In May, Fred Barnes describes a difference between myth and reality in Hillary. Newt Gingrich writes of the male-female pay discrepancies in the Hillary Senate staff and at the Foundation. Dick Morris writes of how Trump is changing the Democrat Party. Kathleen Parker shares a 13 minute video of the lies of Hillary. Most who follow the political scene will remember them, but worth hearing again. John Kass deals with the NYT hit piece on The Donald and why it is ineffective. Of course, he is referring to Hillary's husband. If I can find a less polemical article, I will replace this one, but for those who need a reminder. Wesley Pruden says people just do not like Hillary and she cannot do anything about that except remind people of what they do not like about The Donald. Jonah Goldberg says the IG report on the emails confirms everything critics have said. The best brief article concerning why the sexual affairs of Bill matter for Hillary is by Rich Lowry.
At this stage, I am quite disappointed in the political class of both political parties. I believe the country faces some important challenges. In reading some presidential biographies, I think one could make a strong case that the political class failed the country during the Jackson Era, largely because of the dominance of Jackson and his circle. Its failure led to the Civil War. The political class can fail is my point, and the result can be disaster.
Hillary will be the nominee. I would be shocked if the two "super Tuesday" primaries in March will not have the result of Hillary being the obvious nominee. Bernie will keep in it and try to get a prime time speech. I will be surprised if Clinton will be gracious in victory. Hillary is simply not likable to many persons. She will continue to claim that people do not want to vote for her because they are not ready for a woman president. This avoids a harsh reality. Even many liberals do not like her. I think feminists are starting to realize what she did to the women her husband sexually abused. The only way any of the scandals surrounding Hillary "matter" is if Democrats will withdraw votes due to them. I do not see that happening. In addition, I would invite anyone to look up the number of delegates she has already. She is way ahead.
I offer a few general observations.
R. Emmett Tyrell Jr has written about the death of liberalism, making the claim that the old liberalism of the 1960s is dead, replaced by a progressive approach that is quite different from the past. Charles Krauthammer has written a brief synopsis of the four major candidates (April 2016) in terms of foreign policy.
The Democrat Party is raising the issue of socialism. Here is a brief discussion of socialism between Milton Friedman and Phil Donahue. Less than 4 minutes. Given the nature of the Democrat primary, it is worth hearing again. Walter Williams has 5 minutes on the morality of capitalism that you will find interesting. I find it disheartening that America is changing to the point where a socialist can garner half the votes in IA and likely win New Hampshire. I do think that is the direction of the Democrat Party, but it concerns me nonetheless. Voters need to do some serious reading about the disaster socialism would bring to this country. Patrick Barron explains why European socialism is failing. Stephen Moore explains the failure of European socialism through economist Milton Friedman. John Hawkins offers 5 ways socialism destroys societies. Alternatively, the best approach to understand capitalism better, which Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, and Milton Friedman (Capitalism and Freedom, Free to Choose) are the best ways to do this. If you want an extensive analysis, George Gilder, Wealth & Poverty is the best approach I have seen in laying out the moral foundation for capitalism. Thomas Sowell has written of the lure of socialism. Walter Williams writes of the hidden and negative history of progressivism. Michael Tanner has a nice article on whether socialism is making a comeback. Harry Jaffa has written about the change occurring in liberalism/progressivism/socialism, and here is a brief summary by Steven Hayward. On the lighter side, Emily Ekins writes that millennials are attracted socialism - until they get jobs.
Robert J. Samuelson discusses the down side of "soaking the rich" as a tax policy.
He notes that the top 1 percent accounted for 14.6 percent of pretax income in 2011 and paid 24 percent of federal taxes. Clinton would raise total taxes 1.1 trillion over the decade, with 3/4 coming from the upper one percent. Sanders tax package would raise a staggering $15.3 trillion over a decade. Most taxpayers would be hit.
It would make more sense if Hillary would calmly re-state the traditional Democrat Party line and let Bernie promote his socialism. Bill Clinton attacked Bernie Sanders as being sexist. Well, first, given his sexual predatory style, I find it amazing he would do this. Second, we will hear the sexist and misogynist accusation against anyone who opposes Hillary. The statement that a special place in Hell is reserved for women who do not support other women is odd to me. Political campaigns ought to be about the role of government in our lives. I am not sure what gender or skin color have to do with that.
The Democrat Party likes to attack the Koch Brothers, to which Jonah Goldberg responds.
On paying their fair share of taxes, Walter Williams is always good to read, and this is a recent article.
Here is some fact checking of the Democrat debate in January.
Cal Thomas offers his reflections. Laura Hollis takes the approach of sharing questions "they" refuse to ask of Democrats. I would offer that the debate reflects precisely what moved me away from the Democrat Party. The fact that a socialist touting northern European style socialism, which the Scandinavians are pulling back from, is enough for me. On the national security front, the fact that Bernie can identify climate change rather than the rise of Islamic fundamentalism, Russia, or China is amazing. The attacks on the "one percent," who are the true "forgotten person" in the economy, seems like an appeal to envy. Most of all, the appeal to give Americans free stuff is very dangerous. Nothing is free. If something is free to you, it has come at the expense of someone else. If that is OK with you, we have a moral and character problem. In any case, using the government to make our neighbors provide us free stuff is a form of governance with which I want nothing to do.
Michael Barone offers an interesting analysis of the death of the center-left dimension of the Democrat Party. He uses an analogy with England. Jeff Greenfield offers an analysis of the effect of Obama on the Democrat Party nationally. It is not good. Dana Bilbank refers to the death of the blue dog Democrat as revealed in the House in November 2015. David Shribman describes surprises in the campaign as of June 2015.
The approach of Obama to terrorism, and the similarity with Hillary, will be an issue. From my perspective, the nation needs to consider a militant form of Islam as an enemy. If the nation does not deal with it "over there," the result will be infiltration "here." The weakness of Obama on this topic, shown especially in his response to Paris and to San Bernadino, will be a concern to many Americans, but probably not to most people in the Democrat Party. It has also led to the popularity of some perceived to be "strong," such as Trump and maybe even Cruz. This raises the question of the Obama foreign policy in general. Josef Joffe refers to it as isolationism with drones, doing so in the Atlantic and in a scholarly analysis of what he sees. If you want some information about the spread of violence by Muslims, The Religion of Peace is a reliable site as is The Counter-Jihad Report. For many Democrats, it seems that as soon as there is terrorist attack, the instinct is to defend Islam and Muslims. This reaction seems to be justification for not taking the terror threat seriously, nor taking reasonable and common sense steps to stop them.
One of the issues will be President Obama and his economic policies. Stephen Moore thinks he has divided the nation along class lines. In this article, he writes of the myths about poverty with which Obama seems to live.
Iraq remains an issue. Robert Gates explained how Iraq went from strength to dangerous weakness. Catherine Herridge explains that the prediction of the rise of ISIS and its apparent ignoring by the administration. The rise of ISIS has and the approach to Syria has led to a refugee crisis in Europe as of September 2015. Jonah Goldberg discusses some of the dynamics of this. Jonah Goldberg offers critique of Obama on handling ISIS. Wesley Pruden thinks that when things get tough with ISIS, Obama changes the subject to immigration of Syrian refugees. Rich Lowry reminds us why there are so many refugees, laying it at the feet of Obama. Michael Barone explains that while ISIS attacks, Obama gets angry at Americans who disagree with him. Mona Charen discusses the mistakes of Obama that have led to Syrian refugees.
Iran is an issue. Rachel Marsden reflects upon the importance of a pathway to economic security. Ben Shapiro compares the deal with Iran to Neville Chamberlin, but adds that one could argue that Chamberlin loved his country. While this idea is challenging, the point here is that Obama wants an enemy to become a regional power. Ken Blackwell argues that the proposed Iran deal is worse than what Chamberlin did and he refers to the speech by Winston Churchill in opposition. David Horovitz offers 16 reasons the Iran deal is a victory for Iran and a catastrophe for the West. Peter Morici discusses the economic advantages Iran will receive with the negotiated deal, making it an economic powerhouse in the region. Charles Krauthammer discusses the nuclear deal and is not favorable.
With the decision of the Supreme Court in June 2015, Obamacare will be an issue. Elizabeth Slattery thinks the judges acted like lawmakers rather than judges. S. E. Cupp says this was a gift to the Republican Party. David Harsanyi thinks the Court turned its back on the rule of law. George Will discusses what he thinks is the real problem with the decision.
Hillary Clinton
I share with you some general comments.
One of the serious issues raised by the long public history of Hillary is her character.
