LOL! Michael, clearly Pierre Guerlain doesn't even know what a "NeoCon" even is! By definition, a NeoCon is in fact a Democrat, or a former Democrat.
I didn't get very far in this article....What with the premise that Clinton will even be the Democratic Nominee (which I am of the belief is highly unlikely); and that Hil Clinton could beat Trump are both far fetched notions. I do in a sense agree with Guerlain's premise though. Clinton is a (Choose your own term, they're all accurate!) "Fatalist/Globalist/Federalist" (or as former Speaker Gingrich terms them: "Pseudo-Intellectual Georgetown Bar Crowd") but in general, Clinton is a elitist, establishment DC Powerbroker who supports a strong large "Federal/Central" governnment; and will engage our military at the drop of a dime in order to support the alleged "Industrial-Military Complex". On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 9:03 AM, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > > 27 May 2016 > > *Hillary Clinton: The Neocon in Democrat's Clothing *By Pierre Guerlain > > The next president of the United States will almost certainly be a > Republican. No, not the one everyone in the media rejects, the buffoon > named Donald Trump who stands no chance of shaking the hands of world > leaders. Chances are, the next Republican president will be a woman, and > yes, her name will be Hillary Clinton. > > No kidding, if this comes to pass, history will be made: the first woman > president and among the first Republican neocons in Democratic garb. > Everyone knows the expression "a wolf in sheep's clothing." Now, it seems > the United States will invent the macho Republican in feminist, Democratic > clothing. > > Many authors have quoted a sentence by Bill Clinton > <http://www.salon.com/2011/06/21/lind_obama_republican/>: > > We're all Eisenhower Republicans here, and we are fighting the Reagan > Republicans. We stand for lower deficits and free trade and the bond > market. Isn't that great? > > Eisenhower Republicans were, by today's standards, quite moderate. The > quote refers to the 1990s, and already Bill Clinton had triangulated his > presidency to Republican-hood. He had demolished Aid to Families With > Dependent Children and bought into the bash-the-poor rhetoric of the right > wing. He had passed a crime bill that targeted people of color; he had > destroyed FDR's legacy, notably by abolishing the Glass-Steagall Act. And > he was so "tough on crime" that during the 1992 presidential campaign > season, he had gone back to his home state of Arkansas to witness the > execution of Ricky Ray Rector, who was "mentally deficient." Bill Clinton > might not have inhaled marijuana, but he certainly had inhaled the poison > of right-wing ideas. > > As we all know, Hillary Clinton openly supported many of Bill Clinton's > political measures. She used the terrible expression "superpredators," > <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALXulk0T8cg> supported the crime bill > and made a hash of health insurance reform > <http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/04/24/the-new-hillary/>. Liza > Featherstone talks about Hillary Clinton's > <http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/35006-hillary-clinton-s-faux-feminism> > faux > <http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/35006-hillary-clinton-s-faux-feminism> > feminism > <http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/35006-hillary-clinton-s-faux-feminism>, > and she links her critique to class themes, which is as it should be. > Feminists cannot be elite feminists or 1% feminists if they want to defend > the rights of all women. > > For more original Truthout election coverage, check out our election > section, "Beyond the Sound Bites: Election 2016." > <http://www.truth-out.org/election-2016> > > Hillary Clinton's track record on issues of poverty, racial justice and > justice for women is appalling. As a former member of the board of Walmart, > she sided with the rich and powerful > <http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/34913-with-hillary-clinton-corporate-america-defines-the-limits-of-acceptable-opinion>, > which she also does when she gives speeches for Wall Street. The really > important question is how someone who has constantly sided with the rich > can campaign as a progressive, as a friend of people of color and even as a > feminist? Michelle Alexander exposed the hypocrisy of the situation in > arguing that " Hillary Clinton doesn't deserve the black vote > <http://www.thenation.com/article/hillary-clinton-does-not-deserve-black-peoples-votes/> > ." > > On foreign policy issues, Hillary Clinton is not even an Eisenhower > Republican, but a war hawk whose philosophy and shortsightedness is > evidenced by the flippant way in which she advocated for war in Libya and > the way in which she celebrated. "We came, we saw, he died," she said > <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgcd1ghag5Y> and laughed loudly. This > cruel statement does not take into account the mess and mayhem left behind > after the intervention, something President Obama calls a " shit show > <http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/04/the-obama-doctrine/471525/>" > and his worst mistake. But it is the companion piece to her major fellow > elite "feminist" Madeleine Albright declaring > <http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/04/the-obama-doctrine/471525/> > that killing half a million Iraqis is worth it. > > Hillary Clinton, like true neoliberals in the GOP, supported the North > American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), so as Bill had said she supported > the bond market and free trade. Now, she claims she did not, but, of > course, she is lying. Her lies also have to do with Wall Street (she has > not released the text of her speeches), support for people of color and her > feminism. > > The challenge by Bernie Sanders, who is still around and has no intention > of dropping out of the primaries, made Clinton change her tune, but, of > course, she is ready to say anything to be elected. Now that she is facing > a buffoon who makes racist, sexist, dishonest remarks all the time, she can > play a series of cards that do not correspond to who she really is: the > progressive card, the antiracist card, the feminist card, the "consistent" > card, the geopolitical card. The campaign circus or electoral extravaganza > can now become man vs. woman, or rather, racist white man vs. "friend of > minorities" woman. Yet, if there is little doubt that Donald Trump is a > vile demagogue who sometimes hits upon an issue of concern to ordinary > people, the identity of the other candidate is all phony. > > Feminism cannot be only about the equality of CEO compensations. Equality > in CEO compensations in general should exist at a much-reduced level. In > his book *Listen, Liberal* > <http://us.macmillan.com/listenliberal/thomasfrank>, Thomas Frank tells > the story of a Clinton convention meeting he attended and what he witnessed > was Hillary Clinton as "Ms. Walmart," pretending she cares about all women. > Frank, who is genuinely worried about rising inequality in the United > States and racial justice, suggests that *elite feminism* is worried > about the glass ceiling for CEOs, but does not even worry about > working-class women who have "no floors" under them. Hillary Clinton is a > 1% millionaire who now talks the progressive talk, but never really walked > the progressive walk. > > It would indeed be a symbolic change if the US elected a woman president, > but for the symbol not to be empty, something more is needed. If a woman > president does not improve the lot of the majority of women, then what is > the good of a symbol? > > Hillary Clinton is actually to the right of President Dwight D. Eisenhower > -- "Ike." He refused to use the atom bomb in Asia, showing more > geopolitical prudence than Hillary "we came and he died" Clinton. He also > wanted to preserve the FDR advances that the Clintons have done so much to > cancel or erase. > > In a 1954 letter to his brother, Eisenhower wrote > <http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/08/not-like-ike/?_r=0>: "Should > any political party attempt to abolish Social Security, unemployment > insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear > from that party again in our political history." > > Unfortunately, Ike was not right. Later, the Republicans -- starting with > Hillary Clinton's youth idol Barry Goldwater -- and the Democrats calling > themselves "New Democrats" vied with each other to dismantle the New Deal > and the Great Society programs that Democrats had set up. Noam Chomsky > argues > <http://www.salon.com/2015/09/23/noam_chomsky_right_wing_extremism_from_trump_may_be_comic_relief_but_its_not_that_different_from_the_mainstream/> > that the GOP is not a political party any longer, but a radical insurgency, > for it has gone off the political cliff. The Democrats have become the Old > Republicans and Hillary Clinton is more neocon than traditional > conservative of the Eisenhower type. > > So Hillary Clinton, the Republican, is poised to win in November, but her > Republicanism is closer to George W. Bush's and even more conservative than > Ronald Reagan's -- except on the societal issues that have now reached a > kind of quasi-consensus like same-sex marriage. She is a pro-business, > Koch-compatible lover of Wall Street who uses feminism like some > pinkwashers or greenwashers use progressive agendas to sell regressive > policies. Author Diana Johnstone calls her the "Queen of Chaos > <https://www.akpress.org/queen-of-chaos.html>." Clinton is the queen of > deception, faux feminism and faux progressivism, whose election will be > made easier by her loutish, vulgar, sexist loudmouth of an opponent. > > In his book *The Deep State*, Mike Lofgren quotes > <http://www.salon.com/2016/01/05/controlled_by_shadow_government_mike_lofgren_reveals_how_top_u_s_officials_are_at_the_mercy_of_the_deep_state/> > H.L. Mencken <https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/H._L._Mencken>, who gave away > what explains the success of the political circus: "The whole aim of > practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to > be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all > of them imaginary." > > George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and the neoconservatives were past masters at > this creation of hobgoblins, but now Hillary Clinton, the opportunist, can > outdo them and out-Republicanize them. I think Ike would not like her; she > might now be even more reactionary than Goldwater. Indeed, Charles Koch > <http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/04/24/charles-koch-says-he-could-possibly-support-hillary-clinton/> > (whose hatred of progressivism is well documented by Jane Meyer in her > book, *Dark Money* > <http://org2.salsalabs.com/o/6694/t/17304/shop/item.jsp?storefront_KEY=661&t=&store_item_KEY=3198>) > expressed some admiration for Bill and Hillary Clinton and said he could > vote for Hillary this time around. > > The GOP is dying, but a reactionary Republican in faux progressive > clothing, loved by the wolves of Wall Street and the wolves of the > Kochtopus > <https://prezi.com/5xzibopikc3a/ifgs-kochtopus-mapping-the-influence-of-koch-cash/?utm_campaign=share&utm_medium=copy>, > will most probably win. > > > http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/36201-hillary-clinton-the-neocon-in-democrat-s-clothing > > -- > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "PoliticalForum" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
