brought with them an annual income of $48.8 billion. Between 1995 and 2010 — although the population of New York state rose 1,285,000 — the state lost on net more than $58.6 billion a year due to high net worth out-migration.

The vast majority of people and income fleeing New York are leaving the city. The relative hollowing out of northern New York is a small fraction of those leaving Gotham city. And these financial numbers are net. They take into account that some people move into the state and city—but net more income is leaving the state and city than entering. And the population relative to other states is declining such that New York had 47 electoral votes in 1950 and only 29 today.

It is difficult to move a manufacturing plant or build a new automobile assembly line in South Carolina or Tennessee. It is less difficult to have the computerized, virtual world of banking, investment and finance move across city, state, and national lines.

De Blasio’s inauguration was a celebration of the welfare state and demands for higher taxes and more government spending. The Obama campaign should remind us that when liberals promise to break the bank, spend without end and view taxes as free money, it is not a figure of speech. It is a plan. This is not cheap rhetoric for the left’s baseit is a promise.

De Blasio has already announced his first target: increasing the top income tax rate paid by those earning more than $500,000 from 3.86% to 4.4%. This, if no one flees or retires, will raise $530 million in higher taxes. This tax is advertised as the funding source for “high quality” full day universal preschool in New York City that the New York Citizen’s Budget Commission reports will cost the city between $619 million and $896 million depending on the per pupil funding formula.

So all this happy talk about taxing the rich is clearly only the first part of the sentence. “We will tax the rich….first.” Somehow and from someone’s hide the Mayor will have to raise another $89 million – $366 million per year in higher taxes to finance his first territorial demand.

Remember that the mayor was elected with the enthusiastic support of the public sector union bosses whose wish list for higher pensions, benefits, and pay would embarrass the Detroit union bosses.

Such tax hikes would be on top of the 18.5% property tax increase in 2002. (Mayor Bloomberg had demanded a 25% hike).

Raising the income tax in New York City will require the approval of the New York State legislature and governor. Republicans who have marginal control of the state Senate have promised to stop any such state approval.

The special spending interests that backed De Blasio have been promised taxpayer money. It is now the new mayor’s “job” to find those billions in the pockets and savings accounts of those who stay behind in New York.

De Blasio is practicing “trickle down” taxation. He promises to tax only the rich, but such taxes always trickle down to hit the middle class.

We have seen this movie before.

Efficient Gun Control that makes sense…

1 Comment

Hat tip Old NFO.

 

  • In 1865 a Democrat shot and killed Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States
  • In 1881 a left wing radical Democrat shot James Garfield, President of the United States , who later died from the wound.
  • In 1963 a radical left wing socialist shot and killed John F. Kennedy, President of the United States .
  • In 1975 a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at Gerald Ford, President of the United States .
  • In 1983 a registered Democrat shot and wounded Ronald Reagan, President of the United States .
  • In 1984 James Hubert, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 22 people in a McDonalds restaurant.
  • In 1986 Patrick Sherrill, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 15 people in an Oklahoma post office.
  • In 1990 James Pough, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 10 people at a GMAC office.
  • In 1991 George Hennard, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 23 people in a Luby’s cafeteria.
  • In 1995 James Daniel Simpson, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 5 coworkers in a Texas laboratory.
  • In 1999 Larry Asbrook, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 8 people at a church service.
  • In 2001 a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at the White House in a failed attempt to kill George W. Bush, President of the US .
  • In 2003 Douglas Williams, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 7 people at a Lockheed Martin plant.
  • In 2007 a registered Democrat named Seung – Hui Cho, shot and killed 32 people in Virginia Tech.
  • In 2010 a mentally ill registered Democrat named Jared Lee Loughner, shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and killed 6 others.
  • In 2011 a registered Democrat named James Holmes, went into a movie theater and shot and killed 12 people.
  • In 2012 Andrew Engeldinger, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 7 people in Minneapolis .
  • In 2013 a registered Democrat named Adam Lanza, shot and killed 26 people in a school.
  • Recently an angry Democrat shoots 12 at a Navy ship yard.

One could go on, but you get the point, even if the media does not.  Clearly, there is a problem with Democrats and guns.

No NRA member, Tea Party member, or Republican conservatives are involved.

