Posted on 04/24/2015 9:17:23 AM PDT by Kaslin
There was a time when Hillary Clinton was a bona fide leftist radical, but those days have past, swallowed up by her lust for power and money.
Don't get me wrong; she's still a true liberal who stands for everything I oppose, and her White House ambitions and her flawed character are a dangerous mixture. She'll say and do whatever she has to in order to win.
But as I've said, I'm not that fearful that she'll even be nominated. What does have me concerned is the degree of extremism inhabiting the Democratic Party that makes it necessary and even acceptable for her to make radical statements to stay in contention. What does concern me is that such extremism is no longer considered as such by an ever-growing number of people. I'm troubled by the number of rank-and-file Democratic voters willing to overlook almost anything to advance an agenda they support. I'm alarmed by the lack of moral clarity among people who see nothing wrong with Hillary's trail of scandals or her arrogant refusal to address the most current batch.
I guess I need to make a better effort to fit into this century, where morality is relative, ethics are situational and truth is subjective.
Let's look at Hillary's most recent outrageous utterance to show how far we've descended. In some choreographed meeting with "economists" (read: ministers of social justice), she pretended to study a graph charting the growth of real wages for the wealthiest Americans. It was reportedly a "bar so steep it hardly fit on the chart."
Clinton, feigning indignation and non-hypocrisy, reportedly pointed to the top category and said the economy requires a "toppling" of the wealthiest 1 percent. The economy requires a toppling? I guess that was an inadvertent misprint. Surely, The New York Times meant to say, "Hillary Clinton's pseudo-populist campaign requires that she position herself as a public servant who lies awake at night agonizing over the plague of income inequality and contemplating what she can do to rescue the bedraggled, impecunious and deprived 99 percent of Americans, with whom she could once identify and now can only imitate."
I've long marveled at liberal voters' willingness to ignore the gross inconsistency between the causes liberal politicians champion and the conduct of their personal lives. I now understand it, however, because I realize that liberals judge people not based on their personal character or conduct but based on the political and social views they publicly promote. This is how Hillary knows she can make whatever ridiculously hypocritical statements she wants and get a pass from the Democratic base.
Sadly, Republicans are not going to lay a hand on Democratic candidates by pointing out their hypocrisy, so maybe they should consider the novel idea of contesting their ideas instead of emulating their phony platform of compassion. For whether or not Hillary's the nominee, the eventual Democratic presidential candidate will mouth the same platitudes and manufactured grievances.
There are so many things wrong with Hillary's alleged plan to "topple" the rich. First, her statement assumes that the top tier of income earners is destroying this miserable economy. For six-plus years, President Barack Obama has been peddling the myth that the corporatist banker fat cats caused the 2008 financial crisis, when the evidence indicates that the primary culprits were do-gooder liberal politicians -- the same ones who began pointing fingers at the bankers as soon as the crisis hit to deflect blame from themselves and make convenient scapegoats on whose back they would further grow the regulatory leviathan.
Second, her statement probably assumes that most of those in the top 1 percent got where they are as a result of corruption or manipulating the system, which is equally untrue -- except, of course, in the case of the Clintons.
Third, if it doesn't assume corruption or manipulation, then it assumes that it is inherently immoral for some to earn a great deal more than others. That is, in fact, what many of the leftist community organizers believe, but it is out of phase with the American idea -- not to mention morally wrong to demonize the successful, or else God wouldn't have prohibited covetousness.
Fourth, Hillary's statement implies that this disparity in incomes occurred because of policies she opposes, but in fact, she effectively supports the economic policies of Obama, on whose watch these current disparities exist.
Fifth, it assumes that there is a fair, legal and effective way to remedy this disparity, but short of fascist, Marxist confiscation, no such remedy exists, and those tried by socialists in the past have failed.
Sixth, it assumes that even if there were an effective remedy for the disparity, it would somehow make society better or help the other 99 percent, but it wouldn't, because punishing success and penalizing wealth would hurt not only the wealthy but also the overall economy.
Seventh, the statement betrays an astonishingly hostile attitude toward the undying ideal upon which this nation was founded -- liberty.
I sincerely hope that as this campaign unfolds, the Republican nominee will have the courage to challenge the underlying assumptions of socialism that animate the modern Democratic Party and will recapture and articulate the messages of liberty and economic growth and explain how a rising tide truly does lift all boats.
For Hillary it all comes down to the nomination. 46 or 47 percent of this nation would vote for Charles Manson if he were the nominee....
She's a LONG time opponent of liberty:
"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good. June 29, 2004.
"(We) ... can't just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people." June 4, 2007
The Clintons embody the class of people that went from rebelling against the system, to becoming the system.
The fact that they can convince people that they aren’t the establishment is pathetic.
Hopefully, Hillary Clinton will be the last gurgling sounds of the bombed-out sinking leftist ship.
WE KNOW VERY LITTLE ABOUT WANNABE HILLARY CLINTON'S POLITICAL AGENDA As she hopscotched around the country to the tune of $300,000 per hop---Hillary craftily held back her political game plan to her audiences.......to avoid scrutiny.
BUT THIS WE KNOW--In her cunning little fem-lib brain Hillary will exploit the "women's vote"----launching new initiatives to promote late-term abortions---maybe forming a "White House Woman's Equality Caucus" as a subterfuge for late-term abortion expansion programs designed to further the Democrats' national “war on women” campaign theme.
God only knows what blood and gore Hillary will throw to the snarling Planned Parenthood types in order to solidify her bona fides w/ the genital-sniffing rubbermaids.
Kate McKinnon as Hillary Clinton on "Saturday Night Live"----satirizing Hillary as a manipulative, clawing robot who has
coveted the role as leader of the free world for decades.
PIC Credit NBC
I hop this is true. We all know it has happened before and once the press starts to pile on, the momentum of the growing story can't be stopped...
Maybe.
If Elizabeth Warren announces her candidacy then I would expect the media to continue to trash Hillary.
The media needs someone to support and as of right now, it’s Hillary.
I suspect they won’t pursue/trash HRC much longer if she is the only game in town.
This is a dubious assertion. The way to argue this point is not to deny that "corporatist banker fat cats" caused the problem (of course they were - and still are - the prime movers in the ongoing financial market manipulation in their attempts to stave off a deflationary depression) but to clearly point out that a huge percentage of those individuals are in fact major players in the Democrat power structure.
Put more bluntly: if the GOP cannot hang John Corzine around Hillary's neck, then they are not, in fact, an opposition party at all.
You are, of course, referring to the moderate wing of the Unitparty, right?
For Hillary it all comes down to the nomination.
Against a conservative like Cruz or Walker she loses.
We have a monumental task to nominate a conservative against the combined efforts of the RNC, The Cheap Labor Express and The Ministry Of Propaganda.
Well, Manson might be held to 43% or so.
HRC supporters will always see her as a populist or whatever they want her to be. Mostly though, they see her as the vehicle to bring back “their Bill”.
Like your logic, and she’ll have $2.5b to persuade the other 4%.
She will never have a final role. Her long-time backers will resurrect her for generations to come. They are indeed “true believers” in HRC.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
