ABUSE OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT

The link above is to a New York Times editorial.  I will not provide quotes, as I, an American citizen, am ashamed that we allow such an irresponsible news organization to exist in our country.  On the other hand, I am proud that we have a First Amendment, even if the New York Times continually abuses it. 

The New York Times represents everything that is wrong with America.  It is elitist and absolutist in its fundamentalist radical positions.  It practices the worst form of yellow journalism and muckraking.  The New York Times has no ethics or journalistic standards.  Their only standard is to make specious accusations, insult the intelligence of its readers, and to print the subjective invective of its small and narrow minded publisher.  They are the intellectuals National Enquirer.

It is no wonder that the NYT is bleeding money like an aortal aneurysm.  I hope that in 2008 one of two things happens; they either go totally bankrupt and out of business or they are taken over by a responsible news organization. 

THE ACORN DID NOT FALL TO FAR FROM THE TREE

Sydney Rieckhoff, a Cedar Rapids fourth grader and "kid reporter" for Scholastic News, has posed questions to seven Republican and Democratic presidential hopefuls as they've campaigned across Iowa this year. But when she approached the 27-year-old Chelsea after a campaign event Sunday, she got a different response.

"Do you think your dad would be a good 'first man' in the White House?" Sydney asked, but Chelsea brushed her question aside.

"I'm sorry, I don't talk to the press and that applies to you, unfortunately. Even though I think you're cute," Chelsea told the pint-sized journalist.

There may be some very good reasons why Chelsea Clinton blew off a nine year old reporter:

She is forbidden to talk to the press, period.

She cannot put an intelligent sentence together.

She is like her Father and has two feet in the mouth disease.

She is like her mother, rude and inconsiderate.

All of the above.

SEND IN THE FIRST LADY

The dictum around the Oval Office in the '90s, she added, was: "If a place was too dangerous, too poor or too small, send the first lady."

I think the dictum was implemented in the hope that Hillary would not return.

TEXAN OF THE YEAR GOES TO THE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT

He is at the heart of a great culture war in Texas – and the nation, credited with bringing us prosperity and blamed for abusing our resources. How should we deal with this stranger among us?

We end 2007 no closer to compromise on the issue than when the year began. People waging a culture war – and that’s what the struggle over illegal immigration is – don’t give up easily. What you think of the illegal immigrant says a lot about what you think of America, and what vision of her you are willing to defend. How we deal with the stranger among us says not only who we Americans are today but determines who we will become tomorrow.

What a way to end the year!  The Dallas Morning News has made criminals their person of the year!  I read about this at Michelle Malkin’s site. I looked up the article.  The two quotes demonstrate that the all powerful, self appointed overseeing, watchdog media has truly lost its way.  Illegal immigrants are not responsible for our prosperity.  Legal immigrants are.  They do abuse our resources.  They are entitled to nothing.

The struggle over illegal immigration is not part of the culture war, like Christmas.  Of course Liberals would have us believe the crime is part of the culture war, but that is part of the Liberal fallacy.  Illegal immigrants are criminals.  The only punishment for their crime is deportation; just like it is in every other country.  They are not the stranger among us.  The stranger among us is the legal immigrant, who plays by the rules, works hard, learns English, assimilates, and becomes a United States Citizen.  How we treat these people says more about us than anything else.  We embrace them.  We reward their determination.  They helped build this country.

Illegal immigration is a crime, just like any other crime; pure and simple.  Maybe next year the Dallas Morning News can make a real hero of the Left their person of the year; Wesely Cook aka Mumia Abu Jamal.  He has international status as a political prisoner.  He is a Black man who, in an act of cowardice, murdered a White police officer in cold blood.  There is a cultural issue for them.  Celebrities support this coward so there is a certain cachet surrounding him.

It is curious that there is no international outcry or complaint by the United Nations over our immigration policy.  Every other country in the world deports illegal aliens.  If they return, they are imprisoned.  The only country who does complain is Mexico.  They want their people to come here- legally or illegally; as many as possible.  They are a drain on Mexican resources and inhibit Mexico’s prosperity.

This is not a cultural issue or part of any culture war.  This is a security and economic issue.  A nation is defined by its borders and its language.  That is the opinion of a Liberal icon, Eugene McCarthy.  How we treat the problem of illegal immigration says much about us as a nation.  If we forgive and forget, we will be the laughing stock of the world.    

