I rarely swear. I think I’ve said maybe a dozen “bad words” in the past 10 years. However, when I read this article, I almost let out a few expletives simply because of how downright scary Hillary Clinton’s vision for America is:
Clinton: Shared Prosperity Should Replace ‘On Your Own’ Society
The Democratic senator said what the Bush administration touts as an ownership society really is an “on your own” society that has widened the gap between rich and poor.
“I prefer a ‘we’re all in it together’ society,” she said. “I believe our government can once again work for all Americans. It can promote the great American tradition of opportunity for all and special privileges for none.”
“There is no greater force for economic growth than free markets. But markets work best with rules that promote our values, protect our workers and give all people a chance to succeed,” she said. “Fairness doesn’t just happen. It requires the right government policies.”
(Emphasis mine.) Okay… say it with me now… “socialist.” That’s all Hillary is – a dyed in the wool socialist. (And by the way, Hill, a “free market” that is laden with government regulations isn’t exactly “free” anymore…) So much for individual responsibility. So much for being an agent of change in your own life. So much for rewarding individual success. So much for the individual! A “shared prosperity” society isn’t what America needs. This is what Europe has, and what is tearing apart and destroying the fabric of their countries. Perhaps Hillary should run for President of France in their next election…
This reminded me of the latest news from Russia that I heard this weekend, where the federal government of Russia seized control of two of the nation’s largest oil fields, kicking out capitalistic companies under the guise that they were not producing enough oil and they were violating environmental regulations. Government takeover of the economy is socialism en route to communism.
It gets better. Delivering the speech at a college, she says:
“We have sent a message to our young people that if you don’t go to college … that you’re thought less of in America. We have to stop this,” she said.
Maybe she ought to get together with Barack and figure out how to get all those drunken black criminals off the streets and into gainful employment. (Note: read the linked article before accusing me of racism.)
This is one frighteningly scary woman. The even scarier part is that she is the least liberal of the three frontrunners for the Democrat party…
May 30th, 2007 at 10:22 am
While selectively editing Hillary’s comments makes them appear ominous, on the whole they are fairly moderate by Democrat standards.
Her rhetoric isn’t even particularly troubling. What’s troubling is that when she uses her harmless rhetoric she’s not just arguing for a government role in combating problems. She’s arguing for bureaucratic control.
May 30th, 2007 at 10:34 am
As Dick Morris said, Hillary would be the closest thing our country has ever had to a European-style, collectivist president. Kind of scary that she leads the Dem field by a mile and ties or leads all GOPers.
Aside from her general statism on economics, the quote of hers regarding college is intriguing, as it could mean about 2 or 3 different things, depending on her intent. She could have meant that we have to stop acting as though a lawyer is somehow inherently better than a construction worker; then the statement is not so problematic, as the NRO gang was recently voicing the same sentiment in response to the idea that we need guest workers in this country to do jobs that are beneath Americans. On the other hand, if Hillary meant that we have to return to the 1950s, when only a select few went to college and most were able to get good jobs right out of high school, then she is most unlike her husband as she has no comprehension of the 21st Century global economy.
May 30th, 2007 at 10:41 am
Hillary probably means that the government should pay the way for every 18-year old to go through college and the college darn well better give them a degree, no matter how much they screw off or just weren’t meant for college, or else they’ll get sued by the feds.
May 30th, 2007 at 11:12 am
…and if some of you “republicans” on here really cared about losing our freedoms, AND our country, you would stop bashing Rudy so much.
May 30th, 2007 at 1:04 pm
Henry, that’s the thing about Hillary; everyone can interpret what Hillary says according to their biases because the Clintons never speak clearly.
Going through another 8 years of doublespeak and lawyer-speak would be annoying after Bush’s plain plain-spokenness.
May 30th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
You’re right KT, there shouldn’t be any debate. all of us “republicans,” as you put it, should just take your word for it and climb on Rudy’s train to utopia because he’s the ONLY Republican who can win…yada yada yada.
May 30th, 2007 at 2:02 pm
Hillary needs to display some of those old Lenin propaganda posters at her rallies.
May 30th, 2007 at 2:02 pm
Oh, btw, Rudy needs to be bashed when his positions are wrong.
May 30th, 2007 at 2:12 pm
“and if some of you “republicans” on here really cared about losing our freedoms, AND our country, you would stop bashing Rudy so much.”
KT, dude, try, just once, to keep your comments on topic. Whatever criticism we heap on the candidates will be much less than the criticism that is heaped on them by the Democratic candidate. If there are any skeletons in the closet that we need to know about, NOW is the time to find them.
Back on topic: Hillary makes my skin crawl, and the fact that she’s the front runner right now for the Democratic nomination makes me very, very worried about this country. Not so much worried about if she wins or not (although that obviously is very troubling to me) but the simple fact that there are enough people in this country who support her to make her first in national polls. Are there truly that many people who like her??? That’s just nuts to me.
Hava
http://mittforpresident.wordpress.com/
May 30th, 2007 at 2:30 pm
Cant see myself voting for a socialist. Hilery is out as a possible canidate for me.
May 30th, 2007 at 3:36 pm
and if some of you “republicans” on here really cared about losing our freedoms
The freedom to die in the womb. The freedom to have your guns confiscated. The freedom to call a press conference to dump your second wife on live tv. The freedom to turn the country over to third world immigrants.
May 30th, 2007 at 4:58 pm
Socialism is the least of my concerns.
“Fascist ethics begin … with the acknowledgment that it is not the individual who confers a meaning upon society, but it is, instead, the existence of a human society which determines the human character of the individual. According to Fascism, a true, a great spiritual life cannot take place unless the State has risen to a position of pre-eminence in the world of man. The curtailment of liberty thus becomes justified at once, and this need of rising the State to its rightful position.”
[Mario Palmieri, "The Philosophy of Fascism" 1936]
Not that there’s much difference between Socialism and Fascism, other than the slogans.
May 30th, 2007 at 6:05 pm
Well, I’d say that Mitt Romney agrees that fairness requires the right government policies. He, too, is a statist when it comes to government intervention in health care.
KT is right, by the way! Rudy is the ONLY economic conservative in the top three GOP candidates. Unfortunately, many conservatives are more concerned with whether Jim and Bob can get married than whether the government is pilfering their money to pay for some collectivist scheme.
May 30th, 2007 at 6:23 pm
While, “the world needs ditchdiggers, too” is an indisputable truism in a capitalist society, I interpret Hillary’s college comment as pure pandering to a predominantly minority uneducated Democratic voting base.
Whites have the highest proportion with a high school diploma or higher (90%), followed by Asians (86.8%), Blacks (80.6 percent) and Hispanics (58.4 percent).
Asians have the highest proportion with a bachelor’s degree or higher (49.4%), followed by Whites (30.6%), with Blacks (17.6%) and Hispanics (12.1%) bringing up the rear.
May 30th, 2007 at 6:41 pm
TLG,
Regarding government intervention in health care, it already existed before Romney’s reforms. MA taxpayers were forced to cover the bills for freeloaders who showed up at the ER. What’s libertarian about that?
And as for Rudy being the only economic conservative in the top 3, that’s a real stretch. This is the man who saddled NYC with over $16 billion in debt and declared the budgets balanced. Do you know how much money gets paid annually on those loans? How economically conservative is it to skip town with 15% of taxes being used to cover years of bloated spending habits?
May 30th, 2007 at 6:45 pm
Giuliani pushes appeal to California moderates
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/05/30/BAGAEQ43R04.DTL&type=printable
May 30th, 2007 at 6:51 pm
Argo,
In that article you linked to, Giuliani seems to be pushing the notion that the only way to win a predominantly liberal state is to be more liberal.
Should we be ashamed of conservative principles?
May 30th, 2007 at 7:07 pm
The Hillary speech should be repeated in every newspaper and on every talk show every day until the election.
May 30th, 2007 at 7:11 pm
murphy, What that article shows is he can win liberal states while being very far to the right on defense and economics. Joke will be on the liberal states!
May 30th, 2007 at 7:16 pm
David B, the article doesn’t show he can win liberal states at all. It only shows that he thinks he can because he thinks of himself as more “moderate” than the other candidates.
May 30th, 2007 at 7:17 pm
Expanding on that point:
Do conservatives realizing that Rudy’s nominal social liberalism will actually allow him to be elected and govern FAR more to the right than other Republicans on the other 90% of issues that come before his desk? Actual action against Iran? Actual privatization of social security?
Meanwhile having little interest in, and effectively making a deal to, do no harm so the social conservative agenda.
Have you done the calculus?
May 30th, 2007 at 7:18 pm
murphy: No, but polls will bear that out. He’s already trouncing everyone in PA and NJ. And he’ll give them a run for millions of dollars in NY and CA.
May 30th, 2007 at 7:48 pm
High water mark, David B.
May 30th, 2007 at 9:29 pm
Here is the full quote from Giuliani that was only partially cited in the San Francisco Chronicle article I posted above:
Speaking to supporters at a Silicon Valley fundraiser, Giuliani lashed out at Hillary for proposing an increase in capital gains taxes and a repeal of tax cuts for higher earners.
“It would hurt our economy. It would hurt this area traumatically. That kind of tax increase would see a decline in your venture capital. It would see a decline in your ability to focus on new technologies and new development. These are massive tax increases that Mrs. Clinton is proposing.”
May 31st, 2007 at 12:36 am
Dave,
Pretty disappointing to see you jumping on the “big scary socialist” meme that has been running around the RW blogosphere the past few days.
It is complete nonsense of course, but that never stopped you guys, has it?
Socialsim means government ownership of the means of production.
Hillary talks of fairness within a free market system.
We had this discussion in this country back in the late 19th century. I wonder what it is that you are actually supporting? Maybe its time to read up on one of your party’s icons – TR, for an appropriate attitude toward government regulation of free markets to ensure basic fairness.
May 31st, 2007 at 3:03 am
We all know that when Hillary speaks of fairness she means putting our destiny in the hands of government bureaucrats. She’s shown overly bureaucratic tendencies since the 90′s.
On this increasingly libertarian board I feel like a moderate for worrying about excessive bureaucratic power as opposed to the redistributionist boogie man.
May 31st, 2007 at 4:57 am
EGS,
How exactly do you think our “destiny” is going to be placed in the hands of bureaucrats?
May 31st, 2007 at 4:58 am
re.Tano #25
Sorry, I meant to address the comment to Heavy, not Dave.
May 31st, 2007 at 5:17 am
Tano, I mean our personal destiny.
During the Hillarycare debacle she proposed a system so complex and so centralized that individual’s healthcare would be at the mercy of decisions by petty bureaucrats.
She has shown similar instincts on other issues; Overly complex “solutions” that concentrate power in the hands of probably crooked bureaucrats.
For a party that’s supposedly pro-choice there’s a strong tendency to take away personal choice and centralize decision-making to create more jobs for government employee unions. Hillary is a very strong example of this impulse.