Parallels

With the election of Sen. Barack Obama to the Presidency, I want to draw your attention to some parallels that I see between this election, and one that took place 32 years ago.

First, a brief history lesson -

1973 - VP Spiro Agnew resigns, Rep. Gerald R. Ford appointed as VP.

1974 - Nixon resigns over Watergate scandal (the beginning of "gotcha! journalism"), VP Ford sworn in as President; Democrats vote to de-fund military aid to South Viet Nam.

1975 - Saigon falls to North Viet Nam in April.

1976 - a virtual "unknown" peanut farmer turned Governor of Georgia, Jimmy Carter, wins Democrat nomination promising "change" and "hope", runs against Ford, and wins; next four years sees change - major economic chaos (20+% prime interest rates, double digit unemployment), and an international crisis involving Iran, as they occupy the US Embassy in Teheran, and hold US hostages captive for 444 days. Nation gripped by ennui and angst, believing what Carter has said - that the good old days are gone forever, and everyone must learn to get along with less of everything, and loses "hope".

Fast forward to recent history, up to the present -

2000 - Governor of Texas George W. Bush is elected President, defeating VP Al Gore; Democrats claim he stole the election due to US Supreme Court intervening in Florida vote debacle (which claim was disproved by studies conducted by the liberal media showing Bush won Florida); beginning of "Bush Derangement Syndrome".

2001 - Worst terrorist attack in US history occurs on September 11; Nation comes together in support of GWB - briefly; Dems talk the talk, but don't walk the walk due to "BDS"; US invades Afghanistan, ousts Taliban and helps set up democratic government, which Dems "support".

2003 - US invades Iraq; Bush declares reason for invasion is WMD, although there were other reasons stated as well; liberal media fixates on WMD, and when "none" is found, begins assault on Bush; Democrats first vote in support of war in Iraq, and then attempt to undermine policies of Bush/Cheney, due to "BDS".

2004 - Bush wins second term as President over Sen. John Kerry; liberal media continues with false "Bush lied, people died" meme; Democrats continue efforts at undermining Bush/Cheney domestic and foreign policies; "BDS" reaches epidemic proportions.

2005 - War in Iraq starting to not go so well, due to inadequate planning on the part of Rumsfeld and General Staff; Democrats proclaim war is "quagmire" and "lost", therefore US should abandon Iraq (just like Viet Nam).

2006 - War in Iraq getting worse; Democrats call for abandoning Iraq getting louder; Bush calls for new strategy; liberal media discounts talks of new strategy; virtual "unknown" Senator Barack Obama from Illinois declares for Presidency.

2007 - Due to new strategy - surge in troop levels, and different tactics - war in Iraq begins to dramatically turn around; Democrats still claim war is "lost" (Reid), a "quagmire" (Kennedy), and continue to call for abandoning Iraq (most of the rest of them); liberal media complicit with Democrats in description of how the war is going, continuing their drumbeat of negativity, refusing to report on gains; Obama defeats Hillary Clinton for Democrat nomination, promises to bring "change" and "hope"; Senator John McCain wins Republican nomination; liberal media in tank for Obama, and refuses to even consider looking into negatives about Obama, while conducting a despicable "witch hunt" on McCain's running mate, Governor Sarah Palin.

2008 - Surge in Iraq successful, and more and more areas of Iraq are turned over to complete Iraqi control; Obama defeats McCain, and wins US Presidency; liberal media complicit in getting Obama elected.

Parallels

Carter comes on the scene at the end of an unpopular war (Viet Nam), and takes advantage of electorate disgust with Republicans.

Obama comes on the scene towards the end of another unpopular war (Iraq), and with liberal media complicity, takes advantage of electorate disgust with Republicans

Both proclaim they are the one to bring about "change" and "hope".

Carter brings "change" in the form of economic chaos, and causes America to lose "hope" in his inept handling of the international crisis in Iran, allowing American citizens to be held hostage for 444 days.

After four years of "change" and "hope" under Carter, the US electorate wakes up, and elects Republican Ronald Reagan to the US Presidency. Real change happens almost immediately, as Iran releases the US hostages, and the economy begins to rebound and then boom again, bringing real hope to Americans.

