Big Dogs House

Is Hillary Toast?

Jan 5, 2008 Political

Fresh off her third place finish in the Iowa caucus, Hillary Clinton is trying to reinvent herself once again. She enjoyed a small lead in New Hampshire but that seems to have eroded according to the latest Rasmussen poll. B. Hussein Obama now leads Hillary Clinton by ten points with the primary only three days away. A lot will ride on tonight’s debate and I expect Hillary to go very negative. She will be attacking Obama all night long.

The attacks have already begun as the Clinton campaign sent out a mailer criticizing Obama on his abortion rights record. Hillary’s mailer claims that Obama did not take any stance on abortion issues where as she has been the champion of women’s right to choose. She has been trying to reinvent herself starting with claims of being the most experienced candidate (which must have been news to Dodd and Biden who have now bowed out) and then she went to the Obama play book and became the candidate of change. She has been talking about change but is surrounded by relics from her husband’s administration and those who helped him get elected. Not that she shouldn’t use talent she thinks is the best but it is hard to claim you are for change when your campaign rhetoric keeps returning to the days of yesteryear. Going back to the Clinton administration is not the best way to present a forward looking campaign.

Rush Limbaugh had an interesting article in his most recent newsletter where he took a bunch of Hillary’s (among others) quotes and showed how she will force people into health coverage, force pharmaceutical companies to lower prices and force oil companies to spend their money of R&D for non fossil fuels. Rush points out that this is the opposite of freedom and that the government should not be making these mandates. Hillary sounds like a Nazi. Interestingly, this silhouette photo (I think it is from AP) makes it look like Hillary is giving a Nazi salute.

Hillary is losing New Hampshire though things might change after the debate but the question is, is she toast? She lost Iowa, and she is behind in New Hampshire. Obama has been running an even campaign and he appears to be picking up momentum. A win in New Hampshire might be the death of Hillary though she, like Giuliani, might be looking to Florida to make a run. The candidate from each party who wins Florida will likely win the nomination. Super Tuesday is right after that and none of them have the money or resources to run ads in all the states participating in that event and it is physically impossible for them to be in all of the states at once. Hillary will probably send Bill to one state with a huge number of delegates while she campaigns in another but she must win Florida in order to compete. She also has to convince voters that Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton is a good thing…

This is going to be fun. She is melting down and I would love to see her explode. A few more losses might just do that.

Of course, she might turn things around and win. Then the real fun will begin.

Tags: Hillary Clinton, melt down, new hampshire, Obama, retool

Clinton and Bush in Joint Mortgage Plan

Dec 6, 2007 Political

There are about 1.8 million people who received foreclosure notices this year on homes they had no business buying. The people were attracted to buy homes that were too much for their budgets by lenders who offered no down payment loans and adjustable rate mortgages. The promise of future wealth from escalating home values was too much for some who bought into the lower rates never taking the time to consider what would happen if the market went south. The sub prime market is now rearing its ugly head as many more Americans will face foreclosure in the coming years.

But wait, George Bush and Hillary Clinton are riding to the rescue. The President put forth a plan today which was in the works when Clinton touted the very same ideas. Despite her claim that her plan is better and helps people in ways that the Bush plan does not, the fact is they are nearly identical and they are potential disasters for the economy. The government has no business getting involved in the affairs of private companies and the people with whom they have entered contracts. This is a matter that can and should be worked out between the parties in the contracts.

Bush and Clinton claim that no taxpayer money is involved but the plan offers financial counseling to people so the money to pay for that has to come from somewhere. Also, some people will be able to move into loans secured by the FHA which means that if they default, the taxpayer will get socked. This is an ill advised plan that is designed to help people who made poor decisions and there are no guarantees that this will not hurt the taxpayer. For instance, once the loan rates are frozen, one option under the plan, what procedures are in place to ensure that homeowners do not borrow against the equity in the house? People with financial problems (and anyone who opts into this has financial problems) are easily influenced to take out home equity loans to pay the bills. Those loans are secured with the home which, in some cases, will be secured with taxpayer money.

Sometimes people make bad choices and the unfortunate fact of life is that they must suffer the consequences of those choices. When people spend more than they can afford buying a car or racking up credit card debt there is no expectation that the federal government will swoop in to bail them out. Why then, do people expect the federal government to bail out those who got in over their heads when they purchased a house? There are solutions that can involve the government.

First, they can make some kind of uniform rules governing the sale of homes. I have bought two homes in my lifetime and the amount of paper and the number of times that one has to sign is staggering. I have read every item that I was signing and asked for clarification for anything I did not understand. I also understand that, as the song says, what goes up must come down. People should have some understanding that the cost of homes go up and down and that great markets do not last forever. They should also understand that an adjustable rate can adjust in both directions. The government can help by forcing mortgage companies to make the language on forms clearer and easier to understand.

Additionally, there should be some disclosure about how adjustable rates work and how increases can affect payments. Since home sales that require no down payment cause havoc and gain little equity, people should not be allowed to purchase homes under these terms unless credit history and financial statements show that the purchaser is able to absorb increases in interest rates.

These items will help people with future home purchases but what about those who are already in trouble? Mortgage companies should work this out without government intervention. The most reasonable thing would be for the companies to offer a fixed rate refinance at a reasonable cost. The cost could be included in the new loan so those with little cash on hand could refinance and have a fixed monthly rate upon which to plan.

In some cases, people are going to have to shop around and try to get a fixed rate mortgage and it might cost them money. This is the cost of making a bad business deal. If all else fails they could negotiate with the mortgage company for relief until they can sell the home and get something that they can afford.

Regardless of which path people take it should not be one lined with assistance from the government. There are too many problems associated with government intervention and the unintended consequences could be worse for the economy, the homeowners, and the mortgage companies.

If all else fails and people lose their homes, I understand the government has a bunch of trailers in New Orleans that are not being used. Also, Hillary’s involvement gives her opponents more proof that she is not very different from George Bush after all.

Source:
WBAL

Tags: george bush, Hillary Clinton, mortgage, poor choices, sub prime

Hostages Taken at Clinton NH Campaign HQ

Nov 30, 2007 Political

A man claiming to have a bomb strapped to him has taken control of Hillary Clinton’s campaign headquarters in New Hampshire. He has an unknown number of volunteers as hostages but has released a woman with a baby. The person is demanding to speak to Hillary Clinton who is in DC. She was scheduled to speak at the DNC Fall meeting but canceled her appearance.

I don’t know what this person hopes to accomplish but no matter how this ends it will not have a good outcome for him. We can only pray that the innocent people working there are not harmed.

There has been speculation that it is someone from the Free State Project but that is unlikely since those folks are usually pacifists. Perhaps it is a member of the media who is tired of the problems in accessing the candidate.

Maybe the guy is a Clinton plant in order to gin up sympathy and show she is a target because of her “experience.”

In any event, I pray the folks there are released unharmed and this guy gets the help he needs from behind jail cell bars.

Sources:
Fox
WMUR

UPDATE: The hostages have been released and the suspect is believed to be a local resident with mental health issues.

UPDATE 2: All of Clinton’s campaign offices in Iowa have been closed.

Others with similar items:
Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson’s Website, AZAMATTEROFACT, 123beta, Right Truth, Adam’s Blog, Cao’s Blog, Leaning Straight Up, The Bullwinkle Blog, The Amboy Times, Chuck Adkins, Pursuing Holiness, Adeline and Hazel, Nuke’s, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Allie is Wired, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, The World According to Carl, Pirate’s Cove, Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, CommonSenseAmerica, Right Voices, The Yankee Sailor, and Church and State, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Tags: bomb, campaign headquarters, dnc, Hillary Clinton, hostages, mental health issues, pacifists, wmur

President Bush’s Mugshot in NYC Library

Nov 30, 2007 Political

A NYC Public Library has mugshots on display as part of its “art” exhibits. These mugshots are phony pictures of President Bush and members (past and present) of his administration. The doctored photos are the work of two “artists” who obviously have a political axe to grind. I have no problem with people making this kind of stuff but I am a bit disturbed that it is on display in a taxpayer funded building.

I wonder if this library would put up pictures of Bill and Hillary Clinton in unfavorable displays, especially ones doctored by “artists”. I also wonder if an artist created a picture of Moses receiving the Ten Commandments or of Jesus in a manger would they be displayed and if they were would the ACLU demand they be removed?

This kind of “art” does not belong in a public library, it belongs in an art gallery. There appear to be no signs to indicate that they are fake, though most thinking people would have to know they are. However, there are children who use the library and these displays create a false image of our political leaders.

Libraries don’t like the idea that the feds can access computer logs to see what users have been doing and one library interfered when a credible threat was revealed but they don’t mind taking taxpayer money to stay open. Seems to me they could be a little more selective in what they display.

Source:
My Fox NY

Tags: art exhibits, bill and hillary, doctored photos, Hillary Clinton, jesus in a manger, mugshots, nyc public library, phony, political leaders, taxpayer money, ten commandments

Instead of Questions, Hillary Plants Questioner

Nov 28, 2007 Military, Political

The CNN/YouTube debate for the Republicans was held earlier this evening and I think it was a lively event. The problem with the event is that CNN allowed an activist who is a member of Hillary Clinton’s Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transsexual steering committee two minutes of talk time. It is absolutely true that CNN allowed a person affiliated with the campaign of a Democrat running for President to ask questions of the Republicans at the Republican debate. Not only was this gay retired Army general’s question one of the YouTube submissions selected but he was allowed to be in the audience and ask follow up questions. Before the LGBT community or the Democrats get their panties in a wad I want to make it clear that this person had a right to ask his question and he had a right to be at the event. However, CNN should have disclosed that this man was on a Hillary Clinton steering committee so that the public would know that he was not a Republican and that he was not unbiased.

I thought it was strange early on when someone asked a question and Anderson Cooper disclosed that the guy was in the audience and asked him if his question was answered. He gave a short answer and sat down. The only other person allowed to do that was the gay general. Now, it might be because he was the only other person to ask a question who attended the event. But it sure appears as if CNN had the first guy there so the second would not seem unusual. It also seemed strange to me that this guy asked why the candidates felt gays should not serve openly in the military and they gave their answers but when Cooper asked if he had been answered he said no and then went on a rant about his gayness and time in the service. It almost seems like it was set up that way.

As I stated, I have no problem with the question or the guy being there. I just feel that his affiliation should have been disclosed. This event makes it look like instead of planting the questions the Clinton campaign is now planting the people who ask them as well because the campaign had to know he was going to be there. CNN had to know who this guy was and it is no secret that he is connected to the Clinton campaign. The Gay general, Keith Kerr, is listed on her website as part of the steering committee and that they support her for president:

Members of LGBT AMERICANS FOR HILLARY [Keith Kerr is listed] have endorsed Hillary Clinton for President in their individual capacity. The names of past or present affiliations are included to assist in identifying the individuals listed and do not indicate any endorsement by that group or organization. HillaryClinton.com

There were well over 4000 questions submitted for the debate so it is unlikely that this guy was selected at random. His question was selected and he was present to show Republicans as people who hate gay people. I thought all the answers were pretty good. They told why they were opposed to gay people in the military. They did not say anything hateful but just that they felt it was not a good thing. The only one who tripped up on it is Romney who flipped from a previous position where he said he could not wait for the day when gays could serve openly in the military. This part of the debate is sure to rile up the gay brigade and have them out in hater mode tomorrow discussing how terrible the Republicans are. Don’t buy it, the answers were fine. People do not have to agree with that lifestyle and that does not make them hateful people. It just means they do not agree.

I wonder why it is that no Republican was at the Democratic YouTube debate to be selected for follow up. Can you imagine how Hillary would be in full conspiracy mode with the VRWC and black helicopters if a person on a Republican steering committee who had endorsed a Republican candidate was there and asked a question in an attempt to make the Democrats look bad? They would go nuts and Hillary, in particular, would be carping about the Republican attack machine. After all those years of being someone’s bitch in private tonight, this guy was Hillary’s bitch in public.

It does seem amazing that the Democrats did not have this happen to them but the Republicans did. Not too amazing because CNN (and they have some explaining to do) is the Clinton News Network but the Republicans allowed a Democratic operative, and a gay one at that, to come to their debate and ask a follow up question.

Who says Republicans are not inclusive?

Want to bet Hillary denies, claims ignorance or blames it on someone else? How about she says it is a coincidence?

UPDATE: Anderson Cooper says they did not know. I guess that means the gay general is unethical. But then again we knew that because if he served for 43 years he answered the “have you ever engaged in homosexual behavior” question and he had to put NO.

Big Dog salute to Webloggin and Stop the ACLU.

Others:
Liberty Pundit
Right Voices
Sister Toldjah
Michelle Malkin
Right Angles
Assorted Babble
TownHall Blog

Tags: anderson cooper, army general, clinton campaign, cnn, Democrats, gayness, Hillary Clinton, lesbian gay, lgbt community, Military, President, republican debate, Republicans, trans gender, youtube