Hillary: New Thatcher?

[David Koot]

Historically, Republicans have been the party of isolationism. 'America First' certainly is consistent with the traditional position. The liberal internationalist establishment during the 20th century, from Elihu Root to Averell Harriman to Dean Acheson, was Democratic. Republican presidents from Eisenhower onward, have increasingly leaned toward engagement in world affairs. Nixon was an exemplar of that, as was Bush senior. As for Hillary . . . do you really see her as a liberal internationalist? I would have placed her as a garden-variety liberal, without internationalist leanings. Her focus seems to have been on the infrastructure, and of course on deficit spending! IMO what made her husband look good in terms of economics was Robert Rubin!! If Hillary's wishes had been translated into law, we would have had a burgeoning national debt, financed by punishing taxes on the producers.

Dave

[Bravus]

You mean as opposed to the burgeoning national debt, not financed at all, that you have now?

[lazarus]

David:

I think Thatcher's attractiveness was the strength of her leadership and her vision for the country. As I see it now, Hillary does not seem to be convincing in either of those areas. Thatcher was bold and creative. Again, Hillary does not seem to exhbit those qualities.

I feel the new emerging politics/politician is one who will seek to borrow from both left and right. The old I think Bush is now being held hostage by the right wing of his party. He can't make the bold course corrections that he needs to make to save his presidency. Swartzenigger did it and it worked!

The disasterous Bush foreign policy will necessitate a more internationalist approach from Hillary.

[Woody]

Quote:

I feel the new emerging politics/politician is one who will seek to borrow from both left and right

If you believe this then I would propose that John McCain is the only true voice of moderation. He has consistantly throughout this career been the man to bring the two sides together. He has even worked together with Kennedy which I would find extremely repulsive. (And not just because he was responsible for the loss of anothers life).

[David Koot]

The disasterous Bush foreign policy will necessitate a more internationalist approach from Hillary.

Absolutely. Bush and the Gang of Four have systematically destroyed America's credibility and influence. What can I say? But as for Hillary, I just don't see her as having internationalist credentials. Whatever chance there may be of restoring this country's prestige--in the emerging Chinese century (if the 20th c. was the American century, the 21st c. will be the Chinese century) she doesn't seem to be the one to do it. I'm afraid that the U.S. will play a diminishing role on the world stage in coming decades. This country needs a charismatic leader to turn its fortunes around. Hillary aint the hoss to bet on.

[David Koot]

You mean as opposed to the burgeoning national debt, not financed at all, that you have now?

Well, the supply side economics version of deficit spending. What can I say? Something seems to have fueled the U.S. economy. Can Bush and co. take credit for that? But the engine can't keep on pulling the increasing debt load.

Dave

[David Koot]

I would like to comment a bit on macroeconomics. Some decades back, we were looking at the socialist European model, and it was touted as THE way to go! Hmmmmm . . . fast forward to the present . . . the European community is not doing well in terms of economics. Productivity has plummeted. Eventually, someone will have to pay the piper. The engine is slowing down. So, supply side economics as practiced by Bush and company is an alternative. Seems to be working in some ways.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

Most people have come to the conclusion, Democrats and Republicans, that this was the wrong war at the wrong time for the wrong reasons. I dont think there's much political opportunism involved here.

Most have come to the conclusion that the war was based on faulty intelligence. Bad intelligence failed to stop the 9/11 terrorists and bad intelligence led the world to believe Saddam was a greater threat than he was.

There is a lot of political opportunism going on in the US and internationally. Most every Democrat that voted for the war has backpedeled - including those that sat on their respective intelligence committees and had the same information as the White House did.

Hans Blix, upon leaving Iraq before the invation was making the case that if the US found WMDs it would be because they had better access to the country than he did under Saddam. IOW, he wasn't saying there were no WMDs, he was trying to give a reason why he didn't find any and the US might. However now he tells a different story. Now he is saying 'I told you there were no WMDs'. There is opportunism all over in regard to this war.

