Nine Reasons to Reject Hillary
That was the title of a hit piece in The Hill yesterday.
Dick Morris: 9 Reasons to Reject Hillary
Dick. Dick Morris.
Oh, Dick Morris. Sure.
You remember Dick Morris, right?
Why of course you do. Let’s see, October 31st, 2012, Fox News, The O’Reilly Factor:
DICK MORRIS, FOX NEWS POLITICAL ANALYST: […] let me go through the numbers because it's important for people to get it.
[Demonstrates irrefutable mathematical analysis of why Obama will lose to Romney]
O'REILLY: All right. That's pretty much what Rove did on his little board.
O'REILLY: […] So you are standing by your prediction of a Romney landslide?
MORRIS: Absolutely. Romney will win this election by five to ten points in the popular vote. And will carry more than three hundred electoral votes.
O'REILLY: All right. Now you know, Morris, I have you booked for one week from tonight. One week from tonight [after the election]
MORRIS: I know. But my question is, is my appearance going to be before or after you buy me dinner?
O'REILLY: I'm not buying you anything. I didn't bet anything, Morris. I got your back here.
MORRIS: In my book "Black Helicopters", I write about how the U.N. is sending inspectors to monitor the voting in the United States. What's going to happen is after Romney wins this in a landslide the Democratic narrative will be how the black vote was down. It was down because of unemployment and disillusionment. They'll say it's down because of voter suppression…
O'REILLY: Suppressed. Right.
MORRIS: And that's how this will go into history.
O'REILLY: No it won't because we're not going to let them get away with that. Morris, thanks very much. We'll see you next Wednesday. That will be high noon.
And it was High Noon, wasn’t it?
If you did happen to tune in the following week, you got to watch Karl Rove losing his shit on Fox News as his and Morris’ predictions of a landslide turned out to be true …
… it’s just that Romney got buried under it.
And now Dick Morris Fox News Political Analyst is back with nine reasons why America should reject Hillary Clinton:
1. She is a hawk who will get us into another war
Morris actually said that.
That’s his first complaint.
Clinton is a “hawk” who will get us into another war.
It’s one thing for liberals to consider Clinton’s supposed hawkishness a reason not to vote for her. But Morris is a conservative, and he’s saying it in of all places The Hill – a saber rattling conservative media outlet that has been advocating for war with Iran since it went into business.
At this point, the only way conservatives could be more pro-war is if they showed up for work goose-stepping in uniform toting their AR-15s.
Morris says, “By temperament, [Clinton] has a bias toward sharp, decisive action, is impatient with delay and terrified of appearing weak. She likes to be the tough guy.”
A bias towards sharp, decisive action? Impatient with delay? So now that’s bad, is it?
Somebody explain to me how this squares with the unending complaints from conservatives that Obama isn’t hawkishly decisive enough? That he doesn’t take action quickly enough when America is supposedly threatened?
She’s terrified of appearing weak.
Funny, Morris had a different opinion on the appearance of weakness back in 2008
But in an age of terrorism, weakness is a capital crime. McCain needs to base his campaign on establishing Obama's weakness and his own strong leadership by comparison.
Weakness is a capital crime, said Morris back then. In fact, over the years, Morris, The Hill, the conservative press, and conservative politicians have harped endlessly in fear of appearing weak. Not a day goes by that some conservative pundit doesn’t accuse Barack Obama of appearing weak. In fact, conservatives never shut the fuck up about it.
She likes to be the tough guy.
As opposed to who? As opposed to which historical conservative example? Abraham Lincoln? Teddy Roosevelt? Ronald Reagan? George W. Bush? As opposed to which jingoistic chest-beating potential conservative candidate? Jeb Bush? Ted Cruz? Chris Christie? Marco Rubio? As opposed to which icon of modern conservatism? Ted Nugent? Donald Trump? Sarah Palin?
Rand Paul, perhaps, who can’t seem to decide if he’s the isolationist kind of libertarian or the Aw Shucks Let’s Kill Us Some Brown People For America kind of libertarian.
The hypocritical irony is so thick you could cut it with a bayonet.
A strong opinionate hawk is a good thing when he’s a Republican, but a bad thing when she’s a democrat – and I’m honestly shocked that Morris didn’t work in a “pantsuit” reference or a comment about menstruation.
2. She tends to follow certain advisers slavishly, almost to the exclusion of her own views
Morris opines that Hillary Clinton has no real thoughts of her own, she’s totally dependent on “a guru” to lead her.
Oh, Hillary, you silly lady brain.
If only she’d read more Ayn Rand or had an evangelical holy man for a father to predict her future. If only Karl Rove was there to advise her. And who was her astrologer when she was First Lady? I think we have a right to know!
I suppose I should be shocked at how fast conservative racism is being updated to misogyny, but I’m really not.
3. She has no knowledge of economics
Morris says Clinton has avoided studying economics and has no theories about it.
According to Morris, Clinton believes economics are “best left to the experts,” which Morris explains is a view common to those “reared in the arrogance of the Keynesians of the ’60s and ’70s.”
You know that line from The Princess Bride? Sure, you know the one.
Arrogance, Morris says. After first pointing out Clinton supposedly admits she doesn’t know anything about a subject so she defers to experts on it instead of just plowing ahead – like a Republican would. Hey, I read Atlas Shrugged, I think I know what I’m doing!
“You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.”
How horrible, I guess, to live in a nation where massive, fantastically complicated systems might be managed by professionals who actually know something about them. Where politicians understand the limitations of their interests and expertise and defer to trained experts. Jesus Trickle Down Christ, think what would happen if instead of amateurs and science deniers and religious fanatics and partisan dogmatists, we actually listened to experts on economics, banking, climate, reproduction, medicine, the military, foreign relations, space exploration, the environment, education, engineering, energy, internet security, electronic media, intellectual property … but I digress.
That would be crazy. Just crazy.
4. She has no deep sense of who she is.
Sorry, who was the arrogant one again?
Goddamn but you’ve just got to love this guy, don’t you?
Morris says, “Hillary Clinton is endlessly adaptable […] She has no anchor, no real sense of who she really is.”
Hillary Clinton has no sense of who she is, see?
Morris does, of course, he knows.
But Clinton, silly lady brain, she doesn’t even know who she is.
Ivy league educated attorney. First Lady of Arkansas, First Lady of the United States. Senator. Secretary of State. Mother. Grandmother. Sixty-seven years old and she doesn’t know who she is. Biggest complaint from the Right is that she’s a tough, confident, opinionated cast-iron bitch – and in fact Morris himself not three paragraphs back called her a hawk, a tough guy.
But yeah, Hillary Clinton has no sense of self. She doesn’t know who she is.
I looked. I did. But I couldn’t find Morris’ similar assessment of Mitt Flip Flop Romney’s sense of self. Or Marco Rubio’s fluid position on immigration … or his family history for that matter. Or Scott Walker, who said he didn’t change his positions he’s just listening to the “will of the people.” But Clinton, who has held the same beliefs and political position for 30 years, who has weathered decades of relentless assaults and faced down her critics from Whitewater to Lewinsky to Benghazi, she has no sense of self.
And Romney will win in a landslide. That Morris, what an insight that guy has.
5. Her worldview is shaped by her grudges.
Morris declares, “Nobody has a longer enemies list than Clinton.”
Nobody has a longer list of enemies than Clinton … unless it’s neo-confederate conservatives who are still mad about how the Civil War turned out.
Muslims, atheists, gays, progressives, activists, statists, hippies, the “elites,” big government, the educated, the poor, the uninsured, women, the unemployed, minorities, environmentalists, unions, immigrants, the sick, socialists, vegetarians, the French, and the list of people conservatives hate just goes on and on and fucking on. They’re defined by it, by who they hate, who they hold a grudge against, by who they declare unAmerican and unfit.
Hell, follow John Boehner’s Twitter feed for a day compared to Barack Obama’s. Boehner does nothing but bitch about people he hates and blames for all the ills of the world, Obama talks about hope and optimism and coming together. Have a gander at Sarah Palin’s Facebook page, go on, it won’t take much to compile a long, long list of the people she holds a grudge against – hell, it would be a lot easier to list the people she doesn’t hate. Listen to one of Ted Cruz’s speeches, any one, pick one at random, it’s a litany of the people conservatives consider enemies. The people Bobby Jindal can’t stand, that Rand Paul detests, that Marco Rubio hates, that Dick Cheney despises is endless and never ever forgotten. It’s how they raise money, it’s what keeps them warm at night.
Morris is afraid a Clinton presidency would implement a “foreign policy by grudge.”
This, this, from the same goddamned people who want war with Iran, who want to murder another hundred thousand Muslims, because they can’t get over the idea Iran has the same exact right to sovereignty as does Israel.
This, this, from the same bitter sulking sons of bitches who just can’t get over Fidel Castro. Who insist on punishing Cuba for defying America, for continuing to exist despite our best efforts to the contrary.
Foreign policy by grudge? What’s Morris afraid of? That Clinton will be better at being a Republican than Republicans are?
6. Her fundraising has totally compromised her freedom of action.
Morris should give up The Hill and take a stab at writing for The Onion.
“Nobody is as bound to the status quo as Clinton, tied down by millions of special-interest donations.”
Seriously? Morris must be a hell of a poker player, no really, because if he can say something like that with a straight face he’s in the wrong business. He could be making a killing on the professional Texas Hold ‘Em circuit.
Again, what is it that Morris is really afraid of here? Because it sure sounds like he’s saying Hillary Clinton is a better Republican than Republicans.
Tell you what, let’s bring up repealing Citizens United, see who runs away first.
Go on, I’ll get the popcorn.
7. She is paranoid and suspicious.
And the conservative hopefuls who just spoke to the NRA, Ted Cruz, Jeb Bush, Rick Santorum, Rick Perry, Scott Walker, Bobby Jindal, Mike Huckabee, Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina and Lindsey Graham, are what exactly if not paranoid and suspicious?
Have you met John McCain?
Paranoid suspicion has essentially defined the Republican Party since September 11th, 2001.
Morris says, “Presidential historian James David Barber defined presidents based, in part, on whether they enjoyed serving. Bill Clinton did. Hillary Clinton will not. Her sense of enemies closing in on her will overwhelm her. She will feel under siege […] making her dark, sullen, secretive and surly.”
Dark, sullen, secretive, and surly?
You’ve got to be kidding me.
Take a look at that list of NRA speakers again. Listen to what they had to say. They’re talking to the very epitome of paranoia and suspicion. Why the hell do you think all those people are armed? They’re terrified of everything, they see enemies behind every bush, in every face.
You don’t get any more paranoid and suspicious then the goddamned NRA. Dark, sullen, secretive, surly? You talk about a siege mentality, that’s the NRA’s very core – and, yet, who’s courting them? Was it Hillary Clinton? Was it?
Good grief! If the Obama administration has taught us anything, if the previous Clinton administration has taught us anything, it’s that a Democrat has every right to feel under siege and surrounded by enemies.
Because they are under siege and surrounded by enemies.
Republicans have made it absolutely clear, have openly declared it over and over and over again, they consider liberals such as Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and now Hillary Clinton to be the enemies of America, worse than Hitler or Stalin they say, worse than ISIS, the literal Anti-Christ of their religion who will usher in the end of the world – and they have said so, in those exact words, openly, publicly, so many times that it’s impossible to make an accurate count.
Hell, that was Obama’s biggest mistake, he thought Republicans were reasonable people who would compromise for the good of the country – and it took him damned near six years to realize they have become bitter raging fanatics, birthers, truthers, gun waving, bible thumping government haters, who were fully willing to burn down the entire nation just to stick it to him.
President Hillary Clinton would have to be nuts not to consider herself besieged by enemies.
8. She approved NSA wiretapping of foreign leaders.
I had to keep checking to make sure Morris wasn’t talking about his own party.
“ As secretary of State, she had to be aware that the U.S. was wiretapping the cellphones of foreign leaders like Germany’s Angela Merkel. It is very hard to suppose that we would tap the phone of one of our key allies without the approval of the secretary of State.”
Sure. Why not. I mean, Morris is living in a fantasyland anyway, so why shouldn’t the National Security Agency be under the authority of Hillary Clinton’s State Department instead of, you know, under cognizance of the Department of Defense like it actually is out here in the real world. Subject to congressional oversight made up of both Democrats and Republicans.
Foreign intelligence is what NSA does. I know, I used to work there.
If conservatives don’t like NSA doing its job, they should work together with liberals to amend National Intelligence tasking.
