Writes Doug Henwood in a Harper's article titled
"Stop Hillary!/Vote no to a Clinton dynasty." You're going to need a subscription to read all that, which is stupid, because the imperative — "Stop Hillary!" — seems ludicrous if you hide the argument. But the truth is, I have a subscription, so let me pull out the parts that seem significant to me:
Today we desperately need a new political economy — one that features a more equal distribution of income, investment in our rotting social and physical infrastructure, and a more humane ethic. We also need a judicious foreign policy, and a commander-in-chief who will resist the instant gratification of air strikes and rhetorical bluster.
So, she's not left-wing enough? That counts in her favor in my book.
Hillary absorbed the conservatism of her father and her surroundings. In junior high, she fell under the influence of a history teacher, Paul Carlson, a frothing McCarthyite. As Carlson [said], the young Hillary was “a hawk.”
Soon after, though, she found another guru, one she would stick with for years — a young minister at the First Methodist Church of Park Ridge named Don Jones. Jones was a dashing intellectual who helped open Hillary’s mind. He got the church youth reading D. H. Lawrence, listening to Bob Dylan, and talking about Picasso....
Uh oh!
Reading D. H. Lawrence, listening to Bob Dylan, and talking about Picasso... Man, that is the story of my life!
"We are, all of us, exploring a world that none of us even understands and attempting to create within that uncertainty. But there are some things we feel, feelings that our prevailing, acquisitive, and competitive corporate life, including tragically the universities, is not the way of life for us. We’re searching for more immediate, ecstatic, and penetrating modes of living."
That's Hillary, at her college graduation, and that's pretty much what we were all saying back then.
By Yale Law standards, Hillary was a conservative, which meant that she opposed the Vietnam War but still basically believed in American institutions. Despite looking like a hippie in her tinted glasses and candy-striped slacks, she had no patience for the utopianism of the time.
Good for her! It's like Harper's's Henwood thinks we need a hippie President!
पोस्ट्स
८७ टिप्पण्या:
When you're a sociopath of course you don't need utopianism. Sociopathy is all about the pragmatism. "What do I need to do to manipulate this person to get what I want?" or "How do I shift the blame off something they could pin on me?"
It seems the next two years will feature people who (already) want to vote for Hillary, figuring out a reason why.
There might be a good "Stop Hillary!" argument but this isn't it.
The audacity of Doug Henwood after electing Obama!
It is a good "Stop Dylan!" argument. Man, that dude is polluting everybody's minds.
Today we desperately need a new musical economy — one that features a more equal distribution of styles, investment in our rotting instrumental and venue infrastructure, and a more humane ethic. We also need a judicious performer, and a folk music icon who will resist the instant gratification of electric guitars and rhetorical bluster.
Hillary has experience, all bad. She was fired from the "impeach Nixon" committee for lying. She did successfully run the "bimbo squad", which trashed the reputations of women her husband had sex with. Her notable accomplishment in the Senate was calling David Patraeus a liar, pretty rich coming from her. She can't claim success at State, unless she wants to take credit for the "reset" in which Russia invades Crimea.
Or is this just another way of calling her old.
Imagine, only ten years after excoriating against the acquisitive life, Hillary was engaging in a sham commodities trading scheme in which trades were allocated after the results were known, with Tyson Foods taking $100,000 in losses and Hillary receiving $100,000 in gains.
@Rob
Not only did he get to funnel money to Hillary, he got to write off the bribes on his taxes! Brilliant!
1. Harper's? lol?
2. Seems like a ringing endorsement of Hillary Clinton.
3. Unless you hate Boomers.
OK...you've stopped Hillary...now what?
Biden?
Pelosi?
Reid?
Wasserman?
Jarrett?
The only person on the Democratic bench right now is admittedly a threat to Hillary....Warren.
Frankly, (and I can't believe I'm saying this) I'd actually prefer Hillary to Warren if that is my only choice.
Talk about your nightmares....
I have good memories of politics before Clinton. They may not have been 100% responsible for the change, but so what?
Why continue to circle the drain, just because Hillary!!! is a woman? Why not go in a totally different direction?
Hillary is owed cause the Bush's got two of 'em as President.
That is HER argument. Her lack of accomplishments means nothing. She should be president cause she is OWED.. Owed by Bill, Owed by the Bushs, Owed by her, well just being Hillary.
"Frankly, (and I can't believe I'm saying this) I'd actually prefer Hillary to Warren if that is my only choice."
