Friday, January 04, 2008

Holies

Hillary was booed in New Hampshire -- by Democrats.

With apologies to the late Phil Rizzuto, holy cow!

Meanwhile President Bush is contemplating an economic stimulus package.

Holy shit.

When Clinton tried this sort of Keynesian spending, the Republicans thwarted him. As of now there is one Senator on record against Bush's idea. One.

I'm getting tired of people like Rush saying that big spending Republicans are betraying conservatism. No, they're not. They're being conservative. Conservatism=big government; maybe not as big as what Hillary Clinton wants, but pretty damned big. Conservatives are for less government only when it means stopping Democrats from succeeding with their plans.

If you want to advocate less government on principle, you must come out here on the fringe with us radicals.

6 comments:

johnnycwest said...

Conservatism is an intellectual and political dead end. For anyone under the big conservative tent like Rush that may be less than obvious, but what is a conservative? A person who favors traditional views and values, tending to oppose change, moderate or cautious is a pretty good framework that I think would be acceptable to most conservatives. Tradition can be defined as a “time honored practice”. These definitions come from my first Google hit, from www.thefreedictionary.com.

I guess the underlying thought behind these principles is “who are we to question the smart people who came before us?” “Lets play it safe and follow the past and if we are to change, we must proceed slowly.” I am reminded of Howard Roark’s architectural teachers in this.

This can work as long as the past traditions are rational and moral. The legacy of the enlightenment is fading and conservatives are losing their bearings. The tradition is now big government – no big surprise – most conservatives accept the concept. Their guiding principles and axioms are powerless to question orthodoxy, which is now some form of socialism or statism. Conservatives will probably turn to religion even more as the consensus of what is a conservative continues to fracture and crumble. These people will become increasing desperate to find some foundation and guide to action and many will find comfort in mysticism.

I have to agree with Leonard Peikoff that religion and mysticism are now our greatest threats. They are growing and even many liberals may turn to the “conservatism” of religion. And if I have to chose between those who say there is no truth to those who say there is a divine truth that cannot be known or understand by reason, I will go with the nihilists every time. I eagerly look forward to Peikoff’s book on the DIM hypothesis.

In any case, we are in for a hell of a ride – buckle up.

Dismuke said...

"Hillary was booed in New Hampshire -- by Democrats."

There is a certain pleasure in seeing evil people finally getting at least some of what they so richly deserve being dished out to them. One of the most difficult things is seeing evil people and injustice and trying not to let it have an effect on one's own outlook. I have yet to be able to achieve the outlook Howard Roark had on such things - all too often I find myself in the mindset of Steven Mallory. So watching the possible downfall of someone such as Hillary Clinton, well that is a reminder that there is some justice in the world.

At the same time, in a certain sense, the very fact that Hillary Clinton even has to go through this campaign in the first place is a form of justice. Hillary Clinton's nastiness, abuse and outright contempt for subordinates has been well-documented over the years. And yet, in order to conduct a campaign, she has to go out into backwoods places such as Iowa and meet, be nice to and pretend that she cares about people she regards as bumpkins and hicks in places such as truck stops, gas stations and greasy spoon diners. She has to act like she considers such people to be important. And, unfortunately for her, they are important: she needs them in order for her to propel her further down the road in her insatiable lust for raw, naked power. To get where she wants to go, she must pander to people she despises - just as she has had to, all these years, put up with Bill whom she undoubtedly despises and resents in a number of ways in order to get where she is today.

Hillary needed Bill - without him, there is no way she would be a Senator and certainly not a presidential candidate. Unlike Hillary, Bill not only enjoyed chit chatting with the locals in truck stops and gas stations across America, he thrived on it. Such people provided him with an audience - and just as Hillary has an insatiable lust for raw savage power, Bill has an insatiable lust for an audience, any audience. He is a folksy, oversexed Peter Keating on steroids. Being in front of yokels eager to catch a glimpse of celebrity and watching them be mesmerized and impressed by his glib but folksy talk about policy - well, that is what gives Clinton his sense of self and a sense of meaning, far more than even cheap sex. Being in front of such people is torture for Hillary. For Bill, having to spend a weekend at home completely alone would be torture.

My guess is that Hillary Clinton's entire life has pretty much been a living hell. She is all-consumed by her quest to pursue absolute dictatorial power - and yet, to date, all she has been able to achieve is to get close to power. But she has never been in a position to exercise power in the absolute, unchecked and unquestioned way she lusts after. Her husband was president - not her. And his powers were limited both by his office and by an opposition and alternative media which was increasingly wise to the Clintons' methods and agendas. As a Senator - well, hers is merely one vote out of a hundred.

If she is successful in her quest for the presidency - well, I guarantee you she will be immediately frustrated by the limitations of that office and keep an eye out for whatever opening she can to bypass them. Watch out for an "emergency" in which she asks for an expansion of executive power. Or maybe she will take a play from FDR's book and attempt to pack the Supreme Court. If she has a Democratic Congress - well, they will assist her as pretty much that entire party has been Stalinized and they will do whatever they can to make sure that another peasant uprising such as what happened in 1994 CANNOT happen again. Look for the Fairness Doctrine to return and be expanded to the Internet.

But that can only happen IF she is able to get the nomination and IF she is able to win in the general election - and only IF she has a strong Democratic majority and IF the opposition and the alternative media are not able to raise a public outcry. That is a lot of ifs.

Hillary Clinton is one of those people born in the wrong place and in the wrong period of history. She would have been more at home in a country where everybody was already used to being told what to do by the government and never questioned it. She would be the kind of person who would, behind the scenes, build someone such as a Bill Clinton up to political power and, when the moment was hot, make her move, chop off his head, seize power in a coup and immediately move to liquidate enemies and consolidate power. That cannot be done in America even in the sad state that we are in now - and yet that is where Hillary finds herself and has no choice but to operate and function in.

Hillary faces the same problem as Gail Wynand - to achieve the power she craves, she has no choice but to pander to people she despises. But unlike Gail Wynand, any self that Hillary Clinton might betray in the process was destroyed a long time ago - all that is left is a nasty contempt towards humanity in general. And now she must go out to the sticks and try to be Peter Keating/Bill and make the dumb backward yokels feel that they are somehow special and that she actually likes and cares about them - when what she really wants to do is strike them across the face with the back of her hand and say "go away you insolent, unwashed peasants and just do what I TELL you." And yet if she did that - well, it would be all over for sure. And, perhaps what we are seeing is the beginning of the end. If she loses the nomination - well, she will be finished politically and everything she has worked for with laser-like single-minded focus since she was in college will be crushed. She will probably stay in the Senate. But look to see her nastiness take on a new and even more unpleasant aura: bitterness.

Like I said, her life must be utter hell. And it couldn't have happened to a nicer gal!

Myrhaf said...

I must say, Dismuke, I agree with you. When I read the wild things Democrats speculate about Bush doing at Democratic Underground and Daily Kos, I think those things really are possible by Hillary Clinton. Things like using emergency powers to get around the Constitution and shutting down the media. I do not think these gross abuses of liberty are likely from other Democrats.

If Obama gets the nomination, however, Hillary's ambitions are not over. I would expect a lot of pressure to be put on Obama to pick Hillary as his Vice-President. She would accept it eagerly, as she would make the history books as "the first woman Vice-President." Also, I believe Michael Medved was talking about this, history shows that every 16 years a President dies in office. By historical average, we're overdue. It's gruesome to speculate about this, but Obama could die in office, giving us President Hillary. I'm sure the conspiracy theorists would see Hillary's hand behind anything that happens to Obama.

Dismuke said...

"When I read the wild things Democrats speculate about Bush doing at Democratic Underground and Daily Kos, I think those things really are possible by Hillary Clinton

Such speculation from the far Left is always amazing coming from those who are unabashed authoritarians. What they are doing is projecting on to Bush what they would do were they in his circumstances and, assuming, therefore, that he must be doing it, too.

"If Obama gets the nomination, however, Hillary's ambitions are not over. I would expect a lot of pressure to be put on Obama to pick Hillary as his Vice-President."

If Obama allows that to happen - well, he will need to have his head examined and he will deserve exactly what he gets. I guarantee you if that happened that something "unfortunate" would happen to Obama so that Hillary could become President. That is who and what Hillary is. She wouldn't even necessarily have to have him harmed physically. She, along with the help of the little mafia of advisers and loyal-to-the-death supporters she and her husband have built over the years would basically be a 5th column inside Obama's own administration. If Hillary and her henchmen cannot find any dirt within the Obama Administration to bring him down - well, they will manufacture such dirt. And I certainly wouldn't put it past the woman to knock him off if she had an opportunity to make it happen without it coming back on her The only limitation and check on her lust for power is what she is able to get away with.

Personally, unless Hillary has some really awful dirt on Obama that she is afraid to use in the primary campaign for fear of it coming back on her and basically blackmails him to put her on the ticket lest she releases it to the Republican candidate, I don't see any reason why Obama would want her on the ticket. Most of the people who would have voted for her are not going to vote for the Republican (unless, perhaps, if Huckabee wins) and will gladly vote for Obama. And there are a LOT of people out there who, on some level, sense what sort of monster the woman is and will turn out in droves for no other reason than to vote against Hillary - and that, of course, would add all the more pressure for Obama to boost his own turnout. I don't see how her being on the ticket will not bring him any extra votes but it sure would be a drag for him. On the other hand, I do think there might be an advantage for Hillary to put Obama as Vice President in the event she pulls through and gets the nomination. Personally, I think he would be crazy to accept, especially when one considers how young he is.

"Also, I believe Michael Medved was talking about this, history shows that every 16 years a President dies in office.

For the longest time, it was every president who is elected in a year ending in 0 dies in office. Reagan was the first president not to - though he came close.

We still have a few more months with Bush - which I think there is an elevated risk for something awful like that due to the fact that he would make one heck of a notch on the belt of any terrorist.

BTW - I have always thought that Cheney would be a vastly better president than Bush. Too bad his health problems prevent him from running as I think he would be preferable to most if not all of the current contenders. Sure, he has been part of an absolutely disastrous administration. On the other hand, he has always been pretty much open about the fact that he "knows his place" and merely works for the Administration. If he were free to be his own man, I think he would be a significantly better President than Bush. Of course, if he were his own man in this context, then I might also have more evidence that might not lead me to have as positive opinion. If something were to happen to Bush now, however - well, Cheney would be the biggest lame duck in American presidential history.

Myrhaf said...

Vice-Presidents have historically had little to do in an administration. In the Gershwin musical comedy, "Of Thee I Sing," the Vice-President has to take a tour of the White House to get inside. (Damn funny musical.) Clinton talked big about how Gore would have an important part in his administration; the opposite was true. Gore at one point was put in charge of "reinventing government," a way of keeping him occupied with make work and out of the way. (Out of Hillary's way?) Cheney turns out to be one of the most involved and important Vice-Presidents in history, which of course makes the left wail about him as some evil character controlling events from the shadows.

If Obama ends up as Hillary's Vice-President, look for government to be reinvented once again.

Dismuke said...

"If Obama ends up as Hillary's Vice-President, look for government to be reinvented once again."

Or for Obama to be reinvented - and not in a way favorable to him.

I think Obama would be a FOOL to accept such a Vice Presidency. She will be poison to him far more than Bill was to Algore. Furthermore, if she does manage to win the nomination - well, she will be going into the general election significantly weakened. And whoever the Republican ends up being will be far more emboldened than he otherwise would have been. For instance, they will no longer have much of a basis for claiming that the Republican is being mean because he is picking on the girl on grounds that they had the nerve to criticize her. Obama and Edwards have already broken that ice. And if she turns nasty and negative - well, that Obama has already laid the groundwork for any Republican with half a brain to turn that around on her. Her negatives are already extremely high - so her only chance is either a third party run by someone who splits the Republican vote or a Republican who is inept and/or repulsive, which, of course, is always a very real possibility.

If she loses the general election, he will be able to say "I told you so" and be able to run even stronger in 2012 or, if the incumbent Republican is deemed too strong he will still be young enough in 2016 to run then.

If he takes the Vice President position - well, that would pretty much rule him out in 2012. That means he would have to run in 2016 assuming she wins a second term (and assuming that she hasn't pulled a Hugo Chavez and tried to make herself President For Life, something that has to be considered when it comes to her). Under normal circumstance, such a Vice President would be a strong favorite to win. But it did not do Algore very much good - and here we are dealing with Hillary Clinton who will, by then, most likely be an even bigger political liability. And if Hillary loses the 2012 election - well, his image in 2016 will have necessarily taken a hit as a result. And if an extremely strong Republican gets elected in 2012, he might not have a good shot at the Presidency until 2020.

Bottom line, I think Obama has very little to gain from being Vice President and a whole lot to lose. By being associated with Hillary - well, everything that makes him so appealing in the eyes of so many people will be gone. His reputation would be forever soiled by her. I would think he is too smart for that.