This year the leading Democratic candidate has been charged with being an "elitist." What surprise! That's what they're charged with every four years. George W. Bush went to Andover, Yale and Harvard, his dad was president and he had everything in his life handed to him on a silver platter and the media said his opponents were elitists and he was an average Joe. Why do they keep falling for this same crap every time? Are they this stupid or are they complicit?





We also discussed who is more elitists between the different campaigns here (warning: some strong language). I know it was Hillary Clinton who originally brought up this elitist charge this time, but then again it's hard to separate her from a Republican these days, as I explain in this video (also some strong language).

Watch More Videos on Our You Tube Channel

Now that John McCain seems assured of being the Republican nominee for president, will I join Ann Coulter in campaigning for Hillary Clinton? Only if I've completely lost my marbles, as Coulter seems to have in this case.

Hillary Clinton wants to raise taxes. She wants the government to take over one-sixth of the economy in the form of the health care sector. She wants to retreat in Iraq. She wants abortion on demand, however "safe" and "rare.' She wants more social liberals of the Ruth Bader Ginsburg stripe on the Supreme Court. She loathes conservatives who represent to her a "vast right-wing conspiracy."

I cannot believe that Coulter would seriously consider voting for such a person. So her threat to actually campaign for Clinton is pure rhetorical buncombe. Coulter specializes in outrageous, attention-getting statements like this. But this one is especially ill-timed and foolish.

As John McCain consolidates his position as the leader to secure the Republican nomination, many conservatives are expressing anxiety that McCain is not "one of us." Some of the shriller voices even denounce McCain as an impostor.

This seems strange. If McCain is not a real conservative, how is he winning races where conservatives dominate the voting ranks of the GOP?

Basically there is a split between what some leading conservative pundits think, and what rank-and-file conservatives think. The pundits detest McCain in part because of issues but mostly because of temperament. McCain is reviled for his campaign finance reform, and for expressing reservations about the Bush tax cuts, and for supporting immigration amnesty.

McCain's greatest failing, however, in these folks' eyes, is that he is a wild horse who doesn't move along the predictable conservative track. He is suspiciously popular with the mainstream media. He courts independent voters. Horror of horrors, the man said he doesn't listen to Rush Limbaugh.

On the big issues, however, McCain seems pretty conservative. Actually I suspect he's more conservative than Bush. He has consistently been with Bush, or to the right of him, on the Iraq war. No one can doubt McCain's commitment to a muscular foreign policy.

McCain may not be as zealous a tax-cutter as Bush, but it's safe to say he won't be as profligate a spender. McCain is an old-school fiscal conservative who only wants to spend when there's money in the bank. Since when it that a vice among conservatives?

Finally McCain is solid on the social issues that matter most to conservatives. His votes have been reliably pro-life, and he wants to appoint strict constructionist judges like John Roberts and Sam Alito to the Supreme Court. McCain supports tolerance for gays but opposes gay marriage.

I like both Romney and Huckabee, and if Obama is the Democratic nominee, then anything can happen. But if, as expected, the Democrats go with Hillary Clinton, then the Republicans would be wise to put up someone of equal stature. The last time the GOP fooled around with Hillary, the result was a disaster.

Remember Rick Lazio? As the GOP's candidate in the New York senate race, Lazio was an attractive and energetic right-winger, but Hillary badly trounced him. McCain is quite clearly in Hillary's league, and I suspect that he would be stronger against Hillary than either Romney or Huckabee.

It's time for conservatives to stop throwing tantrums over McCain and start thinking about how best to hold the White House in November.

Click here for my thoughts on Bloomberg, in non-recipe form.

***

Start with a crust of self-made success and stunning innovation as the founder of the largest financial data company in the world.

Spread a thick and flavorful foundation of executive stewardship and vision as Mayor of America's biggest city. (The Senate's bland "Advise and Consent" formula doesn't work nearly as well.)

In a separate bowl combine Bloomberg's Common Sense approaches to issues including free trade, immigration, homeland security, health care, gay rights, and the death penalty. Pour this healthy Post-Partisan batter onto the first layer.

Add a stick of Teddy Roosevelt's energy and fearlessness. (Telling New Yorkers they can't smoke is at least as hard as running up San Juan Hill in a hail of bullets.)

Now add two tablespoons of Ross Perot's wealth, so that you're not bound by campaign finance limitations.

Important: Immediately make sure to extract Ross Perot's craziness. (Accusing Mitt Romney of sabotaging your daughter's wedding will ruin the whole cake.)

Add a dash of John Anderson's Rockefeller Republican sweetener. Just a dash. (It's been sitting around since 1980 and might taste kind of funny.)

Bake for 10 months of 325-degree voter discontentment.

FROSTING:

You can make your own but avoid the following Independent ingredients:
Ralph Nader cream (spoils easily)
William Jennings Bryan brimstone (too spicy)
George Wallace nutmeg (too racist)

I recommend heading over to Zabar's for the frosting. Just call New York City Hall for directions.

Clip from the recent Republican debates hosted by CNN and YouTube, watch more responses here.

Here's a little something I wrote last May for this blog. Wow, to think Fred Thompson's been playing presidential footsie with us for that long. What a tease. Anyway here goes...

**

"You're you in every role you play." So said Katharine Hepburn. (At least I think she did. I can't find any citation for it through Google, but trust me. It's certainly something she would have said.) Simply put, the actor isn't so different from the role he/she plays.

Fred Thompson's camp would surely take this to heart. They know that American voters are greatly influenced by the public performance aspects of the presidency: Bush atop the rubble at Ground Zero was Oscar - and reelection - worthy. (Bush with the Mission Accomplished banner won an Oscar that was later revoked.)

My bet is Thompson will welcome voters equating him with the guy they see on the big and small screen. But what does Thompson's list of credits tell us about the man?


Most importantly, he's comfortable in the Commander-in-Chief role, having played Presidents Andrew Jackson and Ulysses S. Grant. Jackson was a strong president. That's good. But Grant was a colossal failure as president. Thompson's comfort in the role is troubling.

Thompson played Jay Sarno, creator of Caesar's Place and Circus Circus in Las Vegas, in the TV movie "Evel Knievel." Sarno was a shrewd businessman - the mastermind behind Vegas' transformation into a family entertainment center. (Both big business and heartland conservatives have something to cheer about here.) But there was a dark side to Sarno. Do we really want a president who can easily channel a gambler and rumored mafioso?

With Karl Rove leaving the Bush administration, many on the right are calling him a political genius, which is one thing he was not. Paul Gigot's article "The Mark of Rove" in yesterday's Wall Street Journal (I am reading the European edition) offers the following evidence for Rove's "historic" influence. He got Bush elected in 2000 and re-elected in 2004. Yes, but if Rove deserves credit for the party's success, he must also take the blame for the GOP's rout in the 2006 midterm election. Bush hangs on to power--with historically-low approval ratings--while the Democrats now control both Houses of Congress. Is the GOP in a stronger position overall than it was prior to the 2000 election? Hardly. It is more disspirited and divided than ever. So where is Rove's political genius?

Karl Rove has said that he'll be gone from the White House by the end of the month. When he goes, the White House will lose one of its most powerful strategists, and the President's critics will lose one of their favorite villains.

Here, then, is a brief tour through the many faces of Rove: the Machiavel, the rapper. First, there's a 1972 CBS news report, that discusses various aspects of the Nixon's campaign and features Rove in a segment about Nixon's appeal to the young (he appears at the 4:08 mark, or 1:30 before the end). And second, but hardly lesser, is the infamous MC Rove video, which features some of the godawfullest rapping in the history of man.

1972 clip:


And, MC Rove

This is literal. It's not a play on words. Republicans in New Hampshire are actually going to have machine guns at their fundraiser. And they are all going to fire them. What are they the Taliban? Doesn't Hamas fire machine guns into the air as a form of celebration?

At least they are smart enough to realize how stupid they are. They are concerned about each other's safety with all those machine guns around. Touching.

