Search
Archives

You are currently browsing the blog archives for July, 2016.

Categories

Archive for July, 2016

This morning, Hillary Clinton appeared on Fox News Sunday. During the interview, Chris Wallace asked her about Patricia Smith’s statement at the Republican National Convention. That’s where Mrs. Smith said “I blame Hillary Clinton — I blame Hillary Clinton personally for the death of my son. That’s personally.”

Mrs. Clinton’s reply was “As other members of families who lost loved ones have said, that’s not what they heard — I don’t hold any ill feeling for someone who in that moment may not fully recall everything that was or wasn’t said.”

To provide proper context, Chris Wallace said “She and the father of Tyrone Woods both say that on the day that their sons’ bodies were returned to the United States, that you came up to them and you said it was all because of a video, not terrorism. Now, I know some of the other families disagree with this, and I know you deny it.”

I won’t mince words. Hillary Clinton is a liar. It isn’t that Patricia Smith doesn’t recall Hillary’s statements correctly. It isn’t that Tyrone Woods’ father recalls Mrs. Clinton’s statements incorrectly, either. Days after the attack, Hillary was still pretending that an obscure internet video caused the attack in Benghazi:

It’s clear that Mrs. Clinton’s mission was to insist that an obscure internet video caused the terrorists’ attack. Here’s what Mrs. Clinton said days after Christopher Stevens’ body had been returned to the United States:

I also want to take a moment to address the video circulating on the internet that has led to these protests in a number of countries. Let me state very clearly, and I hope it is obvious that the United States’ government had absolutely nothing to do with this video.

There’s no need to rely on Patricia Smith’s recollection or Charles Woods’ recollection. Hillary’s statements have been captured on video and they’re quite revealing. So are Susan Rice’s statements:

This article highlights Mrs. Clinton’s dishonesty. Here’s the date on the article:

Updated 5:51 AM ET, Sat September 15, 2012

Here’s the opening paragraph of the article:

The remains of U.S. Ambassador to Libya J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans landed on U.S. soil Friday afternoon in flag-draped caskets.

On Sunday, September 16, 2012, Susan Rice went on all 5 Sunday morning talk shows to deliver a simple message. Here’s what she said on CBS’s Face the Nation:

Based on the best information we have to date, what our assessment is of the present is, in fact, it began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had happened hours before in Cairo, where, as you know, there was a violent protest in front of our embassy, sparked by this hateful video.

The video captured Mrs. Clinton’s statements accurately. There’s no mistaking that she’s lied repeatedly about the internet video being the cause for the terrorist attacks in Benghazi.

Therefore, Mrs. Clinton’s statement that she doesn’t “hold any ill feeling for someone who in that moment may not recall everything that was said or wasn’t said” is insulting. There’s nothing wrong with Patricia Smith’s or Charles Woods’ hearing. What’s wrong is Mrs. Clinton’s repeated dishonesty.

The video doesn’t lie. Unfortunately, Mrs. Clinton and Ms. Rice lied repeatedly. What kind of politician hints that grieving parents are wrong when the politician knows what she’s said is utterly dishonest?

Finally, J.C. Watts gave the perfect definition of character during the 1996 Republican Convention when he said that “character is doing the right thing even when nobody’s looking.” Mrs. Clinton apparently fails that test.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Simply put, Kevin Sorbo is my new hero. He’s my hero for writing this post that questions why Michael Brown’s mother was invited to Hillary’s convention and that ridicules the entire Black Lives Matter movement and the hand-up-don’t-shoot myth. Considering the fact that he’s a Hollywood actor, that took courage.

It must’ve taken courage for Sorbo to write “Whatever questionable choices were made at the Republican National Convention last week, I didn’t hear of a single speaker whose sole accomplishment was raising a delinquent who attacked a cop. But as the country reels from the cold-blooded murder of five policemen in Dallas and three in Baton Rouge, Lezley McSpadden, mother of Mike Brown, America’s most famous cop-assaulting criminal, appeared on stage at the Democratic National Convention.”

