Thoughts on Yesterday’s Super Tuesday

Last night I did some live blogging, along with other First Districters and Michigan GOP Chairman Saul Anuzis, on www.firstgopblogs.com. It was really fun. I was watching Glenn Beck and his panel on CNN Headline News and blogged about it. I stayed neutral on the Republican front regarding John McCain. I dissed a little on the Democrats. Since the First GOP Blog is a group blog of fellow Republicans, I held back a little and didn’t give my full thoughts on things. I did not feel it was right to talk about some things, so I will talk about them here.

Mike Huckabee conceded out of the race. Thus making John McCain the Republican nominee. As of last count John McCain has a delegate count of 1192. That is one more than the 1191 needed delegates to clinch the nomination. Today John McCain is expected to be at the White House, where President George W. Bush is expected to endorse John McCain. I am still not sure how to think of John McCain. I am not thrilled with the any of the Democrat choices. The thing is, Hill and Bar are just so freakin awful.

A part of me thinks about voting third party once the general election comes up. But then I think, what if too many Conservatives vote third party and Hill or Bar become the next president. Sometimes I think that maybe this would be a great wake-up call to the Republicans and it would be a great chance for us to re-group and bring the party back to it’s conservative principals. It would be a good four years to heal. But would the hurting that Hill or Bar be so permanent that the country could never heal? There needs to be a balance. I want to see the Republican party heal itself, but I don’t want to see the entire country get hurt in the process.

Rush Limbaugh talked about Republicans voting for Hillary in the Texas primary to keep her in the race and mess with the Democrats primary, since he is not a fan of John McCain. I get some of his points on why he said this. His feeling as that the longer the Democrats go without a sure nominee the more money that gets spent, from the campaigns and supporters of the campaigns and gives the DNC a shorter time to group up once they have a nom. There are some out there who want to see Hill become the Dem nom. They think that Hillary will be easiest for John McCain to beat.

While I left my support of Mike Huckabee, due to some things I read about him that I didn’t like, there is one thing I agree with him on. When I first supported Mike Huckabee and Barack Obama was just an after thought he said that Hillary Clinton would be a formidable candidate. He said not to underestimate her. Again, ya gotta admit, him living in Arkansas and seeing the “Clinton political machine” first hand. They even had a hand in Arkansas politics after leaving the state.

A part of me is seeing this Obama craze and thinking that maybe he would be harder for McCain to win against. But then I recall about how Mike Huckabee has said about how Hillary Clinton can be sneaky and using dirty tricks. I just don’t think Obama would be able to use dirty tricks, or at least not to the extent that Hillary would. Then I think to myself, why even bother thinking about this. I am not a fan of McCain.

I had heard people banter about Condoleeza Rice possibly running for president. Obviously that ain’t gonna happen for ‘08. I didn’t know too much about her when I heard this. I know who she is and I have followed up on her a little bit. But not to the extent that those who wanted to see her run has. I have just started really learning about her. She is a well accomplished lady. I think if enough people can talk her into it, she just may run in ‘12 or ‘16.

Here is the problem if Hill or Bar were to become president. Obviously Hillary is a woman. Obviously Barack is black. Obviously Condoleeza Rice is a black woman. From my point of view, if one of these two become president and messed up, I would say Hillary royally messed up because of who she is. Or I would say Barack royally messed up because of who he is. I judge people on their minds and actions. Unfortunately, there would be people out there who would say that that is why a woman and or black should not be president. This would mess up Condi’s chance.

I saw John McCain make his victory speech last night. His wife was standing beside him. She looked like an aging Barbie Doll. She looked plasticky like she had no personality. She had this closed lip perma grin. She looks so country clubby. Those clothes, jewelry and hair. I don’t know what it is about her, but I just can’t help but she just gives me chills. Everytime I see her, I can’t see the coloring in her eyes, looks like just white surrounded by too much black eye make-up. Creepy, if you ask me.

Posted also on Michigan Redneck II.

Hannity and Colmes

I just took off to take a snack break. Took longer than I thought. The long lost sunshine that is back in the UP brought people out and grocery lines. I am back. I kept the TV on when I came back Sean Hannity and Alan Colmes are on FOX News. They were talking to a Democrat Strategist. Remember the hullabaloo about Florida and Michigan holding there primaries early? And the DNC not allowing the Dems to campaign in these states? Well, this strategist is talking about how Michigan and Florida “almighty” Superdelegates will be important in deciding the Democrat nom.

