American Thinker: Hillary Clinton: I Will Change Our Country

Rarely have I seen an opinion piece that is as spot-on accurate about Hillary as this one is. I could take up this entire space citing much of it, but I'll post one of author Steven M. Warshawsky most salient observations:

...Reagan recognized that at the heart of contemporary liberalism lies a profound pessimism about the ability of ordinary Americans to manage their own lives in a responsible, productive, and decent manner. Reagan rejected this pessimism with every fiber of his being. This is what people really are referring to when they speak of Reagan's "optimism."

Hillary Clinton will never be mistaken for an optimist like Reagan. She clearly does not believe in the ability of the American people to govern their own lives, make their own decisions, and abide by the consequences of their actions. Turning Reagan's famous aphorism on its head, Hillary believes that government is not the problem, it is the solution.

The article is a strawman attack and a hit piece rather than an analysis, the latter having only real merit for properly gauging a candidate's strengths and weaknesses.

This isn't to say that I will eventually agree with whatever she puts forth on her platform or that she will get my vote, but every candidate so far that I've examined--like all politicians---have directions they wish to focus the nation and lists of do's and don'ts on their platforms that they feel are best for society, often times representing their bases and seeking converts in the marketplace of ideas.

Reagan was no different contrary to his allegations and, depending on the issue, Hillary would fit that last comment whilst Reagan himself did not. For example, Reagan had many social conservative and government empowerment agendas whilst Hillary has social liberal and libertarian ones. On other issues, Reagan may fit the quote more than her. Depending on the issue and regardless of perceived merits or lack thereof of the positions, one seeks to restrict something whilst another seeks to permit it. Politicians and parties are full of those aspects.

The issue to me turns on whether one likes the platforms of Reagan, Hillary or any other politician. This isn't to knock any of them and I'm glad I have choices. But articles like that seek to remove analysing these things fairly for the best interests of the country.

__________________

The notion that Reagan was for less gov't is a fraud. The centerpiece of the Reagan presidency was his Keynesian military expenditures. That's BIG gov't, not less gov't.

__________________
Who does vote for these dishonest shitheads? Who among us can be happy and proud of having all this innocent blood on our hands? Who are these swine? These flag-sucking half-wits who get fleeced and fooled by stupid little rich kids like George Bush?

--Hunter S. Thompson

What exactly is Hillary supposed to change? I can't think of much more status quo than a potential 28 years in which this country has been run by either a Clinton or a Bush.

I didn't read the linked article, but the 'most salient observation' seems spot on. Modern American leftism/liberalism is based on the premise that all people (other than government employees or those properly ordained by the Democratic Party) are either evil, incompetent, or both, and Hillary seems completely comfortable with that outlook. While one can reasonably argue that the walk didn't always match the talk, Reagan's rhetoric was (IIRC) universally about empowerment, promoting the idea that most people are good and/or capable.

Stated policies, platforms, and other promises certainly do count towards electability, but I'd think whether or not a candidate has any respect for you (assuming you're one of the masses rather than some sort of associate) would have some appreciable bearing, given the track record of political promises...

Are you saying you can't see any difference between any given Bush or any given Clinton? Certainly none of them have been/are the best possible choice, but the manner and degree to which that is the case varies widely.

__________________
Today's forecast: Government corruption.

Tomorrow's forecast: 100% chance of more 'politics as usual'

Maybe it's finally time to vote Libertarian

If you believe the article writer or various rightwingers, Hillary will inaugurate a socialist revolution and/or a big-brother-nanny-state.

If you believe various leftwing critics, Hillary will be little more than Bush-lite.

I believe the actual outcome of a (theoretical) Hillary Administration would be somewhere in between these extremes.

Excellent post OSB. It is hard to get a fix on Hillary's own views given all the propaganda, attack pieces and lies that normally pass for political commentary in election season.

Reagan talked the talk but his social conservative views often led to contradictions, plus his spending habit was the opposite of Old School Republicanism. Right wingers like to make such claims against the left wingers about people being viewed as evil and needing Big Brother. And surprise surprise, they say the same things about the right in turn. IMO, as someone who holds many classical liberal views, I find neither are true and that many people in the modern Dem and Rep parties are either for or against personal freedom and for more or less government depending in the issue. For example, many on the left call for Big Brother on the Second Amendment whilst many on the right call for Big Brother on the First and Fourth Amendment. As for government spending and size, it's now chutzpah for the current GOP to say anything in that regard given its huge Big Brother/Big Spender track record. What matters to me is each person's platform about what they wish to do and undo. How one partisan wishes to self-servingly and conveniently characterise themselves as opposed to others attempts to shut down that analysis for their own benefit and without regard to the real truths at issue.

__________________

The Reagan administration did put a lot of emphasis and money on the military, but the purpose was hardly a Keynesian economic purpose. Reagan believed that the Soviet Union was an empire of evil and that the USA in particular and the Free World in general needed a strong military defence against the military threat of communist regimes.

In hindsight it is clear that Reagan was right. The greater armament spending forced the Soviet Union to spend more on its military. This was an important factor to make the Soviet Union bancrupt, thus forcing it to leave the influence in the Warsaw Pact states and eventually to be dissolved entirely. The result was democracy in most of Central and Eastern Europe.

Gorbachew got the Nobel Peace prize for his role to make these events peaceful. Reagan would have deserved it better.

__________________
President Josiah Bartlet: Sweden has a 100% literacy rate. 100%! How do they do that?
Leo McGarry: Maybe they don't and they can't add.

Reagan oversaw the largest increase in descretionary spending in American history - only to be outdone by GW Bush.

Reagan also passed the largest tax increase in American history.

And that Soviet build up that Reagan was supposedly trying to counter? It was made up by the CIA out of thin air.

Hill, if elected, will do what she has to do, to gain the next rung on the ladder as her hubby did..he alienated many of his true believers regards welfare reform and a centrist move etc....shes a politician, she’ll do what she can to foist her outlook by way of legislation by virtue of her beliefs...its congress’s job to keep her in check unless one has a clear majority..thats the way it works...for all..rep. or dem......newt threw in the towel on Clintons budget with only 30% rep. sppt. now wanting to risk anther gov. shut down ala early in the term, she will throw in the towel if she needs to as well, as Bill did ala welfare etc......

as far as her foreign affairs outlook, who knows..she has not made that plain..and won't unless she has too...aside from Iraq and that is subject to change depending on circumstances....

__________________

"The captain has turned off the `No Dubbing' sign. You are free to speak any language you choose."

your first 2 points are imho true, the third not quite, Reagan was reacting to an entity that by virtue of a weaker pres behind him and the situation then, appeared to be on the upswing...lets not get into hindsight...

__________________

"The captain has turned off the `No Dubbing' sign. You are free to speak any language you choose."

Good economic and fiscal policy does not necessarily mean tax decreases. It also has to do with how the taxes are leveled and what the tax money is spent upon. I say this even though I hate high taxes myself.

The world wide economy grew during the 1980's, but the US economy grew faster, on average. Given the importance of the Federal economic policy in the USA, I would say the Reagan economic policy have to have been good. It could have been better, but then, tax money was needed for example for the military.

I have never heard that conspiracy theory about the CIA making up the Soviet Union threat. Where can I read more about it?

Reagan was not only out to counter Soviet military spending, one of the goals was to try to make the Soviet Union bankrupt by making it spend too much money on the military to counter US spending. This was a goal that the USA reached.

__________________
President Josiah Bartlet: Sweden has a 100% literacy rate. 100%! How do they do that?
Leo McGarry: Maybe they don't and they can't add.

And since Reagan was an utter turd and Hillary is an utter turd, I'd say it's a safe bet to just stay away from both of them.

Keynes wrote a pamphlet entitled How To Pay For The War. Perhaps you should read it.

What we see in hindsight is that the US gov't was caught flatfooted by the collapse of the Soviet Union and had to scramble to replace it with the Columbian drug cartels, and while we were busy looting Russia for all we could get our greedy paws on, the leadership vacuum was filled by crime syndicates, which was not a good thing, them having large stockpiles of WMD and all.

__________________
Who does vote for these dishonest shitheads? Who among us can be happy and proud of having all this innocent blood on our hands? Who are these swine? These flag-sucking half-wits who get fleeced and fooled by stupid little rich kids like George Bush?

--Hunter S. Thompson