It must’ve taken courage for Sorbo to write “It would be a lot easier if they were not being targeted for assassination and mass murders by homicidal nuts ginned up by BLM. (Shooting deaths of police are up 78 percent so far this year.) And it would be a lot easier without a group, officially supported by the Democrats, leading marches down city streets, chanting, ‘What do we want? DEAD COPS! When do we want it? NOW!’ Why does the Democratic platform endorse Black Lives Matter? And, most importantly, why was Mike Brown’s mother on stage at the Democratic National Convention?”

That’s a great question, Mr. Sorbo. Why was Mike Brown’s mother invited to speak at the Democratic National Convention? What did she contribute to the convention other than to gin up the African-American vote? This is an even better question:

However half-heartedly, Hillary claims to oppose cop-killing, so why is she using her convention to promote the biggest lie in the pantheon of anti-cop lies, and to celebrate a man whose most famous act was to violently assault a police officer?

It’s obvious that Hillary isn’t pro-cop. If she were, she would’ve told Al Sharpton off for perpetuating the myth of hands-up-don’t-shoot. The Democratic Party isn’t pro-cop. Gov. Dayton accused a Hispanic police officer of being racist while insisting that Philando Castile would likely still be alive if he was white. Sorbo wasn’t done:

Because of the despicable lies put out by BLM agitators, Wilson had to give up his career, move his family and will be forced to live in fear for the rest of his life. The town of Ferguson was destroyed, businesses burned to the ground, police officers attacked, people injured, the National Guard called in, and massive taxpayer money expended to contain the riots. But at the Democratic Convention, Lezley McSpadden (mother of Mike Brown) was wildly cheered.

Sorbo closed by sticking in the dagger, figuratively speaking:

Donald Trump, along with every other Republican ever to run for president, is required to repeatedly “disavow” David Duke — someone he’s never met, never mentioned, never thought of— and certainly didn’t invite to speak at his convention.

But Hillary invites to her convention the mother of a man whose criminality destroyed a police officer’s life, tore the country apart and gave birth to a murderous cop-hating movement. Will a single reporter ask Hillary to disavow that?

In terms of rhetorical questions, that’s one of the smartest I’ve ever heard. The answer, of course, is that Hillary won’t get questioned about inviting the mother of a thug to speak at her convention, much less be asked to disavow that decision.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

If this article is accurate, and the swelling crowds seem to verify its accuracy, German Chancellor Angela Merkel doesn’t stand much of a change in the next election. The tip-off, which isn’t much of a secret, is the opening paragraph of this article, which says “According to a poll performed by YouGov market research firm, at least 66% of the respondents said they do not agree with the chancellor’s policy towards refugees, with only 27% support.”

With France getting frequently hit with terrorist attacks and with some terrorist attacks happening in Germany, it won’t be long before German voters fire Merkel and replace her with a pro-border control alternative. It’s virtually inevitable.

Merkel incited this uprising when she said “[Germany] Will give asylum to those who are politically persecuted and we will give protection to those who flee war and expulsion according to the Geneva Refugee Convention,” adding “We can make it.” Never has a politician misread her constituents or failed to do what’s right in recent history more than Ms. Merkel.

These leaders’ statements offer differing perspectives:

Frauke Petry, leader of the Alternative for Germany (AfD), which strongly rejects the refugee inflow into Germany, also criticized Merkel’s policy towards migrants. “…Stop repeating ‘we’ll manage it’ and finally admit your mistake,” she said. The head of the Green Party Cem Ozdemir said that he feels “ashamed” due to “the failure of the world community, of Europe and above all of Germany” to resolve the refugee crisis.

Mr. Ozdemir sounds like a politician. Petry sounds like a patriot who would do what’s right. If the election were held today, I’d bet that Petry would win handily. I’m betting that Germans would pick the true believer in German sovereignty over the politician.

This doesn’t bode well for Ms. Merkel:

Bavaria’s state premier took aim at Chancellor Angela Merkel’s open-door refugee policy on Saturday, rejecting her “we can do this” mantra just two days after she defended the message following Islamist attacks in Germany.

The comments from Horst Seehofer, whose Christian Social Union is the Bavarian sister party of Merkel’s conservatives, exacerbate the chancellor’s difficulty in standing by a policy that her critics have blamed for the attacks and which risks undermining her popularity ahead of federal elections next year.