SOLUTION:  It should be illegal for Democrats to own guns.

Makes sense to me , and the best idea I’ve heard to date…

h/t Clarke

How Americans fought to restore Veterans Day to November

1 Comment

This is from Yahoo News.

The American people come together to stop the

lunacy of Congress and restored Vetrans Day.

So why  the Hell won’t they come together and stop

the lunacy known as Obamacae?

 

This Monday, millions of Americans will take time out to honor our military on the traditional time of 11:11 a.m. on November 11. But there was a time when Congress tried to move the holiday, only to face several years of strong public resistance.

U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Kleynia R. McKnight via Wikimedia Commons

U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Kleynia R. McKnight via Wikimedia Commons

You may recall from history or civics class that the holiday was first called Armistice Day. It was established after World War I to remember the “war to end all wars,” and it was pegged to the time that a cease-fire, or armistice, that occurred in Europe on November 11, 1918. (World War I officially ended when the Treaty of Versailles was signed on June 28, 1919 in France.)

A year later, President Woodrow Wilson said the armistice anniversary deserved recognition.

“To us in America, the reflections of Armistice Day will be filled with solemn pride in the heroism of those who died in the country’s service and with gratitude for the victory, both because of the thing from which it has freed us and because of the opportunity it has given America to show her sympathy with peace and justice in the councils of the nations,” he said.

Armistice Day officially received its name through a congressional resolution that was passed on June 4, 1926. By that time, 27 states had made Armistice Day a legal holiday.

Then, in 1938, Armistice Day officially became a national holiday by law, when an act was passed on May 13, 1938, that made November 11 in each year a legal holiday: “a day to be dedicated to the cause of world peace and to be thereafter celebrated and known as “Armistice Day.”

After World War II, the act was amended to honor veterans of World War II and Korea, and the name of the holiday was changed to Veterans Day in 1954. President Dwight D. Eisenhower marked the occasion with a special proclamation.

However, controversy came to the universally recognized holiday in 1968, when Congress tried to change when Veterans Day was celebrated as a national holiday, by moving the holiday to a Monday at the end of October.

The Uniform Monday Holiday Act was signed on June 28, 1968, and it changed the traditional days for Washington’s Birthday, Memorial Day, Veterans Day, and Columbus Day, to ensure that the holidays fell on a Monday, giving federal employees a three-day weekend.

The bill moved Veterans Day, at least on a federal level, to the last Monday in October, with the first observance of the new date in 1971.

Veterans groups moved quickly to oppose the date switch, and two states refused to switch their dates in 1971. By 1974, there was confusion over the two dates and most states took a pass on commemorating the holiday in October.

In a typical editorial of the era, the Weirton, West Virginia Daily Times explained why the holiday switch wasn’t working.

“Congress has no choice now but to enact legislation restoring Nov 11 as Veterans Day. The majority of the states have spoken and the Congress should heed their preference. There’s too much confusion over the two dates,” says an editorial from October 28, 1974.  “All veterans organizations retain the original date.”

A few months after that editorial ran,  46 of the 50 states decided to ignore the federal celebration in October, by either switching back to November 11 or refusing to change the holiday.

By the middle of 1975, Congress had seen enough, and it amended the Uniform Monday Holiday Act to move Veterans Day back to November 11. President Gerald Ford signed the act on September 20, 1975, which called for the move to happen in 1978.

That November, the Carroll Daily Times Herald in Iowa said it was about time Congress did the right thing.

“[Veterans] deserve to be honored on their special day, not as an adjunct to a weekend holiday as Washington tried to force on us,” the newspaper commented.

 

After 34 years, Lynette ‘Squeaky’ Fromme to be released

Leave a comment

This is from CNN.

Why would the parole board release this loony toon?

Like her hero Charles Manson she should rot in prison.

 

(CNN) — The president she once pointed a gun at has been dead for nearly three years, and her longtime idol and leader, Charles Manson, remains in prison.

Lynnette "Squeaky" Fromme appears in court in Los Angeles, California, in December 1969.

Lynnette “Squeaky” Fromme appears in court in Los Angeles, California, in December 1969.

However, Lynette “Squeaky” Fromme is about to get her first taste of real freedom in more than three decades.

According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, Fromme, now 60, is set to be released on parole August 16.

