Scott R. Sullivan

July 20th, 2008 by Scott

In one of Obama’s recent ads, he says:

He passed a law to move people from welfare to work, slashed the rolls by eighty percent. Passed tax cuts for workers; health care for kids.

The truth of the matter is, he was mandated to sign that law by a bill written by the 1994 Republican Congress and signed into law by President Clinton:

First, the law in question wasn’t dreamed up out of thin air by its sponsors. It was the follow-up to the welfare reform act, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act, that President Clinton signed on Aug. 26, 1996. That law gave states the ability to design their own welfare programs as long as they met certain federal requirements, including limits on how long recipients could get benefits.

Welfare reform was successful in moving people off public assistance. There was about a 78 percent drop in the number of families receiving public assistance in Illinois between 1998 and 2006. It was the federal law, hammered out by Clinton and the Republican Congress, that set the wheels in motion and forced states to act. Nationwide, the number of families on welfare declined quite a bit as well, going from 3,146,870 in ‘98 to 1,805,900 in ‘06, a decrease of almost 43 percent.(Source)

So why are we interested in putting Obama in the White House, when it was the 1994 Republican Congress and their Contract With America that initiated this action?

It was the Republican Congress that helped get people off welfare and become responsible, productive citizens. Let’s remember that.

May 16th, 2008 by Scott

Ok, reports of Big Oil making record profits over the past several years are rampant, correct? Bush is in the pockets of Big Oil according to the left, correct?

Now, I went to college for Aerospace Engineering, but I do live out in the country, so I may not be seeing things correctly (but I DID stay at a Holiday Inn last night). So someone correct me if I’m wrong.

If Big Oil = Record Profits and Bush = Big Oil, then shouldn’t Bush = Big Profits? After all, didn’t we go to war so Bush could get rich off oil?

So explain this article from The Washington Post:

President Bush’s financial fortunes appear to have declined over the past seven years, with his family assets dropping as low as $6.5 million, according to disclosure forms released yesterday.

Hmm. The President who’s in the pocket of Big Oil lost money, while Big Oil made money? Could it be that Bush ISN’T in bed with Big Oil? Let’s read further:

President Bush’s biggest asset is a 1,600-acre family ranch near Crawford, Tex., which is listed as being worth between $1 million and $5 million. Most of the Bush family holdings are in real estate and a blind trust.

What!? Most of his holdings are in real estate and a blind trust? I thought he was in bed with Big Oil?

And what’s this with Bush’s assets being worth only $6.5 million? I thought he’d be richer. Hmmm. Compare that to:

Hillary Clinton: Net Worth: $34.9 million (source)

Keep that in mind the next time someone claims Bush is raking in the big bucks from the oil companies.

April 16th, 2008 by Scott

Obama’s been basing his campaign on the fact that he is “change” and isn’t the “typical” politician in Washington.

But listen to the progression of his statements, beginning with Saturday’s blunder when he spoke about small town Americans in Pennsylvania:

Saturday - First spoke the words

“You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And it’s not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.“

Monday - Twist meaning of word (ala what the definition of “is” is?)

“People may be bitter about their leaders and the state of our politics. That’s why they leave their homes…and travel—sometimes for miles, sometimes in the bitter cold—to attend a rally or a town hall meeting held by Senator Clinton, or Senator McCain, or myself.”

Tuesday - Bad word, but not backing down

“Now it may be that I chose my words badly. It wasn’t the first time and it won’t be the last. But when I hear my opponents, both of whom have spent decades in Washington, saying I’m out of touch, it’s time to cut through their rhetoric and look at the reality.”

Wednesday - DISTRACT by claiming your opponent is doing the distracting!

“When we get past the politics of division and distraction and we start actually focusing on what we have in common, there’s nothing we can’t accomplish.

He isn’t the new ‘change’ everyone wants. He is just a politician, just like Clinton, twisting words, distracting and blaming others. Republican and Conservative beliefs are based on personal responsibility. You make a mistake, you admit to it and work to make amends. That is also part of being a Christian.

You acknowledge your sins. You acknowledge that you are imperfect and pray for forgiveness. We don’t try and rewrite the past and pretend it never happened.

This might be why so many people are in love with Obama and Clinton. They don’t worry about taking responsibility for your actions, which seems a trend with many liberals today. Ignore morals and just do what “feels” good at the time.

Doing what is right and what is easy are never the same thing.

You don’t just pretend it didn’t happen, change the facts or blame the world for your mistake.

How very presidential, Obama.

April 14th, 2008 by Scott

You just can’t make this stuff up. According to several news reports, Obama’s pastor is at it again. The Rev. Wright made a few comments at a funeral that are in lockstep with his previous remarks. Speaking about the pastor who passed on:

[He] was not the jingoistic, chauvinistic ‘you’re either with us or against us’ demonizing kind of faith.

That was just the beginning of what seemed like a pep rally. Brings back memories of the other Democratic funeral/pep rally for the late Minnesota Senator Paul Wellstone, who died in 2002. Remember the applause, the cheering and the inflammatory remarks at that funeral by all the Democrat speakers and attendees?

Deja vu.

“FOX News can’t understand that,” Wright said to rousing cheers and applause.

Here we go again! This week is going to be all about the funeral / pep rally. Add to the mix Hillary’s comments this past weekend about support for shooting guns.

I’m going to have to buy more popcorn. This is turning into a double-feature!

January 3rd, 2008 by Scott

Tonight the results came in from the Iowa caucus and we have our first primary result. Republican Gov. Huckabee and Democratic Sen. Obama lead the pack, at this very early stage.

As I mentioned in my previous post about these results, we now have a preliminary result of a Democrat Senator versus a Republican Governor.

Though I missed the exact result (I called for Gov. Romney to win, and he came in second, winning 12 delegates to Huckabee’s 17), I still stand by my analysis of the 2008 presidential election. I still see Gov. Romney taking the White House this November. Of the Republican candidates, Romney is, perhaps, the strongest conservative running.

On the Democratic side, what will be interesting is to watch Mrs. Bill Clinton over the coming weeks now that she is no longer the “inevitable” candidate that she tried to portray. And with a third place ranking, it will be hard for her, even if she does win, to claim to have a “mandate.”

Of course, remember that winning Iowa doesn’t mean you win the White House. Remember several years back, one Gov. Clinton came in fourth in Iowa, and second in New Hampshire only to be the “comeback kid” and win the presidential election in 1992. It is an election and, as history has shown, anything can happen!

Only time will tell.

Update: 8 Jan 08
The New Hampshire primary has finished and Gov. Romney took the “silver” as he called it. This, combined with Iowa and Wyoming, place him at the top, with the most delegates.