MEDIA EGO MASSAGE

Richard Wolffe, White House correspondent for Newsweek:

“They want us to play a role that isn’t really our role. Our role is to ask questions and get information. … It’s not a chance for the opposition to take on the government and grill them to a point where they throw their hands up and surrender. … It’s not a political exercise, it’s a journalistic exercise. And I think often the blogs are looking for us to be political advocates more than journalistic ones.”

"The press here does a fantastic job of adhering to journalistic standards and covering politics in general"

Mr. Wolffe, through his insipid comments, has proven once again that the press, or main stream media, are abject failures.  They have no real ethics or standards to adhere to, especially when covering politics.  The only place to find journalistic ethics and standards is in dusty old text books.  They gush over certain candidates like teenage girls talk about boys.  How else does one explain the free pass Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama are getting in the media versus the criticisms of the Republican candidates. 

Fact checking and verification are the relics of ancient history.  They take what is given to them and regurgitate it to the public.  If it wasn’t for press releases most journalists would actually have to work for a living.

The press, in general, has lost its objectivity.  It appears that they are nothing more than the public relations arm of the political parties.      

If the press is doing such a great and fantastic job, then why are major newspapers hemorrhaging money?  Why is the New York Times becoming the laughing stock of the media and Wall Street, instead of the go to source?  I guess if your job is on the line, you will say or do anything to preserve it.

Major media has lost its way.  They have created this mystique that it takes special training and education to be a reporter.  Look, anyone can be a journalist- it takes no real education to ask who, what, where, when, and how- and stories are written by copy people, so it takes no talent either.  If you are a TV reporter, you only need second grade reading skills to read the teleprompter.  The media created this aura of self appointed- not elected- watchdogs of government.  They are really attack dogs.  Some of the greatest reporters never saw the inside of a J school, let alone a college.   

They criticize, but hate criticism.  They claim fair and balanced, but there is none.  There is no longer a line, fine or otherwise, between reportage and editorializing.

The only real media left is sports reporting.  That is a sad state of affairs.

The American people are fed up.  Democrat and Republican voters alike are disgusted with government.  The Republicans let us down and then due to their greed, corruption, and lack of fiscal restraint, they lost the legislature.  The Democrats, in one year of power, angered their voters by being power hungry, greedy, and being unable to accomplish any of their stated goals, including ending the war.

One of the reasons the Democrats won big in 2006 was the disgust of Republican voters.  They stayed home on election day.  What are the Democrats going to do in 2008?  They cannot go any further left than they have or they will alienate the majority of voters.  If they move right to the middle or moderate area, they will alienate their fundamentalist radical base. 

Neither party has anything to offer.  The Republicans broke their Contract with America; the basis for their majority in the Mid-Nineties.  The Democrats have proven to their voters that they are all talk and no action.  Their blaming the President for their failures is getting old and no one, except for the fringe, is buying it.

As to the presidential candidates the field is loaded with mediocrity on both sides.  There is not one candidate that can galvanize the electorate like Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton did.  Both men had a certain charisma, charm, and way of speaking plainly.  They evoked trust.  Of course Bill Clinton broke that trust. 

There are serious problems facing our nation in the near future on the domestic and international front.  The Democrats have no one who can even come close to understanding, let alone provide solutions to these issues.  The Republicans have a few good candidates but there is too much infighting within the party. 

Depending on what happens in the next few months 2008 could be the year of political failure for the United States.  Washington is in gridlock, the agencies and departments are being run by agenda driven career bureaucrats, the legislature is stalled, and both parties are trying to hard to appeal to there fringe bases instead of the moderates- the majority of the voters.

This election will probably be the most important election in most of our life times- the legislative and presidential.  I hope that the candidates start taking the American people seriously instead of taking the parties seriously. 

2007 WORST REPORTING OF THE YEAR

MRC compiled a list of the twenty worst notable quotables.  They all show the bias and lunatic fringe that makes up the Main Stream Media.  The also demonstrate that the media has no ethics; journalistic ethics is the new oxymoron.  You can always tel when the media is lying- if it is print, on the tube, on the radio, or on the internet, you can be assured there is no truth in their reporting.

Here is a small sampling:

Moderator Chris Matthews: “So much of what you say just grabs people like me, because it sounds like Bobby Kennedy. It sounds like the ’60s at its absolute best.”

MSNBC’s Chris Matthews: “Russ Feingold wants to censure the President, the Vice President...”

Left-wing filmmaker Michael Moore: “Good idea....Personally I’d like to see a perp walk coming out of the West Wing of the White House.”

Matthews: “Do you think they’re guilty of war crimes?”

Moore: “Absolutely....I think we need a trial, in this country, where Mr. Cheney and Mr. Bush would be brought up on charges for causing the deaths of so many people....”

Matthews: “It’s interesting if you go back....the Nuremberg Trials weren’t about the genocide, it was about waging an aggressive war. I love reading some of that language. It’s interesting.”

“You could argue that even the world’s worst fascist dictators at least meant well. They honestly thought [they] were doing good things for their countries by suppressing blacks/eliminating Jews/eradicating free enterprise/repressing individual thought/killing off rivals/invading neighbors, etc....Bush set a new precedent. He came into office with the attitude of ‘I’m so tired of the public good. What about my good? What about my rich friends’ good?’”

Ex-Washington Post sports reporter and Seinfeld writer Peter Mehlman in a June 20 Huffington Post blog item.

“So I’m running in the park on Saturday, in shorts, thinking this [warm weather] is great, but are we all gonna die? You know? I can’t, I can’t figure this out.”

Co-host Meredith Vieira talking about global warming on NBC’s Today, January 8.

CNN’s Larry King: “Are you sorry about that [60 Minutes National Guard story] now?”

Ex-CBS anchor Dan Rather: “No.”

King: “You think the report was correct?”

Rather: “Yes. And I think most people know by now that it was correct.”

— Exchange on CNN’s Larry King Live, September 20. [37]

NYT SLAMMED byGeorge Reisman:

This article is only one of many that make The Times read like something produced at a ministry of propaganda rather a newspaper produced in a free country. Its author, one Elizabeth Rosenthal, has previously demonstrated that she is an enthusiastic and utterly naive advocate of environmentalism. (See her “Cleaner consumption and the low-carbon life” in the February 23 issue of the International Herald Tribune, a newspaper owned by The Times.) The Times definitely does not read like a newspaper in which reporters apply critical thinking, exercise independent judgment and common sense, verify the facts they report by means of doing the necessary research, and strive for logical consistency. It is in fact something of a joke as a newspaper, or at least would be a joke if it were not as successful as it has been in helping to poison our culture and destroy our country.

The New York Times stopped applying common sense, critical thinking, independent judgment, and fact verification through research many years ago.  The New York Times has been the propaganda arm of the elitist far left for many years.  The paper has no morals or journalistic ethics- unless they get caught in the wrong- and only cares about one thing; promoting the radical agenda of the elitist far left.

They are losing money hand over fist every year, so there may be hope.  Maybe Rupert Murdoch and/or Roger Ailes can take it over and reform it.

SHE'S TRYING ON ANOTHER MESSAGE

Hillary is running her campaign like a woman shopping for a wardrobe.  She keeps trying on different outfits and none of them fit.

"On Jan. 20, 2009, someone will raise his or her hand to take the oath of office in front of our Capitol," Clinton said as she launched her final bus tour of Iowa. "And then that person will go to the Oval Office. And on the desk in the Oval Office will be a stack of problems."

Clinton is confronting voters with a much starker question -- which candidate can walk into the White House and get right to work fixing the mess we're in?

That candidate will not be Hillary Clinton.  She has no documented experience in any area, she has been a lackluster Senator, a second rate attorney, and has no real public service experience except being the wife of an elected official.  There are a stack of problems on the President’s desk everyday.  She does not have the capacity to deal with them and provide leadership, unless it benefits Clinton Inc..  She cannot even keep her campaign on a single track; it changes daily.  How can she run a country?

THEN THERE IS THIS

Peggy Noonan opines on the need for a reasonable person for President and evaluates all of the candidates.  Here is her take on Hillary Clinton.

Hillary Clinton? No, not reasonable. I concede her sturdy mind, deep sophistication, and seriousness of intent. I see her as a triangulator like her husband, not a radical but a maneuverer in the direction of a vague, half-forgotten but always remembered, leftism. It is also true that she has a command-and-control mentality, an urgent, insistent and grating sense of destiny, and she appears to believe that any act that benefits Clintons is a virtuous act, because Clintons are good and deserve to be benefited.

But this is not, actually, my central problem with her candidacy. My central problem is that the next American president will very likely face another big bad thing, a terrible day, or days, and in that time it will be crucial--crucial--that our nation be led by a man or woman who can be, at least for the moment and at least in general, trusted. Mrs. Clinton is the most dramatically polarizing, the most instinctively distrusted, political figure of my lifetime. Yes, I include Nixon. Would she be able to speak the nation through the trauma? I do not think so. And if I am right, that simple fact would do as much damage to America as the terrible thing itself.  (Emphasis Added)

MORE MOONBATTERY

By Dennis Kalob

Roosevelt gave us the New Deal and Johnson gave us the Great Society. Both were steps in the right direction. We need something at least as bold in order to rescue the middle class and take on poverty. Edwards has the values, the instincts and the commitment to provide the direction and leadership we need at this critical time.

Roosevelt shoved the New Deal down out throats through political manipulation and nefarious methods.  We are still paying for that fiasco today.  Johnson’s Great Society was a massive government financing of failure that we are not only still paying for today, but will be paying for in the future.  Both were steps in the wrong direction which did more harm than good. 

The only things the Middle Class needs are good jobs, lower taxes, and a healthy business infrastructure and environment to protect those jobs and low taxes.  There is no cure for poverty.  The poor have been with us since recorded history and will always be with us.  We all aspire to wealth and that is good, not evil.  No one aspires to poverty.  Wealth creates more wealth- it is called Capitalism.  The more wealth that is created, the better off we will all be.  Punishing wealth is contradictory to a good economic environment.

The last thing the Middle Class or the poor need is more government interference in our lives.  If you want to help the poor, then provide jobs, not government entitlements.  To provide jobs, business must be able to flourish.  Roosevelt, Johnson, Carter, and Clinton destroyed any incentive for manufacturing to remain in this country.  They allowed the regulatory agencies to run amok and create an oppressive and regressive environment to conduct business.  The Democrats will continue their pogrom on business and manufacturing and drive more jobs overseas.

John Edwards would destroy our economy and we would be a Third World nation in short order.  Of course that is the goal of the Democratic Party.

HILLARY DEMANDS INTERNATIONAL INVESTIGATION IN BHUTTO'S DEATH

Hillary Clinton Friday called for an independent, international probe into Benazir Bhutto's murder, as turmoil wracking US anti-terror ally Pakistan reshaped debate in the White House race.

I'm calling for a full, independent, international investigation," Clinton said in an interview with CNN.

Hillary has consistently claimed that she is the inevitable one.  Does she now think she is already the President?  This is another specious ploy to make her look presidential.  Does Hillary Clinton really believe President Pervez Musharraf will allow foreign investigators to investigate a crime in his country?  Ms. Bhutto was a Pakistani murdered in Pakistan. 

No sane leader would allow foreign investigators into his country to investigate a crime against a citizen of that country.  No real leader would cooperate or condone such an investigation of an internal crime.  It would be an insult to Musharraf if foreigners demanded to investigate a domestic crime.  It would be a greater insult to the people of Pakistan.  Mrs. Clinton, through her ignorance, has shown that she is not fit to even run the UN; a totally useless organization, let alone lead a superpower.

Hillary Clinton has demonstrated, contrary to her boasts, that she has zero foreign policy experience and no diplomatic skills.  She has no real knowledge of the internal politics and problems of Pakistan and how they affect the stability of the government.  She totally lacks the basic qualities of leadership.  A true leader would not make unreasonable demands.  A true leader would offer assistance.  She is using the Bhutto affair as a cheap political parlor trick to make her appear qualified and experienced to bolster her prevarications on her readiness to lead on day one.

If Pervez Musharraf was smart, he would wage an all out war on Al Oaeda, the Taliban, and their adherents until they turned over the assassins, preferably alive so they can stand trial and be executed by the government.  Pervez Musharraf is in a tight spot.  Pakistan is slowly sliding to the side of the Islamist extremists, especially the Taliban.  Many in his military and intelligence agencies are supporters or adherents of the extremists.  He has to tread carefully.  But he does know how to use power, especially the power of his office.

I believe that Musharraf is the only person who is keeping Pakistan stable.  We may not like him or agree with is policies, but the alternative is another Afghanistan prior to 911.  There is one glaring exception; Pakistan is a nuclear country. 

I guess that escaped the second rate lawyer from Arkansas.

PRO-ILLEGAL ALIEN GROUPS SCORE SOME WINS

Pro-immigration groups, after a topsy-turvy year during which they repeatedly were stung by defeat, managed some victories in the waning days of Congress, beating back some new crackdowns and rolling back some laws Republicans passed when they were in control.

The Democrats are doing the same thing with illegal aliens that they did with Blacks during the Sixties.  The Democrats at that time insured that Blacks would be voting Democrat in perpetuity through their passage of vast welfare and social spending bills along with Affirmative Action.  By passing legislation limiting enforcement of illegal immigration and expanding programs for illegal aliens, they will insure that Hispanics vote Democrat in perpetuity.  This is not about fairness or being humanitarian.  It is about votes and getting voters.

…Democrats used their majority to block proposals to punish sanctuary cities, to add more funding to go after smuggling-observation posts on U.S. soil and to expand workplace enforcement. They also refused to withdraw funding from an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission lawsuit challenging the Salvation Army's English-in-the-workplace policy.

The above actions will insure that illegal aliens will remain here for as long as they want.  It will also insure that companies must cave to illegal aliens and not be allowed to impose rules regarding language in the work place.  They really want more dope and aliens to be smuggled into the country.  They will not allow more workplace enforcement.  They want the deportations to stop.  

There is a cure for the sanctuary city problem and there is precedent for it.  A lawsuit.  If a group sues one of these cities, they can demand that all federal funding be suspended by court order until the case is settled.  It would be hoped that it is an area that has Conservative Federal judges.  When the City of Chicago and its Police Department were sued for Affirmative Action in the Seventies, the plaintiff’s lawyers demanded this, the judge granted it, and his decision was upheld by the higher courts.  The reasoning being that if a government entity violates federal laws or regulations, federal revenue can be with held until the situation is resolved.

Congress also dropped language that would have effectively released Border Patrol Agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean, who are serving lengthy prison sentences for shooting a fleeing Mexican drug-smuggling suspect.

Democrats hate law enforcement.  They give lip service to it, but they hate the profession.  These two men will not be released unless they are pardoned or a judge overturns their convictions based on the corruption of the US Attorney who prosecuted them.

We have seen the enemy and it is the Democratic Party.

PETA WEIGHS IN ON TIGER ASSASSINATION

Since 1990, there have been more than 220 dangerous incidents in 40 states involving big cats. Four children and 15 adults have lost their lives, and more than 50 others have lost limbs or suffered other injuries after being mauled. The animals involved are victims too--75 big cats, including Tatiana, have been killed because of these incidents.  (Emphasis Added)

This from an organization that voted a former Ku Klux Klan Kleagle their person of the year.  Terrorists just love each other.  They nurture each other and give each other awards. 

UPDATE:

With the assassination of Benazir Bhutto and the tiger, pundits are asking how these will affect the presidential candidates and how will they add value to them.  The Democrats will win in the tiger assassination.  They were always big on police brutality and a police assassination gives them major talking points. 

I heard that John Edwards is sending interns out to locate the tiger’s family members for a potential wrongful death suit.  So far they have located the tiger’s First Communion picture and transcripts showing the tiger was an honor student in animal training school.   

Hillary has released a statement naming the SFPD as domestic terrorists and when she is elected, on day one she will bring them under federal oversight.  She has her staff working to set up a Senate hearing on the assassination and she has contacted the DOJ to institute a civil rights investigation of the SFPD. 

Obama is preaching for people of all stripes to come together and pray for the assassinated tiger.  He is preaching calm and is trying to find people who can talk to the animals to avoid violence.

Hillary tried to convey her sympathy for Ms. Bhutto, but ignored the reality of the situation and the future of Pakistan and how it will affect the USA.  Obama relayed condolences and prayers for Ms. Bhutto.  He also ignored the international reality of the situation.    

All of the major Republican candidates sounded Presidential and conveyed the outrage and tragedy of the situation.  They decried extremism and condemned the assassination.  They all sounded and looked like they were ready to lead on day one. 

These two assassinations will test the mettle of the candidates in the days to come.  How they handle them will determine who is ready to lead and what is really important. 

THE HUBRIS AND DISHONESTY OF HILLARY CLINTON

Hillary Clinton has a serious political problem. From the get-go her campaign pushed her to the press and her contributors as the "inevitable" candidate. Her problem is if you bill yourself as the "inevitable" nominee in a presidential nominating race, you had better be right because there is no fall-back position. Now that her "inevitability" is under serious scrutiny, she is running around Iowa telling Iowans that she loves them, they are important, and she has to have them, while at the same time, she is spinning to the national press that Iowa is not so important that she has to win there to secure the nomination. The absolute truth is with a campaign team that looks like the 1927 New York Yankees and with all the resources she has thrown at Iowa, a bad showing from Hillary can only reinforce what so many of us have been saying all along. If she can't win Iowa, she has absolutely no chance to win the general. It's that simple.  (Emphasis added)

Hillary does not need Iowa to win but she is telling Iowans that she loves them and needs them.  What a dishonest slap in the face to her Iowa supporters.  Of course Hillary has no morals, decency, honesty, or integrity.  She is also a product of the corrupt Arkansas political system.  She is duplicitous, devious, and corrupt; more than her husband. 