Instead, I note The Hill just posted an article gushingly describing how Congress is “closing in on” renewal of the Patriot Act, you know, the law that authorized and vastly expanded NSA’s domestic and foreign collection mission – including removal of oversight and the insertion of backdoors and taps into commercial communications systems.
9. Her contempt for the press is legendary and will lead to more and more secrets.
“Can anyone disagree with this?”
Well, certainly not Sarah Palin. Right?
And certainly not those Republicans who use the phrase “Lamestream Media” and talk endlessly about the media’s supposed “liberal bias” … oh, wait, who was Morris talking about again?
Morris is in fact saying that Hillary Clinton is a better Republican than Republicans.
That’s exactly what he’s saying.
And he’s saying it because unless something completely unexpected happens in the next few months, Hillary Clinton is going to be the Democratic Party’s nominee. I know it. You know it. Morris knows it. Morris and those like him know they can’t stop it, and they know they don’t have anybody nearly as powerful to rally around.
No, Morris and those like him are right now attempting to paint Hillary Clinton as more Republican than Republican. It’s deliberate and you can tell because Morris specifically didn’t mention certain things, such as: Abortion, Climate Change, Minimum Wage, Income Inequality, Marriage Equality, Education, and etcetera.
Morris and his friends are not trying to make conservatives hate Hillary Clinton, obviously there’s no need for that.
They’re trying to make liberals stay home.
Romney will win this election by 5 to 10 points in the popular vote. And will carry more than 300 electoral votes.
Except Mitt Romney didn’t win that election.
And Romney didn’t win that election because conservatives didn’t like him.
Conservatives didn’t think Romney was conservative enough. He wasn’t a Reagan, he wasn’t even a George H. W. Bush. He was too much like Obama. He wasn’t this and he wasn’t that. Conservatives had a whole list of reasons why they didn’t like Mitt Romney.
But they hated Barack Obama, oh yes they did.
And political analysts like Morris thought that was enough.
Political analysts like Karl Rove and Dick Morris, they thought hate would be enough. They had the math to prove it and everything.
But you see, hate, no matter how strong, doesn’t win elections.
However, apathy certainly can.
Conservatives hated Barack Obama, but they didn’t like Mitt Romney either.
So they stayed home.
Two years later, liberals hated their truculent obstructionist Congress, but they didn’t much care for Obama either.
So they stayed home.
And that, that right there, is exactly what people like Morris are counting on in 2016.
They’ve got a clown car full of unlikeable nuts. And Hillary Clinton.
And if they can convince liberals, and progressives, and the fickle free-range undecideds to just stay home, they’ll take back the White House.
Don’t stay home.
Yes, there are plenty of reasons not to vote for Hillary Clinton. Real reasons, not the ridiculous nonsense listed above, but real reasons. Sure. There are plenty of reasons to dislike Hillary Clinton.
If you look, you can find hundreds of reasons to stay home.
That said, I’ll give you three reasons right now not to:
Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, and Ted Cruz.
Thanks Jim. Right on the money.ReplyDelete
Skip Davidson. Not anonymous!
Good analysis, Jim.ReplyDelete
What I can't really get my head around is just why (except for ffox) any network or serious political wonk show would invite ANY of these clowns that have been repeatedly wrong. Morris, Kristol, Rove, McCain (he's been on so much I figure he's qualified for and Actor's Equity card); and none of the, so-called, moderators ever challenge them or make them rationally defend their remarks.
Oh well, as George Orwell once said, " Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed; everything else is public relations" Guess it applies to broadcasting also.
I suspect it's possibly to show that they, as emperor wannabes, have no clothesDelete
This was fantastic. And of course this sort of stuff is going to come up until November. And if she wins, I'm certain that Mitch and Boehner will pull the GOP into another meeting to say how they'll block her at every turn. Because...well, Clinton.ReplyDelete
Of course, if she needs any more help in law...she could always ask Loretta Lynch to be her running mate if the Senate continues blocking the woman as Attorney General. The lady has a great deal of experience in a number of areas applying to law and justice.
You write how I think! Excellent rant!ReplyDelete
Thanks for the perspective. It helps one understand how media manipulates public understanding.ReplyDelete
I love this blog! You are smart, lucid and right (wright)! don't stop.ReplyDelete
Spot on, as always, Mr. Wright.ReplyDelete
Two small things I noticed, one a typo (or spellcheck error) and one a pet peeve that you may or may not care to change: Under point number 8, about the NSA wiretapping "Hillary Clinton's State Depart" should be "State Department". The second falls under point 9, where you write, "Hillary Clinton is going to be the Democrat nominee." Should that not read "Democratic nominee"?
Your last sentence sent chills down my spine! Nice post!ReplyDelete
>>Foreign policy by grudge? What’s Morris afraid of? That Clinton will be better at being a Republican than Republicans are?<<ReplyDelete
Hell, *I'm* afraid that Clinton will be better at being a Republican than Republicans are. :P This is why I want Bernie Sanders.
We Vermonters love us some Bernie, but alas he is too far to the left.Delete
Don't get me wrong I like Bernie and think he'd be a good VP candidate, but if he ran as the Dem candidate, he would most likely lose. :-(
I'm pretty sure you know this already Jim, but for those who read these comments and don't know, our brains are naturally predisposed to experiencing something known as the "Backfire Effect", where our beliefs become even stronger when confronted with facts that disprove those beliefs. Of course this doesn't effect everyone, as education, knowledge of the scientific process and rigorous self-examination of one's beliefs can overcome this. It does affect society to such a significant degree though that masses of people can repeatedly make the same mistakes. This is happening more, in our society at least, as education and science become less important to those masses. More can be read about this here: http://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/06/10/the-backfire-effect/ReplyDelete
Well done, Sir, very well done. Thank you.ReplyDelete
You deserve a standing ovation!! Now, to actually get these "perfectionist" liberals and progressives off their bottoms and to the polls, to vote for Hillary.ReplyDelete
I don't often finish reading a blog post but I'm really enjoying the fact I completely read this one. Well said and done! Thank you.ReplyDelete
Jerry Alberson....also not anonymous.
I won't stay home. And let us know when you start making the public speaking circuit. I'll be there, too. As always, thanks for a superb essay.ReplyDelete
That 'ol toe sucker Dick Morris, he is right less often than a broken clock.ReplyDelete
Thanks for voicing what so many of us feel, but cannot deliver as coherently as you do.ReplyDelete
Minor glitch noticed: "and etcetera" is redundant--the "and" is already in "etcetera".
