Victor Davis Hanson writes in the National Review, Moral Schizophrenics
But Ms. Clinton’s public ethics are loud and clear: She damns the effects of private money in polluting politics; she is furious about Wall Street profit-making; she is worried about the compensation of the struggling middle class. Indeed, so concerned is Hillary Clinton about the pernicious role of big money and the easy ability of our elites to make huge profits without traditional sweat and toil that she might well have to lecture her own son-in-law, who manages a multimillion-dollar hedge fund. Or better yet, Ms. Clinton’s advisers might warn her that in order to stop the pernicious role of big money in politics, she may be forced to top Barack Obama’s record fund-raising and rake in an anticipated $2.5 billion for the 2016 election.
From The Wall Street Journal Cliff Asness writes In Praising ObamaCare, They Bury It
That more people would be insured was never in dispute. If you mandate that people buy something, penalize them if they don’t and give it away to some, more people will end up with it. The proper response to this is: Duh.
The real question is how many of those covered by ObamaCare were previously uninsured, how increased coverage is translating into more or better health care, and at what cost this comes both to public finances and personal liberties—all compared with what other alternatives? That is the stuff for serious debate.
Five years ago, opponents of ObamaCare focused on many questions. Can the government force people to buy a good or service? If ObamaCare is constitutional, is there anything the government cannot force citizens to do? Will government intrusion into the health-care market raise or lower the long-term quality of care? What will it do to innovation? Is the Rube-Goldberg structure of ObamaCare the right—or even a reasonable—way to go about this? Should we pass laws first, read them second and force the courts and agencies to fix the problems? The real issues are principles and long-term effects, not “voilà!” proof that allows one side, either side, to say “we win!” based on shoddy logic.
from the Wall Street Journal, Clinton Cronyism
For those who have followed the Clintons, this is the latest chapter in an old story. Only weeks ago we learned how foreign governments made donations to the family foundation while Mrs. Clinton was Secretary of State. Even her son-in-law is taking to the family way of doing business, with his hedge fund now benefitting from big investments by the Wall Street friends of Bill and Hillary.
Then again, is anyone really surprised? This is the same woman who as first lady of Arkansas managed to turn a $1,000 investment in cattle futures into $100,000 over 10 months with an assist from some friends.
Liberals like Mrs. Clinton typically berate tea partiers and conservatives for denigrating government. But if American trust in government is at historic lows, this may have something to do with the sight of a Beltway where people become fabulously wealthy not by bringing some superior product or service to market but by cashing in on their political connections.
The Clintons didn’t invent crony capitalism. But when it comes to exploiting government for private gain, nobody does it better.
Peggy Noonan writes in the Wall Street Journal, Hillary Seems Tired, Not Hungry.
Everyone knows what the scandal is. She didn’t want a paper trail of her decisions and actions as secretary of state. She didn’t want to be questioned about them, ever. So she didn’t join the government’s paper-trail system, in this case the State Department’s official email system, which retains and archives records. She built her own private system and got to keep complete control of everything she’d done or written. She no doubt assumed no one outside would ask and no one inside would insist—she’s Hillary, don’t mess with her.
She knew the story might blow but maybe it wouldn’t, worth the chance considering the payoff: secrecy. If what she did became public she’d deal with it then. When this week she was forced to, she stonewalled: “The server will remain private.”
Is it outrageous? Of course. Those are U.S. government documents she concealed and destroyed. The press is not covering for her and hard questions are being asked because everyone knows what the story is. It speaks of who she is and how she will govern. Everyone knows it.
Perhaps this is her McCarthy moment. Perhaps it is her Icarus moment.
From the New York Times, Maureen Dowd writes An Open Letter to firstname.lastname@example.org
Because you assume that if it’s good for the Clintons, it’s good for the world, you’re always tangling up government policy with your own needs, desires, deceptions, marital bargains and gremlins.
Instead of raising us up by behaving like exemplary, sterling people, you bring us down to your own level, a place of blurred lines and fungible ethics and sleazy associates. Your family’s foundation gobbles tens of millions from Saudi Arabia and other repressive regimes, whose unspoken message is: “We’re going to give you money to go improve the world. Now leave us alone to go persecute women.”
That’s an uncomfortable echo of a Clintonian tradeoff, which goes: “We’re going to give you the first woman president who will improve the country. Now leave us alone to break any rules we please.”
This is not the first time Ms. Dowd has expressed her displeasure at the Clinton’s ethical vacuum. Is it possible for the Democratic heir apparent to go forward without the endorsement of the sacred NYT? Is it possible that Ms. Dowd and other Democrats who are not blind sycophants would still vote for Ms. Clinton over any Republican?
Is this Clinton’s McCarthy moment? Is Ms. Dowd McCarthy’s Joseph Welch?