Everybody's Got a Crazy In Their Corner

McCain supporter John Hagee has officially apologized to Catholics for "any comments that Catholics have found hurtful." Source.

Couple of Things:

(1) What a lame apology. If Hagee were apologizing to his wife for "any comments she might have found hurtful," he would still be sleeping on the couch. A true apology takes responsibility for one's words or actions, Hagee's shifts the blame to oversensitive Catholics.

(2) Catholics? Really? When did bigots start hating Catholics again? I really thought that was behind us.

(3) Here's the money quote from Hagee, exposing him for the true idiot that he is:

In my zeal to oppose anti-Semitism and bigotry in all its ugly forms, I have often emphasized the darkest chapters in the history of Catholics and Protestant relations with the Jews," Hagee wrote. "In the process, I may have contributed to the mistaken impression that the anti-Jewish violence of the Crusades and the Inquisition defines the Catholic Church. It most certainly does not.

(4) Hillary Clinton, if she is going to maintain any slim chance at garnering the nomination, is apparently going to have to gain the support of at least one crazy religious zealot. Given her disadvantage in virtually every category of electoral results, I suggest she go deep for her pick. I suggest Warren Jeffs. Now I know what you're thinking: Jeffs doesn't really say too many crazy things in public. But if Hillary really wants to make a splash, the leader of a polygamist cult who is currently serving time for aiding and abetting statutory rape is the guy for her. Nothing says "I've got a crazy minister in my corner too" like the potential first female president accepting the endorsement (maybe even marriage? I'm just saying...) of a guy who performs wedding ceremonies for 14-year olds.

The Spin Cycle: Hillary's Faux Victory

This just in...Hillary Clinton wins her second meaningless primary. And celebrates. That's right, hot on the heels of her victory in Michigan over "uncommitted," Hillary Clinton won the delegate-less Florida primary by 17 points. Hey, at least the other candidates' names were on the ballot this time. The Washington Post's Dana Milbank wrote a pretty scathing review of the whole affair here.

Nevermind the fact that all of the candidates agreed not to campaign in the state, or that no delegates were up for grabs, Clinton still deemed it necessary to give herself a victory party. The thing that really sticks in my craw is that she did not give any acknowledgment of her loss in SC, a real primary, with real delegates at stake, in which she got hammered. Just another example of the Clinton machine at work, doing whatever is necessary to look successful. What should not go unnoticed here is that she blatantly violated an agreement with the other candidates not to campaign in Florida and, now that she has won, is trying to get the Democratic party to reinstate both Florida and Michigan's delegates.

I Couldn't Help Myself...

Clinton/Edwards '08?

Anybody else get the feeling that John Edwards was debating to be Hillary's VP last night? I thought the tag-team action against Obama was fairly conspicuous (and onerous).

McCain-o-Mania

Well SC Repubicans, you surprised me. The conventional wisdom, that the evangelical vote would carry the day in SC, was wrong. You did not put your support firmly behind a guy who wants to amend the Constitution to bring it up to God's standards. And you were not charmed by the former imaginary D.A. from Law and Order. Good for you.

McCain's victory got me thinking: what if it came down to Hillary and McCain? Who would I support? Despite any inferences you may make from the title of this blog, I am not a partisan hack. There was a time when I felt very strongly on the side of John McCain (circa 2000). But now, after 8 years of the guy who beat him, well, I'm a bit wary of electing another Republican. Still, though, Hillary...really? I think if it came down to these two, I might well go with McCain.

Here's my thinking: McCain will not torture prisoners, which is a big issue for me. However, McCain will stay in Iraq, an equally big issue for me. But, on the Iraq issue, McCain's experience in Vietnam at least lends his thoughts on Iraq some credibility, whether or not you agree with his proposed policy.

On the other hand, Hillary probably won't torture prisoners either. And she will probably stay in Iraq. So they seem to be evenly matched on my two biggest issues. I guess I'll have to look deeper into their policy proposals.

Let's see, healthcare: McCain proposes what is essentially some sort of "market-based" solution to the healthcare woes of our country. One thing I like, McCain talks about low-cost health clinics, something I think is essential in providing healthcare to more people. One thing I don't like, any "market-based" solution for healthcare is a dubious proposition because there is an inelastic demand for healthcare (that is, healthcare demand is not the same as consumption demand, you don't go to the doctor's office to get that stylish new drug you've been shopping around for). Clinton wants to have some sort of optional socialized healthcare system- that is, if you have healthcare and you like it, you can keep it, or you can opt-in to a government healthcare system. One thing I like, it would provide healthcare to more people. One thing I don't like, most people receive healthcare as an employer-provided benefit, if they have a choice to opt-into a government healthcare plan, what incentive is there for the employer to continue providing the benefit?

Ok, on to energy issues. McCain's take on US oil-dependence is well-reasoned and he has acknowledged that human activity contributes to global warming. My problem with his proposal is that he buys into the "pollution shares trading" idea, and I simply do not see how that will reduce overall pollution. Clinton says essentially the same thing as McCain on this issue.

Alright, how about the economy? McCain will balance the budget, cut taxes on businesses and cut spending (surprise, surprise). Trickle-down economics remains a force of nature in politics...why, I am not sure. Clinton wants a "progressive commitment to shared prosperity." Sounds like socialism, but let's see where she's going with this...she wants to raise the minimum wage, fix the healthcare system, and promote education. Blah, blah, blah, freakin' blah. Sure, healthcare and education affect our economy, but she will have to work harder to prove to me the causal connections between her healtchare and education policies and economic success. I can see it, but I don't want to infer.

And finally, just for fun, gun control. McCain is all for gun rights and supports instant criminal background checks for gun owners. He doesn't believe that gun ownership is tied to higher crime rates. Clinton wants instant background checks and to extend the ban on assault rifles. I'm all for that. However, her position statement (that can be found here) indicates that she hasn't given much thought to the issue. That could be a good thing.

So, where are we? Well, I am exactly where I started. I don't really like either of them much. I think if I had to vote today, though, Hillary's healthcare proposal, which I'm sure she will pursue vigilantly, eliminates her from consideration. I just don't think socialized healthcare will work without either drastically reducing the quality of healthcare or drastically increasing government spending and taxes. I guess I would go with McCain. Consequently, McCain's issue statements can be found here.

I sure hope Obama wins the nomination.

Hillary Stumps in Columbia

The Blue South was able to get a correspondant in to the gymnasium at Allen University to see Hillary Clinton deliver her stump speech on Monday, and boy was it anticlimactic. While we generally don't expect a whole lot of substance to speeches this early in the race, we do expect a lot of applause pauses and energy. And that wasn't the case on Monday. Maybe she was just having a bad day, but the speech was about as rousing as a Zanax washed down with a pint of Thunderbird. The town-meeting format wasn't particularly compelling either (and, while we generally oppose scripted questions at those sorts of things, a bit of screening wouldn't have been such a bad idea). Indeed, it was one of Sen. Clinton's questioners that received the loudest applause as he delivered his 10-minute "question" railing in the Iraq war from a Vietnam vet's perspective. In the end, Sen. Darrell Jackson had to cut the guy's mike to give Clinton a chance to speak up.

As far as the speech goes, she hit all the normal highlights. Universal healthcare, Iraq was a bad idea, George Bush sucks, all the standard Democratic stump-speech fare. She also insists on vowing to take the profits of the big mean oil companies (how she plans to do that short of a Nixon-esque "plumber" team, is beyond me). The fact is that Clinton simply isn't a compelling candidate at this point in the race.

Oh yeah, and while we're on the topic of Hillary, the Blue South would like to send a personal boot to the hindquarters of Clinton's operative, Howard Wolfson. This guy is dirty and vicious and about as blatant a liar as we've seen in a long time. We caught him last night on Hardball calling David Geffen Obama's "campaign finance coordinator." Come on, Wolfy, you know that's not true. The fact is that his tactic of spinning Geffen's anti-Clinton remarks (that were fairly meek) into an instance of the Obama campaign utilizing the slash and burn tactics that Obama himself vows to eliminate. Not a bad tactical move, but don't reach too far, or you'll lose any shred of credibility you have left.