Obama brings about "change" in the form of economic chaos even before he became a state Senator through his representing ACORN in their lawsuit to force banks to loan money to people they knew would never be able to pay the loans back, and then backs the risky economic policies of Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac after he becomes a US Senator, enabling (with Rep. Barney Frank and Sen. Chris Dodd) the sub-prime mortgage crisis, causing many Americans to lose "hope" of keeping their homes.

What will the next four years under Obama bring America? Probably an abandonment of Iraq before they are ready for us to leave, and possibly an international crisis involving Iran. Definitely higher taxes, which will only exacerbate the economic crisis we are in right now. As he has stated, Obama wants to implement various new government programs which will mandate acceptance and forced compliance by the American people. These programs will take away freedom of choice in many areas, diminishing hope for many Americans. Will the liberal media continue to be complicit, or will they wake up and begin to finally ask the hard questions they should have been asking all along?

After four years of Obama, will the American electorate wake up and take back our government, and elect a Republican who will bring real change and hope to America? Only time will tell what will happen, but my hope is that Obama doesn't do permanent damage to America, and that the American electorate will wake up, and elect someone to change the direction Obama wants to take America.

Will the Republicans be able to stop any of Obama's socialistic plans, or will they continue to fold? Will the Republicans present a candidate to run against Obama that will invigorate the American electorate as Reagan did? I believe that the answer to these last two questions is yes. Yes, the Republicans will be able to stop most, if not all, of the more obvious socialistic programs Obama wants to institute, and yes, the Republicans will present a candidate in 2012 who will invigorate not only Republicans, but Independents and even Democrats, someone who will be a truely charismatic leader, who isn't afraid to stand up to Obama and speak the truth, and who will not be afraid of the liberal media.

Last but not least, who will this person be? Will it be Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin? Will it be Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal? Or will it be a relative unknown, someone new to the national stage? Only time will give us the answer to that, but don't lose hope, for change - real, positive change - is coming.

PUMA's* and Conservatives have something in common

That would be a loathing of Obama.

Emperor Mischa and Ace both extend a hand to PUMA's, asking if there is any way we can work together to defeat Obama. I, for one, agree with both of them.

Speaking of PUMA's, this is very interesting (pretty long, too, but read it anyway).

* PUMA = Party Unity My Ass - disaffected Hillary supporters who, for the most part, are going to vote against Obama.

Obama and ACORN

New video from the McCain/Palin campaign, courtesy of my friends at The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler.

The outing of Barack Obama

Confederate Yankee has a well written, well sourced, post about Obama and his associates - just in case you're still undecided on whom to vote for this November.

I, for one, have absolutely no doubt whatsoever who I will be voting for.

McCain chooses well

Senator John McCain, the presumptive Presidential nominee for the Republican Party has chosen Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his VP running mate, a choice that in my opinion was the wisest choice he could have made due to her conservative credentials, and what she has been able to accomplish in Alaska as Governor.

As Governor Palin says in her acceptance speech, if you want real change in Washington, D.C., come join our cause.

H/T for the video link goes to hollie-is-right.

He's baaaaaaaack!

Nader announces new bid for White House.

Ralph Nader said Sunday he will run for president as a third-party candidate, criticizing the top White House contenders as too close to big business and pledging to repeat a bid that will "shift the power from the few to the many."

Nader, 73, said most people are disenchanted with the Democratic and Republican parties due to a prolonged Iraq war and a shaky economy. The consumer advocate also blamed tax and other corporate-friendly policies under the Bush administration that he said have left many lower- and middle-class people in debt.

"You take that framework of people feeling locked out, shut out, marginalized and disrespected," he said. "You go from Iraq, to Palestine to Israel, from Enron to Wall Street, from Katrina to the bumbling of the Bush administration, to the complicity of the Democrats in not stopping him on the war, stopping him on the tax cuts."

"In that context, I have decided to run for president," Nader told NBC's "Meet the Press."

You know, there are still some folks out there who blame Ralph for Algore losing in 2000, claiming he siphoned off votes, and they may be looking at this with more than slightly jaundiced eyes.

Clinton called Nader's announcement a "passing fancy" and said she hoped his candidacy wouldn't hurt the Democratic nominee.

"Obviously, it's not helpful to whomever our Democratic nominee is. But it's a free country," she told reporters as she flew to Rhode Island for campaign events.

If Ralph can get himself on enough state ballots this November (and that might be a big "if"), things could turn out to be just a bit more interesting.

I'm disappointed

Fred Thompson has decided to withdraw from the race for the Republican nomination.

I'm very disappointed by this news. I will have to think long and hard about who I will back.

Thompson to announce candidacy on Thursday

As reported here, Republican Fred Thompson will officially launch his presidential bid Sept. 6 in a Webcast on his campaign site [www.imwithfred.com], followed by a five-day tour of early primary states.

"I believe that there are millions of Americans who know that our security and prosperity are at risk if we don't address the challenges of our time: the global threat of terrorism, taxes and spending that will bankrupt future generations, and a government that can't seem to get the most basic responsibilities right for its citizens," the former Tennessee senator and "Law & Order" actor said in a news release Thursday that laid out themes of his campaign.

This is welcome news! Why? Because I believe that Fred Thompson gives us the best chance of retaining the White House for another four years. There are too many issues with the remaining candidates on the Republican side to bring cohesion back to the Republican Party, to enable us to retain the White House.

So, I'm going on the record here to publicly endorse Fred D. Thompson for the Republican nomination, and for President of the United States in the 2008 election - regardless of what the FEC may say or do as a result of my endorsement, through the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act, which in my opinion, regarding the part about weblogs, is unconstitutional. Here is the text of the First Amendment :

"Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." [Emphasis mine]

Note that it does not say, "except political speech". The part that says "... abridging the freedom of speech ..." is pretty much all encompassing, and that is what gives me (and everyone else) the right to endorse whomever I want, for whatever political office, I choose to, Senators McCain and Feingold notwithstanding, and I will fight for my rights all the way to the US Supreme Court if necessary.

We Are All in It Together, Clinton Says

As reported here, Presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton outlined a broad economic vision Tuesday, saying it's time to replace an "on your own" society with one based on shared responsibility and prosperity.

The Democratic senator said what the Bush administration touts as an ownership society really is an "on your own" society that has widened the gap between rich and poor.

"I prefer a 'we're all in it together' society," she said. "I believe our government can once again work for all Americans. It can promote the great American tradition of opportunity for all and special privileges for none."

Can you say Socialism, anybody? Redistribution of your wealth is Clinton's number one goal in life. She wants to turn America into one huge "collective", where no one is "better off" than anyone else, which actually means that we'll all be worse off!

America stands for freedom of the individual, no matter how repugnant that may be to Clinton and those who think like her. I, for one, prefer the fact that if I take it upon myself, get off my lazy duff and work hard, I will be able to enjoy the rewards inherent in that hard work.

I just have to wonder, if she succeeds in her "Socialist Utopia", how much of her wealth will get redistributed my way?

Former Clinton backers defect to Obama camp

As reported here, [a]s Sen. Hillary Clinton seeks to reassemble the Democratic money machine her husband built, some of its major fundraisers already have signed on with Sen. Barack Obama.

Among the biggest fundraisers for Obama's campaign are as many as a half-dozen former guests of the Clinton White House. At least two are close enough to the Clintons to have slept in the Lincoln bedroom.

At minimum, a dozen were major fundraisers for President Clinton. At least four worked in the administration, and one, James Rubin, is a son of a former Clinton Treasury secretary, Robert Rubin. About two dozen of the top Obama fundraisers have contributed to Hillary Clinton's Senate campaigns or political action committee, some as recently as a few months ago.

Don't mind me. I just found this to be amusing. ;)

TV Star, Former Senator Fred Thompson Considers '08 Presidential Bid

As reported here, "Law and Order" star and former Tennessee Republican Sen. Fred Thompson is weighing a bid for the White House in 2008, he told Chris Wallace on "FOX News Sunday."

"I'm going to wait and see what happens," Thompson said. "I want to see my colleagues on the campaign trial, what they say, what they emphasize, whether they can carry the ball next November."

Thompson, 64, who plays district attorney Arthur Branch on NBC's drama, said he was pondering a run after former Senate Majority Leader Howard Baker and other Tennessee Republicans began drumming up support for his possible Republican candidacy, citing his conservative credentials.

This is a man I would get behind very quickly. Fred Thompson would make an excellent candidate for the Republican Party - much better than that RINO McCain - as well as an excellent President.

This is an exciting prospect, and it's hoped here that Mr. Thompson does throw his hat in the ring.