I know, I know I am a Republican. Why am I talking anything about Dems? There isn’t much interesting going on on our side. Hill and Bar a close in delegates. Mac and Huck have a major delegate ratio between them. I am going to channel surf a bit and also see what Rush is talking about. I am wondering if Betty Ford Clinic has a wing for political addiction, argh.

The Facts Your Liberal Friends Need to Hear

Just a couple posts ago I posted about one of Jonah Goldberg's writings in the Glenn Beck email blast. Here is from the the first one I received yesterday. I wanted to post it then, but hey better late than never.

**SPECIAL REPORT: The facts your liberal friends need to hear**

This is the first special report in a week-long series with author Jonah Goldberg, investigating how Liberal Fascism is trying to control your life from the cradle to the grave. Don't miss part two tonight on TV: "The new New Deal--what Barack and Hillary have in store" at 7 pm and 9pm ET, only on Headline News. And look for another special report in tomorrow's newsletter.

The facts your liberal friends need to hear
By Jonah Goldberg

Liberals, perhaps more than anyone, believe that we should be vigilant against the threat of fascism. Now, they also believe that fascism can only come from the Right--I think they're wrong. But, what liberals - and everyone else - very much need to understand is that whatever direction fascism comes from, it's popular. Fascism succeeds in democratic countries because it convinces people that it's the wave of the future, it's progressive, it's young, it's vital, it's exciting. Fascist promise to fix what's broken in our democracy, to heal our wounds, to deliver us to promised lands. So if you think fascism comes from the Right, fine. But at least keep in mind that it won't sell itself as dull, or uptight, or old-fashioned.

Let me take a moment to give you a concrete sense of what I mean.

Fascism appealed to youth activists. Indeed, the Nazis and Fascists were in major respects youth movements. In 1931, 60 percent of all German undergraduates supported the Nazi Student Organization. "Their goal," the historian John Toland wrote of the young idealists who fed the Nazi rise to power, "was to establish a youth culture for fighting the bourgeois trinity of school, home and church."

Meanwhile, middle and lower class Germans were attracted to the economic and cultural populism of Nazism. The Nazi party began as the German Worker's Party. The Nazis economic rhetoric was eerily similar to John Edwards "Two Americas" talk. The Nazis promised to clamp down on Big Business - particularly department stores, the Wal-Marts of their day - and end the class struggle. Theodore Abel, an impressively clever American sociologist, gives us insight into why working class Germans were attracted to Nazism. In 1934 Abel took out an ad in the Nazi Party journal asking "old fighters" to submit essays explaining why they had joined. He restricted his request to "old fighters" because so many opportunists had joined the party after Hitler's rise. The essays were combined in the fascinating book Why Hitler Came Into Power. One essayist, a coal miner, explained "Though I was interested in the betterment of the workingman's plight, I rejected [Marxism] unconditionally. I often asked myself why socialism had to be tied up with internationalism-why it could not work as well or better in conjunction with nationalism." A railroad worker concurred, "I shuddered at the thought of Germany in the grip of Bolshevism. The slogan 'Workers of the World Unite!' made no sense to me. At the same time, however, National Socialism, with its promise of a community . . . barring all class struggle, attracted me profoundly." A third worker wrote that he embraced the Nazis because of their "uncompromising will to stamp out the class struggle, snobberies of caste and party hatreds. The movement bore the true message of socialism to the German workingman."

Nazism's appeal to the professional classes was just as strong. Raymond Dominick, a historian specializing in the history of German environmentalism, found that by 1939, 59 percent of conservationist leaders had joined the Nazi party, while only 10 percent of adult males had. Forty five percent of medical doctors had joined and roughly one quarter of teachers and lawyers had. The two groups of professionals with the highest rates of participation in the Nazi Party? Veterinarians were first and foresters were a close second. Dominick found a "unique nexus between National Socialism and nature conservation."

The Nazis and Italian Fascists won-over big business, cultural elites, the youth and the lower-classes because they portrayed themselves as heroically on the side of progress, protecting the environment and the poor. Fascists preached unity, togetherness and an end to division.

Liberals need to ask themselves where do they hear this rhetoric the most?

I'm not saying that merely being for the environment, the poor or national unity makes you a fascist. But what I am saying is that if you're concerned about spotting fascism on the horizon you can't just look at people you don't like. That's like only looking for your lost car keys where the light is good. Huey Long reportedly said that if Fascism comes to America it will be called "anti-Fascism." Liberals can still make their arguments that fascism comes from the right. But until they understand that wherever fascism may come from, it never arrives save in a form that the best and the brightest are willing to accept with open arms.

And if liberals don't know their history, they won't be equipped to spot it when it comes knocking.

Jonah Goldberg is the author of the New York Times bestseller Liberal Fascism.

What Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama Have in Store

This is from an email blast from the Glenn Beck program. Since this is in the actual email and not a link to an article I will provide all of it.

**SPECIAL REPORT: What Hillary and Barack have in store**

This is the second special report in a week-long series with author Jonah Goldberg, investigating how Liberal Fascism is trying to control your life from the cradle to the grave. Don't miss part three tonight on TV: Government Knows Best at 7 pm and 9pm ET, only on Headline News. And look for another special report in tomorrow's newsletter.

What Hillary and Barack have in store
By Jonah Goldberg

The most common left wing definition of fascism is "when business runs the government." Historically, this is basically nonsense. But that hasn't stopped liberals like Robert F. Kennedy Jr. from saying it over and over again.

But if we are going to go by that definition, conservatives in the U.S. are hardly the fascists. The principled conservative position is that the free market should rule the day. Businesses are never "too big to fail" and corporate welfare is folly. In all honesty, we must admit that many Republicans fail to live up to these conservative principles. But what are liberal principles? They are simply this: corporations should be "progressive." Government should regulate corporations heavily as a means of using big business as another branch of the state. Hillary Clinton wants "public-private partnerships." She believes that businesses must collude with government in providing universal healthcare to the point where it's impossible to tell where the government begins and business ends. She has contempt for entrepreneurs and small business. When it was pointed out to her that "Hillarycare" would hit small businesses while enriching big corporations, she replied that she couldn't worry about every under-capitalized business in America. Barack Obama, meanwhile, talks incessantly about how government must police the "patriotism" of corporations. His definition of "patriotism" in this regard seems extremely elastic.

We've seen something like this before. Woodrow Wilson implemented a form of "war socialism" during WWI. Big Business and government worked seamlessly together under the auspices of the War Industry Board. Industry rigged the system for its own benefit, with the approval of government. When the war ended, the American people rejected Wilson's war socialism, but Progressive intellectuals didn't. They proclaimed "we planned in war" and, hence, felt they should be allowed to plan the economy during peacetime as well. They looked enviously at Fascist Italy and, even more so, the Soviet Union. These were the sort of grand "experiments" they wanted to conduct here at home. "Why," Stuart Chase asked in his 1932 book, A New Deal (which many credit with originating the phrase) "should the Russians have all the fun of remaking a world?"

They finally had their chance under the New Deal, where FDR - a veteran of the Wilson Administration - tried to recreate what the Progressives had wrought during the war. When Hugh Johnson -- the head of the National Recovery Administration, the centerpiece of FDR's New Deal - took office in 1932, one of the first things he did was hang a portrait of Mussolini on his wall and started handing out pro-fascist literature to FDR's cabinet.

The left has told us that the New Deal rescued the little guy, the "forgotten man." But in reality it prolonged the Great Depression and served as a boon to Big Business.

For example, Clarence Darrow was charged with studying the effects of the NRA. In "virtually all the codes we have examined," he reported, "one condition has been persistent . . . In Industry after Industry, the larger units, sometimes through the agency of . . . [a trade association], sometimes by other means, have for their own advantage written the codes, and then, in effect and for their own advantage, assumed the administration of the code they have framed." We may believe that FDR fashioned the New Deal out of concern for the "forgotten man." But as one historian put it, "The principle seemed to be: to him that hath it shall be given."

The fundamental mistake Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards and company make is that they assume "clamping down" on corporations will lessen the role of big business in politics. The reality is exactly the opposite. Microsoft had nearly no lobbyists in Washington DC until Washington DC decided to go after Microsoft. Now, Microsoft has an enormous lobbying operation. Walmart is the same story. Once big business discovers that it's profit margins are determined in Washington, big business focuses on Washington.

Perhaps more importantly, really big corporations like regulations. Coca-Cola can pass its costs onto the consumer. But smaller business are not only hurt by regulations, they are also prevented from competing with the big boys because those regulations serve as a "barrier to entry."

