Liddick: Hillary Clinton has a lot to answer for (column)
On your right
Let’s lurch Left, where the presumptive Democrat nominee is likely grinding her teeth over her inability to put a 72-year-old self-professed Socialist away.
If one thinks the Republican side of the presidential race disorderly, the spread-the-wealth-around folks are suffering what appears to be a re-enactment of “The Persecution and Assassination of Jean-Paul Marat as Performed by the Inmates of the Asylum of Charenton Under the Direction of the Marquis de Sade.”
Only without the humor.
Hillary grinds it out, confident her conniving, favor-trading, allegiance-buying and back-room dealmaking have secured her the Democrat nomination. But she ignores what her scorched-earth tactics have sown: a harvest available for reaping by her Republican opponent. Neither she nor her advisors see the danger because they are inured by long exposure to the negative effects of openly lying, pandering, denying facts and cronyism.
She has connived with Democrat apparatchiks to make the campaign a coronation; in the single-party politics of PRI-era Mexico, this was called the “Dedazo” — literally, “fingering” the preferred candidate by party leaders. In choosing this banana republic approach, she has slapped the mostly young and enthusiastic supporters of Bernie Sanders in the face; many are now beyond her reach due to her shenanigans and cynical calculations. If she showed any evidence of a classical education, one might remind her of the results of the victories of Greek general Pyrrhus in Italy — but, lacking such, warnings would be wasted.
Nor does she show any concern over the appearance of partisan tricks, such as her longtime associate Terry McAuliffe using executive action as governor of Virginia to allow all convicted felons, who have served, their time to vote. Since the governor has taken no similar action to restore other rights such as the constitutionally guaranteed right to “keep and bear arms,” the conclusion is that he — and she — view this only as a device to secure 206,000 votes for Hillary, regardless of possible consequences. Remember, “only 21 percent of these were violent felons.” Nothing to worry about.
Lack of good sense also appears in her campaigning as though it were business as usual; it is anything but.
When reliable Democrat lackeys in The New York Times manufactured a hit piece on Donald Trump’s ill-treatment of women, what happened? It was quickly nailed to the wall alongside Rolling Stone’s infamous “A Rape on Campus” as fabrication so ludicrous as to pitch the rag’s remaining shreds of credibility on the dungheap where they belong.
And, if Hillary doesn’t think that raising the hoary Democrat fib of a Republican “war on women” won’t immediately bring a response to the effect that she’s married to a war on women named Bill and her active support of his activities for decades make her the enabler-in-chief, that’s another sign that she’s not as politically astute as her supporters would like. Does the name Anita Broderick ring a bell? Kathleen Willey? Paula Jones? Monica Lewinsky? Each of them have a take on Hillary that would be good to explore before making a decision.
Finally, if one is known by one’s friends, Hillary has a lot to answer for. She rails against corporations but takes their money by the carload. Make no mistake, when Goldman Sachs or General Electric or Facebook pours money into a politician’s pocket, they don’t do it because they like that person’s fashion sense. They’re buying access. When the government of Saudi Arabia does it, it’s for the same reason. And, if one claims to be a champion of the rights of homosexuals and women, taking money from a government that sequesters the latter and jails or kills the former is a little … what’s the word? Hypocritical.
Not that Hillary cares. As one of her most fervent supporters, Kathleen Parker, recently noted in The Washington Post, Hillary changes opinion, positions and facts as easily as most people change socks. To those who want to buy access to power, this is a convenience — malleability is an advantage. To others, who believe governance should be based on principles, this is anathema.
That would include Bernie Sanders, so he must go — whatever it takes. Somewhere, Thomas Jefferson and Woodrow Wilson weep.
Hillary and her supporters constantly stress her “long experience,” perhaps not realizing that her’s is a history of failure, retreat and defeat. From the dismal collapse of “Hillarycare” to the laughable attempt to cultivate Vlad the Terrible to fecklessness in the face of cold-hearted butchery in Syria and calculated lawlessness in the Ukraine to the murderous miscalculations of Libya and indifference to the bloody consequences, her record is not one on which a reasonable person would wish to run. That she does, baldly asserting “what difference does it make?” tells much about her character, none of it good.
Morgan Liddick writes a weekly column for the Summit Daily.
Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.