Why Hillary Clinton should never be president

In an article I missed the first time on American Power (the Americanneocon’s site), we have Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton telling us exactly why she shouldn’t be elected president:

    Hillary Clinton: the Good Democrat

    Hillary Clinton’s a good Democrat. She perfectly espouses all the (politically) correct Democratic Party positions, on issues from foreign policy to poverty.

    The notion of the “good Democrat” was a term some activists I knew, back in the 1990s, used to describe true-blue liberal partisans. Today’s New York Times story on Hillary Clinton’s orientation toward the role of government reminded me of the notion:

    Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton said that if she became president, the federal government would take a more active role in the economy to address what she called the excesses of the market and of the Bush administration.

    In one of her most extensive interviews about how she would approach the economy, Mrs. Clinton laid out a view of economic policy that differed in some ways from that of her husband, Bill Clinton. Mr. Clinton campaigned on his centrist views, and as president, he championed deficit reduction and trade agreements.

    Reflecting what her aides said were very different conditions today, Mrs. Clinton put her emphasis on issues like inequality and the role of institutions like government, rather than market forces, in addressing them.

    She said that economic excesses — including executive-pay packages she characterized as often “offensive” and “wrong” and a tax code that had become “so far out of whack” in favoring the wealthy — were holding down middle-class living standards.

    Interviewed between campaign appearances in Los Angeles on Thursday, she said those problems were also keeping the United States economy from growing as quickly as it could.

This is a prescription for failure. It is not, and never should be, the role of the government to determine what is “fair” for workers and employers and CEOs. Are some chief executive officers wildly overcompensated? Yeah, in my view, many are, but that isn’t the business of the government; that is the appropriate decision of corporations and shareholders.

And the notion that more government regulation of the economy is the solution to economic problems simply ignores all of the evidence. In our troubled world, we have had many quacks nobly-intended economic thinkers telling us that a government which worked for the good of the people would bring greater prosperity to the people — and that’s how we got the Soviet Union and the captive forced-socialist economies of the Warsaw Pact nations, that’s how we got a beautiful island like Cuba to be mired in poverty, that’s how we got all of those nobly-intended systems to impose totalitarian controls on their people, because such systems cannot tolerate dissent.

Read further in the article, and those who somehow believe that electing Hillary Clinton will be a third term for Bill Clinton will find themselves disabused of that notion — because it clearly notes the very different economic philosophies between them.

24 Comments

  1. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton said that if she became president, the federal government would take a more active role in the economy to address what she called the excesses of the market and of the Bush administration.

    This policy of Clinton sounds very familar

  2. You mean, apart from all the evidence?

    Wow Pheony, I had no idea that Krugman added his expertise as an economist to his resume?

    A little less biased opinion might add to the credibility of your argument—-than a hack like Krugman who invented the infection of BDS.

  3. No, Rovin, “BDS” was invented by people like yourself, who view any criticism or disapproval of Bush as evidence of derangement.

    Which means that, according to the approval polls, a large majority of the country is crazy.

  4. And I can certainly hope that Bill and Hillary will check the approval polls on what to do to prevent a mushroom cloud over a city near you.

    Do you think Bush checks his approval ratings each day to decide whether or not he’ll hurt some ones feelings protecting this nation from another 9/11 or worse? I have plenty of bones to pick with Bush over his fiscal policys and his immigration stance (criticism) but BDS started in Feb, 2000 when a sitting VP couldn’t even win his own state.

  5. BDS started in Feb, 2000 when a sitting VP couldn’t even win his own state.

    Yeah, all he won was the country. Thank God there were five Republicans on the Supreme Court to keep him from taking the office to which he had been elected.

  6. Yeah, all he won was the country. Thank God there were five Republicans on the Supreme Court to keep him from taking the office to which he had been elected.

    blah, blah, blah … you might want to re-read the constitution regarding the manner by which we elect presidents, BS. Gore lost the vote in the Electoral College. We’ve rehashed the reasons for the Supreme Court decision so many times even you should have gotten it by now, were you not infected with BDS. Regardless, Bush has now been president for the better part of two terms, having won the popular vote and the Electoral College vote to gain a second term, so … to coin a phrase … isn’t it time for you to just “move on?”

    …”BDS” was invented by people like yourself, who view any criticism or disapproval of Bush as evidence of derangement.

    Oh, contrair, “BDS” is observable in by people like yourself, who have an irrational hatred of Bush because he won a close election due to his oponent’s inability to win his own state or even West Virginia. Then the inconsiderate “evil genius” went and did it the second time. It has nothing to do with rational criticism by the “loyal opposition”. On the contrary, it’s an irrational temper tantrum that manifests itself in the public discourse of immature children such as yourself who can’t just “move on”.

  7. The Electoral College is a tremendous and wise innovation. Most of its function is to take plurality winners (Bill Clinton twice, remember?) and convert them in to strong majority winners. It also prevents having too small a number of high-population states from running rampant over smaller ones.

    There were previous examples of the popular vote winner not winning the election, and the republic survived. Amazingly enough, it seems that every time our modern thinkers try to claim that the Constitution is outmoded, the wisdom of the founding fathers comes back to prove itself better.

  8. But it is telling that I spotted that incoming link on the same page with stories about Governor Ed Rendell endorsing Senator Clinton — which ought to be enough to make any Pennsylvanian support Senator Obama — and the “Globe” being confused about which Clinton is running.

    That’s part of the Clinton plan: Mrs Clinton is cl;aiming that her husband’s experience is her own, and they are hoping that some people will see this as a form of “third term” for Bill Clinton. The spirit of Lurleen Wallace lives!

  9. BDS isn’t something Republicans invented; it’s an evident psychosis on the American left who blame George Bush for every ill that befalls anyone on the globe. Shoot, George Bush gets blamed for hurricanes, earthquakes, tsunamis, genocide in Africa, high gas prices, and your next door neighbor’s divorce. That’s the definition of “derangement,” imo.

  10. On the contrary, it’s an irrational temper tantrum that manifests itself in the public discourse of immature children such as yourself who can’t just “move on.”

    Hah! If the Democrats had pulled off anything half that underhanded, you guys would still be screaming like stuck pigs. It’s remarkable that we’ve accepted it as well as we have.

    George Bush gets blamed for hurricanes, earthquakes, tsunamis, genocide in Africa, high gas prices, and your next door neighbor’s divorce.

    Naah. Just little things like plunging us into a pointless and seemingly endless war, crashing the economy, trashing the environment, and stuffing the federal courts with knuckle-dragging reactionaries.

    It will be very amusing to see how Romney, McCain, or whoever winds up as the GOP nominee handles joint appearances with Bush. My guess is they’ll schedule them for the deepest pit in the Luray Caverns. (“No need to inform the liberal media about this, Mr. President.”)

  11. There are mayof us who will properly criticize President Bush on certain points but still not regret voting for him (twice).

    Those of us whose political involvement is more than just pecking away at a keyboard know that it is the art of the possible.

    As for stealing elections, only one party has the resources to manufacture votes on a wholsale basis and it is not the GOP. Sending a Daley to Florida in 2000 did reek of chutzapah.

  12. Hah! If the Democrats had pulled off anything half that underhanded, you guys would still be screaming like stuck pigs. It’s remarkable that we’ve accepted it as well as we have.

    And yet, the libs & lefties have spent 7 + years telling us what a dope, a maroon, George W Bush is, yet when it comes to the Florida election, somehow he morphed into an evil genius who secretly plotted to steal votes (knowing, magically, in advance that it would be the one state to do it in) as well as conspiring with the US Supreme Court to put the “fix” in.

  13. Naah. Just little things like plunging us into a pointless and seemingly endless war, crashing the economy, trashing the environment, and stuffing the federal courts with knuckle-dragging reactionaries.

    Yes, a pointless, endless war that has prevented more terrorism in this country, freed millions of Iraqis, etc. He inherited a faltering economy, then pulled it out of the biggest economic threat since Pearl Harbor. He has presided over an environment that has done far better at keeping the non-binding Kyoto accords than those countries which signed it. And he has gotten the finest legal minds in the country confirmed to the American judiciary–judges who don’t make crap up like liberals who think the Constitution means whatever delusional interpretation they give it at the moment. It has been, indeed, a stellar presidency. One has to wonder about the intellectual acumen of those who oppose him.

    And, btw, BS (how appropriate!), you are wrong. Moonbats did, in fact, blame George Bush for hurricanes, tsunamis, earthquakes, et al. You need to read the moonbatosphere more. It’s quite entertaining.

  14. And, btw, BS (how appropriate!), you are wrong. Moonbats did, in fact, blame George Bush for hurricanes, tsunamis, earthquakes, et al. You need to read the moonbatosphere more. It’s quite entertaining.

    Sharon, you forgot W and his “evil” cohorts plotted, planned and executed 9/11 flawlessly. They even thought ahead to wire Building 7 at the WTC as a finishing touch! Hmm, all this from what the left calls a “moron”. The next thing he’ll be blamed for is the volcanoes in South America and Indonesia, less hurricanes and none striking the USA, and whatever else the moonbats dream of next.

    My laugh of the day is all the Dims falling all over each other to promote this tax rebate to stimulate the economy. And here we have been told lower taxes don’t work for stimulating the economy for the last seven years.

  15. …pulled it out of the biggest economic threat…

    BWAAAAAAAHA hahaha ha ha!

    Oh, Sharon, you just keep drinking that Kool-Aid.

    A friendly word of advice, though: Keep reading the “moonbatosphere,” or whatever it is you read. Do not, under any circumstances, turn to the financial section; you might die from shock.

  16. Pingback: Primary Choices: Hillary Clinton - Blogrunner

  17. BS, you don’t think an attack on the financial sector in NYC was the biggest economic threat of our lifetime? I disagree. But, then again, I must not be swallowing the moonbatty Kool Aid. I just use common sense.

  18. #14 Hah! If the Democrats had pulled off anything half that underhanded, you guys would still be screaming like stuck pigs.

    Yes, I so remember the republicans “sreaming like stuck pigs” upon having discovered that large numbers of dead democrats voted in Chicago for JFK. And of course LBJ delivered the “dead” vote in Texas as well. And then there was Nixon’s challenge in the courts that drug out the result for several weeks.

    Then again there was the equally egregious republican reaction to the recent multiple recounts in the Washington State governor’s race in which the Republican initially won followed by at least two recounts in each of which additional boxes of democrat votes were “discovered” in democrat-run precincts, including, again, votes of their most reliable voters – the dearly departed.

    I suppose what really gets the left going, knowing what they know about how to “win” elections the old fashion way, is the suspicion that if the fix had been in, how is it that they could have lost. Why it must have been the nefarious republicans, particularly that evil genious Bushco.

    It’s remarkable that we’ve accepted it as well as we have … Given your collective immaturity I suppose that’s a true statement.

Comments are closed.