Preparing for Life Under She Who Must be Obeyed

Conservatives must prepare for the worst. Not difficult, because we constitutionally rather expect the worst.

But here is a thought.

Just how bad was it, under Clinton the First?

Not so bad, as I recall: we managed to push Triangulation Bill into some not-bad policies: welfare reform, and free trade.

The public didn't really trust the Democrats, after their New Left binges of the 70s and 80s, and were happy, most of the time, with a Republican Congress and a Democratic presidency.

Now, they no longer trust Republicans on foreign policy.

And maybe they're going to give the Democrats a try. If this happens, our job, for four or eight years, will be to push like hell on that triangle, for a realistic foreign policy in particular. Realistic in the Reagan sense.

Will President Hillary want to be seen as the One Who Lost Iraq? I doubt it. I believe that if we are still there when she takes office (okay, "if"), and if the situation has not slid back to near-civil-war -- i.e. if Peter Galbraith's deeply pessimistic reports are wrong in essence -- then she will be inclined to fight it out.

The role of pressure group, as opposed to the wielders of power, is an uncomfortable one for political people, but it may be the posture we must be preparing for. (At least it should divert some of the kleptomaniacs into the Democratic camp, if the Republicans are distanced from the public coffers.)

I want to say only a couple things. I blame Mr. Clinton for our lax attitude toward terrorism. There was plenty he could do and he didn't do it. Apparently Waco and Elian Gonzales were bigger problems.

Second, you know "She" by Rider Haggard. So you're a good man.

Third, I believe life under Mrs. Clinton will be very bad. Universal health care is one of her craziest ideas that comes to mind. She has no understanding of the Middle East. No understanding of economics.

And so on.

Right, because President Bush's administration does have an in-depth understanding of the Middle East? Please! Funny way to show it, if they do. Can't imagine it being much worse than it is right now, even though frankly, I don't agree with Ms. Clinton's ambiguous foreign policy ideas. And I don't know how bad universal health care can be and there are many different types of socialized medicine, so we shouldn't make unqualified blanket statements like that, but I doubt it can be worse than what we have now, where many of my college students who have had had no access to health care because, despite being middle class, they cannot afford it, have had to deal with terrible chronic disease with no access to any kind of real medical attention nor able to afford necessary medication. I have had students have to deal with chronic illness and also, some with close relatives having died due to lack of medication and access to affordable medical attention, and this is not a third world nation. Access to health care for all may sound "crazy" to some, probably those who can afford it, but not to those who cannot and would certainly benefit from it. I mean, come on, we can only be a better society if everybody has access to basic medical attention and if this means paying somewhat higher taxes, would that be the end of civilization as we know it?

I'm a paragraph person, myself.

Third, I believe life under Mrs. Clinton will be very bad. Universal health care is one of her craziest ideas that comes to mind.

That's comedy gold, that is.

Think of all the unforutates suffering under the lash of "universal health care" in benighted places like Europe. And - if Hilary Clinton wins - why, each of us in danger of saving thousands of dollars on our health insurance. Won't someone think of the suffering CEOs of insurance companies?

Fortunately, the conservatives are fighting day and night to protect us from this danger.

5 -- Go live in Cuba or Canada and tell me how great their health care is. For all its problems, ours is still the best. You are clueless.

4 -- Buh-zing! Brilliant. I've been trying a long time to come up with an appropriate reply.

All you debaters…try the Pro and Con group. Crazy ideas are welcome there. Endless debate is encouraged.

I just can't see how if the government runs the health care system how that will automatically save me money. Anything else the government touches costs MORE money. I think it's a myth.

I'm sure there is a wonderful name for this fallacy, but I often see people exclaim that, because something works there, it will work here. Universal health care is a prime example of what I'm referring to.

Because X policy works so well in Sweden, then X should automatically work well for us. It isn't always the case. For many years we've had a welfare system that was exploited by those at the bottom, believing the money they received was payment for their leisure activities. In Europe, in general, Scandinavia in particular, you are expected to find work and contribute to the system. Fortunately, our welfare system has been overhauled and such parasitism has been reduced.

Unfortunately we still have a large segment of the population that believes that their favored universal health care system will be implemented and streamlined like its European (Canadian, Cuban, etc.) counterpart.

I don't want to pay for their foolishness.

Speaking of pay-outs, anything left of your permanent fund check?

Yukon wilderness and government largesse. Let's all move to Alaska and live large. We'll take Doug's van.

Does it have snow chains?

I invested a thousand of it and made a healthy return in just a few short days.

But to matters of more importance. If you guys do manage commandeer Doug's bus and come to Alaska, I'll spring for two days worth of beer and muktuk.

And I thought patchouli smelled bad.

Is there a soy-based alternative?

Muktuk?

If you think Iraq is the worst thing that would come of a Clinton presidency think again. As stated, regardless of party the next president will likely do little to change the situation.

If we rewind the clock 30 years, perhaps the next president is the Nixon figure. The one who pulls us out of Iraq and "loses" the war. This leads eventually to the Carter figure who while claiming to be on moral high ground is the greatest disaster of a president since Andrew Johnson. This disaster leads America to reach again for the Reagan/Churchill figure--someone too far right for business as usual but just the right person to save Civilization.

Perhaps someone like a Brownback, Tancredo, Huckabee who seems too right now to be electable continue to crusade as Reagan did until this point, and are in the perfect position to capture the gauntlet.

The real danger of Hillary's election will be the undermining of the Republic. One or more ACLU lawyers like Ginsberg will be put on the court. Someone totally scary will run the justice department. And there will be nothing to stop the democrats in control of all branches of government from pushing the most far left agenda since FDR's New Deal. If you think Healthcare is the goal, you're not thinking big enough. This power grab will be the biggest in our lifetimes. Expect your taxes to go way up, expect your civil rights such as how you raise your children to be eroded. Expect us to give away more military secrets to hostile nations, etc, etc.

You can expect something similar from the other democrats as well. Of all of these, I think Obama is probably the least of all evils, not because he has a single policy I like, but because I hold out hope that he does have a conscience.

Just an opinion but Mr. Clinton was a horrible president and I don't agree that the way this country implements (free) trade policy is good for the public as a whole though it has made more than a few fabulously wealthy. Anyway I considered him as a president until the present one came along and it is almost unbelievable how far in terms of ugly this one has surpassed him. I find it hard to even utter his name. We'll deal with it somehow. As for Mrs. Clinton (and I preferred to leave these people untitled) I suspect her universal health care plan if it ever gets off the ground will be as corporate and health care industry friendly as it is possible to be so quit worrying about the HMO's. I also suspect that in the long run that it will be disappointing for those who really like the idea. As for the Middle East--Hilary is more likely to continue the Iraq debacle than any democrat out there. And an attack on Iran might also remain on the table. She potentially could turn the so-called war into a Democratic instead of a Republican one and then I wonder how many of those here in this group would continue to support it?

deniro: Muktuk is delicious whale blubber.

I'll provide the serving tray and toothpicks as well.

>13 thinkingriddles: thinkingriddles

...Someone totally scary will run the justice deparment...

That is the funniest thing I have read all week! Where could Ms. Clinton possibly find someone scarier than Ashcroft and Gonzalez?

Once again. Universal health care? Join the military and then tell me what you think about waiting in line for government run medical treatment.

This is not a slap at the many, many superb and caring professionals in the military medical system, but the system itself.

I just need to ask. What are all the liberals doing in the conservative’s discussion group? Cant they find some other place to talk or is talking to other liberals as painfully boring for them as it is for conservatives?

I think you're on to something Dann_D.

It's the tedium. All about the tedium. Stay tedious and eventually we'll wear them down.

I think that "contentious debate" between us ought to take place in Pro and Con. But I personally am interested in what liberals might contribute, even to a mainly intra-conservative discussion. No clear line, of course. They can be the judges.

And I would think that if they want to start a thread, even a contentious one, here, great. We are not such delicate flowers that the knowledge that liberals are reading our discussions should make us fold up our petals.

I think the real criterion is: do not divert the subject of an already-going thread.

I think of it like this. If at a party, I walk up to a group of people who are having an animated conversation, and it turns out they are all liberals, talking about, say, what kind of universal health care to have ... I will probably walk away. But if I have some useful observation to make that does not divert the main thread of their conversation, then I might make it. If this reveals me as a conservative, and they then choose to engage in a head to head debate, okay ... if they keep talking among themselves, just politely acknowledging me, I will not butt in again.

Just common courtesy.

Bus has no snow chains. And only 2 cylinders with full compression at the moment.

I have taken it to Northern Ontario, but Alaska would be a challenge.

And yet, one I might take. I once stayed with friends who live on a small island, off the coast of Kodiak Island. I would love to visit them again. Maybe that Republican Senator has had a bridge built to it by now.

An ideal life, except for the danger of being swept away by the next tsunami.

18 -- Ha ha. You are new to the group. You've already noticed an odd phenomena that has been commented on many times here. Perhaps they secretly suspect that they are wrong, but they lack the intellect to know why.

15 -- You're killing whales! My God, man. How tasty can blubber be?

I am not against the idea of socialized medicine as a theoretical idea...something that might work in some places at some times.

But to generalize to our current situation: think about how frustrating (yet still rather expensive) the US postal service is and imagine a health care system that works the same way.

Another thought: part of the reason partial socialism works in places like Norway and Sweden is that they are relatively small, (Norway has a population of about 3 million), relatively wealthy, homogeneous societies.

I have never heard the words "delicious" and "Muktuk" used in the same sentence before.

If you guys get to Anchorage, it is only a hop, skip and and jump to Fairbanks, so I will be expecting you for dinner. Figuratively speaking, of course.

Of course our health care system works. It just works very, very badly. I would welcome a conservative alternative to what we have now, which is where we let insurance companies, who have a vested interest in not paying claims, make decisions on who gets what kind of health care.

#18
Dann_D,

This is exactly the reason why I don't post on the conservative threads in the political conservative group anymore. I think I may have tried less than a dozen times previously. Though I'm making an exception for this post.

#20
Doug1943,

I have nothing against debates and having a good 'ol flamin' fight (errr...discussion.LOL) with the opposing camp every now and then (gotta keep your wits sharp), but sometimes a person wants to go home and re-group before the next battle without encountering an ambush while relaxin' at home.=)

Anyways, I'd rather see any other Democrat other than Hilary in the WH. Wow, that is pretty bad (or is that sad?) isn't it.

#24 Conservative alternative or just common sense, I'm not sure - but my alternative would be health savings accounts.

(All this talk has me worried about the muktuk - I'm guessing it's pretty high in cholesterol...)

#25 "Anyways, I'd rather see any other Democrat other than Hilary in the WH. Wow, that is pretty bad (or is that sad?) isn't it."

God knows who'll end up as candidates for both Reps and Dems, my guess right now would be Giuliani versus Clinton, but it is too early in the game to know. Even so, I don't know who I am going to vote for, since I am not a fan of Hillary Clinton nor of any of the major Republican contenders either, and it is against my principles to sit out a vote. This election is going to be a hard one for many of us undecideds, I'm afraid. If anything, I might go and vote Green Party just for the hell of it! That is, if the Green Party is still around ... ?

#16. Hmm. How about Janet Reno.

I remember when Mrs. Clinton talked about eliminating the Electoral College.

Talk about a fascist. That could be our next president.

The greatest concern I would have with a Clinton presidency would be Supreme Court nominations.

Such as Lani somebody or other (I forget), a Clinton favorite who proposed proportional voting based on minority status?

Lani Guinier, Gads, yes. Frightening. Although, Scalia would eat her for breakfast. That would be entertaining.

There is good evidence that when the Clintons first took office, Mrs Clinton wanted to make a Communist Party fellow-traveller Secretary of Education.

Of course, the Supreme Court nominations would be the worst aspect of a Clinton presidency, for sure.

What's frightening is that both sides are just trying to pack the supreme court with ideologues. But you're right--she will do the same.

This is why we should have ten-year terms for SC justices. Otherwise, the stakes are so high, both sides are tempted to abandon civilized restraints in the political contest.

Doug--agree more than less. Don't know if 10 year terms our the answer but I'd like it a lot better than what we have now.

i've heard hillary plans to abolish christmas.

Abolish Christmas? Well ... that does change things a bit, but ... I still will not vote for her.

Theoria,
Rather than pass on (or create) rumor and speculation, why don't you reference news articles or reliable web sites that mention that tidbit. Frankly, I think it's ridiculous.