Clinton proves it - dumb voters vote Democrat

I once met a used-car salesman who told me, "We don't lie to the customers, we just help them to lie to themselves."

That's a rather self-serving explanation but it's the only explanation that makes any sense when I consider a sitting president of the United States trying to convince us that he didn't lie about having sex with an intern because "oral sex is not sex." Surely, he knew that most of us would listen to that argument and ask ourselves, "What?"

It's obscene, arrogant and obtuse. For crying out loud, the word 'sex' is part of the terminology for this activity unless, of course, you choose to use a more vulgar phrase to depict what the president was doing, or allowing an intern to do, while the First Lady, I presume, was out of the room.

Now, as a former president and a staunch advocate for the liberal, entitlement ideology of his party, he wants us to believe that asking someone to prove they are who they say they are before voting is a throwback to Jim Crow laws.

When are we going to stop listening to this jerk? He disgraced his office, even if you don't consider his actions with an intern disreputable, by swearing under oath that he didn't do what we all know that act to constitute. Every time he opens his mouth he diminishes those of us silly enough to take what he says seriously.

I've used the Aunt Lucy test on this issue before. If you want to determine whether what Clinton did with Lewinski was 'sex' or not, have Clinton visit the Lewinski family and have Monica do that to Clinton in the parlor while he drinks tea with Aunt Lucy. Ain't gonna happen, is it? Aunt Lucy will assuredly start throwing things at Clinton and beating him with her purse while howling in a wild and panicked fashion for someone to throw this disgraceful piece of garbage out of the house.

Oral sex is sex, Bud. And requiring people to prove they are who they say they are before voting is not racially discriminatory. It is a sure way to lessen voter fraud. Oh, that's right, your constituents might take a bribe from an ACORN-like agency to go out and vote but, for the most part, are so uninvolved in the political process that your side can't count on their vote unless you dummy down the responsibilities involved.

I say, "Tough." If they don't care enough to register they don't need to vote. You want them to take their political responsibilities more seriously, educate them about their constitutional rights and responsibilities. Of course, that will require that you maintain your pattern of 'helping people to lie to themselves,' won't it? You know, as well as I, if you actually educate them about "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness," not to mention the wisdom of limited government, you'll send a significant quantity of them into the booth to vote for the other side.

Rather than discriminatory, your reaction to requiring an ID at the polling place is evidence that you agree an educated voter is unlikely to be a liberal Democratic voter. Only a fool would vote to enlarge the government when they look at the government and see waste, abuse and scandal as the norm.

Of course, an uneducated voter will look beyond all that when he or she sees a handout in the offing. They'll tell themselves it doesn't matter because that's what they need to believe in order to receive their entitlement. It's kind of like telling yourself that oral sex isn't sex because the jerk saying it happens to agree with your political ideology.

You know, the more I hear from Clinton, the more I respect used car salesmen.