About Me

Name: David Smith
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Barack Obama on MSNBC Sunday

OK, I'm not a Democrat and I'm not a fan of either candidate for President.  Truth be told, I'm not exactly impressed with any of the candidates on either side of the aisle.  I voted for Ron Paul in the Texas primary, but even that comes with a disclaimer--I am not a "Disciple of Ron."  Anyone who has read any of my blog posts can figure out that Dr. Paul and I are on the same page because that page is the Constitution, not because I hang on every word he speaks!  He is the only candidate who holds to the Constitution and the limits that it places on the Federal Government--period.  Nobody else takes the positions that he does--or that I do.  Want change?  Fine.  Then change back to the Constitution of the United States.
 
Now, I am listening to the bobbing heads on MSNBC give their analysis of Sen. Barack Obama's interview from earlier today.  There is even less substance to this man than I have suspected and talk radio has been discussing yet.
 
No specifics.
 
No discussion of if his concepts are even allowed by the Constitution.
 
Heck, his wife spoke more about him that he did.  "Oh, I just love Barack and I think he's just the best--but I don't want to come across as the bragging wife."
 
Too late!
 
The best explanation that he could give of the "bitter" comments he made in San Francisco at a fundraiser?  "I should have said 'frustrated' or 'upset' instead of 'bitter.'  And I should have said 'hold to their religious faith' instead of 'cling to.'"  Mmm hmm...and what about the gun comments?  Nothing.
 
The man simply summed it up in his own words...er, sorry--actually, his wife summed it up for him when she said, "The people want change and they see Barack as representing change.  I am so proud of them for seeking what that change should be."  Yeah, and nobody is yet dealing with what that change actually is!
 
Change.  Change.  Change.  Kind of catchy, huh?
 
Actually, there are a couple of college students locally who are running for Mayor in my hometown strictly on the mantra of "change."  Now, while there is nothing more essential to this town than just that, there is a big difference in local and national politics.  Once again it comes down to the 10th Amendment--the Federal Government cannot force "change" on the States, and thus, localities.  You cannot change what you are not given the power to change, after all.
 
So local kids can campaign on "change" because they're stupid and are simply picking up on the national candidate's key word.  But national candidates don't have the power to initiate or champion that "change."
 
Sen. Obama (and his wife Michelle) did not address anything serious.  They came across as complaining about the attitudes of Americans.  They came across as complaining about perceptions of them ('them'? 'we'? Since when was 'we' running for President??) that people had, without outright stating that it was racism or racial bias.
 
How about this--how about giving us something of substance to 'Believe' in?
 
How about discussing amending the Constitution to give the Federal Government the enumerated, delegated Power to engage in everything that, 1.) it is involved in, and 2.) 'we' is proposing the government become engaged in.
 
How about discussing how government-controlled healthcare insurance will be paid for?  Meaning taxes.  Specifics.  How much from how many to pay for how much to how many?  What organization are 'we' getting 'their' figures from?  The Congressional Budget Office?  The ACLU?  Who?
 
And how are we (as in the People) supposed to believe in anybody who persuades us to 'Believe' in 'we' (as in the candidate and his wife) with so few details backing so many promises?
 
I fundamentally disagree with the premise that 'we' is running for the presidency on.  I fundamentally disagree with the legality of 'we's proposals.  I fundamentally disagree with the effect that 'we's proposals will have.  And I fundamentally oppose the increase in the sheer size of government that will result from 'we's initiatives.
 
But all of that being said, at least Sen. Hillary Clinton is experienced enough to be able to enunciate her positions.  As little as I pay attention to the media any more, I have yet to hear or see former President Bill Clinton discussing Sen. Clinton's positions, proposals or politics.  Is he campaigning for her?  Yes.  But she is speaking for herself.  And she has the experience to say what she means.
 
Even if it is exactly what Sen. Obama is spouting, and even if I fundamentally oppose her message.  Sen. Obama is simply not ready to be President.  Change?  Yes.  Change his inexperience before putting him in the Oval Office.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Texas Primary Response and Gloomy Prediction for Obama!