I'd rather have Bella Abzug.
Politics got mean right about the time Republicans learned how to win.
Before 1994, the Republicans knew their place as a permanent minority. Then they got uppity and won control of Congress!
That is when the gloves came off.
If this is all Hillary brings to the table she better slide down and make room for the millions of others of her generation.
Her only motivation is an insatiable lust for power. Couple this with the character traits of a Machiavellian and you have a very dangerous person.
I think it would be nice for Hillary and Bill to pick two hundred families and give them each $500,000. That would redistribute their $100,000,000. Because fair.
the imperative — "Stop Hillary!" — seems ludicrous if you hide the argument, unless you already know who Hillary Clinton is.
I'm a little older than you. I don't remember anyone driveling like that. If I had, I would have backed away.
Seems like only six yrs ago that Republicans had so much sympathy for Hillary when she was running against Barack Obama. I'm starting to think that maybe the support in 2008 wasn't genuine?
There might be a good "Stop Hillary!" argument but this isn't it.
There are actually two reasons to "Stop Hillary!" Her policy preferences will work to the detriment of the country, and she's too dishonest to be trusted with power.
I agree that most decisions involve a combination of emotion and reason, but that won't mitigate the predictable ramifications of bad decision-making.
I thought the GOP was the party of the "next in line"
Yeah, Hillary "Reset" Clinton has experience. What "Healthcare Reform" Clinton doesn't have is any successes. In the cases where she was an actual decision-maker, she has no accomplishments of note and several notable failures.
"Vote HRC for President, we have actual proof she can't lead!" is a truly ludicrous campaign slogan, but it's what any reference to her "experience" amounts to.
Clinton Dynasty is enough to get me on the Stop Hillary! bandwagon.
Bush Dynasty is enough to get me on the Stop Jeb! bandwagon.
garage mahal said...
I'm starting to think that maybe the support in 2008 wasn't genuine?
This cynicism is beneath you, Garage.
Garage
Hillary would have made a much better president that Obama. She might be fine in '16. Won't matter if the Republicans have House and Senate. Stock markets soar with that arrangement.
POLITICO.com and the WPost both reported that Wall Street would prefer Hillary to either Cruz or Rand Paul.
Hillary is real tight with Wall Street. They don't want to see the Export-Import Bank closed or ethanol subsidies to agribusiness end.
sinz52 said...
POLITICO.com and the WPost both reported that Wall Street would prefer Hillary to either Cruz or Rand Paul.
Hillary is real tight with Wall Street. They don't want to see the Export-Import Bank closed or ethanol subsidies to agribusiness end.
Wall Street could give a shit about manufacturers and farmers. They don't want any changes to taxation on carried interest. Wall Street is about Wall Street and fuck the rest of the country.
D.C. vs Heller was a 5-4 decision. Eight years of President Hillary and the next decision goes the other way.
Wall Street could give a shit about manufacturers and farmers.
The first accurate thing ARM has ever written..
The case for Hillary is simply that the Democrats have no one else. The case against Hillary is so overwhelming that its difficult to believe anyone with two firing nuerons can believe she is in the least bit qualified to be president. If you want a third Obama term albeit in whiteface and with a skirt then Hillary is your candidate.
"Despite looking like a hippie in her tinted glasses and candy-striped slacks, she had no patience for the utopianism of the time."
Nor sufficient patience to have studied hard enough to pass the District of Columbia bar exam — despite her degree from said Yale Law.
...in a pantsuit
Ann Althouse said...
There might be a good "Stop Hillary!" argument but this isn't it."
For Pete's sake, put down the feminist pen for a moment. There a number of anti-Hillary! arguments. There is no "might be" about it.
God is not afraid of new things.
This is an obvious argument against Hillary, who is anything but new.
"Stock markets soar with that arrangement."
Were you born this stupid or did you have to work at it? the soaring stock market is mostly because of the low interest rate environment. When the fed tightens the money supply, watch the stock market drop.
It's the same situation as in Japan in the '90s- bad debt, a financial crisis, interest rates cut to mere tens of basis points, the bad debt wasn't discharged but remained on the books, stagnation for 10-15-20 years. And we didn't learn a damn thing from the example
@cubanbob/
A dress? Try pants-suit (as SteveR has already noted) When is the last time she gave us a glimpse of those cankles? The viability of her "dress" days are looong gone..
That's Hillary, at her college graduation, and that's pretty much what we were all saying back then.
Man, I only said shit that stupid if I was trying to score with some hippie chick whose bra size was bigger than her IQ. What's your (and Hillary's) excuse?
Not peep about her infatuation with Saul Alinsky?
I think we've had enough of that shit.
Two things about Hillary:
1. She was fired from the Watergate Committee for corruption.
2. She failed the bar exam.
No, it's NOT her turn. It's NEVER anyone's turn. EVER.
I kind of like the idea of Hillary! After eight years of The First Black President and eight more of The First Woman President, I bet it will be a century before anyone elects a President on the basis of tokenism again.
It's also great that she's a Democrat. Between her and Obama, they could do for the Democrats what Buchanan and Johnson did for them in the 1850s and 60s. It could be 50 years before anyone elects a leftie. There's a lot to be said for this.
'Course, the economy will implode in the meantime, and millions suffer, but I think that's already baked in. There are just too many takers, and you'd need some massive realignment of social mythology to change that. Even a crazed ideologue like Rand Paul would, as President, be just a modest bump in the road of Juggernaut.
Ann Althouse said...
"There might be a good "Stop Hillary!" argument but this isn't it."
10/20/14, 5:37 PM
How about her pathetic tenure as Secretary of State? The Russian "reset" is a great example of failure. Or the decision to not increase security at the Benghazi facility despite repeated requests, and the subsequent sacking. Or her lies about the attack and the cause.
But the best reason not to vote for her is these are the ONLY things she has accomplished. And they are terrible. People who support her cannot give a single reason why they support her.
AReasonableMan said...
"Wall Street could give a shit about manufacturers and farmers. They don't want any changes to taxation on carried interest. Wall Street is about Wall Street and fuck the rest of the country."
And Obama received record amounts of cash from them and his policies have been written by them. Wall Street isn't the only one who doesn't give a shit about this country.
RecChief said...
"Stock markets soar with that arrangement."
"Were you born this stupid or did you have to work at it? the soaring stock market is mostly because of the low interest rate environment. When the fed tightens the money supply, watch the stock market drop."
The Fed will never tighten the money supply. We have been borrowing 1 trillion a year and printing 1 trillion a year for 6 years. Add those up and you have 12% of our total GDP based off of government borrowing and printed money... for 6 years. With less than 2% annual growth in GDP.
In Obama's America someone is getting rich. The rest of us not so much.
Also if you raise interest rates 1% have you looked at how much that would cost the government annually? Interest rates are NEVER going up.
Carl,
The party of the President only matters if the President is a Republican. Everything that has happened during the Obama administration is the fault of the do nothing Republican Congress.
If Hillary becomes President we will have a Republican Congress and when things go to hell it'll be because the Republicans in Congress.
Pretty clear Althouse is casting her vote for Hillary2016! Clinton's history of disgrace, dishonesty, self-interest, shamelessness and failure isn't convincing Althouse otherwise... The Benghazi debacle, from refusing to bolster security to ignoring an embassy under attack to lying about it to answering questions with a snide "What difference does it make?" to disappearing from public view for months after the hearing instead of facing the music- Not a dealbreaker. The infamous misinterpreted Russian Reset button and the subsequent re-establishment of Russian aggression while Hillary was secretary of State- Not a dealbreaker. The implosion of the Arab Spring and Middle East under her watchful eye, and the failure of the Obama administration to assemble any allies but Iran and Al-Quaeda to engage Syria- Not a deal breaker. Her ignoble tenure as the carpetbagging junior senator from New York- Not a dealbreaker. Her opposition to same-sex marriage until the day that the first national poll appeared showing majority support for the concept- Not a dealbreaker. Her hypocritical rhetoric against wealthy Americans, er, the 1%, while being a millionaire's daughter, a millionaire's wife, and a millionaire herself charging $250,000 per speech- Not a dealbreaker. Her lies about coming under sniper fire in Tuzla, when video evidence shows her being greeted with flowers and a marching band- Not a dealbreaker. The many anecdotes and insinuations against her character, from being ruthless and vindictive to being arrogant and incompetent- Not a dealbreaker. After all, she looked so adorable when she was gurgling over a cappuccino with a pot leaf drawn in the foam... Meanwhile, Mitt Romney said "Binders full of women"- Dealbreaker!
I agree with ARM that Wall Street doesn't give a damn about Main Street America.
