QUEEN HILL'S DESPERATE TALK
I'll try not to jump the gun on Hillary!'s latest rant, because it's coming from Drudge, and as much as I like Drudge he often gets things wrong. But he's got a bit of a shocker up that demands some kind of comment. Here's the gist:
She said that Bush, who campaigned as a "compassionate conservative" in 2000, had taken a "hard-right turn to pursue an extremist agenda" after moving into the White House."I don't know where it came from, but the fact is that this President Bush has not only been radical and extreme in terms of Democratic presidents but in terms of Republican presidents, including his own father," she says.
She believes Bush is beatable next year because his administration is "making America less free, fair, strong, smart than it deserves to be in a dangerous world."
"We have to change direction before irreparable harm is done," she adds.
"This administration is in danger of being the first in American history to leave our nation worse off than when they found it."
If Drudge has his facts right, that's the former First Lady and current junior senator from New York talking, in an interview for the Houston Chronicle. And what she says is worth unpacking.
She said that Bush, who campaigned as a "compassionate conservative" in 2000, had taken a "hard-right turn to pursue an extremist agenda" after moving into the White House.
Such as? The education bill, which he let Ted Kennedy write? The partial birth abortion ban, which is supported by something like 80% of the country? What in the world is she talking about? Tax cuts--again, majority support? The war--a necessity, and again, majority support? I wish one reporter somewhere would have the nads to ask for a clarification when a Democrat spouts this kind of nonsense. Just a simple follow-up will do, like "What specific hard right turn are you referring to?" But no, our press is too busy making a scandal out of a %$#$%% turkey in Baghdad. If I could gather all the "mainstream" press in a single room, I'd spit on them, curse them and tell them they're all a bunch of irrelevant idiots.
Anyway. Point #2:
"I don't know where it came from, but the fact is that this President Bush has not only been radical and extreme in terms of Democratic presidents but in terms of Republican presidents, including his own father," she says.
Let's see--FDR, whose wife Hillary! once channeled, tried to pack the Supreme Court to keep his own unconstitutional programs alive--but that's not as radical as Bush. During a war, FDR locked up a bunch of innocent American citizens who happened to be of the wrong skin color and stole their property. But Bush is the radical. For what? What makes him such a radical in Hillary!'s eyes? Again, press minions, a follow up would be illuminating. Is it just me, or is the press filled entirely with the most useless people on the planet? They can't do their jobs at all. A simple follow up, to clarify the point, is all I ask.
Anyway. Point 3.
She believes Bush is beatable next year because his administration is "making America less free, fair, strong, smart than it deserves to be in a dangerous world."
Again, a reporter who is awake would ask for some exposition of this sentence. How are we less free--the Patriot Act? Your own party drew up much of that thing, and voted for it. How did you vote, Mrs. C? How are we less fair? How are we less strong--from where I sit, the whole world is on notice that if they so much as look at us crosswise, we'll send in the Marines, and it's now obvious to all would-be enemies that taking us on is a bad idea. How are we less smart--is that another of those tired digs at Bush's brainpower? Give it a rest, lady. You've told us all already that you're the smartest freaking woman in the world--we get it. You need to get a new line. And lose a few pounds. A better haircut wouldn't hurt, either.
Point 4.
"We have to change direction before irreparable harm is done," she adds."This administration is in danger of being the first in American history to leave our nation worse off than when they found it."
My God, did this reporter just turn on the tape and leave the room? Follow-up, please. I get the "change direction" bit--it's just boilerplate politicking, nothing remarkable. But the rest. What sort of irreparable harm--an economy growing at rates that even your philandering hubby couldn't match? Is that "harm" to you? And how will we be worse off? We've wiped out the Taliban, a hostile regime your hubby didn't have the backbone to touch. We've put terror-states on notice that if they keep sending killers our way, we'll send our arsenal their way. How are we worse off? Is it because our tax rates got a little lower? Is it some reference to not giving the French everything they wanted at the UN? What the bloody $%$$#%$$ are you talking about, Hill? The reporter who filed this story, and his or her editor, should be sacked for this slapdash hack job (supposing Drudge got his facts right).
If reporters had brains, or were fair, or weren't just toadies for the most extreme leftwing ideologies in US politics today, they would try and pin Hill and her like down when they shovel this kind of crap. But we never get the justification or clarification, because the reporters are either incompetent or are too starstruck when Queen HillBilly enters the room, or they just take her rants as read. Or maybe red. Whatever.
As for Hillary!, I think her little blast is just more desperate talk from the left. They want to win so bad they're willing to say and do anything--lie, whatever--to get the brass ring. The Dems are in the grip of a small clique of ideologues who will toss up any canard that they think will damage their opponents and enhance their own political power. Those aren't my words, they're a paraphrase from life-long Democrat pollster Pat Cadell, talking about the Clintonites. The problem Hill et al have yet to understand is that they are lurching so far from the mainstream that all this bilge they spew just makes themselves dirty. It's too far away from the rest of us to do much harm.
Because President Bush, meanwhile, acts like a President. The Dems carp, and he just keeps doing his job. Today he swung through the Baltimore area and spoke at a local Home Depot. He fielded questions, he talked the talk and walked the walk of a leader. He has led us through two successful wars against enemies that deserved attacking and got what was coming to them. He has managed the economy well in spite of the recession he inherited and the shock the economy took on 9-11. He's not perfect, but he is presidential and he is more than competent. The Dems have no one who deserves even to stand on the same stage with him at this point. They're running a race-baiting "preacher" who has the blood of 8 people on his hands, a former senator whose chief claim to fame is a bunch of taxpayer-funded junkets to Africa, a demagogue who wants to create a Department of Peace, another demagogue who floats conspiracy theories that Bush somehow knew about or even planned 9-11 (and that demagogue is leading the pack at the moment), a censorious senator whose right about the war but wrong on nearly everything else (and who has turned his back on all the other issues he was once right about), a blow-dried trial lawyer, a former war hero who threw someone else's medal away to protest the war and who lives off a rich wife who firewalled a great deal of her money away from him, and a couple others that I can't remember. Oh yeah, a congressman who says his dad inspired him to be such a union go-getter (but that dad turned out to be a non-union Republican), and a general who can't decide for himself what he thinks about a little thing called THE WAR unless his handlers tell him. What a bunch of clowns. They're desperate, and this desperation is making them say crazy, damaging things. Damaging to themselves, mostly. Whoever they put up against Bush will be lucky to win a single state next year.