News-Record.com

Change? Oh I get it. It's a pun.

Back to reality I think we can trust McCain to be Bush III & who promises to keep our 3 trillion dollar war with Iraq going for a hundred years.

All of a sudden a little pocket change doesn't sound that bad. With McBush we might not be able to afford the pockets.

Rufus,
I do hope you and others like you get exactly what you want.

No pun intended.

"I do hope you and others like you get exactly what you want."

Can I infer, ncpatriot, that Bush43 is exactly what you wanted?

You said it, Rufus. Also want to hear your question answered, JDR. Remember, if you like the Iraq war, elect McCain and you will LOVE the war in Iran.

We could fund every social program known to man with the money we have squandered in Iraq.

I really feel sorry for the next President if he or she is Democrat. Can you just imagine trying to fix the mess the Bush administration has put us in??????

I am a former Republican who voted for Bush both times. What I have done though, is watch, listen and more importantly learn. It never ceases to amze me the people who still think Bush has done no wrong. My mother is one of those folks.

Those folks will follow the Republican party to the end of the earth. I won't.

I now, don't affiliate with ANY party. I am still one of the undecideds. But I am listening to Obama. I like where he stands on social issues, and opening the doors of communication with our enemies. You can't just not talk with the enemies. That will definitely land us in another war. It was Reagan after-all who opened up communication with the USSR- that evil socialist empire.

Add to that, I disliked McCain even when I was a Republican. I always thought he was a crybaby!

" It never ceases to amze me the people who still think Bush has done no wrong."

It never ceases to amaze me how people claim this, I've been accused of it many times in this blog. This despite my disdain for Bush policies on immigration and spending particularly. Perhaps your mom is different tony.

Last week the RNC called for donations and I told them no money until Republicans adopt conservative principles of limited govt. and spending and until they protect our borders. Alas this will likely never happen.

As for Obama, I'd rather have him than Hillary. He will likely win, and if he does it will be interesting to see how hope and change will run the country.

Take a good look at who is at these rallies for Hussein. It's very interesting. He has young, pre-puberty teens swooning to him like a rock star. Professional racists like Louis Farrakhan are pimping for him from the pulpit.
Listen to his rhetoric: 'Hope and change", "change and hope" "change we can believe in", "a new tomorrow", "yes we can".
Sounds more like a song than a platform.

He is an empty suit. But empty suits may very well elect him.

"...while the lowlifes are making sport of his name, suggesting he is unpatriotic, inferring that he is a Muslim and trying to drive a wedge between him and Jewish voters." by Bob Herbert of the New York Times.

you nailed it, Con....

gaytony,
I also voted for Bush for two terms and man what a mess we have now!!! The little man can hardly afford to live...I don't blame Bush for all of this mess, but a lot of it could have been handled better...(IMHO)
I will not vote for McCain...and I will not vote for Hillary...
Sad to say, but for the first time in my whole life of voting...I may not vote at all...We'll see as the political picture changes daily...

Can you really trust any of them? When a candidate is spending millions of dollars to get elected, do you think they are going to say things that will be a sure-fire nail in their coffins? Or are they going to say what they know the people want to hear?

I think Clinton would be more likely to stick to her campaign promises because she is and has been held to a higher standard than any of the men. Even political annalists, repub, demo and independents, have said the media is harder on Clinton than her male counterparts. They have said she gets the toughest questions and the least respect while giving the male candidates a pass. She, therefore, knows her feet will continue to be held to the fire by the male dominated political arena.

Before you deny this, Bishop, consider: "There have been 35 women in the United States Senate since the establishment of that body in 1789, meaning that out of the 1,895 Americans [1] who have served in the United States Senate since that time, 1.85 percent of all Senators have been female." and "Currently 16 women are serving in the US Senate (out of 100) and 74 in the US House of Representatives (out of the 435 positions)." and "83.7 percent of Congress is male while females make up 16.3 percent."

When the filing was done and candidates started campaigning, I said it would be a Clinton/Obama win, with Clinton being president. If Obama is the nomination, I hope he has the good sense to pick Clinton as his running mate. Both are smart, powerful, articulate people and would make a good team.

If you're saying that because women have been in the complete and utter minority as representatives, they are more likely to follow through on their promises. Well, that's a bunch of hogwash. Women are just as easily corrupted as anybody else. Further, you should recheck your facts. I believe you will find that far fewer Black people have been in the US Senate.

"To date, there have been five black United States senators. Hiram Revels was the first black senator, he represented Mississippi in 1870 and 1871 during Reconstruction. Blanche K. Bruce (also of Mississippi) was elected to the senate in 1875, he served until 1881 and was the first African-American to serve a full term in the United States Senate. Edward Brooke represented Massachusetts from 1967 to 1979. Carol Mosely-Braun became the first black woman to join the senate, serving for Illinois from 1993 to 1999. Barack Obama also represented the Illinois Senate, he was elected in 1997 and served until 2004."

