Living With The Left
By haystack Posted in 2008 — Comments (40) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Charles Krauthammer sums things up very nicely in making the case for Hillary!
I could never vote for her, but I (and others of my ideological ilk) could live with her -- precisely because she is so liberated from principle. Her liberalism, like her husband's -- flexible, disciplined, calculated, triangulated -- always leaves open the possibility that she would do the right thing for the blessedly wrong (i.e., self-interested, ambition-serving, politically expedient) reason.
I could never vote for her because the Clintons' liberal internationalism on display in the 1990s -- the pursuit of paper treaties and the reliance on international institutions -- is naive in theory and feckless in practice. And her domestic policy sees state intervention and expansion as the answer to every human ill from mortgage default to the common cold. Nonetheless, if 2008 is going to be a Democratic year, as it very well could, Hillary would serve the country better than any of her Democratic rivals.
As the chasm between Republicans and Conservatives widens over the varying degree of our GOP candidates' worthiness to carry on the mantel, Krauthammer offers a look-ahead to what we'll wind up with when we're finished tearing each other apart. He articulates quite succinctly that which many of us are trying, poorly, to get across to our friends under the big tent. In this quote from an Editorial over at WaPo, :
"There's little chance that her position reflects any deeply held principle."
Krauthammer suggests this:
More below the fold...
And there lies the beauty not just of Clinton on free trade but of the Clinton candidacy itself: She has no principle. Her liberalism is redeemed by her ambition; her ideology subordinate to her political needs.
The bigger point he goes on to make here is that we have lived with this before (Bill) and while none of us could ever bring ourselves to vote for her, we'll certainly be no worse off for losing to her all the same...given the actions of the GOP over the last 7 years.
On Iraq, for example, she talks like someone who knows she may soon be commander in chief and will need room to maneuver in order to achieve whatever success might be possible.
[...]
On Iran, Clinton has been pilloried from the left for supporting a completely anodyne resolution designating Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization. This would trigger serious economic sanctions that would greatly complicate its ability to operate.
[...]
And look what Clinton unveiled this week: a modestly government-subsidized, personal retirement account. True, it is yet another big-government middle-class entitlement. Yes, she ignores the looming Social Security crisis. On the other hand, establishing a universal, portable, personal retirement account (though without the government subsidy) is something conservatives have long and devoutly sought.Even Clinton's response to a debate question on torture -- "As a matter of policy it cannot be American policy, period" -- is elegantly phrased to imply an implacable opposition to torture, and yet leave open the possibility that in extreme circumstances a president would do what she had to do, i.e., authorize torture, regardless of the express policy.
Clinton rarely falters. Always careful, always calibrated, always leaving room for expediency over ideology. That's Clintonism, of both marital flavors. Gender sensitivity prevents me from calling her the consummate needle-threader. Consider her instead Columbus' match as the Great Navigator.
The idea of 4 or 8 more years of a White House full of Clintons may be hard to accept, but facing the prospect and understanding what it's going to be like might just be enough to get the GOP factions in line to keep it from being so.
Thus far, none in the field have done anything of significance to make that happen. Until one of them stands up to rein in all this angst and frustration with the party, Krauthammer's premonitions just might come to pass.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | FactCheck.org: Fred Plays it Straight, Rudy a Big Liarhead — Comments (30) »
Living With The Left 40 Comments (0 topical, 40 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
...doesn't think a Hillary presidency would be so bad. One are of concern he doesn't mention is of course the Supreme Court, where a one-term Hillary presidency would be disastrous (as she would replace Ginsburg and Stevens at a minimum), while a two-term Hillary reign would be fatal to the quest to finally right the Court. With two terms she'd likely also get to replace Scalia and Kennedy, and perhaps Souter as well.
Considering how demographics are only getting worse for the GOP (thanks mostly to unending mass immigration), then its likely that losing this chance to right the court would mean we have lost the Court permanently. The Left will win a final triumph in the Culture War as Roe lives on forever and a similar decision on gay marriage is handed down, and all we'll have to look forward to would be a bunch of brilliant dissents from Alito, Thomas, and Roberts.
I like a lot of what Krauthammer has to say, but I just can't shake the feeling that he wouldn't mind having the values of, as he once put it, 'redneck yahoos', be run roughshod over by the courts.
thing
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
he leads to the bigger point...the runaway train is missing a conductor from our side.
haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).
Hope its Fred. Charles seems to need to see a republican president from the South to disabuse himself from the Bubba image of the 90s.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Charles Krauthammer just surrendered. When you write an article like this, you've given up. 11 months to go Charles and you cash in. Wimp.
The aftermath is a bit more difficult. Most of the damage she would do on her watch wouldn't be apparent till much later. The same happened with Bill.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
On Iraq alone she has "faltered" egularly and often. Here flip flop votes, even including voting to cut off funding; saying she would get us out on Jan 20, 2009 to now saying we might be there till 2013.
Charles, this is called faltering, and is coming soon to a TV ad campaign near you.
Then there is the trashing of the individual resposibility society for the collective and that she wants to take oil co profits.
She is on film and audio screaming about her new definition of patriotism.
see my previous:
The Disciplined Campaign or Are you Smarter than a 2nd Grader?
[WARNING TO INSIDE THE BELTWAY CONVENTIONAL WISDOM CONSERVATIVES: THIS BLOG IS NOT ABOUT JOHN EDWARDS OR MOVEON.ORG]
If one were to believe the fawning praise of inside the beltway political pundits, a shrewd strategist devising a plan on November 8, 2006 for a Democrat to win the White House on November 5, 2008 would propose that a candidate:
1) Change positions on the Iraq War with every release of a new Gallup Poll;
2) Vote to cut off funds to the troops in the field;
3) Slander the commanding general of a successful surge of troops in the field on national television by calling him a liar with a cute phrase worthy of those bewildered by the meaning of "is";
4) Cackle at, instead of jabbing the knee of, Chris Wallace;
5) Express dismay that the Supreme Court upheld the federal law banning partial birth abortion;
6) Take money from a 15-year fugitive from justice;
7) Have her campaign utilize (and remain married to herself) a bitter, angry man that no longer can contain his Stephanopoulos described temper; and
8) Endorse teaching 2nd graders about homosexuality.
Yeah, the Hillary is really disciplined. The kind of discipline that McGovern, Mondale and Dukakis had.
Many of even the beltway conservative pundits appear to be guilty, with respect to Hillary, of what most of the MSM is guilty of with respect to the Iraq War: boxing themselves in a position where to recognize reality is to discredit their own prior judgments.
Hillary has not been disciplined since she first met Bill in the Yale Law Library or even before, when she first read The Feminine Mystique.
Nor has she been disciplined since her first vote against tax cuts as a senator or her first move towards defeat in Iraq. She has been all over the lot on Iraq. It’s all on tape. Rush plays her varying statements all the time.
Have Fred Barnes and David Brooks and the rest of the conservative writers not heard them? Have they not seen her votes? If they have, then what can explain their obligatory statements that she is disciplined except that they want to be loved by their liberal cohorts in DC?
Discipline for a liberal that wants to be president means disguising ones liberalism. See the successful campaign in 1992 (see also Perot recruitment)
Teaching second graders about sex is not discipline except for those that really want to teach first graders the same.
Even Bob Shrum wouldn't suggest that kind of discipline.
I contend that these liberal democrats simply cannot help themselves and that they will not allow our Republican candidate to lose in 2008.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
The Clintons understand the art of politics. I disagree with Krauthammer about Ms. Clinton's lack of principles. I believe that she has deeply held principles. But, she understands that principles and politics are not the same. She understands the give and take required to advance her principles and to spread her beliefs.
The Republican way today is to stand on principles at all cost. There is no negotiation on principles.
The Clinton way is to recognize that to adopt a more hawkish position than her principles would dictate might allow her the support necessary to seat more Supreme Court justices. Adopt not in word only, as with Bush, making you feel fooled in the end, but to adopt in the spirit of trade.
For example, she proposes individual retirement accounts with government subsidy. We all rail at the government subsidy. After a fight, the subsidy is removed and we feel we've won something and she's lost. She walks away smiling because Social Security was untouched, her goal.
The art of politics is the art of compromise. Krauthammer knows that if a Democrat who stands only on principles is elected, we'll have four or eight years of Democratic princples being rammed down our throats. With Clinton, there is at least the chance of getting something for the things you have to give up.
Is Krauthammer throwing in the towel. I don't think so. I think this is a wake-up call. Politics will trump principles in 2008. If we don't learn to play by those rules, at least we will know which end of the compromise we'll be on.
Out of all of the disadvantages for the GOP in 2008, we still have one huge advantage: the massive "No Hillary" movement.
The last thing we need is people out there rationalizing that she may not be that bad. Think about the Supreme Court. Think about her frequent out there socialist statements, about stealing money from business and baby bond craziness. Think about her screeching about one thing and cackling about another. Think about a massive trillion dollar joke of a revived 1993 socialized healthcare plan.
She is really that bad.
Don't rationalize. Don't fool yourself. Don't help her fool America.
Vote Romney, Rudy, Fred, even McCain or Huckabee... Whichever Republican candidate it is that makes it through the primaries, support them 100% and Keep Her Out!
Close enough that if the Republicans manage to nominate a candidate that won't cause a big chunk of their base to sit it out it may be winnable. If that doesn't happen, then yeah, it's nowhere near enough.
Do you think that the conservative movement has nothing more to our candidates than the Dems had to theirs in 2004?
Maybe you misunderstood when I said that the No Hillary movement is to our advantage. Certainly, it is. If you are a Republican you must notice how every fundraising letter of the past seven years has mentioned Hillary. Or her polarized numbers in any reputable favorable/unfavorable poll. Or the constant mention of her name during the Republican party debate in Dearborn Michigan last Tuesday.
We've known Hillary for years, and nobody else in this country, with the possible exception of President Bush rouses stronger feelings one way or the other. If you don't think we can take advantage of that, then you disagree not only with me but with a majority of the Republican strategists of this campaign season.
And if by your comparison and use of the word "hate," (I prefer "righteous indignation") you think that we have no more substance to add to that passion than the Dems did in 2004, well, I'm just going to have to disagree with you there, Neil.
What I'm saying is that if you think she isn't sincere about her agenda and willing to fight for it, you're underestimating her.
Obama would come in as an idealist. He'd be eaten up by factions within his own administration. Edwards is too slick to really embrace and defend any particular ideals. (I think he'd be most likely to get us something good by accident actually...) Hillary is more familiar with the game. She has her agenda. She has even faced the defeat of her agenda previously.
Krauthammer is confusing her with her husband. Bill wanted people to like him. He didn't have the drive to fight and push through even an important item of his agenda, if it could be too unpopular.
Hillary is more calculating and goal-driven. You may think that means she'll abandon her leftist roots and do something good for America, but that's a mistaken belief. She may reposition herself, as a savvy politician would, but we all know she's been working for this since 2000 and her agenda has remained largely unchanged since then. Universal healthcare, redistribution of profits, pro-choice justices in the Supreme Court: these are all things that she sincerely believes will benefit this country, and as President she will work to see them done. I would think that anybody who doesn't support those views would want to work to see that she doesn't achieve the Presidency.
If you want to sit around more than a year before the election, and tell yourself that she won't do much damage, go ahead. But you're the one who is kidding himself, friend.
Krauthammer's piece. I do not believe that he is endorsing or saying that he can literally live with her as president. His point, at least the way I read it, is that she will do and say anything to get and maintain power and she will just as soon sell her allies out as she would her political enemies, and that in the end, she has no belief system. I believe that she is a socialist, however Krauthammer's point is that she will sell out her principles the first chance she gets if it helps her maintain power.
I agree with him on this point and I made a similar point with this piece.
http://proprietornation.blogspot.com/2007/10/socialist-or-vote-buyer-doe...
Mr. Potato Head, Mr. Potato Head, back doors are not secrets
I'd go further than socialist, that she can do this. Unlike the "feelings" crowd on the Left, there remains a hard core of dedicated, rational, methodical Marxists/Maoists over there. It wasn't for nothing that she was a Saul Alinsky disciple.
I grew up, or at least came of age, with these people; was one for a time, and still use their methods. We sat around in college dorms in the late sixties smoking dope, reading Marx and Mao - and Alinsky, and planning how we were going to take over. Most grew up and went on to other things. Many, perhaps most, underwent fundamental changes in their political point of view, e.g., David Horowitz. But, if you were so situated, trust fund, academia, public employment, some professions, that you can still have the same stupid ideas you had smoking dope in a college dorm in '69, you are probably now in a place where you have a lot of money and power and can actually do something to advance "the revolution."
For these people, the revolution is its own morality. Anything that advances the revolution, no matter how incrementally, is acceptable, and any means are acceptable to achieve that advance. They may, and often do, come off as utterly unprincipled, and in the short run they are, but they have one guiding principle, advancing to the socialist utopia they envision.
Like Krauthammer, I understand these people and actually like to deal with them. I saw a lot of them as high-level union professional staff. They were totally practical and realistic, good at seeing what was on the table, and the price of getting more. They'd weigh the cost and the benefit and try to get the best deal they could, often members be damned; they were merely a tool after all. It was the dedicated proletarian who came up from the shop floor who'd drive you nuts; he actually believed the stuff that came out of his mouth.
In Vino Veritas
when one's main goal is one's own political viability rather than what's best for the country, the substance of the statement that "she would do anything" is quite limited and not at all comforting.
I tire of discussing which democrat is less vile and being expected to feel good about it.
I had a case of 72 hrs writer's block until Charles pis*ed me off.
Let's ride pragmatists! (not saying that about you guys)
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
wholeheartedly to the person I think I might be able to trust. You can do business with someone that you know is your mortal enemy; it's the ones you're not sure of that are a problem.
I'm not being a pragmatist of the sort that says we ought to learn to live with her or her ilk. Under no circumstance could I ever vote for her or any D, and unlike some of the purists around, I WILL VOTE for any R before any D or any third party.
I'm just offering up an explanation of HER pragmatism, but, yes, if I had to deal with a D in power, I much prefer the cynical, practical ones to the true believers. I ain't much on true believers of any ideology.
In Vino Veritas
a chance at more accountability, ie when their pilicies fail, it is more easily attributed the flaws in liberalism
whereas with a "pragmatist" you end
with watered down drivel teaches nothing
moreover
with a true beleiver you have a better chance at gridlock. I like gridlock.
but again, discussing which vomit is worse taxes me
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
Caveat: Almost nobody who can actually be elected can be or can have been in living memory a true believer. To be successful in elections or in government, you WILL have compromised. I define a true believer as one unwilling to compromise.
Guliani - cynic, real pragmatist, somewhere down there has some principles he belives in, but driven by the art of the possible.
Romney - less cynical than Guliani, but still a pragmatist. I get the sense that he does have powerful core beliefs, but because of what he's done both professionally and politically has had to hide his candle under a bushel so much that I'm not sure even he knows where the candle is.
Thompson - has genuine core beliefs and trys to act on them, but has a practical sense that allows him to take what's on the table.
Huckabee - likewise genuine core beliefs, but paying the price for pragmatism as Governor and willing to pander to populist causes to an unseemly degree.
Subject to my caveat above, I would consider Brownback and, especially, Tancredo to be closer to true believers. Ron Paul is simply a nut, and I don't think he even believes some of the stuff that comes out of his mouth.
In Vino Veritas
Doesn't fit either the true believer or cynical pragmatist archtype well. I think he's driven by wanting to be accepted. There may have been a time that he believed in stuff; I think some of it comes out on defense issues. I might not agree with him, but I accept his sincerity. Beyond that, he's a get along, go along guy.
In Vino Veritas
in McCain.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
she did her first cattle futures trade in the 1970's.
She may have had a radical socialist fling, following her Goldwater fling, but she matured into a classic, dirigiste, nanny-state liberal.
And if you look at the video posted by RA Hahn in the Red-Hots, nothing is more dangerous than being a friend of the Clintons.
Why shouldn't a dedicated socialist live well when the capitalists just hand them the opportunity?
In Vino Veritas
Rush thinks that she is just playing by Saul Alinsky rules.