First, Hillary Clinton should have been body slammed and shamed by the Main Stream Media for her hubris- she is the one, the inevitable one.  She is the only one.  MSM ignored it and went along with the program.  The cowards did not want to lose access to Hill and Bill; that is the threat they use- bad press, no access.

Hillary has raised vast amounts of cash and will have to outspend the Obama if she wants win.  In effect, she has to pull a Kennedy and buy the candidacy.  She is running as if the election is sewn up and the decorators are lined up for the Oval Office.  People are donating to buy access and appointments to her administration; just like they did with Bill Clinton.  It is an old Arkansas Democratic political policy- Democrats buy their jobs and buy their elections.  She learned her political lessons well.

Her pride and hubris will be her downfall.  When she crashes and burns, as she must, she will wind up on the trash heap of historical footnotes.  Hopefully she will take Bill down with her. 

Photo from Ace of Spades.

A part of the fundamentalist, left wing radical Democratic base protests the shooting of the tiger at the San Francisco zoo.  She probably used the back of an old Al Gore campaign sign.  The police chief was not much better.  She was on TV, actually trying to justify her officer’s shooting the tiger- they told the tiger to stop, they yelled, they hoped the tiger would retreat, yada, yada, yada.  I mean, did she or the cops really expect Tigger to stop, put his hands up, surrender, and come along quietly.  Did PETA write the SFPD use of force model? 

Hey moonbats, it was a tiger; a large feline predator, a killing machine.  That is its function in life.  I am or was an old school cop.  I do not talk to animals.  I do not try to cajole large, dangerous, killing, predators into surrendering.  That tiger would have been dead at first sighting.  I would have shot that sucker as soon as I got my front sight on it.  No talking, no yelling, no cajoling, no nothing except one dead tiger.  Then I would have requested the pelt.

I am waiting to see if the MSM will show Tigger’s communion picture and then report that Tigger was an honor student, enrolled at UC Berkeley in its Trans Species Multi-Cultural Studies Program.

I bet Al Sharpton will soon weigh in calling the shooting an assassination.  PETA will demand a Federal civil rights investigation and the indictment of the copson criminal charges of tigercide.  Of course the ACLU will sue SFPD for the wrongful death.  Tigger, in death, will be as big a celebrity as Mumia Abu Jamal.  That is if some real Hollywood celebrity gets behind the cause.  Is Winnie the Pooh available?

POPULIST PREACHER VERSUS POLICY WONK

In Iowa, the Republican presidential race has come down to two former governors who offer caucus goers a stark choice. It's the pulpit vs. the boardroom, poverty vs. privilege, passion vs. preparedness.

Mike Huckabee loves homespun tales and self-deprecating jokes. Mitt Romney basks in PowerPoint slides and statistics. Mr. Huckabee, a firefighter's son, is a Southerner born and bred. Mr. Romney, son of a CEO-turned-governor, roamed from Michigan to Massachusetts to Utah.

They embody two wings of the Republican Party -- social conservatives and economic conservatives -- that sometimes sit uneasily.

So far, I like Mitt Romney, but, as with many voters during this horse race, that could change.  I have a real bias bordering on hatred for Southern Governors becoming President.  The last two we elected were monumental failures and total disasters.  They had no concept of basic economics and were totally clueless when it came to National Security and Intelligence operations. 

Jimmy Carter is an Evangelical like Huckabee.  He ran on a Liberal Christian populist platform.  He was a total abject failure as President of the United States.  The culmination of his failure was his cowardice over the Iranian hostage affair.  When he did finally decide to intervene, he was way too late and conceived a plan that Special Ops people vehemently disagreed with- even though they saluted and did their duty.  The result was the disaster at Desert One. 

Bill Clinton claimed to be a Baptist and ran on an uber Liberal secular platform.  We suffered under his administration for eight years.  His administration was a failure, he raised taxes on the Middle Class, and he ignored National Security.  His military humanitarian missions did nothing more then kill or maim our military personnel. 

We are still paying the price for these two failures today.  There is another dimension to add to the Southern governor mix.  Arkansas has been one of the most notorious politically corrupt states in the union, especially during elections.  This stretches back to the early part of the last century.

I just do not trust Huckabee.  I believe he will be a very bad genetic cross between Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.  That is a recipe for disaster.