Hey, my liberal friends, it’s Shakespeare! And I couldn’t resist.
Besides, the particular liberals in question were asking for it.
Some of us, deeply concerned about the possibility of Donald Trump becoming president and wanting to save the country (and the world) from that fate, were pleased when that group of 50 heavyweight GOP policy types came out and said that Trump “lacks the character, values and experience” and “would be the most reckless President in American history.”
We were more pleased when some of those same GOP policymakers and others went the next step and declared for Hillary Clinton — since voting for her is the only way to stop Trump.
Any sensible person would be pleased — particularly, one would think, the liberal Democrats who would want to see Hillary win no matter who her opponent was.
But no. Check this piece in the Post this morning headlined, “Clinton’s Republican outreach a step too far for already suspicious liberals.”
Sheesh. Double sheesh.
Ideologues will be the death of the country.
Apparently, these hammerheads would rather see Hillary Clinton lose — and Trump win — than have her win by appealing to independents and Republicans. It’s more important to them that she slavishly agree with them than that she have a chance of winning.
And yes, I’m even more dismissive of their concerns because unlike them, I am pleased that Hillary Clinton is the closest thing to a Scoop Jackson still extant in the Democratic party. What pleases me appalls them.
But that’s no excuse. There is no excuse for trying to pull Hillary back from courting and receiving the support she needs to stop Donald Trump. And I can’t respect anyone doing that.
I’ve had it with these “suspicious liberals.” It’s best for all of us — Democrats, Republicans and independents — that they be neither seen nor heard from until this election is over. But who can persuade them of that?
That story tells us that Hillary “worries” Glenn Greenwald.
Good. When I read stuff like that, I just feel better and better about voting for her…
Who has been responsible for the deaths of more innocent people: Hillary’s new buddy Henry Kissinger or Glenn Greenwald’s friend, Edward Snowden?
I don’t know. Offhand, I’m not thinking of anything Kissinger did to kill any innocent people, the purple prose of the antiwar crowd notwithstanding. I mean, I think you’re using code language there for “Vietnam,” but as I recall, Kissinger’s heyday was years after we went into Vietnam and escalated, and he spent a lot of his time and energy trying to find ways to END the war.
And since the damage Snowden did is probably classified (no thanks to him), I have no information on his body count, either.
You say “Kissinger” to me, I tend to think “Nixon in China.” Ping-pong diplomacy, and all that…
Not that I’m a big Kissinger fan. Reminds me too much of Dr. Strangelove.
But that’s wrong of me, isn’t it, judging a man by his accent?
Anyway, we all know Dr. Strangelove was Werner von Braun, right? 🙂
Yes. I was listening to Mrs. Stein the other day on NPR. I then read her proposals. She sounds very idealistic, Much of it I think we should try to work toward, especially single payer health care and clean energy. Unfortunately, most of her idealism never makes it to the real world. Nor can I see anywhere where she considers what the down side(s) of her plan might be. Her approach to international affairs is touchingly trustful. She doesn’t seem to realize how little concern China, North Korea, and Russia have for international law and diplomacy. So a vote for her is not only wasted, it’s almost as bad as one for Trump. And Doug, no, I cannot in my moral universe vote for the Libertarian party. So Hillary it is. My biggest concern is not with her being president but with Congress disinterested in doing anything but opposing her. We need a government that works, not one at war with itself.
Yes. The No. 1 concern I have about a Hillary Clinton presidency is that the partisan warfare will be even nastier during her administration than it is now, which is even worse (if possible) than it was during the second Bush administration.
But we have no alternatives. None that I find defensible, anyway…
Really? If Martin Omalley was the nominee would their be any less “partisan warfare”. The word warfare seems a bit hyperbolic.
One last thought. Lets say there was a controversial Republican counterpart to Hillary Clinton, Jeb Bush for instance, running against Donald Trump who was the Democratic nominee instead of the Republican. Many Democrats would likely hold their nose and vote Bush. I think even Brad could see how absurd it would be for Jeb to start courting anti war types like Doug and me in order to win the election. It would be clear that the best path forward would be to hold on to the neocon base, Lindsey Graham, John McCain etc. It would be obvious that any overtures about withdrawing troops from Okinawa or cutting the military budget would be counterproductive. For someone like me I would either hold my nose and vote Jeb because of Trump’s temperament or I wouldn’t. Any phony “reaching out to the left” would come across as pandering and have zero effect on me. But to the neocons who insist the military budget is too small that type of overture could indeed result in a defection to some type of war party or a non vote. My point is this, one man’s reaching out is another man’s pandering.
You’re right, Bud. I normally detest the use of war metaphors — I chided Hillary for that in this column I often cite.
But yes, it would be milder if O’Malley were president — not that that was ever in the cards.
Hillary’s paranoia can get excessive, but it HAS a basis — they DO hate her, even more than they hate Obama, even more than Democrats hated Bush. That’s why I say it will be nastier.
The partisan reflex is so hyperactive these days that Republicans would eventually work themselves into a state of hating O’Malley if he were POTUS. But it would take time. With Hillary, they’d start at full throttle, having had a long running start…
“I normally detest the use of war metaphors”
Stein has a lot of baggage, fwiw.
You conflate “liberal” with “radical.” Also, “liberals” do not think en bloc. They do not require pledge signing, etc.
I simply checked her platform, which ranged from disaster to merely unfeasible, all decked out with lambs and unicorns. I’m sure if she accrues enough of a poll percentage, I’ll find out a-a-all about her baggage.
Good point. Yeah, the far left is a bit too much into rainbows and such…except for the bombthrowing contingent….
There is no excuse for trying to pull Hillary back from courting and receiving the support she needs to stop Donald Trump. And I can’t respect anyone doing that.
Paul Krugman said something similar in a column recently. He’s right. There is absolutely no excuse for Hillary to reach out to cold warriors like Henry Kissinger. Nor should should she be trotting out all these hawks the way she did at the DNC. Frankly this strategy is the worst of both worlds. First of all it’s very bad policy. Do we really want to sally forth with more counterproductive, expensive and deadly wars? The American public doesn’t seem to think so. For that reason it’s also very bad politics. Hillary wins easily with a preponderance of Bernie supports. If she can attract a few people who find the prospect of Trump’s temperament unsuitable for POTUS great. But I find it highly offensive to race to the right to court a handful of neocons. But my sensibilities are expendable. What’s important is winning the presidency and the senate if possible. If she offends her base and a large portion of Bernie voters she risks losing far more voters than she could possibly attract by pretending to be a modern day Scoop Jackson. If the most important thing is a Hillary win then this “reaching out to the right” approach works against that goal.
I don’t think that was Doug. Sounds more like me.
I hope having your words assigned to me didn’t cause you to shudder too much.
On the words of Rick Perry, oops.
In the word …