Posted on 03/01/2008 7:15:57 AM PST by Richard Poe
| by Richard Lawrence Poe Friday, February 29, 2008 |
Archives Permanent Link |
I ADDRESS this column to that new breed of conservative, the Hillarycon. These are conservatives who support Hillary Clinton. Below I describe the three types of Hillarycon and explain why each is wrong.
TYPE 1: The Innocent Hillarycon
The first type is the most well-meaning, but possibly the most deluded. Innocent Hillarycons view Hillary as a weaker candidate than Obama, and thus seek to help Hillary win the nomination.
They are wrong. Hillary's weakness is an illusion. She is playing rope-a-dope with Obama. By hanging on the ropes, and taking Obama's punches, Hillary saves her strength for the knockout punch.
Rest assured, the knockout will come. No matter how many primaries Obama wins, Hillary will beat him at the convention. Backroom intrigue is her specialty.
Hillary will bully, bribe and blackmail the superdelegates to vote for her. She will claim disqualified delegates from Michigan and Florida. She will steal state delegates through litigation. At the appointed time, Hillary's media operatives will ambush Obama with allegations of corruption, immorality and extremism.
Hillary has powerful patrons in all the right places. She will win the nomination.
The real purpose of Hillary's rope-a-dope is to lull Republicans into complacency. In this, she has largely succeeded.
Conservative talk radio jocks have lost interest in Hillary. On February 11, Sean Hannity suspended his "Stop Hillary Express" campaign, arguing that Obama poses a greater threat. Rush Limbaugh told listeners on February 26, "the longer Hillary can stay in this the better for us." He urged Republicans to register as Democrats and vote for Hillary in the primaries, "to keep that party at war with itself."
Hillary's rope-a-dope has paralyzed conservative book publishers, none of whom are assigning Hillary exposés. They fear she will drop from the race before their books hit the shelves.
"When I get anti-Hillary proposals, I tell them, ‘Just wait and see if she becomes president,’ ’’ says Marji Ross, president of Regnery Publishing. Regnery's 2004 release Unfit for Command torpedoed John Kerry's campaign.
No Unfit for Command will dog Hillary this election season. It is too late to assign such a research-intensive book. Hillary has outmaneuvered the dirt-diggers.
TYPE 2: The Crafty Hillarycon
The second type of Hillarycon supports her for Machiavellian reasons. A Hillary presidency would teach Americans a lesson, they say. Her extremist policies would shock the nation, driving voters into the conservative camp.
Nonsense. This is a formula for suicide. As president, Hillary would liquidate conservatives, unleashing the fury of America's counterterror apparatus against us.
Most vulnerable are volunteer groups like the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, which patrols the Mexican border to stop illegal crossings. Minutemen were outraged when President Bush called them "vigilantes". But Bush never hampered their operations. President Hillary would handle them differently. She would declare the Minutemen "domestic terrorists" and send them to Gitmo for waterboarding.
If this sounds farfetched, consider the counterterror policies of the last Clinton regime. Barely a month after Bill Clinton took office in January 1993, Muslim jihadists detonated a bomb beneath the World Trade Center, killing six and injuring thousands. The Clintons responded by declaring war on "domestic terrorists".
Only two days after the 1993 World Trade Center bombing -- on February 28, 1993 -- the Clintons laid siege to the Branch Davidian compound near Waco, Texas. New York Governor Mario Cuomo told NBC on March 1 that our biggest security threat was, “Americans killing one another with guns". Attorney General Janet Reno declared on March 13 that her number one priority would be protecting abortion clinics from terror attacks. Then came Project Megiddo, an FBI program targeting rightwing Christians.
TYPE 3: The Spiteful Hillarycon
The third type of Hillarycon supports Hillary out of spite. These are ideological purists whose hatred for President Bush has metastasized into hatred for all things Republican. Since they must vote Democrat or not vote at all, they choose Hillary, claiming she is more "conservative" than the rest.
Spiteful Hillarycons are the worst of the lot, because they are phonies. They know very well that Hillary has not a "conservative" bone in her body. But then, neither have the Spiteful Hillarycons.
What they share with Hillary is anger and vengefulness. They would gladly cast their votes for Mao Tse-Tung, if they thought it would vex President Bush. Their motives are psychological, not political.
This then is the Hillarycon agenda. It is neither a Republican agenda, nor a conservative agenda, nor a winning agenda. It is Hillary's agenda. Surely we can do better than this.
|
Richard Lawrence Poe is a contributing editor to Newsmax, an award-winning journalist and a New York Times bestselling author. His latest book is The Shadow Party: How George Soros, Hillary Clinton and Sixties Radicals Siezed Control of the Democratic Party, co-written with David Horowitz. |
Does it matter whether you go over the cliff slow or fast if you can't keep it from going over the cliff?
Are the Democrats of today a threat to the current American way of life? You bet!
Is John McCain gaining the Presidency a threat to the current American way of life?
You bet, judging by his actions of the past decade.
Does it really matter if it's my enemies or my "friends" that kill me? I'm still dead.
This country is on the way down due to many issues, not just the Democratic party or Hitlery..
I can’t honestly see Obama taking Hillary as a VP, but I could see it the other way around.
Gondring responded: Yes. ... Why?
In my experience, people who attach great importance to the so-called "right to die" tend to be either militant atheists or New Age death cultists. Such people tend to be culturally more akin to leftwing Democrats than to rightwing Republicans.
This might partially explain why the possibility of a Democrat victory does not alarm you.
If you study Democrat healthcare proposals, you will see that all have the same overriding purpose, which is to drastically cut health spending in the United States. Hillary claims that her plan will cut health spending by $120 billion per year. The only way to accomplish such cuts is to ration health care, that is, to set up rules and procedures for denying care to people who want it, even if they can afford it.
The Democrats are pushing health rationing because they have decided it is the only way to save Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security from bankruptcy. Rather than allowing these programs to die, they would prefer to allow millions of people to die -- elderly people in particular. Government programs are more important to them than people.
The money behind the right-to-die movement comes overwhelmingly from far-left foundations allied with the Democratic Party. Its purpose is to convince people that dying is a "right" and even a "duty", and that spending money to stay alive past a certain point is selfish and wasteful.
Most people who have been suckered into this sort of thinking do not realize what the Democrats are really planning.
During Hurricane Katrina, doctors at Memorial Medical Center in New Orleans systematically singled out all patients who had signed "do not resuscitate" orders and killed them by lethal injection.
Medical professionals are currently being trained and conditioned to believe that when a person signs a "do not resuscitate" order, they are signing away their right to live, and may be killed at any time, at a doctor's discretion, whenever their continued existence becomes inconvenient. This is what happened in New Orleans.
For more details, see my article, "Hillary Wants You Dead".
I wouldn't know how to begin estimating the actual number of Hillarycons out there, but I'm constantly running into them.
Take Larry Auster, for example, a well-known conservative blogger with a good-sized following. After reading my "Open Letter to Hillary Conservatives", Mr. Auster posted a little piece on Saturday, March 1 proudly declaring himself to be just that; a "Hillary conservative". Here it is:
by Lawrence Auster
"When Richard Poe's latest article, entitled 'An Open Letter to Hillary Conservatives,' arrived in my e-mail today, I eagerly read it, since I am a Hillary conservative. But, while interestingly breaking down the phenomenon into three types of Hillarycons, it's a disappointing piece. Poe fails to acknowledge any possible rational reason for a conservative to prefer Hillary. For example, he doesn't acknowledge the argument that McCain is totally unacceptable from the point of view of serious conservatives, and therefore it is not irrational of them to regard Hillary as an acceptable alternative to McCain, for both negative and positive reasons. First, Hillary represents a less radical path than the unknown Obama-god. Second, her victory would finally remove the insane neocons from power along with their Thousand Year Iraq. And third, her presidency would give conservatives a chance to rediscover conservatism again by having a leftist Democrat in the White House whom they will oppose rather than a leftist Republican in the White House whom they will support. But Poe, instead of acknowledging any possible rational reasons for preferring Hillary, denounces all three types of Hillarycons as deluded or mischievous."
A number of interesting comments follow.
Please see Post 104 for conclusive evidence of the existence of a living, breathing specimen of homo hillaryconservans.
Ah, but she’s raised more than $25 million for the general campaign, and she can’t get at that yet. Where will that go if she’s not the nominee?
She also raised $25 million the week after she lent herself $5 mil.
I’d be 1000% certain, that she’s paid herself back on the loan
The White House is going to be occupied by the Democrats or someone worse within the next couple decades; indeed, I would be very surprised if that doesn't happen within the next five years. The further left the country moves before that happens, the harder it will be for the country to recover.
Perhaps you can formulate some realistic scenario in which the country moves to the right over the next four years following a McCain victory. I guess if McCain were to have a heart attack or were otherwise incapacitated that could happen, but I can't see any other plausible scenarios. Can you offer any?
One problem with honoring the "right to die" is that it creates a moral hazard when providing care for someone ceases to be profitable, even (especially) if the person has paid in advance for such care and is thus rightly entitled to it.
If patients who are treated poorly are more likely to seek an "early exit", then caregivers that want to be rid of patients will have an incentive to make them miserable. By what means would you ensure that caregivers make a bona fide effort to keep unprofitable patients happy, thus causing them to live longer and cost more money?
By what means would you ensure that caregivers make a bona fide effort to keep unprofitable patients happy, thus causing them to live longer and cost more money?
Introduce the market back into the system (what a concept! A conservative one, at that!)
Before anyone says, "the poor would suffer," it should be realized that it wouldn't even have to be a fully monetary market. Even public funding can benefit from a ratings market, with compensation tied to patient-given ratings.
There isn't really enough incentive today in many cases, but there isn't a disincentive either. Institutions may not be keen on spending a lot of money on their patients' happiness, but they're more likely to get new patients if it looks like they're caring for their existing ones; thus, they have incentive to care for patients at least to the extent that doing so doesn't increase costs.
By contrast, adding "right to die" to the equation creates an incentive to deny patients event those comforts which would have no direct cost, since making the patient happier may cause the patient to stick around longer.
Remember, life is something an individual person has...the person isn't just a life. Let's be pro-individual, and not just consider only one aspect of each person.
Remember China Gate. End of discussion. No sane person can support Hitlery.
Very interesting. I noticed yesterday that all of a sudden it appears that Sean has focused all of his energy bashing Obama. I could swear he has a big crush on Kirsten, the blond Hillary shill. It’s so sad to see so the so called good guys get manipulated. Cant they see what a phoney that woman is? It seems the Hillary crowd will resort to anything to win, including seducing so called normal people. It’s pathetic to watch. I guess Hillary can’t just run a normal election, no she has to engage in all of this disgusting intrigue. If she wanted to, she could just run a normal campaign. But can she do that? No, being pure evil that she is it is only fun to win if she can seduce and outrage an entire nation. For Hillary, winning is only meaningful if she can make it feel like rape. It’s not enough for her to win fair and square, she has to make it sleazy.
I’m a little of number one, a little of number two. I did chicken out at the last second and go to the R line.
My opinion is that if America elects her, America deserves her and we should make no effort to bail America out in 2010, either.
[Howard Dean says Penn will decide the nomination]
Pennsylvania no longer on the horizon
Tribune-Review | salena zito
Posted on 03/04/2008 1:08:31 PM EST by Salena Zito
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1980285/posts
[Hillary’s slimy campaign tricks continue]
Clinton cries foul in Texas; Obama lawyer hijacks call
The Hill | 4 March 08 | Sam Youngman
Posted on 03/04/2008 9:35:52 PM EST by SkyPilot
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1980522/posts
Obama Camp Infiltrates Clinton Call
ABC News | March 04, 2008 | Teddy Davis and Talal Al-Khatib
Posted on 03/04/2008 10:26:12 PM EST by 2ndDivisionVet
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1980534/posts
Questions Raised Whether Hillary Ad Darkened Obama
by FOXNews.com | 3/4/2008
Posted on 03/04/2008 4:33:17 PM EST by ME-262
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1980380/posts
DFU YouTube - Hillary gets caught making Obama blacker
YouTube | 3-4-08 | dfu
Posted on 03/04/2008 6:02:30 PM EST by doug from upland
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1980421/posts
[Hillary Shillery escalates]
Obama mentioned among documents recovered by Colombia from slain FARC leader Raul Reyes
http://www.marthacolmenares.com/ | Martha Colmenares
Posted on 03/04/2008 2:11:28 PM EST by ElCapitanAmericaLives
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1980316/posts
Patient Conyers hopes to move slavery bill during an Obama administration
http://thehill.com/
Posted on 03/03/2008 11:18:34 PM EST by stickman20089
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1980005/posts
Obama: Sermon on Mount Justifies Same-Sex Unions
Click here for CNSnews story
Posted on 03/03/2008 11:03:52 AM EST by Gopher Broke
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1979610/posts
Are Obama Supporters Crossing the Line in Getting Superdelegates to Leave the Clinton Camp?
Fox News | February 29, 2008 | Brit Hume
Posted on 03/02/2008 1:09:17 PM EST by kingattax
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1979210/posts
Clinton wins could trump Obama delegate edge
San Francisco Chronicle | 3/4/8 | Carolyn Lochhead
Posted on 03/04/2008 11:01:39 AM EST by SmithL
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1980213/posts
Could Obama Lose One Quarter of Hillary’s Supporters in a General Election? YES
National Review | 03/04/2008 | Geraghty
Posted on 03/04/2008 9:05:50 PM EST by OnRiver
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1980512/posts
[media shill alibi]
Ask Tough Questions? Yes, They Can! (Press vs. Obama)
The Washington Post | March 4, 2008 | Dana Milbank
Posted on 03/04/2008 1:48:33 PM EST by 2ndDivisionVet
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1980301/posts
[left-wing media idiocy on parade]
Clift Screams: Being Forced to Choose Between Obama and Hillary is a ‘Tragedy’
News Busters | March 3, 2008 | Geoffrey Dickens
Posted on 03/04/2008 12:04:30 PM EST by Malone LaVeigh
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1980251/posts
[”what are they waitin’ for?” dep’t]
Tom Browkaw: Obama has 50 superdelegates waiting to endorse him
The Times | 3-4-08 | Mark Halperin
Posted on 03/04/2008 4:18:33 PM EST by Anti-Hillary
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1980369/posts
Oldie but goodie bump
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.