Five attacks in Germany since July 18 have left 15 people dead, including four assailants, and dozens injured. Two of the attackers had links to Islamist militancy, officials say. “‘We can do this’ – I cannot, with the best will, adopt this phrase as my own,” Seehofer told reporters after a meeting of his party.

The German people aren’t stupid. They’ve noticed that terrorist attacks are increasing. That won’t stop until a new leader is elected.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

The Democratic Party’s platform doesn’t mince words when it comes to energy. The Democratic Party’s platform calls for the elimination of all fossil fuels by 2050. That means that Hillary’s statement in May that she’ll try to put coal workers out of work isn’t just campaign trail happy talk. It’s the stated goal of the Democratic Party.

Political parties’ platforms aren’t often followed and can be frequently ignored. This time, it’s different. When was the last time that Democrats sided with labor over the environmental activists’ agenda? Let me know when you get back to the 1980s. BTW, Bill Clinton put millions of acres of federal land off limits for oil exploration. Now his wife is running for office. Anyone that thinks that Hillary isn’t as prone to pandering as Bill is kidding themselves. She isn’t as subtle or charming about it as Bill was but she’s still a world-class panderer. This wasn’t one of her finer moments, though:

Hillary talked quite openly about “clean, renewable energy” energy in that speech. It’s possible that Hillary thinks that she’s just pandering to the environmental activist wing of the Democratic Party. If that’s what she’s thinking, she didn’t do her homework.

This isn’t the old Democratic Party. When it comes to today’s Democratic Party on energy, these environmental activists are fascists. They aren’t interested in walking a mile in someone else’s shoes. They’re willing to take half-a-loaf but that doesn’t mean that they’re reasonable. They’re totally willing to shut down fossil fuels with a steadfast progress towards eliminating fossil fuels.

Voters in Virginia, Ohio and Pennsylvania need to ask themselves if they’re willing to cast a vote for a Democratic candidate who wants to cripple their state’s economy and hurt their neighbors or their relatives. That’s what’s at stake in this election.

During her acceptance speech, Hillary said that “we all do better when we all do better”, a phrase first coined by Paul Wellstone. I’d like to hear Hillary’s explanation on how this helps miners do better. It’s likely that Hillary used that line without meaning it. It’s even likely that she doesn’t care if everyone does better as long as she’s elected.

It’s time to reject the Democratic Party’s politics of division and their divisive candidate.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

Polite people are saying that Tim Kaine is a perfect running mate for Hillary, then adding that he’s definitely qualified to be president if, God forbid, anything happened to Hillary. After reading this article, it’s painfully obvious that he’s nothing more than a mouthpiece who reads spin-script well but couldn’t think his way out of a wet paper bag.

Friday morning, Mike Pence appeared on Hugh Hewitt’s show. During the interview, Pence said “The speech last night was nothing new. It was just more of the same, more government, more of the same failed foreign policy” before adding “I mean, you’ve got to hand it to Hillary Clinton last night. She doubled down on their big government, liberal agenda, on a weak foreign policy on the world stage.”

Tim Kaine wouldn’t hear any of that, saying “The thing I thought was great is it set such a contrast with what we saw in Cleveland last week. The Cleveland convention was dark and depressing, and she said it was kind of midnight in America. And her speech was morning in America. It was about the everyday struggles that people have, but the fact that we don’t have a single issue in this country that our people can’t tackle, because we have the greatest pool of just human resources, human capital, human talent that any nation has ever had.”

First, to hear a Democrat say that “we don’t have a single issue in this country that our people can’t tackle” is more than a little bizarre after what we heard 4 years ago in Virginia:

Second, saying that Hillary’s speech was “morning in America” is proof that Democrats haven’t told the truth. ISIS is killing people in France, California and Orlando. Sen. Kaine, does that sound like “morning in America”? Police officers are getting shot in Dallas and Baton Rouge. Does that sound like morning in America, Sen. Kaine? The governor of Minnesota, who addressed the Convention, accused police officers of racism, saying that Philando Castile would probably still be alive if he was white. Sen. Kaine, is it morning in America when governors accuse Hispanic police officers of racism?

Terrorist attacks are happening in western Europe at a faster rate than ever before. Ditto within the United States, though not at as fast a rate as in western Europe. What part of that sounds like morning in America, Sen. Kaine?

