Personal Attack?

In the realm of political campaigns, what constitutes a “personal attack”? That seems to be the question that the political pundits need to first examine before they launch into a denunciation of the “attacks” from one candidate or another.

So here is some help to point out the difference between a personal attack an a legitimate issue.

Appropriate Political Discussion Points:

Past association with known domestic terrorists.
Past association with known racists (both black and white)
Belief in socialist and Marxist doctrine, such as wealth redistribution.
Past jobs, especially those that are partisan or political in nature.
Questions as to one’s belief in capitalism.
Decisions made on national defense matters.
Past voting records or lack thereof.
Politicians position on abortion, fighting terrorists, economics, etc.
Questions as to why far left of far right activists support a particular candidate. (i.e. what beliefs does the candidate have in common with those groups)
Why campaign workers are members of far left or far right fringe groups.
Questioning an opponent’s patriotism.


Inappropriate Political Discussion Points (i.e. personal attacks)

Discussion of behavior of politician’s children.
Making light of a persons appearance (hair style, clothing, eyeglass styles, speech patterns, etc)
Making fun of a persons strongly held religious beliefs. (e.g. would you make fun of a Jewish person’s desire to not eat pork?)
Making light of the appearance of the candidates family.
Comparing candidates to derogatory or disgusting body parts.
And last but not least, unsubstantiated attacks on intelligence. (Note, this is the last attack for elitist liberals, when they can’t come up with anything else, they say the republican is stupid. Thus it has been since Ronald Regan was attacked as “just an actor”. )

Diversity and Tolerance on Display in New York City

Scott Ott for President

The Saint is tempted to write in the name of Scott Ott for President based on his answers to the questions posed at the Presidential debate last night.

One of my favorite quotes:

Brokaw: This requires only a yes or a no. Ronald Reagan famously said that the Soviet Union was the evil empire. Do you think that Russia under Vladimir Putin is an evil empire?

Scott Ott: Ronald Reagan said what he said, when he said it, for a specific strategic purpose. He wasn’t just playing rhetorical games with a retired news anchor who’s still fishing for a controversial sound bite. Next question.

Scott Ott is a very entertaining writer. He also has a blog at scrappleface.com.

Unconstitutional Expansion

The Saint hasn’t said much about the recent “financial crisis” that is, according to the politicians, about to through the world into a depression.

Even more maddening is the fact that this “financial crisis” was caused in great measure by the US Government, not by the so called “greedy” Wall Street crowd.

As history has taught us, politicians use such “financial crisis” as a way to further subjugate the American people. If anyone truly believes that more regulation will make the markets work effectively or efficiently, then I have some swamp land, I mean real estate in Florida to sell you.

History also teaches us that politicians need to keep the masses upset about something. This gives them the pretense to again exert more control and increase the politician’s power.

And the most disturbing thing that has come out of this “financial crisis” is that the politicians have somehow found in the US Constitution that they are responsible to prevent companies from going out of business.

The bottom line is the recent “bailout” that was approved by Congress and signed by President Bush was the largest unconstitutional expansion of power ever in the history of the US.

Financial Crisis - Everyone just relax

Both political candidates are overreacting to the current financial problems on Wall Street. McCain and Obama both are blaming Washington in some form or fashion. Yet their only suggestion so far, even from the “conservative” McCain is more regulation.

But for once, some of the people in Congress recognize that the biggest danger is overreaction.

When you rush to judgment, you usually make mistakes,'' said Sherwood Boehlert, a former Republican congressman from New York. ``This is something you can't go on forever without addressing, but Congress in a short span of time is best served by going home.''

In 2002, after accounting scandals forced Enron Corp. and WorldCom Inc. into bankruptcy, Congress passed the Sarbanes-Oxley law, setting new corporate-governance rules. While the measure passed unanimously in the Senate and overwhelmingly in the House, it has since become a target of criticism from some Republicans, including presidential candidate John McCain, and from many in the business and financial worlds.

``There's a huge danger that needs to be guarded against -- that we'll have a tremendous overreaction in regulations,'' former Treasury Secretary John Snow said in an interview.

Well said, as the Saint has often said, the biggest danger to a free republic is a man/woman on a mission. Let’s hope cooler heads prevail and the politicians overreact and make things worse. Especially since part of the problems we are having now were caused by the Federal government and their desire to increase home ownership.

The Speech of a Lifetime

Newt's Smackdown of MSNBC

This is a You Tube clip of Newt Gingrich discussing why Sarah Palin is more qualified than Barack Obama. Notice that neither the interviewer or Keith Olbermann has any response, in fact they are almost speechless.
Hat tip reversevampire

Obama the Marxist

Is Obama a closet Marxist? Well, as the Saint’s mama used to say, you are known by the company you keep. So let’s go down a list of requirements for being a Marxist:


1. Have Communists working for you in your campaign. Check.
2. Class warfare. Check.
3. Supports highly progressive income tax structure (i.e. rich should pay more). Check
4. Has support of sixties Marxists murders. Check.
5. Special taxes for companies who make too much profit (taxing “windfall profits” at oil companies). Check.
6. Speaks of “the common good”. Check
7. Believes government should help solve ALL problems, from mortgage foreclosures to credit card lending practices. Check.

Well, if it quacks like a duck……..