The great "fascist bargain" with big business goes something like this: The government promises corporations market share, a lack of competition and reliable profits in exchange for compliance with its political and ideological agenda. Today big corporations hold up their end of the deal. They buy into global warming (often at a profit) they agree to all the tenets of diversity-mongering and affirmative action. They cast themselves as "Progressive" corporate citizens and in exchange we get economic policies that punish entrepreneurs and inhibit free markets.

This is as it should be according to the Progressives, the New Dealers and today's Democratic Party. And whether you want to call it fascism is up to you, but it fits what liberals have been saying about fascism to a T.

Jonah Goldberg is the author of the New York Times bestseller Liberal Fascism.

Glenn Beck Talks about Nanny Stateism with Guest

I find myself listening to talk radio way more than ever before. Here in the UP we don't get good reception on AM radio. But right now I think I would rather hear the static on the radio than the empty air from cable news. Here is some snippets from one of yesterdays conversations on the Glenn Beck Radio Show, regarding nanny stateism.

• Nanny State

• Audio Available:

• February 8, 2008 - 11:53 ET

• Nanny State by David Harsanyi

• GLENN: All right, you sick twisted freaks. It is Friday and you want to see the future. You want to really see what's coming and it's with all of them now. John McCain has got the nomination. So it's between now -- I know, not technically. You know, I was thinking about rooting for Mike Huckabee just to prove how powerful talk radio is. You know what I mean? Just throw all of our support behind Mike Huckabee, that way everybody could say, look how worthless they really are, just for laughs.
• Anyway, so you have John McCain that's going to be the nominee, you have Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama and they are all taking us the same way. They are all going to take us, especially on global warming. David Harsanyi is here. He's the author of the book Nanny State. He writes for the Weekly Standard and National Review, he's got a great article in Fusion magazine that you can get if you go to GlennBeck.com.
• David, I never, ever would have thought that the Government would say you can't have this kind of food, or, McDonald's, you must not use these ingredients, you know, unless they are like, we want our special sauce with Ajax, you know, unless it was poison. What are the things on the horizon that you see? What's next?
• HARSANYI: Well, I'm not sure if you heard in Mississippi the other day there were some legislators who wanted to pass a bill that restaurants would have to deny obese people entrance to eat food there. That didn't pass, but it always starts that way. It always starts with throwing something out there and then seeing, you know, what's going on. And in ten years it will be law.

• GLENN: I mean, I'm just trying to think. I mean, what kind of -- you want to talk about a bouncer that better be able to hold his own weight, so to speak. I mean, it's not like a Wal-Mart where you're going to say, sorry, you can't come in, fatty. I mean, who is going to say, who is going to stand there and -- do you walk on a scale? How would that even have worked? "I'm sorry, you're too fat to have that sandwich."
• HARSANYI: I was wondering. What if the guy's trying to get in to eat a salad or something? Maybe he is trying to do the right thing. Maybe there's unhealthier food at home and he is trying to do the right thing? It's just ridiculous and that's how most nanny laws are. They don't make sense. They are counterproductive. Like I mentioned, Twinkie taxes. But the smoking, I think they should just ban smoking because that's where we're headed anyway and the difference is with prohibition you can repeal that in one shot. Here you have a million little laws. So it's going to be very difficult to ever come back from this stuff.

The gentlemen go on to talk about smoking taxes and laws.

• GLENN: David, any one of the three candidates worse than the others? If you had to rank them?
• HARSANYI: I'll tell you one thing. Huckabee is my least favorite only because he was a terrible nannyist in Arkansas, but --
• GLENN: Really?
• HARSANYI: Yeah, because he lost like 200 pounds and he decided everyone else should lose 200 pounds as well. He started rating restaurants for health and stuff like that. And he also, he was for a national smoking ban. That's what he said initially. I don't know. I think he's changed his tune on that, but they are all terrible. I don't know what to tell you. It's very, it's disconcerting that we can't come up with better people to lead this country.
• GLENN: We can but for some reason they just never win. The name of the book is Nanny State. David Harsanyi, he has already written in the March issue of Fusion magazine. He talks about our coming nanny state. Don't miss it. You can grab that at GlennBeck.com where you can find his book, Nanny State. David, thanks a lot. [more here]
  

Glenn Beck is Gummed Up About "Change"

On todays radio show Glenn Beck talked about the South Carolina Primary and "change." Here is the partial transcript.

