Against Hillary and Rudy
personally avoided focusing on the overall 2008 presidential situation because, one, it seems too early to do so (though in reality it’s not early, since, given the insane primary schedule, the respective nominees will probably be known by February), and, two, because the campaign presents the worst prospects for our country ever, and it is deeply disturbing and disheartening to think about it. This website has talked a lot about Rudy Giuliani. One of the things that makes him unacceptable is that he were elected, Republicans and conservatives, in rushing to remove any negative judgment from him, would destroy conservatism as a vehicle of decent moral beliefs. After endorsing Giuliani and defending him at all costs, as many of them are already doing, they would never again be able to stand for family values—the very concept of family values would be torn out of them as though their tongue had been torn out of their body. Conservatism would be finished.
But what is even more bizarre and disturbing is the rush of certain establishment conservatives to do the same with regard to Hillary Clinton. Equating her likely nomination and election with her legitimacy (meaning that if she is elected, then by definition she is a legitimate figure), Richard Lowry and other weather-vane conservatives have been rushing to legitimate her, thus wiping out everything she is and has been. This is even worse than approving Giuliani. We lived for eight years under a lawless, amoral, massively lying White House. Hillary was at the center of that administration, she is at least as big a liar as her husband (who—let us remind ourselves of the inconceivable nightmare—will be in the White House again if she is elected). She has organized her entire political existence so as never to be asked a difficult question. She is, as I have written, the walking abolition of politics. Yet the Lowry conservatives, whom I hereby dub the Callow-Cons, consider her a legitimate person to be president of the United States.
Even so, I would not vote for Giuliani. Better a principled Republican party and conservative movement standing against the amoral, ruthless, anti-American, lying socialist President Hillary Clinton, than an unprincipled Republican party and conservative movement standing for the immoral, ruthless, marriage-trampling, family-destroying, homosexual-rights-marching, illegal-alien embracing, spread-democracy-to-Muslims President Rudolph Giuliani.
* * *
In connection with Hillary, the below article, which I’ve just received from World Ahead Publishing, will remind some of us, who have been beguiled by the “responsible,” “low-key,” “moderate” Hillary of recent months, what this woman really is.
Do Hillary’s words condemn her?
- end of initial entry -
Yes, says author.
Los Angeles, CA (August 14, 2007)—In a recent interview, distinguished historian Doris Kearns Goodwin made a statement that should strike fear into Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, claims Tom Kuiper, the author of I’ve Always Been a Yankees Fan: Hillary Clinton in Her Own Words (World Ahead Publishing; paperback: $12.95; ISBN 0974670189, 2006.)
While being interviewed on Meet the Press about the crop of 2008 presidential candidates, Goodwin noted that we should take a very close look at their previous behavior and statements. “I think if we can just shift the dialogue away—we’re spending too much time entertaining ourselves, and this is much too important, as we’ve seen from candidates who get in there who have all these terrible traits in the past, but we never knew about them, and suddenly—they’re not going to change.”
“Hillary’s terrible traits are out there for all to see,” notes Kuiper. Certainly the illustrated Yankees Fan, which contains over 500 fully verified quotes from more than 60 sources, puts not just Hillary’s embrace of socialism but her vicious temper and contempt for others front and center.
Continues Kuiper, “Doris Goodwin was so right when she said that, ‘You get on a bigger stage when you’re president, so sometimes the traits that are good can be magnified and the weaknesses can be understood if you’ve learned from experience. But you’re not a wholly different person once you become president. So that’s why we’ve got to look at their past.’”
In Hillary’s case, the past is a sure predictor of the future. “Hillary will say or do anything to get what she wants. When it comes to the public and private pronouncements that Ms. Goodwin says we should scrutinize, it’s clear what we could expect from a Hillary presidency,” Kuiper asserts. Yankees Fan is full of quotes that reflect Hillary’s true beliefs, such as…
—“Most of you are well enough off that [President Bush’s] tax cuts may have helped you. We’re saying that for American to get back on track, we’re probably going to need to cut that short and not give it to you. We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.” (SFgate.com, 06/28/04)
—“Too many women are asking what good is democracy when we don’t have affordable child care or health care. Too many workers are asking what good is a free market when we are the first to be fired and the last to be hired.” (Hillary criticized democracy and the free market while on a European trip.)
—“Decisions about motherhood and abortion, schooling, cosmetic surgery, treatment of venereal disease, or employment, [which] significantly affect the child’s future, should not be made unilaterally by parents.” (Hillary the multi-lateralist expressing her views on parental rights in a 1978 essay: “Children’s Rights: A Legal Perspective.”)
—“We can’t trust the American people to make those types of choices…Government has to make those choices for people.” (Hillary to Representative Dennis Hastert, R-Ill, on the issues of who should control the allocation of money in her health care reform plan, circa June 1993.)
—“It’s time to put the common good, the national interest, ahead of individuals.” (Soon-to-be-multimillionaire Hillary to a woman who expressed concern about being forced into a national health plan.)
As Kuiper explains, “‘The 500-plus quotes in I’ve Always Been A Yankees Fan demonstrate why Hillary’s America would be a nightmare to those who believe in our way of life. Her goal is a government that panders endlessly to illegal immigrants and every other special interest group—except those of us paying the bills.”
For Kuiper, Yankees Fan proves that Doris Goodwin is absolutely right. “The quotes I’ve pulled from so many verified sources DO reveal the true Hillary…and her agenda. If every politician thought like her, we’d be living under a completely socialized government with no hope of returning to what we have today.” That’s why “Hillary embodies everything that’s wrong with those who embrace big government.”
About World Ahead Publishing:
Headquartered in Los Angeles, World Ahead is the West Coast’s leading publisher of conservative books. Visit http://www.worldahead.com to learn more.
Ben W. writes:
Polls consistently show Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani as the final two candidates for the presidency. There are uneven surges by others but the surges get rolled back. I’m not saying that things may not change dramatically when the primaries come around or that the nominations are inevitable for these two, but the trends seem to point to a Rudy versus Hillary presidential campaign.
That puts us between a rock and hard place. And to think that Judy and Bill are their mates…oy vey!
Tim W. writes:
I think you’re correct that conservatives could never again defend family values if they back a candidate who not only has never stood for such values politically, but has rejected them in his personal life.
Liberals can get away with things conservatives can’t. We see this time and time again when sleazy Republicans such as Mark Foley are run out of office on a rail (and other Republicans are tarnished by him for just being Republicans) while sleazy Democrats such as Gerry Studds survive unscathed.
Conservatives seem to think they can support Rudy as the lesser of evils against Hillary and not be tainted. They assume this because feminists have consistently supported misogynists like Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy and have lost no credibility with the media or fellow liberals. But conservatives can’t get away with such hypocrisy, and really it would lower us if we could.
M. Mason writes:
I have nothing to add to your cogent analysis of the appalling political consequences of either a Clinton or Giuliani presidency, but there is one other aspect I would bring out. It appears that as far as the individual temperments of these candidates is concerned, what we have here are two people who are essentially mirror-images of each other. Both are extremely strong-willed choleric types who have the usual positive and negative personality traits of such people. And because their ego strength is so high, the negative traits are thereby magnified: pride, aggression, anger, combativeness, impatience, stubbornness, defiance, domination and a relentless drive to win at all costs.
These are the sort of people who live according to their own rules, and are potentially capable of undertaking any behavior to secure and maintain total control.
What this means is that if these two do end up as the respective Democratic and Republican nominees, we’re probably going to see the most ruthless, brutal presidential campaign in modern political history.
Ben W. writes:
How did you deal with the numerical fact (not moral) of a possible Hillary vs Rudy election?
The title of the article says “Against Hillary and Rudy.” In numerical or binary terms (I work as a computer programmer so binary logic is part of my trade), your equation is NOT H AND NOT R (!H & !R). An election however is never an AND or two NOTs but an OR—EITHER H OR R (H || R). Sorry about the equations (not meant to be pompous) but binary logic is written this way. An election is binary in nature whether one participates or not.
I dislike Giuliani; I fear Hillary. I still don’t see clearly what my options are in the H vs R scenario (which is likely).
You’re missing the thing I’ve said over and over, most recently this morning. A Hillary presidency would not destroy conservatism, we would be alive and resisting her, and so the country would be strengthened. A Rudy presidency would destroy conservatism, and thus weaken the country. Therefore, as horrible and nightmarish is the prospect of the Clintons in the White House, I would accept it rather than support Giuliani.
Ben W. replies:
While a Hillary presidency would not destroy conservatism it might destroy the country. Even though health care is expensive for my wife and myself, when we have used health care facilities, they have been excellent. We have relatives in Canada who tell us horror stories about their Medicare system.
As part owner of a small business, it scares me what Hillary will do to us with her total unconcern for high taxes. Then there is the LBGT agenda that she will willingly impose on the nation through presidential “executive orders” from the White House (she admitted to this in the LBGT forum).
I haven’t said that I would vote for Giuliani if forced into a corner—as of now I’m stumped (and I’ve never thrown a vote away or not voted in my life). As much as I think Romney is superficial, I wish he could wedge into Giuliani’s lead in the next few months and pick up momentum heading into the convention. But every time Hillary and Rudy seem threatened and their poll numbers go down, they bounce back up.
You mention resisting Hillary as a mode of survival for conservatism. But once an agenda is implemented, once a plan is put in place, does it ever get rolled back? For instance Roe v. Wade? Once Hillary gets in power, she won’t even worry about “triangulation” to placate the center as Bill appeared to do. Given her character and personality. she will steamroll her agenda through legislation that will be enormously difficult to turn back. Decades later, we are still largely living within the social structures and government plans enacted by FDR that changed America in a major way.
Is a vote for Giuliani any more appealing? No, he’s a liar who once in office will enact 90% of what Hillary would do. He has lied with impunity about so many things in the past few months and hasn’t been called on the carpet to account for his behaviour by the Republican Party. He now knows that he has a free ticket to the White House to do his liberal schtick.
Look, you have every right to argue that a Hillary presidency would be so damaging that she must be stopped at all costs, even electing Giuliani. My view is that she would arouse so much opposition that most of her agenda would be stopped and that conservatism would become more powerful. Whereas if Giuliani were president, conservatism would disappear while he brutally pushed through open borders.
A Hillary presidency could mean a kind of political civil war in the country That would be healthy and good, compared to conservative surrender to a liberal Republican president.
Also, you’re forgetting simple facts, such as that there was a Democratic president and Democratic House and Senate in 1993-‘94, and the Clinton health care plan was stopped by the Republican minority.
In 2001-2004, there was a Republican president and a Republican Senate and House, and the biggest expansions of federal government involvement in health care and education in the country’s history were passed.
No Lawrence, don’t get me wrong. I’m not arguing that one has to vote for Giuliani. I simply don’t know at this point—someone has to come up with a clever plan to derail the Giuliani train and at the moment I can’t think of what it could be. I hope others can in the next year.
We don’t have a lot of time. It’s August. As a result of the obscene foreshortening and clumping together of the primaries, the nominees will probably be determined by February.
David B. writes:
Regarding the current thread at VFR on 2008, Giuliani would be worse. He would be very nearly as liberal as Hillary, and Limbaugh, Hannity, and company would reflexively support him. I repeat what I have already written. We would be doing the same dance on amnesty with Giuliani we have with Bush. I can’t repeat this too often.
Yes, the conservative faithful would strongly oppose Hillary Clinton. However, it might be the same away it was during Bill Clinton’s presidency. Then, the beltway right spent most of its time attacking “Clinton Scandals,” rather than the specifics of his policies. Will we have to wallow in stories about the Rose Law Firm and which woman Bill Clinton is consorting with? The Clintons seemed stronger than ever after the Lewinsky mess and the failure to impeach.
Still, Giuliani would be worse. Supporting another liberal Republican would eb an unmitigated disaster. If Hillary’s policies are opposed, and NOT Clinton scandals, a conservative win in 2010 and 2012 is quite possible.
Ken Hechtman writes:
“Even so, I would not vote for Giuliani. Better a principled Republican party and conservative movement standing against the amoral, ruthless, anti-American, lying socialist President Hillary Clinton, than an unprincipled Republican party and conservative movement standing for the immoral, ruthless, marriage-trampling, family-destroying, homosexual-rights-marching, illegal-alien embracing, spread-democracy-to-Muslims President Rudolph Giuliani.”
Funny you should say that. It’s more-or-less the mirror image of the reason I give why I won’t support Hillary. I’ll work for Edwards in the primaries, though at this point I don’t expect him to win. If Obama wins the nomination, I’ll hold my nose and work for him in the general. But if Hillary is on the ballot I’m going to write in “Josef Stalin.” So are thousands of other people.
After six years in opposition, the Democrats have found their voice.
A friend of mine sent me these clips of Ohio Congressman Tim Ryan. This is what Democrats should sound like and distinctly didn’t from 2000 to 2006, here, here, and here.
Now maybe in another eight years they’ll find their backbone. But not if they have to spend those eight years carrying water for the immoral, ruthless, Defense Of Marriage Act passing, DLC family values pandering, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell promoting, national ID card enforcing, warmongering, Israel-supporting, spread-high-altitude-bombing-to-Muslims President Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Why do you find her so unacceptable? [When I wrote this I had missed the latter part of KH’s first comment.]
Ken Hechtman replies:
There’s two levels to it.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at August 14, 2007 09:08 AM | Send
Politically I don’t like the DLC or any of its works. We already have one Republican Party in this country. We don’t need two. I didn’t like the strategy—and this was Hillary’s as much as Bill’s—of “triangulation.” Instead of using the “bully pulpit” to sell the Democratic base’s positions to the center, they distorted and demonized their own base to score points with the center. I don’t like the way she sold her soul to AIPAC to be Senator from New York. I mean, OK, maybe you can’t be senator from New York without their blessing, but there are other states she could have run in. I don’t like the way she backed the Iraq war in 2002. Edwards did too, but he wasn’t so damn enthusiastic about it then and at least he’s saying the right things now. I don’t like the way she’s trying to act “strong” by threatening to nuke mud-hut villages in Pakistan.
Personally, I just don’t like her. There’s not one word that comes out of her mouth that’s sincere and spontaneous. There’s not one principle she has that she wouldn’t throw overboard for a two-week two-point bounce in the polls.