Watch More Young Turks Here

David Vitter, the disgraced Republican senator from Louisiana -- his name was in the DC madam's little black book, and he has since admitted other rendezvous with prostitutes -- is in the news again. Or rather, his wife Wendy is in the news. During a news conference this week, the Vitters came before the press to reiterate how sad and sorry Sen. Vitter is for his misconduct. Wendy Vitter stood by her man. But here's the problem. When she stood by him, she was wearing -- according to some commentators -- a dress that looked more appropriate for a lounge singer than a political wife. The situation is complicated by the fact that some news shows, such as MSNBC's Countdown, are going after Wendy Vitter for this decision with what appears to be glee: during their coverage, guest host Alison Stewart called the dress "slinky" and "skin-tight," and the graphic accompanying the report read "Fashion Ho-Pas."

Leaving aside the facts that a) Wendy Vitter's allowed to wear whatever she wants and b) calling her a "ho" is stupid, unless it was some weird side reference to the prostitutes in the scandal that some headline-writing staffer thought was funny, there is an interesting issue here about political behavior. Wives in these kinds of situations are supposed to be sober and a bit sad. They're not supposed to say much. The traditional pose is one of silent suffering. But at least one image consultant has proposed an interesting theory, which is that Wendy Vitter's miscalculation may have come from wounded pride, that she was using the press conference as an opportunity to reassert her feminine charms. "She was not thinking of saving her husband; she was thinking of how to save her reputation as a sexy woman," says Sandy Dumont, an image consultant from Norfolk, Virginia, in the Baltimore Sun. "She came across as 'I don't want anybody to think that he had to go get a prostitute because I'm not a woman. I've got a great figure, and I'm sexy.'" This may or may not be true, but it's more interesting, in that it does try to grapple with human nature rather than simply dismissing the dress as a political blunder.

So, here's today's question.























[Ben Greenman is the author of several books of fiction, including the acclaimed new collection A Circle is a Balloon and Compass Both: Stories About Human Love. Buy it here.]

The flood of responses to our investigative piece on guys who pee sitting down has been overwhelming. I expected a tiny trickle of comments. Instead I got a tidal wave. Obviously you'd all been holding it in for so long, you were ready to burst!

At the end of this post is a political poll question. But first, a recap on the excellent comments. I was particularly intrigued by the number of women who said they were relieved that their husbands sit down. Some only came to this realization belatedly:


Of course a few women are strict traditionalists:

I'm referring, of course, to former Congressman Joseph Kennedy II, the eldest son of Robert Kennedy.

Okay, he's not exactly a polygamist. His marriage to first wife Sheila Rauch ended in divorce in 1991. Then the marriage was annulled, or invalidated, shortly thereafter by the Catholic Church. The annulment was granted in secret, unbeknownst to the Episopalian Rauch, who only found out in 1996, three years after Kennedy had married his former aide, Beth Kelly.

Rauch was ticked off and appealed for a reversal of the annulment. She believes, not unreasonably, that a failed marriage needs to be acknowledged - not conveniently erased from memory. Now Time Magazine reports that she has gotten what she wanted.

And so now, according to the Church, he remains married to Rauch. But he's also married to Kelly, though only civilly. (Kennedy and Kelly had still not had their Church wedding.)

New York mayor Michael Bloomberg has quit the Republican Party. Normally, I would find this to be great news. I really like Mayor Bloomberg. Even when he was a Republican, while I hated nearly every Republican politician on the national level, Bloomberg was still one of my favorite elected officials in the whole country.

The fact that he is leaving the GOP is another reason to really like the guy. He seems to be taking a principled stand against a party that has spun out of control. It's good for him and good for educating the public about what the Republican Party has become.

Here's the problem. If he runs for president -- and this is a clear indication that he is leaning in that direction (please, there are almost no principled stands in politics, not even from Bloomberg, so this is far more likely a precursor to a Bloomberg run as an independent) -- he could throw a giant monkey-wrench into the works.