• THIS is Change?

• Audio Available:

• January 21, 2008 - 12:42 ET
• GLENN: I mean, think of the America that we live in today. Are we willing to have a woman as a President of the United States? I think the answer to that is yes. An African-American? The answer is yes. Are we really free at last. In many ways, in many ways I think we are. But the other thing, the other buzzword that's happening today is change. Everybody wants change. Vote for change. Every single slogan for every single person is about change, or even in the case of Ron Paul it goes beyond change. It's revolution. What is the definition of change? Definition of change, I looked it up. To cause to be different. To give completely different form or appearance to or to transform. To exchange or replace with another. To lay aside, abandon or leave, to transfer from one to another, excuse me, to become different, to undergo altercation -- or alteration. Undergo transformation or transition. To go from one phase to another, as the moon goes from one phase to another or seasons change. My question is, which one of these defines the change? Is it just to go from one to another? Is that the kind of change we're talking about if really Clinton and McCain are the two candidates? If those are the two candidates, if we have as a nation gone from all of the candidates, that we had all of the choices that we have had in these primaries and we end up with McCain and Clinton, are those the agents of change? I mean, I find it absolutely amazing, incredible to me that Clinton is an agent of change. Has anybody noticed the pattern? Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton? I mean, I don't want another Bush. I don't want another Clinton. And the reason why is because, not that I hate the families or anything else. I mean, I like the Bush family. Not really my favorite politicians, but I like them. I just don't want another one. I like change. And I happen to know specifically what kind of change I want, but I'm beginning to believe the United States of America, the average person, doesn't know what kind of change they want. They don't even know what they're voting for. Tell me what kind of change Hillary Clinton brings. Tell me what kind of change John McCain brings. Tell me what conservative, tell me what Republican is saying John McCain's the guy? Now, maybe you're one of these new Republicans, the anti-Reagan Republican, the one that doesn't understand how taxes work. I don't get the change thing here. [more here]
  

Carl Cameron, Kiss My Ass!

Well, let's add Carl Cameron to the "Kiss my ass" list. I was watching him on FAUX News. I wasn't paying too much attention to him. He is in Florida talking about the election and he mentioned Fred Thompson. Whoever was in the studio asked him if Fred might accept the VP nom. He said that that was what Thompson wanted all along, puhleeze. He said that Fred Thompson will announce his pulling out soon. What an idiot. Fred never said that. Fred Thompson is not in Florida, currently, because he is Tennessee to be with his mother who has pneumonia. He wants to spend time with family. Leave him alone.

I have been thinking. Why would an allegedly conservative cable news with an allegedly majority conservative audience want to dis on a true conservative candidate? They want Hillary to win. Why? Ratings, of course. If we get a crappy nominee who can't win the general election, then Hillay wins. If Hillary wins there will be all kindsa fun and complaining from Hannity and the ilk. Colmes will vehemently defend her to no end. The inner fighting between these two will bring tons of ratings. More so than if there was a conservative president. This would be the same with any other FAUX News show that has panels. It would be rather boring, in their ratings world, if it was just good news on the national front.

Chuck Hucks Up

This is just plain weird. They both seem to be saying weird things. If Mike Huckabee doesn't want to run anymore he should just bow out gracefully, not say stupid things until he has nowhere left to go.
What if Oprah Winfrey and Barack Obama acted like this about Hillary Clinton?

KISS MY ASS HILLARY!!!!!!!!!

I have to interupt what I was in the middle of doing to bring this up to y'all. Oooooh, I am ticked off. When blogging I usually have the TV or music on for background noise. I was listening to FOX news today. There is a bunch of talk about Hillary and Obama and using the racial card, for the past couple days. Whatever. I have hardly been paying attention to it. It has something to do with who was more "Civil Rights friendly", Lyndon Johnson or Martin Luther King. Hillary is pro-Johnson, Obama is pro-King. Of course both of them have ignored President Dwight "Ike" Eisenhower's influence, along with his signing of the "Civil Rights Bill" in 1957. The Democrat Congress at the time did not pass it through. I just ignored.
Now I just heard Hillary saying that "Lyndon Johnson signed the bill that John Kennedy supported and pushed through." Oh, now, not only that, she said and I quote, "The previous president didn't do anything to help civil rights." She didn't even want to mention Dwight Eisenhower by name. Maybe she was afraid people would Google the subject of Dwight Eisenhower Civil Rights Bill 1957. She would be afraid of what people would find. What would they find out? The truth. To the Clinton's the truth is like The Swamp Thing.
Please click on Dwight Eisenhower in the below tags, to read what I have posted about Dwight Eisenhower previously. Dwight Eisenhower was the president before John F. Kennedy.