Democrats might settle for that, saying that it’s the new normal. Conservatives reject that foolishness because we can do dramatically better with the right leadership. Stephen Miller nailed it with this statement:

Hillary Clinton says America is stronger together. But in Hillary Clinton’s America, millions of people are left out in the cold. She only stands together with the donors and special interests who’ve bankrolled her entire life. Excluded from Hillary Clinton’s America are the suffering people living in our inner cities, or the victims of open borders and drug cartels, or the people who’ve lost their jobs because of the Clintons’ trade deals, or any hardworking person who doesn’t have enough money to get a seat at Hillary Clinton’s table.

Simply put, Hillary Clinton is an elitist and a snob. Imagine the thinking that went into her statement on national TV that she and Bill left the White House “dead broke”:

I get it that Hillary thinks it’s morning in America. I get it that Sen. Kaine does, too. They’re both living around the Capitol, where everything is going beautifully. Living near DC, which hasn’t experienced the Obama economy, it’s easy to believe that life is fine. Beyond the Potomac, something that Mrs. Clinton and Sen. Kaine aren’t familiar with, things aren’t going nearly that well. Living near the White House explains why they think it’s morning in America. We don’t need a president that’s unfamiliar with flyover country’s hardships. We need someone who understands what people living in the Heartland are dealing with.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

When Gov. Dayton spoke at the Democratic National Convention, he issued a threat. He essentially said that, under Hillary Clinton, the government would seize control of insurance companies, saying “It’s time we decided once and for all that the purpose of health insurance is to give Americans the health care they need at prices they can afford, not to pad the profits of corporate America. If they won’t do it, we will, and Hillary Clinton will lead the charge.”

First, the thought that the ACA, aka Obamacare, is making health care more affordable is BS. Tell that to the people who have fewer options, higher premiums and skyrocketing deductibles. In Minnesota, Obamacare actually ruined a good system.’

Further, it’s worrisome that government, not people, should have the right to tell companies how much is the right amount of profit for their companies. This is what happens when elitists and collectivists run government. They think that they know best so they should set prices, not the people.

Third, Gov. Dayton talked out of both sides of his mouth when he said “Thanks to President Obama and the Affordable Care Act, we’ve made a lot of progress getting people covered. But for too many families, out-of-pocket costs are still too high.” Which is it, Gov. Dayton? You can’t say that we’re making progress when “out-of-pocket costs” are skyrocketing out of control.

When insurance companies are opting out of the ACA’s individual markets because their costs are high, that isn’t making progress. That’s going backwards. Going backwards, though, is something that Gov. Dayton is used to. Watch Gov. Dayton’s speech here:

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

After Hillary’s speech, I wrote this post to talk about Hillary’s flop. This morning, John Hinderaker wrote this post. While I didn’t watch the speech, I read the transcript. John apparently tried watching it and found it to be unwatchable, which I think is something that’s sweeping the nation.

Truthfully, some of the things that Mrs. Clinton said weren’t tethered to the truth. One of the things she said that I found repulsive was when she criticized Trump, saying “Really? I alone can fix it? Isn’t he forgetting? Troops on the front lines. Police officers and fire fighters who run toward danger. Doctors and nurses who care for us. Teachers who change lives. Entrepreneurs who see possibilities in every problem. Mothers who lost children to violence and are building a movement to keep other kids safe.”

Clearly, Mrs. Clinton is setting this up as a straw man argument. What Trump was referring to was that the US needs a real leader to point the nation in the right direction. For the last 8 years, we’ve dealt with an ideologue who didn’t respect the Constitution. If Hillary is elected, she’d be more of the same. She’s already said she’d be more lawless with regards to illegal aliens. For all her talk about the Founding Fathers, Mrs. Clinton doesn’t respect their Constitution.

As for Mrs. Clinton talking about police officers, I find that sickening. Why hasn’t she told Black Lives Matter thugs to stop assaulting police officers? Apparently her love of police officers is just a situational thing? I wrote this post to highlight how thuggish Black Lives Matter is. One thing that this article shows is Hillary’s disrespect for officers:

Former Secret Service agent Lloyd Bulman: ?“Hillary was very rude to agents, and she didn’t appear to like law enforcement or the military. “She wouldn’t go over and meet military people or police officers, as most protectees do. She was just really rude to almost everybody. She’d act like she didn’t want you around, like you were beneath her.”

Unnamed former Secret Service agent: “Hillary never talked to us .?.?. Most all members of first families would talk to us and smile. She never did that.”

Former FBI agent Coy Copeland: Within the White House, Hillary had a “standing rule that no one spoke to her when she was going from one location to another. In fact, anyone who would see her coming would just step into the first available office.”

Mrs. Clinton, when did you develop this respect for the military and police officers?

That’s the point of my posts. The speeches were mostly fiction. Democrats essentially spent the week humanizing a robot. In light of this news, this part of her speech sounds ridiculous:

Now, I don’t think President Obama and Vice President Biden get the credit they deserve for saving us from the worst economic crisis of our lifetimes. Our economy is so much stronger than when they took office. Nearly 15 million new private-sector jobs.

The Bloomberg article starts with these pathetic statistics:

The U.S. economy expanded less than forecast in the second quarter after a weaker start to the year than previously estimated as companies slimmed down inventories and remained wary of investing amid shaky global demand.

Gross domestic product rose at a 1.2 percent annualized rate after a 0.8 percent advance the prior quarter, Commerce Department figures showed Friday in Washington. The median forecast of economists surveyed by Bloomberg called for a 2.5 percent second-quarter increase.

Q1-2016 started terribly. Q2-2016 was almost as big a disaster. Why would we think that President Obama’s policies are the right policies? (Personally, I think that President Obama and Vice President Biden don’t have a clue about how to build a thriving economy.)

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

When it comes to presidential acceptance speeches, Hillary Clinton’s speech was as devoid of vision as it was devoid of honesty. When she recognized Bernie Sanders’ supporters, Hillary was in full pander mode. People shouldn’t believe Hillary when she said “You’ve put economic and social justice issues front and center, where they belong. And to all of your supporters here and around the country: I want you to know, I’ve heard you. Your cause is our cause. Our country needs your ideas, energy, and passion.”

Translation into Hillary-speak: I need your votes and if I have to pander a little, it’s worth it. I’ve wanted this office so long and I’ve broken so many promises. What’s one more?

Hillary was back in pander mode again when she said “Now we are clear-eyed about what our country is up against. But we are not afraid. We will rise to the challenge, just as we always have. We will not build a wall. Instead, we will build an economy where everyone who wants a good paying job can get one.”

Q1: If we’re so clear-eyed, why can’t this administration admit that Islamic jihadist terrorists are killing people in Orlando, San Bernardino and Nice, France? If we’re so clear-eyed, why do Democrats insist that the solution to these terrorist attacks can be solved with stricter gun control laws? If Democrats are so clear-eyed, how could Minnesota Gov. Mark Dayton say that Philando Castile would still be alive if he’d been white?

This is another jaw-dropping statement:

We will not ban a religion. We will work with all Americans and our allies to fight and defeat terrorism.

It isn’t that I can’t believe Hillary would say this. It’s that I don’t believe that her administration is serious about defeating terrorists. If there’s anything that we’ve learned about Democrats and terrorists, it’s that they pull their punches far too often.

We have the most dynamic and diverse people in the world. We have the most tolerant and generous young people we’ve ever had. We have the most powerful military. The most innovative entrepreneurs. The most enduring values.

Mrs. Clinton, if we have the most powerful military, which I think is true, why couldn’t US military assets get there to rescue Christopher Stevens? Mrs. Clinton, our military is the most powerful military in the world but it’s been getting ripped apart by the administration you served in. Why should we trust you to fight for our military when you won’t fight for our diplomats?

This part is jaw-dropping:

Don’t let anyone tell you we don’t have what it takes. We do. And most of all, don’t believe anyone who says: “I alone can fix it.” Those were actually Donald Trump’s words in Cleveland. And they should set off alarm bells for all of us.

Remember this?

Then-candidate Obama sounded awfully narcissistic in saying this:

I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on earth.

Now Hillary is preaching the gospel of collectivism. Why didn’t she speak out against President Obama’s unconstitutional amnesty executive action? Isn’t our Constitution worth fighting over? After all, she spoke passionately about the Founding Fathers earlier in the speech.

