LET'S GET DIRTY!

You just know it was going to happen. Lots of people have been predicting it. Now it has come to pass.

Facing a punishing defeat for the Democratic nomination, the Clintonistas are getting down and dirty. Barak Obama is in for a nasty couple of months.

Bill and Hillary are inveterate political street fighters. They'll fight fair and clean, just so long as they are winning. And even then, the opportunity for a cheap shot can be just too tempting. It's not just to win, they want to destroy anyone with the temerity to oppose them.

Barak Obama, it seems, has become just the sort of insolent upstart that Hillary's hobnailed boots were made for.

Should there be any doubt, let's not forget the 900 or so raw FBI files that were found in the Clintonistas' possession in the White House. These were the sort of files that didn't make it into official FBI reports, since they included every accusation and rumor about their targets. Only careful vetting and sifting of such information could complete the official reports. However, these were the sort of files that can be used to blackmail, punish, or destroy anyone who fell into the Clintonistas' disfavor. For the record, Google comes up with 1,400,000 hits when you search for "Hillary Clinton; FBI Files"

Is that too speculative for you? Well what about the scorched earth policy aimed at Bill's famous "Bimbo Eruptions"? First of all, the affairs and the philandering are a part of public record. Second, it was Bill's own Arkansas chief of staff, Betsy Wright, who coined the term. Among the 135,000 Google hits for the words "bimbo eruption", was the Wikipedia entry that documents her role in minimizing the damage from all those women coming forward to tell of their affairs with Bill. The books by Carl Bernstien ( A Woman in Charge) and Jeff Gerth and Don van Natta ( Her Way: The Hopes and Ambitions of Hillary Rodham Clinton) clearly document the lengths that she would go to pillory anyone who would sully either Clinton's character by telling the truth.

Here's some names, a sort of Blast From the Past: Gennifer Flowers, Juanita Broderick, Kathleen Willey, Paula Jones, Marilyn Jo Jenkins, to name just a few. All of them have been ravaged by the Clinton attack machine for daring to disclose Bill's peccadilloes.

Then there was the White House Travel Office, and the way they weren't just fired, they were libeled and slandered, brought up on false charges, bankrupted, audited by the IRS, and, in general, had their day ruined. And why? Just so a Clinton cousin and a couple of Hillary's Hollywood friends could take over the position.

Ken Starr received extra special attention. Until he was brought into the sights of the Clintonistas, his reputation was impeccable. Lanny Davis and the boys, however, leaked all the grand jury testimony and blamed Starr for the leaks.

I could go on and on about the '90's, but this column today is about the 2008 campaign. Let's not doubt that the Clintons' attack machine is being wound up and aimed right at Barak Obama.

Whatever my differences with Obama politically, I have to admit he is running a pretty classy campaign. Although his rhetoric is vacuous, he at least tries to appeal to our better human natures. Specifically, he has not made the elections about race. Which, considering the Democrats' wont, is something of a breath of fresh air.

So what is the Clintonista response? The Iowa county chair Hillary volunteer sent out an e-mail, detailing the various connections between Obama and Islam, saying the following:

“Since it is politically expedient to be a CHRISTIAN when seeking major
public office in the United States , Barack Hussein Obama has joined the
United Church of Christ in an attempt to downplay his Muslim background.”

Of course, Media Matters, that Hillary front group, tries to make the case that it was right wing talk radio that was responsible for forwarding "the accusation made by a website controlled by Rev. Sun Myung Moon...", but we've seen this tactic before, haven't we?

Then we have Bill Shaheen, a big time Democrat from New Hampshire and a Hillary supporter. In an interview, he said this:

"The Republicans are not going to give up without a fight ... and one of the things they're certainly going to jump on is his drug use. It'll be, 'When was the last time? Did you ever give drugs to anyone? Did you sell them to anyone?' There are so many openings for Republican dirty tricks. It's hard to overcome."

The beauty of this bit of misdirection is that you get the story (Barak Obama is a junkie and a dealer) out there while leaving the blame on your ultimate opponents, the Republican Party. Never mind that the Republicans didn't really care about Bill's "I tried marijuana, but I didn't inhale." In the mind of a Democrat (which is where Shaheen's comments were aimed) the Republican will stoop to nothing to achieve their goals. When the uproar began, rightfully so, Bill Shaheen, like the good Clintonista he is, fell on his sword and resigned from her campaign. But you know either he or his wife, also an up and coming Democratic politician, will get some consideration for their troubles.

I've already catalogued "Fast Eddie" Rendell's indictment of "racist America" in my column And Now, Back To The Front Runner. Now we have the spectre of alleged homophobia looming out of the back pages.

World Net Daily reports that one Larry Sinclair has come forward with the claim that, in 1999, when Obama was a state legislator in Illinois, he had shared cocaine and oral sex with Obama. Failing to get any notice, he posted his claims on YouTube and is offering to take a polygraph test to back up his story. Regardless of whether he is telling the truth or not, does anyone want to bet that the Clintonistas didn't have at least something to do with this story getting out?

Then there was the kerfuffle of Obama's alleged plagiarism. Despite Hillary's claim that it was the media that made the connections between an Obama speech and one by Deval Patrick, the Associated Press shows the lie, telling of Clintonista Howard Wolfson's conference call to reporters hammering home the plagiarism angle.

Learning the lessons from Al Gore and his attempt to steal the 2000 elections, the Clintonistas are gearing up to battle the DNC for the nominations, even if Hillary loses the primaries. It's not enought that the fix is in at the DNC's Credentials Committee where, as UPI reports, all three of the chairs are held by close Clintonista pals. The Credentials Committee is the group that decides which delegates are seated at the Democratic Convention. Having some pull with the chairs of that committee gives a huge advatage to Hillary, regardless of the vote in the primaries.

Then again, there are also the delegates from Florida and Michigan. These delegates, as per DNC rules, were not to be seated, nor were the Democratic candidates supposed to campaign there, since those states had moved their primaries too far up. Anyone want to bet against me that Hillary doesn't try a lawsuit to get those delegates seated, since she didn't bother to adhere to the rules and won the primaries in Florida and Michigan? Better read the International Herald Tribune first. Al Sharpton is already threatening a march on Washington DC (That's like so '60's!) if Hillary tries that.

You know, I kind of feel sorry for Barak Obama. He's going to be dragged over the coals by Hillary. If he wins the primaries, there will be legal blood spilled before the convention is over and done. Hillary just might tear the Democratic Party apart.

John McCain, however, still has to make the case that he's a better choice for president. I haven't seen any sign of evidence to this effect yet.

But that's another column for another day! In the meanwhile: Here's mud in your eye!

Copyright Feb. 20th, 2008

MITT ROMNEY

Well! What can I say about Mitt Romney now that he has lost the Florida primary to John McCain? Until this evening, Romney had a strong lead in the delegate count for the national convention. But with McCain picking up 57 delegates, that puts the pressure on Romney.

Mitt Romney is a successful businessman, who has a track record of taking over failing businesses and turning them around. Like Giuliani and Bill Richardson, he's had executive experience in both the private and the public sector. He was the man who turned the 2002 Summer Olympics in Salt Lake City into a successful venture, although it was on the brink of collapse amid mismanagement and scandal. As governor of Massachusetts, he reversed the state's fiscal decline and created budget surpluses where none had existed before.

If the economy is to be the defining issue of the 2008 presidential race, then Romney is the candidate for the Republicans. His success in business and as governor put him head and shoulders above all the other candidates. On the issues, only Fred Thompson was stronger, although Mitt looks more like a president. Granted, that was superficial, but that is also part of what voters look at.

Romney is the epitome of that old saying, "If at twenty you are not a Liberal, you have no heart -- if at forty you are not a Conservative, you have no brain." Romney's political career has moved him steadily to the Right. In 1994, he was the closest of any Republicans to unseat Ted Kennedy, failing only because he moved to the Left in a misguided effort to "moderate" his tone for Liberal Massachusetts.

As a candidate for governor, he left behind these youthful indiscretions to run as a more mainstream Conservative. True to my observations yesterday, in The McCain Mutiny, Romney won.

Romney's campaign seems to have earned the enmity of the Liberal Legacy Media, despite his past Liberal leanings and his Hollywood-style presidential looks. My suspicion is that he is the one candidate that can actually unite the Republicans and beat either Hillary or Obama. As such, they are shilling for McCain as much as they can, telling us that he is the only candidate worthy of being called a Conservative. As if the Legacy Media has any real idea of what a Conservative is.

In service to this agenda, the Legacy Media has made much of Romney's Mormon faith. There has been a lot of attention given to Mormon history and to alleged mistrust of Mormons by the evangelical Christians who make up such a large part of the Conservative base. Of course, the simple fact that Mormonism is, in essence, a Christian faith gets left out of these examinations.

Questions have arisen about the Mormon practice, abandoned a century ago by mainstream Mormons, of polygamy. But that doesn't wash since, of all the Republican candidates, Mitt Romney is the only one who is still married to his first --and only -- wife!

Curiously, none of these issues were raised when Harry Reid, the "Dingy One" from Nevada who is currently the Senate Majority Leader for the Democrats, was opining as to how "the war is lost" and calling President Bush "a loser". For some reason, the Legacy Media doesn't see the Mormon faith as problematic for a Democrat.

The religion question became so extreme that Romney had to blunt the attacks. On Dec. 6th, 2007, he gave a speech (you can see it here) about his Mormon faith and his ideals as a presidential candidate. Entitled Faith in America, he answered and shut down all his critics, and did so in a way that enhanced his stature as a man and as a prospective president.

Romney, as noted above, has grown into his Conservative principles. Hence, he is tagged by McCain and the Legacy Media as a "flip-flopper". Well, Paul Compos of the Scripps Howard New Service has already demonstrated that it is McCain, not Romney, who is positionally challenged.

The stands Romney has taken in this campaign are the tried and true Conservative views. He seeks an overturn of Roe v. Wade, turning the issue of abortion back to the states and the people, where it belongs. He has vowed tax cuts and private sector solutions to various social problems, rather than the Nanny State of the Democrats. And he has stood solidly for America in the War on Terror, supporting President Bush and our troops.

Indeed, Romney and Fred Thompson are the only candidates I've heard actually defend American businesses, rightfully praising them for our unprecedented standard of living. All the other candidates, and especially John McCain, have criticized and belittled our corporations, threatening them with ever more onerous taxes and regulations.

So here is what we have with Mitt Romney:

• An impeccable and successful resume of executive experience both in the private and the public spheres.


• A genuinely decent man, without the personal baggage of most of the other candidates.


• A man who has grown into his Conservatism, learning from the past and applying it to the present, while not pandering to the base.


• And a man who, when unjustly maligned for his faith, stood up to the bigots without demeaning either them or himself.

Mitt Romney is my candidate of choice for the Republican nomination. A perfect candidate? No, and never has a perfect candidate ever existed. Yet Romney is the man who most epitomizes the ideals of Conservatism. He has the fewest skeletons of all the other candidates. He has the most experience.

Mitt Romney is the man for the White House, hands down, out of all the candidates that we have examined here in these columns. He has a tough battle ahead of him. But there is the one thing the philosopher got right out all he got wrong: "That which does not kill us makes us stronger."

Romney is the man!

Copyright Jan. 29th, 2008

THE RACE THUS FAR

The 2008 presidential race seems far more bizarre than those in past election cycles. For one thing, it seems like it's been going on for a year. Actually, it has been going on for year. And for some, like Hillary Clinton, it's been going on since at least 2000.

On the other hand, if the Hillary camp's opposition research is to be believed, Barak Mohammed Hussein Obama has been running for the presidency since he was in kindergarten. This must be something of a record, although a record of what, precisely, isn't all too clear.

However, there are certain gleanings to be made from the rhetoric of the Democrats and the Republicans. In this first article about the race, I'd like to posit some observations about the overall party differences between the two fields in this primary season.

On the Democrat side, we can be fairly certain that taxes will go up. None of the two and half leading candidates (Edwards' quixotic run only merits the half) make no bones about what they want to do. Hillary wants to "take those excessive profits from the oil companies" to fund research into alternative energy sources. Obama (all two and a half, for that matter) wants to raise taxes on the wealthy, which means that sooner than you think, a $20K annual income will be considered rich. And Edwards, when he is not combing his silky locks, wants to "bridge the gap between the two Americas" -- code speak for wealth redistribution with the resultant higher taxes to pay for it.

Obama and Hillary are claiming that the election has nothing to do with gender or race, while constantly injecting both every chance they get. The accusations flying back and forth between the two camps is stunning. Yet no one calls them on their misanthropy because, let's face it: to the Politically Correct, only white Conservative males discriminate on the basis of gender and race, not us Liberals!

All two and a half of the Democratic leaders will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in Iraq, differing only in how fast and how thorough their retreats from the war zone will be. Obama, to his credit, will attack another country for terrorism. Unfortunately, that country is Pakistan, one of our allies in the region. The sense I get from them all is that they'd like to see the War on Terror turned back into a law enforcement matter, rather than the all out war it really is.

The one overarching theme of all the Democrats is this: America is filled with victims and victimizers. Americans, of either status, are children who need these enlightened Liberals to tame their excesses and protect the victims from those excesses. Hillary had the famous ad wherein she was wrapping all her socialist programs up as Christmas presents to be placed under the tree for us. Obama keeps talking about hope, even invoking the name of Ronald Reagan, while offering little by way of substance. And Edwards flips his hair, bats his eyelashes, and talks about the one time the insurance companies fell down on the job, allowing a young girl to die before they would cover her liver transplant.

Speaking of health insurance, all two and a half candidates promise to nationalize our healthcare industry, turning America into an eleventh province of Canada. This will, needless to say, mean even more tax hikes, cutting down the profits of the drug companies, rationing healthcare, and even, in the case of Edwards, mandates on individuals to undergo certain tests and procedures.

No one of them is saying much about immigration, although they seem to be supported strongly by those who oppose enforcing our borders or ending the practice of sanctuary cities. Hillary was laughable when confronted with her own words regarding New York Governor Elliot Spitzer's plan to issue drivers' licenses to illegal aliens. And then Obama, not learning from her mistake, fell for the same question in a later debate. The reason they aren't saying too much, when they aren't sticking their feet in their mouths that is, is that they know that open borders, amnesty and sanctuary cities are losing political stands to take. Hey! They can read polls better than the Bush Administration and John McCain!

In short, the Democrats are talking about wholesale abrogation of American Liberty.

And what of the Republicans?

John McCain, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson and Rudi Giulianis all talk about lowering the tax burden on all Americans, regardless of income. They are also standing against the worst of Hillarycare (or any of the other onerous schemes put forth) trying to use the free market to solve issues involving coverage and healthcare. Medical savings accounts are making something of a comeback in Republican circles, but no where near the CATO plan, which would cover everyone with just the money from Medicare taxes while eliminating most of the bureacracy.

All the Republican candidates will stand stronger on terror than any of the Democrats, although Huckabee leaves me a little "underwhelmed". Still, they all want to persue terrorists far more enthusiastically than the Democrats, so I guess we can't complain.

And the transcendent thing about the Republican field? With the notable exceptions of McCain and Huckabee -- more on all the candidates individually in later columns -- the other Republicans do not look at Americans as victims and victimizers. All of them have far more faith in America and its people. At the very worst, none of them will expand government as fast and as intrusively as the Democrats.

Watching the New Hampshire debates, I was struck by the difference between the two fields. The Democrats all wanted to "save Americans from themselves", while the Republicans were more concerned with getting government out of the way domestically while beating back the Islamo-fascists where they live, rather than arresting them here in America.

The difference was stark: on the one hand, we had enlightened, superior Liberals trying to save the children (Americans) from their own inadequacies: on the other, we had a faith in the abilities of free men and women, able to make the world a better place, starting right at home, on their own, without the Nanny State to hold their hands.

Where do you stand?

Copyright Jan. 18th 2008