View From The Ridge…

With altitude one can gain clarity.

Archive for the ‘Opinion’ Category

Strike Back At Those So-Called Election Experts!

with one comment

I’ve been encouraging people for years, suggesting to even strangers in the supermarket, that if a pollster calls them, or encounters them in person, to flat-out lie to them.  Same for those pesky “exit surveys” that seek to strip away our right to confidentiality in voting.

I have been quite active and methodical about this, as have several dozen of my friends across the nation. In blogs, in speeches, emails and posts on countless thousands of wiki’s and boards.

It was some election, I can no longer remember which one, where early reports of East Coast voting was blamed on lessening the turnout in California. It really pissed me off, I remember that, at least.

Since then, I have actively recruited friends and strangers to my cause, to drive the pollsters out of business! I know I won’t succeed, but I still harbor the hope of really messing with them.

It’s still not too late for you to join in.  All you have to do is answer your phone, or stop and talk with a pollster on the street.  If you’re for McCain, say you are a strong Obama booster.  If you are for Obama, tell them you support McCain.  On voting day, seek out exit polling operatives, make a beeline towards them, and fill their mushy heads will all the nonsense you can manage without cracking up.

Then sit like I do, election night, and have the time of your life watching the furrowed brows, the sweaty foreheads of the pundits, trying to explain away what is happening versus what they all assured us was going to.  It would serve them right, those nattering nabobs of sage election-night advice, who never once manage to shut up.  😉

What do you think?


Written by Ridgeliner7

Thursday, October 30, 2008 at 7:30:09 AM

Tammy Bruce Makes A Feminist’s Argument For Sarah Palin

with one comment

Tammy Bruce is a former president of the Los Angeles chapter of the National Organization for Women, and  is the author of The New American Revolution” . She has a daily talk radio show. A registered Democrat her entire adult life until February, she now is registered as a decline-to-state voter. So, feminist credentials established, I was happy to see her offer some clarity about Sarah Palin.



In the shadow of the blatant and truly stunning sexism launched against the Hillary Rodham Clinton presidential campaign, and as a pro-choice feminist, I wasn’t the only one thrilled to hear Republican John McCain announce Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate. For the GOP, she bridges for conservatives and independents what I term “the enthusiasm gap” for the ticket. For Democrats, she offers something even more compelling – a chance to vote for a someone who is her own woman, and who represents a party that, while we don’t agree on all the issues, at least respects women enough to take them seriously.

Whether we have a D, R or an “i for independent” after our names, women share a different life experience from men, and we bring that difference to the choices we make and the decisions we come to. Having a woman in the White House, and not as The Spouse, is a change whose time has come, despite the fact that some Democratic Party leaders have decided otherwise. But with the Palin nomination, maybe they’ll realize it’s not up to them any longer.

Clinton voters, in particular, have received a political wake-up call they never expected. Having watched their candidate and their principles betrayed by the very people who are supposed to be the flame-holders for equal rights and fairness, they now look across the aisle and see a woman who represents everything the feminist movement claimed it stood for. Women can have a family and a career. We can be whatever we choose, on our own terms. For some, that might mean shooting a moose. For others, perhaps it’s about shooting a movie or shooting for a career as a teacher. However diverse our passions, we will vote for a system that allows us to make the choices that best suit us. It’s that simple.

The rank bullying of the Clinton candidacy during the primary season has the distinction of simply being the first revelation of how misogynistic the party has become. The media led the assault, then the Obama campaign continued it. Trailblazer Geraldine Ferraro, who was the first Democratic vice presidential candidate, was so taken aback by the attacks that she publicly decried nominee Barack Obama as “terribly sexist” and openly criticized party chairman Howard Dean for his remarkable silence on the obvious sexism.

Concerned feminists noted, among other thinly veiled sexist remarks during the campaign, Obama quipping, “I understand that Sen. Clinton, periodically when she’s feeling down, launches attacks as a way of trying to boost her appeal,” and Democratic Rep. Steve Cohen in a television interview comparing Clinton to a spurned lover-turned-stalker in the film, “Fatal Attraction,” noting, “Glenn Close should have stayed in that tub, and Sen. Clinton has had a remarkable career…”. These attitudes, and more, define the tenor of the party leadership, and sent a message to the grassroots and media that it was “Bros Before Hoes,” to quote a popular Obama-supporter T-shirt.

