Saturday, February 2, 2008
The Girls On The Right
In previous posts I've stated that if the two candidates in November's general election were McLame and Obamarama I would vote for Obamarama. Part of my vote would be based on McLame's meanness, vile temper and borderline sanity. But when Rudy went under I received an e-mail from his SoCal campaign chairman asking me to join the McLame campaign. I e-mailed back my absolute disdain for McLame and stated that I was an Obamarama voter if McLame was the candidate. The reply stated that he hoped people like me wouldnt put Clinton III in the White House. A valid point? Perhaps. It did make me think.
Well, putting politics aside for the moment, my wife told me to drive down to PetSmart and get one of those plastic things you use to push pills down the throat of your recalcitrant kitty. On the way I was listening to Sean Hannity on the radio. He had a three-way discussion between himself, renegade pollster Pat Cadell and Ann Coulter. And my problem was solved. Ann made a great case for voting for Hillary in the general if she was running against McLame.
First of all, among Obamarama, McLame and Clinton III, Clinton III is by far the most conservative. This made Cadell go totally non-linear, screaming about what a danger to the nation Clinton III would be. Coulter's response, why are we criticizing Clinton III and Obamarama for voting for liberal bills that McLame wrote? The list is long. Neither Clinton III or Obamarama, after all, have ever pretended to be anything other than the Marxists that they are, but Hillary's revolutionary fervor is tempered by a wide streak of capitalistic greed. The same greed that held off the lovely and delightful BJ from the most egregious socialist excesses. The Clints also know that the Dem majorities in congress were completely overthrown when they went too far to the left in 1993-94 and handed power to the dreaded Gingrich.
Which leads to another point; if Carter begets Reagan, and BJ begets Gingrich, isnt there hope in Obamarama or Clinton III? Electing another liberal Republican to follow Bushy, and one vastly more liberal and vastly inferior in personality and political skills at that, would be to hang the failure of the socialist programs that would emerge as this creep 'reached across the aisle' on Republicans. If the parlous state of the party is the fault of Bushy, why work to make it worse?
Finally, the main reason, the man himself. He has betrayed us time and again. He curses and rails AT REPUBLICANS and fawns on Democrats. Do you want the military in the hands of someone with a Napoleon-sized ego and the strategic vision of McClellan? Do you want nuclear weapons in the hands of a hot-tempered, unstable old man? If someone is going to close Club Gitmo and bring the terrorist maggots held inside to the US for a full helping of ACLU lawyers and sympathetic Clinton-appointed judges lets let it be at the hands of one of the Dems so that when one of the homicidal maniacs they release in the name of correct legal procedure sets off an anthrax bomb in a Kindergarten the Dems can get the full measure of responsibility.
Now, I live in California. Whichever looney Marxist the Dems nominate is going to win here by a million votes because on the social issues (abortion, gay marriage, guns) most Californians agree with them. Of course, on issues that matter, like a state government that grows like a cancer and taxes and regulations that are reaching out to crush the state's economy, the voters are clueless; perhaps they blame Bushy. Whatever. The point is, this is not a swing state so my vote for president, and everything else for that matter, is relatively meaningless.
So, Hilly-gal, in a race between you and snarky old McLame, I'll be pushing the button for Clinton III, and may the Lord have Mercy on my Soul.