……………… or maybe not? A Christmas time KCCI poll shows the latter day Evita in fourth place in Iowa. Pardon the parody but talk about Little Rock cover of “Don’t Cry for Me Arkansas”.
I’ll tell you two words that will unify Republicans like no others in the English language, “President Clinton”. Last time around the money came rolling in to the White House from every side. The Clintons have had 6 years to further refine financial relationships in which a Clinton restoration would be incredibly good for certain benefactors of campaign contributions, like Goldman Sachs for example.
I’m sure Hillary would be quite happy to see everything justified by her own personal charity, which she would define as the United States Treasury. Unfortunately, unlike the first Evita, this one would have the entire apparatus of the modern American government with the powers necessary for the War on Terror to use in reshaping the United States more along the lines of Peronista Argentina.
I’ll tell you two words that will unify Republicans like no others in the English language, “President Clinton”. Last time around the money came rolling in to the White House from every side. The Clintons have had 6 years to further refine financial relationships in which a Clinton restoration would be incredibly good for certain benefactors of campaign contributions, like Goldman Sachs for example.
I’m sure Hillary would be quite happy to see everything justified by her own personal charity, which she would define as the United States Treasury. Unfortunately, unlike the first Evita, this one would have the entire apparatus of the modern American government with the powers necessary for the War on Terror to use in reshaping the United States more along the lines of Peronista Argentina.
15 comments:
Light blue print-the national colours of Argentina. Good one.
Sporer,
You seem to be stuck worse than the folks at MoveOn. Your post brilliantly exemplifies why Obama is flying as high as he is. The hard-core partisans love this stuff. Everyone else is sick of it.
rf
What on earth does Barak Hussain Obama bring to the table other than being black? What has he DONE! I don't think America is ready to elect the son of a muslim named after a Hussein of any stripe and whose last name rhymes with Osama.
The MOVE ON thing is funny. I bet you have one of those I hate Bush stickers on your car, don't you? Or, maybe you still have a John Kerry sticker on your car?
Anon 11:23,
No anti-Bush stickers on my car. Not anymore. It’s hard to move on, but we really need to do it for the good of the country.
I think you missed my point about Obama. Yes, by traditional political standards he may seem like an empty suit, and that does give me some serious pause. However, what he seems to bring to the table is some hope for ending the completely mindless polarization of our political process. I believe that is what many people are looking for. I personally feel that may be the most important quality in our next president, rather than any specific stand on a particular issue or the “perfect” resume. We really need to move on.
What bothers me is the cult of personality that is growing around Osama, I mean Obama.
rf,
you misread me. I rarely say anything about Bubba unless its to discuss some thing of historical significance, where he failed far worse than the trivial Monica stuff, like North Korea, although, as I have also previously said, in all fairness Bubba might have had a dirty bomb aimed at Seoul and Tokyo for all I know. You don't find much Bubba trashing from me.
However, Hillary is alive and well, and I do think that she is pure evil, and evil with a very ruthless inhumane anti-democratic agenda.
Here's a difference. John Kerry, for whom I have little regard, fired Sandy Berger immediately upon learning of Berger's National Archive theft. The Clinton's never fired anyone when in office for illegal conduct (except for the wrongfully attacked on Hillary's orders to trash them)and when out of office rushed to defend Berger.
A guy can be wrong, disagreeable etc... but even John Kerry couldn't bed down with a vile thing like Sandy Berger. The Clinton's embrace them, use them because they are them.
Bring on Evan Bayh, Bill Richardson, Mark Pryor, Mark Warner etc... and purge the Clintons, for the good of the nation.
Sporer,
“Pure evil”? Come on! You are making Michael Moore look fair and balanced. Even Newt has worked with the evil one. And you wonder why we D’s are having difficulty getting over W?
Yes, the Clintons, and particularly Hillary, are the worst that this nation has produced. The statesmanship of James Buchanan coupled with the economic foresight of Calvin Coolidge topped off with the ethics of Aaron Burr.
While Bubba appeared to have little or no non personal agenda, and whatever he had went out the door after 94 anyway, Hillary does. She is the archtype of the neoMarxist of the nanny state.
It doesn't take a village, it really does take a family and the goal should be to empower people themselves so as to make the village focus on other things, like national self defense.
There is one other person in the race that I consider to be of similar danger to the nation, and I'll publish that when he/she drops out or the general election is over. Otherwise, while I disagree with most Democrats I think most would accept the limitations of constitutional democracy.
........... and remember, all of the consitutional abuses W has implemented began under Bubba, and Bubba was using many of them on domestic political enemies, not terrorists.
Sporer,
Wow! Sounds like you are serious. I’m almost speechless. The R echo chamber has gotten you big time on this Clinton thing.
“You don't find much Bubba trashing from me” didn’t last too long…
Sporer,
In the spirit of moving on and completely off topic… I’m wondering what you think of Lincoln Chafee’s observation that “the old southern Democrats have taken over the Republican Party.” Looking at historical electoral maps and current political rhetoric dominating the Republican Party, I feel like it’s hard to argue against Chafee’s point.