What they love is making huge profits off of handling the financing of ginormous deficits. Obama loves ginormous deficits. Everything that goes wrong he blames on the efforts that have brought those deficits somewhat under control.
What joe said.
Eventually, Althouse will construct an edifice of rationalization for voting for Hillary that will be based on the foundation of Hillary's lack of a penis.
Still this will be considered a "right-wing blog" on account of she doesn't ban right of center commenters.
Wall Street could give a shit about manufacturers and farmers. They don't want any changes to taxation on carried interest. Wall Street is about Wall Street and fuck the rest of the country.
Oh i don'y know. I've done pretty well.
I'm guessing your public pension is underfunded.
To summarize her experience:
1) Failed Bar
2) Fired from Watergate job
3) Whitewater
4) White House Travel Agency fiasco
5) Russian Reset
6) Libya - the whole thing, not just Bengazi
7) Egypt - through Mubarek under the bus and supported the Muslim Brotherhood.
8) Almost forgot - Hillary Care
Just keep replaying her speech about sniper fire over Bosnia.
"If you want a third Obama term albeit in whiteface and with a skirt then Hillary is your candidate."
In other words, a fifth GW Bush term. I'm sure there are many who will want that. Unfortunately, I think we're going to get that. How tragic that our first woman president may be Hilary Clinton. Just as tragic as our first black president having been Barack Obama.
"It could be 50 years before anyone elects a leftie."
Yeah, just as it's been nearly 40 years since we elected someone even ever so marginally "leftie," (Jimmy Carter.) There's been no one since.
"Obama received record amounts of cash from them and his policies have been written by them. Wall Street isn't the only one who doesn't give a shit about this country."
This is very true, Achilles. Of course, it's just as true that the Republicans are whores to Wall Street just as Obama and Hillary and most nameable Democrats are.
"Still this will be considered a 'right-wing blog' on account of she doesn't ban right of center commenters."
If she did, there'd be virtually no one here.
Generally, people that disparage wall street as the source for the countrys ills don't know much about markets and how they work.
As Achilles alluded. Wall Street reacts to events like the fed controlling interest rates.
I'm placing my bet now: Althouse will vote for Hillary. The Republican candidate, whoever it is, has already lost Althouse. I suspect she's drafting that blog post now.
What the hell is a rotting social infrastructure?
Does it have something to do with not enough Purple Penguins?
What Texas Annie said.
Achilles said...
RecChief said...
"Stock markets soar with that arrangement."
"Were you born this stupid or did you have to work at it? the soaring stock market is mostly because of the low interest rate environment. When the fed tightens the money supply, watch the stock market drop."
The Fed will never tighten the money supply. We have been borrowing 1 trillion a year and printing 1 trillion a year for 6 years. Add those up and you have 12% of our total GDP based off of government borrowing and printed money... for 6 years. With less than 2% annual growth in GDP.
In Obama's America someone is getting rich. The rest of us not so much.
Also if you raise interest rates 1% have you looked at how much that would cost the government annually? Interest rates are NEVER going up.
Yes, that is why I used the example of Japan and their problems in the 90s. They still haven't recovered. Personally, I think the Fed is planning on inflating its way out of this debt. Lots of pain for the rest of us.
It's hard to imagine Hillary not getting her party's coronation (I mean, nomination) because who would emerge to take it from her? Who would be the 2016 equivalent of Obama? Plus, the Clinton team would likely avoid the mistakes they made then, like not having the campaign apparatus necessary to win the small caucuses, and arm-twisting every Democrat down to the district captains to make sure they trash and destroy any opposition. The Clintons are a cutthroat bunch, more a gang than a campaign. They want this in the bag so they can pivot early enough to face whatever the GOP picks.
The only hope of stopping the Clintons is if the GOP picks a good candidate without hobbling him during their own battle royale primary. I suspect an unusually large field for the GOP nomination, and as much nastiness as we've come to expect--though in the end the Right will have all the motivation they need if it means beating the Democrats.
A "good" GOP candidate (in the sense of "can win") would need the following:
1) Solid on the stump and at retail politics--can energize a crowd, firing up their supporters and winning converts.
2) Adequate experience, as a lot of voters sour on Obama's inexperience.
3) Can unite the moderates and GOP Right, rather than having to pander to one group while turning off the other.
4) Can narrow the GOP deficit with women, Hispanics and Asians, and possibly blacks.
5) Can deflect and parry any nastiness that will come from the Clintons--and a LOT of nastiness will come from them. Expect it to get dirty early.
But then she became a fundamentally dishonest opportunist.
A president who will lie whenever it suits her? No thanks.
I was so excited to vote for Hillary in 2008. In 2016...NOT so much. She is just an extension of what we have now. NO THANKS.
Do you know of any other Democrat being touted as a potential candidate?
"What is the case for Hillary...?"
She's not the Republican.
Nothing more is needed,...
Carl said...
I kind of like the idea of Hillary! After eight years of The First Black President and eight more of The First Woman President, I bet it will be a century before anyone elects a President on the basis of tokenism again.
It's also great that she's a Democrat. Between her and Obama, they could do for the Democrats what Buchanan and Johnson did for them in the 1850s and 60s. It could be 50 years before anyone elects a leftie. There's a lot to be said for this.
'Course, the economy will implode in the meantime, and millions suffer, but I think that's already baked in. There are just too many takers, and you'd need some massive realignment of social mythology to change that. Even a crazed ideologue like Rand Paul would, as President, be just a modest bump in the road of Juggernaut.
10/21/14, 12:50 AM"
The only problem with your theory is that the Democrats have a boatload of tokens.
The best argument for Hillary is one Hillary supporters refuse to make: She will perform the ceremonial duties, and her husband will do the actual policymaking/ decisionmaking job of President. Her presidential run is simply a way around the two-term limit imposed by the 22nd amendment.
"A president who will lie whenever it suits her? No thanks."
Don't you realize this is standard practice for all presidents? Do you think we ever really get the truth from our presidents? It is part of the job of the President to lie to us.
This is not to argue in favor of Ms. Clinton or her lies, but to point out the mendacity of most, if not all our politicians, the futility of placing undue expectations of integrity on any who aspire to power, and particularly, on those who achieve the highest power.
Hillary standing in front of the Benghazi coffins and lying about a youtube video is more than enough reason to keep her out of the White House. She knew for a fact the night of the attack - while it was still occurring - that it wasn't because of a video.
Lying to the grieving parents that they were going to get that rascally filmmaker is about as despicable as it gets.
Look at it this way: If we elect Hillary president, there is a chance that we might get that furniture back that she and her husband stole from the White House the last time we let them in there. If they haven't sold it already, that is.
The best illustration of the dimension of Hillary's ego is her coy pursuit of the nomination, which has the effect of discouraging any other rivals while avoiding a firm commitment on her part. This would be unremarkable if she were younger and her health were not questionable. But she's 67, seriously overweight and, apparently, had some significant health issue that kept her inactive for a time . . . the details of which she has never disclosed. Before you slam me as 'ageist' consider that I am 66 and know from observation of my peers and friends that bad stuff can happen at that age. Not all of us live to be 90.
Consider the fate of Hillary's party if, between now and 2016, she becomes medically disabled from running. The Democrats will be scrambling for a replacement candidate.
Take it from me as a Boomer: all of us think we're going to live forever -- especially if our life-long dream appears to be almost within our grasp.
Robert Cook said...
"A president who will lie whenever it suits her? No thanks."
Don't you realize this is standard practice for all presidents? Do you think we ever really get the truth from our presidents? It is part of the job of the President to lie to us."
But an adversarial press balances these lies. If you are for a divided government, you should be for a Republican president to go with the media that covers the white house.
It's hard to imagine Hillary not getting her party's coronation (I mean, nomination) because who would emerge to take it from her? Who would be the 2016 equivalent of Obama?
Sen. Fake Indian?
"Don't you realize this is standard practice for all presidents? Do you think we ever really get the truth from our presidents? It is part of the job of the President to lie to us"
There's a question of degree. Presidents often spin, and play with the truth, as would anyone dependent on public opinion who always has to defend against an opposition that will tear them down at every chance. But the Clintons are in a category by themselves, lying more often, and more blatantly, than normal.
There is something sociopathic about them, in their ends justifying the means approach to power (and power is the only consistent ideal they've pursued--they will jettison liberalism and moderation whenever it suits them politically, but they have been consistent about wanting and exercising power). This mostly comes from Bill, who has a need to be loved that likely comes from a messed up childhood, and his political gifts and general charisma--I hear that in person he can be incredibly charming, even to those who can't stand him--have made it easy for him to get his way and avoid the consequences. Living with that for forty years has had some effect on Hillary, who doesn't have those gifts but has clearly been his enabler and adopted his any means necessary approach to power. I believe she also forgives anything he does to her and defends him to the end not only for her own political fortunes but mainly because she's charmed by him. Guys like that can really get away with anything.
And people like that are dangerous to have in power. Forget Left vs. Right for a minute--what we're really seeing is an unscrupulous, dangerous couple that can take and wield power in a way that is harmful to our country. We were lucky in the '90s because due to circumstances there weren't any serious challenges to our safety and security that could be exploited by these people, but we may not be so lucky next time around.
Imagine how people like that could exploit a major terrorist attack or economic downturn.
"Sen. Fake Indian?"
A lot of people mention Warren, but she's clearly ruled out a run and endorsed Hillary. I can't imagine her reversing course and winning, especially if Hillary is clever enough to throw a few bones to the Occupy crowd.
O'Malley has limited appeal, and a record in MD that can be easily attacked on the basis of incompetence. Sanders and Schweitzer aren't top tier--they'd need to set the world on fire a bit to pose a real threat. Cuomo I think has enough of his own problems at home, and is also too connected to the Clintons to turn on them.
I know people were proven wrong when they thought Hillary had it sewn up six years ago, so maybe one of these people (or even someone else out of nowhere) could surprise us. But it's hard to see lightning striking twice, and Hillary is in many ways stronger among Democrats than she was in 2008 (when many were freshly pissed at her for voting for the Iraq War).
One thing to note--the press will be an ally of any underdog going against Hillary, because a snooze fest of a Democratic primary will not sell copy. So for a Democrat to take her down, that's at least one advantage.
"But an adversarial press balances these lies."
We do not have an adversarial press.
The communist-loving Hillary who worked for a fellow traveler law firm and defended murderous Black Panthers with the argument that New Haven was too racist for justice was a conservative??!!
The Clintons are the ultimate in corrupt, shakedown artists in politics. They will sell any part of government and use any part in their protection racket. America would have to be insane to turn the govt over to these crooks for 4 more years.
"Despite looking like a hippie in her tinted glasses and candy-striped slacks, she had no patience for the utopianism of the time."
Nor sufficient patience to have studied hard enough to pass the District of Columbia bar exam — despite her degree from said Yale Law.
Based onher documented history of tantrums and abuse of subordinates and/or husbands, there's no evidence Hillary has any patience for anything.
Of course Ann is laying the groundwork for a Hillary vote. We're just watching for the entertaining rationalizations for voting for a corrupt, dishonest incompetent woman who enabled a perjuring rapist.
Of course Ann is laying the groundwork for a Hillary vote.
Is there anyone here who doesn't think this? Of course, she'll try to tease us (and herself?) by posting seemingly thoughtful discussions of the various arguments for and against, but she'll vote Hillary.
I've already accepted that Hillary is most likely going to be our next president. It'll make it easier to bear if I've already made myself acclimated to it.
The main thing for the GOP is to hold on to at least one half of Congress--if the Dems had the trifecta, as they did for both Clinton and Obama's first two years, we'll see a flurry of Pelosi-wish list legislation get rammed through. Expect minimum wage hikes, tax increases, more federal funding for Obamacare (hey, wasn't that supposed to save taxpayers' money? Never mind!), and some new waves of regulations on everything from banking to the EPA. Plus, Harry Reid will completely abolish the fillibuster, because the long term effect on the Senate matters less than ramming through a bunch of Clinton judicial nominees. Scalia and Kennedy may both retire within the next six years, and if it happens with the Democrats running the Senate and White House, nothing stops them from picking another Sotomayor to shift the Court decisively in their favor, for a long time.
A president Hillary means a lot more war, too. Keep in mind she hasn't opposed any military action since the Vietnam War. She will not hesitate to use executive authority at home and abroad, civil liberties and noninterventionist arguments be damned.
Hopefully after four years of that the Dems will alienate enough people and the GOP will get pragmatic enough to win in 2020.
Blogger richard mcenroe said...
Of course Ann is laying the groundwork for a Hillary vote. We're just watching for the entertaining rationalizations for voting for a corrupt, dishonest incompetent woman who enabled a perjuring rapist.
Id be very surprised if she did
Robert Cook said...
"But an adversarial press balances these lies."
"We do not have an adversarial press."
So why would you want the government to have more power if all they do is abuse it no matter who wins?
Progressives and socialists will spend all of history looking for the "right" leader.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा