By Selwyn Duke
Perhaps you saw some of the Christmastime campaign commercials released by the presidential candidates. The one receiving the most attention was Mike Huckabee's "floating cross" spot, which was criticized for its Christian symbolism. Although I have no use for Huck, his commercial was fine and the criticism nothing but anti-Christian tripe. The truly objectionable commercial was Hillary Clinton's, which I'll dub "Statist Santa Claus."
It was truly bizarre. It showed Lady Macbeth herself, sitting next to a Christmas tree with her painted-on smile, handling presents labeled as various statist social programs. On one, for instance, was written something like "Universal Heath Care." As she picked up the presents, looking like a policy-geek bearing gifts, one word had to enter a sane person's mind: Creepy.
Dick Morris, Bill Cinton's erstwhile propaganda minister and Machiavelli wanna-be (although as a political prognosticator he has the accuracy of your local weatherman), was discussing the commercial recently on television. Now, as you read this, understand that Morris is someone who still thinks Bill Clinton was a great president. Said Morris (I'm paraphrasing, but this is close to verbatim),
"That's the first honest commercial she ever made. That's actually what she does at Christmas: She sits around talking about policy . . .. But it's a good thing those presents were wrapped, because they won't look that pretty once they're opened."
In other words, Morris has at least one redeeming quality: He recognizes Hillary Rodham for the empty skirt she is.
Her commercial not only was demagoguery, it was the cheapest, most insulting brand of it. This was so obvious that I don't suppose it ran for very long. Are people supposed to lap up the message -- one the commercial beats you over the head with -- that if you vote for Clinton's socialist self she'll deliver all sorts of goodies? And I suppose that if the Republicans win, we'll just end up with a lump of coal in our stockings.
The truth is that Clinton's presents wouldn't be created by elves, but the other little people, the ones known as taxpayers. Thus, I have no tolerance for a statist who masquerades as a great humanitarian and font of charity. Lady Macbeth can give nothing; all she can do is steal resources from some Americans and transfer them to others. They're cheap votes for her -- expensive ones for working Americans.
Speaking of working Americans, we have to wonder how much Clinton really cares about them. Do you remember that waitress a few years back who she left no tip? Well, I have a tip for you: Leftists' preaching about the poor is nothing but posturing. Actions speak louder than words.
I once read about how wait staff in Washington, DC, said that the liberals were the worst tippers. But there's more than just anecdotal evidence, as this pattern of uncharitableness is borne out by studies as well. For instance, there was the one demonstrating that residents of red states donate more to charity relative to their incomes than denizens of blue states do.
It's not surprising, really. Charitableness is a by-product of Christianity, which is why our greatest charities have usually been founded by Christians. The Catholic Church, for instance, provides more aid to the poor than any other entity in the world, next to the US government. And since liberals are typically godless, it's usually only the shirt off someone else's back that they give. It's a function of worldliness and its attendant greed and materialism.
No wonder Santa wears red.
I have to laugh at this entry because if someone "with a sane mind" as you put it, is to believe this Clinton-hating nonsense, then I feel very sad for them. Perhaps Repiglicans can give more is because they feel guilty about stealing it in the first place, and giving to charity would be a sign of redemption. Perhaps you should research how much Dick Chaney has given to charity since stealing the contracts for Haliburton in Iraq. He may not work for the company anymore, but I'm sure his investments and stock in the company has paid him quite well.
Posted by: democrat | January 01, 2008 at 04:13 PM
There is a tediousness in the portryal of the Clintons as the devil incarnate that for some reason strikes me as more than unfair. Don’t get me wrong, I am not a defender of the president who brought us NAFTA and took away the Army’s right to revenge in Mogadishu. But this constant harping on the Clintons as the embodiment of evil is way out of perspective. It’s the right’s version of the left’s moronic attacks on President Bush, another politician not worth defending.
We simply have to hold our leaders to a higher standard. The biggest difference between Bush and Clinton (either one) is that Clinton is scarier. But, that I’m sure is only a matter of appearances.
If the Republican Party really wanted to do something for America it would, in the absence of Tom Tancredo, nominate Ron Paul. Of course that is not going to happen. What we are going to get out of the Republicans is again someone (appearances aside) who will be in practice, pretty close to the candidate the Democrats field.
Maybe the leaders of both parties should get together and save us a trip to the polls and the annoyance of enduring the hot air of another campaign, by just flipping a coin.
Posted by: Ray Hicks | January 01, 2008 at 06:45 PM
Mr. Hicks,
I think you have it wrong. Hillary is the Devil! I heard she had 666 tatooed on her hiney in college (just a rumor). I think they need to make sure it is not true during the next debate.
Posted by: Walt Holton | January 02, 2008 at 07:30 PM
Mr Hicks
What you don't understand is that there is such a thing as evil and Hilary may very well be in its grasp. Your contention that she is not that bad is just niave. We are talking about a woman who has stayed married to a man who is a rapist, who has cheated on her with over one hundred women, who was receiving blow-jobs in the oval office.
She herself is most likely a lesbian who is sleeping with her assistant http://bigheaddc.com/2007/09/11/hillary-lesbian-rumor-given-weight-by-doj-official/
If you belive in Good then you have to believe in Evil. If Hilary is not Evil I really don't know who is.
You should read the Selwyn's piece on her vulgar mouth.
Posted by: kevin ng | January 02, 2008 at 10:13 PM
kevin ng, exactly what about the way that she handled her personal life constitutes an evil recognition? Some of you who are criticizing the way in which she went about handling her marriage have probably gone through worse things in their own personal relationships, and certainly, it didn't effect your jobs, so why aren't people affording her the same consideration? You people act like she started a world war or something that causes the deaths of many people, remember Bush/Chaney? At any rate, it's a well known fact that most men expect the women in their lives to forgive their mishaps, and the same for women as well. Once you are caught, the first thing a person does is beg for forgiveness. If Hillary wanted to forgive and move on, then exactly whose business is it to say she's wrong? Last I checked, a marriage was between two people, not an entire nation. You people should really get a life if that's the only reason you have for hating Hillary.
Posted by: democrat | January 03, 2008 at 03:10 PM