I would really like to vote for Hillary. But not yet. I have watched her moves over the years. She is facile, clever, intelligent and oft-time chameleon-like. History will decide the sort of Secretary of State she was, and if elected, history will get to chronicle her as President. But for me, right now, I can't seem to ignore the whole business of her private email server and keeping official business correspondence/emails on that server out of the purview of US....that's US, you and me who were in fact her employers while she was Secretary of State. Perhaps the vaporizing of the email on that server was of no consequence. Perhaps. But it was Hillary Clinton who made that decision and now, we'll just never know. So it concerns me. She decided to delete emails from the private server on which she kept correspondence that didn't belong to HER, but belonged to the United States of America, as she was working as our employee. There was not long ago, a president who decided which parts of official procedure and rules were appropriate to follow and which ones could be ignored. I see Hillary's approach to official communication and the maintenance of a private server out of sight to be very reminiscent of recent history. I believe it would be a terrible thing to elect Hillary Clinton for all the right reasons and find out in fact that all we had done was elect Richard Nixon in a skirt.ReplyDelete
She helped bring charges against Nixon. Do you remember how big BlackBerry's were in 2008? She's a couple of years younger than Bill and he never sent a single email while he was in office. Where were you when the US Justice Department's or mitt rommey or Jeb Bush deleted all their emails?Delete
I didn't vote for either one of those guys and wouldn't now.Delete
Just as Mr. Wright mentions, there are many good reasons to not vote for Hillary Clinton. But, there are great reasons to vote for her, those being Paul, Cruz, and Rubio. I would add these reasons to his list : Jeb Bush, and the Supreme Court. As an old progressive, I do not want to see my grandchildren and their children living for the next 40 years with a SCOTUS full of people like Sam Alito and Clarence Thomas !Delete
It boggles my mind that, in a country where people will camp out on the sidewalk to be the first to buy the newest I-product, that people will not show up at the polls. Yes, if you don't vote, you get the politicians you deserve but we who DO vote don't deserve to be saddled with some half-assed Stupid Camp reject who will fight progress in this country at every turn, whether it be progressive policies, progressive thinking or forward movement of any kind because you couldn't get off your sorry ass and do what you are taking for granted. I was listening to the BBC report on the recent election in Nigeria and couldn't believe how excited those people were to cast their votes. It was so refreshing and so rewarding to hear people who WANTED, who rejoiced in being able to vote. Like a lot of people, I've become jaded with the political process but that doesn't mean I won't keep voting. People in this country have forgotten how lucky they are to have the right to vote. My biggest fear right now is being stuck with one of the halfwits listed due to a low voter turnout. Our last mayoral election only brought out 15% of the electorate. I can't believe that people think this is the way to make things better. If they won't even vote for a mayor, what hope is there? I'm so sick to death of the idiots on the right (and in the pew) impeding any efforts to improve life for anyone other than themselves. And we've already been through the 50's and 60's, thanks-we don't need to go to there again. Lord, love a duck! (I don't know-my dad used to say it.)ReplyDelete
Pam in PA
Pam, it's rhyming slang. Think about it.Delete
Someone commented elsewhere today that if Mrs. Clinton is the nominee he'll vote for any third-party candidate that runs. Which probably should be added to the apathy as a reason why some RWNJ could be in the White House in two years. There are way too many people who have fallen into the well-laid trap of personality elections instead of taking the time and energy to really look at the broader effect of their self-indulgent rebellion.ReplyDelete
Agreed. People who both resent "Citizen's United" and voted for Nader need only check the mirror to see who laid the groundwork.Delete
I still remember the liberals who "Taught Humphrey a lesson" by staying home and giving us the Nixon Supreme Court.
A third party vote is a vote for the gop. Not one candidate I agree with 100%. And there will never be because if that were the case I would be running. Instead of voting for a candidate who one agrees with 100% vote for a candidate who could win 100%.
Best yet,Mr Wright!! Made this old far, far left, lefty smile and that doesn't happen much these days about public affairs.ReplyDelete
Ms Clinton is indeed tough in that better -Republican -than-a Republican way you note. Her husband was/is too.
She's a centrist and hasn't shifted much there -in forever.
Don't agree with her about a lot of things but she's way more in tune with everyday folks than the wahoos the Rs have turned up in recent years so once again, I will be voting, and I will be voting for a D , and I will vote for Ms Clinton.
and I have only missed one election since 1972...
suck that in your flat lil straw Dick Morris.
I learned long ago, probably on the 'Sadly, No' blog, that when it comes to conservatives and their attacks, it's always projection. Always. Thanks, Jim, for laying out the incontrovertable evidence one more time.ReplyDelete
Quibble: Her undergraduate degree is Seven Sisters, not Ivy League. (Yale Law, yes, but Wellsley undergrad, which is where the affiliations are rooted.)ReplyDelete
Secretary Clinton is by far the most experienced and intelligent of those who have declared. I think she is the only known quantity we have. If she has warts it is not lack of intelligence some might call her strengths devious but a politician has to be a politician in a world where the 'Great Republican Conspiracy' as she put it has gotten crazier and nastier since even the famous Contract on America. I would like to think she shares some of the spirit of the likes of senators Sanders and Warren but we need them to do what they do already. Push from the progressive left and work a little to ease the finances and goals of the vast middle class. It is too early to count out Jeb Bush but he does not get my vote, even if he sounds moderate, although it will be interesting to watch the contest. That public contest might just be enough to get the folks off their iPhones and X boxes.ReplyDelete
Good piece, Jim. Up with your best. We got a republic if we can keep it from the oligarchs and the likes of old Morris. I can't take stuff like The Hill. Glad you can digest it some.
Wonderful as usual, and no, I never stay home on election day. I try not to vote straight Democrat, do the research, and then vote straight Democrat.ReplyDelete
Love that sentiment. "Don't vote straight Democrat, do the research, and then vote straight Democrat." I tell myself that every voting cycle. I have a real fear that I'm not introspective about my beliefs enough, I need to question myself more, WHY do I believe the way I do, etc.Delete
I live in Texas, and so many of my family and co-workers are SO predictable as to where they will stand on any issue, news story, etc, it makes me fear that I'm no better.. So I research, research, ad nauseum, listen to other viewpoints, THEN I realize I should have gone with my gut anyway. So yes, straight ticket for me, unless its a 3rd party candidate thats not flat crazy. (I never do that in a close race though, have to keep "flat crazy" away from the real power.
Laura, I once thought as you regarding "straight ticket" voting. However, watching the Republican Party morph into the organization of bigotry and backwardness, I can no longer consider voting on that side of the fence. I've no doubt there are some good and honorable (and naive) folks in the GOP. But, if they align themselves with the principles of that party, they get no support from me. There is, at this time, no amount of "research" that would cause me to vote for a Republican.Delete
I'm from Texas, and I hate what the GOP has done to my home state. So, now in live in a part of Florida known as the redneck riviera...hell, they're killing Florida too. I like your last sentence, db...sums it up for me as well..."there is...no amount of "research" that would cause me to vote for a Republican. Amen.Delete
Jim as only you can do it....you nailed it! Along with blowing all the dust bunnies to hell and back in my brain.ReplyDelete
Morris is no more intelligently capable of being a political analyst covering Hillary Clinton than he is analyzing a mail-box roping contest in ANY back woods small town in America on a Saturday night or a bull-riding contest in Texas. Quite honestly Hillary hands down has more balls than he's capable of juggling.
With that said, do I as a voter trust her? No. Firstly she's a politican and it's NOT a profession that comes with trust on the door name plaque. Does she in any way speak to anything I believe in? Yes. Will I vote for her? Right now with the other options available, Hell yeah and NOT just because she's a woman and most definately NOT for her 'rainbow colored pantsuit collection". As of right this minute it solely because she's all we've got, so far, vs the lame, idiotic, self serving puppet clowns on the Republican right. If I wouldn't personally sit down and have a beer and a one on one conversation with ANY one of them, why the hell would I vote for them. Quite plainly, I trust them less than I distrust her.
Is she the perfect choice? No. But I'm not sure that I'm looking for the "perfect" person to run this country. Perfection is unrealistic. Being a 'Stepford' is abhorant. I WANT someone that is human and VERY real, warts and all that isn't afraid of rocking the proverbial boat of the way things have 'always been done'. Someone that looks to the future and ask the world's experts for the answers to real questions and problems for what needs to be done. Someone that is capable of standing toe to toe in a battle. Someone that is capable of making a decision and then acting on it straight in the oppositions face.
Is it time for a woman to run this country. Who the hell knows but right now she couldn't do any worse than any of the men who have come before her. Hell let's be honest the playing field is WIDE open for mistake making and the bar is as low as it can get, if you take a good look at those waiting in the wings on the right.
Is Hillary capable of taking the heat of sitting in that Presidential chair if elected as Obama has had to do? Oh yeah. Having one's husband being outed in front of a nation - hell the world - with massive infidelity (talk about transparency and full disclosure) - and she was still capable of standing with a steel rod in her spine in the face of it all, took guts, along with balls of steel.
Quite honestly, if it came to a fight, I'd much rather have Hillary at my back because at least she's capable of getting down in the mud and doesn't give a damn about getting mud in her hair. It wouldn't just be a belly bump pissing contest or a "Jackie" tea party....It'd be the real deal and a true "Art of Warfare" in motion.
No matter what, she's worth watching.....
I've always had the impression she was the girl who studied an extra three hours for every exam just to get it right. I think she's pragmatic and tough and I think your analysis is spot on. It's why she drives the far right completely crazy.Delete
I agree on your assessment. Hillary has warts, who doesn't, but he resolve is inspiring, her intelligence is up to the task, and I think here vision for the country is keener than any would be GOP candidate out there. I supported before Obama and I still think she is more capable. I will be voting for sure.Delete
Watched this earlier this week (hears the The Twilight Zone intro in my head) never gets old!
Yaeh those arrogant Keynesians who've been proved right time and again, even The Chicago School say that they're right.
When Keynesians are branded as left wing, that's when we know we are in trouble.Delete
Roger, are you saying you'd rather have the certainty of a Rubio or Cruz rather than the possibility of a ' Nixon in a skirt'? And you're basing this on one of her actions that might have been questionable? And while we're here, let's ask ourselves why it's ok that the private server issue is standard and yet Not Ok for Hillary? So this is how we judge her? Is it OK if we look to her accomplishments rather the the maybe she did this, maybe she did that?ReplyDelete
Rubio or Cruz? If that's the choice I might claim "the Veteran's exemption" and stay at home. I want neither of those guys, but I'm not sure I want a facile, shape-shifting person who deliberately hides OUR correspondence from US. And no, this is not the only issue i judge Hillary on, and the of the other items one speaks to moral responsibility and the other to how history will decide she performed in high public office. We won't know the latter until after all of this dust settles and someone is elected, and the former to which I object is generally accepted much wider than are vibrating cigars.Delete
The e-mail issue to me anyway is just another GOP meaningless wail. When Bill left office and began his foundation work I am betting he had the one of the best and secure internet set-ups - and it was not a law or rule when Hillary became SOS to use their "personal" server. If you were aware how easily the government can hack into your system or any friendly or non-friendly 3rd party and you were already on a secure (and secure as possible) network versus a network accessed all over the world by the thousands of workers wouldn't you say "no law/rule against it...I'll stick with what I know". The one thing she could have done (perhaps should have) was allow someone to vet what e-mail she was going to delete but then I think of all the e-mails deleted by others including Bush (W) when President and I wonder if this is just another double standard imposed on us by GOP hoping to create problems and denying they have ever done anything similar. Benghazi of course will be chanted over and over again but no one ever, EVER, EVER qualifies that with the security failures of other Presidents including St. Ronnie's lapse in Beruit or let's face it W's failure on 9-11. Had W been smarter, or perhaps less driven to create a war situation perhaps the plot would have been foiled or at least blunted - and no one ever holds him or Cheney accountable and we all should. OK, stepping off my soapbox, thanks for a great read Jim and I won't be staying home on election day. I will never find a candidate I agree with 100% and do not like the phrase "lesser of two evils" but I have always thought many Dems voted 3rd party against Gore and we ended up with W and when you look at the last Republican Presidents versus Democrats - not since JFK/LBJ days have Dems been involved in maintaining a "war" whereas GOP has given us 3 wars alone in Middle East and even Daddy Bush's war was not pristine -- we basically told Saddam we didn't care what he did and we armed him with chemical weapons and some of the crimes committed against Kuwait were made up -- not saying it was right but we were carefully fed pieces of information to garner public support. With W it was outright lies and high crimes but comparing the past the GOP pretty much always wants war to build up the bank accounts of military and security contractors. MarleneDelete
Dear Mr. Wright:ReplyDelete
As a citizen of a country where most of our political class loves to blame YOUR country for all our self-inflicted problems (Venezuela), I have always found interesting to follow the politics of the US.
In my country, the vast majority of our people lean to the left. So much, that those of us who don't, would be considered in your country as "Center Left".
As you might imagine, in view of how my country has fared in the last 15 years and particularly in light of the events that have transpired here in the last couple of years. My sympathies for OUR version of left-wing politics are non-existent. Consequently, my opinion of your right wing politicians was that it couldn't be all that bad, UNTIL, I started following your politics in detail.
I wrote this rather lengthy introduction to make it clear where I am coming from. Now my question to you is the following: Several of my US acquaintances, particularly the ones with a Military Background, say that the Clinton White House treated the Military with contempt, as a retired member of your Armed Forces could you tell me how much of that did you experience?
...the Clinton White House treated the Military with contempt, as a retired member of your Armed Forces could you tell me how much of that did you experience?Delete
I served under Bill Clinton as Commander in Chief. I don't recall any contempt from Clinton towards us, though there was plenty from the military openly directed at him. It was common in the ranks to hear "draft dodger in chief" and other contemptuous slurs from our superiors in direct violation of the UCMJ.
Clinton wasn't a war hawk or a military fetishist, but he was never reluctant about the use of military force. Bosnia and Kosovo come to mind, both successful campaigns and both well supported by the White House.
Clinton never treated the military with disrespect that I recall - though he did piss off a lot of the Old Guard. His administration presided over a major reduction in force, one that was absolutely necessary due to the end of the Cold War. More, the Clinton administration directed a major overhaul and modernization of the military, which in retrospect seems damned prescient. A lot of service people, particularly at flag rank resented those changes, vehemently, including the radical change in military culture with DADT and more so the forced equalization of woman into formerly male dominated roles following the Tailhook Scandal.
Most Americans nowadays, including military folks, simply do not grasp what a cultural change that was and just how resentful the Good Old Boys were about it. When military people like your friends talk about Clinton's "contempt" for the military, likely that's what they are talking about. That his administration forced them to accept change to their culture. Changes that are now considered the norm, and that we can’t imagine being any other way, and that have directly and provably benefitted our military and our nation on a large scale.
And the proof of Clinton’s competent management of the military is that the military Bill Clinton turned over to George W. Bush was far more modern and capable than the one he inherited from George H. W. Bush - as the events subsequent to September 11th, 2001 prove.
As a side note, when I was in Walter Reed in 2003, then-Senator Clinton was the only Congresscritter who visited the troops without an entourage of aides and photographers. Made her memorable.Delete
Guy Butler, CW4
Thank you for your perspective Mr Wright.Delete
One of my friends, whose views I usually find well reasoned. Has mentioned that considering the current Republican choices, he'd still vote for Ms Clinton, despite that he considers that the Clinton White House disliked the Armed Forces. He did mention about at US Air Force General that was forced to retirement due to voicing disrespectful views on Bill Clinton which were in violation of the US UCMJ.
MG Harold N Campbell...Delete
He was actually used as an example of a "Stupid Soldier Trick" to end your career at the Warrant Officer Candidate School in 2000.
"The Air Force inquiry found that the officer, Maj. Gen. Harold N. Campbell, called Mr. Clinton a "dope-smoking," "skirt-chasing," "draft-dodging" Commander in Chief, in a speech last month in the Netherlands." Definitely not career-enhancing...
I nominate Jim Wright for Benevolent Despot! All in favor say 'AYE!'ReplyDelete
Good call! Doubt Jim would be interested, though.Delete
The only circumstances under which I will be staying home on Election Day are if, one way or another, I am physically incapable of filling out a ballot or communicating with another human being. I make a point of serving as an election judge in my precinct every year.ReplyDelete
You might consider the speaking circuit, seriously. You could be the modern Will Rogers -- he loved Alaska too, didn't he? Just don't tell us how great the modern Mussolini is -- whoever that may be.ReplyDelete
I've been saying that Hillary is too damaged to win but you might be about to convince me otherwise. A lot of people are still concerned about Whitewater and Benghazi and now the e-mails, but I think those are becoming more buzzwords than issues. I'm still slightly astounded about why the e-mail issue is such an issue. On the one hand, it seems blatantly obvious that you should do official work on an official computer. On the other hand, the idea that all that e-mail belongs to the "public," while I guess is a noble concept, seems impractical at best. How much of her official correspondence is either classified or diplomatically sensitive? The vast majority, I would guess. Can I, a member of the public, access Colin Powell's or Condoleezza Rice's e-mail archives?ReplyDelete
"A lot of people are still concerned about Whitewater and Benghazi"Delete
Only people who watch, and credit, Fox News Surely. Who are people who would never, ever, vote for her ever. People who are already ready to hate her as much as they hate the current President. And for no better (or saner) reason.
Whitewater and Benghazi are nothing more than pure hate politics with bells on. People who are 'still concerned" about them are missing in action in life of the republic. It would be great to have them back, any time, but the odds are vanishing to gone.
I doubt you could access Colin Powell's emails, since HE can't:Delete
"Can I, a member of the public, access Colin Powell's or Condoleezza Rice's e-mail archives?"ReplyDelete
Of course not, because they too used private email servers. And I'd be willing to bet they never went through them and printed out 60,000 pages of emails for the archives.
I have never been a huge Hillary fan, I worked for the Obama campaign beginning in 2007. And I am afraid that Hillary does not possess the long term, strategic vision that I so value in President Obama. After 8 years of GWB, I also value his determination to get all the facts from experts no less before making decisions, i.e., the ebola "crisis in the US". That said, grudgingly the country is moving forward and I have no interest in living in the past. Nor am I interested in an oligarchy which this country is well on its way to becoming since the advent of Citizens United. I have never missed a vote and will not in this cycle. As a former Independent and a woman, the Republican party has driven me right off the rails. At this point, I'd be dead before voting for any of their boorish candidates and their policies.
I read somewhere that they actually have something like 20 years to turn over their records. So did Mrs. Clinton.Delete
And the whole Benghazi shit train has always been a dog and pony show to try to discredit Mrs Clinton. Bets on whether the latest "investigation" continues more than one month past election day? Any takers?
The other word that doesn't mean what they think it means is "hypocrite"..ReplyDelete
"Tell you what, let’s bring up repealing Citizens United, see who runs away first." - She just did - "And we need to fix the dysfunctional political system and get unaccountable money out of it once and for all, even if that takes a constitutional amendment.ReplyDelete
Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, and Ted Cruz? That's just the pre-show. It's Jeb Bush that the GOPer's want to run against Mrs. Clinton.
I think we are going to see a Hilliary Clinton unleashed during this campaign like never before. She's going to eat them all for lunch.
When I turned 21 did my folks take me out for my first legal drink? Nope, I was told where I could register to vote and don't let the door hit me on the way. Dad grew up in a farming town and by eight most of them had gotten their morning chores out of the way and were ready to go in when the polls opened at eight. We vote by mail in Oregon now, so there's no "the polls are open" now but we came close to European levels of turn out in the last election. And we had to fight for a generation to get the right to vote by mail.ReplyDelete
We need to work on this across the country. I also would like to see electronic voting. The government has the means to verify identity through all kinds of questions that they use in other ways, there is absolutely no reason the same cannot be applied to voting. I was surprised recently for a "verify identity" thing that they asked about an employer I left 10 years ago. I also love the fact that OR is the only state that automatically registers people to vote when they apply for a DL. A welcome change from the many states attempting to restrict the right to vote.Delete
Many forget that the reduction in force that hit the military during the Clinton administration was planned and instigated under Reagan, and the "mastermind" behind it all was one Dick Cheney. He drew up the plans for base closings and force consolidations whose effects are still being felt today. His own history makes Cheney's behavior and pronouncements during the last two administrations the height of hypocrisy.Delete
A lot of people also attribute NAFTA to President Clinton...recently I read that it was drafted during George H W's tenure. Another thing that's often blamed on Bill is the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which he did sign, but which was drafted by Republicans and passed with a veto-proof majority. And another thing about the despicable Cheney...have you wondered how in God's name he could have visualized a positive outcome in Afghanistan and Iraq, after all his years of government "service"? I believe the man is a pathological liar...and a sadist.Delete
Not sure why my earlier comment didn't post. At least I THINK I followed the rules ..... Anyway, it was partly about Dick Morris' convoluted history with the Clintons and the fact that he is one of the least respected political pundits in the business - right up there with Sarah Palin. I don't usually recommend Wikipedia but the info they present on him is concise and seems pretty accurate. As for Hillary Clinton, she's not perfect but she'd do a much better job than anyone the Republicans are running.ReplyDelete
No idea. I don't recall see it. Might have ended up in the spam queue. Hang on, I'll look. // JimDelete
JZ, I don't see the comment in question. No idea what happened. Apparently it was eaten by the internet. Apologies. // JimDelete
That's what you remember about Dick Morris? That he blew the Romney call in 2012 on Fox? Not that he worked for and was friends with Bill Clinton for about 15 years and ran Clinton's 1996 re-election campaign until he got fired because hookers? From wikipedia:ReplyDelete
"Richard S. "Dick" Morris (born November 28, 1946) is an American political author and commentator who previously worked as a pollster, political campaign consultant, and general political consultant.
A friend and advisor to Bill Clinton during his time as Governor of Arkansas, Morris became a political adviser to the White House after Clinton was elected president in 1992. Morris encouraged Clinton to pursue third way policies of triangulation that combined traditional Republican and Democratic proposals, rhetoric, and issues so as to achieve maximum political gain and popularity. He worked as a Republican strategist before joining the Clinton administration, where he helped Clinton recover from the 1994 midterm elections by advising the President to adopt more moderate policies. The president consulted Morris in secret beginning in 1994. Clinton's communications director George Stephanopoulos has said, "Over the course of the first nine months of 1995, no single person had more power over the president." Morris went on to become campaign manager of Bill Clinton's successful 1996 bid for re-election to the office of President. His tenure on that campaign was cut short two months before the election, when it was revealed that he had allowed a prostitute to listen in on conversations with the President.
Dick Morris' relationship with Bill and Hillary Clinton goes way back and in my opinion is frankly just weird and creepy. It's beyond me why anybody pays any attention to what the guy says about anything but in today's media climate (bombastic fire-breathers sell) I suppose he does fit right in. He's on the wrong side of history on absolutely every issue and, I fear, has sold his soul to Satan. I mean, every time I see the guy on TV I swear I smell sulfur fumes. Right through the TV mind you.Delete
Fisking extraordinaire Jim. Morris is an opportunist of historic proportions who, if he had any credibility in the political prognostication game, lost it after the 2012 election cycle. Perhaps you could put together 9 reasons why we should get behind Clinton instead of say Warren and 9 reasons why we shouldn't. It would make for an interesting debate.Delete
Elizabeth Warren doesn't want to run. She is also needed in the Senate because of her powerful message on banking and finance...and she is already advising both President Obama and Hillary Clinton.Delete
The concept that Clinton is hated because she is more Republican than the Republicans just keeps jumping out at me.... I'm going to enjoy using that phrase..ReplyDelete
Well said, Mr. Wright. I'm not nearly as afraid of Republicans taking this election as I am of the manic progressives losing it by staying home.ReplyDelete
While I have never stayed home, I've voted for third party and independent candidates at times. It's not so much being a "manic progressive" as it is finding yourself facing a ballot filled with candidates who are, by and large, unacceptable to you. As far as I'm concerned, the country is headed straight to hell--we'll just maybe get there a little more slowly with Democrats in power, although I'm less certain of that than I was 10 years ago.Delete
ebrke, do you know where you picked up that doom-and-gloom vision of the future? I'll tell you where: It was sold to you by right-wing operatives. People who don't give a shit who's in office because they've got theirs; people who don't have to worry about losing their rights tomorrow because some far-rightist jackoff tries to pass a "fuck the wimmenz, queerbos, browns, and poors" bill. And if you have nothing to lose by throwing your vote away and letting the right win? Congratulations, you've done their dirty work.Delete
Jim, in spite of your view that Morris' poker-face has to be great, he would clearly be a TERRIBLE Texas Hold'em player. Because, as the 2012 election made abundantly clear, he is really bad at math.ReplyDelete
Sigh. You just cannot win with some people, and by some people, I mean Republican talking heads.ReplyDelete
Great article. I always crack up at the right wing using terms like "lamestream media" and talking about the "liberal bias" of the media, while simultaneously boasting about fox network's ratings being consistently the highest of "news" networks. You can't have it both ways. If you have the highest ratings then YOU are the mainstream, YOU are the bias.ReplyDelete
Speaking of depending on the experts and acknowledging a lack of expertise, lost in all the yelling about "capitulation" and "appeasement" (dog whistle words designed to bring up the spectre of Chamberlain before WW2), is the fact that the vast majority of nuclear professionals in non-proliferation fully support the framework as being better than what was expected. And they support the further work necessary to make it a completed deal. No one is reporting this. No one. At all. Sec. Moniz had many experts from national labs and the NNSA involved in the negotiations, yet the press is only reporting critics claims of Pres. Obama giving away the store. Not to mention no mention of the other 5 countries we are partnered with. It really frosts me. (being one of those professionals myself.)ReplyDelete
Re Point No. 2: And of course there's Dubya, who didn't listen to anyone slavishly, but just let Cheney run his government for him.ReplyDelete
I'm not sure I TOTALLY agre with you Jim. I was involved with Kosovo, as a targeteer for the Air effort, and on the ground later.ReplyDelete
My recollection is that Bill Clinton was so reluctant to commit Ground Forces (and so believing of the post Gulf War USAF B/S that airpower can win wars) that FAR more people died in the Kosovo conflict than would have been the case had we commited our troops at the right time.
