Conservatives for Hillary

We don’t generally do candidate blogging, but many readers may find of interest Bruce Bartlett’s "Conservatives for Hillary," a movement to which Thomas Sowell probably does not belong.


That's because Thomas Sowell has a brain.

He's also probably observed that the socialist policies that Democrats spew haven't worked out for France as well as France had hoped they would and there's no reason to think they'll work better here.

Has nobody else noticed the growth of government and the massive tax increases the dems voted in the very second they took a slim majority in congress? It seems none of the dems remember JFK.

1) Bartlett assumes that a Hillary Clinton with a Democratic Congress in 2009 would be as sensible as a Bill Clinton with a Republican Congress in 1999. That's far from self-evident to me.

2) Is it really true that the Clinton administration was better than (or even as good as) Bush 43 on regulation? That seems like a poor assumption: Bush has been disappointing on regulation, but that's because of the magnitude of the vector rather than the direction. Clinton vetoed the PSLRA and had some appalling DOJ enforcement policies.

3) It's far from clear to me that an Obama or Edwards beats a Giuliani.


Clinton would have issued far more regulations without a Republican congress. In fact, it was a reaction to his first two years in office that gave birth to a Republican majority in congress.

That said, a Republican congress went on to issue more regulation under Bush than under Clinton and spend like drunken sailors. They obviously thought we'd all forget the promises that swept them into office in 1994.

All this means is that government is always horrible and all politicians will seek to monetize their power. They are all bad.

The only thing Republicans have going for them is that the ideology of the party - small government, individual liberty, low taxes - is still intact. The ideology of the Democrats is collectivism supported by taxing "the rich" and an unappealing class war theme. The Republicans can at least return to their core ideology. The Democrats' core ideologies lead to more regulation and tyranny.

Government is necessary but can't be trusted and its role should be minimized (but not eliminated). Given that, Republicans are hideous but Democrats are worse. That's just my opinion, of course.

"...the thing to root for is gridlock..."

Milton Friedman has said this before. I tend to agree.

I don't get it. Rudy Giuliani or Fred Thompson, either one, wouldn't give the Democratic nominee a run for her money? Bartlett fails to make his case, or any case, as to why this should be so.

the massive tax increases the dems voted in

Dude, spending increases just are tax increases. You can pay now or later. But then you could put your taxes on your credit card as an individual, if you think that is smart.

"Dude, spending increases just are tax increases. You can pay now or later. But then you could put your taxes on your credit card as an individual, if you think that is smart."

No, I actually think this is f--king dumb as hell. I thought I made that quite clear in my previous post on this thread.

We could start by cutting $4o+ Billion annually in farm subsidies, D.A.R.E (which doesn't work by any measure), and congressional pensions (PENSIONS for public servants?). That's just a small list. Also, if we're going to redistribute income, why not just give the poor the dang money and let them decide how to spend it instead of coralling them into "public housing" and telling them what they can and cannot do, where they can and cannot live? It's less costly to administer, would recuce the size of government and treat the poor like people instead of pets. I don't know if you've ever hung out and talked to people in "the projects" but they uniformly HATE the paternalistic and condescending nature of our welfare system.


I could go on - as you can probably tell...

...or we could just get out of Iraq specifically - and the Middle East in general - and mind our own business as the rest of the world overwhelmingly would like us to do. That might save a few tax pennies here and there.

Don't get me wrong, the Democrats haven't provided much of a hopeful agenda but anything to slow down this spend and spend Republican administration is welcome in my book. I would hope that the veto of the Iraq spending bill and the failure by the Senate to override it means that funding will de facto (or preferably de jure) run out soon.

The disdain many of you have for the Democratic party and the reasons behind it are obvious, but why there seems to be tacit support for a President and a party running wild with our national coffers escapes understanding. I don't see much consistency in "the Libertarian party line" here.

"...or we could just get out of Iraq specifically - and the Middle East in general - and mind our own business as the rest of the world overwhelmingly would like us to do. That might save a few tax pennies here and there."

Why stop there? Why not stop subsidizing NATO and get our troops out of Europe and everywhere else and pull out of the UN? We both know why. Because isolationism has never really been an option for America. Plus, what defines "the rest of the world"? The Kuwaitis LOVE that we're there. We are in Saudi Arabia at the request of the Saudi government. The "rest of the world" only wants us out of the way so that France and Russia can fight for influence over these countries and Kofi Anan's son can continue to get kick-backs from the oil for food program. The other Arab states want us out so they can finish the Holocaust (not my words but theirs). The Israelis clearly want us there. They only want the US out until they start another war amongst themselves and then the US will be told that it's "obligated" to fight and die to fix it for them. Remember WWI and WWII, Saddams invasion of kuwait, Kosovo, Mogadishu, etc. etc.?

"Don't get me wrong, the Democrats haven't provided much of a hopeful agenda but anything to slow down this spend and spend Republican administration is welcome in my book."

That's just the point. That "anything to slow down spend and spend" won't be coming from the Dems. Their ideology is basically "spend til ya puke". You should be familiar with this particular ideology as the Republicans seem to have borrowed it in recent years.

I think the best option is gridlock with the two branches of governement split between the parties. The more time they spend in gridlock, the less legislation (and spending bills) will be passed and the freer we become!

uhh...NO. We've had a military agreement with Saudi Arabia for almost a century so that they don't have to have a standing army. Do some research before you spill your ignorance all over the place.

And believing that our military presence in Saudi Arabia caused 9/11 is like believing that Cho committed murder because what he wrote in his rambling manifesto is really true. Personally, I think those two mass murders were the acts of mentally deranged lunatics who comprise a tiny minority of the population. I will leave it to you to consider the similarities between your reasoning and mental illness.

“†¦If you don't understand how powerful this ill will is, I suggest you travel more and speak with people outside your ivory tower circle of acquaintances who are obviously telling you otherwise. This has nothing to do with France and Russia and I'm curious what propaganda you're reading which would allow you to arrive at that ridiculous conclusion.†

Lucky for me, then, that both my spouse and I are immigrants to America (i.e. born and at least partially raised in other countries) and our family is almost evenly split between Egypt and Russia. There are some in other parts of the world working in the UN and other assorted institutions, of course. Also lucky for me, that having observed my parents’ life in the Ivory Tower, I avoided it in favour of the real world. Luckily, my business dealings take me all over the world, so I don’t have to rely on leftist propaganda magazines to inform myself of the realities of other people’s lives. I just came back from France and when Milton Friedman died, I was in Egypt. This is why, if I had to bet, I’d bet that my opinion on the attitudes of people around the world is far more qualified than yours.

I’m sure this is not the first time you ASSumed that anyone who disagrees with you must be even more ignorant and out of touch than you are just as I am certain that you are not unaccustomed to regularly making such an azz of yourself. To cure this undoubtedly chronic problem, I recommend a little restraint.

“Israel has proven - admittedly with our financial assistance - that it can defend itself more than adequately.†

Nobody disputes that. As long as we exist and Israel exists we will both continue to be scapegoats. If both countries disappear, a new scapegoat will be created. Pulling Americans out of the Middle East solves nothing but it does show that America is weak and that is the line used to recruit new terrorists.

“†¦it's not in the Constitution that we are the defenders of Israel in perpetuity†

Nor is it in the constitution that we will continue to provide a living for people who refuse to work for their food. Yet, we do it anyway.

This statement:
“We should be pulling back from these world conflicts† conflicts with this statement
Conflicts with this statement:
“I'm not calling for isolationism or for a withdrawal from the geopolitical stage†

“I'm calling for more of a shared role in policing the world's woes.†

So, what happens if nobody wants to share in our role to police, say, genocide? Do we then not police it? Is morality a UN consensus or an absolute? Is getting rid of a dictator who openly modeled himself on Joseph Stalin moral or immoral? We could wax philosophical ALL day! And still we’ll have no concrete answers (my bet). But one thing you should keep in mind – in a survey a couple of years ago, only 14% of Europeans said there was ANYTHING at all worth fighting for. What sharing do you expect?

“We should be pulling back from these world conflicts and instead boosting the UN.†

You mean that organization with Libya on the Human Rights Commission. Also the organization committing massive fraud in its own oil for food program. That’s a great idea if you happen to be looking forward to paying taxes to fund the UN standing idly by while people slaughter each other, as they did in Rwanda and Yugoslavia. Or, “keeping the peace† by allowing Hezbollah to cross willy-nilly into Israel to kill and kidnap Israeli soldiers. Then, there’s the persistent problem of UN relief workers extorting sex from women in exchange for food that they were tasked to hand out. These abuses happen of course, the problem is that IF the UN does anything at all, it simply reassigns the abusers instead of firing them and turning them over to authorities for prosecution. I certainly don’t look forward to funding and giving more power to the world’s largest rape club. If that isn’t enough, as I said, with family and friends working for the UN, I have many many more disturbing stories. Too numerous to list here. Plus, 86% of Europeans find NOTHING worth fighting for, so the only “teeth† in the UN will be brutal dictators or the US – the current status quo. Let’s just say, I find no reason to support your idea.

“Yes, that irresponsible William Jefferson Clinton evilly cut the gross national debt as one of his legacies, reversing a trend established by your Republican superheroes Reagan and the lesser-popular Bush v.1 - a trend which was quickly resumed by Bush v.2.†

You may consider improving your reading comprehension skills in your quest to avoid redundancy. Also, a little consideration of cause and effect wouldn’t hurt.

That's the best you can do?

Comments for this post are closed