previous post next post  

Senator Clinton in Kodak Moments.

By The Armorer on October 4, 2007 | | Comments (15)

She who will raise our taxes for the greater good (hey, at least she's open about it)...

Senator Clinton with a fund-raising con artist:

Senator Clinton with a fund-raising con artist

Senator Clinton with a man she would command:

Senator Clinton with a man she would command

And, in a blast from the past, Senator Clinton with a constituent:

Senator Clinton with a constituent


For the record - even if I thought she was the best choice, I wouldn't vote for her. For the same reason I wouldn't vote for Jeb Bush, were he running. Political dynasties in the House and Senate are one thing - in the White House, quite another.

Share This Article:

Categories:

15 Comments

By fdcol63 on October 4, 2007 8:24 AM
Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton ..... scary, indeed. You'd think a country with over 300 million citizens could produce better political leadership without this kind of incestuous nepotism.
 
By BillT on October 4, 2007 9:41 AM
The country can produce decent pols -- it can even produce statesmen. All they have to do is compromise their principles long enough to get elected...
 
By fdcol63 on October 4, 2007 10:04 AM
I've always opposed the idea of term limits because I believed that we already had them (called elections) and that the American public should have the right to vote for whomever they feel is the best candidate for office. I believed that we benefitted from those good politicians who gained expertise and wisdom over the years in countless committees and crises, and who had learned to use their staffs and the Federal bureaucracy for the common good. Now, however, I've changed my mind. Whatever good I thought might be gained by "career" politicians is far outweighed by the negative consequences of extreme partisanship, incompetent and corrupt leadership, and their inflated sense of elite entitlement and megalomania. Wiser people than I had obviously already come to that conclusion. LOL
 
By John of Argghhh! on October 4, 2007 10:10 AM
Frank - I prefer to think of it like the military's "up or out" policy... If you think about it - we were term-limited... Why should it apply only to the Executive Branch? I understand the logic on the Judicial Branch, though I'm beginning think a little "churn" in there wouldn't be bad, either - but the terms should be long enough to carry them through several administrations. If only because of how long it takes the Senate to do judges anymore... Which shows how skewed the balance has become in the government - because, in a very real sense, the Judiciary has evolved into a much more powerful, yet unaccountable, branch of the government than the Founders intended (and I agree with the Founders on this issue).
 
By BillT on October 4, 2007 10:23 AM
...even if I thought she was the best choice... That event would be forecast by the Arsenal getting posted on e-Bay and followed by yours truly signing up as Bellows Technician at Murray's forge...
 
By John of Argghhh! on October 4, 2007 10:39 AM
It'd have to be on Gunbroker or Auction Arms, eBay doesn't allow bangsticks.
 
By kat-missouri on October 4, 2007 10:43 AM
Yes. And I don't think she is. You know, part of me thinks, "now here is someone that would be a good power player, making deals, pushing necessary legislation" and then that comes to a screeching halt because, yes, she would be cutting deals, but they would be less open and less honest than any other person in history and possibly leave us owing people things we should not be owing them. then there is that whole "greater good" socialism thing. And, every once in awhile, I picture her with Chavez talking about "presidency for life". But, yeah, the fear of a presidential dynasty scares the beejeesus out of me.
 
By fdcol63 on October 4, 2007 10:49 AM
John, I agree. I'm even at a point where I'd almost like us to adopt a French idea: a single 6-year term for POTUS. Let's face it .... we probably get less than that out of a 2-term POTUS under our current system, considering at least 1 year spent campaigning for re-election, and almost 2 years as a lame duck at the end of the 2nd term. Unfortunately, you're right about the Judiciary. It's definitely more powerful than intended, and basically unchecked with lifetime appointments. I'm not sure what the answer there is, given the ideological issues involved and the need for some kind of jurisprudential "independence". However, I definitely prefer jurists who are more prone to be "constructionists" who base their opinions on the US Constitution, American common law precedents, and basic common sense - and not those who prefer to base their opinions on "international" law to enact domestic legislation that they can't get passed through popular support in the other 2 branches.
 
By Trias on October 4, 2007 4:14 PM
Give your new CinC a hug :)
 
By kat-missouri on October 4, 2007 4:35 PM
You know "lame duck" is not what I would call this president. He is possibly wrapping up a deal to squash NK's nuclear proliferation, winding down Iraq and moving us into strengthening this hemisphere with free trade acts to minimize the effects of 21st century communism in South America. Nothing lame duck about that unless you buy the media pap.
 
By Mark In Irvine on October 4, 2007 10:23 PM
"For the record - even if I thought she was the best choice, I wouldn't vote for her. For the same reason I wouldn't vote for Jeb Bush, were he running. Political dynasties in the House and Senate are one thing - in the White House, quite another." Did the "dynasty" concern keep you from voting for GWB?
 
By Mike on October 4, 2007 10:23 PM
John, WOW, I, of course, know the name Bush is radioactive in todays politics, yet, Jeb's positions as Governor of FL would make him my # 1 candidate for President! Dream ticket? McCain for Prez, Jeb VP! McCaine dies 2009 & Jeb is President! Cold but realistic! Mike
 
By kat-missouri on October 4, 2007 10:57 PM
Irvine, dude...you don't even know who John voted for. That was just lame. For that matter, you don't know who I voted for either. A-ss u-me
 
By Barb on October 5, 2007 12:20 AM
Frank, I know exactly what you mean. The Hubster and I had many discussions over the past few years on the topic of term limits. I started off as you did, and now I am right there with him (and I think, you). Single term for all of 'em. Maybe (a slim maybe) two terms for Congress, since that limits their damage to 4 years. The industry of getting people elected and re-elected won't change without it.
 
By John of Argghhh! on October 5, 2007 9:20 AM
Mark - I voted for GWB both times. The second time with much less enthusiasm when I did it. But I'm an adult, and my ideas and ideals are not fixed in stone, and can change over time with changed circumstances and experience. Unlike a politician, I can admit it. The "flip-flop" charge holds when you try to be all things to all people, and deny you're doing it. In this case, I've come to the conclusion that I am very uncomfortable with dynastic politics in the Executive. If Jeb were to run today, I wouldn't vote for him, because frankly, even if he might be (and since he's not running, I dunno) the best candidate, he's not the only candidate who can do the job. It's kind of like the pool of Colonels available to be Generals. We only pick about, oh, maybe 1/8th of them to be Generals, but 1/2 of them are easily capable of the job. Same thing is true of Presidents. Certainly, it's easier for one of my political persuasion to say this now regarding Clinton than it would have been for me to say it of Bush in 2004. I wasn't happy then, but I still hadn't worked my way through the political dynasty aspect. And now that we're facing the possibility again, well, it's crystallized for me. I'm a grown-up, I can change my mind and explain why. Or, in this case, actually, make up my mind - because I hadn't made a choice on the subject before. And just because I did vote for Bush, doesn't make me inconsistent in that context. If another Bush were to run, and I voted for them, *then* I'd have some 'splainin' to do. Will that suffice?