If You’ve Ever Voted, or Considered Voting, for a Clinton, Then I Don’t Want to Hear You Moan About Trump

“Democracy is the principle that the common man knows what he wants and deserves to get it  — Good  and hard.”  -H.L. Mencken

Don’t believe the hysterics on Twitter. I predict that fully 70% of the soap-boxers re-tweeting #NeverTrump like they’re changing the world are going to come around. They have to: they care too much. They’ve made the calculation, as many of us have in the past, that there’s a distinction between evils, between half (or a third, or a sixth) of what you want and none. They’ll raise a terrible fuss, and then nobly hoist their cross of voting against Hillary (I just don’t see Bernie stopping her. Sorry).

How many times did I grumble about Romney, the “milquetoast moderate from Massachusetts” in Erick Erickson’s splendid phrase, only to not only vote for him, but be surprised that he lost? It’s embarrassing to recall, and I have no intention of reliving it. So no matter what, my friends, no matter how close the election is, I will not throw my vote away on a sideshow attraction. I will not vote for Trump.

My reasons are simple: I don’t know what Trump actually is. I don’t know if he’s a centrist populist or a preening gasbag who’s going to gild the White House. I don’t know if he’s serious about anything he says, or even if he knows how to do any of the things he says. He could be decent, or he could be dreadful. I’m not voting to find out.

So that means a perhaps-quixotic vote for Cruz when my primary comes up, and a definitely-quixotic vote for the Libertarian candidate (Gary Johnson, probably) in the general. If that puts me in the position of The Naderites of 2000, so be it. But if you vote for Trump, and he loses, don’t come whining to me about it. I will accept no responsibility for electing Hillary. Blame for that belongs solely to the people who vote for Hillary.

And if you think voting for Hillary is a valid act, your opinion of Trump is meaningless to me. Because Hillary Clinton, and her husband, are vile, as repellent and thuggish to me as Trump could ever be to you.

My antipathy to the Clintons is real and ancient. I must have been the only 20-year-old in America who would have rather endured pathetic old Bob Dole (Bob Dole! Bob Dole. Bob Dole…) than pretend that Bill Clinton didn’t make me want to bleach my ears out every time he spoke. As I once wrote:

The man was a liar unto his very soul, a gutless hillbilly gladhandler without principle or piety, a perennial candidate going through the motions of being President of the United States with his face crazy-glued to the camera lens and his master organ up Lady Liberty’s arse.

His wife is as bad or worse, a woman bloated in entitlement, who treats Secret Servicemen with the high-handedness of a Haitian slave-owner, who shuffles through her dowry of a career from failure to failure leaving a trail of offal and shadiness so long and rank it could fertilize the Gobi Desert. She was the chief-enabler of her husband’s frat-boy escapades, the great projector of outrage against those who found Bill’s actions outrageous. And the same cynical voices who announced that true feminists should volunteer to service Bill in 1998 are now the ones caterwauling about “BernieBros” and reaching for their smelling salts every time Trump’s goonish bluntness steals headlines. Or as I wrote, in the parenthesis to the above:

(and all you feminists out there: the fact that you stood mum while he sidestepped that very same law you fell over yourselves applauding in ’94, the fact that you threw every nasty caveman stereotype you claim to abhor at Jones and Lewinsky, that you lined up to protect this Lothario, tells me everything I need to know about you. Like your spiritual mother de Beauvoir, you don’t care what the Power does to others as long as you have a room of your own)

The Clintons were scum, are scum, and will always be scum. They are the Bonnie & Clyde of American politics, self-absorbed and amoral, celebrities to a culture that self-consciously values style over substance. To vote for them is to suspend all your fine-sounding principles about who is oppressor and who is oppressed. To vote for them is to allow him back into the White House, where he will  have nothing to do all day (you don’t really think he’s learned his lesson, or that his misadventures won’t be protected, do you?) A vote for them is the recognition that you’re willing to overlook any manner of corruption in the name of Keeping Up the Side.

And I get it. I’ve been there. We all compromise to engage in politics. But spare me the wide-eyed horror at Trump. He is nothing but the GOP mirroring what the Democrats have been getting away with for decades. Which is itself repellent, and which I have no plan to support.

But if you believed in 1996 that “A Bridge to the 21st Century” actually meant something, or if you swooned over “Hope and Change” in 2008,  you’ve no right to mock “Make America Great Again.” Victor David Hanson covers this argument very nicely in an article that everyone should read, “Time to Calm Down About Trump“. For every piece of racism, sexism, and general loutishness found in Trump, Hanson can find an equally egregious display from one of the Heroes of Progressivism, which was excused or ignored by They Who Set The Narrative.

You didn’t care about Bill Clinton’s rapes, assaults, and sexual harassments, you didn’t care about Obama’s authoritarian  contempt for the Constitution, and you stick your fingers in your ears and hum “LA LA LA LA MANSPLAINING LA  LA LA” to avoid thinking about how many violations of the Espionage Act Hillary is guilty of. Well, the chickens are home now, and they’re tired, and they want to roost in the place you made for them.

Do you ever get tired of it? Does it ever weary the soul to have to swallow every gargantuan  sophistry in defense of these interlopers, lick your plate clean, and ask for seconds? Or has it been going on for so long that you’ve just gotten used to it? Is it really not so bad? What difference does it make? None of my business, I guess.

You don’t like Trump, don’t vote for him. I’ll be there with  you. But don’t hyperventilate about him and expect me to take you seriously. I am no longer shocked by every swine that shuffles across the stage, honking and squealing and crawling through muck. One pig is as another.

Do Bernie Sanders’ Victories Even Matter?

Apparently not, because the Democratic Party has Super-Delgates – Party officials – who can vote however they want, regardless of how the primary elections go.

Bernie Sanders will win at least 13 of the Democratic delegates in New Hampshire and Hillary Clinton will win at least nine. Two delegates haven’t yet been allocated.

In the overall race for delegates, Clinton has 394, thanks in large part to endorsements from superdelegates — party officials who can support the candidate of their choice.
Sanders has 42 delegates.

It takes 2,382 delegates to win the Democratic nomination for president.

So even though Clinton has eked out a barely-above-a-tie win in Iowa, and been pasted in New Hampshire, she still has more delegates than Sanders by almost an order of magnitude.

Because that’s how the Democratic Party works.


In Which I Say All the Things I’m Not Allowed to Say About Hillary Clinton

Thanks to the Daily Caller for sparing me the trouble of reading the Super-HRC Supporters manifesto of fail.

Is Hillary Clinton polarizing? Always has been. Kind of a no-brainer.

Is Hillary Clinton calculating? I should hope so. Politicans that don’t calculate are failures. What I think this means is “insincere”, so let’s move on to…

Is Hillary Clinton insincere? Again, most politicians are. But Hill seems utterly incapable of establishing any kind of real sincerity. She reminds me of no one so much as Tracy Flick from Election, except she’s not cute anymore (is that sexist? Would it be all right if I said Bill wasn’t cute anymore either? Because he’s not).

Is Hillary Clinton disingenuous? I fell like we’ve covered this. The answer is yes. She has no firm commitment to principles. She talks like a lefty, when it suits her, but sits comfortably in Wall Street’s pocket. She makes unctuous noises about community but clearly doesn’t care about the little people. This is all a big game to her.

Is Hillary Clinton ambitious? She’s running for president, so I should hope so. Is her ambition the only thing about her that’s real? Maybe. She is the crowned representative of the Ruling Class, and she is here to collect what belongs to her, and that’s that. She is no different from her oily husband.

Is Hillary Clinton inevitable? As far as the Democratic nomination goes, it sure looks like it. Elizabeth Warren isn’t running, and Martin O’Malley doesn’t have the head start that Hill has. As regards the general election, no. No, she is not.

Is Hillary Clinton entitled? She had her own email server while Secretary of State. Government email wasn’t good enough for her. Whether this was done deliberately so that she could conduct secret deals with shady persons is an unanswerable question, but it speaks to just how special a snowflake she thinks she is. Hillary is supposed to get what she wants. When she doesn’t, that means you’re a sexist.

Is Hillary Clinton over-confident? I honestly don’t think so. I think she knows her weakness, hence the determination to silence all talk of them. But in the sense that she feels that This is Her Time, then yeah, maybe.

Is Hillary Clinton secretive? Does a bear defecate in the woods? Is the Pope Catholic? Is Bill Clinton a creep?

Will Hillary Clinton do anything to win? We are talking about the woman who blamed her husband groping an intern on a Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy, right?

Does Hillary Clinton represent the past? No, the 90’s were just yesterday. Her generation is PEAKING, you guys.

Is Hillary Clinton out of touch? Well let’s see. An upper-middle class white woman who’s spent her entire career as some form of government official or government spouse. Gee, you think?

Anyone else think this effort is going to end up as a footnote example of the Streisand Effect?

The Secretary of State Ain’t What it Used to Be…

There was a time when being picked as Secretary of State was tantamount to being flagged as the frontrunner for the next Presidential election. Six Secretaries of State have gone on to become President. However, the last such was James Buchanan in 1856. Since then, we see far more failed Presidential Candidates (William Jennings Bryan, Charles Evan Hughes, Edmund Muskie, John Kerry) than Presidents in that slot.

I suspect that Hillary Clinton viewed the position as one of sufficient prestige to make her the Designated Successor after a successful eight-year Obama Presidency. If she can pull it off, being the first Secretary of State to be elected President since the collapse of the Whig Party will be almost as impressive as being our first female President.

However, that might not work out so well:

Only 43 percent of U.S. voters hold a favorable opinion of the former secretary of state, while 41 percent of voters have a negative view, according to a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll released Tuesday. That’s a significant shift from the same poll taken in Jan. 2013, just before she left her post with the Obama administration. Back then, 56 percent had favorable views compared with just 25 percent who had negative views. A Feb. 2009 poll showed Clinton’s approval rating topping out at 59 percent.

Maybe Buchanan just left a curse on the job, but I suspect that foreign affairs are a lot more fraught with controversy today than in our splendid isolation before the First World War. When American foreign policy could be summed up as Monroe Doctrine + Manifest Destiny, the job was easy. Today, it’s very much something you can screw up, and I feel as though Clinton’s numbers would be better if Obama’s foreign policy was less in tatters.


So WHY Did Hillary Get a Shoe Thrown At Her?

Because there seems to be a wrinkle:

An attendee later handed a reporter a piece of paper that was apparently thrown by the woman. It appeared to be a copy of a Department of Defense document labeled confidential and dated August 1967; it referred to an operation ‘Cynthia’ in Bolivia.

“Operation Cynthia” seems to be a hole in Google. I cannot find any good info on what Operation Cynthia was. There’s a Time magazine article from 1967, but it’s behind the paywall. Wikipedia is mum.

What this has to do with Hillary mystifies me.

UPDATE: Sean pulls the veil back some:

A library card is a powerful thing. Operation Cynthia was the name of an anti-guerrilla operation ordered by then-President Barrientos and conducted by the Bolivian military. The target was a group of pro-communist militants who opposed the standing government of the time and who appear to have had close ties with Fidel Castro in Cuba. The operation was named after the commanding officer’s daughter.

According to Wikipedia, Barrientos came to power “in a CIA-backed coup”, whatever that means (did the CIA say “Hey, you, get rid of this president and we’ll back you,” or was it more like Walder Frey asking Tywin Lannister for approval before the Red Wedding?). The article doesn’t substantiate this, and indeed suggests that the charge  originates with Barrientos’ erstwhile frient and Minister of the Interior, Antonio Arguedas, who fled to Havana with Che Guevara’s diary after Bolivian troops captured and killed Guevara. So there’s that.

One might safely assume that the Johnson Administration would have provided support in some form for the combating of Marxist guerrillas in Latin America, but this remains an assumption.

What was Hillary Rodham doing in 1967? Near as I can figure, this is about the time she stepped down as President of the Wellesley College Young Republicans, and moved to supporting Eugene McCarthy’s campaign. So…

whatever gif

No, Rand Paul Should Not Skip the Presidential Campaign…

I never liked Ron Paul. His positions were sound, and I found myself in agreement with many of them. But somehow he just rubbed me the wrong way. He seemed too snarky to be statesmanlike, his past was unsavory at best, and he had a tendency to use leftist arguments that I found frankly offensive. But if he had won the nom, would I have voted for him over Obama? You damn betcha.

When Rand Paul first got into a snit with the iron-jawed Rachel Maddow (I speak out of envy. My chin is comparatively weak), I dumped all over Paul in a post called, politely, “Rand Paul is not a Bigot, Just a Dumb Libertarian.” Which is to say, I mostly dumped all over Libertarians, for their positively Progressive ability to hunt-down heretics. If I were writing that post today, I would probably write it differently.

Because as it turned out, Rand Paul did not suffer from his encounter with Rachel Maddow. And his insistence on speaking to first principles may have been just the natural consequence of the qualities about him that I do like. I still don’t think it was smart, because debating the Civil Rights Act is a non-starter, especially when the Affordable Care Act is a rather more pressing concern. But whatever.

As forceful, unapologetic advocates for liberty come, Paul is among the best of them, and he stated bluntly what everyone should be screaming from the hilltops, which is that Hillary Clinton is a preening gasbag unfit to represent the United States to the penguins in Antartica.

So I must disagree with Matt K. Lewis of the Daily Caller, who seems to insinuate that this

Rand Paul fellow is just too gosh-darned spooky-seeming to run for President.

The 2016 elections are a long way off, but it’s not too early to ask this question: Is Rand Paul really the best messenger for 21st century conservatism — in this political environment — with so much at stake?

Yeah, I think it is too early. Because it got asked several million times over the course of the last election, all in service of nominating a squeaky-clean Rockefellerite who — in case you missed it — just got beat to a shivering pulp by the most unpopular two-term President in our lifetime. We thought we had Jimmy Carter on our hands, yet for some reason we decided to run Thomas Dewey against him. So yeah, Lewis, too soon.

I’m not speaking as a Rand Paul advocate — I’m not even sure I would vote for him in a primary right now. But I’m damned certain I want the chance to make up my own mind on the subject. And this craven self-censoring of our own candidates, based on what the Left might do, is inane. Whoever we nominate will be called a racist. Whoever we nominate will be called dumb. Whoever we nominate will be called an atavistic honky (or Uncle Tom, if he should happen to be not-white), unlearned in how “real Americans” live.

Rand Paul knows this, and responds to it with an assured “go to hell, you fascist goon.” More of that, please.

UPDATE: Rand Paul asks John Kerry “Why is it okay to Bomb Libya without Congressional authorization, but not Cambodia?”

That’s just satisfying, that’s all that is…