Not military at all so this is simply something I thought AT the time. There was a movie "Wag the Dog" out during Clinton years and any time Bill raised the spectre of war or air strikes on Bin Laden the GOP said he was just trying to distract public from Whitewater, Vince Foster and later Monica. I was so angry at him for giving them the instrument to hang him with when up to that time it was all just noise. I'm not making any judgements on his military decisions or knowledge but what I've noticed since Jimmy Carter is all the noise on the most stupid pretexts or out and out lies. This really turned nasty when Fox went on the air but Carter was the turning point. I'm not a HC fan but lordy I do believe she can handle the job and I am not voting in a popularity contest. MarleneDelete
Someone that works with my wife offered up the link to your site and it was passed on to me, for "some out of the box thinking". I read your Bio and your rant on religion and today the article on Dick Morris and Hitlary Clinton as well as every post. With that said allow me to first say that I'm not a fan of the Clintons nor Dick Morris. I call Morris "Oink Morris", he reminds me of that guy in the movie Deliverance, the fat one who got nailed in the keester buy the inbred. As far as Bill goes I agree with Maj. Gen. Harold N. Campbell, when he called Mr. Clinton a "dope-smoking," "skirt-chasing," "draft-dodging" Commander in Chief. As for Hitlary I think she belongs in a straight jacket, in a round room with rubber walls, and the same goes for those who posted their intentions of voting for her. Besides, I'm not so sure the current puppet is going to step down, and I see no one in Congress with the will to remove him. I use the word puppet because that is what all presidents have been, with the exception of JFK, since 1913 when the worlds richest met on Jekyll Island, and created the Federal Reserve. So you can go vote for Jeb or Hitlary because that will be the choice. However the outcome will be the same, as the yoke of tyranny will be placed on all of our necks as we slave under it's weight to merely stay alive.ReplyDelete
You spend a lot of time with Alex Jones, don't you, Anonymous?
What, no chemtrails? No FEMA death camps? Agenda 21? 9/11 truthing? Not even a single mention of the Illuminati or the faked Moon landings? Honestly, you just can't get reliable conspiracy theorists these days.Delete
I call Poe.Delete
Sorry to cloud your crystal ball Jim, but in answer to your question... No I think Alex and others like him spread fear porn. However this country is headed in the wrong direction and there is no one I see as of yet that is going to change it's course. Presently we have two countries navy's steaming towards each other in the Arabian Sea which are controlled by a couple of psychopaths, similar to what we had in 1962 off the coast of Florida, the outcome this time around could be very different. Our country has lost it's morale compass along with it's leadership and if you think Jeb or Hitllary are the solution then you are mistaken.ReplyDelete
Perhaps you'd care to offer your version of "...the solution" then?Delete
And do be specific.
Anonymous, time to double up on your meds.Delete
What's happening in the Arabian Sea is NOTHING like the US and Soviet Union in 1962. Nothing.
It is, however, like any other day in the Middle East.
Having spent a great deal of time myself in that area of the world, on Navy ships steaming towards the warships of other nations, allow me to say this happens all the time - and it ain't nothing like days when US and Soviet fleets fenced in the same part of the world, or the Med, or the Black Sea, I know, I was there. I got the T-shirt and the pictures and the commemorative medal.
And really, "lost its moral compass?" Really? C'mon. What moral compass? Who decides what's moral and not moral? Politicians? TV Pundits? Religion? You? Don't make me laugh, Anonymous. The country is no more moral or any less moral than it has ever been. It is no more going to shit now than it has ever been.
What's wrong with this country is neither Jeb Bush or Hillary Clinton, it's the same goddamned thing that's been wrong with it all along: You.
Paranoid angry ignorant jackasses like you, filled with bile and hate and fear and pissing your diapers over imagined bogeymen.
You're done here. Adults are talking. Go away now, fuck off back to whatever libertarian fantasyland you came from and don't come back.
Wow. Your outlook on life and your blood pressure might be improved with less time watching Fox. President Obama is the least psychopathic and testosterone driven president we have seen in quite some time. The WH has made clear our ships are there for deterrence while all of the MSM just can't resist the prospect of armed conflict. If you look for more factual news sources, you might discover that overall we have less conflict around the globe than at any other time in decades. That doesn't mean that problems have vanished both at home and abroad, but when I think back to the state the country was in at the beginning of 2009, there has been significant improvement nearly everywhere both here and around the world. I prefer hope and motivation to doomsday and despair.Delete
Dude, lay off the ganj and step outside. And visit RationalWiki sometime, maybe find a few viewpoints that aren't designed to feed your endless paranoia and hatred.Delete
No reason for voting is greater than the issue of Supreme Court appointments.ReplyDelete
In listing off examples of "foreign policy by grudge," I'm surprised you left out the biggest example in living memory. I mean, how can you *not* jump straight from that phrase to Iraq?ReplyDelete