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.

The Gay Libyan Connection - cartoon from Gary McCoy

It kind of struck me this way, too - http://www.gopusa.com/cartoons/2011/02/25/shoring-up-his-base/

Rahm Emanuel? Are people just tone deaf?

Sometimes, I just don't understand. This morning, someone posted a photo in Facebook that showed a Rahm Emanuel for Mayor sign planted in the snow-covered grass between the lanes of a Chicago boulevard. While the person who posted this pointed out that Rahm must have some kind of clout with the city to pull that off, since it is apparently not otherwise acceptable, she still likes Rahm.

I'm a big fan of Ronald Reagan. I think he was possibly the best president since George Washington. And that's saying something since we've had some other remarkable men in that office since 1789 when Washington was first sworn in. But, as much as I appreciated Reagan, I never quite got the "Great Communicator" thing.

Sure, I was impressed with what he said but it was his message more than his delivery that really got me. The same thing with Billy Clinton and Barack Obama, both of whom have also had similar monikers attached to their names. I never got that at all. With Clinton, when the Lewinski scandal broke, I felt like I was the only person who wasn't surprised. I mean, the guy had hound-dog written all over him as far as I could tell.

And Obama - it's as though people who love him are absolutely tone deaf to the rather peculiar things he has to say. I want to scream at them: HE'S A SOCIALIST/WELFARIAN WHO BLAMES AMERICA FOR MOST OF THE WORLD'S PROBLEMS. But, I guess people will only hear what they want to hear.

I recently wrote a column where I spoke of Emanuel setting off the same alarms for me that Stuart Levine did. I once interviewed the former head of the Illinois Health Facilities Planning Board, who is now in prison for using that position to fatten his wallet, for a story about the IHFPB's decision making process related to a proposed hospital in Crystal Lake, IL. I was right about Levine and, in my recent column, I wrote of how Emanuel sets off the same alarms for me. But, nobody else seems to see it.

I told someone about that today - about how I think Emanuel is dirty to the core and, with any luck, will go from City Hall to 26th and California in the near future. My friend said he doesn't see it. In his eyes, Emanuel is merely a pitbull who will get things done one way or the other.

"That," I said, "is the point. How will he get things done and for what purpose?"

I believe Emanuel escaped an investigation into his involvement with Fannie Mae because the investigators were largely sympathetic to his position and influence. But, with or without any solid evidence, I'm convinced this guy is dirty. And I can't understand why other people don't see it.

Maybe I'll one day admit that I was wrong. More than likely, I'll only admit that he hasn't been caught yet. Then again, if Chicago is really lucky, he'll prove me right.

Chicago: some cities don't care who is listed as a reference

I heard the Rahm "Deadfish" Emanuel ad on the radio again this morning. It was the Obama-giving-a-testimonial ad again. A testimonial is kind of like a reference. You're applying for a job and the prospective employer wants references. In Emanuel's case, though most employers ask for three, he has two significant references. One is the sitting president of the United States and one is a former president of the United States. I guess it's no wonder they're saying Deadfish is a shoe-in for mayor of Chicago. Of course, deep GeorgeSorian pockets don't hurt, either.

In same neighborhoods, those two references will play very well. It's just like going into a job interview with Sammy Sosa and Mark McGuire as references. Those are well-known names. Both men had significant careers in a widely followed profession. Of course, both are strongly suspected, last I heard, of using performance enhancing drugs to further their careers.

There are some neighborhoods where people won't care that Sosa and McGuire may have tainted their reputations to get ahead. Some neighborhoods, however, might not look upon that kindly. Some prospective employers would not be impressed.

It's the same thing having Obama and Clinton as references while campaigning for the job of mayor of Chicago. In Chicago, those names seem to carry a lot of water. In other neighborhoods, those names would represent the kiss of death for a political career.

I don't like to criticize voters but this, in my opinion, doesn't speak very highly of the character of those who would elect Deadfish. Maybe if Obama and Clinton were current and former rulers of the land, it wouldn't matter that one chased a chambermaid around the thrown and the other seems to want to share the keys to the economy and defense with other countries, friendly or otherwise. Besides, if they were kings, we wouldn't have anything to say about their misdeeds to begin with.

The point is, I just don't feel any kind of "tingle down my leg" when someone says the word "president." It's not that I don't respect the office or that I see myself on an equal social and political footing. It's just that I'm an American. I don't bow to presidents and, if I did, I wouldn't be bowing to them; I'd be bowing to the significance of their position - all the people they represent. And, I'm not automatically impressed because they are or were presidents.

I think Ronald Reagan was quite possibly the best president since George Washington. Some people were utterly captivated when Reagan spoke. The media called him the great communicator. Well, I never felt a shiver down my leg when Reagan spoke either, at least not one inspired by the simple aural pleasure of hearing his voice. I was impressed with Reagan because, to use the words from a television commercial of his time, when he spoke I didn't have to ask, "Where's the beef." He made sense. And I didn't feel like he was selling to me. I felt like he was simply giving it to me straight.

Some people do feel a shiver down their legs when Obama or Clinton speaks. I don't see it. Even though it didn't happen for me when Reagan spoke, I could at least see why others might feel that way. With Clinton and Obama, it just comes off as too contrived. They're just too smooth. I listen to them and I feel like they could give Eddie Haskell lessons.

That, for me, speaks to their sincerity. But, when you put those names - Obama and Clinton - on your application as references, I want to know what kind of presidents they are or were. Did they or do they respect the office of the presidency? How about the Constitution - did/do they feel that their very lives were/are secondary to their oath to uphold the Constitution? If not, can I expect the same from you, Mr. Emanuel?

Recently, Deadfish took a commentator on WGN to task because the commentator didn't apply the title "president" before every reference to Obama. Clearly, Deadfish holds 'Obama' in high esteem. And, I suppose, that's why his commercials seem to play so well in Chicago. In Chicago, they don't care that Clinton used his office to get a little from a young intern or that Obama seems to think the Constitution is optional as he 'governs' from the White House.

Chicago is a neighborhood where liberal progressivism is well bought and paid for. It's in the lay of the land. In Chicago, the only reason McGuire isn't warmly received is because he played for a team from a rival city. But, in Chicago, it doesn't matter that Clinton is from Arkansas, or that he seems a little too rehearsed, as long as he's from the liberal progressive side of the aisle.