Letters

Letters 08-25-14

Save America

I read your paper because it’s free and I enjoy the ads. But I struggle through the left wing tripe that fills every page, from political cartoons to the vitriolic pen of Mr. Tuttle. What a shame this beautiful area of the state has such an abundance of Socialist/democrats. Or perhaps the silent majority chooses to stay silent...

Doom, Yet a Cup Half Full

In the news we are told of the civil unrest at Ferguson, Mo; ISIS war radicals in Iraq and Syria; the great corporate tax heist at home. You name it. Trouble, trouble, everywhere. It seems to me the U.S. Congress is partially to blame...

Uncomfortable Questions

defending the positions of the Israelis vs Hamas are far too narrow. Even Mr. Tuttle seems to have failed in looking deeply into the divide. American media is not biased against Israel, nor or are they pro Palestine or Hamas...

The Evolution of Man Revisited

As the expectations of manhood evolve, so too do the rules of love. In Mr. Holmes’s statement [from “Our Therapist Will See Us Now” in last week’s issue] he narrows the key to a successful relationship to the basic need to have your wants and needs understood, and it is on this point I expand...

Home · Articles · News · Random Thoughts · Why Hillary should not...
. . . .

Why Hillary should not be president

George Foster - November 1st, 2007
Don’t get me wrong.
I am not a Neanderthal who detests women asserting themselves in public or the work place. Nothing is more attractive than an independent-minded woman who speaks her peace - I married one. Whoa mama, don’t ever change.
Hillary Clinton has never been accused of being a shrinking violet, either. She is also smart and an accomplished Senator of New York. Yet, I don’t believe she should be president.
First of all, electing Hillary would perpetuate a Clinton family dynasty. You may have already forgotten how experts believed Clinton-fatigue was a factor in kicking out the Democrats, thus George W. Bush sweeping to the presidency in 2000. Now we want to bring back a Clinton because of Bush-fatigue? If Hillary Clinton is elected in 2008 and serves two terms, Clintons and Bushes would have monopolized the White House for (gulp) 28 consecutive years. Just end it, people, END IT.
During my lifetime, it is an understatement to say that the United States of America is in a rut. From 1952 to 2004 a Nixon, Bush, or Dole has run on the presidential ticket in every election except 1964. That makes over fifty years of the same recycled mush. In a country of hundreds of millions of potential candidates, can’t we find anyone new? And I don’t mean Jeb Bush.
Also, America is not ready for Hillary Clinton because she is a woman. There, I said it. I expect to be sleeping on the couch for a while if my wife reads this.
Few are discussing the fact that if Ms. Clinton is even nominated for president, it will be a momentous event in American history - a first. For you youngsters, it seems unbelievable that women were prohibited from even voting for president in this country until about 80 years ago, let alone running for the top office.
The woman who breaks this ground will need to be confident and accomplished in ways that are not obvious. When Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier in baseball over 60 years ago, he was vastly more advanced than a typical rookie. Robinson was a college graduate, an elite athlete in at least three sports, a military veteran, and had already played baseball against future Hall of Famers in the Negro Leagues. Because of the depth of his varied resume, Robinson was also mentally and physically tougher than everyone else. While white players and fans verbally attacked him unmercifully, he somehow kept his cool with dignity in his first season in order to ensure that the change in baseball’s policy would work.
Jackie Robinson earned the right to become the African-American to destroy Major League Baseball’s taboo on minorities. On the other hand, Hillary Clinton should not be granted the historic honor of being the first Ms. President.
Let’s face it; we would not be considering her for the top office except for her famous husband. Americans should first be considering Condoleezza Rice, Nancy Pelosi, and other such qualified women who have worked their way to prominent political positions and have served in leadership roles at national government posts for many years.
What about time spent as First Lady, you ask? Don’t go there - it doesn’t count. It may actually be a negative experience for purposes of seeking the presidency. First Ladyship does of course have value in each administration, but every woman in that role has had to support her husband’s policies whether she agreed or not.
Please do your patriotic duty and vote for your favorite candidates in the upcoming elections... as long their names aren’t Clinton or Bush.
 
  • Currently 3.5/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
 
 

 

 
 
 
Close
Close
Close