Hillary Clinton Will Say Absolutely Anything...

...if it will get her elected.

One of my biggest complaints about politicians is how they shamelessly pander to whatever audience they have. Both sides do it, but it seems to get absolutely out of control with the Democrats.

Let's take a look at Hillary Clinton. We've all seen / heard the little episode a few months ago when she suddenly developed a thick southern accent when addressing a largely African-American audience. Well, she attempted a southern accent. What came out was some horrible mix of a dying vulture and Britney Spears singing without digital enhancement (it's not pretty).

Yesterday, the insanity continued. Hillary is out in Nevada, talking to the people, and letting everyone know she is the candidate of the people and for the people. In a staged door-to-door campaigning event, she walked through a lower-income, Hispanic neighborhood. Because Las Vegas had been a rapidly growing area, most of the people in this low-income area work in the construction industry. This, of course, led to comments on the supposed recession and how the government should step in and help these people. Not too bad, I guess, but let's look at what she actually said:

Clinton said unscrupulous lending leads to bad mortgages, which lead to foreclosures, which lead to people with nowhere to go and vacant neighborhoods that can go rapidly downhill.
"We treat these problems as if one is guacamole and one is chips, when ... they both go together," she said.

Come on - chips and guacamole? She might as well have told everyone who was out of a job to go apply at Taco Bell since they already know how to make Mexican food. If I were Hispanic, I might find this a tad bit degrading.

And here's the winner: When some random guy yelled out that his wife is illegal, Hillary replied that, "No woman is illegal." Was she drunk when she said that? Did someone hit her over the head immediately before this little exchange? This is worse than John Edwards saying if Bush would allow embryonic stem cell research, Christopher Reeve would be alive and walking around today.

There's a theory out there that in order to get another true conservative like Ronald Regan, a complete failure of a President like Jimmy Carter has to precede him. At this point, I'm almost willing to suffer through a Carter-like presidency if it means the country gets its priorities in order.

I No Huckabee

Republican front runner Mike Huckabee has been a Cinderella story out of nowhere. Fed up with what they see as a lack of choice, the Christian Right has saddled up Huck and are riding him to victory. Or so they think. Drudge had a story yesterday that claimed Huckabee is the Republican's Howard Dean.

Howard Dean was so fanatical that Republicans were praying he would win so we could have an easy general election. Democrats see Huck as a "glass jaw" and are ready to break him. They think he has so much baggage that he will easily be defeated in November. I agree with them and this story adds to that belief.

Huckabee, in an article that is to be published this Sunday, actually ask:

"Don't Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?"

This is also the man who refused to answer the question, "Is Mormonism a cult"? Now, there are plenty of things that I do not agree with in the Mormon doctrine, but by no means would I consider them a cult.

Someone who claims to be a minister is very ignorant of other religions. I am not Jewish but I know the basic tenants of their religion. I am not Muslim, but I would hope that I was able to have an intelligent conversation based on fact and not some crazy Internet rumor.

Governor Mitt Romeny said it correctly last week:

"A person should not be elected because of his faith nor should he be rejected because of his faith."

Huckabee is trying to scare conservative religious voters into thinking Mitt Romeny is some crazy mo-fo who has 10 wives. Huckabee should retract this article ASAP and read a few articles on the Mormon faith. Why is it fair that Mitt has to defend his religion on a daily basis and Huck gets a free pass? Sure, Huck belongs to a more mainstream denomination, but if religion is going to be fair game...lets open up Hucks past.

So far here is the Mike Huckabee list:
--AIDS patients should be quarantined
--He was giddy when it came to tax increases
--Pardoned a convicted rapist who then went on to kill 2 people
--Believes Mormonism is a cult Refused to answer if Mormonism is a cult and thinks Mormons believe Jesus and the devil are brothers. (edited after being corrected by a reader)

It is safe to say that I will not be supporting Huck for President. If he is going to sink to attacking people's religion, how does he have any chance when it comes to the general election. If elected President, is he going to refuse to meet with the Dalai Lama because he isnt a Southern Baptist? Will he reject the Pope's invitation to The Vatican? I think religion is an important part of someones moral makeup. Mitt Romney believes in God and Jesus. That should be the end of the discussion...but leave it up to the media to fan the flames.

The Debate Analysis

Last night was the big CNN/You Tube Republican Debate. This, I think, was the 113th debate of the year or something like that. I have not watched any other debate and am glad that last night was the first one that I sat through. With just over a month before caucus goers in Iowa start to select both the Democrat and Republican nominee for President I figured this was a good time to step into the political spirit. All eight nominees were there and it turned out that it was a good fight. Before the debate I was a little skeptical of the format. What has our democracy come to when You Tube is going to sponsor a Presidential debate? The only thing I could think of was that stupid snowman question during the Democrat debate. If a snowman is going to help decide the fate of the free world…we are in trouble. Thankfully I was surprised at how well I liked the format. Great questions were asked (except of course the ones that were asked by committed supporters of democratic candidates), their answers helped separate the candidates in my mind and the debate was fairly lively (except for when Fred Thompson spoke).

The first part of the debate was the best. The questions were clear and concise. They asked important questions ranging from illegal immigration (Rudy and McCain like it, nobody else does) to the war in Iraq (all of them support it except for the nut job) to the deficit (this is where Mitt and McCain picked up some points). They touched on just about everything I feel that is important. Rudy was beat on just about any point that he brought up. He did not defend the criticism that New York City was a “sanctuary” city during his reign very well. Although I do have to give him credit, he only mentioned 9/11 a couple times. McCain did his best to sound conservative and relevant but his age is his biggest liability and one that I think will prevent him from winning. If I could take his position on the war and his fiscal policy and meld them with another candidate’s age, I think we would have a winner, we could call him McRomney. Huckabee did not impress me. Yeah, he is a great speaker and says good things, but his record in Arkansas does not lend itself to being labeled conservative. And the “oh them” candidates, Hunter and Tancredo, showed up and said a few catchy things (I actually like Hunter, but when Steven Colbert has more support than you, its time to give up). I think the winner the first half was Gov. Mitt Romney. He was strong, confident and well spoken. He was able to effectively go after Rudy and take him down a notch or two. He was able to state his position on the important issues and why he believes it.

The second half of the debate was another story. The questions got stupid, the answers more stupid and I felt stupid. So all and all not a good combination. We had the gay retired brigadier general who happens to work for the Clinton campaign. He wanted to know if anyone supported allowing gays to openly serve in the military. All of them said they supported the "don’t ask, don’t tell" policy and he was not impressed. However, someone should tell General Kerr (who should be commended for his service) that he is supporting the wife of the person who instituted the policy he is so against. Then we had an abortion question asked by a committed Edwards’ supporter. Then a “Log Cabin Republican” who happens to support Obama dazzled us with his question. Then there was a creepy dude who asked about the Bible. Pretty sure he stole the Bible from a local Hampton Inn so he could ask a pointless question. The second half of the debate did not go so well for the candidates but if someone stood out it was Huckabee. He did well enough to cement his status as a top tier candidate and should get a lot of support when people go to caucus in Iowa.

There is someone I left out on purpose. Ron Paul. He is crazy and is supported by prostitutes, hippies, and 9/11 conspiracy theorist. Anybody who is mentioned as a potential running mate with Dennis Kucinich should never be taken seriously but for some reason Anderson Cooper continued asking him questions. He is like the crazy uncle at family get togethers that no one pays attention to but has $10 million worth of campaign contributions. He has no chance and should be considered part of the “oh them” candidates but I do not want to insult Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo.

Overall a decent debate. CNN needs to do a better job of hiding their plants…funny how when the democrats did this there were not any stories of republicans asking questions. I look forward to the next couple ones to see if my list changes. I hope that conservatives can get together and select someone that can not only win in November but can also stay true to the conservative agenda.

After the debate, here are my top three candidates that I would campaign for (no particular order):
1. Mitt Romney
2. John McCain (however he still has some explaining to do for campaign finance reform)
3. Duncan Hunter (even though he is an “oh them” candidate I like him…maybe a VP nominee)

Those that I would not campaign for:
1. Rudy Giuliani (I could vote for him, but I am not wasting my time going door to door for him)
2. Tom Tancredo
3. Mike Huckabee (if only he were a true conservative)

Those that I am indifferent to:
1. Fred Thompson (if he didn’t have a hot wife he would be in the "would not campaign for" list)

Not even considered:
1. Ron Paul
2. Any of the Democrats