The campaign’s chauvinistic attitude was reflected in the even more condescending Democratic National Convention. There, the Obama camp made it clear it thought a Super Special Women’s Night would be enough to quell the fervent support of the woman who had virtually tied him with votes and was on his heels with pledged delegates.

There was a lot of pandering and lip service to women’s rights, and evenings filled with anecdotes of how so many have been kept from achieving their dreams, or failed to be promoted, simply because they were women. Clinton’s “18 million cracks in the glass ceiling” were mentioned a heck of a lot. More people began to wonder, though, how many cracks does it take to break the thing?

Ironically, all this at an event that was negotiated and twisted at every turn in an astounding effort not to promote a woman.

Virtually moments after the GOP announcement of Palin for vice president, pundits on both sides of the aisle began to wonder if Clinton supporters – pro-choice women and gays to be specific – would be attracted to the McCain-Palin ticket. The answer is, of course. There is a point where all of our issues, including abortion rights, are made safer not only if the people we vote for agree with us – but when those people and our society embrace a respect for women and promote policies that increase our personal wealth, power and political influence.

Make no mistake – the Democratic Party and its nominee have created the powerhouse that is Sarah Palin, and the party’s increased attacks on her (and even on her daughter) reflect that panic.

The party has moved from taking the female vote for granted to outright contempt for women. That’s why Palin represents the most serious conservative threat ever to the modern liberal claim on issues of cultural and social superiority. Why? Because men and women who never before would have considered voting for a Republican have either decided, or are seriously considering, doing so.

They are deciding women’s rights must be more than a slogan and actually belong to every woman, not just the sort approved of by left-wing special interest groups.

Palin’s candidacy brings both figurative and literal feminist change. The simple act of thinking outside the liberal box, which has insisted for generations that only liberals and Democrats can be trusted on issues of import to women, is the political equivalent of a nuclear explosion.

The idea of feminists willing to look to the right changes not only electoral politics, but will put more women in power at lightning speed as we move from being taken for granted to being pursued, nominated and appointed and ultimately, sworn in.

It should be no surprise that the Democratic response to the McCain-Palin ticket was to immediately attack by playing the liberal trump card that keeps Democrats in line – the abortion card – where the party daily tells restless feminists the other side is going to police their wombs.

The power of that accusation is interesting, coming from the Democrats – a group that just told the world that if you have ovaries, then you don’t count.

Yes, both McCain and Palin identify as anti-abortion, but neither has led a political life with that belief, or their other religious principles, as their signature issue. Politicians act on their passions – the passion of McCain and Palin is reform. In her time in office, Palin’s focus has not been to kick the gays and make abortion illegal; it has been to kick the corrupt and make wasteful spending illegal. The Republicans are now making direct appeals to Clinton supporters, knowingly crafting a political base that would include pro-choice voters.

On the day McCain announced her selection as his running mate, Palin thanked Clinton and Ferraro for blazing her trail. A day later, Ferraro noted her shock at Palin’s comment. You see, none of her peers, not one of them, had ever publicly thanked her in the 24 years since her historic run for the White House. Ferraro has since refused to divulge for whom she’s voting. Many more now are realizing that it does indeed take a woman – who happens to be a Republican named Sarah Palin.



Tammy Bruce is an openly gay, pro-choice, gun owning, pro-death penalty, voted-for-President Bush authentic feminist. A lifelong Democrat, in the 1990s she worked to help elect Senators Feinstein and Boxer, and aided the Clinton for President campaign. Before we knew he was a sexual compulsive and “did not have sexual relations with that woman.”
She was drawn into feminist activism in the late 1980’s to contribute to the ongoing effort to ensure safe and legal abortion for all women, and with a special focus on violence against women and ending international subjugation of women. Just two years after joining the National Organization for Women, with a brand of feminism that places her somewhere between Donna Reed and Thelma and Louise, Ms. Bruce was elected president of the Los Angeles chapter of NOW at the age of 27. The youngest ever to achieve that position, she doubled the chapter’s membership from 2,000 to 4,000 within a year with issue campaigns that introduced a fresh view of feminist activism. In her seven years as president (1990-1996, the longest continuous tenure in the chapter’s 30 year history) she mobilized activists locally and nationally on a whole range of issues, including women’s image in media, child care, health care, violence against women, economics, and domestic violence. Ms. Bruce also served two years as a member of the National NOW Board of Directors.
An important contributor to the author’s position on the relevance of free speech comes from her experience as a radio talk show host. Flagshipped at KABC Radio and nationally syndicated with 153 affiliates, The “Tammy Bruce Show” premiered in 1993 in Los Angeles. Additionally, her editorials and commentaries on significant social issues have been published nationally and internationally in a wide variety of magazines, newspapers, and on television and radio programming. Ms. Bruce is also a Fox News Channel Political Analyst, and served on California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s Transition Team.
Ms. Bruce’s first book, “The New Thought Police,” was published by Forum, an imprint of Crown/Random House, in October 2001. An analysis of freedom of expression and the culture wars, it explores the importance of freedom of expression and personal liberty and how that liberty is under attack by the dangerous rise of Left-wing McCarthyism. Her second book, “The Death of Right and Wrong,”also for Random House (April 2003), addresses the rise of moral relativism in society and quickly became a New York Times best seller. Ms. Bruce’s latest work,“The New American Revolution,” was published by Harper Collins/Morrow in November 2005. The paperback edition was released November 2006. She is currently working on her fourth book, with a subject matter yet to be revealed.
A native of Los Angeles, Ms. Bruce holds a Bachelor’s Degree in Political Science from the University of Southern California. She also notes her interest in politics and individual liberty was sparked during her childhood in part because of the work of authors Ray Bradbury and George Orwell, both of whom remain her favorite writers. Ms. Bruce lives in Los Angeles with Snoopy the Cat, Snoopy’s best friend Sydney the Dog, and puts up with a raccoon she has named Rocky, who refuses to leave her outside patio.

Free Tammy Radio Stream
M-F 9am-12pm PT
Talk Stream Live also carries a replay from 12pm-3pm PT
Saturday 4pm-7pm PT

KABC Radio, Los Angeles, Saturday’s, 7-10 PM Pacific Time

The Reasons Why The West Should Intervene in Georgia

leave a comment »

Appeasing Russia

The historical reasons why the West should intervene in Georgia

John Barry
Newsweek Web Exclusive
Updated: 6:45 PM ET Aug 11, 2008

Is that “appeasement” we see sidling shyly out of the closet of history? Are we doomed to recall the infamous remark by a Western leader that it was “fantastic” to think Europe should involve itself in “a quarrel in a faraway country between people of which we know nothing”? As the United States and the Europeans feverishly debate how to respond to Russia’s onslaught on Georgia, are the ghosts of Europe’s bloody history rising from their shallow graves?

As those of a certain age will recall, “appeasement” encapsulated the determination of British governments of the 1930s to avoid war in Europe, even if it mean capitulating to the ever-increasing demands of Adolf Hitler. The nadir came in 1938, when British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain acceded to Hitler’s demand to take over the western slice of Czechoslovakia—a dispute Chamberlain so derisively dismissed.

It is impossible to view the Russian onslaught against Georgia without these bloodstained memories rising to mind. In history, as the great French President Charles de Gaulle remarked—no doubt plagiarising someone else—the only constant is geography. And through centuries of European history the only constant has been that small countries, doomed by geography to lie between great powers, are destined to be the cockpit for their imperial ambitions. That’s held true since the Low Countries’ agony under Spanish power in the 1500s. And the lichen has not yet spread over the gravestones of Europe and America that mark the toll of the two European wars of the 20th century—both having their roots in struggles between rival empires to assert power over the luckless nations of central Europe.

This time, the cockpit lies further east. In the wake of the cold war, the West providentially summoned the nerve to push NATO eastward to incorporate the former Warsaw Pact vassals of the Soviet Union—presciently doing this while post-Soviet Russia was too weak to resist. But once Moscow got its breath back, anyone with historical wit could foresee a revived Russian push for influence in central Europe. Many argued against this NATO expansion, calling it “premature” and “sure to inflame Russia.” The usual arguments. Those naysayers might now look at the Russian offensive in Georgia, and ponder how much greater this crisis would be had it involved, say, Poland or Hungary or the Czech Republic. At least central Europe is now under the umbrella of NATO Article 5 guarantees.

Instead, what we see are conflicts at the new margins of the West’s sway: Ukraine, the Balkans, now Georgia. These conflicts have one common factor: a resurgent Russia determined to exploit local grievances to beat back Western influence—in shorthand, democracy—on its shrunken frontiers. Using, in all cases, precisely the argument (a Russian right to protect its citizens, in Serbia its co-religionists) that Hitler used in the 1930s. The Sudeten Czechs were Germans, after all. Just as the South Ossetians now are, well, sort of Russian—having at any rate been issued Russian passports.

The European urge to appease Russia will be strong. In the ’30s, ghastly memories of World War I dominated the political debate. Besides, Western governments’ most pressing need was to recover from the Depression. Who wanted war or the threat of war? Now, Europe relaxes after near-50 years of cold war, and struggles to avoid recession after the subprime banking crash. The more things change …

Just as their forebears in the 1930s sought refuge in the League of Nations, the United States and Europe duly take the Georgian crisis to the United Nations. But the U.N. is, by definition, as impotent now as the League of Nations was then. Russia can, and clearly will, veto any resolution of significance. And what power, other than words, could the United Nations deploy anyway? Sanctions? Against Russia, which supplies Europe with most of its energy, just as winter approaches?

Whether Russia intends to fully invade Georgia is unclear. It’s plausible that Moscow has not made up its mind, and is waiting to gauge the West’s response. Two things are clear. Russia’s bombing campaign against Georgia is now targeting more than military targets. At the least, Russia seems determined to set back Georgia’s economy for years. It also seems clear—from what Vitaly Churkin, Russia’s able ambassador at the U.N., said Sunday—that Russia is demanding, presumably as part of the price of a ceasefire, the ousting of Georgia’s pro-Western leader, Mikheil Saakashvili. He would be wise to remember what happened to a pro-Western leader in nearby Ukraine; Viktor Yushchenko was poisoned and nearly died.

So what can the West do? The Europeans are unlikely to do anything beyond hand-wringing. The first responses in the comment columns of Britain’s leftish newspaper The Guardian show its readers closing ranks around the comforting but irrelevant thought that this is all somehow George W. Bush’s fault. Besides, with post-cold-war defense budgets now barely visible to the naked eye, the Europeans lack the capacity to intervene. They don’t have even the transport aircraft.

The United States, on the other hand, does have the capability to actually do something. Not to expel Russian forces from South Ossetia—that ethnic tangle is best left to negotiation—but to guarantee Georgia’s sovereignty and independence. Georgia’s right to self-defense is unquestionable: it needs no U.N. resolution to say that. Washington has every right to send “peace-keeping” troops into Georgia if Saakashvili requests it. The 82nd Airborne, its brigades newly returned from Iraq, could be mustered as a guarantor force. Numbers are not critical. What matters is the message: the Soviet-style attack on Georgia will not to be dismissed Chamberlain-style. President Bush racheted up the rhetoric Monday afternoon, when he blasted Russia for invading “a sovereign neighboring state … Such an action is unacceptable in the 21st century … The Russian government must respect Georgia’s territorial integrity and sovereignty.”

And if the West does not react forcefully to protect Georgia? Russia, and all the nations on its periphery, will draw the obvious lessons. Will Putin follow history and demand next a Russian right to move troops into Estonia, a NATO member, to “protect” its Russian population?

There are few lessons safely drawn from history—except that of George Santayana: “Those who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it.”

