It's All About Me, Man: [CanYoAssDigIt] Re: [progressive] Conservatives for Hillary?

Wednesday, May 02, 2007

[CanYoAssDigIt] Re: [progressive] Conservatives for Hillary?

I agree with much of what he has to say - especially revealing is the
comment "contest between rivals within the same league."

That is exactly right, it makes no more sense to say that "Democrats
are good and Republicans are evil" (or the other way around) than to
say "The Mariners are good and Yankees are evil." Even the most
fanatic sports nut isn't that deluded. I hope.

But politicians are a lot like major league athletes - they are
millionaires working to advance the interests of billionaires. The
notion that the "local" sports franchise has anything to do with your
life is a sad delusion - and the same goes for political franchises,
too.

One thing this guy is right about - Hillary Clinton's politics ARE to
the right of the country as a whole. While individuals tend to
contain idiosyncratic mixes of ideological beliefs - some to the right
of Attila the Hun, some to the left of Karl Marx) - on the whole the
masses are way to the left of the ruling class. Only ruling class
ideas are expressed anymore, and the rest of us have forgotten who we
are. Like a bunch of Stockholm hostages, we imagine that we love
Donald Trump and Bill Gates. And their agents, like Donald Rumsfeld
and Hillary Clinton.

In general I wish that people would rediscover who they are - but at
the same time, its a frightening idea, people have been out of touch
with reality so long it would be like throwing a bucket of water into
a vat of hot oil.

On 5/2/07, Andre Kenji de sousa <andrekenjilistas3@gmail.com> wrote:
> That´s comming from a reaganite.
>
> http://www.creators.com/opinion/bruce-bartlett.html
>
> Conservatives for Hillary?
> As each day passes, it becomes increasingly clear that the Democrats
> will win the White House next year. It's not quite 1932, but it's
> getting close to a sure thing. All the energy is on their side, they
> are raising more money from more contributors, and there is little if
> any enthusiasm for the Republican candidates — even among Republicans.
>
> Of course, one can never rule out the ability of the Democrats to
> seize defeat from the jaws of victory. But sometimes the trend in one
> party's direction is so strong that even the grossest incompetence
> can't keep it from winning. I think 2008 is shaping up as that kind of
> year for the Democrats.
>
> If I am right, conservatives are going to have to make an important
> decision at some point. Do they go down with the sinking Republican
> ship, or do they try to have some meaningful influence on the next
> president by becoming involved in the Democratic race?
>
> I'm sure that the first reaction of most conservatives will be to say
> that any involvement in the Democratic Party is unthinkable. They view
> it as the party of treason and socialism. They could no more involve
> themselves in Democratic politics than a God-fearing Christian would
> consider working with Satan just because it looked like he was going
> to win.
>
> For those of you who feel this way, stop reading. There is nothing
> more in this column for you. But for those conservatives who don't see
> the 2008 election as a race between good and evil, but merely a
> contest between rivals within the same league, I think there is a good
> case for participating in the Democratic nominating process.
>
> Here's why. Although all the Democratic candidates are more liberal
> than all of the Republicans, they are not all equally liberal. Among
> the Democrats, some are more to the right and others more to the left.
> It is a grave mistake to assume, as most conservatives do, that they
> are all equally bad and that it makes no difference whatsoever which
> one is elected.
>
> To right-wingers willing to look beneath what probably sounds to them
> like the same identical views of the Democratic candidates, it is
> pretty clear that Hillary Clinton is the most conservative. John
> Edwards is the most liberal, and Barack Obama is somewhere in between.
>
> The hard-core right-wingers who kept reading past the point I told
> them to stop probably think I've lost my mind by now.
> But remember, I am talking about the politics within the Democratic
> Party, not the nation as a whole. Moreover, at this stage of the
> nominating process, all of the candidates in both parties are
> appealing mainly to their bases. These are well to the left of the
> country among Democrats and well to the right among Republicans.
>
> It is in this context that one must evaluate Sen. Clinton's position.
> Given the views of the Democratic base and the enormous unpopularity
> of the Iraq War, it is a real act of courage for her to steadfastly
> refuse to say her vote for the war was wrong. Of course, like all
> Democrats and most Americans, she opposes the war today and favors a
> rapid pullout.
>
> That is why the easy thing for Sen. Clinton to do would be to just
> thrown in the towel, admit her vote was wrong and move on. And that's
> why it is an act of courage for her to refuse to do so. If
> conservatives weren't so blinded by their hatred for her, this would
> be obvious.
>
> On economics, it is reasonable to assume that Sen. Clinton's policies
> would not be altogether different from Bill Clinton's. This is not a
> bad thing. On trade, his record was outstanding, and on the budget was
> far better than George W. Bush's. While Clinton raised taxes in 1993,
> it should be remembered that he cut them in 1997, including a cut in
> the capital gains tax. On regulatory policy, Clinton was no worse than
> the current administration and probably better on net.
>
> Democrats know all this, which is why our most liberal pundits, like
> Bob Kuttner, are attacking Sen. Clinton for being a clone of her
> husband on economics and criticizing her support for "Rubinomics,"
> named after former Treasury Secretary Bob Rubin. Its essential
> elements are a commitment to deficit reduction and globalization —
> which are both anathema to the Democratic Party's liberal base. It
> wants a hard line against imports to save jobs and an expansive fiscal
> policy to pay for a wide range of new social programs.
>
> At some point, politically sophisticated conservatives will have to
> recognize that no Republican can win in 2008 and that their only
> choice is to support the most conservative Democrat for the
> nomination. Call me crazy, but I think that person is Hillary Clinton.
>
> To find out more about Bruce Bartlett, and read features by other
> Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators
> Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.
>
> COPYRIGHT 2007 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.
>
>
>
> --
> André
>
> http://www.andrekenji.com.br
> Flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/andken/
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>