Fromme is housed at Federal Medical Center Carswell in Fort Worth, Texas.

For years, she was one of Manson’s few remaining followers, as many other “Manson Family” members have shunned him. A prison spokeswoman would not say whether Fromme continues to correspond with Manson.

Fromme was convicted in 1975 of pointing a gun at then-President Gerald Ford in Sacramento, California. Secret Service agents prevented her from firing, but the gun was later found to have no bullet in the chamber, although it contained a clip of ammunition.

In a 1987 interview with CNN affiliate WCHS, Fromme, then housed in West Virginia, recalled the president “had his hands out and was waving … and he looked like cardboard to me. But at the same time, I had ejected the bullet in my apartment and I used the gun as it was.”

She said she knew Ford was in town and near her, “and I said, ‘I gotta go and talk to him,’ and then I thought, ‘That’s foolish. He’s not going to stop and talk to you.’ People have already shown you can lay blood in front of them and they’re not, you know, they don’t think anything of it. I said, ‘Maybe I’ll take the gun,’ and I thought, ‘I have to do this. This is the time.’ ”

She said it never occurred to her that she could wind up in prison. Asked whether she had any regrets, Fromme said, “No. No, I don’t. I feel it was fate.” However, she said she thought that her incarceration was “unnecessary” and that she couldn’t see herself repeating her offense.

“My argument to the jury was, if she wanted to kill him, she would have shot him,” John Virga, a Sacramento attorney appointed to defend Fromme, told CNN on Tuesday. “She’d been around guns. And let’s be realistic: We know the Manson family, at least some of them, are killers.”

Fromme was sentenced to life in prison, but parole was an option at the time, although the federal system later abolished it, said Felicia Ponce, spokeswoman for the Bureau of Prisons. Inmates do receive “good time” — for every year and one day they serve, Ponce said, 54 days are lopped off their sentence.

Fromme became eligible for parole in 1985, Ponce said. According to reports, she for years waived her right to a parole hearing. The Bureau of Prisons would not say whether she changed her mind and requested a hearing, but the U.S. Parole Commission‘s Web site says that everyone who wishes to be considered for parole, except those committed under juvenile delinquency procedures, must complete a parole application.

Federal inmates serving life are generally paroled after 30 years, unless the parole commission decides to block the release, according to a commission spokesman. Inmates who are paroled remain under supervision until the commission decides to terminate the sentence.

Fromme was not granted parole until July 2008, Ponce said. She was not released then, however, because of extra time added to her sentence for a 1987 escape from the West Virginia prison, which occurred after her interview that same year. She was found two days later, only a few miles from the prison. At the time, prison officials said they were looking into rumors that Fromme escaped after hearing Manson was ill, according to news reports.

FMC-Carswell spokeswoman Maria Douglas would not comment on Fromme’s behavior in prison in recent years.

Fromme reportedly joined Manson’s family after meeting him in California in 1967. She was not involved in the murders of seven people, including pregnant actress Sharon Tate, on August 9 and 10, 1969, that landed Manson and other followers in prison. However, she and other Manson followers maintained a vigil outside the courthouse during his trial.

In the WCHS interview, Fromme said that Manson should not be incarcerated because “he didn’t kill anybody. … I would rather be in, because I know I laid a lot of my thinking in his mind.”

Virga said he told the jury that Fromme assaulted Ford, but did not attempt to assassinate him. If Fromme had killed the president, no one would have listened to her, he said. “She didn’t want people to think she was a kook.”

And she wasn’t, he said, recalling that Fromme was very cooperative during her trial and describing her as “a bright, intelligent young woman” from a middle-class family. “It’s just hard to imagine how she got all caught up with Manson,” he said.

Fromme wanted to be heard on issues including the environment, he said. “She had certain causes that she wanted to talk about. But first and foremost in her mind was always Manson.”

Explaining herself after the attempt, according to the book “Real Life at the White House,” Fromme said, “Well, you know, when people treat you like a child and pay no attention to the things you say, you have to do something.”

During her trial, Virga traveled to Washington to depose Ford, who testified on videotape about the incident.

In the 1978 interview, Fromme called Manson “a once-in-a-lifetime soul. … He’s got more heart and spirit than anyone I’ve ever met.” She said she still corresponded with him. “He’s got everything he wants coming from me, ’cause he gave me everything.”

She said then she didn’t plan to seek a parole hearing: “The parole board does not hold my life in its hands. And I don’t want to be too critical, but men tend to think they do. Charlie never thought he did. He never expressed all this desire for power, this desire for acceptance.”

Ford died in 2006 at age 93. The Gerald R. Ford Presidential Foundation did not respond to CNN requests for comment on Fromme’s release.

Virga, who is still practicing in Sacramento, said he had not heard from Fromme since her sentencing in 1975. “I wish her the best, and hope everything works out for her, and hope she stays out of trouble,” he said. “She needs to stay out of trouble. She’s been in prison a long time … it was, in my mind, a tragedy that she wound up a disciple of Manson.”

 

Karl Rove Leads Establishment Charge Against Tea Party

Leave a comment

This is from Godfather Politics.

The Tea Party was returned the favor and declared war on Rove.

Karl Rove has been dubbed The Architect by the Establishment Republicans.

Karl has won a few elections but has lost more than he won.

The establishment GOP hates the Tea Party. Always has, probably always will.

Since the beginning of the Tea Party, the GOP leadership has tried through bribery, infiltration, nullification and public humiliation to eliminate whatever influence the grass-roots movement has been able to muster.

The heart of the dispute centers around the fact that the Tea Party involves voters from every walk of life, but mostly people who don’t have country club memberships or who are chauffeured around in limousines.

The GOP leadership, however, is drawn from the insular golf and polo set. They’ve attended the right schools, met the right people and kissed the right tushies to get where they are, which is probably right where their parents put them. The most important thing to them is fitting in and keeping the fine wine flowing.

The Tea Party, on the other hand, is a bunch of gate crashers, uncouth workaday slobs who got into the soiree without an invitation. They are the people the leadership expects to show up on Election Day but otherwise stay in their own neighborhoods and out of politics. And for some reason that mystifies the leadership, they expect the GOP to actually adhere to principles of sound government and social responsibility.

Karl Rove’s Conservative Victory Project is just the latest iteration of the GOP leadership’s contempt for Tea Party principles. After taking to the pages of the New York Times to attack the Tea Party and try to blame it for the disastrous election showing by the GOP, Rove is suddenly finding that many of the people he just expects to fall in line and shut up have no intention of doing that.

According to Politico, “deep-pocket conservatives” are turning their backs on Rove, being keenly aware that it was establishment cheerleaders like Rove who were blindsided by Mitt Romney’s stunning loss and losses in many key Senate and House races. It’s also the folks who run the GOP who have let widespread allegations of voter fraud — including counties where Obama won over 100 percent of the vote — go unchallenged and uninvestigated.

Yet it’s conservative voters the GOP cynically appeals to for its continued support. Rove himself has often brought up his ties to the Reagan Administration, ties which Reagan biographer Craig Shirley disputes, pointing out that Rove was a supporter of Gerald Ford and the first George Bush, not Reagan.

Rove’s attack on the Tea Party is gaining him liberal fans who praise his “brave” stance in taking on all the upstarts. When liberals agree with you, it’s time to check your motivations.

To fully understand the background on the GOP’s seeming lack of interest in winning elections or standing up for the conservative principles that made this country, you might have to resort to investigating the ties between individual establishment figures and certain domestic and foreign agencies. It’s murky territory, and the possible answers you may find can be shocking. I won’t go there today but I encourage readers to conduct their own investigations.

Suffice it to say that the establishment has been backstabbing American conservatism since at least the sixties.

Rove has angered the very troops he expects to form his Republican army. If he thinks he’s going to be a general, he needs to rethink his strategy.

Read more: http://godfatherpolitics.com/9399/karl-rove-leads-establishment-charge-against-tea-party/#ixzz2L5a3dwXV

Top 10 Most Memorable Debate Moments

Leave a comment

 

The list below is from Human Events.
I was only six yeas old during the Kennedy/Nixon debate.
I was old enough to remember the other debates.
I have fond memories of Ronald Reagan during his debates.


Since the first presidential debate was televised in 1960, the format has produced numerous exchanges that have become ingrained into America’s political lore.  Here are the best of them, the Top 10 Most Memorable Debate Moments:

1.  Ford vs. Carter, 1976:  The biggest blunder in debate history occurred whenPresident Gerald Ford forgot that the Soviet Union controlled the countries behind the Iron Curtain.  When asked about the Soviets’ Cold War influence, Ford said, “There is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe and there never will be under a Ford administration.”  Ford went on to lose the election to Jimmy Carter, an obscure Georgia governor and peanut farmer.

2.  Kennedy vs. Nixon, 1960:  The first televised presidential debate was a key factor in determining the victor of the race.  John F. Kennedy’s poise on camera and telegenic look contrasted favorably with Richard Nixon’s scowls and his 5-o’clock shadow.  The Massachusetts senator went on to squeak out a narrow victory over the vice president.

3.  Reagan vs. Carter, 1980:  Before their debate, President Carter had been campaigning by portraying his challenger as an extremist.  Ronald Reagan was able to deflect such charges merely by shaking his head and saying, “There you go again.”  After that, Reagan never looked back and easily defeated the incumbent, beginning eight years in office that changed history.

4.  Reagan vs. Bush, et. al, 1980:  George H.W. Bush defeated Reagan in the Republican Iowa caucuses and claimed he had “the Big Mo” heading into the New Hampshire primary.  At a debate sponsored by the Nashua Telegraph, when editor Jon Breen insisted that the debate be limited to the two front-runners, Reagan forcefully said:  “I paid for this microphone, Mr. Green,” and invited the other GOP candidates—Senators Bob Dole andHoward Baker, Congressmen Phil Crane and John Anderson, and former Texas Gov. John Connally—to join the debate.  Reagan’s action dominated the news coverage and he handily defeated, 50% to 23%, Bush in the primary.

5.  Dukakis vs. Bush, 1988:  When Michael Dukakis was asked by CNN moderator Bernard Shaw whether he would favor the death penalty if his wife was murdered and raped, the Massachusetts governor’s answer gave no hint of emotion over the deceased Kitty.  Dukakis’ response focused on how studies showed that capital punishment was not a deterrent to violent acts, and George H.W. Bush completed a comeback after trailing in the polls to win easily in November, 53% to 46%.

6.  Bentsen vs. Quayle, 1988:  Boyish-looking vice-presidential candidate Dan Quayle set himself up for a stinging comeback when he likened his experience to John F. Kennedy’s, during his debate with Texas Sen. Lloyd Bentsen.  The senator, who served in Washington going back to the end of World War II, retorted:  “Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy.  I knew Jack Kennedy.  Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine.   Senator, you’re no Jack Kennedy.

7.  Perry at Republican primary debate, 2011:  Texas Gov. Rick Perry had already seen his support slip in the polls after poor performances at several earlier debates.  He cemented his reputation as the worst debater ever during a CNBC-sponsored debate with a rambling 53-second attempt to remember which federal agencies he wanted eliminated.  After repeated efforts to come up with the name of a third department, Perry finally gave up, saying, “Oops.”

8.  Bush vs. Clinton vs. Perot, 1992:  When President George H.W. Bush glanced at his watch during his debate with Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton and businessman Ross Perot, he essentially signaled that the campaign was over.  He also stumbled over a poorly worded question about how the national debt affected him personally by saying, “I’m not sure I get it.”  Clinton on the other hand gave one of his patented “I feel your pain” responses, saying, “In my state, when people lose their jobs, there’s a good chance I’ll know them by name.”

9.  Stockdale vs. Quayle vs. Gore, 1992:  Ross Perot’s Quixotic third-party bid included the selection of retired Adm. James Stockdale as his running mate.  The former prisoner of war in Vietnam was decidedly inexperienced in the political world.  He shocked viewers in his opening remarks when he said, “Who am I?  Why am I here?” and went on to give confused and rambling answers to the questions.

10.  Gore vs. Bush, 2000:  Vice President Al Gore turned in the goofiest debate performance in presidential history with his loud sighing and rolling his eyes while repeating “Dingle-Norwood” during his debate with Texas Gov. George W. Bush.  At one point he crossed the stage to stand nose to nose with his opponent.  Luckily for the nation, the Supreme Court spared us from four years of such nonsense.

 

%d bloggers like this: