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 ...
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.
I read the article. It appears you have not.
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.
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.”
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.
“Bubba was a centrist. That’s why I voted for him in 1992.”
LOL!
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?
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.
“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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
I read the article, and I didn't get a single bit of 'cheerleading for Hillary' out of it.
It very much looks like I should have. Out of respect for copyright rules and sensitivities I usually try to keep my excerpts short.
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.
What made the 1990's wonderful was the Republican takeover of Congress.
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.