"The Clintons are counting on America to digest their ethical lapses the way a python swallows a goat" Will we?

Hillary’s Cynical Song of Self

Recently I wrote a column about Hillary Clinton’s method of lying: bald deceit sold to liberals with a wink-and-nod as the price of advancing a progressive agenda in this bigoted country of ours. Several readers wrote me to object that the mendacity I ascribed to Mrs. Clinton applied equally to Republicans.

Maybe. But what was striking about these critics is that none of them bothered to rebut the point that Mrs. Clinton is a habitual liar who treats truthfulness in politics the way a calorie-counting diner might treat hollandaise sauce on steak: to be kept strictly on the side or dribbled on in measured doses. Her lying has become as much a given in the liberal mind as Bill Clinton’s womanizing: He does his thing, she does hers.

Get over it.

All of which means that Mrs. Clinton’s presidential bid is an exercise in—and a referendum on—cynicism, partly hers but mainly ours. Democrats who nominate Mrs. Clinton will transform their party into the party of cynics; an America that elects Mrs. Clinton as its president will do so as a nation of cynics. Is that how we see, or what we want for, ourselves?

This is what the 2016 election is about. You know already that if Mrs. Clinton runs for president as an Elizabeth Warren-style populist she won’t mean a word of it, any more than she would mean it if she ran as a ’90s-style New Democrat or a ’70s-style social reformer. The real Hillary, we are asked to believe, is large and contains multitudes.

In other words, she’s singing a Song of Herself. She will say, do, and be pretty much anything to get elected. And the rest of us are supposed to fall in line because we prefer our politics to be transactional not principled, our politicians to be opportunists not idealists, and our national creed to be “do what you gotta do” not “upon this rock.” This is what might be called the Clinton Bargain: You can always count on their self-interest trumping other considerations, so you never have to fear that they can’t be bought.

The only question is who is doing the buying.

In recent days we’ve begun to learn some of their names: [...]

Hillary doesn't have to appear perfect to win; she only has to appear to be less-bad than any Republican candidate she runs against. And with the media on her side, she just might pull it off.

The article goes on to postulate the reasons why. And one or two why-nots. The author thinks Hillary can be beat. Ida know. I won't hold my breath. Read the whole thing, and see what you think.


Also see: Clinton's email spin-control, and the questions that nobody is asking

     

"Stand By Your Man": what does that really mean inside of Republican party politics?

This is a question I've been looking at a lot lately. I'm not the only Republican voter who has been... less than satisfied with some of the decisions of George W. Bush.

I've disagreed with the president on a lot of things right from the beginning, but he got my vote because letting the opposition he was running against win instead would have been so very much worse. So I have supported the President, albeit with some reservations.

Recently I dropped out of the "Blogs for Bush" blog roll, and deleted it from my sidebar. I've replaced it with "The Victory Wing of the Republican Party", which I have applied to join. I really want victory for the Republican's in 2008.

I dropped out of "Blogs for Bush", not because I wanted to bash Bush (I don't), but because he is not running again. I supported him when he was our horse in the race; I will continue to offer support, in those areas which I can agree, while he's still in office. But with no elections ahead for him, I did not want to continue to carry his banner. The Republican's will have a new horse in the race in 2008, and I don't see the point of waving the Bush flag anymore. Frankly, I'm hoping for a new candidate that's a bit closer to what I want.

Does that make me a Bush Basher? I hope not! Too many on the Left are doing that already, and my disagreements with the President are very different than theirs. There are also grumblings from conservatives too, not all of which I agree with either.

Dee at "Conservatism with Heart" has an excellent post in defense of W, "Going Out on a Limb--Why Bush Will Be a Winner!!". She rightly reminds us of the many good things W. has accomplished, and things he also tried to do. Even if you can't agree with all his efforts, can there be any doubt that from a Republican perspective, the end result has been better than anything Al Gore or John Kerry would have done?

For many years, I was registered as an independent, even though I voted Republican. I agree with about 90 percent of my state's Republican Party Platform. The other 10 percent of it just annoyed me.

I eventually realized that I was letting that 10 percent stop me from participating in the party I was voting for anyway, and that was silly. I finally registered as Republican.

I did so because I figure one of the best ways to get good candidates is to participate in the primaries. Even then you don't always end up with your ideal candidate.

When that happens, your choice is sometimes to choose the lesser of two evils; to vote for your less than ideal Republican so as not to surrender the field to a far worse Democrat.

Sometimes "standing by your man" means agreeing where you can, and agreeing to disagree where you can't agree. It's not a comfortable position to be in, but sometimes it's all you have.

The difficulty for me is, how do you express your disagreement with W, without joining the Bush Bashing of the Left? It's a delicate line to walk.

Dropping the "Blogs for Bush" blog roll was, for me, more about saying "I want something different next time" rather than about bashing Bush. Perhaps it was a mistake to drop "Blogs for Bush". When walking a delicate line, it's easy to misstep.

There are those who would argue that disagreeing with the President publicly is letting the Party down. Yet there IS a difference between offering a civil argument on an issue in hope of influencing policy, as opposed to endless angry rantings, ravings and emotional outbursts. The former is discourse; the latter is bashing.

The actual bashing of Bush by members so his own party does cause me concern... for the party itself. I think the 2006 election results are a good indication of what can happen if Republicans insist on being more idealistic than realistic at the voting booth. This Democratic victory has been painful and costly in too many ways.

Supposedly, many voters wanted to "teach a lesson" to Republican politicians by staying away from the polls or voting for alternative parties. I believe there was indeed a lesson to be learned from the 2006 election results. Will we, the voters, actually learn it, before we end up with President Hillary Clinton?


Related Links:

What is Wrong with Peggy Noonan??

Peggy Noonan was a Democrat