Canned Questions are Inherently Phony

Another gaff from Hillary!

Hillary has always struck me as a poor candidate, due to her appearances always being very controlled in an artificial way. Most of this stuff has been ignored by a fawning media, but there's been a shift. The debate gaff where she couldn't amswer a simple question was the tipping point, showing an inherent phoniness that can't be overlooked by a sympathetic media.

The Clintons Casual Mendacity

This small story goes to show the casual mendacity and chutzpah of the Clinton Campaign machine.

It was reported on Drudge that the Hillary Clinton stiffed a waitress at a lunch stop. There was a quick press release from HRCs campaign claiming that a $100.00 tip was left. On the face of it, it's hard to tell what the truth is. But, the story linked from NPR points up this:

Esterday(the waitress), speaking to NPR from home later Thursday, said the Clinton campaign staffer who visited the diner apologized to her and said a $100 tip was left on a credit card the day of Clinton's visit. Esterday said the staff member said the money was meant to be shared.

"I explained to her that our credit card machine, you know, doesn't add on the tip," Esterday said. "And she said, 'Well, then, they left a $100 bill there.' And I said, 'Well, it didn't get divided up amongst us, because I had gotten nothing.'

"She just said, 'Well, there was one left,'" Esterday said. "She just kept repeating, 'There was one left.'

After the campaign staffer stopped at the diner Thursday, Esterday said, the $100 tip was a hot topic.

"Two others that had worked with me that day turned around and said, 'We didn't know about any $100 tip,' because they both turned around and said 'We didn't get a part of it.' And they didn't. So, it's like 'OK, where did it go?' That's the mystery question: Where did it go?"

Esterday said it would surprise her if money that was intended to be split among the staff was never shared.

"The ladies that were working that day have been working there for years — some of them for 30 years, some of them for 25 years," Esterday said. "And I've known a lot of these ladies most of my life living here, too. And I can't imagine them pocketing it."

The now familiar pattern of pathological dishonesty and inability to deal with criticism is shown in the ever shifting story of the staffer talking with the waitress. First, it was left on the credit card. But, when it is pointed out that they don't allow tips on the credit card bills, the payment is then said to have been cash, but the campaign can't name anyone who actually left the money. Then when the accuracy of this is questioned, the staffer still insists that a tip was left. Unsaid is the presumption that the waitresses are dishonest backstabbers who screwed their colleagues out of their fair share of tip money.

They've even set up a webpage to spin their denial in what seems to be "protesteth too much" moment than an attempt to set the record straight. Is that pathetic or what? Why don't just admit a mistake and correct it?

As Ben Franklin said. " The sting in a rebuke is the truth."

Pro-Life Uber Alles?

I haven't written much about the Primary Campaigning mainly because I rejected the early campaigning by the pols. Of course, I haven't written much of anything here, mostly being content to hash out ideas on other blogs.

One of the main issues that rankles me in this primary is the single issue Right to Life types that like to pretend that as long as the candidate is Pro-Life! that he or she is a Conservative. To me, this position is akin to the Kos Crowd proclaiming Joe Leiberman to be a wingnut because he supports the GWOT, despite a 99% liberal voting record in all other areas.

I prefer W to any of his contemporary Democrat party rivals but, in some critical areas, he is most decidedly *not* a conservative, despite his pro-life convictions. He is not a conservative on immigration, his compassionate conservatism is growing entitlement programs and creating new ones. But we knew this when we voted for him; he told us as much. That's tolerable given what the Dems would enact. Personally, I was counting on the Republican controlled Congress to reign him in on the spending. They didn't and it cost them control of both Houses.

Despite Rudy's popularity, there are some rumblings of single issue pro-lifers either running a third party candidate or simply staying at home and watching Hillary! or whatever socialist creature the Dems nominate get the White House.

As someone who held his nose while voting for GHW Bush only to see the Perot koolaid drinkers split the party vote over the "Read my Lips" Betrayal, giving BJ Clinton the top spot, this galls me no end. Some of the preferred pro-life candidates are as liberal as Rudy Giuliani, just in other directions, usually towards entitlement programs or immigration policy, but, I'd show up at the voting booth and happily push the button for them if they were the choice vs the Hildebeast.

To paraphrase USSC Justice Robert Jackson, the Republican party platform is not a suicide pact. If a Republican is going to be better for the Nation than a Democrat, then vote for him. Then, work on moving the Party to develop the type of leaders in the Reagan mold that are more the whole package. Don't sabotage the party that best represents your point of view by enabling the party that doesn't.