Bartlett Loses His BDS Pills, Endorses Hillary!
By Repair Man Jack Posted in 2008 — Comments (41) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Cross-posted at: THE MINORITY REPORT
Gazing into his crystal ball, it becomes increasingly clear to Bruce Bartlett that the Democrats will win the next election. Thus he endorses Hillary! for President with the same aplomb that Neville Chamberlain showed when he signed over The Sudetenland for “peace in our time.” He must have been too busy crystal ball gazing to have watched Barak Obama in the latest Democratic Debate. Or to have noticed that Hillary! has nearly 100% name recognition, with negatives as high as her positives.
I was relieved to notice that Bartlett didn’t believe it was 1932. This is an astute observation.
In 1932, unemployment was 25%, not approximately 4.5%. Also, the GNP (used instead of the GDP in earlier years as a measure of national economic activity) had contracted by 20% since 1929. Currently, the US GDP is solidly over $13T in current year dollars and has expanded steadily the last three years. So if you ignore the total absence of a profound economic collapse, maybe Bartlett’s metaphor can be seen as something other than the tragic results of taking acid above the first floor and then landing squarely on his head.
Bartlett then discusses how Clinton’s economic policy made everything peachy. He launches this discussion with no reference to the Democraticization of The Internet while Bill Clinton was in office and with not the slightest mention of the NASDAQ crash as Clinton was leaving, or of the Attacks of September 11, 2001. Bartlett criticizes George W. Bush from a world as imaginary as the one inhabited by Dennis Kucinich and Grandfather Twilight.
A discussion of the economics of the 1990’s in North America with no mention of either NAFTA or of The Internet, is like discussing the economic history of Saudi Arabia with no particular attention to when The House of Saud first started selling petroleum. An entire new multi-billion dollar industry came into existence and began rapidly pumping revenue into the economy. The rate of international trade and imports into the United States accelerated in likewise fashion due to NAFTA. So President Clinton made one intelligent decision, backing NAFTA, and enjoyed an economic wind at his back that no President since FDR at the outbreak of WWII has benefited from.
He is equally selective in his reporting when he complains about increased regulation under George W. Bush without mentioning Enron or the 9/11 Attacks. Sarbanes-Oxley has justly earned criticism for overburdening small businesses for the sins of larger corporations. However, like many who pound the Bush Derangement Syndrome drums, Bartlett totally ignored the fact that corporations misrepresenting their financial position to the SEC and while forcing their employees to buy company stock was, in fact, a serious breach of ethical business practices and potentially a grave economic problem, if it happened on a widespread basis and went unchecked.
If Bartlett has a smarter idea than Sarbanes-Oxley to stop what was widespread and blatant white collar crime and fraud, against decent and loyal employees of a major corporation, I’d love to hear him suggest something better than Jihad Against George. Bartlett never has any of these suggestions. He finds it less strenuous and more fun to play Lou Dobbs and get “good and mad”, rather than going through the time and effort it would require to put together an intelligent policy to combat Enron wanna-bees that take advantage of the system.
So go ahead Bartlett, endorse Hillary! for President and undermine the hard work that Jack Kemp and Ronald Reagan and all the other people you “Real Conservatives” supposedly lionize. If no groundswell materializes behind you, don’t die of shock. And while you’re leaving in as loud and a rude fashion as possible, don’t let the door hit you where The Good Lord split you. You are a pathetic cry baby, a sore loser and will not be missed by anyone supporting the GOP in 2008.
I read Bartlett's article, and either I don't understand what BDS is or that term has lost its meaning to the point of signifying "anything I don't like." Bartlett may be wrong, but assuming for a moment that he is right and the real options only come with D's after their names, who would you pick? I definitely think Hillary is the most conservative of the pack (Richardson, who hasn't a prayer, aside).
His giving up this early may be silly (I certainly think it is, especially if Thompson jumps in), but I hardly this his article warrants diagnosing him with BDS.
That's something like saying Karl Marx is more conservative than Joe Stalin.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.
I want an American running my country that will defend my country. Electing a Democrat will insure that America is not defended.
I wouldn't want my country run by Stalin or Marx either. The point is, though, that not every Democrat is the same any more than every Communist, Fascist, Christian, or Republican is the same. Democrats and Republicans, especially this time around, fall along a fairly continuous spectrum:
Edwards>Obama>Clinton>Rudy>Romney(5 years ago)>McCain>Romney(present)
All Bartlett said was that the farthest right we're going to get this time around is Clinton. He may well be wrong, but if he is right about the GOP losing in '08, Clinton is clearly closer to Rudy than she is to Edwards and probably Obama (at least on everything but Iraq). Given the (possibly false) option of Hillary or Obama/Edwards, the obvious choice for a conservative would be Hillary, which is why Kos hates her so much.
...his book about GWB called "Imposter" than this particular column. In the book (written for the 2004 election cycle, IIRC), he claims that Bush is not the conservative he claimed to be during the 2000 campaign.
It's actually a pretty good book and makes a good case that, a couple years later, many conservatives would agree with. But I tend to agree that it sometimes veered from being astute and fair criticism into something of a polemic...thus the BDS reference.
And, FWIW, I don't agree that Hillary Clinton is the most conservative Democrat in the race. This is the lady who, after all, made a genuine attempt at nationalizing healthcare. If Bartlett thinks a Democrat is going to win and, thus, feels compelled to find the least objectionable one to support from a conservative's point of view, then he probably needs to look at Bill Richardson...now that Vilsack and Bayh have dropped out.
But I think he's just trying to stir the pot. He likes doing that....helps him stand out from the crowd.
My question to Mr. Bartlett is this: even if you think a Democrat is going to win the White House, why would that preclude you from endorsing and supporting the most conservative candidate of either party? Even if you don't think the GOP candidate will have a chance, why pre-emptively declare defeat like this?
It's bizarre -- and, really, kind of pointless.
In most of these cases of huge corporate abuse, weren't they taking place willy-nilly under Clinton and then the guys going to jail under Bush? If you ask the average person on the street, I bet those who had ever heard of Enron or any of these other cases would say Clinton was 100% innocent and Bush was to blame. After all, that's what they've heard from the Democrats and the MSM for all these years so it must be true.
Enron was responsible for the electricity crisis and rolling blackouts in California in 2000-01. Ken Lay even mocked California's efforts to stop what was happening by saying his people would just figure out another way to game the market. In the middle of this there is an election, Bush-Cheney move into the White House, and Ken Lay is on the task force to come up with our new energy policy. When LA went to the energy task force with a request for price controls to protect consumers, they were shot down.
I know that the deregulation/partial deregulation/regulation debate is still going on, but this is clear:
When there was an energy crisis in California, perpetrated by Enron, the government did nothing to stop it. In the middle of the crisis, the CEO doing the dirty work was sitting in Vice President Cheney's office, helping to write energy policy.
Even I've seen the documentary and you misstate the facts. In fact, I'd say you've breached the "known facts rule."
Since you admit the power blackouts started in 2000, it is hard to see what Bush/Cheney had to do with it.
Ken Lay was a corporate politician, not a manager. He had a very vague idea of the operations of Enron, although he was justifiably held accountable. He should have. I doubt that he ever said in public that Enron would "game the system." Its traders, notorious for their shenanigans, probably did say a lot of stuff like that.
The Bush Administration was committed to free market operations. It didn't bail California out, just like it didn't bail out the airlines in the downturn following 9/11. Of the major carriers, only America West met the test for government assistance. The government let United file for Chapter 11, soon followed by Delta and Northwest.
When it became clear that Enron and a lot of other companies were breaking the law, the Bush team prosecuted. Successfully. And a lot of the cases involved the go-go, anything goes economy of the Clinton years.
Since you admit the power blackouts started in 2000, it is hard to see what Bush/Cheney had to do with it.
I beleive this came to light during the investigation into the Bush/Cheney role in the Lincoln assasination.
That sure seems to be when the Enron crooks were raking in the dough. Back then it seemed to be called the Clinton economic boom.
Enron was responsible for the electricity crisis and rolling blackouts in California in 2000-01. Ken Lay even mocked California's efforts to stop what was happening by saying his people would just figure out another way to game the market. In the middle of this there is an election, Bush-Cheney move into the White House, and Ken Lay is on the task force to come up with our new energy policy. When LA went to the energy task force with a request for price controls to protect consumers, they were shot down.
I know that the deregulation/partial deregulation/regulation debate is still going on, but this is clear:
When there was an energy crisis in California, perpetrated by Enron, the government did nothing to stop it. In the middle of the crisis, the CEO doing the dirty work was sitting in Vice President Cheney's office, helping to write energy policy.
The top-secret Energy Task Force again...
Ken Lay also used to fly AL Gore around on the Enron corporate jet. Maybe they just sat there playing bridge. I'm sure Ken and Al hung around eachother for the stimulating conversation.
"...and each wasted evening is
a gross violation against the
natural course of your only life;"
-Charles Buckowski
You're leaving out the most important part of this story, dantes.
You're leaving out what left California in a lurch to begin with. Why were they even having to deal with Enron and Dynegy? Or did they happen to forget to mention that in "The Smartest Men in the Room" (which was an awful documentary, BTW)?
It was the price controls, combined with the woefully inadequate generation capacity of the state of California, that got them into that pickle. The "deregulation" included price controls. And, like price ceilings always always do (ask Richard Nixon), they led to shortages.
You'd think we'd have learned our lesson about price controls. They've only failed every time we've tried them. But, no, now we're talking about price controls on Medicare-purchased drugs. Maybe this time they won't lead us over the cliff!!
I'm not defending the actions of Enron or Dynegy. It does appear that there was some willful manipulation of California's energy buys. But the best remedy for gouging is to not put yourself in a situation to get gouged.
Bartlett says that the prospect of Democratic victory in November 2008 is, as of May 1, 2007, "increasingly clear."
Hardly. Now is no time to be making confident predictions.
http://redstate.com/blogs/a_texan/2007/apr/30/spring_of_year_before_elec...
"People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." -Edmund Burke
Not only is it 18 months out from the election....but the Republican front-runner (Giuliani) is beating the Democrat front-runner (Clinton) by a consistent 5 or 6 points nationally!
And this at a time that, as Bartlett hints at, the Republicans lag the Democrats in party preference across the board -- in some cases badly.
Well, I've got news for him and for others who are that bearish on Republican chances in '08.....those sorts of things don't generally go on in perpetuity. Politics is and always has been a very fluid creature. There are tipping points galore, points of the inflection of political momentum.
While I suppose it's plausible that everything from here on out will tip the Democrats' way, it would be unprecedented.
The Republicans as a party are, politically, at a low point...and, yet, the candidate leading our primary polls is leading both of the candidates leading the Democrat polls.
Tell Bruce to put that in his pipe and smoke it.
You know, the fantasy President Martin Sheen played on West Wing? Especially when you mentioned the BDS pills--which, apparently, the entire family Sheen takes.
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
Bartlett has endoresed who? First, I am certainly not convinced that the Dems are bound for victory in 2008. If Nixon could win in 1972 with the Vietnam War hanging around his neck, there's no reason why we can't win in 2008. But even if the Democrats were assured victory ... what the heck? There is no real conservative, living, dead, or in limbo who could vote for Hillary Clinton.
Joe Lieberman? Sure, it could happen. John Edwards? Maybe. John Kerry? A remote possibility, depending on how mad you are with the GOP about the deficit. Barack Obama? Unlikely, but even conservatives smoke pot from time to time. But Hillary Clinton? Never, never, never, never. I would, quite literally, rather die than vote for that woman. I say that without the slightest hint of exaggeration. I would rather pass through fire and water. I would rather have the skin torn from my body. I would rather have my eyes scooped out with a dull spoon. I would rather shoot my best friend in the knee. I would rather climb on top of a naked pyramid in Abu Ghraib. I would rather spend an entire year watching Oprah re-runs. I would rather kill have carnal relations with Rosie O'Donnel ... ok, maybe not, but everything else I've said is true. In short, for a conservative voting for Hillary Clinton should be like a an Irishman voting for Oliver Cromwell. It is simply not an option, EVER.
A precedent embalms a principle.
- Disraeli
I really don't get the anti-Hillary fervor among many (if not most) on the Right? I'm sure she must have done something really, really leftist at some point, but I must not have heard about it. Was her healthcare proposal that bad? If so, pretty much all the Dems support something akin to it. To my eye, she looks more conservative than Obama, and she's definitely waaay to the right of Edwards.
I guess what I'm asking is: Am I missing something, or is the Right's severe dislike of Hillary just a case of HDS?
When a politician believes they have the right to "Take Things Away from you for your own good, the level-best you can expect out of that situation is a disinterested dictatorship. If someone like that ever takes an interest in you, you are screwed.
More than any politician in the race today, Hillary has a strong inclination towards totalism. Anyone who thinks government should have the right to take Exxon-Mobil's profits, just because they had a good year in 2005, while some other people didn't is in ideological harmony with Hugo Chavez.
