2008 Elections

Give the Money Back or Give It to Charity

This had to hurt. The Clinton campaign has given up a large chunk of money back to donors linked to a convicted fraudster. 30 years ago, this probably would have been brushed under the rug, but thanks to such a reactive and pervasive media system, everyone knew about the issue overnight. In doing a little research on this, it is interesting to learn that Mitt Romney also has connections to campaign fundraisers who have been charged with fraud, but its thanks to that same “balanced” media engine that the word didn’t get spread. Here is my source for this information: http://mediamatters.org/items/200709010002

Personally, I believe that Mitt Romney is an upstanding guy, but I’m not so sure about Hilary. I’m impressed with them both for their amazing accomplishments, but in many ways both of the Clintons seem to too calm, cool, and collected for me to believe its not contrived. Mitt on the other hand, while he does a good job in presenting himself as a clean, cut, responsible individual, occasionally puts his foot in his mouth when trying to say the right thing. (See Romney’s speech in NH about health care.)

I do have my complaints about Romney. Here in Massachusetts, our state transit system is a serious mess, and the big dig project which occurred under his watch is still chock full of problems. Granted, he fought tooth and nail with the Mass Turnpike Authority who in my admittedly uninformed opinion is more responsible for the big dig problems. To be more specific, my complain about Romney is that he left his post during his second term to prepare for his current run for office.

Comment:
I have been following presidential campaigns since 1968 with Nixon/Humphrey. The one thing that bothers me most about Hillary is that she is, as most democrats are, purely opportunist in the extreme. Career politicians in general, and Hillary in particular, will say, spin, do, promote, and morph any issue that will get elected or stay in office even by lying, cheating, or stealing, or sacrificing the good for the bad. They, and she, will say whatever it takes to achieve mass appeal no matter what side of the argument needs to be taken. The Clintons have this down to a science. Move-on is just one small example - and is most certainly an extension of the Clinton campaign. The Clintons have never held a real jobs in real businesses with real accountability. They are career politicians and they are, I believe, fundamentally unprincipled people. Hillary moved to NY and ran for US senator for one reason: to legitimize a run for President. It had nothing to do with improving New York. Nobody ever hears about the great things she did as senator. There are none. In elections, Americans can be so easily swept up in emotion and star power that they dispense with all logic. In a presidential election this is bad news for our society. I believe Hillary would sell out her own mother if it gave her the presidency. She would cozy up to, and make deals with, crooks and the empty-headed Hollywood elite to further her personal ambitions. Hillary (and Bill) are carefully planning to create a massive middle class entitlement program (socialist-style state) that will, they hope, be ultimately nonreversable because it will be a huge government grab bag that nobody can do without. This will solidify the Democrat’s voting base for decades to come, especially with the growth of latino immigrants (legal and illegal). Again, it’s all about the power of mass appeal. If murderers and rapists were a voting block, Hilary would find out what appeals to them and stake the necessary position. On career politicians in general: WE NEED TERM LIMITS. This will thwart the opportunistic political dynasties and career hacks like Kennedy and Byrd. It will encourage real experienced professionals to seek office - they way the framers intended. Rudy is the best candidate - a real experienced problem solver, not a political opportunist. Unfortunately most Americans are not mature enough to realize it.

from John
Comment:
So really it was Mitt’s perceived desertion of his duties that undermined his popularity in MA, more than his record in office…very interesting, thanks.

from David McCulloch
Comment:
Hi David, thanks for commenting. My feelings about Mitt’s chance for re-election were soured by his focus on running for president instead of doing his job here. Most people I’ve spoken with here (I’m a resident of Massachusetts) liked him a lot but felt if he was going to spend so much time preparing for the 08 election, he shouldn’t have been in office. The problem was people didn’t think that Lt. Governor Kerry Healey did as good of as job as he did, and that’s why when she ran for governor, Patrick won. If he had planned on running for office again, he probably wouldn’t have “taken his eye off the ball” and might have gotten re-elected.

from admin
Comment:
I have no agenda in asking this, but if Mitt Romney is such a fine upstanding guy, why is that the electorate of Massachussets (almost certainly) wouldn’t have voted him back in to office if he’d stood for re-election as Governor. Hillary has managed to get re-elected, despite being ‘polarizing’. Any thoughts?

from David McCulloch

Posted by AL