Republicans for Hillary Rodham Clinton?

We all want the best for our country. And, when it comes to conservatives, we all want our Republican Presidential Candidate to beat whomever the Democrat Party nominates. Therefore, it is in our best interest to support the nomination of the Democrat candidate that is the weakest, so that come the general election, the Republican candidate will be a shoe in.

This is the line of reasoning behind Republican support for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. Take a look at these articles

ABCNews: Clinton Will Win Nomination, Lose Election
NYTimes: Vulnerable Democrats See Fates Tied to Clinton
HuffingtonPost: Are Republicans Really Scared of Hillary Clinton
NewsMax.com: Hillary Would Lose in 2008

The premise of these articles is that Hillary Clinton will win the nomination and then be decisively beaten in the general election. Let's look at the facts. Hillary Clinton is not likable: she has never had more than a 50% favorability rating during this race. Hillary Clinton is polarizing: everyone has an opinion on Clinton, positive or negative, and they are unlikely to change those opinions. Hillary Clinton is untrustworthy: polls have shown that people do not trust Hillary, even many of her own supporters. Hillary Clinton is wishy-washy: her position on the issues constantly changes, making it easy to poke holes in her campaign platform. Additionally, Hillary Clinton has enough dirt on her to make her candidacy a series of stumbles explaining away scandals and scandals. So with all of this baggage, why not support a Hillary Clinton nomination?

Well, Karl Rove has written an article advising Republicans on how to defeat Hillary Clinton. In it, he advises them not to think that running against her will be slam dunk for the GOP. She is a clever adversary with vast resources and powerful supporters, all of which she will bring to bear if she wins the nomination. It is a good reality check for those conservatives thinking Senator Hillary Clinton will be an easy target in November 2008.

I think Senator Hillary Clinton is a power-hungry opportunist, who will do what ever it takes to seize and hold power. If given the power of the Presidency, she will radically change the course of this country. She will certainly raise taxes, making it near impossible to get rich, while bankrupting the middle class. She will implement socialized medicine and authorize the government takeover of the health care, which represents 1/7th of the U.S. economy. She will create policies that will put the oil companies out of business, and eliminate any energy independence we have left. Hillary Clinton will fill the bureaucracy with her socialist cronies, who will use their government posts to protect her, destroy her enemies, and prevent any reversal of her disastrous policies. She will nominate ultra-liberal judges to the appellate and supreme courts who will not hesitate to rewrite our constitution, interpret away our freedoms, and use foreign law and U.N. resolutions as a basis for their decisions. She will allow a flood of illegal immigrats from Mexico to radically change the demographics of America, and create a new underclass of government-dependent voters. And on and on. I've only scratched the surface on the disaster that will be her Presidency, not to mention the scandals First Husband Bill Clinton will create with his philandering. Her policies will literally destroy the American economy, eliminate the freedom that has made this country great, and sell America's time honored traditions for the advancement of her own power. This is Hillary Clinton.

Now, I do not even want Hillary Clinton in the Senate, not to mention to Presidency. So, why would I want her to be one breath away from winning the general election? Let's say she wins the nomination. What happens if the Republican candidate becomes involved in some scandal, or dies, or even just runs a poor campaign? What if current events change and tilt the election in favor of the Deomcrats? There are a million scenarios where Hillary Clinton could win. Not to mention all of her efforts to manufacture the scenarios I just described. And with a dutifully obedient media behind her (ahem... CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS, NYTimes, LATimes, etc...), she may pull it off. For me, it is simply too close for comfort.


But, she cannot win the Presidency if she does not win the nomination. That is why it is critical to defeat her now and to put an end to her presidential aspirations early. As Iowa approaches, it seems that this may be a possibility. The Republican candidates should brace for a bitter, dirty battle in 2008 with Senator Hillary Clinton. However, if possible, they should do their best to eliminate her as a candidate now. Republicans and conservatives nationwide should not be afraid of Senator Clinton, but should view her candidacy realistically and understand the threat it poses to America. They should then stop looking forward to the knock-down drag-out battle she would bring to the general election, but look forward to finally putting her brand of socialism on the shelf permanently, and as soon as possible.

A Great Question: Liberalism Vs. Socialism

Recently, Colin Urban asked me:

"...Also, you seem to group liberalism in with socialism. I can see how you may associate the two but they are far from the same thing."

Well Colin, as for socialism vs. liberalism, you are correct. They are different in the textbook definitions. Socialism advocates that all property is controlled collectively. The old aphorism is "From Those Who Are Able, To Those Who Need." Well, what is the practical result? That the state sets wages and prices, the economy is centrally planned, resources are rationed to the people, and any means of resistance are controlled by the government.

Liberalism espouses the use of government power to solve social problems. It stems from classical liberalism which believed that government power should only be used to relieve market externalities (ie. The Tragedy of the Commons). The classic example is a lighthouse, from which many benefit, but for which few have to pay. According to classical liberalism, the government would need to take over operation of the lighthouse in order to ensure that this important service continues to be provided. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the New Deal Democrats extended this idea of liberalism. They believed that government power could solve not only economic problems, but social problems as well. To understand how this ideological jump can be made, consider that poverty could be considered a failure of the market (by those who do not understand it...). And so arose what we now see as modern liberalism.

What was the practical result of the new liberalism? State intervention in industry, price controls, wage controls, welfare and social security (From those who are able, To those who need), etc... Essentially a massive growth of the state. As the state grew, and interfered with the economy and private life, problems were exacerbated not solved. This of course created the need for more government to solve those problems (aka. the Great Society), which created new problems, which called more government, etc...

Now, look at where we are today:

I think that major politicians, and a majority of their supporters, who call themselves "liberals" are in essence no different from socialists in what they are advocating. I mean, you have Senator Hillary Clinton saying she wants to "take the profits" of the major oil companies, and spend it on government energy programs. You have many of the major Democrat presidential candidates calling for universal health care (or "socialized" medicine). You have Democrat Congressmen like Joe Kennedy praising Leftist Venezuelan Dictator Hugo Chavez, who is nationalizing every industry he can get his hands on... And the list can go on and on. My question is: If today's Democrats are not socialists, how would they act any different from how they already do?

You see, Colin correctly states that liberalism is not socialism. Instead, it is a flawed ideology that inevitably leads to socialism. Government cannot solve social problems, and it is debatable the degree to which government can solve economic problems. A Libertarian professor, whose name I unfortunately cannot remember, once put it to me best: Government is just not smart enough to solve social problems. It does not have enough information to make choices for millions of people. It does not understand what we need better than we do, and it cannot anticipate the thousands of little things we do everyday to keep our lives in balance and running smoothly. By interfering, Government upsets that balance and creates new problems.

Now, some liberals (perhaps like Colin) are well intentioned. They want to help people solve problems in their life, and see government power as a quick way to do so. As one of my liberal college friends told me once, "We have the power to stop these problems now... Why are you standing in the way?" The problem, as I have explained, is that government does not have the power to solve these problems, and very often makes them worse. But, these well-intentioned liberals allow their emotions to cloud the long-term ramifications of their actions.

However, an elite group of liberals within the leadership of the liberal movement (like Sen. Hillary Clinton) are not well intentioned, but in fact understand everything I have outlined here. They prey upon the good intentions of average people and use them to obtain greater and greater power. These elite liberals politicize every issue and advocate government power as a solution, with them in charge of course. They advocate social programs in order to create a dependent class of voters that will ensure their power into perpetuity (ie. Social Security). They use class envy to turn the poor and the middle class against those who employ them (and by extension feed them), generating public support for a government takeover of industry. They exacerbate racial and social tensions in order to stifle free speech and to obfuscate any argument against them. And, they infiltrate media and educational institutions to brainwash the ignorant, the apathetic, and children into believing their lies and accepting rule by a liberal elite. Any way in which these elite liberals can advance themselves and their power, often at the expense of the average citizen, they take. It is a brand of fascism and totalitarianism that should have died off long ago, but must unfortunately be continually guarded against.

Thank you Colin, for giving me the chance to really delve into this issue. Liberalism is not socialism... it is a more sinister ideology that leads us to socialism through the back door. Capitalists and those who love freedom must constantly guard against the idea that government is the solution, and avoid the seductive sirens call of power. We must continue to advance an agenda of political and economic liberty for all, progress through unbridled human innovation and private enterprise, and happiness through the freedom of the human spirit.

Rudy Giuliani Nails the Democrats

“The Democrats do not understand the full nature and scope of the terrorist war against us.”

So said Mayor Rudy Giuliani at a fund raising dinner in New Hampshire yesterday. During his speech, before the Business and Industry Association, the former New York City Mayor criticized Democrats for their opposition to the War on terror. Here are some more quotes as reported in a story by Roger Simon on the Politico.com:

“But the question is how long will it take and how many casualties will we have? ...If we are on defense [with a Democratic president], we will have more losses and it will go on longer.”

“I listen a little to the Democrats and if one of them gets elected, we are going on defense... We will wave the white flag on Iraq. We will cut back on the Patriot Act, electronic surveillance, interrogation and we will be back to our pre-Sept. 11 attitude of defense.”

"And make no mistake, the Democrats want to put us back on defense!”

“[The terrorists] were at war with us before we realized it, going back to ’90s with all the Americans killed by the PLO and Hezbollah and Hamas,” he said. “They came here and killed us in 1993 [with the first attack on New York’s World Trade Center, in which six people died], and we didn’t get it. We didn’t get it that this was a war. Then Sept. 11, 2001, happened, and we got it.”

“If any Republican is elected president —- and I think obviously I would be the best at this —- we will remain on offense and will anticipate what [the terrorists] will do and try to stop them before they do it...”

In sum, Mayor Giuliani told Roger Simon: “America will be safer with a Republican president.”

Wow. I don't know about you, but reading what Mayor Giuliani had to say really got me excited about the 2008 election. It was refreshing to hear the leading Republican candidate make such bold statements and call out the Democrats on their anti-war position.

The truth is that the Democrats' actions will put us on defense and make us less safe against terrorism. The Democrat obsession with pulling out of Iraq too soon, redeploying troops to Okinawa (as Rep. Murtha suggested), supporting constitutional rights for terrorists, denying funding and supplys to our troops in the field, etc... and the list goes on and on. The Democrats have proven that they are not committed to victory in the War on Terror. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid admitted as much when he declared last week that we had lost in Iraq.

More proof to this effect is the way in which Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. Hilary Clinton responded to the criticism of Mayor Giuliani. Senator Obama responded at a campaign stop in New York:

"Rudy Giuliani today has taken the politics of fear to a new low and I believe Americans are ready to reject those kind of politics... America's mayor should know that when it comes to 9-11 and fighting terrorists, America is united. We know we can win this war based on shared purpose, not the same divisive politics that question your patriotism if you dare to question failed policies that have made us less secure."

Here is a portion of the response on Sen. Hillary Clinton posted her campaign blog:

"There are people right now in the world, not just wishing us harm but actively planning and plotting to cause us harm. If the last six years of the Bush Administration have taught us anything, it's that political rhetoric won't do anything to quell those threats. And that America is ready for a change."

Notice how neither Sen. Clinton nor Sen. Obama actually addressed the substance of Mayor Giuliani's comments. They did not argue that they had worked to make America more safe. They did not respond with the actions they had taken to ensure victory in Iraq. They instead lamented the "political rhetoric" and the "politics of fear." These are mere rhetorical parries that only serve to dodge the criticism without taking a position.

Mayor Giuliani hit a nerve... because he is right. Hopefully, we can look forward to more such rhetoric from Mayor Giuliani and the other Republican candidates. When conservatives call out the Democrats like this, they put them on defense, and force them to defend (or try to avoid explaining) their anti-American agenda. The more they talk, the more they tell us who they are and what they believe.

Go Rudy, Go!

Weekly Poll Results: 4/20/2007

What do you think of Sen. Barack Obama's attack ad on Sen. Hillary Clinton?

(Note - although the ad is on behalf of Sen. Obama, it was not produced by the Obama campaign.)


Yes. Hillary Clinton will lead us into a Socialist Distopia.
2 votes - 40%

I don't like Hillary Clinton, but I also don't understand the point of the ad.
3 votes - 60%

Why can't the Democrats unite? Why do they have to attack each other like this?
0 votes - 0%

Barack Obama sucks! I'm supporting Sen. Clinton.
0 votes - 0%

I Don't Know / Not Enough Information
0 votes - 0%

And Another Thing... Dictators, Hillary Clinton, and Environmental Whackos

Chavez says Capitalism is the "Road to Hell"
If that's true, then bring on the brimstone, baby!

Hillary Says She is the JFK of 2008
Well, if she wants to follow in John F. Kerry's footsteps... so be it.

But seriously... she means that the same way John F. Kennedy broke barriers by being the first Catholic president, she would break barriers by being the first woman president. A couple thoughts. First, I think it is a little disingenuous for Sen. Clinton to equate herself with JFK. JFK cut taxes, had a confrontational foreign policy, and led America into the Space Age. Sen. Clinton would raise taxes, allow Iraq to descend into sectarian violence and ethnic cleansing, and let her environmentalist friends lead us back to the Stone Age. Secondly, how is being a woman a qualification to be president? Should we vote for her just because she is female? Isn't that a bit sexist?

But, I do have to ask the question: Would she really be the first female president? I guess technically. But between Edwards and Clinton, who would make a better female president? I know, I know, cheap political pot-shots...

Return of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
Sen. Clinton asserted that the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" was "alive and well." She cited the guilty pleas and conviction of three Republican operatives in New Hampshire for jamming phones during the 2002 election.

Said Sen. Clinton in 1998, amid the Monica Lewinsky Scandal:

"The great story here for anybody willing to find it and write about it and explain it is this vast, right-wing conspiracy that has been conspiring against my husband since the day he announced for president."

Clearly Sen. Clinton is correct. She is being unfairly maligned by a radical organized faction bent on conspiring against her and her husband. This faction has unjustly tainted her reputation by exaggerating little things like Cattle Futures Contracts, Rose Law Firm-Gennifer Flowers Impropriety, the Travelgate Scandal, the Health Care debacle of the 90's, the Whitewater Scandal, etc... I mean the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy has blown everything out of proportion in attempt to destroy her and her husband. And there's nothing she can do to stop them! I should know, since I'm a member of the conspiracy. Bwa-ha-ha-ha...

We Vast Right-Wing Conspirators suggest that the great story consists of the vast resources, the fine tuned organization, and the dirty politics of the Clinton War Room. Now there's a conspiracy!

"Rell's Choice Hastily Made" for new State Supreme Court Chief Justice
I guess Governor Rell was too busy handing out state dollars to care much about who she was nominating to one of the most powerful positions in the state. She might have also figured that it didn't matter, given the veto proof majorities in the State General Assembly.

Gore Wants to Hold an "Earth Concert" Live from the Capitol
Is this an inappropriate use of the capitol grounds? If held outside, probably not. Although according to the story:

"Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) have introduced a resolution to use the Capitol grounds as a site for the huge, multi-venue global-warming concert on July 7."

Sounds like it will be a rockin' time with Bon Jovi, Snoop Dog, and the other usual suspects. I wonder what the carbon footprint of this concert will be and whether Al Gore will offset it by buying carbon credits from his company.

Conservationist Uses Wine Bottles to Build Energy-Saving House
An Australian man is building a house out of 13,500 recycled wine bottles. The owner, Peter Little, claims that when the bottles are filled with water, the building will entirely insulated.

"Water is probably, I think one of the miracle building materials of this century which nobody is using," he said.

What do they say about people who live in glass houses? Thank God for the Capitalist System where people like this can use their own money however want to, even if it is ridiculous.

State Legislators Propose Ban on Incandescent Bulbs
Come on guys! You don't have enough to do up there in Hartford between the Budget, Education Spending, Universal Health Care, the Gov. Rell's Railway Initiative, etc... I guess not. Apparently they are going to waste their time and our tax dollars discussing a bill on whether the state should fine retailers selling light bulbs that the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection deems as "inefficient incandescent lamps." Check out this quote from Representative Diana Urban, D-North Stonington, who was one of the sponsors of Bill No. 1432, "An Act Concerning Global Warming.":

"I don't see it as frivolous. People are not educated about energy use... We proposed the ban fully knowing we'd be looking at a phase-in. ... In order to get people's attention, you start with a ban."

It's politicians like this that make me sick. Rep. Urban is being predictably arrogant, dictating how others should live their lives based on flimsy claims of Global Warming. And what really annoys me is that she thinks we are all so gullible that we will just accept a state ban on light bulbs if they introduce the bill enough times.

Now I must admit that I was originally in favor of the compact fluorescent light bulbs that the bill seeks to encourage. I liked the soft white light, and the funny shape. That is until I found out that they contain mercury, and in many cases must be disposed of through hazardous waste materials collections. Not to mention that they are more expensive. And, the whole idea that changing a light bulb will save the planet seems utterly ridiculous to me, and frankly I am a bit insulted as a Connecticut citizen that my legislature is taking time to debate this inanity.

Keeping Gore Out of the Race

It looks like some members of the Liberal Media are sending warning shots to Al Gore.

NY Times: From a Rapt Audience, A Call to Cool the Hype

ABC News: Global Warming Is Not A Crisis

ABC Local: "An Inconvenient Truth?" $30,000 Utility Bill

It seems to me that they are saying: Even though we love you for all that Global Warming stuff, this isn't your race. You had your chance in 2000, so stay out of this.

The question is, who are these media members trying to protect? The anointed Sen. Clinton? Could the leak about Gore's energy consumption have been prompted by her campaign? Or, perhaps the "articulate" and "clean" Sen. Obama? Could the media be so enamored with him that they want to keep others out of the race? Maybe it is Sen. Edwards? No one can be sure who, but it does seem like the media is trying to torpedo Gore before he gets in the race.

I don't remember where I read this, but an article proposed that Republican candidates were better poised to win compared to Democrats for the following reason. Many Republican presidential candidates such as Dole and Bush, had run and lost in previous elections (or primaries). As a result, they already had the experience and the connections necessary to operate a successful campaign. They didn't have to start from scratch. Democrats, by comparison, seem to discard their failed candidates in favor of new candidates (take Gore and Kerry as prime examples). If Gore were to run, he would have the advantage of experience, and may as a result have a better shot at winning than some of the other challengers. Therefore, I find it interesting that some in the party want to keep him out of the race.

I and others have said that Gore is the Nixon of the Democratic Party. No, not because of the scandals, but because of the way he has positioned himself relative to the base of his party. When Nixon ran in 1960, he was running as a successor to Eisenhower, putting forth an image of a seasoned leader. Similarly, Gore ran (reluctantly) in 2000 under the ideological banner of the Clinton "New Democrats." Both candidates lost by narrow margins. After losing to Kennedy, Nixon spent his time supporting other Republican candidates and involved himself in what he considered to be the issues of the day (trade with China). As a result, he became a part of the Goldwater conservative movement, and was able to use that ideological position to win in 1968. Like Nixon, Gore has gotten in touch with one of his party's strongest factions, the environmental leftists. In the process, he has been able to create his own image, instead of living inside the shadow of Bill Clinton. This new image, coupled with his Democrat Party activism, may give him just the support he needs to launch a second campaign, should the current candidates fall out of favor with the party.

Like the Clinton camp has suggested: Keep an eye on Gore's weight. If he starts to lose some pounds, he may be running for president.

And Another Thing... Libby Trial, Phony Liberals and the Internets

Lewis "Scooter" Libby is Convicted of Lying Under Oath
I'm going to be repeating what all the conservative pundits have been saying, but:

1. Unfortunately, Libby got caught up in an investigation run-amok, whose ultimate target was Bush and Cheney.
2. The Libby Trial Verdict says nothing about the War on Iraq, WMD Intellegence or Uranium from Africa. It was not about any of that. It was whether Lewis Libby lied under oath.
3. Hmm, the liberals didn't seem to mind when Bill Clinton lied under oath...
4. In order to lie, you have to intentionally tell untrue statements. That means you must know that what you are saying is false. Regarding his "lying," Libby said his statements were based on conversations he couldn't remember or about which he was confused. That means there was no intent behind his untrue statements. He did NOT lie under oath, even though a liberal DC jury convicted him. (Nor did Bush "lie" about WMDs. There were in fact WMDs found in Iraq, hundreds of them, and even if there weren't it wouldn't have been a lie, since Bush did not intentionally make untrue statements about the existence of WMDs).
   
5. The whole investigation was sham anyway, based on actual, documented lies by Joe Wilson. Valerie Plame was not covert at the time she was "outted;" Wilson has said so himself, as have others. No crime was committed, and Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald knew it before he charged Libby. It was all just an attempt to get at Rove, Cheney and Bush.
   
6. Libby was not even allowed to adequately defend himself against the false charges, as key evidence and testimony were kept out of the trial by the judge.
   

This whole case is a travesty of the American justice system. Hopefully the verdict will be overturned upon appeal.

Libby Juror: "Pardon Him"
Two jurors from the Lewis Libby trial have now confessed that they would like to see Libby pardoned. Okay... THEN WHY DID YOU CONVICT HIM IN THE FIRST PLACE!!! Unbelievable.

Edwards: Jesus Would Be "Appalled"
It's not so much the actual phrasing of Edwards' remark, but the context in which he is invoking the name of Jesus. It's another guilt trip for American liberals, who will willingly open their wallets and give the government more money. Why don't you lead by example, sir, and give up one of your mansions to some of the suffering? I guess, based on the reaction to Edwards' statement, that he was not content to alienate just the Jews with his Israel remark. He had to find a way to alientate Christians too. Who's next, Hindus?

Hillary Adopts Southern Accent
Just more of the same from her. What saddens me is that the people at this church do not seem to recognize that she is pandering to them. I guess when Sen. Clinton says what people want to hear, they don't care if she's being genuine (or that she is a power hungry socialist extremist).

Republican House Leader Has to Smoke With Democrats
This may be one of the reasons that Republicans become weak-kneed liberals once they get to Washington.

Mother Brings "Wrongful Birth" Lawsuit
A woman in Boston is suing two doctors and Planned Parenthood after she gave birth following a failed abortion. My thoughts: this is a woman who may never be able to love her daughter. And, the child (if she finds out she was almost aborted) will have to deal with a lot of emotional baggage. Maybe the daughter will become a leader in the Pro-Life movement now... you never know.

Comedy Central Comic Has Sex with "God" in TV Show
Come on... like Comedy Central had any taste to begin with. Who's suprised at this? Have they watched any of the other garbage on Comedy Central (ahem... Reno 911). It's one of the reasons why I don't have cable.

Connecticut Bill Seeks to Regulate MySpace and other Internet Sites
Well, here's another crusade for State Attorney General Richard Blumenthal and social conservatives. Okay, while I understand the importance of safe internet usage, I am also wary of government control of this medium. Right now we are free to discuss ideas, buy and sell, and connect with people around the world. So because of a few jerks we should all be restricted? Slippery Slope... Will we then see government restrictions on what bloggers can post? An eCampaign Finance Reform? Why not fine the kids who use internet sites inappropriately? Why does everyone have to pick on MySpace? Personally, I think it's bunch of adults who have forgotten what it's like to be a teenage or even a college student. The state's solution to internet security is the same as stopping gun crimes by putting locks on guns. It doesn't solve the problem, it just burdens the people making the guns/running the websites. It's typical government action: blame the producers, tell people there are no consequences to their choices, and promise that the state will make everything better. Parents need to take responsibility and monitor their childrens' internet usage, instead of demanding that the government do it. Let's keep the internet free.