Charlie Pierce:
Charlie Pierce, reality-checking Hillary Clinton:
Because I am always here to help, I will now present a list of what we already know about a potential Rodham Clinton's presidency.
If she is elected, she unequivocally will accept the science of anthropogenic climate change and treat it as a crisis. This cannot be said of any of the Republican candidates, real or potential.
If she is elected, she unequivocally will support marriage equality, and oppose discrimination against our fellow citizens based on sexual orientation or gender identity. This cannot be said of any of the Republican candidates, real or potential.
If she is elected, she will not destroy the Affordable Care Act, an article of faith among all the Republican candidates, real or potential.
If she is elected, and despite her closeness to certain Wall Street interests, she will not destroy the Dodd-Frank reforms, another article of faith among all the Republican candidates, real or potential.
If she is elected, the DREAMers will get to stay in the country.
If she is elected, she will not sign a bill to eliminate the estate tax. (More on this one later)
If she is elected, Janice Rogers Brown will stay right where she is in the judicial food chain.
To get elected, she does not have to wink at state's rights, up to and including incidents of armed resistance.
To get elected, she does not have to equivocate on the science behind the theory of evolution as does any Republican candidate who seeks the votes of Republicans in Iowa.
To get elected, she does not have to peddle the snake oil of supply-side economics, nor does she have to peddle scare stories about the oncoming caliphate, nor does she have to create bogeymen about jackboots coming to steal your guns.
7 comments:
That is all good and well, I for one am more inrerested in hearing just how she plans on putting the nation on stong fiscal footing again, if she intends to balance budgets and if so how, how she is intends handle the very real threat of growing global terror, how she plans to control illegal immigration and stop it, how she will unsure and protect our constitutional liberties, and how she will UNITE the nation rather than divide it further.
Frankly, HIllary's integrity (honesty) is questionable and will be fair grounds for skeptics to dig. Trustworthiness is a commodity that is in short supply in politics and it is found in both parties.
Honestly, I see no one that has announced to date can be trusted. But as is so often the case, there is always hope.
All fair questions, and we will have the next year and a half to hear what she and the GOP candidates have to say.
I will take exception to this:
"...and how she will UNITE the nation rather than divide it further."
That needs to be asked of whomever the GOP nominee is as well. This "divisiveness" isn't a Democratic Party problem alone. The GOP has been obstructive, and just recently, IMO, treacherous in their attempts to undermine everything this president has tried to accomplish.
That sort of behavior is highly divisive, and from before his inauguration, the Republicans have devoted themselves and their policies to disrupt and divide this country.
When President Obama or his A.G. spoke on racial issues still plaguing this country, they spoke the truth. That's not dividing the country, that's expecting American citizens to be adult enough to see reality.
Balanced budgets are just a right-wing idol, not an absolute virtue. An over-emphasis on balanced budgets during an economic slowdown is absolute madness, and the European Union's insistence on that policy is what has devastated the economies of southern Europe.
The US recovery under Obama would have been much stronger if the government had done more stimulus spending and put less emphasis on deficit reduction. Balancing the federal budget now would mean spending cuts and tax increases that would throw the country back into recession.
On the threat of terrorism, most of that originates in the Middle East. The Middle East is a complex region and not easy to get right. Obama has done about as well as is humanly possible. Right now the brutality of groups like ISIS and al-Qâ'idah against other Muslims has turned Muslim opinion strongly against them, and Obama has rightly let Muslims lead the fight against ISIS while we provide air support. The Republicans want to go back to blindly bombing and invading countries more or less at random, and throw away the progress made on bringing Iran out of isolation to the point where it has a stake in the international system. Those policies would probably lead to an explosion of terrorism.
Anyway, the point of the post is that Hillary is the only likely candidate who is not committed to dangerously-insane policies. The distinctions listed are very important, and one could have added that she's the only one who won't put any more theocratic nutcases like Scalia on the Supreme Court. No matter what flaws she may have in other areas, she's the only sane option.
I will take exception to this:
"...and how she will UNITE the nation rather than divide it further."
Np ned to take exception, I have the same questions for the republican candidates, and many more.
Obstruction is not necessarily the same a being divisive, although with the republican congress behavior I will take no exception as I understand fully where you're coming from.
Perhaps they spoke the truth, as they they see truth, and this isn't to say they are wrong or were being divisive. However, not everyone sees it exactly as they do and maybe it was as much presentation as substance. It is certainly fair to say there is definitely a certain segment of our society that wants division on their terms and see nothing wrong with that.
I didn't get into the republican issues in my original comment because this was about Hillary and all the (perceived) good she might bring to the country. Quite honestly, I'm not so sure. We have 18 months to sort things out.
Considering the hash men have made of civilization for at least ten millennia, I am very much in favor of having a woman for president, and I’ve narrowed down my list to these five candidates:
Angela Albacore
Cassandra Carp
Penelope Pike
Talulla Tarpon and …
Yolanda Yellowfin
If a terrestrial biped were chosen, I would consider the one from Massachusetts (gesundheit!).
With regards to Hillary, I attribute much of the skepticism surrounding her to the fossilized remains of GOP stalking points. The GOP has a very bad habit of resorting to derision, defamation, and smear to discredit all opponents, and I expect 2016 to be especially ugly.
Regrettably, there are all too many men who feel threatened by intelligent and accomplished women, and Hillary has been pilloried for precisely this reason.
To assuage RN’s concerns over fiscal responsibility, Clinton was the last president to balance the budget (Clinton’s successor turned a surplus into a giant deficit from which we still have not recovered). If the GOP tries to characterize Hillary as a tax-and-spend liberal, the hypocrits will have this point thrown back in their faces.
Hillary has also been a target of victim blame over her husband’s infidelities – and rightwingers have gone out of their way to paint her with the same brush.
So if don’t get my first choice (Penelope Pike), or my other terrestrial biped choice (gesundheit), then I am perfectly OK with Hillary.
Hillary is neither Bill or George. I have enough respect for her intelligence to listen, evaluate, and based on the three make my determination as to her fitness to be president. I've tuned out the GOP screech box long ago. That said I do not trust the DP either. Spin is not a partisan endeavor.
The wingnuts absolutely detest Hillary. But keep in mind, those are the people who thought Sarah Palin would make a great president. ROFLAO!
Post a Comment