If I wanted to critique Hillary’s entire speech, I’d need to write a Part II, which I’ll do in the morning. Check back then.

After Marilyn Mosby dropped the remaining charges against the 6 Baltimore police officers, it didn’t take long for the other shoe to drop. 5 of those 6 officers have filed a civil lawsuit against Ms. Mosby.

According to the article, “In several lawsuits filed earlier this year, Officers William Porter, Edward Nero, Garrett Miller, Lt. Brian Rice, and Sgt. Alicia White alleged defamation, false arrest, false imprisonment, and violation of constitutional rights, among others.” Later in the article, Attorney Michael Glass explained that “These officers were humiliated. Our position is that the charges were brought for a reason other than prosecuting criminal conduct. There was a political motivation and the charges were not supported by evidence.”

The acquittal of these officers, coupled with Ms. Mosby’s attention-grabbing headline will make it easier for these officers to win their lawsuit. Throughout the process, lawyers questioned Ms. Mosby’s decision. Alan Dershowitz was among those that criticized her decision:

One of the key figures in this lawsuit will be Samuel Cogen of the Baltimore Sheriff’s Office. The reason he’ll be important is because Mosby’s prosecutors initially said that he’d conducted an independent investigation. He’s gone under oath since then in an attempt to clear his name:

However, in an affidavit unsealed in the course of Rice’s civil lawsuit, Cogen claimed he in fact did not conduct the investigation. He said he merely signed off on the investigation completed by the state’s attorney’s office which ultimately led to the charges filed against the officers.

The situation is perfect for the plaintiffs. They can approach Cogen and offer to drop his case in exchange for his truthful testimony.

Showing that Mosby’s prosecutorial team embellished the truth will strengthen these officers’ lawsuit.

After John Kline endorsed Darlene Miller to replace him in Congress, I did some checking into who she was and what she stood for. One of the first things that I found was this memo from the “President’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness,” which is chaired by Jeffrey Immelt, the CEO of GE.

Another thing I found was this article, which talks about Miller being invited to be “one of 23 guests sitting in First Lady Michelle Obama’s box for President Barack Obama’s jobs speech to Congress tonight.” The speech happened in September, 2011. I mention this because somehow, that experience isn’t listed on Ms. Miller’s ‘Meet Darlene’ page.

Among the things that are included in Ms. Miller’s Meet Darlene page is her “2016 Induction into the Minnesota Women Business Owner Hall of Fame,” her serving “as the first female President of Precision Machined Products Association (PMPA)” in 2014 and her being named as the “2010 Burnsville Chamber of Commerce Business Person of the Year.”

Further, the DCCC put together this 203-page research report on Miller. Here’s something worth noting:

Miller: “I Have Never Received Any Money From The Federal Government In A Form Of A Check.”

Then she tried explaining:

MODERATOR: Darlene, it has been reported that your company PERMAC, has previously taken some of the federal stimulus money, please explain.
MILLER: Well I wish I could take about a half hour and explain some accounting practices. I have never received any money from the federal government in a form of a check. This is strictly a tax … I won’t even call it an incentive, it’s just a tax, uh, the way we actually depreciate our equipment, instead of the government deciding that we can depreciate it over five years so they can get their money sooner, we’re allowed to depreciate it as we purchase it, so when I pay for it, I can depreciate it in that same year. And you know when you do that, and you buy equipment, you hire more people, and you create jobs, so that is what I have done and the Democrats are just strictly afraid of telling the whole truth because they don’t understand business.

I don’t have problem with Ms. Miller’s company using the deduction. It’s her fiduciary responsibility as CEO to PERMAC to increase profits. The problem I have is with the coy way that she tried explaining away the tax cut, saying “I have never received any money from the federal government in a form of a check.”

Any lawyer worth their salt that heard that would ask if she got a tax break by reducing the amount of taxes owed rather than in the form of a check. It’s foolish to think that the DCCC won’t go after her hard on this issue.

With all these ‘bipartisan moments, it’s fair to ask whether Darlene Miller is a conservative or just another cookie-cutter Republican that sounds conservative campaigning, then governs like a moderate.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , ,