August 15, 2016

Who is Hillary like?



Drudge says she's emulating Trump, but Maureen Dowd says Hillary — and not Trump — is carrying on the George W. Bush tradition:
All these woebegone Republicans whining that they can’t rally behind their flawed candidate is crazy. The G.O.P. angst, the gnashing and wailing and searching for last-minute substitutes and exit strategies, is getting old.

They already have a 1-percenter who will be totally fine in the Oval Office, someone they can trust to help Wall Street, boost the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, cuddle with hedge funds, secure the trade deals beloved by corporate America, seek guidance from Henry Kissinger and hawk it up — unleashing hell on Syria and heaven knows where else.

The Republicans have their candidate: It’s Hillary.... 

103 comments:

David Begley said...

She's like Satan.

YoungHegelian said...

MoDo's right on this, you know.

Policy-wise, aside from the liberals she will no doubt appoint to the court, I could live with Hillary.

There is just that troublesome issue that I really suspect that she or one of her close associates has been compromised by a foreign intelligence service. That simply will not do.

Unknown said...

Been saying it for months:

SANE Republicans, and there are tens of millions of them, will not vote for INSANE Trump. Most will hold their nose and vote for Clinton. Country before party.

Ann Althouse said...

"MoDo's right on this, you know."

Yes, and that is why it's not surprising at all when Republicans make their supposedly daring announcements that they are supporting Hillary. It's exactly what you would expect and it actually facilitates their efforts in Congress in the long run, giving them cover.

Clayton Hennesey said...

Her hair certainly doesn't resemble Trump's. Whose does it look like? Oh, yeah: Reichsjugendführer Fritz Weiskopf. After doing the hair thing and the Sam Browne belt, he had to drive the Mädchen off with a stick

BDNYC said...

Yes, there is only one pro-Wall Street, pro-war candidate. Strange that the Democrats are so blinded by partisanship that they'll vote for more war and more corporate handouts.

Sydney said...

Very true. George W. Bush was not a conservative. The one HUGE difference between them is that he was not careless with state secrets, and if he had been, the other branches of government wouldn't have let him get away with it.

DCPI said...

The questions that are not being asked:

- Some contend that the Clinton Foundation presents a conflict of interest to a serving President. If elected, what will you do with the foundation? Will you close it? IF not, will your husband or daughter play a role in the foundation?

- In the days prior to the public statement by FBI director Comey your husband spent unscheduled time with the Attorney General. Within days the NY Times reported that you are open to reappointing her if you become President. What was discussed during that meeting. What role, if any, would Loretta Lynch play in your administration if you are elected?

- A number of your close aides -- including Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills -- have been tied to potential conflicts of interest in both your email server investigation and in their role in the Clinton Foundation. Will you continue to have them on your staff?

Doubt we will ever see these questions asked. And there are many more.

tim in vermont said...

That's why 50 neocons wrote a letter timed to help Hillary. Hillary, who, like the 50 neocons, understands "America's vital interests" which apparently include overthrowing oil state despots like Qaddafi, and getting involved in proxy wars with Russian clients like Syria.

Left Bank of the Charles said...

"She has finally stirred up some emotion in women, even if it is just moderate suburban Republican women palpitating to leave their own nominee, who has the retro air of a guy who just left the dim recesses of a Playboy bunny club."

rhhardin said...

Hillary is the smooth sumac candidate.

She grows mostly sideways to catch the light, grows a huge green leafy crown and then breaks at the root when it rains.

traditionalguy said...

So if the vote goes into the House of Representatives, they will give it to Hillary, and laugh.

Levi Starks said...

So in hillarys mind, she's only the right hairstyle away from people finally deciding to invite her into the club

TreeJoe said...

I could "hold my nose and vote for Hillary" if:

1. She had not shown a 25+ year history of lying and corruption.

2. She had shown any real effectiveness, at anything, in an executive role instead of really bad decision making and failing to lead.

I'm pro 2a and pro-life and I'd STILL be willing to vote for her if not for those two reasons. Country before all else and I refuse to vote in a proven adept corrupt politician, serial liar, and proven poor executive.

I may vote for Trump simply because:

1. His influence will not last more than 4 years unless he surprises the country with good leadership as a President.

2. His infleunce will be heavily constrained by a democratic and republican machine working to constrain him.

rhhardin said...

Reviled did I live, said I, as evil I did deliver.

Palindrome.

Writ Small said...

In several ways she's to the right of Trump. On economic policy she is more of a free trader. On foreign policy she is less isolationist. For social policy, it's a bit of a toss up. I feel bad for Christian conservatives. They don't have much of a choice this time around, although I guess you have to give Trump the nod given the judges he read off a list someone handed him versus who we know Hillary would appoint. For a Republican who cares most about economic and foreign policy and goes along with the social stuff, Hillary is (setting aside her mendacity and willingness to take a payoff) a reasonable alternative.

The "D's" are following the Republican playbook of years past. Put up a next-in-line, unexciting candidate who does not fully ideologically satisfy the base in the hopes of capturing the middle and the White House. Because the R's have expressly rejected that approach in favor of Trump, you can understand the high emotions. Hillary is a crazy, swirling mix of Obama and Bill Clinton, but with dashes of McCain, Dole and Romney tossed in. That is a toxic brew that could not conceivably win the White House. Certainly not if the Trumpers are right about things.

BDNYC said...

I could never vote for Trump, but I would love to watch the spectacle of him going up against BOTH party apparatuses. It would make for very entertaining politics, and it might even result in uneasy alliances between factions of Democrats and Republicans. It could break the logjam. Who knows, maybe Congress will finally stand up to the executive branch.

It's about time the old party alliances are shaken up.

damikesc said...

I'd say she doesn't know what she's talking about --- but I have no idea what "Republicans" actually want.

Brando said...

I don't see how you can categorize Hillary politically. She doesn't really have a philosophy, beyond wanting her own power and enrichment, and is willing to adopt whatever would get her there. MoDo seems to be thinking Republicans would like the person that Hillary sometimes projects, but that's not the same thing as wanting Hillary herself.

Curious George said...

"David Begley said...
She's like Satan."

But more cunty.

Kathryn51 said...

DCPI said:
Doubt we will ever see these questions asked. And there are many more.

Well we sure won't see these questions from MoDo. If she was honest, she would be comparing Hillary's corruption with the previous record-holder (Nixon).

rhhardin said...

Ann Althouse gets a hat tip on Rush at 12:35 eastern today.

n.n said...

Clinton is far left, as Obama before her. She supports abortion rites in a final solution. She backs Planned Parenthood's Mengele division. Her policies promote monopoly formation to progress minority rule. Her economic policies are based on the liberal fiscal doctrine of trickle-up poverty (i.e. redistributive change). She is a female chauvinist that sacrifices women, girls, babies, interns, and priests for her greater good. She defends mass abortion in progressive wars and social justice adventurism. She condones and solicits mass emigration from second and third-world nations. She hold social justice trials through sodomy and abortion. She believes in selective exclusion ("="). She upholds anti-native policies to disenfranchise and suppress native populations. She reset the cold war with Russia and Her allies. She serves at the pleasure of domestic and foreign liberal elites. She is favored by the far left/far right nexus (i.e. liberals with and without "benefits", respectively). She is a [class] diversity monger (i.e. racist, sexist). Her history demonstrates a legacy of progressive corruption. She is a member of the Pro-Choice Church (i.e. a quasi-religious cult with selective principles).

Birkel said...

Hillary will consolidate further the power of the federal government, without question. The reason this must happen is because it increases Hillary's own power. By augmenting her own power, Hillary will escape any scrutiny from the agencies she undermines, captures and infiltrates. Hillary will escape oversight and corruption will be systemically advanced. This a known known.

As always, and contra the intricate planning and deep thinking of the Founding Fathers, this will make American life unexceptional compared to the R.O.W. America will become another European entity. We will experience sclerotic economic and population growth. Centralization of power has always and will inevitably lead to these results, enriching the politically powerful and connected and impoverishing what had been the world's greatest source of development and advancement: the dynamic American middle class.

Anybody who thinks that Hillary can be better for the country than the worst possible scenario of Trump is delusional or uneducated in the extreme.

Trump will face impediments to any plans he forwards, unlike Hillary. Trump will face institutional roadblocks. Trump will not be given free rein (or reign) by the press, the courts or the administrative agencies.

If Republicans had any values whatsoever beyond their own sustained but modest power they would see that the best way to advance America's interests is to turn away from centralization and collectivism. But then, Republicans are not classical liberals.

coupe said...

I would never let Hillary walk my dog, but she's putting together a great team.

Look, she won't serve four years. She's barely able to get around now. They have to help her up the stairs, and she has grand mal seizures at the wrong time in front of cameras.

But here's the deal. The way to get ahead is to rape the peasants, and by God we have a lot of peasants, but 10,000 more Arabs couldn't f'n hurt.

So, with all these peasants, it would take a moron not to get rich off of them.

I'm fully converted now. I say "get all you can get" and screw everyone else especially the f'n Arabs getting off the boats.

Let the peasants have Milwaukee, who gives a shit about a town where Curling is a f'n sport.

Annie said...

If the establishment republicans couldn't have one of their own, i.e. - Bush, then another Clinton was their second choice. They know who will butter their bread. That has always been obvious. And why they have uttered not one peep over her unsecure server, selling of favors to foreign governments, arming terrorists, profiting off the ME chaos she caused, getting her ambassador killed, the lies, etc; any one of those things which would end their own career.

That's why 50 neocons wrote a letter timed to help Hillary.

Exactly. I have no doubt that if we looked close enough, those 'concern trolls' would either have connections to the Clinton Foundation or have profited from their own 'business interests' in the middle east chaos. Concern for the country is not forefront in their minds. If it was, there would be a drumbeat over Clinton's 'careless' handling of national security.

tim in vermont said...

"She has finally stirred up some emotion in women, even if it is just moderate suburban Republican women palpitating to leave their own nominee, who has the retro air of a guy who just left the dim recesses of a Playboy bunny club."

What really stirs their passion is the retro air of Billy Blythe who has just left the dim recesses of some Little Rock hotel after raping a supporter.

Rusty said...

Establishment republicans are worried.
Again.
The Clintons have stolen enough from the taxpayers. Time to give someone else the opportunity.

Annie said...

SANE Republicans, and there are tens of millions of them, will not vote for INSANE Trump. Most will hold their nose and vote for Clinton. Country before party.

Even contemplating voting for Hillary after all that she has done, is INSANE. How is voting for her, a grifter who has put money and the highest bidder before country, putting country before party? Someone who can stand in front of her ambassador's casket and lie her ass off to cover for arming terrorists and her gross negligence?



MadisonMan said...

I may vote for Trump simply because:

3. The Press is so blatantly in the tank for Hillary.


I think a critical press is essential for a working Republic. The USA is not quite working when the Press just writes gushing Isn't our President Wonderful stories.

GWash said...

I would like, for the time remaining for this campaign, that no one reference the political National Enquirer or maureen dowd ... we'll all be better off ... oh that goes for peggy noonan also...

gadfly said...

Nobody has seen Hillary's real hair since she and Slick quit sleeping together - Lord only knows how long that has been.

William said...

My bias is towards the Republican, and I will probably vote for Trump. Nonetheless, I retain deep reservations about his character and judgment. If I were betting rather than voting, my bet would be on Hillary........Trump is a living, breathing middle finger to many of the people and ideas I despise the most. He's got that working for him. It's enough for me, but I don't know if that will carry the election.

coupe said...

Americans are so stupid now, that you could give them four years of college, and they would think a 2.0 GPA will set them up for life.

Then they find out all the tuition and fees they deferred in loans actually has to be paid.

So these f'kers are like peasants for life. It's a country of morons, where it only takes the rich 1% to take them all to the cleaners.

I'm voting with the 1%. Those peasants make me sick. Get all you can get, while you can get it.

Leave Milwaukee, Louisiana, and Baltimore, etc, to the peasants.

Vote for Clinton, or you threaten the bourgeoisie. Trump is an actor, he doesn't even have $100,000 let alone a billion. It's all an act. Go with the rich people, go with Clinton.

gadfly said...

rhhardin said...
Reviled did I live, said I, as evil I did deliver.

Palindrome.

Gosh, I thought Sarah only made up the one about Panama.[wink]

Unknown said...

n.n said...


8/15/16, 11:41 AM


IOW she's perfect. The perfect gravedigger for what I can't believe, but am gradually having my eyes opened to see, is a dying Republic.

The problem is, there's no place else to go from here.

coupe said...

The only way Trump can win, is if the peasants are stupid.

My money is on the peasants taking the bribe, going into the booth, and pulling the lever to keep the bourgeoisie in place.

I am fully invested in a debt based economy, and I'll do everything I can to make sure I am one of the debt holders!

Unknown said...

Hey coupe,

Stupidest thing you ever did was enlist, right?

Unknown said...

She's merely having a bad hair day. She will get Republican votes and her choice of moderate Democrat Kaine was strategic. She knew she needed Republican votes more than she needed progressive votes. Progressives were never going to vote for Trump and 80% of Sanders supporters are voting for Hillary anyway. With all her problems she is still a far better saner choice than Trump. After the NYT investigation into Paul Manafort's ties to Russian/ Ukrainian corruption, we may see more corruption than Clinton was ever accused of. The strange Putin/ Trump love affair should make voters sit up and take notice.

Unknown said...

FTR Trump was happy with Lewandowski, GOP forced him to take Manafort.

hombre said...

Unknown:"Most will hold their nose and vote for Clinton. Country before party."

The evidence of Hillary's incompetence and insincerity is mountainous as is the evidence of Clinton grifting. She also has the support of the D.C. corruption brigade on both sides.

It is possible to imagine cadres of people supporting Hillary because they believe she will serve their personal interests. However, given the evidence to the contrary, it is irrational, if not downright stupid, to believe she will be good for the country.

Just_Mike_S said...

What TreeJoe said +1. What's stupid is Liberal Republicans claiming that conservatives should support the serial liar, likely, felon, possible traitor and known America hater over a loudmouth buffoon "for the country's sake". Bullshit. They're fighting to retain their dwindling relevance. Conservatives don't want to be "led" by the likes of Doug Elmets, Meg Whitman or Jeb! Bush and if the party has to be burned to the ground before we can start over, so be it. Sure, a Trump administration is likely to be a dumpster fire, but a Clinton administration will be an Obama 3rd (and likely 4th) term on steroids.

Unknown said...

The Trump children pushed Trump to fire Lewandowski and hire Manafort. His daughter Ivanka is friends with Putin's current girlfriend. Donald Jr. said they do a great deal of business with Russia. How much money does Trump owe Russian ( mob) banks?

Unknown said...

His daughter Ivanka is friends with Putin's current girlfriend.

Vladimir Putin is shtupping Chelsea Clinton? Alert the media!

Unknown said...

Why did Manafort/ Trump get the Republican plank regarding the selling of weapons to Ukraine changed to be more pro Russia? Why does Trump keep saying he wants to be friends with Russia and how much he admires Putin? Why does Trump want to weaken NATO? Why does Trump want to recognize the Russian annexing of the Crimea? Why aren't you people more curious?

Unknown said...

coupe said...

You're a moron.

Oh, so none of that serving your country shit for you. Good, I was worried.

AReasonableMan said...

Maybe this is why I could never vote for Clinton.

Meeeea said...

All I know is she is stone-cold evil.

Those coughing fits and seizures probably occur when she is near someone carrying Holy Water.

EMD said...

I'm done with this place. The Unknown quotient is too fucking high. It's getting tedious in the comments.

coupe said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
coupe said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sydney said...

Probably thinks Curling is a sport.

Isn't it?

dbp said...

Hillary is similar to a neo-con Republican, except:

She has no respect for the law.

She is incompetent.

She will not be held accountable by the press.

Abortion, 2A, Taxes

Birkel said...

The paid troll, UnknownInga, is decidedly substance free. I wonder how heartbroken UnknownInga will be when she discovers all the payments by the Russians to the Clinton Foundation.

Everything the collectivists, so-called progressives but in fact reactionary fascists, claim is in defense of what they are doing and what they hope to do. It is projection in favor of their pseudo-religious preferences. They stand for nothing beyond power and fall for anything that promises power.

A radical departure toward freedom and self-reliance is all that America needs.

Qwinn said...

Unknown, let's say you're right (hilariously improbable, I know) and Trump really hearts Putin. Maybe even owes him. So what? Tbere's nothing Trump could have sold to Putin that Hillary hasn't already sold. I mean, does Putin really need even more of our uranium? Why? I suspect the 30% production Hillary already sold to Putin (for nothing but personal gain) should suffice to build all the nukes he wants. Hell, I'm sure Hillary already sold enough to Putin that he can himself sell some off to Iran, NK, now Turkey, etc.

That you think that this line of argument helps Hillary just proves the iron law: whatever leftists accuse someone of, they're practicing themselves times 10.

Yancey Ward said...

This is why Trump is the outsider candidate and Clinton isn't- it is why Sanders was the outsider vs Clinton. What is being missed is that the country is turning away from the foreign interventions and globalist policies, and that trend will continue.

One of the paradoxes I have been contemplating is why another Republican candidate couldn't have followed Trump's course in condemning the George W. Bush Administrations costly and ultimately failed foreign policy, and move significantly back into the political center at the same time. Seriously, Bush nearly destroyed the Republican Party, and if Obama had not pushed Obamacare over the country's objections, the Republicans would, today, be in their 10th year as the minority party in both houses of Congress. Also, why couldn't another Republican candidate have taken on the immigration issue in the head-on fashion that Trump did? Those two issues, foreign policy and immigration are what set him apart politically from the rest of the Republican field. If he had failed to do either one, he would not be the nominee today.

You scratch a NeverTrumper deep enough, and you will find someone who supported the Iraq War and blames Obama for the chaos that descended after the troops came home, as they always were going to do. No Republican candidate could stake those positions because the party insiders just wouldn't allow it- it really did require someone with his own money and outside the party to run that campaign. The only regret I have is that the outsider weren't someone more thoughtful and intellectually disciplined, however I think that I might be wishing for a unicorn in that regard- a candidate like that would have spent the last month apologizing for everything he/she said, looking weak and ineffectual in the process. Trump is the outsider you get- you don't get another choice. The NeverTrumpers will live to regret their opposition- if Clinton wins, she will ensure that no Republican of any kind will defeat her in 2020, and she will ensure that the advantage the Republicans hold in the House is eroded away by judicial intervention. Count on it.

Unknown said...

Unknown,

So when will Hillary send the bombers? (that, blushingly per buwaya, represent now merely a token or at most ultraspecialized role in the SIOP)

I am good with ending all life in Russia, but do you actually have a plan, or just want to keep poking the bear until he bites you, then overwhelm him with a second strike at 8:1 odds against?

Maybe it is a good idea to stir things up amongst ourselves and figure out what actually goes on? Maybe NATO partners should actually decide how bad they want in? Maybe NATO including Turkey is a little complicated? Maybe how you weaken NATO is to ignore or paper over the issues there instead of forthrightly dealing with them?

And the Russians ARE our friends. John Connor, I mean Edward Furlong, said so back in 1991, and he should know. At least, they quit officially being commies and are now just Great Game rivals but theoretically not dedicated to world domination. One could at least adopt the guise of friendliness. Didn't Hillary give them a half-assed reset button to that effect?

Your poking may have electoral effect among those who do not understand, but it is so ignorant that whoever had the duty of educating you should hang their heads in shame.

Unknown said...

One of the paradoxes I have been contemplating is why another Republican candidate couldn't have followed Trump's course in condemning the George W. Bush Administrations costly and ultimately failed foreign policy, and move significantly back into the political center at the same time.

Note that the GOP ran away from GWB in 2008 and 2012, but hadn't the heart to address the issues raised thereby. McCain as always took it personal; Romney as always had no balls; but nobody is exactly standing up and nominating Cheney. If you're not going to stand by him, but won't renounce him, what do you expect?

As for nevertrumpers, I was all for the AF and Iraq campaigns; would have done some things differently, but certainly had the expectation of being there (Iraq) for forty years or so. (In AF I would have been content to butcher and bolt. There's no fixing AF other than sterilizing it. GWB at least kept a light footprint there.)

Obama's wars have been ludicrously stupid, as with intent, as in you couldn't be that stupid by accident. If he was a Manchurian Candidate I can't see what he would have done differently. He may have good creases in his clothing, but mentally at best he's a slob.

Unknown said...

"YOUNG VOTERS FLEE DONALD TRUMP IN WHAT MAY BE HISTORIC TROUNCING, POLL SHOWS"

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/08/14/donald-trump-historic-trouncing-among-younger-voters-hillary-clinton-president-poll/88666746/

The young, who will be the future of the USA, are not going to vote for Trump because they don't won't their country defined by an insane person.

damikesc said...

Any idea why Hillary removed the bit that rape victims deserve to be believed from her site?

Unknown said...

Good to know that some smart people are asking questions and digging deeper into the cesspool of corruption that surrounds Trump. Makes Clinton look like Pollyanna.

He doesn’t care about anything but winning, and if his ties to Putin can help Trump, he doesn’t care about the implications of that either.

Handwritten ledgers show $12.7 million in undisclosed cash payments designated for Mr. Manafort from Mr. Yanukovych’s pro-Russian political party from 2007 to 2012, according to Ukraine’s newly formed National Anti-Corruption Bureau. Investigators assert that the disbursements were part of an illegal off-the-books system whose recipients also included election officials.

In addition, criminal prosecutors are investigating a group of offshore shell companies that helped members of Mr. Yanukovych’s inner circle finance their lavish lifestyles, including a palatial presidential residence with a private zoo, golf course and tennis court. Among the hundreds of murky transactions these companies engaged in was an $18 million deal to sell Ukrainian cable television assets to a partnership put together by Mr. Manafort and a Russian oligarch, Oleg Deripaska, a close ally of President Vladimir V. Putin.

I don’t know how anyone can not be suspicious that Manafort might have something to do with the way pilfered Democratic Party emails and text messages are being selectively released to do damage to Hillary Clinton for the benefit of Manafort’s newest client. The consensus among analysts and the intelligence agencies that Putin’s Russia is behind the hacking is very high, and obviously Trump believes it himself since he asked Russia to do more of it.

In any case, Manafort has been partnered up with folks like Charlie Black, Lee Atwater, and Roger Stone (the most notorious political ratf*ker of all time) for more than thirty years.


http://washingtonmonthly.com/2016/08/15/paul-manafort-vladimir-putin-and-the-southern-strategy/

Sigivald said...

They already have a 1-percenter who will be totally fine in the Oval Office, someone they can trust to help Wall Street, boost the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, cuddle with hedge funds, secure the trade deals beloved by corporate America, seek guidance from Henry Kissinger and hawk it up — unleashing hell on Syria and heaven knows where else.

That Dowd thinks "Republicans" love Wall Street and "hedge funds" (because buzzword, I guess) tells us a lot more about her than them.

(Hell, the Party goes iffy on trade. I'll give her "hawkish" and "Chamber of Commerce", though.)

Gusty Winds said...

Hillary has been pretending to be something she's not most of her life.

Examples:

1) A Heterosexual
2) Married
3) Champion of the poor
4) Concerned for women who are harassed in workplace by a superior
5) Concerned for children
6) Concerned for the well being of African-Americans

Zelig-like misrepresentation is the cornerstone for the Rules for Radicals.

She has stopped pretending she is honest. The press made that one easy. So now she pretends to be against TPP, while the money rolling in to her campaign will demand its passage.

n.n said...

The survivors (i.e. "Posterity") of abortion rites and Planned Parenthood will vote for the Pro-Choice candidate who promises liberal doses of opiates and "benefits". That said, with a robust abortion protocol and normalization of other dysfunctional behaviors, the liberal fiscal policy of redistribute change need not produce trickle-up poverty. Although, the Left's designed propensity to monopoly formation will degrade their opportunities and a regime that advocates for [class] diversity (e.g. racism, sexism) will selectively exclude them when politically unprofitable.

rightguy2 said...

There was an argument to be made that Slick Willie was one of our better republican presidents. I strongly doubt that Hillary would govern anything like him. This is all democrat spin, wish-ful thinking, and/or current dem talking points. I don't accept any of it.

Lem said...

Lionel (I love his vocabulary) speculates Trump is throwing the election.

Link

Jim said...

Hillary is like Ortrud in Wagner's Lohengrin.

Leora said...

I thought of Rosa Kleb, but it's a mirror image. https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&ved=0ahUKEwjb5brylMTOAhWGdR4KHfjjB2AQjRwIBw&url=https%3A%2F%2Fsebaspace.wordpress.com%2Ftag%2Frosa-klebb%2F&psig=AFQjCNFpJudAifPAkAECSzp6cqsc_3RtOw&ust=1471376001802720

sunsong said...

Advice for Trump from Charles Lipson:

"...That [Clinton's] dismal record would sink most candidates, but not with Trump in the race.

"He is even more vulnerable because his judgment looks even worse: He’s impulsive, narcissistic, and dangerous. If he cannot reverse that perception before it hardens among voters, then he is doomed. And that perception is hardening quickly.
"

real clear politics

chickelit said...

Trump calling Hillary "America's Merkel" is pitch-perfect if you know or follow German politics.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Ann Althouse said...It's exactly what you would expect and it actually facilitates their efforts in Congress in the long run, giving them cover.

Ok, but that has to come with the acknowledgment that "their interests" as referenced here very much do not equal the interests of a large part of the traditional Republican constituency. That's a lot of the story of how we got Trump in the first place!
Look, I'm willing to believe that Hillary and Marco Rubio (to grab just one example) largely agree on what should be done about the "immigration problem." It's not surprising that someone who agrees with Rubio on that topic might be happy with what President Hillary is going to do about it. Fine. The problem, though, is that quite a lot of people who consider themselves (or probably "considered themselves" to be more accurate) Republicans do NOT agree with Rubio nor Hillary on that topic, and there weren't enough Republicans who did to stop Trump in the primary.
So, yeah, SOME Republicans will be happy with a lot of what Hillary will do. Those Republicans weren't numerous enough to stop Trump, though, and I'm not sure why anyone things they're the "real" Republican party.

I'll go one further and say that even those people won't be happy with the rulings the Supreme Court and other Federal Courts hand down after Hillary's done appointing tons of judges. Oh, nor with the votes they're likely to get after Hillary's done legalizing several million more immigrants! Minor thing, that.

Rusty said...

The closest person I can think of is Ted Bundy.
But without the bodies.
But with the same conscience.

Szoszolo said...

"Look, she won't serve four years. She's barely able to get around now."

And if she dies in office, Kaine will continue her policies, claiming that it's his sacred duty to her memory to carry on her tradition of selfless public service, etc., etc. If the electorate is suicidal enough to vote her in this time, it might even keep Kaine around for a second term. The thought of eight years of Clinton-Kaine after eight years of Obama is enough to give me nightmares.

Unknown said...

Plus has anybody really done the deep check on Kaine? Oh, he probably doesn't aspire to her heights/depths, but I bet he's not as cute as he looks.

Readering said quite forthrightly that he's happy for her to die so Kaine can get in; if that's the plan, I say Kaine deserves far closer scrutiny. As was said of Palin due to McCain's age and infirmities.

Sebastian said...

@YH: "Policy-wise, aside from the liberals she will no doubt appoint to the court, I could live with Hillary." I could live with Bill, he of NAFTA, welfare reform, the Albright "indispensable nation," anti-crime steps, and deals with the GOP. But Hill ain't Bill. Besides the court, the agencies are at risk of further progressification. She might discard the Bernie free college thing, but then again she might not. She might negotiate real ACA reform with the GOP, but then again she might not. Hill's foreign policy instincts, though more hawkish and pro-American than O's, are also poor. Anyone who takes advice from Sydney Blumenthal cannot be trusted.

eric said...

I think her neocon tendencies are just reflexive.

I don't think she actually cares. Her thoughts and energy to more into how she can profit. If war means profit, then it's war. Drone strikes, assassinations, area destabilization, NATO, the U.N., however she can profit off of moving the pieces around.

You don't make money by being a peacenik.

Dude1394 said...

Sad, but true.

Jonathan Graehl said...

What a load of horseshit. Republicans are the smaller-federal-government party and not only about neocon foreign policy and offshoring. A republican is against petty nanny-state federal government domination of communities and for local autonomy - *completely* antithetical to Hillary Clinton and the judges she'll appoint. If significant numbers of Republicans are okay with Hillary's gratuitously anti-Republican-voter platform (immigration, federal government intrusions, wealth transfers out of GOP voter constituencies and into Dem voters') then we're indeed witnessing a profound realignment.

For sure the respectable "GOP" brand pundits are losing legitimacy in supporting the Beast. They seem to care only for peaceful relations with their elite peers.

Jonathan Graehl said...

Kaine: I think the burden is on those of us who are in the majority — Caucasians. We have to put ourselves in a place where we are the minority..

What exactly in that is supposed to lend comfort to GOP voters? Sounds like a call for increased capitulation and wealth transfer to Dem bureaucrats and their clients (really most of it goes to the benefit of the bureaucrats, and not those encouraged to be vocally, sometimes violently, dependent on them in service of winning elections).

urpower said...

Is this the first prez election in history to have two blonds running against each other? Blond history!

Michael said...

Does Maureen Dowd know any actual Republicans? Has she ever spoken to one at length about public policy? Seems to me she is operating on the basis of 100-year-old stereotypes. She's pulling for Bryan against McKinley.

YoungHegelian said...

@Sebastian,

Anyone who takes advice from Sydney Blumenthal cannot be trusted.

Agreed. He is high in the list of who I suspect may be compromised.

Remember, from a policy viewpoint I could live with Hillary, but from the viewpoint of morality, I think she is the most corrupt individual to run for president in the 20th-21st C.

I will repeat again: I will crawl over a mile of broken glass to vote against Hillary.

coupe said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Martha said...

Hillary! must be considered sui generis.

I hope no one remotely like her ever appears on the political scene again.

Cacimbo Cacimbo said...

If you want Presidential accountability vote for Trump. The man will not be able to blink without every media outlet investigating. If you want entrenched political corruption facilitated by media - vote Hillary.

elcee said...

Yancey Ward:
"You scratch a NeverTrumper deep enough, and you will find someone who supported the Iraq War and blames Obama for the chaos that descended after the troops came home, as they always were going to do."

I supported it because President Bush's decision for Operation Iraqi Freedom was demonstrably correct. Saddam's material breach across the board of the Gulf War ceasefire mandates was confirmed.

Contra Trump's view "the reasons for the war were blatantly wrong", which is itself based on blatant legal and factual errors, fact findings substantiated nearly all of the Bush administration's case against Saddam.

Unknown:
"As for nevertrumpers, I was all for the AF and Iraq campaigns; would have done some things differently, but certainly had the expectation of being there (Iraq) for forty years or so."

EXCERPT (sans links) from the answer to "Was Operation Iraqi Freedom a strategic blunder or a strategic victory?":

___A: Operation Iraqi Freedom was a strategic victory.

When Saddam denied his "final opportunity to comply" (UNSCR 1441), OIF accomplished the basic purpose of the US intervention with Iraq that began on August 2, 1990, Iraq's compliance with the "governing standard of Iraqi compliance" (UNSCR 1441) mandated by the UNSCR 660-series resolutions to satisfy "the need to be assured of Iraq's peaceful intentions [and] ... to secure peace and security in the area" (UNSCR 687).

President Bush handed OIF to President Obama having resolved the festering problem of Saddam's noncompliant, threatening, tyrannical, radicalized sectarian, rearming, terrorist regime (not a moment too soon based on what we now know), revitalized international enforcement in the defining international enforcement of the post-Cold War, and proved the mettle of American leadership and devastated the terrorists with the Counterinsurgency "Surge". The emerging pluralistic, liberalizing, compliant post-Saddam Iraq provided the US with a keystone "strategic partner" in the region.

Obama should have built upon the hard-won foundational progress made under Bush in geopolitically critical Iraq. However, instead of staying the course from Bush like President Eisenhower stayed the course from President Truman at the turning point of the Cold War, Obama committed the strategic blunder of contravening the Strategic Framework Agreement (2008) by disengaging from US-Iraqi affairs at a critical stage of Iraq's post-Surge development, passive-aggressively bungling the SOFA negotiation with Iraq, appeasing Iran, and abandoning the Bush Freedom Agenda. The premature departure of US forces removed America's protection at the same time Iraq's vicinity was growing dangerously unstable as the Arab Spring disintegrated, particularly in neighboring Syria. In the singular pivotal moment that sure-handed American leadership could have redirected the current course of history, Obama's irresponsible exit from Iraq and feckless 'lead from behind' approach to the Arab Spring, instead, opened great gaps for the terrorists to resurge. Iraq is suffering the consequences.___

Yancey Ward said...

Elcee, you are free to believe whatever it is you want to believe, but Bush is largely responsible for the chaotic state of the Middle East today. Not saying Obama and Clinton are free from blame, but Bush is the one who got the ball rolling around.

If one isn't prepared to state up front that significant troops would have had to remain for 3 or 4 decades minimum to make the war worth it, then it should not have been initiated in the first place. And had Bush made that clear (not even sure if he knew it would have to be done), the resolution would never have had public support, and Congress would never have authorized it.

tim in vermont said...

Why is Unknown and the Hillary campaign whipping up the Russia hatred? What kinds of new conflicts does she have planned?

HT said...

This is what I've been saying from day 1! Ann, where WERE you during the early summah of Bernie?

tim in vermont said...

Clinton launched the missile attack on Afghanistan when there was no state of war. They responded with 9-11, but that is too inconvenient of a truth, I guess.

tim in vermont said...

Over a sexual harassment lawsuit, BTW.

chickelit said...

tim in vermont said...
Why is Unknown and the Hillary campaign whipping up the Russia hatred? What kinds of new conflicts does she have planned?

My guess is that it's a ham-handed way of trying to poach older Republican voters who remember the Cold War. But even those people know who the real global enemy is today -- the one Hillbama is afraid to name.

Rusty said...

If one isn't prepared to state up front that significant troops would have had to remain for 3 or 4 decades minimum to make the war worth it, then it should not have been initiated in the first place.

That was mentioned in the run up to the war.

chickelit said...

Somehow, Hillary's comb-over looks more Hitlerian than Trump's.

Unknown said...

Elcee, don't think we disagree. ?

Yancey, Bush said that the war would go on past his term. He didn't set a deadline because even 40 years might not have been enough, viz., Japan, ROK.

Rusty, TY.

BTW my point is that I'm not a NeverTrumper and I guess I am somewhat Neo-Connish. I had to swallow hard when Trump burned Bush at the debate but like I said before, everybody else ran away from him; at least Trump had the guts to confront the issue. I despised McCain and Romney for not having Bush speak at their conventions.

If you want a true strategic bolt from the blue, Trump should somehow get George W Bush to say a nice word about him.

Unknown said...

Chickelit, it's her moustache.

Brando said...

"Does Maureen Dowd know any actual Republicans? Has she ever spoken to one at length about public policy? Seems to me she is operating on the basis of 100-year-old stereotypes. She's pulling for Bryan against McKinley."

That's absolutely unfair. Maureen Dowd is up on all the most important modern political trends. Just the other day she wrote a stirring defense of the coinage of silver.

Brando said...

"@YH: "Policy-wise, aside from the liberals she will no doubt appoint to the court, I could live with Hillary." I could live with Bill, he of NAFTA, welfare reform, the Albright "indispensable nation," anti-crime steps, and deals with the GOP. But Hill ain't Bill. Besides the court, the agencies are at risk of further progressification. She might discard the Bernie free college thing, but then again she might not. She might negotiate real ACA reform with the GOP, but then again she might not. Hill's foreign policy instincts, though more hawkish and pro-American than O's, are also poor. Anyone who takes advice from Sydney Blumenthal cannot be trusted."

My prediction of a Hillary presidency, regardless of who runs Congress, is a lot more Obama-era gridlock and piecemeal proposals done at the micro level through regulation. In domestic policy, the damage of a Hillary presidency will be more long term than short term, as she will not address our entitlement spending problems and the deficits will grow, and the ACA will limp along in a dwindling form as insurance companies continue to back out. In foreign policy, I figure more bombings and very few troops on the ground, but plenty of ill-advised intervention in countries we have no business being in.

She'll do a lot of crooked crap too, but we probably will not find out about most of it.

damikesc said...

Kaine: I think the burden is on those of us who are in the majority — Caucasians. We have to put ourselves in a place where we are the minority..

That's ironic because VERY Progressive cities are whiter than their stereotypes of Utah. Does anybody think Kaine lives where the black community is much above 2% of the population?

Todd said...

EMD said...
I'm done with this place. The Unknown quotient is too fucking high. It's getting tedious in the comments.

8/15/16, 1:04 PM


EMD, don't go for that reason, just get a "kill-file" add-on for your browser. Allows you to block the more obvious trolls. Prevents inadvertent feeding as well as the loss of IQ points if you accidentally read them...

Brando said...

"EMD said...
I'm done with this place. The Unknown quotient is too fucking high. It's getting tedious in the comments."

It also gets a little confusing, when the various "unknowns" start arguing with each other. Is it so hard to come up with a user name?

Martin said...

Ah, but little or none of this is about policies, it's partly tribal and partly a matter of who gets the goodies. The GOP NeverTrumpers view Trump as from the wrong tribe ("Not our kind, Lovey," as Thurston Howell III would say), and don't figure to get any goodies from him OR Hillary, leaving them desperately seeking alternatives when there are none, and looking incredibly silly and stupid (which they mostly are, this proves) in the process.

mikee said...

Stop with the Dowd.
Ignore her and your life will be much more productive, happy and sensible.