The Politically Incorrect Mom


Tuesday, March 11, 2008

An Invitation to Hate Us More

I recently sat through an agonizing 30-second video of Whoopi Goldberg boo-hooing about a Rush Limbaugh comment. First, let me say that Rush Limbaugh makes me sick, too. I don’t know which fat, used-to-be-funny, obnoxious, blow-hard, has-been is harder to listen to – Goldberg or Limbaugh, but I have to say that for once…just this once…I hope Limbaugh is right.

Limbaugh’s comment was regarding the idea of pairing up Clinton and Obama on the same ticket as President and Vice President. He made a comment that a black man and a female running together meant, “they don’t have a chance”. Goldberg was highly offended and went into one of her typical diatribes about how being raised in the United States affords her the right to be anything or do anything she wants. Whatever.

The truth is – being born/raised in the United States only affords us the privilege to PURSUE those dreams – not to achieve them. Achieving success is entirely up to us – and our ability to overcome the obstacles that are in our way, but that’s not really what I sat down to rant about…

I have long since confessed that I don’t believe the United States is ready for a female President. And I don’t just mean the citizens are not ready – I mean the country and the world is not ready for the fall-out that will undoubtedly be tied to putting a woman in the White House.

As an American girl, I was raised with the same “girls can do anything boys can do” sermons as anyone else. I have achieved a lot in my life and can honestly say that I have not been held back by man or beast. I have a lot to be proud of, but I’ve worked hard. Nevertheless, I still don’t believe a woman is the right person for the job of President of the United States and it has nothing to do with a woman’s ability to lead. It has everything to do with the responsibilities that the President of the United States has not only to America, but to the rest of the world.

To those of you who do not believe there is such a thing as a “War on Terror”, you might want to plug your ears for the rest of this.

Notwithstanding my position that the Commander and Chief of our Armed Forces should be required to have served in the armed forces – let me just pose a question…

What do hate-mongering Muslims hate at least as much as they hate the United States?

If you guessed WOMEN – we’re on the same page.

Am I the only person who believes that the very idea of Hillary Clinton in the White House is going to antagonize the already horrific situation the Unites States is in with regard to terrorists who hate us? With all that’s happened in the post 9/11 era – diplomacy is more difficult to obtain than ever. What are the odds that an arrogant female is going to get a diplomatic round-table discussion going with a group of Sunni’s and Shiite’s? How about NONE. Absolutely NO CHANCE.

So, let me get this straight… The plan is to put a female in the White House who claims to be against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (but that’s only after she voted for those wars), let her remove troops from the middle east (although not nearly as quickly as our friend Barack Hussein Obama would do it if given the chance) and then perch the sitting duck up there on Capital Hill as though the United States is looking for a way to become more of a target than we already are. Do I have that right?

Great plan, folks. And just how is she planning to communicate with the terrorists? Shake her finger at them? Cry?

Fortunately, Limbaugh is probably right on this one. I’ve felt from the gate that whomever wins the candidacy on the left is going to be an easy opponent for the right to beat – based solely on the good old fashioned racism, fear and sexism that still exists in this country. We can say what we want about how far we’ve come with civil rights (and as far as I’m concerned – we’ve gone TOO FAR on most fronts), but the truth of the matter is – there are an awful lot of closet racists and sexists out there – and for once, I hope they’re registered to vote. If not, being offended by a blowhard will be the least of Whoopi Goldberg’s worries. She’ll have plenty to think about while she’s picking out which veil goes best with her jiibab.

Friday, March 07, 2008

Well, aint that just dandy?!?!?

Hat tip - Neo-Contastic

Campaign Finance Reform - PI Mom Style

I am sick to death of hearing about how much money the candidates have raised and spent on their election campaigns. As far as I’m concerned, it’s a complete and utter waste of money and all of them should be ashamed of themselves.

We hear them all talking about campaign finance reform whenever they’re mad that someone else raised more money than they did – how about some good, old fashioned, REAL campaigning. How about a shoestring budget and some blood, sweat and tears?? How about spending campaign contributions on things that REALLY matter?? How about that, eh?

Here’s my proposal.

The NEW Rules of Campaigning:

  1. Candidates must choose the “platform of choice” that they consider to be the most important issue – you know, the one they promise to fix as soon as they’re finished redecorating the Lincoln Bedroom.

For the sake of an “example” – let’s use Hillary’s platform….Socialized….err, “Universal” Healthcare

  1. Candidates may accept as much or as little contributions as they see fit during campaign.
  2. $1,000 of campaign funds may be used to fund the campaign each month. The rest of the funds must be donated to the cause of their “platform of choice” – assuming the platform allows for the money to stay in the United States. If not – the money goes into a natural disaster fund that will be used to help rebuild AMERICAN cities after hurricanes, floods, fires, mudslides, etc.

For the sake of an example – how many uninsured people could receive healthcare for $138,048,905 (Hillary’s total receipts as of the end of January 08).

  1. Candidates must solicit free advertising from the media – which would eliminate the argument about which way each of the media outlets lean and force organizations like the New York Times to publicly choose a candidate.
  2. Candidates may work the talk-show circuit, but they may not be paid for their appearances.
  3. No television commercials may be aired, unless they are free.
  4. The monthly $1,000 may be spent in any way (except for television commercials), including billboards, yard signs, bumper stickers or picket signs, but those who acquire them must purchase them from campaign headquarters and the money goes back into the kitty for next month. People buy bumper stickers and yard signs for their favorite football teams and any other nonsense they litter their lawns with – why should these items be free?
  5. Neither the Democratic or Republican National Committee may pay any television network for advertising or for debate time. The networks can solicit sponsors. Coca Cola pays American Idol an insane amount of money just to place their cups on the judge’s table each week. The networks will get by on sponsorship!
  6. All campaign employees must be un-paid volunteers.
  7. Candidates must drive wherever they go. The Government can continue to provide cars and secret service (most of them would have it anyway, since they already work for the government), but if the candidate’s “platform of choice” has anything to do with the environment, the candidate must travel in a sub-compact hybrid.
  8. If the candidate works for the United States Government, they must take an official, un-paid leave of absence from their job. If I wanted to campaign for something, I would have to take off work without pay – why should we be paying them for a job they clearly are not performing while they campaign?
  9. And last, but certainly not least – candidates must spend at least 50% of their time knocking on doors and meeting the American public – you know, the very people they ask for votes from. This shouldn’t be a problem – they can just stop in the neighborhoods they’re driving through.

As of the end of January, the total money raised (according to CNN) by ALL candidates, from both sides (including the drop-outs) was $650,239,992.

How many neighborhoods in New Orleans do you suppose could have been rebuilt with 650 million dollars?

Web Counter
Hit Counter
Since August 1, 2005

And one last teeny tiny detail...
This web site and all contents are the property of The Politically Incorrect Mom.
Use of contents without permission is strictly forbidden.
Please contact The Empress of this page for permissions.
Copyright 2005