In a sense, but probably not in the liberal elitist sense in which Chafee meant it.
Modern libs, especially Republican libs, mean that southern segregationists, like Wallace, Albert Gore, Sr., Robert Byrd have become Republicans. It is true in the sense that the southern middle class and working class, which were always culturally conservative and nationalistic, simply joined the midwestern middle classes and western everybody (east of the 3 Pacific coast states)to form the modern Republican party.
At the same time, eastern cultural and increasingly economic liberals became independents and soft Ds. Wealthy eastern liberal elite Republicans, like a Rhode Island Chafee, has a lot more in common with a Teddy Kennedy than he does a Teddy Sporer.
Of course, I'm right and he's wrong.
But, rf, you have roused the old debater in me, as I reflect on big history by watching the reflections on Jerry Ford tonight.
You will rarely hear any gratuitous trashing of Bubba from me. I generally ignore Bubba because he is no longer politically significant. The people who actually run the government are, in reality, the only significant players.
Hillary is one of the very significant players, so she is totally fair game.
Also, we can certainly criticize Bubba's policy failures, his response to the clear and present threat of global Islamofascism and its weird ally North Korea. While every President since Carter underestimated this threat and failed to accept the inevitable and real nature of the coming war, by Clinton's second term we were simply under attack all over the world. For a variety of reasons, some forgiveable and some not, Clinton took no significant steps, and did several very counter productive things, with respect to this threat, which I consider the paramount issue before us-comparable to WW2.
My point about North Korea, poorly made, wasn't that Bubba had the dirty bomb but rather the dwarfish lunatic in Pyongyang had a dirty bomb aimed somewhere important for purposes of retaliation if we blasted their nuke plants, so that the gain wasn't worth the risk.
History is the ultimate judge. I readily concede if the good/bad of the whole impeachment issue may take generations to determine, if ever. However, the feckless and utterly failed Clinton response to global Islamofascism/North Korea, can be judged now.
Just like the appeasers in Europe and the USA in the 30s were subject to a pretty quick historical verdict, so is Bill Clinton on this issue.
America is calling for men of action like FDR, Harry Truman and Ike. Our enemies, who are no more compotent than the people who invented jet airplanes and missles (Germany WW2) or the mass kamikazi (Japan), must and can be defeated but we need to get very nasty to do it. Clinton wasn't and it empowered this mortal foe. Neville Chamberlain, who did ultimately fight back-albeit ineffectively-has a new roomie in the Appeasers Hall of Fame.
Why else would Sandy Berger have gone to the lengths and run the risks to destroy documents from the National Archives?
fr
you talked about obama bringing hope to the political divide.
That would be a good thing, but how is it that you've determined that? What does he bring to the table that the republicans would be interested in that other D's running for office are not doing?
Why is he hopeful and others are not? (as he describes it).
Is the attraction that he looks nice, has a pleasant tone in his voice and comes across as a nice guy? What is the source of his attraction?
Sporer,
Not surprisingly, you are spinning Chafee’s comments your way. I still think he really hit the nail on the head, kind of a no-brainer. And truth like that can hurt. But, to be fair, we D’s have similar issues. For example, I am anxiously waiting for the sixties crowd that paralyzes my party to die off. Many of them are still fighting the battles that were won 40 years ago. We need to declare victory and move on to today’s issues and today’s world. I am particularly concerned about the victimhood mentality that often drives this crowd. Those people are well-intentioned, but you R’s are right on this particular issue.
Anon 7:20,
First of all, I don’t think Obama or any other D could ever get a huge chunk of the R vote – or vice versa for an R candidate. After all, 52% was considered a huge mandate the last time around. If someone can get a 5% edge with stronger support from independents and softies on the other side, we would be talking about a landslide. My comments about Obama are my hunches. I could be totally wrong. My hunch is that Obama is tapping, consciously or unconsciously, into the void and mentality well demonstrated by the Unity08 movement (unity08.com, I believe). I don’t want to get too poetic or anything, but it seems like with the vindictiveness and polarization after 8 years of Clinton and 6 of Bush, we have some serious wounds to heal. I think many people in the middle - not us partisan political fanaticos blogging day in and day out - are looking for someone who could heal those wounds. They really are sick of this shit.
Santa was kind enough to bring me Obama’s book. I haven’t finished it yet, but he appears to have heavy focus on his respect for the other side and their thinking. I think he stole one my blogging lines when he stated something about the importance of “admitting that the other guy may have a point.” I think this approach - along with the hype - is what separates him from the other candidates in the race. For all I know, Obama may just be smart, calculating and reading the political landscape well. Or maybe he really feels this way. How could I know? It may be all rhetoric. But in politics, rhetoric matters an awful lot. See Reagan, Ronald. Obama's multi-cultural/multi-ethnic background certainly helps with this image. I suspect bashing his name and its connotations is not going to go very far. After all, Obama is pretty catchy. All in all, I’m very torn about his potential candidacy. There is no perfect candidate on either side (damn that Warner!).
Post a Comment