There are many theories to explain what happened to the libs, but you go to the class of 1974, the Democrats elected after Watergate in 1974, I think, is where you can trace this current iteration, and they all come from this Alinsky school of thought -- which is lie, obfuscate, mask yourself and your real intentions, come across as middle-class as you can; use the usual liberal things of supporting the little guy, supposedly standing for free speech -- but in the reality of your life, you're working to form a total takeover of the government with your ideas becoming paramount.
Now there's no more oak oppression,
For they passed a noble law,
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe, and saw.
I have read about one of the principles of jihad. The one that allows its adherents to do whatever is necessary in order to advance the cause. And that includes lying, obfuscating, masking your real intentions and portraying yourself as something you are not in order to fool the enemy. (Think Ramzi Yousef saying that he had converted to Christianity.) And their end-game is the same, too--a total takeover of the government with their idealogy being the only one allowed. Makes you wonder, doesn't it?
point is that both groups are no different in methodology or endgame philosophy--whatever you need to do to win is allowed and the endgame is total dominance and loss of individual freedoms.
This is why I don't call them liberals. I call them lefties. They have no resemblance to the free speech liberals of the 60's like David Horowitz in their methods. They don't want free speech. They just want power.
Now there's no more oak oppression,
For they passed a noble law,
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe, and saw.
In order to win an election, a candidate must have some kind of positive platform of ideas to run on--even against a flawed candidate like Hillary. Yeah, he or she may have to go negative some of the time and he must defend himself if he's attacked. However, if a candidate's entire campaign is "The Bash Hillary Platform", then he will lose for several reasons:
A--Eventually people are going to say, "OK Skippy, we got it that you hate Hillary, but what are YOUR ideas, what do YOU stand for, what are YOU about, and what are YOU going to do for me and my family?" Any candidate who wants to win better be able to answer those questions.
B--The constant Hillary bashing could be very off-putting to moderates--especially women--who do not necessarily want to vote for Hillary, but don't hate her either.
C--People want a candidate that inspires them--constant Hillary bashing will BORE them. Furthermore, the candidate will eventually begin to sound redundant, and swing voters will tune him out. He will be like Charlie Brown's teacher in those old Peanuts cartoons--"Wah, wah, wah, wah, wah, wah."
D--And finally, the Hillary Bashing would be counter-productive, because most Americans don't want another divisive or polarizing president.
solved
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
Even if we defeat her this time around, I can easily see her pulling a Nixon and being an even more difficult candidate to stop in 2016.
---
(Formerly known as bee) / Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community
Nixon sent word to Sirhan Sirhan via one of the guys on the grassy knoll. He just took care of business. And a little known fact is that Sirhan Sirhan is secretly a Jooooooooooo. But don't tell anybody.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Are you afraid that by 2016 she will have actually accomplished something she could put onto a resume? Not gonna happen!
The real value of Hillary for conservatives and the eventual Republican nominee is that she provides a perfect foil for the conservative agenda.
Just laying out the conservative values and ideas is fine for RS readers, but the general electorate is less aware of the details and so having Hillary's values and ideas for contrast helps the average voter understand the difference and how high the stakes are.
A powerful tool of rhetoric is not only the articulation of ideas, but the display of one's superiority over the opponent.
It is in the sharp distinctions that make conservative ideas shine. The distinctions help people see the choice. It is the distinction that will motivate people to campaign and vote. So yes the anything but Hillary campaign has visceral value, but it needs the comparison of ideas to win people over.
One thing I appreciate about Rudy and Mitt is that they have both begun to draw distinctions between themselves and Hillary. We need that writ large for the next 13 months.
Krauthammer's article would have been much better had he left out the talk of being able to live with Hillary as President.
The link mentioned above about Hillary's connection to Soros and Alinsky is worth reading.
Friday Morning. So, he probably actually wrote it on Thursday. As if on cue, she goes and moves her position vis a vis negotiating with Iran on Friday. Now in order to determine if she flip flopped or just nuanced one would need to do an exercise similar to defining what is is.
What I see is that her positions are getting closer and closer to that of George Soros. Here is how I saw it
http://proprietornation.blogspot.com/2007/10/hillary-flips-on-iranian-ne...
Proprietor Nation