Written by Ridgeliner7

Monday, August 11, 2008 at 9:03:37 PM

Top Lame Video (So Far) Of Election 2008

leave a comment »

Watch this and weep…

Cokie Roberts On Timing Of Obama Vacation, etc.

with 2 comments

Written by Ridgeliner7

Sunday, August 10, 2008 at 4:20:20 PM

Obama: The Manchurian Candidate?

with 4 comments

From Larry Johnson @ No Quarter:

August 9, 2008

“Just today, courtesy of the Rocky Mountain News, we confirmed that Barack aka Barry Soetoro Obama was a citizen of Kenya since 1963. Barack has yet to stipulate when he renounced or relinquished that citizenship. That will be a distracting issue in the upcoming campaign. Americans don’t want to elect a Kenyan as President. It is that simple.

But then there is the Indonesian problem and his Hawaiian birth certificate.
I confirmed today that several teams/individuals visited Jakarta during the last six months to gather up critical documents regarding Barack. It is amazing what money can buy. The information includes details of how Barack made his way to Pakistan. Oh! Did I mention there have been similar efforts underway in Pakistan. There are several lessons and warnings in the John Edwards affair for Obama. First and foremost, you cannot hide your past.”

FromThe Real Barack Obama:

“To that blank slate that was Obama in 2004 you can now add the Pandora’s box of Tony Rezko, Allison Davis, Alexi Giannoulias, Kwame Kilpatrick and a long list of members of the Illinois Combine; Nadhmi Auchi, Aiham Alsammarae, Rashid and Mona Khalidi, and Edward Said; Revs. Jeremiah Wright, James Meeks, and Otis Moss III and Father Michael Pfleger; Louis Farrakhan, the Nation of Islam and the 1995 Million Man March; Malik Zulu Shabazz and the New Black Panther Party; William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, Marilyn Katz, Carl Davidson, Mike Klonsky and others from the SDS days who are clinging to his coat tails; Jodi Evans; Hamas and other admirers like Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, Muammar al-Gaddafi, Kim Jong-Il, and the Communist Party USA; and the list goes on.
Let’s not forget the ever-growing list of controversies: Rezko house and lot; lobbyists, bundlers, and overseas contributions; Odinga family and violence in Kenya; Soetero family and Muslim schooling in Indonesia; Dunham family in Kansas and Hawaii; and the mysteries of his birth certificate—is he Barry Soetero? Barack Obama Jr. or someone else and was his name ever legally changed?—and rumors about his possible dual or mixed citizenship.
Oh, we cannot leave out his elitism and mention of “bitter” Americans and “typical white” people like his grandmother and the constant playing of the race card when his campaign or poll numbers were slipping downward, not to omit 18 million Democratic voters who will never forget how he treated Sen. Hillary Clinton throughout the campaign and how, with the help of the DNC elite and his brownshirted acolytes, he stole the Democratic primary.
Silly reporter. You just had to ask, didn’t you?”

From Goodtimepolitics, “Democrats candidate healthcare, Economic plan”:

August 10, 2008
“Barack Obama plan with a trillion dollar tax increase on America’s hard working families.
Senator Barack Obama’s bold plans to spend hundreds of billions on national health care, infrastructure, education, and energy? Put another way, how likely is it that the plans now being spelled out on the campaign trail will actually come to pass? In two words, not very.
So why make promises that you can not keep Obama?  People did you hear, Obama is just talking and there is no way that he can do any of the things he’s says.  Add on the inexperience and you have a useless candidate in Barack Obama.”

Please note that TexasDarlin, a key PUMA (Hillary Clinton) Democrat, oringinally published many like items and investigatory results on her own blog. You should check it out and bookmark it HERE.

Weekly Opinion Roundup: August 3-10, 2008

leave a comment »

This is a weekly round-up of different opinions from various sources around the Web.  I hope you will use these are tools to gather your own information, knowledge of what others are thinking…..

  • Obama- A Knight on a Gray Horse

MWC, Media With Conscience

OH DEAR, what has happened to the knight on the white horse?

This week, many of Barack Obama’s admirers were shocked. Up to now, it had been believed that the huge sums of money flowing into the coffers of his campaign came from anonymous citizens, each sending a check for 100 or 200 dollars.

Now, alas, it has been disclosed that a large part of those millions actually came from big donors – the very same huge corporations, their CEOs and lobbyists, who have corrupted the democratic process in previous contests. They spread their largesse generously and simultaneously among all the candidates from left to right, so as to be on the winning side whatever happens.

Obama had promised to put an end to the old, dirty corporate funding-for-influence system. Now it appears that he participates in this corrupt system himself.

What a disappointment.

FOR ANYONE living in the real world, the disappointment cannot be that big.

The modern election campaign is an insatiable monster. It devours huge sums of money. Those who innocently believe that such sums can be raised from small and anonymous contributors are deluding themselves. That is quite impossible.

Obama did indeed receive many donations from ordinary citizens, and that is a positive sign. But if he had refused to accept contribution from the large donors, who are necessarily self-interested donors, he might as well have given up his candidacy.

  • Wisconsin voters speak their minds about McCain, Obama

Mark Treichel understands that young people like him are excited about Democrat Barack Obama and his promises to bring change to the political status quo.

But the 23-year-old Milwaukee man is still voting for John McCain.

Sandra Herian, a 29-year-old health care worker, really wanted Hillary Rodham Clinton to win the Democratic primary. And while she intends to vote for Obama, she won’t be heartbroken if he loses.

Angela Modra said that things have gotten so bad under President Bush that she doesn’t really care who wins.

All across Wisconsin, as the long days of summer start to shorten and the presidential race slowly comes into focus, voters are looking ahead to the fall and figuring out who they will support.

Both campaigns are once again focusing on the key Upper Midwest state, pouring millions into television advertising and making stops to win over voters. Wisconsin is seen as winnable by both sides because Democrats Al Gore and John Kerry barely carried it the past two elections.

Over one week in late July The Associated Press traveled the state talking to voters encountered at random from the heart of downtown Milwaukee over the lunch hour to a food court in an Eau Claire mall. From those getting an early start to the weekend on a sunny Friday afternoon on the University of Wisconsin-Madison campus to sports fans in Wausau and Green Bay.

All but one of the 19 people interviewed said they intend to vote. Twelve say they are for Obama, while four are for McCain. Two were undecided.

But the race is definitely on people’s minds.

McCain is calling himself the underdog in Wisconsin. During a recent campaign stop in Racine, he admitted to having to play catch-up to Obama in the state. But McCain said he still believes Wisconsin will be one of the closest on election night.

There are some voters McCain can go after. People like Modra, a 27-year-old who voted for Bush in 2000 but not in 2004. She was raised as a Republican but said she made many Democratic friends while in college at UW-Madison before graduating in 2005.

Treichel, the 23-year-old Republican who works for a Milwaukee marketing firm, admitted that he’s not all that excited about McCain. But he said he’s less excited about Obama.

Treichel said he doesn’t believe the 47-year-old Obama has enough experience. He supports McCain primarily because he’s a Republican, but he also thinks he’s the better candidate to address his top issues: the Iraq war and the economy.  He does think Obama is inspiring a lot of young people to get involved in politics.

Bob Motz, 60, and Noel Bushor, 39, both of Merrill said they likely will vote for McCain mainly because they are Republicans and can’t imagine voting for a Democrat. Both men were among hundreds in line for a Monday night game of the Wisconsin Woodchucks, an independent baseball team that plays in Wausau.

Even though both said they were going to vote for McCain, they also said they wanted to see both candidates go head to head to show how they differ on the issues.

Bushor, who owns a furniture store, said the biggest issues for him are what the candidates will do for small businesses, taxes and bringing the troops home. Motz said health care is the biggest issue for him.

The Iraq war is of most concern to Angie Coffield, a 21-year-old from Altoona who was sitting outside the Eau Claire mall. And even though Coffield said she wants to see the troops come home as soon as possible, she’s not excited about Obama or McCain.

She said she’s not going to vote at all.

“I just think they’re all out for publicity or money,” Coffield said.

“He may not be the best fit as president,” Treichel said.


Written by Ridgeliner7

Saturday, August 9, 2008 at 8:49:34 PM