Why I will never vote for Hillary Clinton

I will not vote for Hillary Clinton because she is a woman. I am not some sexist bastard. It is not because she does not have enough "experience." There are plenty of experienced women I would vote for. Senator Clinton is not one of them.

When I listen to Senator Clinton speak this is what I hear:

You know, we've got an economy that is increasingly interconnected with the global economy. It is shaped each day, not just by the billions of decisions that 300 million Americans make, but by billions more that are made around the world. TAKE OUT THE GARBAGE BEFORE YOU SIT YOUR FAT ASS DOWN IN THAT LAZY BOY. And something that now happens far away from Iowa can have a ripple effect that impacts the quality of life and the standard of living for Americans. PUT AWAY THE DISHES. Our economy in recent months has been the subject of increasing worry. CAN'T YOU DO ANYTHING RIGHT? We've got rising oil prices; we've got a deepening housing crisis; we have a falling dollar, in terms of its value; we have a ballooning national debt; and we have weakening consumer onfidence. STOP GETTING CRUMBS ALL OVER THE COUCH. So we understand that we've got real problems, but we see nothing happening under this president to address those problems. HEY, USE A BEER COASTER YOU MORON. Unfortunately, the president either doesn't see them or refuses to deal with them. DAMMIT! I TOLD YOU TO PICK UP YOUR UNDERWEAR! And the net effect of it all is that the economy is not working for middle-class families. IF YOU CAN'T PICK UP YOUR UNDERWEAR I AM GOING TO MAKE YOU WEAR THEM ON YOUR HEAD. Now, we all hope that the economy will remain resilient, and we know that, if we make the right choices, the American economy can, once again, create millions of jobs and lift up the middle class. YEAH, YOU HEARD RIGHT - MAKE YOU WEAR THEM ON YOUR HEAD IN FRONT OF YOUR FRIENDS! But instead of positive policies aimed at making that happen, we've had the opposite: reckless fiscal policies and a president with a tragic habit of ignoring problems until they become crises. MY MOTHER WAS RIGHT ABOUT YOU. The next president will be a steward of our economy at a time when the bills from eight years of neglect and mismanagement will be coming due. The next president will have to turn around our nation and our economy. I SHOULD HAVE LISTENED TO MY FRIENDS. YOU ARE SO STUPID.

And on and on it goes while she blathers on about some very important policy issues. She comes off as a super abusing nag. Now parts of the above excerpt were taken from an important speech on the economy Senator Clinton gave in Iowa on November 19, 2007. Of course, I missed the important parts because all I could hear was her constant nagging and the fact that when it comes to fiscal restraint she does not have a clue either. When have the democrats ever talked about fiscal restraint aside from the war in Iraq and defense spending?

That alone is probably not enough reason to not vote for her. Here is the second and probably more compelling reason not to vote for her: she has poor judgment. After nearly 8 years of poor judgment in the form of President Bush we do not need 4 to 8 more of someone else with poor judgment. Experience may matter, but judgment is more important. I am sure you want some examples to bolster my argument. I will give you two important ones: 1) her vote on the Iraq war and 2) her husband Bill Clinton.

She voted for the Iraq war. No matter how you cut she voted for it. Anyone with half a brain knew that we should not invade Iraq. Saddam was contained and posed no real threat. Anyone with any common sense knew what would happen when an iron fisted dictator was ousted and replaced with politically correct armed forces. Senator Clinton along with a number of other democrats and republicans voted for the war. That was bad judgment.

She remains married to a man that has cheated on her time and again. He even did it in the Oval Office. Sure, forgive and move on, but any normal woman would have left the cheating bastard. That she remains married to him after all that can only mean one thing: she cares more for attaining power than doing the right thing. That’s bad judgment. Former President Clinton did fairly well in his eight years despite some of his “distractions”. But this country does not need the distractions that he will likely bring to the White House for 4 to 8 years.

DO NOT VOTE FOR SENATOR HILLARY CLINTON. She and what she brings is no change. It is merely a continuation of the tired same-old-same-old.

Photo by KCThinker, stone archway in Goult, France, 2007

Does Anyone Care what Hollywood Thinks?

Steven Spielberg is endorsing Hillary Clinton for President of the United States.

By BETH FOUHY, Associated Press Writer Wed Jun 13, 10:49 AM ET:

NEW YORK - Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton has won the endorsement of film producer and director Steven Spielberg, ending a tug-of-war between Clinton and Barack Obama (news, bio, voting record) for the Hollywood heavyweight's affections.

“I've taken the time to familiarize myself with the impressive field of Democratic candidates and am convinced that Hillary Clinton is the most qualified candidate to lead us from her first day in the White House," Spielberg said Wednesday in a statement released by the Clinton campaign.

Spielberg has been a supporter and contributor to Clinton in the past, but his support for her presidential bid wasn't always certain. In February, he co-hosted a Beverly Hills fundraiser for Obama with his DreamWorks production partners David Geffen and Jeffrey Katzenberg that brought in more than $1.3 million. Katzenberg is backing Obama, as is Geffen, a former Clinton ally turned critic.

Spielberg has directed some of Hollywood's most admired films, including "Jaws," "E.T. The Extraterrestrial," "Jurassic Park," "Schindler's List" and "Saving Private Ryan."

Let me tell you, I was on pins and needles waiting to hear who Spielberg was going to endorse. It’s settled, now I have to vote for Hillary because E.T. is endorsing her.

Hollywood obviously thinks that their opinion matters that much that we should blindly vote for someone because they endorse them. Why the flip should I care what Steven Spielberg thinks or who he intends to vote for? He makes movies. He entertains us. His opinion, along with all the other entertainers, on political matters means nothing to me. Just make the freaking movies with the neat little special effects and let us do the thinking for ourselves. What a bunch of self-involved, ego-maniacs.

Do the research and decide for yourself. If you are someone who makes a decision on who to vote for based on an endorsement from a person or an organization you are a moron, in my humble opinion. If you need a helping hand from an actor, please do us all a favor and shot yourself, because you are a waste of skin.

Photo by KCThinker, Farm Equipment

Tax Hikes on You and Me Made Possible by the Ruling Elite

They know what is best for us. So they think. Why is it that the first thing politicians do when they propose a new program or policy is to assume that tax hikes are needed? Both Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Senator Barrack Obama (D-IL) have proposed programs and policies during their presidential campaign stops that will require additional spending. In order to pay for it they want to increase our taxes and take away tax cuts for businesses.

“Under a nine-point plan, Mrs. Clinton proposed to let President Bush's tax cuts for top earners expire, scrap subsidies for oil and gas companies, and require large oil companies to invest in alternative energy or pay into a national research fund. She also called for greater scrutiny of the salaries of chief executives. In a bid to keep jobs in America, she is pushing to eliminate an element of the tax code that allows companies to defer taxes on profits they earn overseas.

In ending what she called Mr. Bush's "irresponsible" tax cuts, the former first lady said she would revert to the tax rates for "upper-income Americans" during the 1990s. She did not specify an income cutoff, but a campaign spokesman said later that it would be $200,000.”

- The New York Sun, May 30, 2007

President Bush’s tax cuts were only irresponsible in that they did not come with spending restraints and cuts. Senator Clinton is just as guilty as President Bush in this regard. I have not heard the esteemed Senator proposing tax cuts or railing against the billions of dollars of pork in the spending bills she votes on. Don’t throw stones when you live in a glass house, Senator.

Once again the politicians show how clueless they really are by fostering a protectionist mentality. If they really understood the way the world works they would understand that we are in a global economy and in order to compete in a global economy companies need to make sure they keep their labor costs down. What they also fail to realize is that successful companies grow and hire people stateside. Protectionist attitudes to lock up the labor vote are shortsighted and harmful to the economic future of America.

“Presidential candidate Barack Obama’s plan for universal health care for all Americans require $50 billion to $65 billion in new revenue, according to estimates released this morning by his campaign.The campaign suggested tax increases for the wealthiest Americans may be the way Obama would pay for his plan. The campaign released estimates from the Urban/Brookings Tax Policy Center saying the money could be raised by restoring the top two personal income tax brackets and rates on dividends and capital gains to Clinton-era levels.”

- Des Moines Register, May 29, 2007

Now, I do not necessarily disagree with Mr. Obama’s plan. I do think we need some form of universal healthcare. Let’s face it; in a country supposedly as prosperous as America, there really should not be millions without health insurance. Here are the highlights as reported by the Des Moines Register:

• Obama will tell the crowd his plan would reduce the typical family’s health-insurance premiums by $2,500 a year.
• Businesses that don’t make a meaningful contribution to health coverage of their employees would do so by supporting the new plan.
• The government would pick up the tab for some of the most expensive illnesses and conditions, which would reduce costs for businesses.
• Much of the extra costs would come from savings in such things as health screenings and better management of chronic conditions that Obama has said can save the system billions of dollars.
• Increasing insurance industry competition and reducing underwriting costs and profits, which Obama’s campaign staff say will reduce insurance overhead.

I like these suggestions. The insurance industry is woefully inefficient (I suppose they look to the federal government for their business model.) What I disagree with his assertion that we need to increase taxes in order to pay for it.

It bothers me that these politicians automatically assume everything needs a tax increase. I think that the answer really lies in making government more efficient. They require it of their contractors (I know because as a government contractor they nickel and dime us on every project nowadays) maybe they should start looking in the mirror and at the bloated and inefficient way THEY do business. I am tired of funding this thoughtless government and its plethora of wasteful, duplicitous, and mostly needless programs.

One last thing…

Senator Clinton also said the following during a campaign stop in Manchester, New Hampshire:

"It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few, time to reject the idea of an ‘on your own' society and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity," she said. "I prefer a ‘we're all in it together' society."

- The New York Sun, May 30, 2007

Really Mrs. Clinton? You are for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few? We normal folk out here in fly over country have been saying that for years. It is you politicians in Washington, D.C. that refuse to listen. In order to make government more transparent and accessible to the American people we need term limits for our senators and representatives and meaningful campaign finance reform (not the type we have now that requires hundreds of millions to run for president). Senator Clinton, will you vote for term limits? Will you vote for comprehensive campaign finance reform? I doubt it. You are part of the system, so spare your lectures for the doped up dregs of our society. Your attitude of the socialist “we” without personal responsibility will further disintegrate this society. It is the “on your own” aspect of this country that has in part made it great. It seems to me like you are part of the problem not the solution. And like all problems, we hope they will go away and not turn into something worse like cancer.

Photo by KCThinker, Barbed Wire on Fence Post, Iowa