Tale from the dark backside

Here is a story of a fictional account of a candidate running for president.

Media and all their activist, political gurus decide the frontrunner candidate has an unflattering mole on his backside in the shape of Mussolini. So they broadcast all their suspicions, adding various attributes about this suspected mole.

They demand that he allow them to see so they can decide for themselves what it looks like and what it means.

The candidate, at first blush, refuses to comply. Now they up the ante. Why that surely means he does, in fact, have a big ugly mole on his left cheek. And it must really be ugly. and he must be really self-conscious(read guilty) about it if he will not reveal it.

Okay, now there a plenty of reasons for them to demand to see this mole, or prove that he has none. What is he hiding? They are to the point that even if there is no mole, it all depends what people will see when they look at it anyway. Besides, that would not matter. The “story” was that he has this mole and the proof there is not one wouldn’t be important, because that is a non-story.

If a mole does exist, no matter size or shape, it will be seen as validation of everything they said. Any mole can be turned into a huge, ugly mole with enough magnification. “And we will find one,” if we have to invent one. “Now you might as well let us have a look see because we’ve determined you have one there.”

This scenario might be applied to most any candidate. Well, except if it were someone named Barack Hussein Obama.In that case: one would not be allowed to suggest a mole, nor could anyone demand to see it. But there would not be any said mole in the first place, so there would be nothing to talk about. Case closed, “there is no mole… move along.”

RightRing | Bullright

Hillary’s shattered armor

I am kicking around the old notion that “you get the government you deserve”. And if that is true — it seems to have some merit — then suppose that a Party also gets the candidate it deserves. Obviously just a theory. But if so, my working theory is Democrats are getting the candidate they deserve with Hillary.

Everything they said about Romney in their pack of lies they have in spades now with Hillary.But for real not an illusion. They got a rich, fat-cat politico that is so out of touch with regular people that she can hardly hide it. Someone who puts political ambitions above concerns for the people. Someone who very much plays the influence, pay-to-play game. Someone obsessed with and addicted to power. Someone involved in crony capitalism who takes money from the shadiest players. Someone who operates as above the law unaccountable for her actions.

Remember the big story was how Romney’s were buying a new house with an elevator. Using it as a metaphor, all the Clintons’ elevators only go in one direction, up. Hillary really does not care about average people.(that’s how she got where she got) It’s quite the show she puts on but everyone knows her only real, first concern is Hillary. She has all she can do to defend herself from the truth — a full time job. Like Obama, truth is her enemy. Who just makes speeches for a 7 figure income?

In New Hampshire, Hillary was asked about the allegations coming in a new book about money and influence surrounding her tenure as Secretary of State, she said:

“Well, we’re back into the political season and therefore we will be subjected to all kinds of distractions and attacks and I’m ready for that. I know that that comes unfortunately with the territory,”

“It is, I think, worth noting, the Republicans seem to be talking only about me. I don’t know what they’d talk about if I wasn’t in the race. But I am in the race and hopefully we’ll get on to the issues and I look forward to that.”

Worth noting is it? “Distractions and attacks and I’m ready for that.” So if she’s ready for that then why can’t she answer the question? Doesn’t she have an answer ready, or does she think she doesn’t have to answer questions?

“Ready for Hillary,” who is not ready for questions.

Does she take everyone for dummies? It’s a central issue in her campaign, whether she likes it or not. She can go on ignoring it as if it doesn’t matter but it maters to the people. Especially since folks are jaded about political influence peddlers, and after 2012 when that is all Democrats talked about. So now tell us none of it matters. She can talk about what she wants till she’s as blue as Monica’s dress, but it won’t make information on her record go away. And what was the big topic in her first run? It was Hillary Clinton’s records. Axelrod and Obama wrote the screenplay.

All she wants to talk about is her Scooby Van and her script. She can’t talk about her record as Secretary of State because that is relegated to ancient history now, buried in the deep with her personal server she used. All they want to talk about is me, she said. What does she think we will talk about, she does not have a primary challenge. She said she is the most transparent person out there. Wherever did I hear that before?

But as busy as Hillary has been in the influence racket, she is whistling past her leftist base. For fifteen years they’ve been making the charge about big money and influence in the administration or the White House. It goes back to Dick Cheney and Halliburton. Of course, you remember because we still hear about it. That is a favorite whipping post of the left. Then along came Romney who they painted into a poster boy for big money and influence. It still goes on in the left. Ironically, liberals don’t move on quickly.

Now here is Hillary Clinton, who if not for big money would have a giant identity crisis. Her and Bill in their private jet-setting lifestyle passed the tradition along to Chelsea. But of course Hilary thought she was entitled to her own personal server, why not? Raising millions from the same people she was dealing with at the State Department? Whatever could be wrong with that? In fact, isn’t that expected? The hypocritical left goes right along with it and the corruption she exudes. Yes, they got the candidate they deserve. They would be disappointed if she was not that way.

You heard of the military industrial complex but this is the political industrial complex. The thought that she stands a good chance of wining only adds to that. Consider if she even gets close, let alone wins, what it says about Democrats. It means even knowing how corrupt she is, they will elect her anyway — knowing full well the person Hillary is. It will mean not only don’t they care but expect it in their nominee.

Hillary in the breach

Obama is anointed a second term. Hillary is on her way out. Anyone else get the feeling that no matter what Hillary did she would be the front-runner in 2016? She could have killed Qadhafi herself and drank his blood, then pilfered and burned his palace and the chorus would say, “you go, Hillary!” She could have done anything. People didn’t care and still don’t. “Off with their heads”, Hillary could say, and they’d cheer her on. What a way to rally the low information base.

Heck, she could have ignited world war III and they would still nominate her for the Nobel Peace Prize. I think Democrats set a precedent for that prize. It will now be automatic for any front-runner candidate. It will also be a prerequisite to have at least one scandal under your belt to qualify for nomination, bonus point for each additional one.

Maybe a juicy thing like paying hush money from the campaign is just the thing to capture the public’s admiration for you, if you are a Democrat. Or maybe you lack any experience or an employment history. Not a problem if you are a Democrat. And there’s that media you can always count on to assist your campaign. Remember them swooning over Edwards.

So Hillary should have no trouble at all. But then she must keep her eyes open for the next corrupt Democrat with a scandalous background hungry for a shot at the ‘big house’. She could be challenged. Plus she’s already been vetted, or so they’ll claim. She will be “the most qualified candidate in modern history”.

Best of all, even Democrats cannot believe her. So when she says she will not run, pay no attention whatsoever. She’s lying through her teeth. That is another qualifier, America loves a good liar, one that can tear up at the right moment for a cause. Keep them coming.

Diana West’s grand slam

The Misogynist Party and the Stupid Party

Aug 21

Written by: Diana West
Tuesday, August 21, 2012 4:16 AM

Today’s New York Times print edition, front page, lead story headline:


How about this, circa 1997, for a headline?



Read at  http://www.dianawest.net/Home/tabid/36/EntryId/2213/The-Misogynist-Party-and-the-Stupid-Party.aspx