Sometimes the Underdog Wins

"Iran has rights too-it's just a bomb"

Come November, there will be two candidates running for president, maybe three, if you count Ron Paul as anything more than an inadvertent Obama supporter if he runs as an independent.  If Paul runs, Obama wins--unless the GOP pulls an upset.

One of those  presidential candidates is going to be an underdog. Republicans will say that Obama is the underdog because they believe he's going to lose. Democrats, of course, will say that the Republican candidate is the underdog, and both sides are going to hope you vote for the sure winner.  They will never call the opposition candidate an underdog, however, because where is it written that Americans do not like an underdog? On the contrary, we have always rooted for the underdog and will likely do the same come the election.

And I speak Manadarin

Jon Huntsman has now dropped out of the campaign, following in the footsteps of Michele Bachmann.  Herman Cain was forced out after his multiple alleged indiscretions, almost all with women having questionable circumstances, one who lived in the same building as David Axelrod, and others who definitely needed the publicity to make the money to bail them out of the aforementioned circumstances. Then we had Gary Johnson, who seems to have fallen off the face of the earth, but perhaps we'll hear from him when he decides to endorse a candidate, as Huntsman appears to have endorsed Mitt Romney.


Obama, I believe, is going to represent himself as the underdog, in spite of the liberals claiming that the election is in the bag.  When you have a billion dollars to use in smearing your opponent, that doesn't seem to make him an underdog. Yet this is how he's going to represent himself.  Poor POTUS.  It would be like the Greenbay Packers having represented themselves as underdogs in the game against the NY Giants.  It was New York who was the underdog and the underdog won.  Elections however, are not football games.

SEAL Team Leader

How will Obama be the underdog?  He will pull from his back pocket, the race card.  He might not actually be the one to mention it, but all the liberals will.  Holder already has done it, and now we need to wait for Michael-these-pants-must've-shrunk-Moore, to do the same. "If you don't vote for Obama, you're a racist."  That is such crap it's laughable, but some people will actually believe it.

If Michele Bachmann somehow got the nomination, and you voted for Obama, wouldn't that make you a sexist? If Keith Ellison ran on an opposition platform calling for Sharia to replace the Constitution, would you then be an Islamophobe if you didn't vote for him?  If Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Tx) ran in opposition to Obama, would that make you a moron-hating, sexist, if you voted for Obama?  Hardly.  Not voting for someone, anyone, does not define you as the opposite of what that person represents--it merely shows that you disagree with the politics of that individual.  You may be all the things they say about you, but it isn't a default position, and they have no right to say it.

Richard M. Nixon

 

Be clear--Obama is not an underdog because he will use all of his resources to discredit the Republican candidate.  He is not an underdog if Ron Paul chooses to stroke his 80 year old ego and run independently.  He is only an underdog if the left actually considers his record and lack of leadership, and how he can only win by playing the 'blame game,' because he has nothing to go on in terms of his accomplishments.  He deserves as much credit for killing bin Laden as Nixon deserves for walking on the moon.

Click here to sample Jihad Joe, a novel

Tweet

ABC or Anything But Conservative Debate of GOP Candidates Hoping to Make Obama Unemployed

Last night's debate on ABC was missing something but I can't remember what--wait--Jon Huntsman was missing, that's what. Wherever Jon was, galivanting around with his "I know better than anyone" smirk, he was not missed by the debaters, and was not mentioned by George "I-Kissed-Bill's-Bellybutton-Ring-Stephanoploulis nor by Diane-My-Throat-Needs-a-Lozenge-Sawyer. But in spite of Huntsman's absence, the debate still had a somewhat sucky feeling.

In referencing that sucky feeling, I refer to how Stephano (as his friend calls him) tried to get the others on the podiums to attack Newt-I-Did-Have-Sex-With-Those-Women-Gingrich.  It didn't work out as planned, since Mitt-I-Never-Farted-in-my-Life-Romney decided to attack Barack-Hope-and-Change-LOL-Obama instead. Mitt was wonderful and presidential, and for the first time in my adult life, I was proud of my Mormon.

The first question of the debate was from Sawyer, who asked: What is your distinguishing idea on how to create jobs, how long would it take, and specifically, how many jobs would your plan create, rounding up to the nearest hundred? Okay, that wasn't exactly how she asked it, but wanting to have an actual number was stupid, which only goes to prove my personal hypothesis: Diane Sawyer is stupid. 

This was the first debate since Newt's numbers surpassed the rest of the field and he answered Diane Sawyer's question first, discussing how lowering taxes and doing everything opposite to what Obama has been doing, would create jobs. He received a sitting ovation from Calista and several others in the audience at Drake University, and I like that he listened to his grandkids and actually smiled.  Mitt then got the Sawyer nod and he explained how we need to go after China like bulls in some kind of shop, which I can't recall. He was very presidential and controlled, and I liked his hair. Ron-Israel-Can-Take-a-Hike-Paul went next, making one syllable words into polysyllable words, and he talked about TARP, the US Constitution, and how he nearly froze his testicles off when speaking to Fox News the previous morning in Iowa. Well, he didn't actually talk about it, but I saw it myself when he was being interviewed. Rick-All-My-Taxes-Come-From-Texas Perry discussed his flat tax, and to be honest, he sounded like he finally got over his case of Alzheimer's. Michelle-I-Am-Conservative-Hear-Me-Pray-Bachmann's plan was to ensure that every American pay something in tax, and the 47% who pay nothing, can start shelling out too. I imagine she will lose about 47% of those independent voters who qualify for her plan. Finally, Rick-It-Hurts-When-I-Laugh-Santorum emphasized how increasing manufacturing, where "Made in the USA" takes a front seat in the roller coaster of American business, is most important, in spite of the fact that it's the last seat in the roller coaster that's the most fun.

Of course the panel could not keep themselves from asking the most important question of the debate: So how important is this fidelity thingy regarding one's qualifications for the Presidency of the United States of America? Like, is it okay to be unfaithful, have multiple marriages, and simultaneously be courting Donald Trump?


To his credit, Mitt didn't take the bait, and I believe that he was the big winner--and George Stephanopoulis was a master baiter.

Tweet

Debate Stardate 39583.4614

If you think Ron Paul made good points in last night's CNN debate about our national security, you might be a liberal, or if not a liberal, a Libertarian, or you might be an Idiot. I don't mean to sound redundant, but if you don't see the current danger with Iran's nuclear proliferation, you just might have serious denial problems. 

Overall, I think CNN (which is an acronym for "Certainly Not News") did a good job. Wolf Blitzer, who cannot speak an entire sentence without pausing for a breath, was reasonably good as a moderator--he didn't get anal about time, and unlike CBS, NBC, or ABC, he didn't ambush the debators. So I give CNN kudos for this one--I hope that this becomes a trend, but I doubt it.

One can understand why CNN allowed Ron Paul to speak on security issues for as long as they did.  Paul is the GOP foil to common sense when discussing security issues. Ron Paul believes that we have no right to intervene in the nuclear exploits of Iran, or any other nation for that matter, even when those exploits have been clearly undertaken to destroy Israel and eventually the United States. Paul says the Patriot Act goes against our civil liberties, in spite of the fact that Newt made the clear distinction between those Americans who are tried for criminal acts, versus terrorists who are at war with America. After hearing Paul's pacifistic arguments, it became clear that his ideas are good on paper, but not in the real world; not in a world where Islamic nations see Western nations as infidels who must be converted or killed in the name of Allah. 

The Constitution will be useless if there are no Americans to enjoy its tenets, and if we allow Iran to continue on its present course, that is exactly what will happen--Iran said so and I see no reason to not believe them. They want the Jews and Christians dead because their 'holy book' calls for death to the infidels.

Did Jon Huntsman impress you in this debate? He impressed me, mostly as an arrogant liberal RINO. Like Obama, Huntsman says nothing better than anyone else. He almost never answers the actual questions he is asked.  On Greta Susteren, Martha MacCallum, (who was filling in for Greta), asked him how he felt  about those who are campaigning that have little or no experience (read Herman Cain), with foreign affairs. In answer to the question, Huntsman spoke about the glory of America and yadda yadda, and hit his talking points like the martian he appears to be. Even Martha tried to get him to focus on her question, but Huntsman, ever the politician, skirted it with the adroitness of a ballerina.Thus, one can be certain that a vote for Huntsman is a vote for something, I suppose, but maybe not.

The only problem Newt had in the debate was with his response about immigration. He seems to have softened on the idea of deporting illegal aliens, and his reasoning, while rational, will not bode well for him in Iowa where they are tough on those who enter our country illegally. Newt was being humane but sounded too liberal to those on the right who are fed up with having their tax money go to programs sponsoring these people. I think Newt was trying to appeal to the greater majority and to the notion that deporting millions of illegal aliens isn't practical, and this is the only area where I generally agree with Ron Paul., who feels that if you take away all of their benefits and employment opportunities, they will leave on their own. Call it the Field of Dream Acts gone home.  But everything else about Paul rubs me the wrong way--even the way he stands at the podium, like a boy who just had his lunch money taken from him by Rick Perry. He definitely has his fans in the audience-and by fans, I mean fanatics--they cheer on his every word like he was a rock star. For me, I suspect there's a reason he's no longer practicing medicine, and that is probably a good thing to those who might have used him as a physician.


Herman Cain sounded like someone who was briefed about foreign policy but cut the class a little too early in the semester. He appeared to run out of knowledge too quickly, and tended to repeat himself on issues. You can't cram for president, I believe. But Herman remains likeable and this is more important to those of us who know little about current events and more about lunch and recess. Pizza for lunch is always welcome.


Mitt was, well, Mitt. His answers were relevant and conservative, although he has conservatives worried that if elected, he might teeter to the left.  I like that he is clear in his stand on seeing Israel as an ally, and how we cannot be friends with our foes and foes with our friends. I appreciate how Mitt seems clear about going against the current presidential policy of being a jerk to Israel and buddies to Islamic theocracies that oppress everything from women to gays. Well, they don't actually oppress gays, they just kill them. He is also quite clear about intervening with Iran if they get a nuclear weapon.


Rick Santorum always sounds okay but looks like Dudley Dooright with intestinal cramps. He always seems to strain with every question and labor with every response. He will never get elected and neither will Jon Huntsman, who, I might add, speaks Chinese (how inscrutable).

So, who won the debate? Who knows?  It's up to the majority of us who saw it. For me, I like Newt, and I don't care that he has a sordid past. A president isn't a Sunday School teacher, although you wouldn't know that if you came from Mars, like Huntsman. I also like Bachmann because she knows a thing or two about defense, spending for defense, and the purpose for our foreign aid to Pakistan and others. I don't fully disagree with Perry who would cut all money to Pakistan, because we do use them for intelligence to some degree. But giving foreign aid to China and Russia is unconscienable, and probably something Ron Paul would do out of the kindness of his heart .  .  .  if he only had a brain.

Tweet