When you have information like this, it's time to dust off the blog.
Word on the street is Jeff Frederick has until roughly the middle of next week. This rumor may have been helped along via Congressman Eric Cantor's big breakfast fundraiser this morning.
As for the breakfast, Cantor hosted Meg Whitman, former President and CEO of eBay. Now Whitman is vying for the California GOP's nomination to run as governor. Have a look-see: http://www.megwhitman.com/
We all do it – we’re looking for a candidate’s campaign website so we test the given: their name, and .com. Often it isn’t that simple for that person has taken to a different style such candidateforcongress.com or candidate2008.com. In looking for Andrea Miller’s campaign site, which I had previously visited with no attention given to the URL, I erred with AndreaMiller.com, so I resorted to searching for her site. Simple task, quick result, not what I had expected. AndreaMiller.us – a domain typically reserved for government entities (though the public is not barred from it). It may seem such a small detail to many, but I see it as indicative of something greater. Andrea Miller must thing very highly of herself. Heck, one breeze through her photo album and you’d think she were obsessed with herself.
So let’s skim through Miller’s site and see what we’ve got.
Healthcare
This member of the far left wastes no time in chiming in with one of the liberals’ favorite catchphrases “healthcare crisis.” I suppose it’s equivocal to the “mortgage crisis” that we don’t have either. She makes the dashing claim that “quality healthcare must be available to all Americans as a simple matter of justice and human rights.” Let me get this straight – if the government doesn’t provideeveryone with healthcare, it is both unjust and inhumane? For starters, if the government providing you with rights doesn’t scare you, nothing will. Secondly, if you’re looking for a big fluffy government that you can wrap your arms around, grab your tie-dyed shirt and move back to the 70’s.
Under Miller’s plan:
The federal government (via your wallet) will afford everyone prescription drugs.
Drug addicts will have their rehab paid for, again from your wallet.
You will pay for my visit to the dentist.
More of your medical decisions will be shaped by more government regulations.
Oh, and if I feel like getting acupuncture, that goes on the taxpayer bill, too.
Miller also wants to place more emphasis on prevention. I figure she’ll go after the evil fast food industry that shoves burgers down our kids’ throats and makes them obese. How dare they! While she’s at it, she could pay for my gas bill. After all, if I can’t stay warm in the winter, I’ll get sick! How’s that for prevention?
Education
If her healthcare plan didn’t seem socialist, wait until you hear this.
Miller, like every other liberal, wants to throw more money at a failing public education system. Not only that, she wants to expand that coverage to a universal pre-k program to children as young as three. Don’t worry, she’s not leaving us college students out; she wants us to be tuition free as well!
She also has a plan to give free (aka paid by you and I) lunch to those in need. She may be on to something with this one – I hated school but I love to eat!
Economy
Well, it’s tough to determine just where Andrea Miller stands on economic issues, considering she’s written nothing of her own accord on the subject, except for a short reference to this silly kindergarten video (both in the manner it presents itself, and the means by which it comes to its conclusion).
From what I gather, she at least supports extending unemployment benefits. That’s good, considering the rising unemployment due largely in part to the Democrat Congress repeatedly raising the minimum wage.
War
I omitted Iraq in the title of this section because Andrea Miller’s doesn’t reserve her opposition to war for one instance; she opposes war altogether (if you didn’t yet realize she is a member of the far left, it should hit you now). It boggles the mind, then, to think of her staunch support of Barack Obama who has, on several occasions, advocated for an increase in troop levels in Afghanistan. I suppose she’s just another politician with no true principles.
She calls the Iraq War instead the Iraq Occupation and goes so far as to say that “war is a weapon of mass destruction, that is the sole purpose of war.” Then, in keeping with her tradition for not speaking on her own behalf, she let’s, guess who, Ron Paul do the talking for her. The kook left meets the kook right.
Energy
No surprise here, but she offers no comprehensive plan for energy, just mere rhetoric. She does make it clear, however, that she falls in line with Barack Obama’s sentiment that we need to plainly reduce our energy consumption. Turn down your heat this winter!
It’d like to take the time to point out Congressman Randy Forbes’ New Manhattan Project. The congressman went on CNN to introduce his plan to the masses:
Andrea Miller is just another socialist member of the fringe left that is running as an Obama surrogate in Virginia. Her campaign has no substance, and no support. In a shameless display of desperation, she has attempted to link herself with Barack Obama on countless occasions, and ride the wave of his success.
I was browsing through the Issues portion of the Virginia Democrats' latest flop of a candidate for the 4th district, when I read the following paragraph:
I attended a private, Catholic, all-girls school in an upper middle-class Midwest suburb; my parents selected the school because it was one of the top National Merit Scholarship "factories" in the state and most of the school's graduates went on to top private colleges. During my junior year, six of my classmates became pregnant; six of my classmates-all with parental assistance-terminated their pregnancies. I am positive that before their daughters became pregnant at 16, all of those parents would have stated emphatically that they were against abortion and that there were many other options available. However, when faced with the life-altering situations that teen pregnancy brings, every one opted out. For my former classmates and their parents, it was a choice: finish school, go to college, marry well, achieve financial stability and then start a family.
I placed emphasis on the latter portion because it is the very point for which the entire article should have revolved: make that choice first. But in keeping with the typical liberal ideology on copping out of bad decision, Andrea Miller seeks to play on the emotions of sympathetic parents wishing merely the best for their kids. Does Miller not also see getting pregnant the initial choice, and one that cannot be undone? Should those girls not have "opted out" of the pregnancy before they created a new life?
Therein lies the difference between the pro-life and the pro-choice crowds: the view of responsibility for your actions, and the weight of choice.
Time and time again I hear people say that it's a bad year to be running as a Republican. No doubt that's true. When one hears 'Republican' they often think primarily of the Iraq war, or even solely. Many members of the GOP running in 2008 seek to distance themselves from the policies of George Bush and the unpopular war for sake of losing power. Not only is this a crude disservice to the war effort, for which the tide has actually turned in our favor, it is counterproductive and is derived from thinking in the wrong direction. Today's Republicans are so worried about polishing their image amidst an unpopular war, they have long forgotten who were are up against - an ultra-liberal Democratic Party run by the fringe left, progressively leaning more socialist every day. Efforts would be better spent, in conjunction with hailing conservatism as our mantra, peeling away the facade of the Democratic Party to reveal its hideously true form.
It's no secret that the Communist Party USA and the socialist parties find their best hopes of success in the Democratic Party. And surely they are all exuberant over Barack Obama's current position as a contender for the presidency. Unfortunately for America yet lucky for any Democrat, it is not exactly headline news, however. It is our job as conservatives, and for any true Republican, to highlight these similarities to the people of America. The dangerous parallels can be seen with such little effort. Take this, for example, from the Communist Party USA's 2008 Electoral Policy:
The fact that the Democratic frontrunners are an African American and a woman speaks volumes on how far the country has come. Hillary Clinton’s campaign has attracted large numbers of supporters, especially women. Other Democratic contenders presented some excellent proposals to reverse the devastation caused by the Bush administration’s policies.
Barack Obama’s campaign has so far generated the most excitement, attracted the most votes, most volunteers and the most money. We think the basic reason for this is that his campaign has the clearest message of unity and progressive change, while having a real possibility for victory in November.
As we see it, however, this battle is bigger than the Democrats and Republicans, even though those parties are the main electoral vehicle for most voters today. Our approach is to focus on issues and movements that are influencing candidates and parties.
We will work with others to defeat the Republican nominee and to end right-wing control of the new Congress.
The activism growing out of this election will help guarantee a progressive mandate no matter who is elected. It is critical to our country’s renewal and future.
We think this election is a great opportunity to bring an early withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. It can mean job creation and relief for those who are losing their homes or unable to pay their bills.
This election can set the stage to advance the interests of working people; of those excluded because of race, gender, sexual orientation and immigration status.
This election can begin to turn the tide: it can help bring universal health care, save the environment and start the restoration of our democratic rights. This election can strengthen democracy for all.
If that doesn't scare you, hear it with your own ears - CPUSA Party Chairman Sam Webb explaining that electing Democrats is the road to socialism:
The presidential campaign of Barack Obama has, so far, run virtually unchecked and untested by its supporters. These people baffle me; they fall in line in torrents, largely ignorant in the most strict of definitions. Only amongst this kind of hysteria could a presidential venture of this sort garner any strong footing. Fortunately for Obama, there are many American's who seemingly just don't care.
Two-hundred and thirty-two years ago we declared our independence. In the scope of world history, that time is hardly so far gone. Should the issues of that time, of our founding, be not still paramount to the fabric of our nation? Surely they are and, in an age where our sovereignty, security, and other basic right are so easily trampled upon by activist judges and over-zealous politicians, we must remain steadfast in remembering our Founding Fathers and those who shed their blood for this Freedom.
After watching this video, narrated by Fred Thompson, a thought occurred to me: In all of his many speeches preaching 'hope' and 'change,' it's not exactly frequent to hear Barack Obama get heated in defending our constitution, or railing against any threats to our sovereignty and freedom, or stressing the importance of remaining a free people. So, I decided to do some research. I opened the PDF of his "Blueprint for Change" and did a search for a few key words. You may be shocked at what I found, or more importantly, what I didn't find.
Freedom - After a search through the entire document, I was returned two instances of the word "freedom." Both were contained in the same line: "Ensure Freedom to Unionize: Obama believes that workers should have the freedom to choose whether to join a union without harassment or intimidation from their employers." Not exactly what I was looking for. A search of the "Issues" portion of his site turned up one mention of the "First Amendment freedoms" in regards to protecting children from content in the media (something Obama and I both agree is an important issue) and freedom of net neutrality.
Constitution - Again, I was offered merely two results. One came in a line that explained Obama's steadfastness in opposing a constitutional amendment to overturn the result of Roe v. Wade. The second was a mention to, go figure, Iraq's Constitution.
Liberty - Shame. Not once does this word appear, in any context, in the entire 62-page document.
Sovereignty - Again, nothing.
Founding Fathers - This is probably the most depressing of them all. Nowhere in his little "plan for America" does he cite the most important people in our history.
So what is important to Barack Obama? You'll find plenty of instances of "universal."
The frightening thing about all of this: It may not be so far fetched to say that, if he were to obtain the presidency, Obama very well may toss out any vital part of our history that he deems outdated and rewire our entire system as he sees fit to his socialist utopia. How is it that a man with such low regards for the principles upon which this nation was founded is in such a position to take it's highest office?
Let's focus on the word "change." We've all heard this word a hundred times over this election cycle, as Barack Obama has adopted it as a campaign slogan. Don't be fooled, folks. Obama has coined this term merely as an opposition word; simply to mean "anti-George Bush" and, given the unpopularity of the current president and the war in Iraq, many people give a warm welcome to change. Using this sentiment, Obama has created a facade to mask something that would otherwise be very familiar...
Let's be hypothetical for a minute.
Say Walter Mondale had used the mantra of change; that he had focused on reversing the incumbent administration. That wouldn't have worked too well, given the unpopularity of the previous president, Jimmy Carter. America knew how damaging Carter's policies were and how they failed during the 70's. Walter Mondale wanted a return to the Carter-era of super sized government, but America knew what that would cost. Enter Ronald Wilson Reagan, who brought genuine change that led to a restored faith in the presidency via limited government, competent and effective economic policies, and a strong foreign policy. The People had gotten the right kind of change with Reagan and in return they ushered in the largest electoral victory in the country's history.
Fast forward to the present: With the Gipper gone and Jimmy Carter's term seemingly forgotten, the ability to hark back to those failed policies seems restored. And I assure you folks, that is precisely what Barack Obama intends to do when he says change.
This one confused me just a bit. The folks over at Daily Kos seem to think that John McCain is out of touch because he spends his time out on the road talking with real live people, and visiting the troops in Iraq, you know, that country where we're at war. All of this, as opposed to spending his day checking RSS feeds and streaming the latest YouTube videos.
Living in a bubble is all the rage in some circles these days, apparently.