A couple things we do know. 1. Saddam was bribing Security Council members to get sanctions removed. 2. Once sanctions were removed he was planning to resume his WMD programs. So those two things together mean he was a threat - just not an immediate threat. And I have no idea how we could have discovered either of those without invading.

[Dr. Shane]

I am all for reducing the deficit but I am also in favor of striaght talk. The deficit is not nearly as bad as many spinmister make it seem. The deficit must be compared to the GDP in order to have a prespective on it. In that respect, it is still disturbing but not 'the sky is falling' type of disturbing.

GDP relationship to deficit is like personal income relationship to personal debt.

A person that is making $150K/year and has personal debt of $300,000 is not as bad off as a person making $35K/year with personal debt of $150,000 even though it is half the debt the first guy has.

[David Koot]

May I suggest that it was a Republican Congress that kept kept president Hillary and her husband in line. Were it not for that restraint, Hillary would have masterminded the most comprehensive deficit spending program since the New Deal, IMO. Her husband took credit for balancing the budget, but that was the long-term result of Bush Sr's policies and the artistry of Wall Street genius Robert Rubin.

[there buster]

Lady Thatcher had at least three things Hilary lacks:

Character

Principles

A record of personal achievement. (Denis Thatcher was not a politician).

[olger]

a college professor in our country has referred (rightly) to Hillbillary as a socialist.

Yesterday she demonstrated the truth of that description in this statement "I will take the profits away from Exxon Mobile and establish an energy fund." Huh?

The profits of Exxon do not belong to her. Neither do the profits that each of you make, but would not deter her plan to grab more & more of your/money to fund her inmost ambitions. She is also very cozy with the gay agenda.

Yeah, that's just what we need.

This is olger signing off,

olger

[lazarus]

Lady Thatcher had at least three things Hilary lacks:

Character

Principles

A record of personal achievement. (Denis Thatcher was not a politician).

I think a large proportion of the British Public would suggest that the nature of that character and the principles she held were detremental to the UK in the long term. She was a sucessful politician but I think her tenure helped lay the foundation for 3 sucessive Conservative defeats. A fourth is probably on the way.

[lazarus]

a college professor in our country has referred (rightly) to Hillbillary as a socialist.

Yesterday she demonstrated the truth of that description in this statement "I will take the profits away from Exxon Mobile and establish an energy fund." Huh?

The profits of Exxon do not belong to her. Neither do the profits that each of you make, but would not deter her plan to grab more & more of your/money to fund her inmost ambitions. She is also very cozy with the gay agenda.

I guess Tony Bliar is a socialist too!

[lazarus]

Were it not for that restraint, Hillary would have masterminded the most comprehensive deficit spending program since the New Deal, IMO.

I don't think she is that dumb politically. I think Hillary, if elected, will try to capture GOP political ground in the same way that the Labour party did in the UK. She will try to be tougher than Bush on defence and more fiscally conservative than the GOP. There's no way that I can prove it but that has to be the politcal stratergy for winning in 08 and keeping the Whitehouse in 2012.

The GOP is vulneralble on defence and economic issues. If Hillary can show that she can get it together in these two areas the GOP is in trouble. Also id there is a split in the GOP, neocons verses Hagelites then that will make things easier for Hillary.

Bush has really blown this thing right open. There are obvious questions about GOP fiscal and security competence.

[there buster]

Quote:

I think a large proportion of the British Public would suggest that the nature of that character and the principles she held were detremental to the UK in the long term.

That would necessitate a total ignorance of history.

Which is commonplace.

[lazarus]

That would necessitate a total ignorance of history.

......Ok...well that settles it then.

[David Koot]

Bush has really blown this thing right open.

I don't often get fired up about politics. However, what has happened is IMO so disgraceful that I can hardly stay silent. The postwar order so carefully built up by statesmen like McCloy, Acheson, Monnet, Bevin and Adenauer has been shattered by the current administration. I am not pleased. Nor could this disaster have occurred at a less opportune time. The emerging colossus of China will now have an easier time of it, without a doubt. Seems to me that Bush & co. have been living in the past--the glory days of the American century. Those days are gone. Even those farflung instruments of the Pax Americana, the carrier battle groups, are now obsolete in the face of current Chinese tactics. I expect to see happen in my lifetime, what occurred in 1944--the passing of the torch from UK to the US--in a friendly way, of course. When China picks up the torch, I doubt me if it will be on cordial terms.

As for Hillary? Some appropriate words from MacBeth come to mind.

Dave

[there buster]

Actually, the 'post-war' order is 50 years in the past. It began unraveling almost immediately. By the early 1960's the French had withdrawn from NATO and begun cutting deals with corrupt dictators. It has been gone since at least the mid-1970's. Only the menace of the Soviet Union kept Europe halfway together, even in appearance. Maybe some only just noticed, but the 'post-war order' ceased to exist some time ago.

The Cold War (WWIII) is over. We now live in the era of 'low-intensity, stateless conflict,' (WWIV).

As far as 'current Chinese tactics.' Change of tactics is inevitable, especially when one set of tactics fails miserably.

In the past, a free society has always been able to adapt more rapidly than a command society.

Kerry, Murtha, Clinton, et. al. are living in the past, the 'glory-days' of Vietnam protest, where a small percentage of protestors could undermine the resolve of a nation, and bring about a bloodbath of millions in SE Asia.

But they only cared that it brought them political power for a generation, and that's their gamble this time as well.

[David Koot]

Actually, the 'post-war' order is 50 years in the past. It began unraveling almost immediately . . . the 'post-war order' ceased to exist some time ago.

[Dr. Shane]

What was the President to do when the head of the CIA reports that Iraq had WMDs and various other foriegn intelligence was saying the same? Then President of Russia warns Iraq is going to attack the US using terrorists and WMDs while the rubble of 9/11 hasn't even been cleaned up.

[lazarus]

Kerry, Murtha, Clinton, et. al. are living in the past, the 'glory-days' of Vietnam protest, where a small percentage of protestors could undermine the resolve of a nation, and bring about a bloodbath of millions in SE Asia.

But they only cared that it brought them political power for a generation, and that's their gamble this time as well.

I'm surprised that you are able to judge their motives so harshly. I believe there is a genuine concern on their part to extracate America from this debacle in Iraq. I do not necessarily agree with their solutions but to boil it down to political ambition is a bit simplistic.

I have to favor the approach that Biden as latched onto: Partition!

[lazarus]

What was the President to do when the head of the CIA reports that Iraq had WMDs and various other foriegn intelligence was saying the same? Then President of Russia warns Iraq is going to attack the US using terrorists and WMDs while the rubble of 9/11 hasn't even been cleaned up.

Well the inspector Gen. said that 50% of that intelligence was doubtful!

1. Let the inspectors finish their job.

2. Read the history of Iraq.

3. Understand that in the mutitude of counsel there is wisdom.

4. Pay attention the cautions and the caveats from those foreign agencies. If the threat was so immenent why was there not greater support from those same foreign governments.

5. Finish the job in Afghanistan.

6. Ask his father for advice.

7. Form a war cabinet that was bipartisan.

[Dr. Shane]

That is written with the benefit of hindsight. At the time, we didn't know that the intelligence was bad. It seemed to be verified by other nation's intelligence. The head of the CIA was not a Bush appointee. George Tennant was a carry-over from the Clinton Administration. While the inspectors in Iraq were asking for more time, they were also reporting that Saddam was being evasive.

Quote:

Form a war cabinet that was bipartisan.

Let's remember that Clinton was making the case for war with Iraq in 1998. I have no doubt that if Al Gore would have gotten a few more votes in Florida, we would have still invaded Iraq.

[lazarus]

That is written with the benefit of hindsight. At the time, we didn't know that the intelligence was bad. It seemed to be verified by other nation's intelligence.

No!

At the time there were voices that were questioning the wisdom of the war and the veracity of the intelligence. Many of these foreign powers were suggesting caution. We now know there were people who were hesitant and they were fired!