Posts Tagged ‘Clinton’

Why the Clinton/Obama method does not work

Sunday, May 4th, 2008

Bill Clinton fought terrorism, to the extent he fought it at all, as a crime problem. He promised to prosecute the perpetrators when they were caught. Well, the bombing of the USS Cole occurred on his watch and his methods were used. The result ? Not very satisfactory.

When the Khobar Towers barracks was blown up by al Qeada in Saudi Arabia, President Clinton promised FBI Director Louis Freeh that he would ask the Saudis to allow FBI agents to witness interrogation of suspects. He didn’t make an effort. Freeh finally got the former President Bush, who had lost the 1992 election to Clinton, for help and he interceded with the Saudis.

John Kerry has said he wants to go back to the criminal model of anti-terrorism action. Presumably, Obama, who wants to meet with every anti-American dictator he can find, has the same opinion. It doesn’t work as even the Washington Post acknowledges.

Now, for what Bush got right

Saturday, April 26th, 2008

I’m not happy with Bush on the domestic front but he did get one thing right; the Iraq War. As I get farther into the Doug Feith book, it is apparent that most of the folklore about how we came to invade Iraq is wrong. Time will take care of most of that although the fact that most historians are leftist politically may delay the final reckoning. Maybe when the climate turns colder, they will begin to doubt a few of the liberal pieties that so consume them.

Anyway, Bush has made huge gains with our allies in Asia as a result of America’s steadfastness in prosecuting the war. That is all the result of Bush having the courage of his convictions. The next president could screw it up but we are probably so far along that not even Obama could lose it.

A look at Lanny Davis’s Huffington Post piece is reassuring on that score. If Hillary does pull it off, she will cause the black vote to stay home. If Obama wins the nomination, the Reagan Democrats will return to the fold.

Hopefully, our victory in Iraq is secure.

How to make a recession into a depression

Monday, April 7th, 2008

UPDATE: Nancy Pelosi has taken another Smoot Hawley step by blocking a vote on the Columbia trade agreement. The FARC Caucus in the Democratic party is still strong.

The White House has a comment about Pelosi and her rule changing.

MORE EVIDENCE: The Columbia FTA is important to Caterpillar which has 50,000 union jobs, but you’d never know it.

There is an unending debate about just why the Great Depression occurred. We have had financial panics ever since the colonies declared independence. Severe ones occurred in 1893 and 1907. There was a severe recession after World War I.

One school of thought believes that the Glass-Steagall Act, that set up the Federal Reserve Bank, was responsible because the Fed panicked and contracted the money supply just when the need for capital was greatest. Amity Schlaes, in her book The Forgotten Man, believes it was the ill-advised actions of Hoover and Roosevelt that tipped us over the edge. Everyone, however, agrees that the Smoot-Hawley Tariff, which Hoover signed in 1930, was a big part of the problem.

One thousand twenty-eight economists in the United States, organized by Paul Douglas, Irving Fisher, James TFG Wood, Frank Graham, Ernest Patterson, Henry Seager, Frank Taussig, and Clair Wilcox, and representing the “Who’s Who” of the profession, signed a petition asking President Hoover to veto the legislation (New York Times, 5 May 1930)

Now, we have the other political party demanding a similar economic measure that will have similar effects on world trade. Fortunately, John McCain is speaking out against protectionism but a President Obama, in spite of his advisers, may do a Hoover and worsen the coming recession precipitously.

Santayana famously said, “Those who do not remember history, are condemned to repeat it.”

Obama vs Clinton

Thursday, April 3rd, 2008

Michael Barone, the dean of political analysts, has a thorough analysis of the Democratic primary, which sounds astute to me. Everyone should read it.

Bugs and Daffy

Friday, March 7th, 2008

I had not though of this comparison before but Jeff Greenfield makes a strong case that the Obama-Hillary contest is another example of the battle between the two cartoon heroes of Warner Brothers.

Bugs is at ease, laid back, secure, confident. His lidded eyes and sly smile suggest a sense that he knows the way things work. He’s onto the cons of his adversaries. Sometimes he is glimpsed with his elbow on the fireplace mantel of his remarkably well-appointed lair, clad in a smoking jacket. (Jones once said Cary Grant was his inspiration for Bugs. Today it would be George Clooney.) Bugs never raises his voice, never flails at his opponents or at the world. He is rarely an aggressor.

That’s Obama.

Daffy Duck, by contrast, is ever at war with a hostile world. He fumes, he clenches his fists, his eyes bulge, and his entire body tenses with fury. His response to bad news is a sibilant sneer (“Thanks for the sour persimmons, cousin!”). Daffy is constantly frustrated, sometimes by outside forces, sometimes by his own overwrought response to them. In one classic duel with Bugs, the two try to persuade Elmer Fudd to shoot the other—until Daffy, tricked by Bugs’ wordplay, screams, “Shoot me now!”

“Hmmm,” he adds a moment later in a rare bit of self-scrutiny. “Pronoun trouble.”

That’s Hillary.

It works for me. I do disagree that McCain is another Daffy. He is cool with reporters and quick with a quip. Bush was cool in the debates with Gore but who will be lucky enough to get another stiff like Gore, or Carter, as an opponent again ?

Anyway, it’s an interesting analogy.

Democrats and racism

Tuesday, January 8th, 2008

UPDATE #4:I didn’t even know about this book, whch goes far beyond my own ideas but seems pretty convincing from this interview. The book is here.

UPDATE#3: The Democrats are falling all over themselves with racial coments. It’s sort of Keystone Kops commit politics.

UPDATE #2: Here it comes.  You New Hampshire Democrats are racist according to Chris Matthews.

UPDATE:#1  The post-election pundits are now saying that Hilary got the traditional Democrat base voters; low income, single women and poorly educated. Of course, the New Hampshire vote is overwhelmingly white. Now comes the second thoughts.  In California, it is called the “Bradley effect.” It isn’t that white voters won’t vote for a black candidate; we saw them do that in Iowa. It is just that they will tell pollsters what they want to hear and it isn’t always how they vote. Part of that concept is the fact that Iowa caucuses DO NOT HAVE A SECRET BALLOT. That piece I linked to never mentioned that fact. This one does.

If someone wants to feel good about himself, he will publicly vote for the black candidate. That happened in Iowa. Something like that happened with exit polls and pre-election polls in New Hampshire. It isn’t racism on the part of the voter, at least not the usual variety of racism. It is the Democrat variety of racism. Tell the pollster what you want him to think is true about you. You are enthusiastic about a black president regardless of his qualifications. Being the first black president is enough. Just as it is enough to send all those affirmative action kids to Harvard. Only you and I know that most of them are upper class kids or foreign born kids.

Anyway, I think the results confirm my theory so far.

Now that Obama is leading the Democratic race (although he seems to have failed to meet expectations in New Hampshire), will we see the latent racism in the Democratic Party emerge? They, of course, are fond of accusing Republicans of this and some of their wilder partisans are already fully engaged. In case you are unwilling to actually click a link to Glen Greenwald (or one of his sock puppets), here is the money quote:

There’s a prevailing sense that Obama is not as offensive to the right-wing GOP faction as other Democratic and liberal candidates in the past have been, or that he’s less “divisive” among them than Hillary. And that’s true: for now, while he tries to take down the individual who has long provoked the most intense hatred — literally — among the Right. But anyone who doesn’t think that that’s all going to change instantaneously if Obama is the nominee hasn’t been watching how this faction operates over the last 20 years. Hatred is their fuel.

Yes, the hatred is ready. There are a few problems on the road to satisfaction for Mr. Greenwald (Have you ever noticed that people who spell Glenn with two Ns are usually pompous?).

First, we have Bill Clinton on the attack. How long before we see some nasty stuff from the Clinton machine? This whole election saga is the story of the McGovern coalition. They are not the old union households of my childhood. They are the progressives of the universities, the black “leaders” who promise to turn out the vote and the public employee unions who have a vested interest in government spending. Obama appeals to the progressives who want to feel good about themselves and what better way to do that than to vote for a black president? The black “leaders” have made deals with the Clintons and, after all, this is not about progress for the black underclass. It is about bank accounts for Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. The unions will sign on to anyone who will keep the money flowing into union coffers.

But what happens if he looks like he might lose (Even in the primaries)? The coalition would be stressed. The progressives don’t much care about economics or the welfare of unions or blacks. They are all about themselves. Why else did they run Ned Lamont against Joe Lieberman ? Lieberman’s long Senate record was irrelevant. It was about the progressives being powerful! It will be interesting to see how this plays out if it really stays as close as it seems to be in New Hampshire tonight.

I had lunch in London yesterday (January 7)  with two friends and we talked American politics. One of them is adamantly against the Iraq War. He has traveled extensively in the middle east and doesn’t think nation building will ever work. There is also the chronic English concern about naive and blundering Americans who don’t take their advice. Of interest to me most, however, was the fact that he is very worried about Obama becoming president. He knows how inexperienced and naive Obama is. What will happen when the European wing of the Democrats get that feedback from their friends across the Atlantic? It could get ugly.

A preview of Hillary as President

Tuesday, November 27th, 2007

The Los Angeles Times, of all places, gives us a preview of what President Hillary would be like. I like these quotes:

“As a boss, she inspired equal amounts of devotion and fear. She built an insular White House fiefdom known as Hillaryland, surrounding herself with a tightknit band of loyalists who skillfully advanced her causes, but who were also criticized for isolating her from political realities.”

Sounds like the Democrats’ complaints about Bush. And then, of course, there is the secrecy issue.

“She appeared sensitive to scrutiny from the start. Just three days after her husband gave her authority over the healthcare plan, she was already considering limits on public access to the plan’s records. In a Jan. 28, 1993, memo, deputy counsel Vincent Foster advised the first lady and Ira Magaziner, who devised the complex healthcare process structure, that task-force records might be withheld from release under the Freedom of Information Act if the files remained “in the control of the president.”

Sounds like the Democrats’ complaints about the Cheney energy task force.

“Her response is not known because many of her healthcare documents have not been released. The Clinton library in Little Rock has released scores of healthcare memos sent to the first lady. But none of her own memos or notes is available, and though some are now scheduled for release early next year, others may remain locked away until after the 2008 election.”

Then, of course, there is the collegial relationship with Congress that Bush doesn’t have.

“She courted skeptical Senate Finance Chairman Daniel Patrick Moynihan, but undercut the stroking with threats. At a weekend retreat after the State of the Union address in 1993, she dismissed worries about meeting a 100-day deadline set by her husband for a healthcare bill. Asked what would happen if they were late, she said: “You don’t understand. We will demonize those who are blocking this legislation and it will pass.”

Except, somehow, it didn’t work. Well, we do know that the presidency “is no place for “on-the-job training.”

Hmmmm.