Bill, Hillary and Barack: Unacceptably liberal peas in rotten Democrat pod
The only split in the patronage party is over who runs it, not their shared failed policy goals
Question: Does Bill Clinton help Republican chances more when he praises Romney's "sterling" record at Bain Capital and argues for extending the Bush tax cuts for just one more year or when he backtracks after trips to the Michelle/Axlerod Chicago Way woodshed?
Given the elected Democrats turned Bain defenders, including former President Clinton, together with his additional jabs at Obama's spending, debt and a double dip recession-in-the-making, Republicans are invited to believe there is a split in the party of FDR and the New Deal coalition? Why, because the last president re-elected as a Democrat bears a grudge against an "amateur" that beat his wife in 2008? Because given the LBJ Medicare/Obama Obamacare, yet failed presidencies paradigm, by all rights Barack should have declined the 2012 nomination and cleared the way for a third Clinton term?
Well, yes, there are splits in other mob families as well, but the goals of the respective syndicates remain the same. Hence, my continual frustration with some conservatives that imagine a Hillary Rodham or a Bill (post-repeal of the Twenty-Second Amendment) Clinton could return America to the booming late 1990s.
Yes, thanks to experience as governor, common sense Southern raisin', and a whooping from Newt's paddle (not to mention the fundamental change in the business environment of the United States after the reforms of the Reagan years), the last six years of Bill Clinton's stint in the Oval Office were a success. The Boll Weevil Democrats that feared Reagan and were somewhat conservative on fiscal and defense issues accelerated their move to the GOP after Bill dropped middle class tax cuts and tried to cram HillaryCare and gays in the military down our throats in 1993, so that, like under Obama, thank God, the Democratic Party in Congress and in the states shrunk every year Bill Clinton held office as well.
The success of the "Clinton years" was in no way due to Democrats or any such animal as "Bill Clinton's Democratic Party" (as recently described by Alabama's Artur Davis after leaving the party for the GOP in Virginia) , on any level. So, he did a good job with a Gingrich switch at his knees. Most convicts behave while the guards are around.
That was then, this is now
There is also no reason to imagine that a Hillary presidency would have been much less worse that the Obama years we now live in. Had Mrs. Bill Clinton been nominated to defeat John McCain, HillaryCare would have been passed before a third try, because her husband would have been the Lobbyist-in-Chief from Day One and would not have waited for a third bite at the apple after Scott Brown took Ted The Swimmer Kennedy's seat in Massachusetts.
It was Secretary of State Hillary that reestablished diplomatic ties with the "moderate" Assad in Syria and who praised the Arab Spring in Egypt. It is Bill Clinton that warned in 2003 that man-made global warming was a threat to 50 feet of Manhattan in 50 years; lobbied for Obamacare in 2010 assuring every Democrat in the U.S. Senate that they should vote for the flawed bill now and fix it later; and who recently traveled to the Tar Heel State to lecture them on changing the definition of marriage.
The problems in America are many and most of them have their origin in Eve's original sin and the spending that Republicans didn't reduce after the New Deal and Great Society. But make no mistake about it: Democrats' main complaint about all GOP presidents and congresses since at least the early 70s is that they don't want to spend enough!
The political problems in this country are not due primarily to Barack Hussein Obama, but rather to the party that too many Americans still trusted in 2008 to nominate someone qualified to be the Commander-in-Chief and Chief Executive of the United States. The Democratic Party is not up to that job. Rather, they are a party of disparate, mostly radical interests, none of which coincide with a growing economy at home or a credible deterrent to enemies abroad.
Our current defender of the homeland appears to have leaked state secrets to make Israel hesitate to act against Iran and make himself look good. And Barack resents the implication that his White House would do such a thing? Yet, wasn't it him that ignored the cries of Iranian youth as the Mullahs mowed them down and wasn't it his chief campaigner of late, none other than Bill Clinton, who as President, allowed North Korea and China to obtain advanced defense technology? Yes, it was. And who was it that invited the Muslim Brotherhood to the White House.
And when it comes to upholding the Judeo-Christian values that made us an exceptional nation, they are a party of winkers until a group of feminists want free contraceptives and then the free exercise of religion be damned and the bitter Catholic Church clingers with it. Which reminds of the mentor and 20-year pastor of the president and his, not God bless America, but rather, G** Damn America, which is what a majority of voters did in 2008 when they heard no evil and elected the Hawaiian to control the nukes for four years.
Election Day 2012 can't get here too soon. Vote Grand Old Party of Lincoln.
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
Atlanta Law & Politics columnist – Examiner.com
Charlotte Observer and Atlanta Journal-Constitution op-eds archived at Townhall.com.