Quote of the Day
Do not let what you cannot do interfere with what you can do.John Wooden
Image of the Day
 |
| Via Libertarian Republic |
  |
| Via Aurelio Arredondo on FB |
 |
| Via Bastiat Institute |
Yes, I know that this is a couple of weeks old. But it was still on my podcast list; I remember having listened to the first part earlier and finding the ideological feminism utterly repulsive. It's time to outline some of the lunacy (my edits of excerpts):
DAVID GREGORY:Where does one start? First of all, notice the judgmental tone: "Karl Rove's attack", "Republicans were already attacking [Hillary] Clinton", "even before she decides whether she's a candidate", "is her age a legitimate topic".... Second, there are the not-too-subtle personal attacks: "once called Bush's brain", "an evil genius or just evil". Third, there is even an attempt by the media to defend Clinton from the criticisms: "Ronald Reagan was eight months older when he ran in 1980".
And good Sunday morning. We'll begin with the story that's been dominating much of the political conversation all week long. And that is Karl Rove's attack on Hillary Clinton.
ANDREA MITCHELL:
Good morning to you, David. Well, this week there is no longer any doubt that some powerful Republicans are playing hardball against Hillary Clinton, raising questions about her age her health, even before she decides whether she's a candidate.
....
It all started when Karl Rove, once called Bush's brain, said Hillary Clinton suffered traumatic brain injury after a 2012 fall and concussion.
RUTH MARCUS:
It's sometimes a little bit difficult for the mainstream media to, on its own, say, "Gee, is her age a legitimate topic of public debate?"
ANDREA MITCHELL:
Republicans were already attacking Clinton for her handling of Benghazi. And even Boko Haram. As one Republican operative said, Karl is either an evil genius or just evil.
ANDREA MITCHELL:
Clinton will turn 69 two weeks before the 2016 election. Ronald Reagan was eight months older when he ran in 1980
Karl Rove is a big boy and doesn't need me to defend him. I have been quite critical of the Bush Administration, and I'm sure there's much I've written that he would criticize. I've never worked for or contributed to the GOP, and I am no shill. There are no Democrats left like Grover Cleveland.
But let's note that Hillary Clinton's potential 2016 candidacy is not a GOP invention. It was no secret that a major motivation for her 2000 Senate campaign was a future Presidential candidacy. Just like John McCain, who battled Bush for the 2000 GOP Presidential nod, became front runner for the 2008 race, Hillary is the front runner for the 2016 Dem nomination; there's at least one big PAC backing her bid, and the pollsters have been testing pairwise matchups for several months.
About the age issue: in fact, it was an issue in 1980 (and more so in the 1984 campaign, when Reagan pre-empted the issue by ad libbing he wouldn't make Mondale's youth an issue). From the Examiner:
But that overlooks the fact that Reagan's age was an issue in 1980, when the nearly 70 year-old Reagan ran against 56 year-old Jimmy Carter...His campaign distributed a list of 40 world leaders over the age of 65 (as though reporters would be impressed by the likes of Siaka Stevens, the ruler of Sierra Leone) and 63 members of Congress over age 65... By the fall, polls found that a majority of Americans regarded Reagan to be more vigorous than Carter — the contrast of the ruddy cowboy versus the collapsing jogger.But the national media, not the Clinton operatives, have been pursuing the counter-attack:
"How is this Hillary age question even an issue?" NBC's Chuck Todd tweeted on Friday. "She'll be same age in 2016 as Reagan was in 1980; oh, and we live longer and healthier now." Discussion of Clinton's age, Todd concluded, is "one of those classic made-up topics". National Journal jumped in the conversation last week with an article headlined, "Why You Can't Compare Hillary Clinton's Age to Ronald Reagan's; Yes, she'd be the age he was upon taking office. But no, that's not relevant." Authors Stephanie Stamm and Patrick Reis wrote that what is important is not Clinton's age but her life expectancy at the time she would assume the presidency.In fact, there were news columns as early as 1984 that Reagan would sometimes doze off at briefings and Cabinet meetings... And, although this hasn't been discussed, there is a nontrivial risk to senior citizens falling and/or suffering related injuries, not to mention recidivism. And I believe that travel fatigue was a key reason for Clinton's departure after one term as Secretary of State. Age was an issue for Reagan, Dole, and McCain--how is it not an issue when Barry himself was a toddler while Hillary campaigned as a high school Goldwater Girl? Does that mean it's necessarily a decisive one? No. Is it fair? Absolutely. How can the Dems deny this as dying Robert Byrd and Ted Kennedy clung onto their seats even when it was clear they could not represent their states effectively? It's not just physical age--do we really need an extension of the Bush-Clinton family dynasty which has dominated national politics over the last 3 decades? The 2016 election winner will likely inherit a more challenging environment which will require a new paradigm to deal with a sluggish economy, tens of trillions in debt and unfunded liabilities. Do we really need to revisit the same old same old from the 1990's? More regulation gumming up the free market? I think the Dems need to find a different paradigm... I'm not sure what it'll be: the prospective new crop, like Elizabeth Warren, Julian Castro, or Martin O'Malley, are pursuing the same failed policies and philosophy, courting the same special-interest constituencies...
DAVID GREGORY:First of all, I'm not fixated on Benghazi. I know that she has tried to sidestep the issue. For me, the broader issue is that we should never have meddled in Libya from the get-go I think Hillary needs to explain the failures in foreign policy over the past 5 years and how/whether she would distinguish her foreign policy from Barry or President Zipper's: does she believe in meddling and/or nation building? But the question remains, why were we in Benghazi in the first place? How was she not aware of instability there, of the British decision to leave while we stayed the course? Why had security, in fact, drawn down while diplomats repeatedly pressed for more security? The most prudent response was to withdraw personnel. All I've heard is that Ms. Clinton has blamed her other responsibilities and heavy travel schedule; her underlings did not raise these matters to her attention. Let's be clear: Qaddafi himself had warned about terrorist elements in the opposition. The new government had not consolidated its hold over the country. Setting a diplomatic presence in Benghazi, a rebel stronghold, was risky from the get-go. Why was that decision made in the first place? Why was that not a priority item on her agenda? Even if she had other priorities, she could have assigned it to a top deputy and required periodic status reports. I can't believe she wasn't aware of British moves if she had any reasonable briefing; this is all Management 101, and it casts serious questions about her integrity and competence.
As you look at Secretary of State Clinton, how she handled some of the questions that have emerged about Benghazi, or even about her health that, as you know, are a question for any candidate, do you think she could have done better? Should she do more to be completely transparent?
SEN. CLAIRE MCCASKILL:
Listen, this is a strong, smart leader who is going to be a terrific president. And I don't care what Reince Priebus says. They do not want Hillary Clinton, because they know she is going to ignite a spark of enthusiasm across this country, and she has got the strongest résumé for president of anyone who's run in a very long time.
So I really think she's answered all of the questions about Benghazi.
Second, McCaskill's assertion that Clinton has the "strongest resume of anyone who's run in a very long time" is a departure from reality. Clinton has almost no public sector managerial experience except perhaps as Secretary of State, and throwing her subordinates under the bus to deflect personal responsibility is not characteristic of competent leadership or personal integrity. Clinton did not exercise leadership during her 8 years in the Senate, the last 2-3 years of which were more about running for President: she was not in the party leadership, she did not have a signature legislative accomplishment. Her voting record was more or less like any other Dem senator, except she heatedly blamed a wily George Bush for her controversial vote on Iraq.
I don't question Clinton's basic competency on military and foreign policy matters, certainly superior to Zipper's record when he was elected in 1992. You could certainly argue both JFK and Barry Obama had similarly thin resumes as when all of them ran for the Presidency for the first time. But Reagan had two terms as governor in the nation's biggest state (dealing with a Democrat-controlled legislature), Bush 41 was a business owner, Congressman, CIA chief, and two-term Vice President, Gerald Ford had served in the House GOP leadership, Dole had served in the Senate GOP leadership, McCain was a retired Navy officer whom spent over 3 decades in the House and Senate, with proven bipartisan leadership, Bush 43 was only the second GOP Texas governor since Reconstruction whom was widely praised for his bipartisan leadership, and Romney was both a Harvard MBA and trained lawyer, with the strongest business record in decades and a term as governor of Massachusetts dealing with an 80+% Democratic-controlled state legislature. Trying to portray two decades as a governor/President's spouse as "experience"? Give me a break.... I have seen no evidence she shares Barry or Zipper's charisma or she would be any better at dealing with the Republicans: she of the "vast right wing conspiracy" and caustic Bush-basher, no member of the Gang of 14.
DAVID GREGORY:First, I don't know the specifics of Abramson's tenure, but I hardly believe that the Gray Lady, the steadfast center of politically correct progressivism, would have terminated her without due cause. Ms. Abramson's promotion to chief editor was no doubt facilitated by the fact of her gender; I can only imagine what the fascists would have said if Abramson had been passed over in favor of some other senior male editor. Ownership had to know that hiring a feminist to the post could be a double-edged sword, that she might play the gender card if things didn't work out. I don't think the company would have discussed her abrasive style (which the daughter seems to corroborate by using the word "pushy"), unless there were clashes. I know in the IT profession, a lot of highly competent professionals with poor people skills end up in positions of management for which they are ill-suited, and it's just a matter of time. I know I was once denied a promotion (my departing supervisor had recommended me to succeed him) because a couple of key developers (programmers) whom I hadn't even worked with threatened to quit (there was a baseless rumor I was a tool of management, out to fire them and replace them with fresh college grads; in fact, I never had any discussions on personnel matters). Now I'm not saying this happened, but I could easily see key personnel coming to ownership and saying, "Look, I have offers on the table, and the status quo is unsustainable. I want to stay here but not with her at the helm." This has nothing to do with the obnoxious politically correct theme that male managers with poor people skills are "more equal" than "tough" female managers. That is absolute crap; if you can't motivate your people, if you're some tyrannical bully terrorizing your subordinates, you won't be able to keep your people, and at best, you won't be promoted and/or will be exiled to some deadend position where others won't have to put up with your crap. Top managers will note heavy turnover; having to train new hires all the time is costly; you'll get a bad reputation as an employer. People wash out as managers all the time; most of them have enough class not to play the victim card. I suspect that Ms. Abramson had been counseled on prior occasions that they had gotten complaints over her leadership style. Let's not suppose that poor people skills are gender-specific, and I think it's pathetic that delusional, otherwise intelligent people will argue that female managers with poor people skills are merely "tough bosses", for which males supposedly are praised. Playing the gender card is intellectually dishonest.
Now we'll turn to another big story of the week. In a surprise move, The New York Times fired one of the most senior women in American journalism, executive editor Jill Abramson. The firing is raising questions about equal pay for men and women and the treatment of female leaders in positions of leadership. Abramson is due to give the commencement address at Wake Forest University in North Carolina tomorrow.
REHEMA ELLIS:
Jill Abramson may be in a fighting mood. Her daughter posted this picture of her 60-year-old mother on Instagram, #pushy. As executive editor of The New York Times, Abramson was one of the most powerful women in journalism until last week when she was abruptly fired after less than three years on the job.
While there are reports that Abramson was terminated after she questioned whether she was paid as much as her male predecessors, in a strongly worded statement issued Saturday, the newspaper's publisher denied that allegation, saying, "I decided that Jill could no longer remain as executive editor for reasons that have nothing to do with pay or gender. I concluded that her management of the newsroom was simply not working out."
That ignited a furious debate on social media about whether a sexist double standard was in play.
I have more to say, particularly about a Maria Shriver rant, which I'll continue tomorrow.
Facebook Corner
(Drudge Report). Do you consider yourself as a Libertarian, Conservative, Republican, Democrat, Liberal?
Libertarian-Conservative
[From Wikipedia: "Libertarian conservatism is a conservative political philosophy and ideology that combines right-libertarian politics and conservative values. Libertarian conservatives' first value is negative liberty to achieve socially and culturally conservative ends. They reject liberal social engineering. In political science, the term is used to refer to ideologies that combine the advocacy of economic principles, such as fiscal discipline, respect for contracts, defense of private property and free markets and the classical conservative stress on self-help and freedom of choice under a laissez-faire capitalist society with social tenets such as the belief in natural inequality, the importance of religion, and the value of traditional morality through a framework of limited, constitutional, representative government." "The true conservative movement was, from the start, a blend of political libertarianism, cultural conservatism, and non-interventionism abroad bequeathed to us via the Founding Fathers." [Rockwell and Rothbard's paleolibertarians] continued libertarian opposition to "all forms of government intervention – economic, cultural, social, international" but also upholding cultural conservatism in social thought and behavior. They opposed a licentious libertarianism which advocated "freedom from bourgeois morality, and social authority."]
Proposals
Political Cartoon
 |
| Courtesy of the original artist via Patriot Post |
The Carpenters, "Superstar"