Hillary Rodham Stalin's history of government overreach goes back to when she presummed to be unelected Co-President, with her dissipated husband, and attempted to commandeer the entire US health care system. While I appreciate her valient efforts to elect Speaker Gingrich back in 1994, this blatant attempt to socialize 1/10th of the US economy lays to nines any of her attempts to triangulate through disingenuous centrist rhetoric. She remains, at heart, an ideological zealot who hates the people of the very country she seeks to rule as a despot.
"...and each wasted evening is
a gross violation against the
natural course of your only life;"
-Charles Buckowski
While I don't share your fear of Dictator Hillary, at least now I see why she gets such a rise out of the Right. Talk about the worst possible way to describe progressive taxation!
Even if you only believe 50% of what you read in some of the "insider" books, it's pretty clear that Hillary will be a President like no other. I have a hard time believing she will engage in ANY sort of compromise if she wins the White House.
It seems she has laid out this plan since early on in her youth. Did she fall in love with Bill the person or with Bill the person whom she reckoned had a stellar political career in front of him? Do they even see each other any more, except at fundraisers?
You get the clear feeling there is nothing she doesn't have planned out - forget principles. My mom put it best after seeing Hillary at some photo-op with kids: "If there wasn't a camera there, she wouldn't spit on them if they were on fire."
of any "insider book" that doesn't have sources which can be checked, whether it is about Hillary, Bush, or anyone else. Your response pretty much sums up why I suspect that much of the Right does indeed suffer from HDS. While some reasons might be laid out why she would make a bad president (I believe cnI. redruM did a fair job above, but even he hardly put forward enough to justify the knee-jerk animosity toward all things Hillary), everything you claim is simply speculation and gut reaction.
Nobody says that you have to like Hillary, but making her the essence of all evil and constantly assuming the absolute worst about her every move only serves to make those without such animosity toward her view her detractors as a bit off and, therefore, to be dismissed.
That's the problem with the whole mindset of "framing" -- it's governing by euphemism. Trying to hide the reality of what you're doing in clever, harmless-sounding semantics.
What exactly do you think the nationalization of healthcare would be? That accounts for some 14% of the entire US economy -- and to nationalize it would be to increase the size of the public sector by roughly 50%. If that's not "taking what's yours", what is it?
You want to hear an even better quote from an elected Democrat describing "progressive taxation"? Cy Thao, a DFL legislator in Minnesota, said:
“When you guys win, you get to keep your money. When we win, we take your money.”
Kudos for honesty, I guess. You can't argue with the factuality of what he said. Why try to hide the intentions behind acceptable phraseology? Why not just come right out and say it?
Here's his defense of progressive taxation:
"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."
Wealth of Nations, p. 513 (at least in my copy)
By the way, as long as we're on the subject of "framing," Hillary's healthcare plan was hardly "nationalizing" healthcare. It would have forced employers to cover their employees, but it didn't even go as far as Krugman's single-payer solution (government replaces insurance companies) much less would it have "nationalized" healthcare (doctors are government employees).
Bill Clinton is certainly to the right - on issues that matter to me - of Edwards or Obama. Bill favours free trade. But he has also apparently said that trade is the one issue where he and Hillary disagree. If so, this puts her to the left of every Democrat who has been nominated for President in the past 20 years. While it is true that Obama and Edwards are also way out to the left on this, that does not excuse Hillary.
Her biggest weakness as a candidate is her lack of sincerity. Nobody, not even her supporters, thinks she is sincere. Read what the NY Times and liberal commentators say about how clever she has been repositioning herself for the Presidency. While the Iraq issue has somewhat shifted the focus of debate, a few years ago just about every profile of her stressed that she had the confidence of the left so she was shifting to the middle to make herself electable.
Look at the debates within her team about whether it was a good idea or not to apologise for her vote on Iraq: it is all tactics. There is simply no discussion of whether her vote was right or wrong.
Sincerity, as Churchill said, is the key to politics. Fake that and you can fake anything. That is the key difference between the Clintons: Bill could fake sincerity; Hillary can't.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
as I did Bill. He did what the polls told him to, but all in all, that turned out not to be such a bad thing. Clinton wasn't great, but he wasn't horrible either. I pretty much find all politicians to be insincere, though. That's just the way they are.
Just curious, though, do you find Romney's, "I'm pro-life now that I want to be president," as disgusting as you find Hillary's move toward the center?
I said it is her electoral problem. And I did not say her insincerity is the problem, but her inability to fake sincerity. My point is that even her supporters regard her as insincere, and praise her for being clever. I think it is stupid, to be honest. The more that people say she is a clever politician the more it damages her chances.
As regards Romney, I don't claim to know to what extent expediency prompted his change of view on abortion (and, perhaps more critically, its timing). I do think that to the wider public he sounds more sincere. Most people don't parse statements with the fury that bloggers do. The fact that he acknowledges his previous position was wrong and has an account of how and why he changed his mind puts him well ahead of Hillary.
His sincerity may, of course, be fake, while her insincerity is genuine. I am pretty sure, though, that he would fare strongly against her in a national election.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
to me, that's the first sign of a person who is well on the way to admitting their candidate or position on an issue is logically and morally flawed. By pulling that old chestnut out, you've just told us that Hillary Rodham Stalin is indefensible without reference to others who are equally corrupt.
That's a big breakthrough. I see hope for you yet, Crab Cakes. RedState could cure you of chronic liberalitis.
"...and each wasted evening is
a gross violation against the
natural course of your only life;"
-Charles Buckowski
I didn't say that because everyone is insincere that means it's O.K. for Hillary. Insincerity in politicians isn't acceptable because it's universal, but if I'm going to vote I have to suck it up and vote for one of the many insincere candidates. If I were to eliminate Hillary for being insincere, I'd have to elinate the rest, as well.
There are a couple of candidates this time around who I believe really are sincere, but I'm not voting for Kucinich or Hunter, because sincerity is less important to me than sanity.
Deep down inside, way down inside, you WANT a Department of Peace. Grandfather Twilight is calling you, Crab_Cakes, you WANT Patch Adams to ration American healthcare so that 'the rich' don't get too much of it.
Of course, I'm yanking your chain. I'll even grant you that Hunter and The Kooch both provide some really interesting moments that the pharmacuetical companies don't offer a cure for yet. However, in being seduced into the ever-growing Hillary-Borg, you've chosen the dark side.
"...and each wasted evening is
a gross violation against the
natural course of your only life;"
-Charles Buckowski
I'm no Hillary supporter! (Although, as of now, Mrs. Crabcakes is.) I'm certainly sorry if I gave that impression. I just don't see her as the "She-who-must-not-be-named." As of now, here is my rough order of preference:
1. Richardson (I know, not gonna happen)
2. Obama
3. tie: Hillary/Rudy (Rudy was ahead until the flip-flop on civil unions)
4. Thompson (if he runs)
5. McCain
6. Edwards
7. Romney
You are probably right about Richardson, though I think there is a real chance (on both sides) that the frontrunners could stumble and being fourth in the polls right now may not be such a bad place to be. In résumé terms, Richardson is the best qualified candidate since John Conally. Hmmmmm. What does that tell us about the relevance of a résumé.
Some of your next candidates have very thin résumés. Aside from Giuliani, none of your candidates 2-6 has ever run anything. (I am assuming you me Fred Thompson. If you mean Tommy, scratch that). If you regard service in the Senate as relevant experience for an executive post, it is surprising that you have the most experienced Senator (McCain) near the bottom of your list. I think I am right in saying that McCain's years of service in the Senate are greater than Clinton, Edwards & Obama combined).
But then, I imagine that, like most people, someone's résumé is only one factor. You are also considering charisma, leadership, and policy positions. Makes for a confusing mix, eh?
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
Usually, I simply hear enough to rank the candidates right to left, place myself in that line up, and vote for whom I'm nearest. This year, I'm closest to Richardson, hence his ranking.
The natural place to go from there would be Hillary to the Left or Rudy to the Right, but I'm anti-Iraq War enough to dock them both points for that, hence Obama gets the edge, otherwise he would have been behind them both.
Thompson (yes, Fred) and McCain are pretty much the same candidate in my book, but McCain's pandering to the Falwell crowd makes me wary of him.
Edwards is an idiot who only beats Romney because I have no idea where to place him (Romney) on the spectrum. If it came down to the two of them, I'd probably just sit home election day, drink myself into a stupor, and cry.
When you look at the actual record, instead of the myth, he looks not bad but hardly extraordinary.
His first two years, 1993-1994, were plagued by low growth and high deficits.
The middle years, 1995-1997, brought a wave of reforms that would have been unthinkable without the Republican congress- budget reform, welfare reform, capital gains tax cut. to his credit, Clinton went along.
The final years, 1998-2000, were characterized by an overheated stock market and an escalating corporate crime wave. The former generated artifical revenues for the treasury, an odd transfer by Wall Street of investors' money to the US Treasury. The latter was hidden until GWB took office. Everything blew up in 2001, with the capital markets facing one of the biggest crises of confidence since the Depression. Which GWB handled quite well.