I like the questions that Michael Barone thinks Hillary needs to be asked.
First, should the Bill Clinton scandals regarding women influence the Hillary campaign? In my view, the answer is affirmative. Christians can differ on the role of government in the lives of citizens. However, here is one place where, I confess, I have difficulty seeing how Christians can support her. In this case, the issue is not so much what Bill did, but what she did in response. Larry Elder ponders why Hillary has never been asked publicly about her role in the scandals. I think Joe Scarborough is right in saying that times of changed, with her past behavior coming back to haunt her. She personally destroyed women who were on the receiving end of sexual advances from Bill Clinton. These women were not her political enemies. They were victims of the sexual predator she had as a husband. She acted to protect his political career. This was important to her because she valued her political career. She willingly destroyed the lives of several women for these reasons. Camille Paglia discusses how the Bill Cosby rape allegations could negatively affect the campaign of Hillary. Her point is that young women will not take kindly to the way Hillary attacked other women who experienced the sexual advances of her husband. Suzanne Fields explores this matter as well, under the theme that young millennial women will not like what they hear about Hillary and her role in covering for Bill. Victor Davis Hanson says that when she condemns other people, she condemns herself. Donald Trump produced a video that pulls no punches.
Second, the matter of Benghazi has a strong character element. The movie 13 Hours is very good. It is not a political movie. It does offer the perspective of some of the soldiers on the ground during the Benghazi attack. It says nothing directly about Obama or Hillary. We as viewers may well leave wondering if those on the ground were right -- more could have done by those above them. The context here is that she did not reinforce the embassy because of the Obama campaign meme that al qada is on the run. However, the character issue is that after the attack and the killings, she told the grieving families it was the result of a video when she knew, according to released emails, that it was the result of a planned attack. For me, someone who can lie to grieving persons like that has a profound character issue. Again, she did this to support the false campaign theme of Obama. I invite you to reflect upon the issues involved here. In January 2016, Bob Tyrell and Andrew Napolitano explain in a reasonable way the trouble in which Hillary finds herself. Stephen Hayes described a day that showed private emails and Benghazi revelations, making it a bad day for her. Yet, will it matter? The email scandal was prominent. Guy Benson explains some of the elements of this complicated story. Ron Fournier explains why he does not believe Hillary. He is a liberal. John Podhoretz outlines issues related to Benghazi, email controversy, and steady release of State Department emails. Byron York explores the matter, wondering whether Hillary or the State Department is lying. Byron York is on the case again, analyzing another document released by her campaign regarding this matter. Eugene Robinson says Hillary is self-destructive, has no respect for "us," and has no respect for truth. He wishes she would apologize and get out of the race. Judge Andrew Napolitano analyzes the legal trouble in which he thinks Hillary finds herself. He also offers some questions that the committee could could ask. John R. Schindler, a national security expert, reviews why this controversy is so important. Jonah Goldberg writes simply of the email scandal. John Solomon offers a factual account of the issues involved in Benghazi. Debra J. Saunders offers her analysis of the Benghazi hearing. Thomas Sowell discusses the media covering for Hillary. He also writes of the attempt to re-make Hillary. Judicial Watch points to a set of emails released in November in which Huma says Hillary is "often confused."
Third, the corruption surrounding the Clinton foundation is an issue. In early 2015, one of the stories about Hillary Clinton involved the Clinton foundation. The basic story involved the Clintons becoming wealthy after their departure from the White House, from which they famously emerged as "in debt" and "broke." They quickly became wealthy through the speeches they made. Their foundation gained much in wealth, while giving 15% of its income to charities and the rest to "other." Jo Becker and Mike McIntire wrote the New York Times article. Rosalind S. Helderman wrote the Washington Post article. Linda Chavez explained the issues involved in a brief piece. John Stossel suggests that Hillary has a natural protection against suffering any consequences from her questionable actions. Jonah Goldberg notes that Hillary lies, even when it came to an interview she finally had, claiming she has not received a subpoena. Emmett Tyrell Jr says that indictment on these matters is coming as of January 2016. We will see.
