A look at current events from the point of a view of a Conservative Evangelical Christian who stands firmly on the Word of God (that's the Bible for those of you at Berkley) and stands behind the Constitution of the United States of America. So grab yourself a big cup of java, kick back in your chair and enjoy another member of the "vast right wing conspiracy" making his voice heard.

Sunday, March 02, 2008

General Wes Clark Endorses Laura Bush for President

Okay, that's not exactly what Wes Clark said, but it still works:
If you look at what Hillary Clinton has done during her time as the First Lady of the United States, her travel to 80 countries, her representing the U.S. abroad, plus her years in the Senate, I think she's the most experienced and capable person in the race, not only for representing am abroad, but for dealing with the tough issues of national security.
By that reasoning, Laura Bush, Barbara Bush, or Nancy Reagan should have been elected Commander-In-Chief.

In short, it's full of holes, and I expect McCain's campaign to rip it to shreds very soon.

Cross-posted at CCG.

12 comments:

DocWashboard said...

I was unaware that Mrs. Bush and Mrs. Reagan had served in the Senate. Link for that, please?

Revbeaux said...

Doc...do you have a sense of humor? I find that a lot of liberals don't. My good brother was pointing out that Gen. Clark referenced the Hill's time as First Lady and her experience there prior to her service in the Senate as credentials to be President.

DocWashboard said...

Well, here's my big problem with the whole "Hilary is only another First Lady with no government experience" meme: she was roundly hated by conservatives well before she became a senator--all the way back at the beginning of Bill's first term, if I'm remembering.

All that hatred was based solely on what she did as the First Wifey? Or was it because of work she did for the Administration trying to put together a healthcare plan?

C-C-G said...

Doc, if time in the Senate counts, then Mr. McCain is far far more qualified to be Commander in Chief than Mrs. Clinton.

Senator McCain is in his 21st year as a Senator... Senator Clinton is in her seventh. That makes McCain three times more qualified, if you use Senate service as your basis.

Please, do a little research and think a little bit before you post... you won't look so uninformed.

DocWashboard said...

Nice try, CCG, but you might want to invest in those reading comprehension lessons you're always blathering about. I'll be happy to help; I actually have a master's degree in teaching reading.

I never said anything in that first comment about McCain. I never even hinted at Clinton versus anybody. I was simply reacting to what revbeaux posted, which was, "'If you look at what Hillary Clinton has done during her time as the First Lady of the United States, her travel to 80 countries, her representing the U.S. abroad, plus her years in the Senate, I think she's the most experienced and capable person in the race, not only for representing am abroad, but for dealing with the tough issues of national security.'

By that reasoning, Laura Bush, Barbara Bush, or Nancy Reagan should have been elected Commander-In-Chief."

So revbeaux says that by the reasoning of having been First Lady, their travel to 80 countries, and their years in the Senate, Mrs. Reagan and Mrs. Bush could be elected President. (I won't even deal with the "should have been" construction; what does that mean? That Laura Bush should have already been President instead of George W.? He might have a point.)

So I thought that revbeaux was privy to some historical knowledge that I didn't have.

If that's not what he meant to say, then maybe he should have said something else. Claiming now that it was a "joke" doesn't hide the ignorance of his post, unfortunately.

Cordially yours,

Doc Washboard

Revbeaux said...

Yep, typical lib...you take something said by one person and then twist it and say that someone else meant something other than what was said.
First of all CCG posted the original blog...he and i are co-posters here. Now i did point out the humor in his post...i'm sorry you didn't.

Since you hold that masters in teaching reading, hopefully you can comprehend this. Before Hillary's senate experience was given as credentials by Gen. Clark...her time as First Lady was mentioned. And if you look at what Hillary is running on, it is her time as First Lady and her husband's record in the White House; not so much her senate record.

If fact, since this should be more about the substance (or lack of) in Hillary's campaign rather than a joke you didn't get (wasn't part of the master's studies, huh?)...you tell me what she has done during her time in the Senate. What legislation (not going to ask for any of value, b/c that is even less likely) has she authored and has seen passed into law? If there is nothing then her experience as First Lady is the only credentials she has then i guess it would qualify Laura Bush, Barbara Bush, or any other First Lady to be president.

C-C-G said...

YOU brought up Senate experience, Doc. I merely expanded on that. General Clark said she was the "most experienced ... person in the race," and I was merely comparing and contrasting with others in the race. Clearly, Hillary does have an experience advantage over Mr. Obama, but even adding her 8 years as First Lady to her 7 in the Senate, she falls far short, numerically, in experience to McCain. Of course, her 8 years of "experience" as First Lady, when it comes to the famous Red Phone, boils down to the phrase, "Bill, it's for you." Hardly a reason to elect her President. That was my original point, and as usual, it flew right over your head.

DocWashboard said...

Again you ignore the issue of Clinton's actual experience working on the healthcare issue during her husband's administration.

Your silence on this point is telling indeed.

Cordially yours,

Doc Washboard

Revbeaux said...

Hillary's "work" on healthcare during Bill's time in office was nothing more than a failed attempt to implement socialized medicine, and it is the same move toward socialism that both she and Obama are promiting in 2008.
And Doc, if you can't provide anything meaningful to this discussion by providing proof and facts...rather than meaningless attacks, we can go ahead and consider this thread a done deal.

C-C-G said...

Fine, Doc.

8 years + 7 is still 15.

McCain has 21.

15 < 21.

Math so simple even you should be able to comprehend it.

C-C-G said...

One more thing, if we're considering non-Senate experience, McCain also has 4 years in the House of Representatives.

That makes 25.

25 > 15.

You can stick your tail between your legs and slink away now, Doc.

Mark said...

Interesting you would use your 'credentials' in an attempt to stifle dissent to your opinion here, Doc. Seems to me you chided me on that a while ago on CCG's site. Wonder if you comprehend the meaning of the word: DOUBLE-STANDARD?