Caroline Smith for Senate

Let's say there is a woman named Caroline Smith who wants Hillary Clinton's senate seat. She has never run for any public office and, as far as I know, even held a real job. No, I don't count being on boards of charities. Those are like political appointments.. She did write a book about the Constitution, she's good with socialite parties and is a lawyer, though not licensed. She kind of let that go for several years though I hear she's going to pay her dues this year.

My point is, that if Caroline Smith had the same qualifications that Caroline Kennedy has, Caroline Smith would have no chance of getting this seat. None. Zero. Zilch. Nada. I'm tired of hearing "Think of her DNA" as an excuse to vote for someone who doesn't even think enough of her state to vote in a regular election, much less represent that state

So the same crowd who was hissing at Sarah Palin, who owned her own business for years, was a City Councilman, Mayor and then Governor of her state are giving us....Caroline Kennedy???

Oh, and I love the rumors about Chelsea Clinton who is like Caroline Kennedy but constitutionally too young for the position, even though some people don't quite care about a little thing like the Constitution.

C'mon, Democrats, show some backbone. If your principles allowed you to maul Sarah Palin, then those principles should not allow Caroline Kennedy to seriously ask the question.

There's Something Here...

I've been watching several of Penn Jillette's YouTube posts and I've got to say, I admire the man. Sure, we disagree on several issues, but there's a respect there for differing opinion and you can't help but admire that. Any politician would be wise to adopt that stance, not making their campaign about hating the other guy/party but to present the issues.

No, that's not Pollyanna thinking.

The American people aren't stupid. We know when a politician is trying to play us. If they are on our side, we agree with the negative attacks against "the other guy/party" but any attacks directed against us are automatically defended. So far from actually moving anyone, they merely cement a person's beliefs.

Let's be honest; today's politicians are about polling before they respond. Why can't a politician stand on what they believe, what they know in their heart to be the right thing to do?


Fear that if they do, the opponent will twist their words to mean something they don't. We need politicians who can rise above party and run on ideology. If you want my vote, be honest with me and let me decide if I want to vote for you, not your polling group or marketing director.

Don't insult me. Lead me.

A Further Note

The more I think about my last post, the more I am puzzled by the Left's logic when it comes to free speech. Think about it; when you break it down, religion is just one type of philosophy, but it is the only specifically named philosophy protected by the Constitution. For that to somehow mean that it has fewer protections than any other philosophy is illogical.

A teacher in school who promotes a secular philosophy is given all kinds of protections to promote their viewpoint. Okay, that's fine; they have freedom of speech. I get that. My question is how then can they be restricted just because the philosophy in question is religious? Teachers have the same freedom of speech that the secularist enjoys as well as the specifically stated freedom of religion.

The only answer I have ever heard is that by allowing religious viewpoints, it somehow possibly demeans a minority viewpoint that is not religious; that it violates a "right not to be offended". But this answer doesn't make sense. The Pro-Choice crowd is always screaming how their viewpoint is the majority, so why don't they advocate censoring the Pro-Choice viewpoint to avoid offending someone with a Pro-Life viewpoint?

And if it is a matter of a mythical "freedom not to be offended" then how come this right is only exercised against the freedom of religion? That is, why isn't it invoked with it comes to freedom of speech, or press, or assembly?

For too long the Left has taken the good intentions of the American people and tied them with their own noose. The American people don't mind allowing divergent viewpoints; in fact, we thrive on them. But to use that as a basis to censor the majority runs specifically counter to the American way of life. More on this later; I'm not through with this topic yet.

Federal Funding and Speech Rights

I wonder how Planned Parenthood can officially support a political candidate while receiving tax dollars but somehow churches can't...

Election Aftermatch

This election didn't work out the way I wanted to, but there are still benefits of an Obama win. For instance, some people who have been disenfranchised from being a "full" American now say they feel like they belong for the first time. Whoopi Goldberg (who I am not a fan of except for her appearances on Star Trek) said that now she feels like she can unpack her bags and that's a good thing.

Never mind that the Democrat Party feeds black people a message of victimhood; if now they can now put themselves in step with every other American, then something good is happening.

Welcome to America.

One word of questioning hope; can you now consider yourselves full Americans, not just "African Americans"?

After the loss, I reflected on what I thought, the good and the bad. I asked myself if I really believed in "Country First" and if I meant what I said when I asked Democrats to call George Bush their President. If what you say is right, then it is right, which is why I will refer to Barack Obama as my President and I ask all Americans, including my conservative friends to do the same.

That doesn't mean I will silence myself in opposition; it just means that when I disagree with Mr. Obama I will be as respectful to him as I was when I opposed President Bush on an issue.

Hindsight is 20/20 but foresight is better.