Matthew Richardson: Closet Democrat??

So …

What’s with the heading, “… Closet Democrat??”?

Well, before a week or so ago, I had never heard of Matthew Richardson.

Then, I see this ad on FOX NEWS, of all places, for this man running for the office of Attorney General of South Carolina.

Okay …

But …

Something seemed to be missing.

There was no mention of PARTY AFFILIATION. I’ve seen the ad several times now. I was right … no mention of party affiliation. Interesting. Suspicious …

So … I did a little checking.

Mr. Richardson IS the Democratic candidate for the office of Attorney General. Interesting. So, why doesn’t he say so in his ads?

Mr. Richardson is not just the Democratic candidate for the office of Attorney General. He isn’t just a run of the mill Democrat. He is the South Carolina Democratic Party’s elected representative to the Democratic National Committee, that illustrious group that sets the progressive platform for all supposedly good Democrats to run on.

Yet, Mr. Richardson doesn’t even advertise the fact that he’s a Democrat. Mr. Richardson isn’t just distancing himself from the president, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. He’s distancing himself from the entire Democratic Party in his campaign ads. Even his official campaign page doesn’t indicate he’s a Democrat without a little scratching.

I had heard that this was going to be the strategy for Democrats trying to get elected, but this is the first case where I’ve actually noticed it in such a blatantly obvious strategy of omission of party affiliation.

This alone doesn’t necessarily disqualify a person from being the state’s attorney general, in my opinion, yet it does make me wonder how he, as the state’s lead prosecutor and defender, might be inclined to handle “inconvenient truths”.

In an article on his website, Richardson touts experience, qualifications in his bid for state attorney general, Mr. Richardson makes the following statement:

“… the attorney general’s focus must be the law and not politics.

Yet, in an article published in “The State” in answer to the question, “Do you separate your professional work from your political work?“, Mr. Richardson replied,

I try not to avoid politics in my professional career. I want my professional career to be consistent and integrated with the rest of my life.”

So … which is it? Does Mr. Richardson separate his politics from his professional life or not? Can he? In one place he says the attorney general’s role shouldn’t be encumbered and influenced by politics yet, he also states that politics are an integral part of his professional career … inseparable.

So, we have here a man who conveniently doesn’t mention in his campaign ads that he’s the Democratic candidate although I readily admit that one doesn’t have to scratch very deep to discover that fact.

Then he states that the position of attorney general isn’t the place for politics but also states that he doesn’t separate his politics from his professional activities.

Well …

I appreciate his candor when his comments are gathered together and put into context. Has he just disqualified himself for the office of attorney general based on his own standards? And the “no Party” ads for the Democratic candidate …

“Tough and Fair” …

Really??

I agree with Mr. Richardson on one point. The office of attorney general should be about the law and not politics.

Advertisements

Obama, Obama … Wherefore art thou, Obama???

Or subtitle: “Is This Dud(e) Totally Whacked … or still snorting or smoking something?”

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Third planet on the left or totally out of the solar system?

Well, he certainly isn’t functioning like he’s in the United States much less Washington, D.C. … well, maybe Washington, D.C. It seems to be disconnected from the rest of the country also … maybe another galaxy.

Egocentric, narcissistic, referring to himself in the third person …

Are these the characteristics of a person functioning on all cylinders? Is he, was he or has he ever functioned on all cylinders?

Maybe the president is watching too much MSNBC. They seemed to be the only “major” cable news network that didn’t comprehend the ramifications of the Scott Brown victory in Massachusetts. After the Democratic candidate, Martha Coakley, conceded the race, CNN and Fox News understood what had happened, but those loons on MSNBC … Keith Olberman, Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews … totally out in left field … figuratively and literally. I turned to MSNBC after the election was over just to see their response. It was like watching Saturday Night Live, hilarious … except the joke was on them. They were clueless.

It does appear that a majority of Democrats in Congress got the message and understand it. That, at least, is somewhat comforting since they control both houses of Congress although, thankfully, not as much as before the Massachusetts senatorial special election. It’s amazing how the sensation of being dunked in an ice cold lake can clear the mind to near sobriety … even those like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi who have acted in the past year like Roman dictators inebriated with the sense of absolute power.

But not Barack Obama …

He goes on national television and has a temper tantrum … a “hissy” fit … like an over-indulged three year old who’s had his pacifier removed … which he was dreamily nursing on in his personal (induced?) alternate universe. Unfortunately, even after rudely and abruptly being denied his comforter and presumably awakened, he still couldn’t separate his dream state from reality.

I used to think that the President, Mr. Obama, was simply an inherent liar.  Now I’m beginning to have some doubts. I’m beginning to think that this poor man may simply be confabulating his own version of reality … much as he did in his two literary works.

Yesterday, in Ohio, he angrily complained about being falsely accused of cutting Medicare. But, aren’t there over $450 billion in Medicare cuts in his baby, the pending healthcare bill? Isn’t Medicare Advantage going to be eliminated in all states except Florida if the Healthcare bill were to pass?

He angrily defended his government transparency policy? Maybe he missed all of those sweetheart deals that were cut behind closed doors out of the public view, only to be the latest in the lack of transparency that has been prevalent since he ascended to the presidency.

Just a few examples …

The list seems to be endless. His angrily proclaimed perception … versus reality.

Could we be witnessing the first president with Munchousen Syndrome,  a person disguising himself as lucid and brilliant … while actually being delusional and disturbingly mediocre … promoted out of absolute obscurity to a position totally out of his capacity by a population hungry beyond rational thinking for simply … something different?

I think it’s entirely possible that Barack Obama may have another first to his credit in addition to being the first black president.

He may be the first president who is completely delusional … totally out of touch with reality.

Quite possibly, out of this country’s inherent kindness and generosity (which he seems to repeatedly fail to recognize), he should be, simply and quietly, sent back to South Chicago, that comforting womb which nurtured his kindred delusions and Marxist rantings in absolute … and impenetrable … obscurity) where he can also find undeniable comfort in again attending the church of Jeremiah Wright, his self proclaimed father figure and consort in delusional Marxist proclamations and rantings; and, not in the least, where he can do no further harm … hopefully. Pax vobiscum.

Now, there’s some food for thought.

Is Sonia Sotomayor a Poorly Veiled Misandrist?

One morning, a month or so prior to Ms. Sotomayor being confirmed as the newest Supreme Court justice, I was watching “Kiss Me , Kate” on TCM, and, while Kathryn Grayson was singing “I Hate Men”, ironically … or possibly appropriately … enough, Sonia Sotomayor came to mind.

Ms. Sotomayor’s repeated statements about Latina women having better judgement than “white” men was abruptly brought to mind. It seems apparent by her own repeated admission that she holds “white men” in lower esteem than she does herself and her beloved Latina womanhood. Many people have excused her “slip of the tongue” as simply that … a mis-statement or “slip of the tongue”. Well, was it a misstatement, a “slip of the tongue”? Or … was it a more profound admission of her true feelings … a bantering admission of her core beliefs … brought own by a  lapse in judgment or a sense of empowerment that no one would think anything of her admission, that there would be no consequences for her crass gender prejudices?

The most often repeated defenses of Ms. Sotomayor’s expressions is that, as above, she mispoke … or that she’s highly qualified for the Supreme Court because she completed college summa cum laud and graduated from a prestigious law school. Frankly, her apparent “good” grades really seem to be the only excuse that I’ve heard people express such as the journalist from Los Angeles who defended her on Mike Huckabee’s show a while back.

Somehow, Ms Sotomayor’s defenders would have one believe that a “superior” intellect is a sole qualifying trait. Quite frankly, World History is replete with repeated examples of individuals with supposed “superior” intellect … but also, quite frankly, of very dubious character. Aaron Burr was an extremely intelligent man, a vice president of the United States … who, by the way, wanted to make himself king or something of the lands of the Mississippi River. I think we would describe that as a grandiose personality. Benedict Arnold was an obviously intelligent person. But, that didn’t stop him from betraying his country. Napoleon Bonaparte was obviously intelligent, a brilliant military strategist, who wanted to conquer the world … who turned the French Revolution into the instrument of his aspirations to be Emperor of Europe. Ah, but she’s a woman. So were Catherine de Medici, Marie Antoinette, Salome and Lucretia Borgia.

Personally, I’d rather have a person of average intelligence who has a sense of tolerance and justice as well as a hefty dose of common sense. How many supposedly intelligent people have you met who seemed to lack a ounce of common sense, or who were so egocentric that they lacked any understanding or tolerance for others?

But she is a lawyer, she knows and understands the law. In all probability, no one knew Roman law better than Julius Caesar when he made himself dictator of Rome.  Did you know that Fidel Castro was a law student … who in turn … systematically destroyed the legal foundations of the country he was determined to establish himself in absolute control over … and ruthlessly destroyed anyone who got in his way?

So, What is a “misandrist”? Well, it a person, typically a woman, … who hates men … like Ms. Sotomayor’s “white” men that she so jovially derides … as in the “white” men, … men like the Founding Fathers who wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. Did she mean her Latina women have better judgment and wisdom than THOSE “white” men? Frankly, I’d like to see Ms. Sotomayor come up with one Latina woman to equal those men.

So. What’s my beef with some off-handed statement that Ms. Sotomayor made … reportedly more than once ..on various occasions?

Well, back in high school I took French. Having done well the first year, I decided to take a second year of French. It turns out that our first year French teacher had moved on and we had a new teacher to take her place. On the first day of class, our new teacher comes in and one of the first statements to come out of her mouth was, “I hate men.” Seriously.

This woman, it turns out was recently divorced and, unfortunately for the little boy, had one small child, a son. I shudder to think how he’s turned out, poor kid. This woman wasn’t a comedian and wasn’t kidding. In all honesty, I don’t remember a lot about the rest of the class that day … other than, by the end of that class, I was determined to get out of it. And I did. I wasn’t going to leave the outcome of my future in the hands of that self proclaimed “misandrist” … no way.

The woman obviously had issues and I didn’t make any trouble for her. I simply dropped the class and signed up for something else. I told my parents about the teacher’s statement and they both agreed with my decision. I only hope for the sake of her child and her own well being, as well as that of my classmates, that this woman moved on and got over her bitterness and hatred. But, I honestly have my doubts.

So, Sonia Sotomayor’s presumed offhand, but repeated, statements about Latina women having better judgment that “white” men really struck a chord. Was it a joke, a generalization, or a inappropriate but profound expression of her core beliefs?

Frankly, it bothers me that our legislators have simply brushed aside people’s concerns about this woman’s inherent character and have placed her in the nearly unique position of an associate Supreme Court justice. I find it hard to believe that, out of the millions of lawyers that practice in this country, she was the best choice. What does that say about the legal profession?

I suppose when buying votes is your goal, pandering to the Hispanic community by Barack Obama shouldn’t be unexpected.

Bob Beckel’s Take on Barack Obama’s Silence Regarding Iran

Sometimes I almost feel sorry for Bob Beckel … almost. I do admire his courage for being the lone liberal on Hannity’s “Great American Panel” on Fox News.

Tonight, he’s in the position of defending Obama’s silence regarding the popular uprising in Iran  related to that country’s recent election. Beckel stated that he felt Obama was advised to remain quiet to prevent the current regime from having an excuse to crack down harder on the protesters. He stated that he felt Obama making a statement in favor of the protesters would give the regime an excuse to blame the current uprisings on the United States and it would, as a consequence, deal more harshly with the protesters.

Who else thinks that the current paranoid government of Iran actually needs an excuse to blame the current uprising on the United States or any other western power? It has never appeared to me that the current despotic government of Iran has needed any excuse to blame the United States for any and everything that they couldn’t deal with intelligently.

According to a recent report, as many as 28 million people in Iran may have voted against Ahmadenejad as opposed to the less than 7 million who were reported to have voted for him. Those are fairly impressive numbers … more than 4 to 1 against the current Iranian leader. It’s highly unlikely that 28 million Iranians have all of a sudden become pro American. After more than 30 years of oppression by their despotic government, it’s much more likely that the 28 million are simply voting against their current rulers and simply prefer anything or anyone rather than who’s in power now.

So, the question really is, “Is President Obama protecting the protesters from greater oppression and harm; or, is he simply dropping the ball by not providing them with moral support and encouragement that they may desperately need?” What’s wrong with the leader of America simply stating that America favors free and open elections where evey qualified person’s vote counts … in any country? Has he forgotten that this very premise is the reason the United States of America was founded, the reason for the American Revolution, the desire for the American colonists to have representation and not feel disenfranchised by their government? Apparently, voicing the founding principle of this country sticks in President Obama’s craw. Fear of the reaction of a two bit dictator in Iran quells him into silence.

Apparently, hundreds of Iranians may have already lost their lives in the ongoing protests with thousands more injured and jailed. Does the Iranian government really need an excuse to crack down further on the protesters? Those Iranian protesters have infinitely more courage than our president.

The deafening silence of the current administration does send a message … both to Americans and Iranians. If the election in Iran was so corrupt that millions of Iranians feel the election was stolen from them, the United States government led by the Obama administration will do nothing, not even by simply providing a verbal message of support for free and honest elections in that country.

So, Bob Beckel finds himself in the position of somehow having to defend the Obama administration for remaining silent to “protect” the protesters.

Where would we be today if Ronald Reagan had not said, “Mr. Gorbechev, tear down this wall.”? Would the Berliners have had the courage to eventually confront their communist oppressors and bring the end to the division of Germany and the eventual destruction of the “Iron Curtain” that imprisoned Eastern Europe for most of my lifetime? It’s entirely possible that they and other eastern Europeans might have reached the same point today without the encouragement of President Reagan. But, it’s also a definite fact that every action that President Reagan took was aimed at that goal … to assist the Eastern Europeans in obtaining their freedom … and his speeches and actions didn’t hinder the process.

Well, as far as foreign policy and diplomacy are concerned, Barack Obama isn’t even in the same ballpark with Ronald Reagan. He doesn’t even hold a candle to the bungling JFK. At least Kennedy had the courage of his convictions even if he bungled repeatedly due to his naivety.

The current situation in Iran and the lack of response from Obama brings into question exactly what Barack Obama’s convictions are; or, if he, in fact, has any.This man makes the timid Jimmy Carter look like Atilla the Hunand that’s pretty amazing.

Barack Obama and John Kennedy: Headless Horsemen or Headless Chickens?

One glaring similarity …

Kennedy wasn’t in control of what was going on in Washington and neither is Obama. Kennedy’s honest critics point out that he was basically punted around by senators and representatives who were old pros in Washington. Does anyone have any question about who’s actually controlling policy and spending … Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi?

The classic example is Obama’s current approach to earmarks or “porkbarrel spending”. It’s gone from being one of his main campaign promises to neutralize John McCain’s pledge to …, “Well, I’ll deal with that later.”

For the Democrats, it’s gone from being “something evil only the Republicans did” to “additional necessary stimulus”. “It creates jobs” is the argument. Well, it created jobs back then too. So, what’s changed?

Maybe, Obama’s promises to rein in porkbarrel spending were just slips of the tongue like “Bible hugging and gun toting” or “typical white person”. Maybe someday the people who got teary eyes and tingly legs will wake up and realize what they’re smelling isn’t roses.

The only similarity between Obama’s White House and the “Headless Horseman” is the lack of a head. At least, the “Headless Horseman” had a directed and focused purpose. Obama’s White House is more like a headless chicken, flailing around in circles and a multitude of directions while the body is being rapidly drained of blood.

Confidence in Nancy Pelosi … Why????

Robert Gibbs says today the White House, i.e. President Obama, still has confidence in Nancy Pelosi. Jim Webb, Democratic senator from Virginia, says he has confidence in Nancy Pelosi. So say a few other Democratic politicians like Tim Kaine, governor of Virginia and Democratic national chairman. Also, according to current polls, the population is about evenly split on whether they think Nancy Pelosi or the CIA is lying.

I think that’s amazing. Exactly which of the four or five versions of Nancy Pelosi’s story are they confident in?

And does that mean that they have no confidence in Leon Paneta, the Obama appointed head of the CIA who has basically said Nancy Pelosi is lying?

It sounds like a classic case of wanting to have the cake whole while eating it, too.

I’ll put my money on Leon Paneta not being the snake oil salesman. At least he hasn’t waffled all over the place like Pelosi with a lot of stammering and stuttering.

As far as the rest are concerned, Nancy Pelosi is the snake oil in four or five flavors, and a lot of Democrats, including all of those who voted her Speaker of the House, are trying to give the nation a large dose.

What’s amazing is that 50% of the nation are simply holding their nose and opening their mouths to take the dose. I wonder what else can be shoved into the open orifice.

Mooooooooooooo ….!!!! What a bunch of cows. There’s some more of that yellow liquid in your ear, people , and you’re still fixated on how warm and soothing it is.

Nancy Pelosi and the CIA

What the hell is this woman doing being third in line for the U.S. Presidency?

When the assessment of her boils down to either being a liar or one stupid … person … or both, what sort of DA’s would want to keep her as speaker of the House of Representatives? I mean … how dumb are they?

This is enough to give even the most ardent atheist or agnostic a little bit of religion, to pray every night that nothing happens to Barack Obama or Joe Biden.

Let’s see … the chain of succession, Barack Obama (I’ll leave off my description of him now but it has something to do with Brown Shirt Goons from Chicago) … to … Joe Biden (I think a movie was made about him … “Dumb and Dumber”) … then Nancy Pelosi ( Ha-ha -ha -ha -ha -ha …).

Geez … what a joke!!!!

Let’s see …

What do you get when you have a snake oil salesman, a moron, and a lying airhead in the same room?
Answer:
The top three Democrats in Washington.


5/16/2009 Update:

There’s nothing in this article about the CIA, is there? Well, anyone who doesn’t know anything about the controversy regarding Nancy Pelosi and the CIA, her accusing the CIA of lying to her … and only to her … according to her four or five different versions of HER own lie …, well, you deserve Nancy Pelosi to be third in line for the U.S. presidency. The rest of us don’t.