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".
Keith, We agree on something!!! On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 9:32 AM, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. > -- brine http://brineb.blogspot.com/ -- -- 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.