Being from down here in Texas, I figured I'd add to all the analysis that is going around regarding the just concluded Texas Primaries.  And for the first time ever, I participated in the local Precinct Convention and actually went 3-for-3 in getting my personal resolutions passed in consideration for the official Republican Party Platform--Yippee!!
 
As we all know, talk radio personality Rush Limbaugh suggested it wise for Republicans to vote in the Democratic Primaries in order to have Sen. Hillary Clinton chosen to represent the Democratic Party over upstart, and sometimes-favorite, Sen. Barack Obama.  This strategy was deployed widely in Texas.  The official position of the County Republican Party, as announced at its monthly Executive meeting last month, was to recommend that Republicans vote (get this, I know!) for Republicans!!
 
I know, weird, right?  For the record, I agree totally and think that Limbaugh and others are outright wrong.  However, that being said, those who 'switch' parties are acting completely legally and it looks like the practice will only continue since it worked so well.
 
And now that Sen. John McCain has secured enough delegates to win the Republican Party's nomination, expect the same to occur in every State that still has not voted.  Have you ever seen your favorite sports team win a game or series in the playoffs and then start rooting for another team for favorable matchups in the next series or game?  Imagine that the Lakers just wrapped up the Western Finals and all of Greater Los Angeles just started rooting for Boston over the Pistons!  That is what just began in the Republican Party!
 
Expect Hillary Clinton to win out at this point.  With every Republican hoping for a McCain-Clinton race this fall, they are now rooting against Sen. Obama.  It worked in Texas and Ohio, look for it to work elsewhere.  So now, in addition to fighting Hillary supporters and establish himself, Sen. Obama must now also overcome the influx of Republicans available to be a pain as well.
 
You heard it here first!
 
So we arrive at the problem--shouldn't Republicans be selecting Republicans as their nominees and Democrats be selecting Democrats as their nominees?  We are literally looking at an election where Independents are selecting the Republican nominee and Republicans may select the Democratic nominee!  Here's another consideration...don't you think that Democrats will respond in-kind and retaliate in future elections?  This is not a fun prospect for the future.
 
Yet Democrats have promoted this strategy for years of voting in Republican Primaries in order to have a different Republican candidate who is perceived to be easier for the Democratic candidate to defeat in the general election.
 
Well, Texas has Precinct Conventions immediately after the polls close in each Party.  Since I voted in my precinct's Republican Primary, I was eligible to be a delegate at the Precinct Convention last night, and I attended.  I proposed three resolutions, all three of which passed, and volunteered as a delegate from our precinct at the State Senatorial Convention later in the month.  Our County has three State Senate Districts, so we have three Senatorial Conventions later this month where we will select delegates for the State Republican Convention in Houston later in the year, where the State's delegates to the Republican National Convention in Minneapolis, Minnesota will be selected.
 
So what did I present as resolutions?  Transportation, primary nominating procedures, and depending on your political view, either abortion or the regulation of the Federal Judiciary.  All three passed.  The one on primary nominating procedures is now relevant.
 
I proposed that the National Republican Party should request (as opposed to force) the State Republican Parties to seek to alter their Primary elections procedures so that in order to vote in a Republican Primary a voter must be a registered Republican.  Democrats are on their own, but after the 2008 election, I'll bet they will want this for their Primaries, too.  This will ensure that this year's Primary results, where Sen. John McCain has largely won the Republican nomination based on Independent voters' (i.e. non-Republicans) desires.  As a result of this nomination, many Republicans, and many conservatives (not always the same!) will be staying home this fall.
 
The second part of this resolution simply requests that if a State's laws must be altered to allow this change that States take up such measures and allow these changes to be made.
 
The other two resolutions called for the elimination of the Texas Department of Transportation as we know it, which I am seeking because it is incompatible with the future needs of our State's transportation systems, and for Congress to enact its Powers to regulate the Federal Judiciary and remove the matter of abortion and other non-Federal matters from the jurisdiction of the Federal Judiciary.
 
All in a day's work, right?
 
So there it is...the (stuff) is about to hit the fan, and Texas' fingerprints are all over it!  Obaba is on the way out, McCain will defeat Hillary this fall, and (hopefully) we will get on down the road to convincing the Judiciary that it isn't as big and bad as it has told us for decades.
 
You heard it here first!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »