Tag Archives: Clinton

A Reagan Moment

By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, June 16, 2008 4:20 PM PT

Campaign ’08: The mainstream media are agog about the return of Ross Perot. But all he gave us was eight years of Bill Clinton and increased dependence on foreign energy. What we need is another Ronald Reagan.

Read More: Election 2008


He’s ba-a-ack, and the Los Angeles Times, for one, is glad for it. Calling our current economic situation “A Perot Moment,” the Times has declared it’s 1992 all over again and that Perot’s economic advice is as good as ever.

It credits the mouth that roared for using “dramatic charts and rattling off unsettling statistics” 16 years ago to raise the deficit issue and persuade “Congress to approve a package of tax hikes that, combined with a growing economy, yielded the first federal budget surpluses in nearly 30 years.”

We remember it differently. We remember a Bush economy Clinton inherited that grew at an impressive annualized rate of 3.8% in the fourth quarter of 1992. We remember Ross Perot bad-mouthing an economy roaring forward, helping Bill Clinton get elected with just 43% of the vote.

We remember that it kept growing largely due to the defeat of Clinton schemes like Hillary’s attempt to nationalize health care and the job- and economy-killing BTU tax. We remember the election of a GOP Congress in 1994 that put the brakes on future Clintonian spending and taxing excesses.

Columnist David Broder of the Washington Post is also happy “Perot is about to dip a toe back into the public debates” and that “he’s bringing his charts back with him” via a new Web site. Broder also credits Perot with raising the deficit issue and with leading the Clinton administration to abandon its promise of middle-class tax cuts. That’s a good thing?

The biggest threat to our economic and national security today, however, isn’t higher deficits but rising energy prices. Congress refuses to develop our abundant domestic energy reserves in the face of rising demand. Instead, Obama and friends want to raise energy prices even more through “windfall” taxes on producers. Perot, interestingly, supported a 50-cents-a-gallon tax increase in 1992.

We don’t need the second (or is it third) coming of Ross Perot. We need someone to step up and grab the mantle of Ronald Reagan. In his speech accepting the GOP nomination in 1980, Reagan warned of those who “tell us to use less, so that we will run out of oil, gasoline, and natural gas a little more slowly” and said, “America must get to work producing more energy.”

In words that could apply to the current Congress, Reagan said: “Large amounts of oil and natural gas lay beneath our land and off our shores, untouched because the present administration seems to believe the American people would rather see more regulation, taxes and controls than more energy.”

In 1987, eight years before Bill Clinton vetoed such a proposal, Reagan asked Congress to open ANWR, submitting with his proposal a required report showing that it could be done safely while adding a million barrels daily to domestic supply. John McCain, who proclaims himself a foot-soldier in the Reagan revolution, should take note.

We need to raise domestic energy production, not taxes, to keep the lights in Reagan’s shining city on a hill turned on.



The DNC’s 1/2 Compromise (FL & MI)

The DNC’s argument cum [tentative?] decision to grant Florida and Michigan a proportion of their votes (e.g., half) based on the logic that people who don’t follow prescribed guidelines will only be partially represented in the electorate sounds eerily familiar. Oh yes, of course, it parallels the one granting blacks three-fifths of a vote and women none in the US Constitution.  

To that point, the Democrats’ fractures are systemic, in my opinion. I’ve made the following argument in many forums using iterations of the same theme – namely, that enfranchising dependents polarizes the political process.

The irony of the Democrats’ plight is that the veracity of this aforementioned premise is reflected by their virtually irreconcilable present state. That the ‘party of inclusion’ must change its tune in order to maintain order amidst chaos belies the reality behind feel-good rhetoric of anarchy cum despotism of the present left, which masquerades as the party of opportunity meanwhile locking away the skeletons in its own collective closet (e.g., Truman, the only POTUS with a Ph.D., instituted a policy of state-run racial segregation, FDR quarantined Japanese and Italians in prison camps because he felt their loyalty [to America] during a time of war was circumspect due to their race, David Duke and his cronies are Democrats, etc.). That the Democrats use the logic of our founders to reject complete and universal enfranchisement, which contradicts the premise that standards should not apply for enfranchisement – i.e., that it should be a universal right rather than a limited privilege.

Clintonian Political Economy

Hillary’s now screaming from her podium that during the Bill Clinton era the American economy boomed and the budget went into surplus. That this is dispositive evidence for the efficacy of straight-line, big government, tax raising, excessive litigation enabling liberalism.

This argument fails on two counts.

Firstly, it ignores positive and cumulative effects of past policies of previous presidents. Secondly, it ignores negative and cumulative effects of Clinton’s then current and now past policies.

In the first sense, Clinton’s policy of raising taxes on the vibrant, multidimensional, growing economy (post ’89 hiccup) was in effect increasing the income cache for federal government on the coattails of Reagan and Bush’s laurels. Of course raising taxes increases treasury income at least in the short term, but higher rates invariably disincent income earners, affecting a concomitant economic slowdown. This, in turn, adversely affects the conditions in which future policymakers must make decisions.

If you’ve read ‘Good To Great,’ Clinton would be, in the most liberal estimate (pardon the pun), a level 4 leader who inflates himself and the value of the organization in a present-tense fashion as opposed to a level five leader whose policies impute enduring strength to an organization.

And that’s apart from foreign policy weakness wherein Islamic radicals the world over were able to gain chokeholds in key areas of the globe while Clinton sat back and did nothing, the cumulative effects of which led to 9/11.

Florida, Michigan cannot save Clinton

WASHINGTON (AP) – Michigan and Florida alone can’t save Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign.

Interviews with those considering how to handle the two states’ banished convention delegates found little interest in the former first lady’s best-case scenario. Her position, part of a formidable comeback challenge, is that all the delegates be seated in accordance with their disputed primaries.

Even if they were, it wouldn’t erase Barack Obama’s growing lead in delegates.

The Democratic Party’s Rules and Bylaws Committee, a 30-member panel charged with interpreting and enforcing party rules, is to meet May 31 to consider how to handle Michigan and Florida’s 368 delegates.

Last year, the panel imposed the harshest punishment it could render against the two states after they scheduled primaries in January, even though they were instructed not to vote until Feb. 5
or later. Michigan and Florida lost all their delegates to the national convention, and all the Democratic candidates agreed not to campaign in the two states, stripping them of all the influence
they were trying to build by voting early.

But now there is agreement on all sides that at least some of the delegates should be restored in a gesture of party unity and respect to voters in two general election battlegrounds.

Clinton has been arguing for full reinstatement, which would boost her standing. She won both states, even though they didn’t count toward the nomination and neither candidate campaigned in
them. Obama even had his name pulled from Michigan’s ballot.

The Associated Press interviewed a third of the panel members and several other Democrats involved in the negotiations and found widespread agreement that the states must be punished for stepping out of line. If not, many members say, other states will do the same thing in four years.

“We certainly want to be fair to both candidates, and we want to be sure that we are fair to the 48 states who abided by the rules,” said Democratic National Committee Secretary Alice
Germond, a panel member unaligned with either candidate. “We don’t want absolute chaos for 2012.

Read the rest of this entry »

Filed under: AP • Florida • Hillary Clinton • Michigan

A liberal’s perspective on the divisive dem primary (Brad DeLong)

Eschaton: [T]t really never mattered much to me who won this nomination…. I leaned various ways at various times, and I became more and more annoyed at the Clinton campaign over time. Obama did a bunch of things that annoyed me too, but not as much recently. I’m sure Hillary Clinton would be a decent president. “Electability” arguments for either of them aren’t very persuasive, though smart people on both sides are pretty convinced that their candidate will win and the other will flame out spectacularly.

At this point, however, Obama’s won. There’s no nomination path for her which doesn’t involve rewriting the rules in a way which would never be seen as legitimate, or a massive shift in superdelegates which would likewise be problematic, and even those paths range from unlikely to impossible….

One wishes we could’ve rewound things to about March 4 and had a more substantive campaign, instead of the identity politics-based Freak Show campaign we’ve had since then. It isn’t all the candidates’ fault, of course, as you go to campaign with the media you have and not the media you want…

My one caveat is the “sure.” I think it is highly likely that Hillary Rodham Clinton would be a better president  [. . .] But her campaign’s degeneration into a troop of flying leaking backstabbing monkeys accusing each other of incompetence does not give me great confidence in her as an experienced, crackerjack manager ready on day 1.

Jon Chait On the Spiro Ted Agnewization of Hillary Rodham Clinton (Brad DeLong)

Here is Chait on the mysterious transformation of Bill and Hillary Clinton into clones of Spiro Ted Agnew:

Let Them Eat Arugula: The dying days of the Hillary Clinton campaign have brought the breathtaking spectacle of a candidate lashing out at every element of public life that has nourished her career. The über-wonk has disparaged economists and expertise. The staunch ally of black America has attacked her opponent for lacking support of “working, hard-working Americans, white Americans.” People who thought they knew Hillary Clinton have gazed in astonishment: What has she become? The answer is, a conservative populist….

Liberal populism posits that the rich wield disproportionate influence over the government and push for policies often at odds with most people’s interest. Conservative populism… prefers to divide society along social lines, with the elites being intellectuals and other snobs who fancy themselves better….

Consider this analysis recently offered by Bill Clinton in Clarksburg, West Virginia: “The great divide in this country is not by race or even income, it’s by those who think they are better than everyone else and think they should play by a different set of rules.” This is precisely the dynamic that allows multimillionaires like George W. Bush and Bill O’Reilly to present themselves as being on the side of the little guy. A more classic expression of conservative populism cannot be found.

Historically, the conservative populist’s social divide ran along racial and ethnic lines…. [Today it’s] nostalgia about small towns… stronger values… work harder… overwhelmingly white…. Bill Clinton recently declared, “The people in small towns in rural America, who do the work for America, and represent the backbone and the values of this country, they are the people that are carrying her through in this nomination.” The corollary–that strong values and hard work is in shorter supply among ethnically heterogeneous urban residents–is left unstated….

SHHH! Liberals at Work! (Gunny G, Townhall blogs)

If there is ONE THING that Liberal’s HATE, it effective law enforcement. From Bill Clinton to Hitlery and Whitewater to WIlliam Jefferson to MILCON Dianne Feinstein, and on and on and on, liberals can be counted on to obfuscate, delay, stop, hinder, halt, and otherwise get in the way of good police work or justice being done.In Arizona, AMERICA’s Sheriff, Sheriff Joe Arpaio, INSISTS upon enforcing the law, treating criminals like the scum they are, and working to 
slow down the Mexican reconquista movement of Southwest America by throwing the illegal alien criminals in the slammer where they belong.
HOWEVER, Phoenix Mayor, Phil Gordon (D), is riding to the RESCUE of these human locusts who suck the lifeblood of America’s social services, cause huge amounts of crime, and are generally a pain-in-the-a**! (But hey! they vote Dhimmicrat…reliably) Little Phil can’t STAND that Sheriff Joe is KICKING A** on the illegals, rounding up these criminals and SENDING THEM BACK so what does he do? He bleats for help from the Feds. Sounds familiar doesn’t it?