It’s official. Hillary Clinton has announced that she will be running for the Office of President of the United States of America. Her handlers are already packaging her as Thatcher redivivus. The talk radio pundits of the War Party say she is unelectable. This would be true if we were living in sane times. But thankfully for Mz. Clinton, we are not. She is already polling way ahead of all likely Democratic candidates and is ahead of all likely Republicans as well, except for Giuliani. Presently I put the odds of her winning at 50/50. Much can change, of course, in the next two years. My prediction, though, is that she will not only win the Democratic primary, but the general election as well. So get ready for Madame President and her First Gentleman.
(If Hillary wins, by the way, a Bush or Clinton will have been in the White House for 24 consecutive years [32 if you count G.H.W. Bush’s eight year stint as V.P.], 28 [36] if she is re-elected. Just think of that — 24 years of two-family rule. Who said monarchy is dead?)
I have to admit that I am rooting for Hillary. Though I am not a betting man, I have made a wager with my father and my First Word colleague. If Hillary wins they each owe me a steak dinner. If anybody else wins, I owe them a steak dinner. You see, like Rick’s attitude about whether Laszlo will escape the Nazis, my interest in contemporary American elections is a purely sporting one.
Some will be shocked, shocked by my flippant attitude concerning the current political parade. Elections are too important to take such an irreverent approach. So much, after all, is on the line. But a moment’s reflection should disabuse those who are open to reason that nothing could be further from the truth. Nothing is really on the line. Both Parties will field a statist candidate who will pay lip service to the Constitution and both Parties’ candidates will have no intention whatever of regulating their actions by Constitutional strictures.
The only difference between Democrats and Republicans is a rhetorical one. The latter sound a bit better on a few issues. The reality, though, is that they are two sides of the same debased coin. Indeed, I prefer Democrats since they tend not to make a pretense of conserving Christian values. I find raw humanism more palatable than humanism served with a quasi-Christian garnish.
When it comes to principles of government, I take anything but a sporting approach. It is far too serious a matter to get in the least bit excited about current offerings. When a candidate comes along who stands upon God’s law and swears allegiance to Jesus Christ, I will enter the fray. But since the prospects of such a man arising at this point are almost nil, I will follow Lear’s example.
so we’ll live,
And pray, and sing, and tell old tales, and laugh
At gilded butterflies, and hear poor rogues
Talk of court news; and we’ll talk with them too,
Who loses and who wins; who’s in, who’s out;
And take upon’s the mystery of things,
As if we were God’s spies: and we’ll wear out,
In a wall’d prison, packs and sects of great ones,
That ebb and flow by the moon.
Hillary, McCain, Obama, Giuliani, it makes no difference. But if I can get a steak out of Tweedledee beating Tweedledum, why not? So dad, Tim, I’ll take mine rare.
Hell Mr. Butler, thank you for the comments.
1. Where did I say I would rather vote for Hillary?
“I have to admit that I am rooting for Hillary.”
I think that 99% of the human population would take this as a comment in SUPPORT of Hillary, and seeing as the best way to support a candidate is to vote for them…
“2. Exactly how is voting “doing my country a serviceâ€?”
It’s a service in the same way that being a deacon, a pastor, an apologist, or an evangelist in the local church is a service.
In the link you gave, you do say that you agree with libertarians on many things. Based on your views on Bush I am very inclined to use old ‘if it looks like a duck and smells like a duck’ quip. Nevertheless, if you say you aren’t libertarian then I’ll take your word on it.
Thanks again for your response.
Razzen (#51) –
(1) Suppose my enemy owns the race horse, Hilary’s Revenge. I come to the conclusion that HR has a 50/50 chance of wining the derby. The stakes are currently 5:1 so, as a good Bayesian, I place a bet. Am I supporting HR or its owner? No, I’m interesting in gaining a few shekels.
(2) Do you really believe the following?
Voting is to serving my country as
being a deacon is to serving my church.
I can’t believe you have really thought about this.
Any Christian who thinks that the Republicans are on their side is a complete lunatic. Best evidence I can offer of this is the Pennsylvania senatorial race between Jim Toomey and Arlen Specter.
Toomey had all the credentials of conservatism, including a pro-life record, but George Bush and Rick Santorum ran pro-Specter ads in major Pennsylvania markets.
The result? Specter wins by a nose, and the Patriot News (our local rag) admitted that these ads pushed Specter over the top to victory.
Of course, as long as Christians remain devided, the worldlings will get away with this stuff.
Brother Ed
Bro Ed — yes, what happened in PA was shameful. But I would diagnose it slightly differently. It’s not so much that Christians are divided, as that they are largely united around the wrong team, that has gotten us in this fix.
George Bush smooths path for Hillary
This was the recent headline from the Sunday Times.
Looks like the fix is in. I propose that my colleague buy me that steak now. Given the run-away price of food (and it is going to get worse over the next year), he may have to plink down several hundred shekels if he insists on waiting for the rigged 2008 election results.
Yes, but as a prominent thinker showed here, my horse is either being primped and pampered equally well, or he is counter-attacking (or should I say, counter-sucking-up) in a way that could be very effective. Podhoretz, after all, is a bona fide cryptocrat if there ever was one. I still think Hillary may be just the circus show set up to whip the Christian Right and other “red staters” into line to shout “heil” at a rudy candidacy, which otherwise they would reject. The tin rabbit, as I pointed out. (And they’re falling into line too! Just look at the frantic yelping of little Davy B, the scion of my mentor Greg Bahnsen.)
On my theory, what would the purpose be of the public posturing about “continuity of foreign policy,” blah, blah? Simply this: to take the Israel question off the table in the election. If there’s one thing we all agree about, even both parties, it’s that the purpose of America is to spend money and spill blood for Israel. So children, none of you are to raise that question now.
Conversely, this is why both sides hate Ron Paul so much.
About Davy B, it seems he is so blinded by hatred for Hillary, he can’t even spell her name right.
Another thing that struck me when I read the link to Davy’s article was that he refers to himself as a “principled pragmatist.” I will have to add this to my list of oxymora.
There are also many quotable lines. This is my favorite:
“I am writing because we stand in an apex of cultural and political history, and I am convinced that a group of influential though unsophisticated people do not understand what is at stake.”