American Elephants


John Edwards to Testify About Sex Tape by American Elephant

Remember when John Edwards was the darling of the Democrat party and the Edwards endorsement was the biggest coup of the entire primary campaign?

One of the greatest leaders we have in the Democratic party, please give it up for my friend, John Edwards!” ~ Barack Obama, 2008

I wonder why we don’t hear Obama talk much about his good friend John Edwards anymore?

Not so much “guilt by association”, as “by their friends shall ye know them”. And damn, if Barack Obama doesn’t have the sleaziest, most corrupt, most radical, anti-American group of friends of anyone I’ve ever seen, let alone any president.

I think it’s important hat we keep reminding people of this fact. Especially now that disillusioned Americans are increasingly realizing they haven’t been told the truth.



So Will Democrats Finally Take the Kerry/Edwards Stickers Off Their Cars? by American Elephant

…just because Edwards has been caught cheating on his dying wife while running for president? Doubtful. This actually bodes well for his status within the Democrat party. So, I guess Edwards isn’t gay after all.

Apparently, in liberal land, lying about an affair is actually being honest:

“But being 99% honest is no longer enough.”

Oh, man, he’s actually playing the victim:

If you want to beat me up – feel free. You cannot beat me up more than I have already beaten up myself. I have been stripped bare and will now work with everything I have to help my family and others who need my help.

and he is apparently still hoping to speak at the convention.

Elizabeth Edwards, meanwhile, has released a statement to, of all places, the loathsome Daily Kos. Where most of the commenters are very supportive of her and her husband. Some even calling for him to run in 2012! A few are angry that both she and John lied to them and risked their political chances. Bothered about his deplorable lack of character? Cheating on his wife? Not so much.

Just when I should be feeling sorry for her, Elizabeth Edwards reminds me, by turning to the most hateful site on the internet, of all the truly hateful vile things she has said and done regarding Republicans. Remember when she suggested the Cheney’s were ashamed of their daughter Mary because she is gay after her husband and John Kerry tried to make a political issue out of Mary? The same daughter they campaign with, and appear proudly on stage with?

Ugh. What a mess those people are. God help them.

(By the way, I searched the Obama site, and it appears the above graphic and all official references to Edwards endorsement have disappeared down the “O” hole. Another one under the bus. Imagine that!)



So Why Do You Want to Be President, Anyway? by The Elephant's Child

Haven’t you often wondered just what it is that impels a person to seek the office of President of the United States?  Admit it.  You have looked at one candidate or another and snickered and wondered “what were they thinking?”

There is ambition, of course, and we can all identify the candidates with burning ambition.  But what makes them think that they are up to the challenge? Do they want to do, or do they want to be?  Hillary claims vast experience, since she lived in the White House with the President — which is about as plausible as a wife replacing a retiring C.E.O.  It may have been interesting and fascinating, but it wasn’t experience, at least as we usually define experience.

John Edwards had one term in the Senate, and one campaign for Vice President, and apparently fell in love with his ‘two Americas’ theme.  Barack Obama was in the Illinois State Senate, but no sooner did he take his seat in the Senate than he began campaigning to be President, and hasn’t been in Washington much since.  Thin resumes indeed. 

 Occasionally a candidate will be selected by a group of others who seek him out and urge him to run.  But every one of the current candidates on both sides is self-selected.  This, I think, makes our job of learning about a candidate harder.  Why do they want to be President, and why should we agree?

Here’s how I think you do it.  First, go to a candidate’s website, print out what you can find under ‘Issues’ or some equivalent title, and go over it with a fine tooth comb.  Make notes.  Do they seem to know what they are talking about, or are they just pandering — promising to give you stuff if you vote for them?  Do they have a grasp of the current problems in foreign affairs?  Do they understand the current threats to the security of the United States?  This, after all, is the primary job of the President.  Do they have a clue about economics?  They can ask Congress to pass laws to accomplish other items on their to-do list, but Congress doesn’t have to agree, and probably won’t. 

Second, look carefully at who the candidate has selected as advisers.  Do these people have good resumes on their own?  Obama, for example, speaks of hope and change and unity, yet his advisers are from the Carter Administration and advised what many consider the worst presidency in history. 

Third.  Pay far less attention to the candidate’s looks, what they say on the stump (after a while they all turn into demagogues, promising goodies and avoiding the really serious questions). 

If I had my choice, I would do away with the debates.  It’s silly, waiting for someone to sweat, or get angry, or trip over his own tongue.  I’d like to see a relaxed conversation about the state of the country and the world with all the candidates and an interesting, scrupulously non-partisan host, rather than a Sunday show host who is trying to get the candidates to embarrass themselves.  No stage and lecterns, but comfortable seats around a table.  I want to get to know the candidates, not trick them into saying something they didn’t intend.  Much of the mischief on the campaign trail is committed by the media — who are ever ready to pounce on anything that might make a more interesting story.

How would you  prefer to choose a candidate?  Are you satisfied with the way we do it now?



Democrats’ Iraq Disaster by American Elephant

Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi

Democrats oppose the war in Iraq. We all know that…now.

They were for it — when it was going well — when it was popular. But when the going got tough, as it always does in war, Democrats saw an opportunity — Democrats got going.

They campaigned in ’06 promising to change direction in Iraq. They refused to say what that new direction would be, but when they won, they nevertheless claimed a mandate to pull out of Iraq.

The problem that has arisen for Democrats since then is that America has changed course in Iraq — things have gotten dramatically better on the ground, Iraqis are joining with America to fight terrorists and insurgents alike, Iraqis who had fled are returning in droves, and violence of all kinds has dropped exponentially.

In other words, thanks to President Bush and General Petraeus, the man Democrats smeared as a liar and betrayer of the nation, we are winning! And Democrats have fought that victory kicking and screaming every step of the way.

Now the Democrats are pinning all their hopes on the heretofore “lack of political reconciliation” in Iraq. (This from the party that has blocked desperately needed energy policy, social security, healthcare and other reforms for seven years.)  But the idea that America should leave an increasingly peaceful Iraq to descend into chaos, dragging the greater middle east with it because Iraqi politicians are guilty of being not even as viciously partisan as Democrats, will never fly with the American people. Nor should it.

I have little doubt now that Iraqi leaders will work out their differences. Not simply because reports suggest that that is precisely what is going on behind the scenes, but because they must. The Iraqi people have shown by joining the fight, that they will not accept anything less.

The fact is that Democrats have completely boxed themselves in.

They have proven with their opportunistic vacillating that they are unfit to command the nation’s defenses. National security requires strength and resolve. Democrats have exposed themselves as weak and untrustworthy.

They long ago declared the increasingly successful war, “lost”. They have since done nearly everything in their power to bring about that result. They branded the highly successful surge a “failure”.

President Bush and Republicans are on the way to turning an avowed enemy of the United States with the capability to produce and disperse WMD into a moderate democracy and ally to America.

Democrats will never be able to claim any responsibility for success in Iraq — they are long past the point of no return on that flip-flop. And most importantly, the American people will hold them responsible for trying their best to scuttle it.

“Kharma” is coming for the Democrats, and it’s not happy.



So Much for THAT Narrative! by American Elephant

Hillary Clinton

Those rascally reporters in the “mainstream” media have been working double-time to convince us for over a year now that ’08 is a lock — you may as well stay home, because Americans hate Republicans and will never, ever, ever elect one ever, ever again!

Many Republicans were even falling for it.

Not so fast.

Forget for a moment that the top Democrat candidates are all completely inexperienced, unqualified boobs. Forget also that their current front-runner has a track-record of corruption ten times the length of her resume. And remember that the media always tell us the election is the Democrat’s to lose. Both Al-Gore and John Heinz-Kerry were at one point or another inevitable victors according to the liberal media.

But wishful thinking is no substitute for factual reporting no matter how much the beltway propaganda-slingers wish it were so.

The conventional wisdom is horse-hockey.

The latest Zogby poll shows her thighness, Hillary Rodham, losing to all top 5 Republican contenders. Not just Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney, but John McCain, Fred Thompson and even Nanny Huckabee.

The more Americans see the Democrat party, the less they like what they see.

I have been saying for some time now that Democrats will not nominate Hillary. I have suspected that they will panic, decide she is unelectable, and throw her under the proverbial, unionized, bus. This poll, I think, makes that possibility more likely.



Democrats Push to Destroy Healthcare to Secure More Power for Themselves by American Elephant

Hillary Clinton

At the very same time every single Democrat presidential candidate is pushing for socialized healthcare, and at the very same time the incompetent Democrat congress is lying to Americans about SCHIPS (and forcing 12 year old kids to lie for them in their weekly national radio address)  in a back-door push for socialized medicine, the British are rushing to privatize their failing socialist healthcare system.

And who are they turning to? The very private American healthcare companies that Democrat policies will destroy:

Britain’s highly-troubled National Health Care system is turning to the private sector for help.

As reported by the National Underwriter, a U.S. insurance publication,

A U.K agency has included U.S. health insurers in the pool of companies that can help administer National Health Service coverage.England’s new “Framework for Procuring External Support for Commissioners,” a kind of buying club for government-owned regional health plans, has chosen European units of at least 3 U.S. health insurers to join the initial pool of suppliers.

The units are subsidiaries of Aetna Inc., Hartford; Humana Inc., Louisville, Ky.; and UnitedHealth Group Inc., Minnetonka, Minn.

The United Kingdom is trying to improve the National Health Service, the agency that provides health coverage in England, by creating a system of regional “primary care trusts.”

The PCTs will be buying developing health plans to meet the needs of local residents and buying health care from the care providers.

Aetna, Humana and UnitedHealth will join with 11 other U.S. and European companies in marketing their services to the PCTs through the “framework,” or “FESC,” the companies say. [read more]



Sorry Lefties, get it through your tinfoil covered empty heads: Democrats aren’t going to pull out either by American Elephant

Democrats Backtrack

Just a few short weeks ago the Democratic presidential candidates were falling over one another to be the one to pledge to pull the troops out of Iraq soonest.

How quickly the spineless, poll-driven weasels change their spots!

Now, just days after polls show the American people gave great credence to General Petraeus’ report and overwhelmingly disapproved of MoveOn’s sleazy gutter politics, all the front-runners are refusing to commit to pulling out the troops even by the end of their potential first terms, in 2013!

The leading Democratic White House hopefuls conceded Wednesday night they cannot guarantee to pull all U.S. combat troops from Iraq by the end of the next presidential term in 2013.

“I think it’s hard to project four years from now,” said Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois in the opening moments of a campaign debate in the nation’s first primary state.

“It is very difficult to know what we’re going to be inheriting,” added Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.

“I cannot make that commitment,” said former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina.

Yet another flip in a long, well-documented line of flops.

Better start looking for a third party candidate lefties! Because any candidate with any semblance of responsibility is going to do just exactly what Bush has already laid out as United States policy in Iraq. And even Democrats, who have shown they have no sense of responsibility whatsoever, aren’t going to pull out of Iraq, out of sheer self-interest, lest they be forever associated with defeat.




Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 6,697 other followers

%d bloggers like this: