Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Hillary Myth
Weekly Standard ^ | May 14, 2016 (dated 5/23) | Fred Barnes

Posted on 05/14/2016 5:08:28 AM PDT by libstripper

Hillary Clinton sounds like Paul Ryan on the economy. She says she’s for "strong growth, fair growth, and long-term growth." She would abandon the slow-growth economics of President Obama and return us to those wonderful days in the 1990s when husband Bill was in charge. This is a different Hillary Clinton from the one we've seen in debates with Bernie Sanders, her socialist rival for the Democratic presidential nomination. It's the centrist-at-heart Clinton whom conservatives and Republicans eager for an acceptable alternative to Donald Trump can vote for.

(Excerpt) Read more at weeklystandard.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: corruption; election; hillary; trump
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-47 next last
To: goldstategop
Actually, I did read the article, something you appear not to have done, or you at least missed its last two paragraphs:

What about Trump? At best, he's a conservative by instinct, but not by philosophy. He's no supply-sider but he would cut personal and corporate tax rates substantially to create incentives to work, save, invest, and generate economic growth. Like Hillary, he's no free trader. He hasn't drifted to the left or, for that matter, to the right. He's asked for a list of potential conservative successors to Scalia. He exaggerates and mangles facts. But a nonstop liar like Hillary? Hardly. He's used every legal trick and heavy-handed tactic in the book in his business career. If he's corrupt, prosecutors haven't noticed. On foreign and national security affairs, he's a rookie, which is worrisome. He promises to stamp out ISIS quickly and build up our depleted military. He's not a hawk either.

On November 8, we'll choose between Clinton and Trump. It's not so much that he is better, though he is. But she fails to meet minimal standards a conservative or a Republican should insist on. A vWitch is so irghtfulote for Clinton would be wrong. Voting for a third-party candidate or not voting would be half a vote for Hillary. To defeat her and the myth, a vote for Trump is required. [My emphasis.]

So it turns out that Fred loathes the Witch, doesn't like Trump all that much, but has chosen to hold his nose and vote for Trump because the Witch so so frightful. That's exactly what Jim Robinson did in 2012 when he finally supported Mittens against Obola.

21 posted on 05/14/2016 5:39:53 AM PDT by libstripper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

I read the article. It appears you have not.


22 posted on 05/14/2016 5:41:16 AM PDT by gogeo (Donald Trump. Because it's finally come to that.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: TalBlack
Please read the whole article; that quote is not the message Fred's conveying.
23 posted on 05/14/2016 5:41:41 AM PDT by libstripper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop; All
"Here Barnes writes Hillary is an acceptable alternative for conservatives and Republicans to vote for."

No, he doesn't. He actually says the exact opposite. Here's his final conclusion, one he reluctantly arrived at:

On November 8, we'll choose between Clinton and Trump. It's not so much that he is better, though he is. But she fails to meet minimal standards a conservative or a Republican should insist on. A vote for Clinton would be wrong. Voting for a third-party candidate or not voting would be half a vote for Hillary. To defeat her and the myth, a vote for Trump is required.

It really does help to read the whole article before posting.

24 posted on 05/14/2016 5:47:02 AM PDT by libstripper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

I know it’s hard to read a full article. It requires somewhat of an attention span, but if you actually did, you would have read Barnes writing this at the end, “ A vote for Clinton would be wrong. Voting for a third-party candidate or not voting would be half a vote for Hillary. To defeat her and the myth, a vote for Trump is required.”


25 posted on 05/14/2016 5:47:54 AM PDT by tosh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: libstripper

Really? Then why pitch that she’s an acceptable alternative?

If Barnes wanted to rule that out, he would have said so up front.

You shouldn’t have to wade through an article to get to the punch line.

And most people look for a summary in the first half anyway.


26 posted on 05/14/2016 5:48:25 AM PDT by goldstategop ((In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

“Bubba was a centrist. That’s why I voted for him in 1992.”

LOL!


27 posted on 05/14/2016 5:49:04 AM PDT by TexasGator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: tosh

That’s not the impression I got from the opening quote.

If Barnes, really is pro Trump, he would have that said up front.

Why not?


28 posted on 05/14/2016 5:50:03 AM PDT by goldstategop ((In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
No, Fred Barnes is cheerleading for Hillary.

Jim Rob says no to #NeverTrumpers.

Try reading before posting - RIF on Weekly Standard.


Actually, you should have read the complete article rather than stopping at the setup.

Barnes has been anti-Trump, and he's trying a graceful course correction. This article basically says that Hillary Clinton is worse than Bill, and a vote for her or a third party is unacceptable. See below:

On November 8, we'll choose between Clinton and Trump. It's not so much that he is better, though he is. But she fails to meet minimal standards a conservative or a Republican should insist on. A vote for Clinton would be wrong. Voting for a third-party candidate or not voting would be half a vote for Hillary. To defeat her and the myth, a vote for Trump is required.
29 posted on 05/14/2016 5:50:51 AM PDT by Dr. Sivana ("There is no limit to the amount of good you can do if you don't care who gets the credit."-R.Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

You’re wrong. His conclusion is clear — vote Trump. He posits there’s a myth about Hilary as a centerist and the bulk of the article debunks the myth.


30 posted on 05/14/2016 5:51:57 AM PDT by vekzen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

“You shouldn’t have to wade through an article to get to the punch line.”

You don’t. You just have to read the headline.

Additionally, every paragraph goes to show that Hillary is NOT a viable choice by supporting the headline with facts.


31 posted on 05/14/2016 5:52:21 AM PDT by TexasGator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
He didn't argue that the Witch is an acceptable alternative to Trump. This is what he concluded:

On November 8, we'll choose between Clinton and Trump. It's not so much that he is better, though he is. But she fails to meet minimal standards a conservative or a Republican should insist on. A vote for Clinton would be wrong. Voting for a third-party candidate or not voting would be half a vote for Hillary. To defeat her and the myth, a vote for Trump is required.

It really does help to read the whole article.

32 posted on 05/14/2016 5:54:12 AM PDT by libstripper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

Fred Barnes is NOT supporting Hillary in this piece...last paragraph sums it up well;

“On November 8, we’ll choose between Clinton and Trump. It’s not so much that he is better, though he is. But she fails to meet minimal standards a conservative or a Republican should insist on. A vote for Clinton would be wrong. Voting for a third-party candidate or not voting would be half a vote for Hillary. To defeat her and the myth, a vote for Trump is required.”


33 posted on 05/14/2016 5:57:38 AM PDT by freddy005
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: libstripper

libstripper — could you expand your post to show the next couple of lines from the article? Barnes point is NOT what many commenters assume:

“Only there’s a problem: This Hillary Clinton is entirely mythical. She doesn’t exist. As the Democratic party has lurched to the left, she has lurched with it. While talking up growth, she has proposed no incentives to produce it. She relies on government spending to stir growth, Obama’s woeful policy. On tax cuts, she’s for boosting the top rate on individual income to 45 percent, the highest in three decades. Under her complicated plan, the tax rate on capital gains would jump from 23.8 percent to 39.6 percent, then to 47.4 percent with surtaxes. The Tax Foundation concluded her tax hikes would cut annual growth by 1 percent and shrink incomes by at least 0.9 percent. That’s a recipe for less job creation, more wage stagnation, fewer business startups, and a despondent country.


34 posted on 05/14/2016 6:04:12 AM PDT by Chewbarkah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bert

Barnes is trying desperately to salvage some credibility by trying, ever so gingerly, to distance himself sightly from the magazine’s owner Bill Kristol. Kristoll is still out casting about for a third party candidate. The bulk of its contributing writers are still, like Kristol, still in the “never Trump” camp. I’ve written them off.


35 posted on 05/14/2016 6:09:40 AM PDT by The Continental Op
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
No, Fred Barnes is cheerleading for Hillary.

I read the article, and I didn't get a single bit of 'cheerleading for Hillary' out of it.

36 posted on 05/14/2016 6:09:46 AM PDT by Quality_Not_Quantity (Democrat Drinking Game - Every time they mention a new social program, chug someone else's beer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Chewbarkah

It very much looks like I should have. Out of respect for copyright rules and sensitivities I usually try to keep my excerpts short.


37 posted on 05/14/2016 6:14:09 AM PDT by libstripper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: The Continental Op

Then there is Steve what’s his name.

Now that the primary is over and the heated discussion is over, Steve was allowed to return to Brett’s panel to provide thoughts on other subjects than the magazine’s anti trump party line.


38 posted on 05/14/2016 6:15:01 AM PDT by bert ((K.E.; N.P.; GOPc;+12, 73, ....Opabinia can teach us a lot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: libstripper

39 posted on 05/14/2016 6:49:35 AM PDT by Malone LaVeigh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: libstripper
those wonderful days in the 1990s when husband Bill was in charge.

What made the 1990's wonderful was the Republican takeover of Congress.

40 posted on 05/14/2016 7:10:57 AM PDT by aimhigh (1 John 3:23)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-47 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson