Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
New at Reason
Cathy Young asks why Hillary Clinton's campaign is a feminist issue.
|7.2.07 @ 1:48PM|#
Go Billary! I don't care where, just go.
Too bad Thomas Sowell's not running. He's the only (half-way well
known) person I can think of who'd be worth voting for.
fyodor|7.2.07 @ 1:52PM|#
she's less Margaret Thatcher than Cory Aquino
Maybe she's more George W. Bush, proving once again the value of
presidential name recognition.
|7.2.07 @ 1:56PM|#
"Vote for Hillary-she's a woman" appeals should be dismissed
as patronizing and insulting to the intelligence of female
voters.
I disagree. If acheiving equality for women is a very important
issue to you, you absolutely should support Sen. Clinton, even if
you don't like her or disagree with her politics.
I support Clinton and hope she wins. My daughter is two and I'd
love for her to never remember a time when the President had to be
a man.
thoreau|7.2.07 @ 1:56PM|#
Can't we get a President who isn't a close family member (by
blood or by marriage) of a former President?
Please?
Rammage|7.2.07 @ 2:03PM|#
I am probably going to violate nine different Laws of Feminism here, so please forgive me in advance. But as someone who's excited about the notion of seeing the first female President in my lifetime, I am similarly saddened by the lack of presidential material in Hillary. When you compare the first male presidents in this nation's history, from Washington to Adams to Jefferson and so on, it's - well - embarrassing to have such a blatant socialist as the U.S.'s first female president, especially when there are so many more qualified and deserving women out there (and who are not socialists). The same holds true for the first-ever female speaker of the House, but we're too late on that one.
|7.2.07 @ 2:04PM|#
"Maybe she's more George W. Bush, proving once again the value
of presidential name recognition."
She's also more Richard Nixon judging from her corruption and her
paranoia.
|7.2.07 @ 2:09PM|#
"Can't we get a President who isn't a close family member (by
blood or by marriage) of a former President?"
We seem to have a two family kingdom. I guess after Hillary serves
her 4 years, because that's all the public will be able to stand of
her, then Jeb Bush will become President, then after him,
Chelsea.
Let's get some fresh blood in the White House.
D.A. Ridgely|7.2.07 @ 2:11PM|#
Had someone suggested a decade ago that Hillary Clinton, then a controversial First Lady, was going to be America's first serious female presidential contender, it would likely have been seen as a joke.
Where on earth was Young back then. Of course, many people
knew Hillary was going to be the first serious female
contender. Sadly, the rest of the column doesn't get much
better.
|7.2.07 @ 2:12PM|#
"But as someone who's excited about the notion of seeing the
first female President in my lifetime, I am similarly saddened by
the lack of presidential material in Hillary. When you compare the
first male presidents in this nation's history, from Washington to
Adams to Jefferson and so on, it's - well - embarrassing to have
such a blatant socialist as the U.S.'s first female president,
especially when there are so many more qualified and deserving
women out there (and who are not socialists)."
Ain't that the truth?
|7.2.07 @ 2:16PM|#
If Sen. Clinton is a "socialist" then I think the term has lost all meaning aside from being a smear.
|7.2.07 @ 2:18PM|#
If only Bill and Hillary would adopt Jeb Bush, then support his
run for President. The we'd have perfection, and the Republic would
be restored.
Hail Jeb Bush Clintonius! Father of his country! Imperator!
Princeps!
|7.2.07 @ 2:19PM|#
"If Sen. Clinton is a "socialist" then I think the term has lost
all meaning aside from being a smear."
A socialist is a person who looks more to the federal government to
run programs than to the free market, such as Clinton's scheme for
socialized medicine.
|7.2.07 @ 2:20PM|#
I disagree. If acheiving equality for women is a very
important issue to you, you absolutely should support Sen. Clinton,
even if you don't like her or disagree with her
politics.
What if equality for women is very important to you, but supporting
a candidate who isn't a phony, totalitarian opportunist is even
more important?
A hypothetical for you, Dan: What if your daughter was terribly
sick, she needed surgery, and you could choose between a male
doctor with a good record and the first female doctor at this
hospital who had a reputation for shoddy work, three malpractice
suits pending, and hearings before the medical board which was
considering revoking her license?
|7.2.07 @ 2:22PM|#
"If only Bill and Hillary would adopt Jeb Bush, then support his
run for President. The we'd have perfection, and the Republic would
be restored."
Yeah like the marriage between the Ptolemies and the Seleucids like
when Cleopatra married a Ptolemy.
|7.2.07 @ 2:22PM|#
She's also more Richard Nixon judging from her corruption
and her paranoia.
Is it really considered paranoid when people and the press are in
fact out to get you? And if she was sooooo corrupt wouldn't an
indictment have poped up somewhere?
Now I don't like Hillary one bit and would never vote for her, but
to call her corrupt and paranoid like Nixon says more about you
than about her.
If Sen. Clinton is a "socialist" then I think the term has lost
all meaning aside from being a smear.
Agreed. She isn't even the biggest socialist among the Dems
running.
|7.2.07 @ 2:25PM|#
What if equality for women is very important to you, but
supporting a candidate who isn't a phony, totalitarian opportunist
is even more important?
Well, I guess you're not going to vote, since that more or less
could describe all the candidates.
A hypothetical for you, Dan: What if your daughter was terribly
sick, she needed surgery, and you could choose between a male
doctor with a good record and the first female doctor at this
hospital who had a reputation for shoddy work, three malpractice
suits pending, and hearings before the medical board which was
considering revoking her license?
Well, if that analogy rings true with Sen. Clinton then she stands
absolutely no chance of winning. But Clinton does not resemble any
of those qualities - almost every complaint about her is either
some variation on how they don't like her personality or the absurd
notion that she's a "socialist" even though she's clearly not.
|7.2.07 @ 2:26PM|#
A socialist is a person who looks more to the federal
government to run programs than to the free market, such as
Clinton's scheme for socialized medicine.
Uhmm.....when the free market has failed (as it has in the health
care industry) even non-socialists look to the government to make
things right.
Furthermore, it takes more than one issue to make someone a
socialist. Or is anyone who suports federal monies for roads
socialists too? What about people who support agri-subsidies? Those
are all socialists too?
thoreau|7.2.07 @ 2:31PM|#
There are degrees of pro-market and anti-market sentiment.
Normally, I've only seen the word "socialist" used to describe
people with more extreme anti-market views, not just to anybody who
is left of center on economic issues.
Hyperbole is all well and good, and I'm all in favor of it, but
Dan's point is also valid here.
|7.2.07 @ 2:31PM|#
"A hypothetical for you, Dan: What if your daughter was terribly
sick, she needed surgery, and you could choose between a male
doctor with a good record and the first female doctor at this
hospital who had a reputation for shoddy work, three malpractice
suits pending, and hearings before the medical board which was
considering revoking her license?"
Good point, Les.
Another thing that Democrats should consider before they vote for
her is her high negative rating. A recent poll showed that more
than half of voters will not even consider voting for her. Because
of the Republican's unpopular war in Iraq, 2008 belongs to the
Democrats unless they nominate Hillary. The best Hillary will be
able to do in the general election is to squeek out a victory. Too
risky. Why not go with somebody less polarizing. If Obama gets
elected, Dan's two year old daughter will grow up knowing that it's
not the case that only white people get elected President. I don't
agree with Obama's politics, but at least he would not be
polarizing like Hillary.
|7.2.07 @ 2:32PM|#
Well, I guess you're not going to vote, since that more or
less could describe all the candidates.
In what way does it describe Ron Paul?
Well, if that analogy rings true with Sen. Clinton then she
stands absolutely no chance of winning.
No, no, you misunderstand. The analogy is about supporting women's
rights by choosing gender over ability (which you endorsed, above).
If you wanted your daughter to know that women can be doctors, too,
why wouldn't you choose an incompetent female doctor to operate on
her instead of a competent male doctor?
thoreau|7.2.07 @ 2:32PM|#
almost every complaint about her is either some variation on
how they don't like her personality or the absurd notion that she's
a "socialist" even though she's clearly not.
Dan, my complaint is in neither category. Rather, I don't want the
Presidency to cycle back and forth between two different families.
It doesn't seem very healthy for the Republic.
|7.2.07 @ 2:35PM|#
"Is it really considered paranoid when people and the press are
in fact out to get you?"
Is the press really out to get her? Last friday, a tape was
released which shows Hillary committing 4 felonies in connection
with campaign financing back in 2000. Where was the media coverage
of this?
|7.2.07 @ 2:37PM|#
Rome had the Julio-Claudians. America has the Bushio-Clintonians. Or will, if we're too lazy to find someone from another family this time around.
|7.2.07 @ 2:37PM|#
Can't we get a President who isn't a close family member (by
blood or by marriage) of a former President?
Please?
It's worse than you think. Of the last six presidents, four and
possibly the next one are all Elis.
Don't vote for anyone named Bush or Clinton with any kind of degree
from Yale.
If you really want to get paranoid, consider the number of Elis on
the Supreme Court (two of nine - Alito and Thomas) and the fact
that Kerry, Dean, Lieberman and Cheney are Elis as well. Yale is
ruining the country.
Ecrase l'enfame! A bas Yale!
|7.2.07 @ 2:38PM|#
Dan, there are plenty of reasons besides her personality or her
"socialism" (which I don't think is real) to not vote for
her.
She supported the war in Iraq until it was unpopular to do
so.
Ditto on the Patriot Act.
She strongly supports the war on drugs.
She's for a flag-burning amendment.
She's basically for whatever she thinks will keep her in power.
It's the exact philosophy less clumsily applied by her husband.
|7.2.07 @ 2:38PM|#
"And if she was sooooo corrupt wouldn't an indictment have poped
up somewhere?"
Starr was sitting on an indictment of her, but never served it
because he didn't think there could ever be a jury that would
convict her, not that she was innocent, but there would always be
people who would not want to convict the First Lady, plus some of
the jurors would be politically biased in favor of her.
|7.2.07 @ 2:40PM|#
I really don't like her. And, Dan T, I admit that some of it is
personal. I can't stand to listen to her talk, and by many
accounts, she's not a very nice person to be around often.
But as far as it goes, I don't think she's THAT much worse than any
candidates out there. Would never vote for her. But ...
If acheiving equality for women is a very important issue to
you, you absolutely should support Sen. Clinton, even if you don't
like her or disagree with her politics
Dan, this makes zero sense to me. Would you vote for Phyllis
Schafly or Ann Coulter for president just to get a woman into
office? Somehow I doubt it. A woman president would be wonderful.
But I'm not supporting somebody I don't agree with or like to
achieve that.
|7.2.07 @ 2:41PM|#
Is the press really out to get her? Last friday, a tape was
released which shows Hillary committing 4 felonies in connection
with campaign financing back in 2000. Where was the media coverage
of this?
Maybe they're busy still looking into her role in the murder of
killed Vince Foster? Or all her misdeeds of WhiteWater? OR
Travelgate?
Ashish George|7.2.07 @ 2:43PM|#
"A socialist is a person who looks more to the federal
government to run programs than to the free market, such as
Clinton's scheme for socialized medicine."
No. A socialist is someone who wants to see the means of production
owned by the state. Clinton doesn't fit that description.
From Young's piece:
"Like the male candidates, she should be judged on her politics.
'Vote for Hillary-she's a woman' appeals should be dismissed as
patronizing and insulting to the intelligence of female voters.
'Don't vote for Hillary-she's a bad feminist" is no better an
argument.'"
This doesn't even make sense. Whether or not someone is a good
feminist isn't part of their politics? Does Young even know what
feminism is? I realize she wrote a whole book about the topic, but
seriously, does she?
"Those who think no male in public life was ever demonized as she
was, or was ever excoriated for excessive ambition and arrogance,
obviously never paid much attention to the fortunes of Newt
Gingrich."
Are people still writing hit pieces on Gingrich? Is there a whole
publishing world devoted to attacking him? How many prominent,
highly publicized books about Gingrich have even been written?
|7.2.07 @ 2:43PM|#
"She isn't even the biggest socialist among the Dems
running."
You might be surprised. She had just as high ratings by the ADA as
anybody in the Senate. Right now, she has a stealth campaign as a
centrist to get elected.
|7.2.07 @ 2:44PM|#
Starr was sitting on an indictment of her, but never served
it because he didn't think there could ever be a jury that would
convict her, not that she was innocent, but there would always be
people who would not want to convict the First Lady, plus some of
the jurors would be politically biased in favor of her
Wow...really? Kenneth Starr sat on the indictment? Because he knew
know jury would convict her? The same Kenneth star that blew
MILLIONS upon millions of dollars to ultimately find out Bill
Clinton wasn't faithful?
Wow and I thought the 9/11 truthers had fallen into the deep end of
the conspiracy pool.
|7.2.07 @ 2:44PM|#
In what way does it describe Ron Paul?
He's a politican, right? Just because he's the one guy who is
telling you what you want to hear doesn't mean he's necessarily any
better than those telling other people what they want to
hear.
No, no, you misunderstand. The analogy is about supporting women's
rights by choosing gender over ability (which you endorsed, above).
If you wanted your daughter to know that women can be doctors, too,
why wouldn't you choose an incompetent female doctor to operate on
her instead of a competent male doctor?
Because there are already plenty of female doctors. And in the case
of Clinton, her gender is a large part of why people think she will
be incompetent.
|7.2.07 @ 2:45PM|#
"What makes Hillary more of a socialist than the current
President?"
The current President doesn't support socialized medicine.
Ashish George|7.2.07 @ 2:46PM|#
"Dan, there are plenty of reasons besides her personality or her
"socialism" (which I don't think is real) to not vote for
her.
She supported the war in Iraq until it was unpopular to do
so.
Ditto on the Patriot Act.
She strongly supports the war on drugs.
She's for a flag-burning amendment."
Get the fuck out of here, you hemp-wearing Kucinich supporter!
|7.2.07 @ 2:48PM|#
"What if equality for women is very important to you, but
supporting a candidate who isn't a phony, totalitarian opportunist
is even more important?"
"Well, I guess you're not going to vote, since that more or less
could describe all the candidates."
It doesn't describe Ron Paul or the Libertarian candidate.
|7.2.07 @ 2:48PM|#
Dan, this makes zero sense to me. Would you vote for Phyllis
Schafly or Ann Coulter for president just to get a woman into
office? Somehow I doubt it. A woman president would be wonderful.
But I'm not supporting somebody I don't agree with or like to
achieve that.
Neither Coulter nor Schafly are in any way qualified to be
President. Clinton, on the other hand, very much is.
|7.2.07 @ 2:49PM|#
in the case of Clinton, her gender is a large part of why
people think she will be incompetent.
I'm sure that's true of some people, but there are plenty of people
who don't like her for much better reasons. Maybe reasons you
disagree with, but it's not fair to just write-off all her critics
as sexists.
|7.2.07 @ 2:50PM|#
Hillary is a socialist the way your garden variety libertarian
is an anarchist.
Hillary clearly falls into the populist camp, I can't recall a
single topic where she doesn't like government intervention (from
"it's for the children" to protecting our borders). Populism taken
to its logical conclusion is socialism (or totalitarianism at the
extreme conclusion).
|7.2.07 @ 2:53PM|#
"Uhmm.....when the free market has failed (as it has in the
health care industry) even non-socialists look to the government to
make things right."
Do you really consider what we have now a free market, Tom? The
free market hasn't failed, government intervention into the free
market in medicine is what has given us our problems. The solution
isn't more government. There are other solutions which would help
restore more of a free market in medicine which would bring costs
down without bringing about the rationing and long waiting lists
that socialized medicine brings.
Ashish George|7.2.07 @ 2:54PM|#
Rattlesnake Jake--
I guaran-fucking-tee you that if Hillary Clinton is elected
president, her time in office will see the federal government grow
less than W.'s time in office did.
SugarFree|7.2.07 @ 2:54PM|#
Laura Bush was ordered by the Bene Gesserit to bear a male heirs to Duke Bush, so that he might be married to Chelsea, mingling the bloodlines to produce the Kwisatz Haderach. She defied the Sisterhood and produced daughters. The breeding program that has lasted 90 generations will have to bide its time once more.
|7.2.07 @ 2:55PM|#
OK, Dan, then how about a woman who shares Schlafly and
Coulter's right-wing views but is qualified? I wouldn't
blame you for not voting for her, because you don't share her
politics. But you're suggesting that you would, just to have a
woman president.
I think Hillary is probably qualified. But I still disagree with
her and dislike her.
GILMORE|7.2.07 @ 2:55PM|#
I sincerely hope the support of Dan T convinces everyone else here that hilary is the worst of all possible candidates.
|7.2.07 @ 2:55PM|#
"Furthermore, it takes more than one issue to make someone a
socialist. Or is anyone who suports federal monies for roads
socialists too? What about people who support agri-subsidies? Those
are all socialists too?"
Socialized medicine is by far not the only issue that Hillary looks
to Government as the solution to.
|7.2.07 @ 2:58PM|#
Ashish --
I guaran-fucking-tee you that if Hillary Clinton is elected
president, her time in office will see the federal government grow
less than W.'s time in office did.
Sadly, you might be right. I really don't think she's more
socialist than most Democrats or even most Republicans, except for
Mr. Paul.
|7.2.07 @ 3:02PM|#
Hillary Clinton wants the Federal Government to control all
aspects of: Health Care, Education, Labor, Transportation, Waste
Management, Urban Development etc. etc. If that isn't Socialist,
the the term has lost all meaning.
Irregardless, I don't give a flying flaming fuck or a rolling donut
what sort of genitalia Hillary's packing, and no matter what you
call her political philosophy, it's VERY VERY BAD.
|7.2.07 @ 3:05PM|#
"Maybe they're busy still looking into her role in the murder of
killed Vince Foster? Or all her misdeeds of WhiteWater? OR
Travelgate?"
We're talking about an actual tape here, a smoking gun, not a
conspiracy theory. The main stream never took seriously the murder
of Vince Foster and Whitewater and travelgate are old news. Why is
the news media not covering this tape?
|7.2.07 @ 3:05PM|#
Do you really consider what we have now a free market, Tom?
The free market hasn't failed, government intervention into the
free market in medicine is what has given us our
problems
Well it's not socialized medicide or anything that would appear in
a socialist country is it Jake? It's a hell of a lot closer to a
free market than it is to a government run entity.
Sure it's regulated, but so is just about every marketplace.
There are other solutions which would help restore more of a
free market in medicine which would bring costs down without
bringing about the rationing and long waiting lists that socialized
medicine brings.
Well let's hear some. Other than let the insurance and health
provider do whatever they want and let the chips fall where they
may.
Personally, I'd be curious to see a Single Payer system in place
just to prove whether or not it can work. Either they naysayers
will be vindicated or they will have to eat some crow. But
maintaining the current clusterfuck is the worst option IMHO.
Socialized medicine is by far not the only issue that Hillary
looks to Government as the solution to.
The point really is that "socialists" aren't the only ones looking
for government solutions. And wanting the government to provide
solutions to common problems is not enought to make someone a
"socialist". Lots of people on the other side of the aisle want
government solutions and government to regulate areas of life. Are
they all socialists too now? Or does the term only get trotted out
when its a Democrat who advocates those types of things.
Damn you Rattlesnake Jake for putting me in the position of having
to defend Hillary Fucking Clinton
|7.2.07 @ 3:09PM|#
"No. A socialist is someone who wants to see the means of
production owned by the state. Clinton doesn't fit that
description."
I know that, I was just being hyperbolic. Hillary certainly leans
in that direction, or should I say fascist? I know this is a word
that the left likes to use on the right, but the definition of a
fascist is somebody who allows private ownership, but controls it
at the governmental level, which certainly describes Hillary.
dhex|7.2.07 @ 3:12PM|#
"I sincerely hope the support of Dan T convinces everyone else
here that hilary is the worst of all possible candidates."
hillary would have to start eating babies wholesale to beat out
guliani. and then skimp on paying her bill, and undermining the
network of contracts and trust that make a free market even
remotely possible. also the babies would be libertarians who
started changing themselves at an early age. (staying off the
statist teat, literally)
|7.2.07 @ 3:15PM|#
"Wow...really? Kenneth Starr sat on the indictment? Because he
knew know jury would convict her? The same Kenneth star that blew
MILLIONS upon millions of dollars to ultimately find out Bill
Clinton wasn't faithful?"
"Wow and I thought the 9/11 truthers had fallen into the deep end
of the conspiracy pool."
This is in a different league than the 9/11 conspiracy theories. I
suggest you do more research, Tom. You seem very uninformed.
|7.2.07 @ 3:18PM|#
"In what way does it describe Ron Paul?"
"He's a politican, right? Just because he's the one guy who is
telling you what you want to hear doesn't mean he's necessarily any
better than those telling other people what they want to
hear"
Ron Paul is a statesman with convictions, not a political whore
like Hillary.
|7.2.07 @ 3:20PM|#
"Because there are already plenty of female doctors. And in the
case of Clinton, her gender is a large part of why people think she
will be incompetent."
People think she will be incompetent because she's showed her
incompetence such as in her health care fiasco.
|7.2.07 @ 3:21PM|#
ChicagoTom,
I agree re: the term "socialist." I used it in my last post, but a
better description would be statist or big-government, which, as
you pointed out, can describe both sides.
thoreau,
Can't we get a President who isn't a close family member (by
blood or by marriage) of a former President?
I totally agree. I'd be a happy man if I didn't have to see another
Bush, Clinton, Kennedy, etc. ever again.
thoreau|7.2.07 @ 3:26PM|#
Can anybody give me a quick rundown on the John Q. Adams
administration? How was it, all things considered?
What about Benjamin Harrison? (Grandson of William Henry
Harrison)
I'm trying to figure out whether close presidential relatives
generally have a good or bad track record. I'm not counting the
Roosevelts because they were only distant cousins, and I've heard
that a lot of US presidents are actually distant cousins of one
another, even if not quite as close as the Roosevelts.
|7.2.07 @ 3:28PM|#
Her supporters wrongly saw all hostility to their heroine as a
manifestation of misogyny. (Those who think no male in public life
was ever demonized as she was, or was ever excoriated for excessive
ambition and arrogance, obviously never paid much attention to the
fortunes of Newt Gingrich.)
The principal difference is Newt's shabby behaviour and ethical
lapses were far more deserving of condemnation than Hillary's.
|7.2.07 @ 3:31PM|#
A socialist is someone who wants to see the means of
production owned by the state. Clinton doesn't fit that
description.
Correct, she is a welfare statist (i.e. a strong advocate of the
welfare state.)
The current President doesn't support socialized
medicine.
He sure does. The man signed the Medicare Prescription Drug,
Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003. That effort will do far
more damage than Hillary ever could while First Lady.
|7.2.07 @ 3:34PM|#
This is in a different league than the 9/11 conspiracy
theories. I suggest you do more research, Tom. You seem very
uninformed.>
No thanks, Jake. I don't think I'll waste any time with anything
Kenneth Starr is associated.
And you are right, it is in a different league. Believing Ken Star
had the goods on the Clintons but sat on it because he thought that
any jury that convenes would be sympathetic and refuse to convict
despite having good solid "proof" is in a whole different league of
loony.
|7.2.07 @ 3:37PM|#
thoreau,
Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or
shall be unfurled, there will [America's] heart, her benedictions
and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters
to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence
of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She
will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and
the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once
enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the
banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond
the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue,
of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors
and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her
policy would insensibly change from liberty to force....
-- John Quincy Adams, 1821
|7.2.07 @ 3:38PM|#
hillary would have to start eating babies wholesale to beat
out guliani.
This is a good point.
|7.2.07 @ 3:38PM|#
"Well let's hear some. Other than let the insurance and health
provider do whatever they want and let the chips fall where they
may."
The doctors and hospitals are really working for the big insurance
companies and Medicare and Medicaid, not the patients. Regina
Herzlinger in "Who Killed Health Care?" recommends scrapping health
insurance for routine visits and only supporting catastrophic
policies. For Medicare and Medicaid, we could use vouchers where
the patients get to keep what's leftover. These measures would
encourage patients to shop around for routine care, which would
drive down the prices. Imagine how much car insurance would cost if
routine maintenance like oil changes were included. We could also
give bigger tax breaks for purchasing health insurance. We could
reform frivolous law suits. We could allow nurses to perform more
routine care. There are many things we could do without going the
socialized medicine route. Why sacrifice the quality of our system
for a system that works even worse than ours. Better to make
improvements than throw the baby out with the bath.
|7.2.07 @ 3:40PM|#
Of course, coincidentally, JQ Adams also won the presidency despite not winning the popular vote, which was won by Andrew Jackson. Of course, Andrew Jackson, at least 6 times the man that Al Gore was, ran again four years later and mopped the floor with Adams.
|7.2.07 @ 3:41PM|#
Okay, I will resend my statement that if you support women's
equality you should vote for Clinton no matter what. Yes, that was
kind of dumb for me to say.
Maybe what I should have said is that if you support women's
equality, then there is nothing wrong with giving Clinton the nod
over similar candidates because she's a woman.
thoreau|7.2.07 @ 3:42PM|#
OK, so John Q. talked about a humble foreign policy before
taking office. (He was elected in 1824, and your quote is 1821.)
What was he like in office?
I believe I can think of at least one other Presidential relative
who talked about a humble foreign policy before taking
office...
|7.2.07 @ 3:42PM|#
"Personally, I'd be curious to see a Single Payer system in
place just to prove whether or not it can work."
We don't have to do that. We can already see what a failure they
are by looking at the mess they have created in other countries.
Great Britain and Canada are moving in the opposite direction than
us and allowing more competition to try to salvage their
systems.
|7.2.07 @ 3:42PM|#
And, Adams was from MA, the same state the Bush family came from, while Jackson and Gore were both from TN. This is weird.
thoreau|7.2.07 @ 3:44PM|#
One place where the parallel breaks down is that joe would have been a big fan of local hero John Q.
|7.2.07 @ 3:48PM|#
thoreau,
Well, his glowing Wikipedia article claims that he'd resolved all
the major foreign policy problems the US had at the time as
Monroe's Secy of State during the previous eight years.
Let me also take this opportunity to indulge in my Misogynist
Minute: it's pretty sad if the first female president got there
because of her husband.
|7.2.07 @ 3:50PM|#
"He sure does. The man signed the Medicare Prescription Drug,
Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003. That effort will do far
more damage than Hillary ever could while First Lady."
But will it do as much damage as what she will do as President if
she get socialized medicine passed?
|7.2.07 @ 3:50PM|#
To suggest that one should vote for Hillary simply because she
is a woman is the equivalent of affirmative action in the White
House. Let's put an end the Clinton Dynasty.
I support Ron Paul!
|7.2.07 @ 3:51PM|#
Another tidbit: he and his father are the only two presidents to not attend the inauguration of their successors. Quite the bitter family!
thoreau|7.2.07 @ 3:55PM|#
crimethink-
Yeah, we should probably distrust any Wikipedia entry that claims
that a President solved every foreign policy problem of his time.
For all we know, one of his staffers might have edited the page to
make it more flattering.
Now, what about Benjamin Harrison?
|7.2.07 @ 3:56PM|#
Okay, I will resend my statement that if you support women's
equality you should vote for Clinton no matter what. Yes, that was
kind of dumb for me to say.
I'm sure you meant recind, but both "resend" and "resent" are much
funnier.
|7.2.07 @ 3:57PM|#
"Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or
shall be unfurled, there will [America's] heart, her benedictions
and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters
to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence
of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She
will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and
the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once
enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the
banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond
the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue,
of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors
and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her
policy would insensibly change from liberty to force...."
If only our Presidents and Presidential candidates believed that
way today (excepting Ron Paul)
|7.2.07 @ 3:57PM|#
Neither John Q. nor Benjamin were Elis. Yale is the problem, not dynastic politcs. (Not an endorsement of dynastic politics, which are a bad idea as well, it's just that Yale is a worse idea.)
|7.2.07 @ 3:58PM|#
Of course, Andrew Jackson, at least 6 times the man that Al
Gore was, ran again four years later and mopped the floor with
Adams.
He also killed six times as many Indians as Al Gore did, which was
a big selling point back then. ;)
|7.2.07 @ 4:01PM|#
Personally, I'd be curious to see a Single Payer system in
place just to prove whether or not it can work.
That's like saying that you'd like to have your arm chopped off
just to see how it looks. There ain't no goin back, buddy.
|7.2.07 @ 4:02PM|#
"...if you support women's equality, then there is nothing wrong
with giving Clinton the nod over similar candidates because she's a
woman."
I agree wholeheartedly. Women are still second class citizens in
terms of representation in all areas of public life (and private
enterprise) of power and influence. This imbalance must be
redressed, for the sake of both democracy and the creative etc.
strength of our societies (i.e. nations which pull their leaders
from a narrow group -white males...lose out on the talents of those
outside of that group, I would argue that they may also become less
dynamic).The same applies to the relegation of non-whites to
positions lacking political influence - the fewer who brake the
still present glass ceilings the harder it gets for any to reach
the top.) It's a self-perpetuating social hierarchy, e.g. all
Presidents have been white males and therefore we perceive being
"presidential" as embodying the attitude and persona of white
(often protestant) upper class males with an inevitable knock-on
effect for our regard for what constitutes a "leader". Symbolism is
important. The symbol is currently white and male.
Having said all that. It is clear, regardless of gender and the
reasons given above, that HRC is out and out the most capable
candidate. So no choice has to be made (for me at least) in putting
her ahead because of gender...she's ahead anyway.
|7.2.07 @ 4:03PM|#
Les,
But Andrew Jackson's carbon footprint was six times smaller than Al
Gore's, so that makes up for it...
|7.2.07 @ 4:03PM|#
"Another tidbit: he and his father are the only two presidents
to not attend the inauguration of their successors. Quite the
bitter family!"
Yet John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were best friends.
|7.2.07 @ 4:03PM|#
Maybe what I should have said is that if you support women's
equality, then there is nothing wrong with giving Clinton the nod
over similar candidates because she's a woman.
I can't disagree with this. But I will disagree with your implying
that I would vote for Ron Paul because he's saying the things I
want to hear. I judge candidates on their actions, not their words.
That's precisely why I could never vote for Hillary. I disagree
with Ron Paul on many issues, but his actions are those of an
individual who values principles over political power.
|7.2.07 @ 4:12PM|#
"I can't disagree with this. But I will disagree with your
implying that I would vote for Ron Paul because he's saying the
things I want to hear. I judge candidates on their actions, not
their words. That's precisely why I could never vote for Hillary. I
disagree with Ron Paul on many issues, but his actions are those of
an individual who values principles over political power."
That's right. It's so obvious that Hillary has no principles. Why
does she keep changing her position depending on the polls and what
crowd she speaks in front of?
|7.2.07 @ 4:17PM|#
Women are still second class citizens in terms of
representation in all areas of public life
In what way are women any less represented that I am? Just because
the assholes in office have a pair doesn't mean they represent me.
I have voted in 6 presidential elections and have yet to vote for
the winner so in that respect I am not represented at all. In fact,
based on the interpretation of the Constitution demonstrated by
this "self-perpetuating social hierarchy" I could not imagine being
more poorly represented than by these white males. But in the realm
of gender politics that really doesn't matter, does it?
mj|7.2.07 @ 4:17PM|#
It's sad to see so much disinformation about Hillary is out there. First, the three top candidates are extremely similar on the issues so what is so wrong with one saying you know what, it's about time we had a woman president? Second, Hillary is the only one running for president who has spent her career prioritizing women's and children's issues. I think that focus would transform the country. I encourage to actually read some of her proposals and policy stances(S-CHIP, Paycheck Fairness Act, etc.) instead of assuming you know anymore about Hillary than you read in Dowd's column.
|7.2.07 @ 4:24PM|#
"I could not imagine being more poorly represented than by these
white males."
Well said.
It is sadly true.
On the other hand, think how you might feel about it if "your kind"
so to speak are never (but for rare exceptions)in power.
Would you feel powerful or would you feel dis-empowered?
Poor representation is better than non at all.
The failures of politicians generally is a separate issue but
arguably if there was more competition - i.e. not just white males.
Quality might go up.
|7.2.07 @ 4:28PM|#
I can't disagree with this. But I will disagree with your
implying that I would vote for Ron Paul because he's saying the
things I want to hear. I judge candidates on their actions, not
their words. That's precisely why I could never vote for Hillary. I
disagree with Ron Paul on many issues, but his actions are those of
an individual who values principles over political
power.
Fair enough, but I won't agree with your assessment of Ron Paul
until he quits the GOP.
|7.2.07 @ 4:30PM|#
Poor representation is better than non at all.
BUZZZZZ!!! WRONG!
Ever had someone speak on your behalf who only made things worse?
Many people resent my kind (white males) because of the things that
certain white males have done and proclaimed that they are doing on
behalf of the rest of us. Similarly, I'm sure there are some
Muslims out there that would disagree with you too.
|7.2.07 @ 4:31PM|#
On the other hand, think how you might feel about it if
"your kind" so to speak are never (but for rare exceptions)in
power.
That's my point; my kind (libertarian) are never in power. I
feel...violated. On a daily basis. Twice a day during an election
cycle.
|7.2.07 @ 4:33PM|#
"Fair enough, but I won't agree with your assessment of Ron Paul
until he quits the GOP."
Should he join the Democrat Party? He would be just as out of place
in the Democrat Party. I think it shows principle to hold to his
antiwar views even though he's in the war party.
|7.2.07 @ 4:35PM|#
Second, Hillary is the only one running for president who
has spent her career prioritizing women's and children's issues. I
think that focus would transform the country.
Great, a national focus on feminizing and infantilizing the
American people. We've had enough of that already, toots.
Stop Al Gore!|7.2.07 @ 4:40PM|#
He also killed six times as many Indians as Al Gore did,
which was a big selling point back then. ;)
Let's just include the 800 Indians that Jackson's militia killed in
the Creek War. That means Gore has killed 133 Native Americans!
This man must be stopped!
|7.2.07 @ 4:42PM|#
Should he join the Democrat Party? He would be just as out
of place in the Democrat Party. I think it shows principle to hold
to his antiwar views even though he's in the war party.
What I'm saying is that it makes no sense for Paul to be a member
of a political party that is fairly anti-libertarian and still
claim to be libertarian. Why doesn't he join the LP or run as an
independent?
|7.2.07 @ 4:43PM|#
Ah some focus on what 190 million Americans (a guess) is bad for
America?
Hmm.
What would be best for America? Ignoring all women and all
children?
|7.2.07 @ 4:44PM|#
...apologies...should have pointed out that my last comment was in response to Col duBois.
highnumber|7.2.07 @ 4:45PM|#
I'm reading The Rise of American Democracy, Jefferson to
Lincoln right now.
Jefferson and Adams may have been friends personally, but they were
certainly not friends politically.
I'm on Madison right now. Stop talking about Quincy Adams and
Jackson. You're spoiling it for me.
|7.2.07 @ 4:48PM|#
What would be best for America, qwerty, is for the govt to get
back to protecting the rights of individuals, regardless of gender,
age, or race, and staying out of everything else.
If you think we should try to solve every problem faced by women
and children, you're totally free to do so and to persuade others
to do so. But I'll be damned if you compromise my liberty or use my
taxes to do it.
|7.2.07 @ 4:48PM|#
Fair enough, but I won't agree with your assessment of Ron
Paul until he quits the GOP.
This assumes that the Republican party is somehow less trustworthy
or has a more bloody and/or less honest history than the Democrats.
Documented facts say otherwise.
First, the three top candidates are extremely similar on the
issues so what is so wrong with one saying you know what, it's
about time we had a woman president?
Because that's sexist. And it's Hillary's previous behavior that
matters much more than what she's saying now. She has always voted
in a way designed to maintain and increase her power. That's why
she voted for the war when it was popular and opposes it now that
it's not.
Second, Hillary is the only one running for president who has
spent her career prioritizing women's and children's
issues.
It can more accurately be said that she's spent her career, like
most politicians, prioritizing the issues that she thinks will get
her elected. Maybe she should go to Iraq and volunteer to help some
of the women and children whose lives have been utterly ruined via
her policies.
I encourage to actually read some of her proposals and policy
stances(S-CHIP, Paycheck Fairness Act, etc.) instead of assuming
you know anymore about Hillary than you read in Dowd's
column.
Again, I don't judge candidates by what they say, but rather what
they do (and I certainly have never read anything by Ms. Dowd). So
Hillary can say whatever she wants, but as long as she won't cop to
supporting the war and the Patriot Act, as long as she supports the
war on drugs, a flag burning amendment, government ratings for
video games, etc., there's no way I'm going to vote for her.
|7.2.07 @ 4:51PM|#
What I'm saying is that it makes no sense for Paul to be a
member of a political party that is fairly anti-libertarian and
still claim to be libertarian.
It makes as much sense as very liberal representatives staying in
the Democratic party. The radicals always hope to sway the
majority.
|7.2.07 @ 4:52PM|#
Col du Bois
"But I'll be damned if you compromise my liberty or use my taxes to
do it."
Where on earth did I say I wanted to compromise your liberty or use
your taxes to do it?
So what your saying is that out of the entire federal budget you
want no money spent on the 190 million Americans who aren't men or
aren't adults? This is the only way to protect your taxes from
reaching them (unless you pay non at all of course - how
patriotic).
|7.2.07 @ 4:58PM|#
And qwerty, lashing out at people for "not caring" isn't very effective on this forum. I would suggest coherent argument.
|7.2.07 @ 5:04PM|#
qwerty,
That last was me, not Du Bois, and if you're expecting the govt to
do something it can only be done by restricting liberty and/or
spending tax dollars. There's no other way it can affect the
society.
thoreau|7.2.07 @ 5:05PM|#
Stop talking about Quincy Adams and Jackson. You're spoiling
it for me.
Make sure you don't listen to that They Might Be Giants song about
James K. Polk. It's full of spoilers.
|7.2.07 @ 5:06PM|#
Your right Reinmoose, my attack may have come across as ad hominem. However, I can't help but view the I wont pay taxes to help x, y or z category of persons is somewhat uncaring. Those who espouse less and less tax and less and less government while they make cogent arguments for self-sufficiency and enterprise fail to account for those who are blameless yet will be left behind. Are the children of the poor to starve? This is the effect of denying welfare payments of at least a minimum level to the poor. Perhaps this is not Col du Bois' view but the phrase used "my taxes etc" is strikingly similar to the catch phrase of the starve government/less tax school of thought. Remember the current government is quite a "big government" it's just that it has different budgetary priorities. Perhaps the better less tax argument might be for smaller government but a more compassionate weighting of those arguments.
|7.2.07 @ 5:09PM|#
Reinmoose,
I'm pretty sure "Col. DuBois" is a reference to Johnny Rico's high
school civics teacher in Starship Troopers, who is
essentially a mouthpiece for Heinlein's libertarian political
views.
|7.2.07 @ 5:11PM|#
the only way a government can effect change is "restricting
liberty and/or spending tax dollars. There's no other way it can
affect the society."
Not entirely correct. There can be a carrot as well as a stick. One
example might be a tax break to encourage a particular activity.
Another can be requiring certain standards of companies etc. who
bid for government contracts...e.g. you must comply with safety
guidelines for your employees. There are a myriad of other forms of
cheap and more co-operative regulation. More carrot than stick if
you will.
|7.2.07 @ 5:13PM|#
...and who's to say a government can't lead by example.
Take freedom of information...people get used to an open society
and demand answers/accountability from private providers of
services also.
highnumber|7.2.07 @ 5:16PM|#
qwerty,
Go read some books about libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism. I'm
not being smarmy - I'm dead serious. You sound like you're talking
about objectivism. I care about my fellow human beings, and I
realize the right thing to do is to help the less fortunate. The
gov't is not the best way to do it.
(I, on the other hand, should probably go read up on objectivism,
because I am probably smearing it.)
|7.2.07 @ 5:18PM|#
Your right Reinmoose, my attack may have come across as ad
hominem. However, I can't help but view the I wont pay taxes to
help x, y or z category of persons is somewhat uncaring.
I'm used to that particular ad hominem by now. Also keep in mind
I'm against spending tax dollars for the benefit of any particular
group, not just women and children. As I said before, the
legitimate function of govt is to protect the basic rights of
individuals as individuals, not instances of a particular gender or
race.
Those who espouse less and less tax and less and less
government while they make cogent arguments for self-sufficiency
and enterprise fail to account for those who are blameless yet will
be left behind. Are the children of the poor to starve? This is the
effect of denying welfare payments of at least a minimum level to
the poor.
Theoretically, yes. Assuming that most people don't want the poor
to starve, it won't happen; such a thing can be warded off through
private charity. If most people are OK with the poor starving, then
govt isn't going to help in that area either.
Perhaps this is not Col du Bois' view but the phrase used "my
taxes etc" is strikingly similar to the catch phrase of the starve
government/less tax school of thought.
Bingo! There's a reason for that similarity.
Remember the current government is quite a "big government"
it's just that it has different budgetary priorities. Perhaps the
better less tax argument might be for smaller government but a more
compassionate weighting of those arguments.
Smaller govt? Darn right. As far as the compassion goes, well, it's
not charity when you're spending someone else's money, which is
what govt-operated welfare involves. I may be stingy when it comes
to spending other perople's money, but don't presume to know how
compassionate I am with my own resources.
thoreau|7.2.07 @ 5:18PM|#
(I, on the other hand, should probably go read up on
objectivism, because I am probably smearing it.)
SPOILER ALERT:
They all go on strike. And give long speeches.
highnumber|7.2.07 @ 5:21PM|#
There really isn't a branch of objectivism that's not associated
with Ayn Rand, is there?
Screw it. I'll keep on smearing it.
|7.2.07 @ 5:22PM|#
highnumber,
Well, as far as I know, the main difference between libertarianism
and objectivism is that the latter is a philosophy of life, whereas
the former is merely a philosophy of govt. In other words, while
Objectivism opposes any sort of altruistic helping of the poor,
libertarianism is silent on the subject so long as govt isn't
involved.
|7.2.07 @ 5:28PM|#
thoreau,
You left out rough, violent, not-entirely-consensual sex with
multiple partners.
thoreau|7.2.07 @ 5:29PM|#
Yeah, well I don't want to spoil ALL of it for him.
I will, however, spoil the book he's reading right now: Lincoln
dies at the end.
LarryA|7.2.07 @ 5:30PM|#
First, the three top candidates are extremely similar on the
issues so what is so wrong with one saying you know what, it's
about time we had a woman president?
Because I believe any of those "three top candidates" will be a
disaster.
Second, Hillary is the only one running for president who has
spent her career prioritizing women's and children's issues. I
think that focus would transform the country.
I do to. [shudder]
I encourage to actually read some of her proposals and policy
stances(S-CHIP, Paycheck Fairness Act, etc.) instead of assuming
you know anymore about Hillary than you read in Dowd's
column.
But it's so much more instructive to go to Thomas.loc.gov and read the
legislation she's proposed. "Leave no tax dollar behind." "Regulate
them all, let God sort them out." "A giveaway for every
minority."
the only way a government can effect change is "restricting liberty and/or spending tax dollars. There's no other way it can affect the society."
Not entirely correct. There can be a carrot as well as a
stick. One example might be a tax break to encourage a particular
activity. Another can be requiring certain standards of companies
etc.
Giving a tax break to one requires raising everyone elses' tax to
compensate. "Requiring certain standards" restricts
liberty.
|7.2.07 @ 5:36PM|#
To LarryA's correct assessment above, I might add that requiring extra standards of govt contractors drives up the price of their services in accordance with the law of supply and demand. Thus, money must be raised by increasing taxes, borrowing, or devaluing the currency, to cover the increased expenditure.
|7.2.07 @ 5:38PM|#
highnumber,
Yes, though not the Polk administration per se. More accurately
applied to all administrations.
Oh, and I suppose that could apply to Rand and the Objectivists,
too. And to Col. Lingus.
|7.2.07 @ 5:43PM|#
Rather than reading up on objectivism, you can just wait for
the movie.
Also I noticed at IMDB that today is one of the
H&R-favorite-stroke-object's 21st birthday. You thought the
roads were
dangerous before, you'd better look out now.
|7.2.07 @ 7:39PM|#
Nice piece. Like most things, the truth is somewhere in
between.
That said, I disagree with those who opine that Hillary would not
be a Senator or the leading candidate for the Whitehouse but for
BIl. My feeling is that Bill would never have been President but
for Hillary.
|7.2.07 @ 8:45PM|#
So one of my many complaints about voting for Hillary just
because she is a woman.
Is that her husband raped Juanita Broderick.
And she probably new about it, and protected him. That doesn't
really say much about standing up for womens rights.
I guess royalty is not held to the same standards.
|7.2.07 @ 9:27PM|#
kwais,
That's the difference between standing up for women's rights and
standing up for a woman's rights. The former is easy for a
politician to do; the latter can get mighty inconvenient.
dhex|7.2.07 @ 10:29PM|#
frankly i've never bought any of that rape stuff. it's a little
too falwell cocaine conspiracy WHO SHOT VINCE FOSTER for my
blood.
of course, if anyone would make the world nostalgic for a "vast
right wing conspiracy" that was basically pointless and harmless
(beyond partisan kvetching), it would be bush.
dhex|7.2.07 @ 10:31PM|#
"Having said all that. It is clear, regardless of gender and the
reasons given above, that HRC is out and out the most capable
candidate."
great! now i've got blood all over my keyboard.
are you happy now?
|7.2.07 @ 11:29PM|#
dhex,
Well, the cryptic response of Clinton's legal team didn't help
matters when they responded to the charge with something like "The
President did not rape Ms Broderick at the Holiday Inn in Memphis
21 years ago." (I'm making up the hotel name, but they did
specifically mention the hotel's name in their statement.) Given
the Clintonian tendency to carefully word denials so they seem to
deny more than they really do:
"I have never violated the laws of this country by smoking
MJ" -- his MJ experience was supposedly at Oxford, in the UK, so he
didn't violate US laws;
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman!" --
sexual relations != oral sex;
that denial may be saying that he didn't rape Ms Broderick, or that
he did it at a different hotel, or in a different year, or (my
favorite) that he did rape her but he wasn't President at the
time.
I'm no Nifong, so I'll say he's innocent until proven guilty, but
it sure does look suspicious.
|7.2.07 @ 11:31PM|#
Dhex,
I have read a little bit about the rape case, and I heard Juanita
Broderick interviewed. There was always a much stronger case
against Bill in the rape case than there ever was against Mike
Tyson.
In her interview she came across as very earnest. The one question
that stuck out in my mind, was she asked for someone to ask
Hillary, or any of Bill Clinton's supporters "why do they think I
am lying? What do I have to gain, and what in my history says I
would do such a thing?"
|7.3.07 @ 12:05AM|#
I say this in every Hillary thread. It is the truth that no conservative wants to face. Hillary is the most conservative Democrat, and if you had to choose somebody from that side of the aisle, she'd have to be it. Given that the GOP is going through some serious growing (groin?) pains, Hillary doesn't look half bad. Get over your goddam vanity, please.
|7.3.07 @ 5:46AM|#
Nominating Hillary is just about the only way the democrats
could blow their advantage this time around. I'm sure they'll do
it, and she'll get cocky and preach her marxist bullshit, and beat
Mondale's record by carrying no states, just the District of
Columbia.
-jcr
|7.3.07 @ 5:49AM|#
" My feeling is that Bill would never have been President but
for Hillary."
Nope. The woman who put Bill Clinton in the White house was Donna
Rice. If Gary Hart hadn't boinked that little tart and then dared
the press to catch him at it, Clinton would only be remembered as
yet another crooked sourthern governor.
-jcr
|7.3.07 @ 5:51AM|#
dhex,
I know nothing about Broderick's reliability, but I do know that
Clinton is a liar. So, until any other evidence arrives, I believe
her word over his.
-jcr
|7.3.07 @ 6:03AM|#
Tom,
I don't know how you got the idea that we have a free market for
health care. The FDA and the AMA have it locked up tighter than
Hillary's sphincter. The FDA kills thousands of people annually by
keeping drugs off the market, and the AMA is one of only three
guilds in the USA that's able to limit the number of people
entering their line of work.
This is not a case of the market failing, it's a case of continuous
encroachment by government and government-supported cartels on our
right to seek medical care from competent providers. Broken as our
system is, it's still possible to go into surgery on a timely basis
rather than die on a waiting list like they do up in Candada.
-jcr
|7.3.07 @ 6:16AM|#
""Objectivism opposes any sort of altruistic helping of the
poor"
That is a line of pinko bullshit that they've been spouting ever
since Rand published Atlas Shrugged. Objectivism doesn't in any way
oppose helping the poor. What it *does* say, is that poverty isn't
a moral claim to the property of anyone else, which it isn't.
There are effective ways to help poor people, such as the
microcredit program invented by Mohammed Yunus, and there are
ineffective ways to try to help them, such as the modern welfare
state. The evil that Rand was railing against was the creation of
the dependent class that the welfare state uses to justify
itself.
-jcr
|7.3.07 @ 8:41AM|#
"Nominating Hillary is just about the only way the democrats
could blow their advantage this time around. I'm sure they'll do
it, and she'll get cocky and preach her marxist bullshit, and beat
Mondale's record by carrying no states, just the District of
Columbia."
I'd love to see that, but I don't want her to even get the
nomination. If she gets the nomination, the slimy worms that the
Clintons are, they'll figure out some way to wiggle back in
there.
|7.3.07 @ 8:46AM|#
"I say this in every Hillary thread. It is the truth that no
conservative wants to face. Hillary is the most conservative
Democrat, and if you had to choose somebody from that side of the
aisle, she'd have to be it. Given that the GOP is going through
some serious growing (groin?) pains, Hillary doesn't look half bad.
Get over your goddam vanity, please."
If Hillary is so conservative, why did the ADA rate her so high.
She was rated way at the top with Teddy Kennedy. She is practicing
Bill's method of triangulation by pretending to be a centrist. She
was a hardliner on foreign policy because she had to be to show the
public that a woman can be a strong commander in chief. Lamar,
you've fallen for her smoke and mirrors.
|7.3.07 @ 9:21AM|#
I've fallen for her smoke and mirrors because she "pretends" to
be centrist? If Bill Clinton gives us any insight to Hillary, she
will actually be a centrist. Sure, she's still a democrat
with her ideas on big government. And maybe you don't like
politicians who listen to what people want. I tend to think that
she'll put her own political career above policies that don't work.
Hillarycare was going to be a disaster and it was abandoned. Too
bad politicians didn't realize Iraq would be a disaster and abandon
that.
I'll change my mind on this issue when you can show me a Democrat
who is more conservative than Hillary. Instead, people seem to
think that cherrypicking her more liberal positions means that
she's an ideologue. I like Ron Paul, and he's pro-life. Congressman
Paul is no more a Santorum-style neocon than Hillary is a
Kennedy-style liberal.
dhex|7.3.07 @ 9:26AM|#
ehhh, i dunno, i've heard plenty of stuff from people who claim
the white house is also breeding children as sex slaves. which is,
of course, also possible, depending on one's position / how much of
a stooge for the new world order you are.
"The one question that stuck out in my mind, was she asked for
someone to ask Hillary, or any of Bill Clinton's supporters "why do
they think I am lying? What do I have to gain, and what in my
history says I would do such a thing?""
the most obvious thing would be money, of course. and perhaps some
revenge. who knows?
|7.3.07 @ 10:06AM|#
"I'll change my mind on this issue when you can show me a
Democrat who is more conservative than Hillary."
How about Lieberman and Richardson?
|7.3.07 @ 10:09AM|#
dhex,
Why would you believe a proven liar over Juanita Broderick who has
not been proven to be a liar? Perhaps it's because you admire
Clinton and just don't want to believe he could be capable of
rape.
|7.3.07 @ 10:10AM|#
Pretending, as Young does, that Hillary's years in the White
House give her comparable experience as the First Ladies who
preceded her is nonsense. She was a top presidential advisor, who
worked closely with the President on all manner of important
matters. Her experience there is probably equivalent to holding a
cabinet, or top sub-cabinet, position.
If you want to be taken seriously in discussing feminist issues,
Ms. Young, you probably should stay away from minimizing women's
accomplishments because they achieved them while holding jobs that
are considered tradtionally feminine.
|7.3.07 @ 10:18AM|#
It's exactly because of her experience in the White House that I'm opposed to her such as health care reform, travelgate, filegate, sicking the IRS on her political opponents, Fostergate, campaign finance scandals, coverups, etc.
|7.3.07 @ 10:29AM|#
I say this in every Hillary thread. It is the truth that no
conservative wants to face. Hillary is the most conservative
Democrat, and if you had to choose somebody from that side of the
aisle, she'd have to be it.
Uh, most people here are libertarians, not conservatives. By
adopting a few positions of social conservatives, she's actually
made herself less attractive to libertarians.
The most libertarian-friendly Dem is probably Bill Richardson,
though he scares me a bit too.
dhex|7.3.07 @ 10:36AM|#
"Why would you believe a proven liar over Juanita Broderick who
has not been proven to be a liar?"
partially because of the timing. some things are more convenient
than others.
"Perhaps it's because you admire Clinton and just don't want to
believe he could be capable of rape."
yes, that must be it. i have a lot of love for captain "you can't
love your country and fear your government" happypants.
Thomas Mc|7.3.07 @ 10:52AM|#
Hillary Clinton is just Joe Lieberman with a vagina.
I will never vote for her.
|7.3.07 @ 2:00PM|#
rattlesnake: Lieberman isn't running, and as crimethink notes, libertarians aren't necessarily conservatives, though I suspect this is a Bush/neocon inspired phenomenon.
|7.3.07 @ 6:41PM|#
Once again...
...we are obviously not going to have a female President with the
parties so evenly divided with respect to the electoral college. At
least not in a normal two-party election; Bloomberg as a new Ross
Perot is a possibility. Parliamentary systems have had female
leaders not because those societies have been so much less sexist
than ours, but because their electoral systems are far superior
than our first-past-the-post, spoiler-friendly system. Given our
crappy electoral system, even 1% net bias against a female
executive is more than enough to doom her in the general election.
And, in the privacy of the voting booth, I'd say 1% is very
conservative.
|7.3.07 @ 8:22PM|#
I will support Hillary. I will vote for Hillary. No matter what she says, no mater what she does, just because the Republicans hate her.
|7.3.07 @ 11:13PM|#
Forgive me. I don't hate. I live in Maryland and I did vote for
Ellen.
But, again, gender is not the issue, a politician looking out
what's best for THE COUNTRY is the most important belief,
I don't hate Ms. Clinton.
I'm sadden by 'W'.
But, more importantly, abandon, "The Stars."
We have 260 million people. Let's REMOVE the legacy SENATORS.
REMOVE the bought Legislators. (Die in Hell.) Because, your dream
of power exceeded the most needed.
I asked that we move forward. And open Government, that is,what we
ask. Protect the citzens.
But, again, as a man, I really have no problems with a woman
President; however, not some birth right family like the Bushes,
the Kennedys', or the Clnton's. You're 15 minutes of fame is over.
Please move along now.
|7.4.07 @ 12:37AM|#
Each time we hear a talk radio Nazi say (Hillary) "She can't
win," it means they're afraid of her.
Talk radio whores are saying great things about Obama, which should
make you wonder.
Why would a facsist bastard say nice things about Obama?
I have nothing bad to say about Obama. If Obama wins - whoever wins
the Democratic nomination, I'm behind him/her all the way.
But, seriously, between the Black guy with two years
experience
and the only team to win back-to-back presidential campaigns since
FDR,
(the team that beat war hero Bush and war hero Dole),
...who do you think the super-racist GOP wants to run against?
|7.4.07 @ 11:35AM|#
That's o'kay don't vote for Hillary,let a repug win and get 4 years of the wonerful GOP fair and balanced.How stupid can you be????
|7.6.07 @ 9:50PM|#
I'm sorry I'm still laughing about Cathy Young
calling Hillary Clinton a "centrist". She is a centrist like just
like Cheney is a centrist.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245