Clinton-Clark 2008

Clinton-Clark 2008

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

September 17, 2003

Although erroneously reported when Wesley Clark announced his candidacy for the Democratic nomination for president in 2004 that Hillary Clinton would serve as co-chair of his campaign, the two will eventually be linked in what could be a frightening pairing.

Clark, 58, a retired four star general, raised in Little Rock, Arkansas, entered the race for his party’s nomination – the tenth candidate to do so, graduated first in his class at West Point and served his country in uniform for 34 years. In 1970 Clark earned a Purple Heart and Silver Star while serving in Vietnam. A social liberal, Clark will appeal to moderate Democrats because of his military background and for his being a southerner.

While Clark is used to giving orders, he is also used to serving his country. This run for the Democratic nomination may merely be a test balloon to see how he will play in Peoria. This is simply a dress rehearsal for the 2008 campaign when former First Lady and current New York Senator Clinton will make a run for the White House herself.

Clinton, no longer content to play second banana, will seek the top spot on the Democratic ticket in 2008. This should belie any thoughts of Clark selecting Clinton as his running mate for the 2004 campaign. She instead will tap the career military man to give her ticket the image of having a military backbone.

Do not be drawn into this ploy when it happens. Clark vehemently opposed this administration’s war effort in Iraq. Clark also had his NATO command in Kosovo “taken” from him and opted for early retirement in July 2000 upon the joint request of then Defense Secretary William Cohen and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Henry Shelton.

As Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) flip-flopped from his normally moderate views to dancing to the tune of the liberal Al Gore when Gore became his party’s standard bearer in 2000, expect Clark to march in lock-step behind Clinton, demonstrably and virulently anti-military. Also, do not forget her failed attempt to hijack and socialize the health care industry in the United States during her husband’s administration. Ask a Canadian how happy they are with their healthcare system.

Also, discount the lame-brained notion that Clark would seek the presidency with Clinton on the ticket then resign the office in order for Clinton to grab the brass ring without ever having been elected. That is far-fetched, at best. Clark would first have to win the nomination, which is certainly no guarantee. Former Vermont Governor Howard Dean is still the candidate to beat, in spite of his recent verbal gaffes.

(During the week of the last Democratic candidate’s debate Dean said the United States should play a neutral role in the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This would dramatically alter the 55-year relationship enjoyed between the United States and Israel and be contrary to the history between the two nations. Dean’s next verbal blunder came a day later when he referred to Hamas terrorists as soldiers fighting a war. Given ample opportunity to retract both statements, he retracted neither.)

Clark would then have to defeat President Bush, which would be no easy task in spite of the liberal media’s attempts to discredit this administration at every turn. Bush’s approval ratings may be slipping, but they are merely leveling off after a quicker than expected military success in Iraq. For those who wish to condemn this administration for an alleged economic downturn, President Bush inherited that from former President Clinton. At the same time, the economy has been affected by the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks as well the war on terrorism being fought in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Our president has contended with the most challenging of circumstances with both dignity and resolve.

This president should be re-elected for restoring the military to the former greatness it enjoyed before President Bill Clinton got his draft-dodging hands on it. President Bush should be re-elected for his swift response to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Had Gore been in the White House, he would have had the country join hands and sing “Kum By Ya.” Restoring the military, fighting terrorism and wars on two fronts have obviously been costly – both in humanity and in dollars, yet the economy has not suffered as severely as it could have.

Re-election for President Bush is certainly no sure thing. But, should it happen, the nation must brace itself for the Clinton-Clark team in 2008. Dangerous. Frightening. A possibility. And the GOP has no one waiting in the wings.

G-d Bless America.

Sanford D. Horn is a writer and political consultant living in Alexandria, VA.

McKinney's Appointment An Insult

McKinney’s Appointment An Insult

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

August 23, 2003

Last week Cornell University reached a new low with its dubious appointment of Cynthia McKinney to a three-year term as a Frank H.T. Rhodes visiting professor.

McKinney, a former five-term Georgia Congressman, will lecture for a minimum of two weeks per semester on the subjects of human rights, voting rights and the political process. The Atlanta native, 48, blamed the Jewish community in her DeKalb County district for her defeat in the 2002 Democratic primary race at the hands of current Congressman Denise Majette. AIPAC (American Israel Political Action Committee), “targeted me for defeat,” said McKinney, following her loss and referred to Majette’s victory as a “Zionist conspiracy.”

In addition to her rantings that the Jewish community was responsible for her political undoing, McKinney, virulently anti-Israel, has been described as racist, derisive and divisive, garnering 81 percent of the black vote, but only 5 percent of the white vote en route to her five previous victories.

In McKinney’s delusional thinking, she accused President George W. Bush of orchestrating the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center in New York City as well as the Pentagon in Arlington, VA. In addition to that wild accusation, McKinney suggested President Bush did nothing in order to protect his father’s defense industry stocks.

Following the Sept. 11 attacks, then New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani rejected a $10 million donation from Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal. Remember, 15 of the 19 Sept. 11 hijacker-terrorists were Saudis. McKinney not only had the gall to apologize to the prince, but suggested that he spend the money in her congressional district.

Further, on October 26, 2002, McKinney joined Arabs in an anti-war rally in Washington, DC. She has long been a supporter of Palestinian statehood – clearly a mistake in the wake of the Tuesday, August 19 homicide bus bombing by Hamas in Jerusalem, among other numerous continued assaults on the Jewish state.

“Cynthia McKinney is a person of considerable achievement in the political sphere,” said Porus Olpadwala, dean of Cornell’s School of Architecture, Art and Planning as well as chair of the 13-member faculty committee that brought McKinney to campus.

The alumni of Cornell University should be aware of such appointments in order to determine if they wish to continue making financial commitments to their alma mater. Tell Cornell you are outraged by this appointment and will not fund anything sponsored by the university until this insulting appointment is reversed.

Sanford D. Horn is a writer living in Alexandria, VA.

President Ford at 90

President Ford at 90

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

July 15, 2003

Leslie Lynch King, Jr., better known as Gerald Rudolph Ford – one of only 42 men to hold the highest office in the nation as President of the United States, came into this world on July 14, 1913. Shame on The Washington Post for not recognizing President Ford’s 90^th birthday – one of only four presidents to reach such a milestone, joining Ronald Reagan, Herbert Hoover and John Adams.

Gerald Ford – neither elected vice president nor president – did a good job restoring a sense of order, pride and dignity to the presidency following Watergate.  Having served 25 years as a Michigan Congressman, Ford’s appointment as vice president came on the heels of Spiro T. Agnew’s resignation. Ford, far from right-wing, worked well with Republicans and Democrats. Ford only lost the 1976 presidential election because he is Republican. Following Watergate ANY Democrat would have won the White House in '76, and Jimmy Carter proved that.

Ford played football at the University of Michigan, majoring in economics and political science. Turning down two offers to play professional football, Ford went to Yale Law School before returning to Michigan. He served in the US Navy from 1942-46, rising to Lieutenant Commander. Ford first won election to Congress in 1948, serving until 1973 upon his appointment to the vice presidency.

Ford, an avid golfer, is the last living member of the Warren Commission. So avid, he apparently suffered from dizzy spells on his birthday while on the links.

G-d Bless President Gerald Ford, on his 90th birthday, and his wife Betty.

Sanford D. Horn is a writer living in Alexandria, VA.

The Roadmap to Hell

The Roadmap to Hell

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

June 5, 2003

The somewhat historic handshake between Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas signaled a positive step toward peace in the Middle East. After all Sharon and PLO dictator Yassir Arafat never shook hands, and rightfully so, for to do so would be equating the two as peers on the global stage.

However, that handshake should not be overblown beyond what it was – a handshake. There is still a long road ahead and the alleged roadmap for peace is truly a roadmap to hell for Israel and the survival of the Jewish State.

Once again, as has historically been the case, land for peace is the issue – and once again, there is no guarantee that peace will be achieved even after land is surrendered. Israel should cede no land. Not now, not ever. Not one square inch. The White House has correctly called for the Palestinian Authority to declare a war on terrorism, not just the temporary cease fire the PA had proposed. Temporary – not permanent. Once land is gone, it is gone, to paraphrase the late great Rabbi Meir Kahane, assassinated by Arab terrorists.

“Our goal is clear, and we will implement it firmly and without compromise: a complete end to violence and terrorism,” said Palestinian Prime Minister Abbas said on June 4.

Those are bold words coming from a man who has as much control over such terrorist groups as Hamas, as Washington-area residents have over whether or not the Montreal Expos will ever play baseball in DC. Hamas is virulently against the proposed roadmap having vowed to continue its homicidal attacks until it controls and possesses all of Israel.

Israeli Prime Minister Sharon already made the mistake of releasing nearly 100 Palestinian prisoners. Granted, he did so as a show of good faith, but what did he get in return? Agreeing to “remove unauthorized outposts,” again is a sign of good faith by Sharon, but what did he get in return? This is a system of blackmail. The Palestinians make demands in exchange for a possibility that they will stop killing innocent Israelis – maybe. Sharon, in making these concessions is behaving somewhat hypocritically when he said on June 4, “there can be no compromise with terror.”

Heinous acts of terror and homicide bombings continue to be a means to an end – proving that violence accomplishes a goal. That goal is the creation of a Palestinian state. And that is the Palestinian roadmap – keep killing Israelis until there is no more Israel.

Both Sharon and Abbas called for a peaceful coexistence between the Israelis and the Palestinians. It should happen.

“It is in Israel’s interest not to govern the Palestinians, but for the Palestinians to govern themselves in their own state. A democratic Palestinian state fully at peace with Israel will promote the long-term security and well-being of Israel as a Jewish state,” said Sharon on June 4.

“Our goal is two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side, in peace and security,” said Abbas on June 4, however, also calling for “end[ing] the occupation that began in 1967,”

That should not happen. Israel was attacked, defended itself and won a war. Again to paraphrase Rabbi Meir Kahane, “when you win, you win. You don’t give back land.”

There should be a Palestinian state – which by right should be in what is present day Jordan. (It seems ironic that Jordan should play host to this Middle East peace summit.) Israel, as a Jewish State, and a Palestinian state should exist – seperately, with the Palestinians living freely outside of Israel – freely, but without a military, just a police force for its internal governance. Both nations should have secure borders – unlike the sieve existing on the US-Mexico border. Strict and rigid border patrols should exist for the protection of both peoples.

In time, the two nations might engage in trade, educational exchanges and perhaps even sporting events. Soccer, baseball or basketball contests certainly sound better than war. So, batter up for peace – the right way.

Sanford D. Horn is a writer and political consultant living in Alexandria, VA.

The Lone Party State

The Lone Party State

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

May 15, 2003

Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) summed it up both plainly and succinctly on the Fox News Channel when he said of the wayward Democrats in the Lone Star State legislature, “it’s like a child with a temper tantrum. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose – that’s democracy.”

Perry made his comments on Wednesday, May 14 on the heels of the 59 Democrats in the state house having fled north of the border to Ardmore, OK in Carter County. (Actually, some were said to have fled to New Mexico or even Mexico.) Republicans hold an 88 to 62 majority in the state’s lower house – the first time the GOP has enjoyed a majority in both houses in 130 years. The Democrats, not used to their new role as the minority party, are behaving like sore losers. And to the victors, go the spoils.

However, it is the contention of the Democrats in the Texas State House that they have turned tail because of a redistricting plan to which they object. Granted, some districts have been so severely gerrymandered that Eldridge Gerry is no doubt spinning in his grave.

But Greg Davidson, Executive Clerk for Gov. Perry, is not buying the Democrats’ claim. “This is a push by trial attorneys using this to discredit the leadership of the house and win back a majority in the 2004 elections,” said Davidson in a telephone interview from Austin.

According to the proposed redistricting plan, one particular downtown street in the state’s capital of Austin, a traditionally liberal bastion, would be hacked up and placed into four congressional districts. Adding to the mix, one of those four pieces would end up in a congressional district connected to the Mexican border roughly 300 miles away, noted The Washington Post of May 13. So, to be fair to the Democrats, some of the redrawn districts are loopy and make no sense, but there has to be a better way than running away.

The Texas state legislature meets for a 140 day session every two years. This years’ session is due to expire on Tuesday, June 3. One of the executive powers held by the governor is to call the legislature into a special session. Perry said the regular session could end without a state budget and with other key legislation, such as the lowering of homeowners’ insurance, laying dormant without passage.

Other executive powers the governor possesses are the ability to submit emergency matters, tagged as priority, to the legislature during the session; the ability to call a special election in order to fill a vacancy; the ability to appoint heads of agencies; and the ability to review all bills and resolutions to either sign, veto or file with no signature. Unlike a federal pocket veto, when a Texas governor commits a file with no signature, in essence, it is approved.

“I will call them back for a special session – you bet I will,” said Perry to Tony Snow on Fox News.

What the Democrats are doing is gumming up the works, by not showing up to work – work the voters elected them to perform. The voters have a greater recourse than Gov. Perry himself, said Davidson. “The governor has no power over another branch,” said Davidson.

There will be “no repercussions,” said Perry. “Come on back and do the work and pass legislation. The voters will decide on repercussions,” he added. “They’ve had their fun. They have to come home and explain to their constituents why they can’t do their jobs.”

Because Gov. Perry does not have the authority to fire the runaway Democrats the way President Ronald Reagan fired the air traffic controllers in the interest of national security, it is up to the voters to fire their legislators. The voters need to deliver a message that they sent those legislators to Austin to do a job and if those elected officials don’t do that job, by being voted out, they will be fired.

As for extradition, Oklahoma Governor Brad Henry, a Democrat, refused. Some have suggested that there is no cause to extradite these Democrats on the lam. The Democrats are on the lam because the Texas Rangers received orders to track down, arrest and bring back to Austin the lawmakers to finish their work. And, in order to elude capture, the Democrats needed to cross state lines, rendering Texas authorities impotent by virtue of being outside their jurisdiction. That extradition is used to return a lawbreaker to the jurisdiction where the law was broken is the excuse used by those supporting the Democrats, claiming no broken laws, no extradition.

Under the Rules of the House – 78^th Legislature, Rule 5 – Floor Procedure; Section 8: “…All absentees for whom no sufficient excuse is made may, by order of a majority of those present, be sent for and arrested, wherever they may be found, by the sergeant-of-arms or an officer appointed by the sergeant-of-arms for that purpose, and their attendance shall be secured and retained.”

It appears evident that the words “wherever they may be found,” should give the Texas Rangers or other state authorities carte blanche to arrest the miscreant Democrats even in Oklahoma or New Mexico. Mexico may be another kettle of fish, however.

The Texas state constitution also supports the forceful retrieving of the missing Democrats. Article 3 – Legislative Department; Section 10 – Quorum; adjournments from day to day; compelling attendance says, “Two-thirds of each House shall constitute a quorum to do business, but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner and under such penalties as each House may provide.”

Could the Democrats be guilty of breach of contract? After all, they were elected to serve throughout a 140 day session and are not living up to their end of the bargain. Could the Democrats be guilty of reckless endangerment? By abandoning their jobs, they have left hundreds of bills unattended – bills designed to improve the quality of life and protect all Texans – Democrats, Republicans, Independents and those not affiliated or even old enough to vote.

While many  people both inside Texas and on the outside looking in are getting a good chuckle from the runaway Democrats, this is no laughing matter. The Democrats are behaving like spoiled brats who have fled because they are not going to get their way as they have for the past 130 years. Their actions are unprecedented and should not go unpunished. The truant Democrats have no right to play fast and easy with state resources, nor do they have the right to hold the state of Texas hostage while they take their equipment and scurry from the field like little leaguers spurned by the rest of the team.

Sanford D. Horn is a writer and political consultant living in Alexandria, VA.

Black and Blue in Black and White

Black and Blue in Black and White

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

May 12, 2003

While the once vaunted New York Times licks its wounds and attempts to restore both its dignity and its reputation as the leader in American journalism due to the Jayson Blair scandal, it must attempt to restore the faith of its readers as well as answer some difficult and embarrassing questions.

The oft-asked question over these past days is how this could have happened in the first place. The this is that a relatively unknown freelance reporter and University of Maryland dropout rose to prominence at The New York Times despite a less than stellar performance level. In just three and one half years Blair’s work received roughly 50 red flags citing inaccuracies or inadequacies – more than one a month.

It has since come to light that Blair’s indiscretions were far worse, damaging the trustworthiness of the trade with his outright lies and plagiarism – stealing from his colleagues. Little sympathy should be given to Blair – his shortcuts and sloppiness led to his ultimate downfall. It will be hard for him to repair his own damaged reputation. Even less sympathy should be given to Blair’s former employer. The answer to the question of how this could have happened is that The New York Times allowed this to happen. They are as much to blame as Blair.

Did Blair’s resume say that he attended or graduated from the University of Maryland? That question alone should have prevented the Blair situation from occurring in the first place. If the resume contained the word attended, Blair should not have been hired in the first place. Why he didn’t graduate, is a question that should also be asked. If his resume indicated that he graduated, clearly a harbinger in and of itself, it would naturally be incumbent upon The New York Times do something that is common in the newspaper business – check the facts. That could have been the first and only interaction between The New York Times and Blair. The Washington Post [May 11] is quoted as saying that  when Blair joined The Times in 1999 “everyone assumed he had graduated from the University of Maryland – he had not…” And people know what happens when one assumes.

Instead, in the interest of furthering diversity at The New York Times, openly admitted by metropolitan editor Jonathan Landman, Blair rode the fast track that enabled him to cover such recent stories as the Washington, DC metropolitan area sniper attacks and domestic aspects of the war against Iraq. Blair’s inadequacies and ineptitudes were regularly overlooked. Internal memos about Blair by his superiors regarding said shortcomings went unheeded.

Liberalism and The Times’ own desire to perpetuate an obsolete affirmative action can be cited as major causes for the sticky wicket in which The Times finds itself. (Although, to be fair to The Times, it is airing its own dirty laundry publicly within its own pages.) Chances are, had the reporter in question been Caucasian, this situation would not have occurred. The Times felt a desire to carry Blair in order to fulfill its own prophecy. Had The Times not been on such a politically correct crusade, this situation could have been avoided. Unfortunately, there is an absolute double standard and a fear involved. Fear that to be critical is an act of racism. Fear that to dismiss someone, even for cause, could bring a lawsuit.

What suffers, aside from Blair’s reputation, which at best is on life support, is the faith placed by the public on not just The New York Times, but the medium in general. There is, after all, no governing body to police the journalistic community. People will think twice about whether or not to believe what they read. Readers will question the truthfulness of the words written by the reporters, and not just for the long-time bias newspapers have exhibited over the years. Some may even question whether or not certain reporters are affirmative action scribes – and that is unfortunate. There are plenty of eminently qualified and award-winning minority journalists who come by their skills through hard work and perform their hard work honestly. The late Sam Lacy of Baltimore’s Afro-American is a sterling example.

Jayson Blair should not be held up as the rule, but rather the exception where minority journalists are concerned. Nor should Jayson Blair be viewed as the example of what the University of Maryland School of Journalism is all about. Granted, there is some bias by this writer, a Maryland alum – but not from the School of Journalism. Those entrusted with the faith of the public ought to be held to higher standard. These standards and ethics should be taught in schools of journalism nationwide. There is a moral responsibility that journalists at all levels – from The Diamondback at the University of Maryland to The New York Times must maintain. If not, then stop the presses.

Sanford D. Horn is a freelance writer and political consultant living in Alexandria, VA and is a graduate of the University of Maryland.

Open Mouth, Insert Shoe Store

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

April 10, 2003

He’s done it again, but this time US Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA-8^th) has company from across the aisle in the form of US Rep. Barbara Cubin (R-WY-At Large) in an unrelated issue.

In a public meeting before a group of Alexandria Democrats and a Jewish civil rights group, Moran continues to lose points every time he opens his mouth. This time he suggested that AIPAC – the American Israel Public Action Committee would “direct a campaign against me and take over the campaign of a Democratic opponent.”

Moran continues to espouse his anti-Semitism by hiding behind euphemisms. While AIPAC is a lobbying organization (of which this writer has no affiliation) it is not a political action committee, it neither raises money for nor endorses candidates. Moran may be paranoid thinking people are out to get him, but every time he opens his mouth, he gets himself.

Across the aisle, Cubin stereotyped the entire black community on Wednesday, April 9 during the debate of a piece of gun rights legislation. Her comment came on the heels of a failed Democratic amendment attempting to ban gun sales to drug addicts or those undergoing drug treatment.

“One amendment today said we could not sell guns to anybody under drug treatment. So does that mean that if you go into a black community you can’t sell any guns to any black person,” said Cubin.

Cubin too should be chastised more severely for her comments – comments that should remain on the record and a part of The Congressional Record for all to see.

Sanford D. Horn is a writer living in Alexandria, VA.