Yvonne,

I agree that Hillary has a tougher go of it than Obama, but I do not think that it is because she is a woman and he is a man. It seems to me that Obama has replaced the Clintons as the media political darling. Their political record would indicate that their political positions are essentially the same with minor differences. The difference in the two as far as I can see is that Obama has some charisma, and Hillary has none. She tries hard to present herself as likable, but Hillary has too much of a track record to overcome. Let's face it, if it wasn't for older white women, she wouldn't have a base at all, as that is the only demographic in which she excels over Obama. The media is to blame for much of this as they have jumped on Obama's ban wagon. Sadly for Hillary, she is finding out what it is like to be treated like a Republican by the media. She made the mistake of running on her husband's political experience.

The other thing that is in play is that Bill and Hillary had a great run for many years, but it was based upon the Dems' love for Bill Clinton. Hillary benefited from her husband's political success. Now that she has to succeed on her own, she just doesn't have what it takes. Bill Clinton is not the Dem Alpha Male any longer. He has been replaced by Obama. Sorry.

Bishop,

I said nothing about Obama being black in this thread. The point I was making and you obviously chose to disregard was Obama and McCain are men and Hillary is a woman. Voters track record favors men over women in politics. A woman can't win. If she comes across strong and smart, she is abrasive. If she comes across sweet, she is a puss and not qualified to run a country.

America need to talk a lesson from GB. They have had several queens and a female PM. I can think of very few women as well thought of as Margaret Thatcher. That's because the good old boy network had nothing to do with her being put in that position. She was given the chance to excel.

BTW, black men were allowed to vote fifty years before the 19th Amendment gave women the right to vote. (Black men granted the right to vote in 1870 and women in 1920.)

ORR,

I agree Hillary is not as palatable as the new media darling to young people as to older adults. It is my opinion she has never been given a chance by the media. Most media sources are owned by Clear Channel, which backs the republican party and men. Even if Condi had decided to run, I doubt she would have received full support from CC.

The media does not represent most repubs in a negative light, just Bush. But then, he has earned every negative thing said about him.

I heard something that caught my ear:

Hillary is campaigning like is it a Job Interview
Obama is campaigning like is it a Date

"If Obama is the nomination, I hope he has the good sense to pick Clinton as his running mate."

I don't see it Yvonne. Obama is scorching the fruited plain by himself and has no need to drag Bill and Hillary back into the White House with him. It would be a huge mistake, as Bill & Hillary would be yapping at his heels over every decision including whether to place carnations or petunias on the dinner table when Ahmadinejad visits.

Obama would be smart to select a middle of the road to left leaning person for VP, preferably someone with foreign policy experience. Unfortunately for him McCain isn't available at the moment.

BTW good analysis JDR, hence the perpetual swooning at Obama speeches.

Yvonne said:
“I said nothing about Obama being black in this thread. The point I was making and you obviously chose to disregard was Obama and McCain are men and Hillary is a woman”

You’re correct, you never stated that. Please show me where I said you did. What you attempted to insinuate was that women are the smallest minority in Congress. This simply is not true.

Yvonne said:
“Voters track record favors men over women in politics. A woman can't win. If she comes across strong and smart, she is abrasive.”

According to the NY Times, women made up 54% of voters in the last presidential election. It sounds like you’re blaming men as to why we don’t currently have a female president. That really doesn’t make sense when the majority of people who voted in the last election were female.

Yvonne said:
“BTW, black men were allowed to vote fifty years before the 19th Amendment gave women the right to vote.”

That’s probably true on paper, but you need to review history. Black men were pretty much excluded from the vote because of Jim Crow laws and the “literacy” qualification. Black men who tried to vote were beaten, threatened with death, or lynched. In fact, Jim Crow laws were enforced up until 1965, 45 years after women were given the vote.

It's amazing to me how you can scream that most of Obama's votes are coming from racial motivation, but aren't even willing to admit that without the older female feminists, Hillary Clinton would have very few people supporting her.

I heard the other day that Hillary Clinton is the smartest woman in the world. Frankly, I consider that an insult to intelligent women everywhere.

"Most media sources are owned by Clear Channel, which backs the republican party and men."

Huh? Most media sources are owned by Clear Channel? Yes, they own many radio stations, and a good number of television stations. And, they do produce some of the most influential radio talk shows in the country, but "own most of the media"? Yvonne, I would like to see some supporting data to clarify and backup that statement. If that is true, why am I not seeing it in a daily basis? Your statement is overly broad, and you implied that most of the media backs the Republican party and men, and I just don't see that.

Clear Channel reported 2007 revenues of $6.82 billion.

Clear Channel Communications owns 9% of U.S. radio stations and represents 18% of the industry’s revenue.

Clear Channel Television owns or operates 51 stations nationwide, including 13 stations which are distributed as digital multicast stations. They serve in 25 markets from coast to coast.

Clear Channel and its joint venture partners operate more than 240 radio stations in Australia, Mexico and New Zealand programming 20 different formats with more than 17 million listeners weekly.

Clear Channel Outdoor (NYSE:CCO) is the world’s largest outdoor advertising company with close to one million displays in 49 countries across 5 continents. In the United States, the company ... has a presence in 49 of the top 50 Designated Market Areas

OBAMA = "OPEN BORDER" AMNESTY FOR ILLEGAL ALIENS

As citizens of North Carolina, we have a right to expect the federal government to enforce the laws regarding who may cross our borders. Border protection is for our security, to protect us against terrorism and to prevent illegal immigration. Border protection is also about national sovereignty; preserve our language, culture and way of life for future generations. The federal government’s disgraceful failure to do so has led to the immigration crisis we face.

The failure of the federal government has forced the citizens of North Carolina to pay for the welfare, housing, medical and school costs for a growing underclass of citizens who are unable to legally work. Our social safety nets and our quality of life are strained.

 There are over 300,000 illegal Hispanic immigrants living in North Carolina. That is 4% of the population of our state. We are now the eighth largest home for illegal Hispanic immigrants in the nation!

 The number of illegal Hispanic immigrants in North Carolina is expected to double - to 600,000 - by 2010, as a new wave of 17 million illegal Hispanic immigrants cross our borders.

Yet Senator Obama's Positions Have Been For "Amnesty"

Floor Statement of Senator Barack Obama on Immigration Reform, 04/03/06:

"We must allow undocumented immigrants to come out of the shadows and step on a path toward full participation in our society. In fact, I will not support any bill that does not provide this earned path to citizenship for the undocumented population."

Senator Obama's record:

1.When CNN asked Obama about immigration while he was in Texas on February 23rd:

•Not once did Obama mention the fact that illegal immigrants had broken the law;

•Not once did he say there was a national security component to the issue.

•Not once did he mention border fences, enforcing current immigration laws, or even tightening restrictions on visas.

•The closest he came to addressing these concerns of more moderate and conservative voters was saying "we could be a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants at the same time."

2. The USBC (United States Border Control, a watchdog group) rated the candidates based on their votes cast during their most recent term in either the US House or US Senate. Senator Barack Obama scored a (D); the only person to score lower was Governor Bill Richardson (F-).

Next, Bill Richardson's record (we'll let you know why it's important)

1. Voted Against The SECURE FENCE ACT OF 2006

2. Signed Into Law Driver Licenses For Illegal Immigrants

3 ."AMNESTY-CENTRIC:"
10/25/07: "We need comprehensive immigration reform in this country -- one that includes a path to legalization," Richardson said.

 "I don’t use that word (amnesty)-- no, no, no,' he said. Adam Nagourney claims that Bill Richardson sounds like a Republican because he doesn't use the word to describe his plan for letting illegals become citizens.

In late 2003, when he showed up at a rally for the "Immigrant Workers Freedom Ride" and told them, "¡Viva la raza! . . . Thank you for coming to Santa Fe. Know that New Mexico is your home. We will protect you. You have rights here."

Bill Richardson said construction of a fence along the Mexican border to block illegal immigration was "a terrible example of Washington's misguided policy, that it “gets in the way” of U.S. relations with Mexico.

In a speech at Georgetown University in December 2006, Richardson criticized criticized proposals by House Republicans for that called for deportation of illegal immigrants.

Why is Bill Richardson's career relevant? Because is the current top contender to serve as Obama's Vice President: Governor Richardson recently shocked the country by abandoning his long, successful relationship with the Clintons to endorse Obama. How did he pull off this coup? By offering Richards the one job he wanted: Vice President.

• Richardson brings geographic strength: New Mexico, although small, has been important in the last two presidential election cycles. A southwest governor challenges John McCain in his own backyard. Richardson helps Obama compete in Nevada and Colorado.

• Richardson also brings the experience to the ticket that Obama lacks. He has administrative experience as a two-term governor. He has foreign policy experience as UN Ambassador and earlier positions. His experience as Secretary of Energy will allow him to speak with authority about our energy problems including soaring gas prices. Very few Democrats have the resume of Bill Richardson, which even includes 14 years in Congress. He adds gravitas to the ticket. Read his impressive biography.

• But even more importantly, Bill Richardson brings a demographic that suffers Obama. Nobody wants to talk about it, but Hispanic voters are leery of Barack Obama. That is a phenomenon that is perhaps substantially about race, although Obama’s willingness to cozy up with South American dictators while slamming NAFTA plays some role as well. For whatever reason, Hispanics are not voting for Obama and he needs a much stronger showing among this important demographic group to have any chance of winning in November. Bill Richardson brings the Hispanic voters to Obama.

Rarely can a one man bring so much to a ticket. But what will an Obama/Richardson ticket bring to North Carolina?

OBAMA + RICHARDSON = "AMNESTY"

NC's Schools & Quality of Life = Home for Millions New Hispanics

Stop and really think of what an Obama Presidency will mean for the North Carolina quality of life we want to preserve.

MWILLIAMSNCS@YAHOO.COM