I just hate having to add Hillary and Ike in the same tags.

Fred Thompson on the Assination of Former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto (UPDATE)

Here is more on Fred's comments.

(UPDATE)

December 27, 2007

Thompson on Pakistan: 'This is a war we're engaged in'

Posted: 01:57 PM ET

Watch Thompson react to Bhutto's death.

(CNN) – Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson has weighed in on the death of former Pakistan Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto.

“This is a war that we’re engaged in. It’s an international conflict,” said Thompson. “It’s a global conflict. Al Qaeda wants to bring Western civilization to its knees.”

Thompson also told reporters Thursday that he thinks “terrorism has never left the agenda” of the 2008 presidential race. “This is no time for on-the-job training,” added the former Tennessee senator, emphasizing the need for experience – a recurring theme in both the GOP and Democratic primary race. [source]

(UPDATE) From CBS News' John Bentley:

DES MOINES, IOWA -- Fred Thompson talked to CBS News about the assassination of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto.

"I had a chance to visit Pakistan a few years ago and I talked to Musharraf and other leaders there and I followed it closely ever since. It is an important part of the world," Thompson said.

Obviously there is a personal tragedy. There is a a national security interest as far as we are concerned. There is a stability question as far as Pakistan is concerned," he continued.

"It's a very touchy situtaion. I said earlier this morning that it looked to me that without question it was an Al-Qaeda backed operation. I notice in the last little while they have taken credit for it now."

"I think the fact that a secular woman had a chance of ascending to power in Pakistan again as prime minister probably drove the more looney of them to do something like that -- that in of itself. Plus the fact that this reminds us that this is part of a much greater picture - this is a war that we are engaged in and it is an international conflict...Pakistan and other parts of the world are part of this and they are under attack." [source]

Check out the links to the articles and read the comments. Not all of them are for Fred, but there are quite a few for Fred and they say that we need someone with experience and like me, they believe Fred does have that experience. Ya know what, since my first posting on Fred's comment took ya to a link at Fred's site, I will be fair and balanced and give links to other candidates comments about the assassination. You read, you decide.

Mike Huckabee

John McCain

Rudy Giuliani

Mitt Romney

Hillary Clinton

John Edwards

I couldn't find anything from Barack Obama's site. While I would hate to think that the death of a former leader such as Mrs. Bhutto should be the end all be all, it is something you need to think about and that is why I have provided the links to all the candidates comments. Who has the best foreign policy experience and who "stayed at a Holiday Inn Express."

Get the transcript here.

Christmas Holiday Message

Here is a great Christmas message from a candidate that isn't about alleged floating crosses/bookshelfs, universal pre-k wrapped in pretty paper, ribbons and bows, "happy-ass families" with the prissy perfect wife who is unsure if she wants to be Oprah or Gayle and the cute little kids.



Sometimes actions speak louder than words.

Dick Morris talks about what Mike Huckabee Probably Knows...

...But other Republicans don't. I was checking out this article from Dick Morris about Hillary Clinton's attack mode. While it is Dick Morris talking about her, I was thinking that with Mike Huckabee being from Arkansas and running against people that the Clinton's were working in the background for, it is probably the same thing Mike Huckabee could talk about. Here is some snippets from Dick Morris' article.

