Ann Romney, Anita Perry, and Callista Gingrich star in TV spots in advance of the January 3 Iowa caucus.
 |
| L to R: Ann Romney, Anita Perry, Callista Gingrich |
Fox News should hire these foxy blondes. Else, their husbands can find work at Fox News: it’s where washed-up Republican politicians go. 🙂
 |
| Michelle Obama |
The same cannot be said about the accompanying article, which trashes other political spouses:
“She’s normal,” Glanton answered, with a mischievous twinkle in her eye. “She stands by her man.”
Normal. Interesting word. Certainly not one that applies to spouses Bill Clinton or even Elizabeth Edwards, who is battling metastatic breast cancer and lives in a $6 million, 28,200-square-foot house (the Obamas, by contrast, paid $1.65 million for their Georgian Revival home). Nor, frankly, is it a word that would have applied to Teresa Heinz, John Kerry’s oddly flinty wife, or Howard Dean’s MIA doctor wife. Or Cindy McCain, who once stole painkillers from the charity for which she worked. Or even the arctic Laura Bush, who can barely contain her contempt for the media in her rare public appearances …
I particularly take exception to how Cindy McCain and Laura Bush are portrayed. Yes, it’s true that Cindy McCain stole painkillers from the charity, but she is also a woman who found a Bangladeshi orphan with a cleft palate, obtained surgery for the child, and most of all, made that child her own.
I have never sensed contempt for the media on the part of Laura Bush. Perhaps that’s because of my filters. I have contempt for much of the mainstream media, as do many Americans. If Mrs. Bush has contempt for the media, I suspect that’s because she stands by her man. Fisking President Bush’s decision to go into Iraq is one thing; however, the media has fed into a frenzy, as demonstrated by 1-29-09 bumper stickers, countdown clocks, and the continual jokes about the President’s intellectual prowess, which pass for smart party conversation.
Mrs. Bush is a lady. She smoothed over Michelle Obama’s comments “For the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country …” which antagonized many Americans, including myself.
My passions during this election seasons have run high. I’ve had nights that I’ve been so riled that I’ve taken a tablet to fall asleep.
There are some positions taken by Barack Obama that I like, and there are positions taken by John McCain that I don’t like. I know who McCain who is. I don’t believe that Obama is who he says he is, when, in his commercials, he talks about faith, patriotism, and his mother’s teaching him what it meant to be an American. Not many believing Christians would recognize the theology espoused by Rev. Wright, Obama’s spiritual mentor for 20 years. Obama’s mother didn’t appear to have much attachment to the USA: instead, she married two non-citizens and gallivanted around the world, leaving him in the care of her mother. Also, I’m creeped out by the cult of personality surrounding Obama.
I’ll be voting for McCain tomorrow. I do have misgivings, beyond his his stance on some issues. I’m worried that his health might not hold out over the next four years. He’s run a lackluster campaign: I’m reminded of Bob Dole’s 1996 Presidential campaign, when it appeared that he became the GOP’s nominee solely for being a party elder. Neither has McCain represented himself well.
For example, McCain could have hit Obama harder concerning Obama’s opting out of public campaign financing. The pernicious role of money in campaigning has long been a big issue of the Democratic Party. McCain partnered with Russ Feingold of Wisconsin to sponsor the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 to do something about campaign financing: in this way, he bucked his party and could solidly portray himself as a “maverick.”
Here’s what Victor Davis Hansen wrote in the conservative National Review about public campaign financing:
“For years an axiom of the liberal establishment was the need for public campaign financing — and the corrosive role of private money in poisoning the election process. The most prominent Republican who crossed party lines to ensure the passage of national public campaign financing was John McCain — a maverick stance that cost him dearly among conservatives who resented bitterly federal interference in political expression. …
For all practical purposes, public financing of the presidential general election is now dead. No Republican will ever agree to it again. No Democrat can ever again dare to defend a system destroyed by Obama. All future worries about the dangers of big money and big politics will fall on deaf ears.
Surely, there will come a time when the Democratic Party, whether for ethical or practical reasons, will sorely regret dismantling the very safeguards that for over three decades it had insisted were critical for the survival of the republic.”
NOTE I’m conflicted when I identify a source as “liberal” or “conservative.” On one hand, I use these terms for truth-in-labeling; on the other hand, the “L” word or “C” word is an instant turnoff for people of the opposite persuasion, who won’t bother to read a source and consider the points.
So how did it play out? After the debate, I visited twitter and followed the “tweets” that people had made during the debate. The most sensible thing I read was that we need to judge the candidates on basis of character and strategy.
I commend Obama for citing the risks of borrowing from China (which holds billions in U.S. Treasury notes) to pay Saudi Arabia for oil. For someone like myself who sees an ascending China, a resurgent Russia, and the Middle East as at least major challenges, if not evolving threats, to our national security, I found Obama’s awareness refreshing. However, he provided no specifics on getting the U.S. out of that dilemma.
On energy independence, McCain came out on top by referring to existing proven sources of energy such as nuclear and natural gas. Obama referred to a 10-year plan to make the U.S. energy independent through unproven “green” technologies. He has drawn parallels to JFK’s challenge to put a man on the moon in 10 years. It is a flawed analogy. In JFK’s time, we were engaged in a space race with an identified competitor: the Soviet Union. Having an identified competitor galvanized the U.S. to realize its goal of putting a man on the moon. Will Obama identify an external competitor that will challenge us to become energy-independent? Moreover, I don’t share his faith in ethanol, and chalk that up to the fact that he represents Illinois: corn farmers there have a vested interest in ethanol. Diverting acreage from crops such as wheat and soybeans to corn for ethanol has lead to higher prices for commodities and a world food crisis. I do commend Obama on canceling leases for companies that don’t drill offshore.
On the economy, Obama galvanized prospective voters about the profits made by Big Oil and challenged McCain on cutting corporate tax rates. McCain did not, but should have, answered the issue of Big Oil profits directly. He did make a good case about tying jobs to corporate tax rates, as companies will locate to countries that have lower corporate tax rates.
Evaluating Obama’s and McCain’s health care plan is beyond my “grade level,” except to say that Obama successfully debunked McCain’s assertion that people could go across state lines to buy health insurance in the last debate by saying that insurers would relocate to other states that have less oversight. His analogy was the fact that many companies incorporate in Delaware for the same reason. He didn’t say that last night: wonder why? 🙂
So there you have it. Debate, please!
With less than three weeks before the election, I’m taking the risk to voice my political views. I’m very skeptical about Barack Obama, and here I must set myself apart from friends on my social networks who love Barack Obama.
My worldview changed completely after 9/11: in this way, I’m like Dennis Miller, actor Ron Silver, and this blogger who calls herself neo-neocon. I do believe that America has enemies who wish us harm. Only conservatives seem to recognize this truth, which is why this disillusioned liberal has gravitated to conservative web sites and blogs. National security remains the number one issue with me.
I appreciate that many people think that the economy is a more important issue than national security (when, in fact, the two are inextricably linked). President Bush is hugely unpopular, and it’s easy to pin all the blame on him and want to vote for “change.”
However, Democrats have had a significant role in the mortgage meltdown. Consider Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-CT), chair, U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, who benefited from sweetheart deals from Countrywide to finance his properties. Consider Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), Chair, House Financial Services Committee, who said that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were viable as recently as this summer. It should be pointed out that Barack Obama received the single biggest chunk of political contributions from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.
Outside the government, there are Herb and Marion Sandler, who sold their Golden West Financial to Wachovia for $24 billion. Golden West specialized in selling adjustable rate mortgages (ARMs) to home buyers who, as rates increased, could not pay for their mortgages. Wachovia’s purchase has crippled the company greatly, making it a takeover target for Citigroup and Wells Fargo. Living in the Mid-Atlantic States as I do, it’s almost impossible not to do business with Wachovia. Wachovia is the dominant bank, as it has gobbled up smaller regional banks (like the big fish swallowing the small fish, which in turn is swallowing an even smaller fish …). The Sandlers have poured millions into leftist organizations that have promoted Barack Obama.
For these reasons, I don’t have faith in Barack Obama’s ability to monitor the banking system (without alienating his base). I won’t be voting for him as President. But McCain doesn’t have much fight in him – his lackluster campaign reminds me of Bob Dole’s 1996 Presidential campaign, in which Dole become the Republican candidate simply because it was his time.
Our web page stats have gone through the roof today! And it’s all because of a review I did of the now-defunct Breathe magazine, a yoga-meets-lifestyle magazine, in which I mentioned an article about former hard-partying girl Rielle Hunter who claimed that she found enlightenment. Now Rielle Hunter is a hot news item for making mini-documentaries of Presidential candidate John Edwards that the Edwards campaign apparently doesn’t want to show. For more, see Overlawyered: Rielle Hunter and John Edwards, which has been the referring URL for many visits to The Style Page blog, and follow the links.
Former vice-Presidential candidate Edwards’s campaign is lagging behind the campaigns of Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama. Until Rielle Hunter came along, no one had brought as much life into his campaign as Ann Coulter!
Cold Cream 'n' Roses 