Hillary Offers Little Change to Bush's Policies

Hillary Offers Little Change to Bush's Policies

Monday , October 08, 2007​

By Radley Balko

Polls show Hillary Clinton has now opened up a striking 33-point lead over Barack Obama in the race for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination. The latest poll shows that likely Democratic primary voters favor her in every major policy area. Clinton also raised $27 million in campaign contributions in the last quarter, adding to an already-significant lead over her Democratic rivals.

For seven years, the left has been up in arms about President Bush's aggressive foreign policy, his secrecy, his partisanship, and his expansive claims on executive power. It's odd, then, that they're prepared to nominate Hillary Clinton to carry the party into the 2008 elections....

Then there is Hillary Clinton on the issues. Cato Institute President Ed Crane recently wrote a piece for the Financial Times pointing out that when you strip away the partisan coating, Mrs. Clinton's grandiose, big-government vision is really no different than that envisioned by the neoconservatives so loathed by the left. Clinton, remember, not only voted for the Iraq war, she still hasn't conceded she was wrong to do so, and has made no promise to end it any time soon.

In fact, the L.A. Times reported last week that Clinton has refused to commit even to pulling U.S. troops from Iraq by 2013, which, if elected, would be the end of her first term. TV journalist Ted Kopel recently told NPR that Clinton has admitted the U.S. would still have troops in Iraq at the end of her second term.

The 1990s, remember, weren't exactly a decade of peace. Bill Clinton ordered more U.S. military interventions than any other post-WWII administration...

As a libertarian, it will at least be entertaining to watch the left squirm while defending Hillary Clinton's "right" to employ the same executive powers and engage in the same foreign policy blunders they now argue that President Bush has superceded his authority in claiming. And it'll be equally fun to watch the right cry foul when President Hillary claims the same powers they have so vigorously fought to claim for President Bush. The problem, of course, is that entertaining as all that might be, an increasingly imperial presidency isn't good for our republic....

And judging by her political career and recent voting record, they should also realize that even if they succeed in electing Hillary Clinton to the White House, it's likely that the only real resulting change in Washington will be that come 2009, we'll merely have a Democrat pursuing the same misguided policies.

- rest at www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,300196,00.html

 

How is an opinion piece attacking Hillary Clinton's stances on issues "kissing up to the Democrats"?

There is no chance of that happening. But I will tell you that if I was going to stop being a libertarian after being one all of these decades I certainly would not want to be a "conservative" like many posters on this board are.

 

Nope. I believe in the personal freedoms that Democrats used to support and I believe in the economic freedoms that Republicans used to support.

 

Nope. You are wrong, cmg. For example: www.l4l.org.

 

I have no problem with legalizing drugs or prostitution. The leading Democrats are just as much for foreign adventurism as the leading Republicans. I do not support foreign adventurism. The leading Democrats are just as much for expanding the scope and reach of the federal government as the leading Republicans. I do not support expanding the scope and reach of the federal government.

 

I am for legalizing drugs. I am for legalizing prostitution. Just because something is a bad habit or a sin does not mean that the government should criminalize it. Do you think that the government should criminalize the sin of gluttony, cmg? Well, do you? The government has limited resources to use in law enforcement and I want those spent on apprehending those who commit violent crimes against other people, not going after the actions of consenting adults.

I am a pro-life libertarian and would like to see Roe v. Wade overturned. So stop bearing false witness about me by saying that I am in favor of abortion on demand. Okay, brother?

I am opposed to homosexual marriage. So stop bearing false witness about me by saying that I am in favor of homosexual marriage. Okay, brother?

If a state constitutional amendment makes it on the November 2008 ballot in Arkansas I may very well vote for it and I may very well participate in it if it passes. I have no more of a problem with gambling in moderation than I do with drinking alcoholic beverages in moderation. I don't drink alcoholic beverages but reading the posts by "conservatives" on this board may yet drive me to do so. :smilewinkgrin:

 

Again, I must ask that you please stop bearing false witness about me, cmg. Okay, brother? I have never said that I, or any other person, should turn his/her back on someone in trouble.

I am not a socialist. I don't believe that the solution to personal problems and struggles is a government program. The churches and individual Christians and other concerned citizens are the ones who should be helping those in need - especially when it comes to morals.

 

CMG,

Do you want the government to criminalize the sin of gluttony? Please belly up to the bar and answer.