Now, as much as I believe Hillary has a strong moral and character issue that disqualifies her from the presidency, I also think it does not matter. At this level of conversation, people are quite set in their views. When it comes to the Clintons, many people simply love them and support them. They can do wrong. So, let us turn to policy. In fact, my suspicion is the persuadable people in this election are persuadable only on the basis of policy. Charles Krauthammer includes some of these matters in a broader discussion of the investigations conducted by the House. In essence, they do not work. My contention is that they cannot work, due to the bond that exists between the Press, the progressive agenda, the Democrat Party, and the Clintons. Further, for these groups, conservatives are more of an enemy than is radical Islam. I am not convinced, in other words, that one could discover anything in the area of corruption and morality that would shake the bond, because the over-riding issue or the Left is their agenda. As long as someone advances the political agenda, their character does not matter.
One campaign theme will be the war on women. The theme of the "war on women" has taken an interesting turn. In August 2015, she compared Republican opposition to Planned Parenthood to terrorists. Carly Fiorina responded. So did Mark Halperin. She does not pay women on her own staff as much as men. The Clinton Foundation has received millions of dollars from Islamic states that oppress women. Further, terrorists are beheading people for their ideas, while Planned Parenthood is crushing the heads of babies in order to sell baby parts. Stephen Moore re-directs this issue to the Obama years and how difficult it has been for working women.
Jonah Goldberg wonders if actual accomplishments will be downfall of Hillary.
David Harsanyi wonders when Hillary will be held accountable for her vote on Iraq.
Hillary was Secretary of State. Herb London offers a relatively reasoned assessment of her years there. Jennifer Rubin discusses the failure of the policy regarding Libya. George Will weighs in on the policy failure of Libya.
Hillary has flip-flopped or evolved on her view of illegal immigration, according to Matt Vespa.
Hillary offered a major economic speech. Although I did not listen, even sympathetic listeners said it was tired and uninspiring. Donald Lambro analyzes her economic recommendations and finds them lacking. Cal Thomas also looks at the speech and considered it boring, as well as tired and expected rhetoric. Michael Barone, who thinks she is likely to be the next President, examines this speech as a throwback to the year of her birth, 1948, when government was the solution to every problem. Robert J. Samuelson analyzes her proposal for encouraging profit-sharing. Fred Barnes considers her economic plan as a way to shrink the economy further.
Hillary seemed to get into demagoguery when she accused Republicans of wanting to keep people from voting. In supporting a lawsuit against Ohio, for example, she failed to note that New York has only one day to vote, while Ohio has a month to vote. Bill Murchison discusses this matter. Mona Charen calls it the "They hate you" strategy.
Planned Parenthood is selling the body parts of the fetuses they abort. S. A. Miller describes the vigorous defense of the organization against attacks, putting to rest the hope that some people had that those on the opposite side of the abortion question could unite in opposition to this practice. Joy Overbeck ponders the founder of the organization, Margaret Sanger, and the praise Hillary placed upon her.
The Democrat Party could save itself a lot of money by cancelling further debates and primaries and have a coronation of Hillary.
Bernie Sanders
Bernie Sanders is an opponent of Hillary from the Left. Donald Lambro discusses his notion of redistribution and socialism in Sanders. Emmett Tyrrell argues that he will have the historical role of one who is a spoiler, something like Eugene McCarthy. He also offers Jerry Brown and Michael Bloomberg as alternatives to Hillary. Katie Pavlich writes of the essay Bernie Sanders wrote in the 1970s about the sexual fantasies of men and women, the latter fantasizing about gang rape. David Harsanyi says that Bernie Sanders, as a socialist, represents the direction the Democrat Party has been moving. Mark Halpern has an insightful way of reflecting on how Bernie could win. Larry Elders discusses the inability of the head of the Democrat Party to distinguish between a Democrat and a socialist. He things that there is no difference. In August 2015, Jonah Goldberg describes the problems this life-long socialist presents to the Democrat Party. In September 2015, Nate Silver says we should not compare Sanders and Trump.
Bruce Bialosky discusses why the free college proposal is stupid. Mona Charen puts him with Donald Trump as a demagogue.
Jeffery Immelt, the head of General Electric, defends business against the accusations of Sanders that they are destroying the moral fabric of the nation.
Jonathan Capart studies an interview of Bernie in light of questions to which he ought to have had an answer.
Notes:
Charles Krauthammer offers a betting analysis of the election, giving Hillary and Marco 3-1 odds to win respective nominations and 55-45 for the Republicans in the general. Thomas Sowell offers analysis of the election, as of August 2015.
No comments:
Post a Comment