from Dick Morris at The Hill, Clinton deploys B Team
Their strategy is laughable. After losing 84 percent of young voters in Iowa — and failing to recover them in New Hampshire — they sent in two aging fossils of feminism to insult and threaten young women.
The 81-year-old feminist Gloria Steinem charged that young women are only backing Sanders because that’s where they can meet boys. And 78-year-old Madeleine Albright threatened to consign to a “special place in hell” women who don’t back female candidates like Clinton.
Those are two great ways to attract young voters.
Rather than face the rejection of their ideas the left will resort to insult. Hillary’s aging white sycophants may stick with her like a loyal dog, but perhaps the rest of the young Democrats have had enough. It remains to see how much of Bernie’s support is just a rejection of Hillary and what an awful candidate she is.
From The Washington Times, Language Labels and Laws, by Richard Rahn
The “progressive” Hillary Clinton wants more government regulation, spending, and taxation, while the “progressive” Bill Clinton told us two decades ago that the “era of big government is over” — and did, in fact, preside over a relatively smaller government in his second term. The progressive politicians say they want government actively involved in creating new jobs — primarily through more government spending. Yet, at the same time, they push for much higher minimum wages that kill job opportunities for the least skilled (which only those in complete denial of reality refuse to admit). The progressives tell us they want to break up the big banks. Yet, because the costs of all of the new financial regulations, which are often the brain children of the progressives, fall much harder on small banks than the big banks, the number of banks in the United States has fallen by 30 percent in the last 15 years. Labels such as liberal, progressive and conservative tell us little about which laws a politician is actually going to promote. Most people to some extent have both some libertarian and some statist views, e.g., students who are in favor of drug legalization but want “free stuff” from government to be paid for by others. Note how many Iowa farmers are in favor of smaller government and free markets, but push for ethanol subsidies.
Political semantics are important. FDR changed the term progressive to liberal and in the course completely changed the meaning. After Liberal became politically toxic candidate wanted to switch it back. Progressivism in practice is simply a highly regulated state that has viewed the constitution as an impediment to state power, presumably to improve society as they see fit, as opposed to the effort to restrain the power of the state in the pursuit of individual liberty and natural rights.
It is very telling that neither Debbie Wasserman Schultz or Hillary could distinguish between a socialist and a progressive. It is largely a question of mere degrees.
In fact, given the 100 year history of progressivism in America one could make the case that Hillary’s position is the conservative case which we need to progress from.
from Mark Perry’s Carpe Diem, this quote from Ayn Rand:
Throughout the history of Europe, the values and ideas of its people never changed on one basic point: Europe is a state-worshiping culture. It has always worshipped the power of the state, whether it is in the form of absolute monarchs, or later, of collectivists. European societies have never understood the importance of the individual and individual rights. Individualism is an American concept. Obviously, some people in Europe understand it, but they are the exceptions. Because European culture is so steeped in the altruistic idea that man must exist for others, the greatest distinction the European can dream of is to serve, or be rewarded by, the state. The state is regarded as an almost supernatural being and the individual citizen as just a serf.
In America, it is exactly the opposite. America is the first country in history that was deliberately and consciously founded on a certain philosophy. It is a philosophy, rooted in Aristotelianism, which respects the individual and holds that society should be based on individual rights. This principle was formulated for the first time in the United States by the Founding Fathers. It is so great an achievement that centuries from now, men should kneel when they think of what their forefathers created in this country.
while leftists in this country wish to emulate modern European socialism, they wish to forget that we are very different from Europe in our core philosophy, for better (much ) and occasionally for worse.
from National Review, Hillary’s Rationale for Opposing Citizens United Fell Apart in Last Week’s Debate
By asserting that she can take money from these groups, including honorary fees to spend as she sees fit for personal rather then political benefit, and that she has not been even slightly influenced by all this largess, she has disavowed the corrupting influence of money in politics far beyond anything contained in Citizens United. Money corrupts the typical politician, she seems to be claiming; but she alone is a person of such moral probity that, like Marlow venturing into the jungle in Heart of Darkness, she can escape unchanged — even when companies such as Goldman Sachs are cutting checks to her personal account. Does Clinton honestly believe it would be more corrupting if, rather than paying off Clinton directly, Goldman instead sponsored TV ads in support of her candidacy? Of course not — the very idea is ludicrous.
We will probably never know whether Secretary Clinton’s assertion at the debate of Sanders’s “very artful smear” was rehearsed, or spontaneous. What is beyond doubt is that Secretary Clinton just gutted the basis for her long opposition to the Citizens United decision.
The unmitigated arrogance and hypocrisy of this woman never ceases to amaze me.
from Katherine Timpf at National Review, Sorry, Madeline Albright, but I’d Rather Go to Hell Than Support Hillary Clinton
Second of all, I’d actually take the exact opposite view of Steinem’s: I’d say that the liberal women who support Bernie are actually more politically knowledgeable than those who support Hillary. They’ve been paying enough attention to know that Bernie has been fighting for gay rights since the ‘70s while Hillary didn’t support gay marriage until 2013, and that the head of Goldman Sachs said Bernie’s candidacy “has the potential to be a dangerous moment” while Hillary has taken tons of money from the firm for paid speeches. You know, to name a couple of things.
Albright’s comments were even more ludicrous than Steinem’s. During a rally for Hillary in Concord, New Hampshire on Sunday, Albright said that “there’s a special place in Hell for women who don’t help each other.”
But it totally is. First of all, feminism is supposed to be about women being able to make choices for themselves. Second of all, is Albright saying that Hillary should be sent to Hell? After all, the way that she actively worked to ruin the lives of women who accused her husband of sexual assault hardly qualifies as her giving her “help” to them. Or maybe there’s an exception for “bimbos?” That would be, of course, very feminist.
Personally, I would never support Hillary. She’s a hawkish, lying, corrupt, untrustworthy woman. She cares about nothing except money and her own political prowess, and will destroy anyone who dares to get in her way.
two thoughts: 1. Never waste time killing some one busy committing suicide (Dick Army) and 2.) the left can not handle dissent- when unable to defend their ideas they simply find ways to insult and demean any opposition