This Page

has been moved to new address

Hacking & Slashing on Hillary

Sorry for inconvenience...

Redirection provided by Blogger to WordPress Migration Service
Bloviating Zeppelin: Hacking & Slashing on Hillary

Bloviating Zeppelin

(in-ep-toc'-ra-cy) - a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

Friday, December 14, 2007

Hacking & Slashing on Hillary

Drugs in kindergarten? Old news, eh, but another in a series of attacks by the H. Clinton Machine.

This week:
CONCORD, N.H. (AP) - A top campaign adviser to Hillary Rodham Clinton resigned Thursday, a day after suggesting Democrats should be wary of nominating Barack Obama because his teenage drug use could make it hard for him to win the presidency.

Old news, old news, ho-hum.

Why is it that Hillary appears to be receding? ("Wait, wait, I can answer that," many school children respond.)

  • First: because Hillary is not Bill;
  • Second: Bill was likeable and had a certain charm and karma;
  • Third: Bill could turn his attention to you for but a moment and make you feel as if you were the only person in the room;
  • Fourth: WJC, in truth, isn't nearly as Left as his wife;
  • Fifth: because the electorate (even to a degree, Demorats) seem to have a semblance of actual perception;
  • Sixth: because she shot her campaign out early;
  • Seventh: because her voice grates on most listeners not unlike nails on a school chalkboard (don't laugh, I know this to be true having asked numerous persons!);
  • Eighth: she preternaturally exhibits all the cuddly warmth of a Pecos scorpion;
  • Ninth: she and her campaign are as spontaneous as a NASA shuttle launch;
  • Tenth: she is Insufficiently Left for the New Moonbat Left.

Hillary Clinton is no longer the Darling Of The Hard Left. And consider this for a moment, if you will: in order to acquire her senator seat, she had to find the most blue state available in order to make her bones.

The Demorats are already finger-pointing for all their failures:

When Democrats took control of Congress in January, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi(D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) pledged to jointly push an ambitious agenda to counter 12 years of Republican control.

Now, as Congress struggles to adjourn for Christmas, relations between House Democrats and their colleagues in the Senate have devolved into finger-pointing.

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.) accuses Senate Democratic leaders of developing "Stockholm syndrome," showing sympathy to their Republican captors by caving in on legislation to provide middle-class tax cuts paid for with tax increases on the super-rich, tying war funding to troop withdrawal timelines, and mandating renewable energy quotas. If Republicans want to filibuster a bill, Rangel said, Reid should keep the bill on the Senate floor and force the Republicans to talk it to death.

Reid, in turn, has taken to the Senate floor to criticize what he called the speaker's "iron hand" style of governance.

The Demorats, according to the Wall Street Journal, are in gridlock.

And despite the GOP being in complete and total disarray, and led by an absolute dithering idiot in terms of President Bush, the Demorats have "caved" on spending:

Senate and House Democrats backed down Wednesday from a spending showdown with President Bush.

The Democrats’ capitulation Wednesday on the total domestic spending level is the latest instance of Bush prevailing on a major policy showdown. Bush and his Senate Republican allies have repeatedly beat back efforts by Democrats to place restrictions on funding for the war in Iraq as well as Democratic attempts to expand funding of children’s health insurance by $35 billion.

If you think the GOP is in bad shape, you oughta check out the Demorats.



Blogger Bloviating Zeppelin said...

And evidently few people understand what I've written: The Demorats are at one of their lowest ebbs in history, despite their "being in power." If only the GOP could somehow manage to coalesce and adhere to their Conservative platform, they'd find themselves within the power structure and in complete control. The Demorats are in a shambles. Will we take advantage? Or will we simply pass Power by as we did whilst "we" "were in control"?


Thu Dec 13, 07:03:00 PM PST  
Blogger Mahndisa S. Rigmaiden said...

12 14 07

Hey BZ:
Just stopping by to say hey and Merry Christmas to you and your wife. Regarding Madame Clinton, all my life I have wanted to see a woman and a Black President. Funny that the two people who might fulfill that role are people who I cannot in good conscience, vote for.

Hilary is cold, calculating and waffles too much for my taste, whilst Mr. Obama is a newbie people pleaser. I cannot say much for the GOP candidates either. I have become so jaded that I think NO politician is trustworthy.

After all, what would motivate a person to go into politics? The lure of power, control and people worshipping them. Maybe I am wrong but I think they are all from the dark side...Heh!

Fri Dec 14, 05:36:00 AM PST  
Blogger Mahndisa S. Rigmaiden said...

12 14 07

And you are right; if the GOP ADHERED to the platform that it preaches, then it would be a no brainer to vote for them at all times. HOWEVER it seems as though half the time, they are into growing government more than shrinking it. I think Reagan Republicanism has gone out of style, but I wish (less the star wars spending) that it would return. At least then PERSONAL accountability was in our vocabulary!

Fri Dec 14, 05:38:00 AM PST  
Blogger A Jacksonian said...

Mr. Z - If it were only just the D party that was in its lowest ebbs, but this is both parties that are like that.

When one tries to bring up an alternative view, one that adheres to the Constitution and to the traditions of Western Nations, you get attacked and labeled with an extremist label that does not describe such a position at all. Whenver you state one thing the automatic label comes out of the blowhards on both sides, although those on the Left are far quicker to do that than on the Right that portion also has its knee-jerk litmus test individuals who brand without hearing. The only way I can clearly state my views is to use a term that the Left has turned into a hate-word: Nationalist. That has been a long-term movement to demean and degrade Nations that started on the Left and has been picked up by the Right. Never, ever, would I have thought that a Republican President would try to get in something like LOST. Nor that a Republican President would ever think that government can be a source of *good* when all traditions in America state that it is a curb to our wickedness and must be limited in that power.

The Democratic party and the Left adhering to transnationalist, socialist, government empowering doctrine want government to be the source of freedom. That is totalitarian and authoritarian in conception. Government serves to curb those things that harm our fellow man and the Nation as a whole. On the Right, wanting to institute society based ethos via the Constitution, has also forgotten that ethics are damned hard to legislate and put at peril the freedom to determine what is and is not good for society as a whole by individuals. If government is made the source of that which is *good* and has the power we have granted it in restricting *evil* then we become supplicants TO government, not the source of it.

Those two views supported by the power of the purse to *bribe* sections of society with things that are *good* for them is attempting to not only define the good as out of our control, but to punish us as citizens when we do not adhere to that. From the founding onwards it has been, until modern times, seen that society and our mutual work as citizens together is the source of that which is good. And when the two political parties divide up the landscape into pieces that it can *appease* or *bribe* with the common funding of government so as to *triangulate* to a majority of the appeased and bribed, you no longer get a majority of America taking part in being Americans.

Whenever I hear that a third party will endanger America, I look and see a system broken and unwilling to be fixed by that coalition of the bribed and appeased. They *like* giving us problems that can't be solved by the two parties so that their people who take part in such things will forever have a source of income by laying out only either/or solutions.

This side or that.

Coke or Pepsi.

Democrat or Republican.

Left or Right.

Yes I do use the latter, in the way of 'Big Government' L or R: the State over the People and those two 'sides' will determine just which rights we get on any given day.

Thanks, but no thanks.

America is founded on We the People having the broadest spectrum of choices available and trying them out in different ways to find a better common good. I can stymie some of the worst of the 'debaters' by holding to that view on issues like abortion and trade and then putting forth something else in that continuum that *works*, is ethical, abides by the Constitution, and allows us to set the dogma of the two sides aside so we can progress to a better answer as a society.

I did not seek out readers and have damned few of them. I knew that would be the case going in as I do not toot my own horn, put up big noisy machines to herald my coming, nor to shout until my voice gives out. I am instructed by the Constitution to use reason with my fellow man to come to just means that we can abide by as a society and allow us to form a more perfect Union in our mortal realm. I am deeply disturbed and worried about the course of my fellow man in this Nation and to the problems described at the time of the founding that would describe the end of a democracy guiding a republic. When we started to shift government to enforcing *good*, and that started in 1909 before the current divides, we stepped away from those founding ideals as a Nation. We were explicitly warned on these things way back in 1787.

The Democratic party is beginning to break up, as is the Republican party and other lines of society are now shifting outside of them as *neither* suits the People nor the republic. Those factions are becoming clearer as we go on, and marries up things that we are not used to thinking as under one banner to *be* under one banner. The Transnationalists of Left and Right are uniting: are you part of the new derrogatory term of 'nativist' or 'isolationist' although you do love immigtration and seek to put trade under control of the Nation? If you do you are not part of the Transnationalists who see no good in you, as an individual, and much good in statists and companies deciding the destiny of people without the need for fussy things like democracy.

When La Raza and the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal *agree* on things: we have a problem.

When Islamofascistic outlooks from Iran, Saudi Arabia, Hezbollah and the Taliban can join up with atheist based groups like Human Rights Watch and make common cause: we have a problem.

When I hear that trade will cure all ills and bring liberty 'if you just give it time' and see parts of the Republican party covorting with Communists in China and Sheikhs in Saudi Arabia, the Tyrant of Syria: we have a problem. Trade hasn't brought liberty to any of them - 90 years in the Middle East, 30 years in China and over 20 years in the Balkans. Trade without stringent controls against those not seeing any value in human liberty has, actually, deepened that problem and made it worse on a global scale, not better.

When I see people I respect spouting the trade mantra, I can only see it as a religion that does not understand that material goods are *not* liberty or freedom. That, famously, does not make me a Libertarian as I also see the Constitution handing us many responsibilities before we get *any* rights.

Any 'peace' that leads to less liberty is not good, and any war that can give liberty a chance to extend cannot be all 'bad' no matter what the cost. Because there is no price on liberty and freedom and putting one on them puts them up for the highest bidder... which probably isn't *you*.

I embrace human liberty and I embrace even harder that such liberty is to allow society to create good... not governments. That *is* the classical liberal tradition, which puts government as the last and least capable to handle things, and the last place to look for a solution. And yet I can hear those wanting to regulate food intake, schools, getting a government involved in my health care, putting forth 'insurance' as a panacea for everything, what I do and even *think* coming from both Parties today. The more I look, the fewer differences I see. There is a reason the majority of Americans will come close to not voting in this Presidential election: we are no longer a democracy. And look for those who *laud* that to be at the vanguard of wanting to take more from you and give you far, far less in return.

Fri Dec 14, 05:47:00 AM PST  
Blogger Bloviating Zeppelin said...

Mahndisa: hey, thanks for dropping by, good to see you and, likewise, MERRY CHRISTMAS to you and your husband! Both you and AJ are correct; in many ways both sides of the aisle are meaning out.

AJ: Zow. I've tried with all my heart to disavow what you write, yet I find with each passing year that I am being dragged -- kicking and screaming I should add -- into your viewpoint. I'm still not there, but. . .


Fri Dec 14, 01:01:00 PM PST  
Blogger shoprat said...

I think it was Dick Morris who said "Bill was a moderate pretending to be a liberal, while his wife was a leftist pretending to be a moderate."

It seems though that many are beginning to have serious doubts about her.

Fri Dec 14, 06:29:00 PM PST  
Anonymous Peggy McGilligan said...

Merry Christmas to all, and to all who make this blog possible. This just in from Dick Morris (paraphrased): By stressing experience, Hillary is basing her campaign on a fraud. Like her Senate race, which was premised on the obvious lie that she wanted to be a New Yorker, her presidential race is rooted in the fabrication that she was the principal actress in her husband's presidency … She's now positioned in the wrong place in the wrong primary. It's Republicans who vote for experience - Democrats vote for change … Bill Clinton is now running around Iowa trying to sell Hillary as the "agent of change," but he is fighting against the long-term theme of her campaign in making Hillary the candidate of experience. And how can a former president, whose very presence is identified with a bygone era, convince us that his wife is now the candidate of the new age?

I found that particularly insightful. Or, it could be yet another example the Clintons having it both ways. Either way, my Clinton experience encapsulates a wide variety of issues, on which Hillary is purportedly about to take a stand. Incidentally, I don't much care for either Clinton, and not without reason:

Fri Dec 14, 07:40:00 PM PST  
Blogger Bloviating Zeppelin said...

Shoprat: I couldn't agree with you MORE.

Peggy: welcome aboard and, again, I couldn't agree with you more. Her entire campaign and life seems to have been based on a lie. And I suspect that is what is now beginning to trip her up. SOME persons are actually beginning to exhibit and acquiesce to their most base instincts which conclude: there is NO more false a person in the race than Hillary.

She will tell you whatever you wish to hear, whenever you wish to hear it.

Sound familiar?


Fri Dec 14, 08:31:00 PM PST  
Blogger A Jacksonian said...

Mr. Z - It is not a pleasant world I am seeing develop around me...

I do not try to overblow any of it, just 'matter of factly'. If we had more people supporting civilization and the good things in a way as deeply to counter those doing the tearing down, I would do so. I cannot because they are not there.

The era of private war has returned and hard to us, and we can no longer even think such as a society. By ignoring our past we are breaking our future... and ranting and screaming not only does not help, but is not within my temperment. As so many wanted to trust government, when government fails us we try to shift blame as a society, and do not look into the mirror and recognize that we have failed ourselves. That is not lethal: America has done so before and worse and owned up to it. I admit my failure as part of that, but trying to find the concept of 'shame' or even a feeling of 'responsibility to society' appears to be something the majority can no longer do. Admitting to erring is not lethal and gives one a chance for atonement... not admitting such can and usually is not only lethal, but fatal.

Sat Dec 15, 05:56:00 PM PST  
Blogger The WordSmith from Nantucket said...

I almost fear beating up on her too much, because I'm beginning to believe she would be easier to beat in the general election than Obama as the Democratic candidate.

Sat Dec 15, 06:28:00 PM PST  
Blogger A Jacksonian said...

Obama is running as 'Mr. Empty suit clean'.

He has dealings with the Chi-town mob and used his State Senate seat to help further that.

HRC can't attack him on that due to her need for the Illinois Democratic machine that is mob backed. Actually no one on the D side can hit him on that stuff for that reason...

Thus an empty suit is impossible for her to hit without immolating herself in the general. She needs those mob ties, just as the Clintons have needed the Triads, Red Mafia, Red Chinese, and the Vin Guptas of the world. She will stab anyone in the back if it leads her to victory... doing that to Obama is mutual suicide leaving Edwards.

I can't imagine America electing a 'personal injury lawyer' (ie. ambulance chaser) to being President.

Look for the little stuff to boomerang on Hillary, make her look as venal as she is, and Obama to get plastered in the mug by the first person able to look up land records in Chicago.

Sun Dec 16, 08:35:00 AM PST  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home