Hillary Will Attack Rivals

• 
  

Tuesday, November 27, 2007 10:15 AM By: Dick Morris & Eileen McGann

• 
  

As her once-formidable lead in national polls dwindles and Barack Obama moves ahead of her in the all-important Jan. 3 Iowa caucuses, Hillary Clinton will likely intensify her negative campaign against her rivals. The Clintons' political modus operandi has always had a good dose of negative campaigning, especially when the going gets rough. There's no reason to assume that they will alter their game plan now. I remember Bill's race for re-election as Arkansas governor back in 1990, when he found himself falling behind Hal McCrae, his unknown Democratic primary opponent. After Clinton's 10 years as governor, McCrae's attacks — featuring Dali-esque stretched-out clocks tolling the time for him to go — were hitting home. The opperative word here is "remember". This is something Dick Morris remembers. Probably something Mike Huckabee remembers also. What Republicans running against Mike Huckabee remembers this? I will go out on a limb, and say none of them. Let's see what Mr. Morris remembers. Hillary decided to attend McCrae's next press conference and engage him in a public, impromptu debate about his attacks on her husband. She gave as good as she got, and her foray marked the start of a four-week campaign of negative ads that brought McCrae down. The Clintons used negative ads and attacks in each gubernatorial campaign and, of course, in Bill's two races for president. Does anyone think that these tactics, along with the way they went about it will change? I don't. After all, like it or not, the dude did win both elections. See here is what is crucial. It's not just that she, meaning Hillary, will attack , but how. Does Mitty, Rudy, John-boy or Fred have first hand knowledge of how? No. Does Mike Huckabee? Yes. Until now, the '08 Democratic contest has been a referendum on Hillary: The basic decision facing voters has been, Would you vote for her? The Clintons need to get people thinking about whether they like her rivals any better. A special message to my Democrat and/or liberal readers, that is if I have any. I think if liberals or Democrats come to visit my blog, especially regulars, you probably have a thing for Betty Page. Anyhoo, what her, meaning Hillary, message on that would be is that she is excepecting Dems to be Dums. She wants you to see that "she is the lesser of the two evils," basically "politics as usual." I'll have respect for you, the Democrat, if you vote for who you think is truly the right one for the job of President of Unitd States of America. Personally I think that is Mike Huckabee, but that's just me. The reason I bolded the word job is that being president is a job. It shouldn't be viewed as just some status-symbol-popularity-beauty-contest. Although having met Mike Huckabee twice, and been able to participate in a few of the Mike Huckabee Blogger Calls, I can tell ya that if it were a beauty contest, Mike Huckabee would win Mr. Congeniality. I will also have respect for you if you vote for Hillary or Obama, on the sole basis of the fact that you think they are the best for the job. Why you would think that is beyond me, but whatever. Just don't, I beg of you, do not vote for them simply because "it would be cool to have a woman president or a black president." Yes, it would be cool. But it must, repeat, must be for the right reasons. If it is not for the right reasons you, yes, you will be giving the misogynists and racists reason for saying, "see I told you that these $@#$#@$ can't do no good," when they mess up. Do you really want that on your hands? No. I didn't think so. If they do mess up, it will be because they are messed up. But some people are numskulls and ya just can't get through to them. This same message goes to all you Republicans out there. But I won't get into that. At least not right now. I have already gotten so off track already. My point about the Republicans out there is this. Don't vote for someone just because the media of someone told you. I will even be fair and say that even goes for supporting Mike Huckabee. I want everyone who supports Mike Huckabee to be supporting him because he is the right one for the job. Now back to the matter at hand. Historically, such considerations have never deterred the Clintons, who are always ones to anticipate their adversaries' strength rather than to belittle it. How will they do it? Their favored method of getting out negative material about their foes is to hire private investigators to dig up dirt, which they then release through feeds to friendly journalists. I think Mr. Morris knows even more than just this. Also I am willing to bet my entire Elvis record collection on this that Mike Huckabee knows even more than what has just been stated. Anyways, the article goes on to talk about Bill's little chicky poos and what the Clinton's did to belittle them. But haven't we had enough of that throughout the 90's? Thought so. OK now back to the rest of the article. The likeliest theme of the Clinton attack will be Obama's inexperience. They'll seek to portray him as naive and way over his head in a world of terrorists and threats. But the risk here is that a woman is normally seen as weakest in the military/national security arena, so Hillary might find it difficult to make the issue work for her. A better choice might be to argue that her political experience (i.e., in defeating the GOP "attack machine") makes her the better candidate for the November election. With the Democrats anxious for victory, using Obama's politeness and gentility against him could be an effective strategy. She would, in effect, suggest that he is too nice to beat the Republicans — an accusation she can be confident nobody will ever make about her. LOL! To read the full article click here. I can't believe how off track I got. Normally I don't want to waste space talking about Hillary Clinton. At least not during the primary. The time for attacking Hillary is when/if she is the Democrat nominee. Right now we have to pass step one to get to step two. Step one is getting Mike Huckabee to be the Republican nominee and everything will fall in place. There is a reason this posting about the article did fall into place for step one. That is to show how Mike Huckabee is better equipped to beat Hillary in the general election.