Republicans ARE the biggest problem facing the country – Secretary Clinton Totally Gets it
It is well overdue, but the leadership of the Democratic Party finally gets it. The GOP is the problem. Hillary Clinton called out the GOP and their malfeasance in no uncertain terms, and it was a huge hit. She sounds determined to tell the truth about the GOP on the campaign trail. In so doing she’ll drag the GOP’s cynical policies into the light of day and allow a legion of down ticket Democrats to adopt the message. There are far fewer Republicans in this country than there are Democrats. If, rather than pandering to the wishy/washy “center” she shows the country what the GOP has really been up to, she will win in a landslide and may well sweep away the GOP majorities in Washington and numerous state legislatures.
Here are her finest moments from the debate:
On race:
CLINTON: Well, I think that President Obama has been a great moral leader on these issues, and has laid out an agenda that has been obstructed by the Republicans at every turn, so…(APPLAUSE)..So, what we need to be doing is not only reforming criminal justice
On economic inequality:
CLINTON: I have a five point economic plan, because this inequality challenge we face, we have faced it at other points. It’s absolutely right. It hasn’t been this bad since the 1920s. But if you look at the Republicans versus the Democrats when it comes to economic policy, there is no comparison. The economy does better when you have a Democrat in the White House and that’s why we need to have a Democrat in the White House in January 2017.
CLINTON: …that — I think Dodd-Frank was a very…..good start, and I think that we have to implement it. We have to prevent the Republicans from ripping it apart. We have to save the Consumer Financial Protection board, which is finally beginning to act to protect consumers.
On immigration:
CLINTON: I want to follow up because I think underneath Juan Carlos’ important questions, there is such a difference between everything you’re hearing here on this stage, and what we hear from the Republicans.
On taking the fight to the Republicans:
CLINTON: I certainly am not campaigning to become president because my last name is Clinton. I’m campaigning because I think I have the right combination of what the country needs, at this point, and I think I can take the fight to the Republicans, because we cannot afford a Republican to succeed Barack Obama as president of the United States.
On legislation that would require businesses to be more socially responsible to protect families, workers, consumers, and the environment:
CLINTON: … on a state level, California, a state as big as many countries in the world. And it has not had the ill effects that the Republicans are always saying it will have. And I think this is — this is typical Republican scare tactics. We can design a system and pay for it that does not put the burden on small businesses.
On the GOP’s bogus claims to want a “smaller government” :
CLINTON: Well, look, you know, when people say that — it’s always the Republicans or their sympathizers who say, “You can’t have paid leave, you can’t provide health care.” They don’t mind having big government to interfere with a woman’s right to choose and to try to take down Planned Parenthood. They’re fine with big government when it comes to that. I’m sick of it… …We should not be paralyzed — we should not be paralyzed by the Republicans and their constant refrain, “big government this, big government that,” that except for what they want to impose on the American people. I know we can afford it, because we’re going to make the wealthy pay for it. That is the way to get it done.
On enemies that she’s made:
CLINTON: Well, in addition to the NRA, the health insurance companies, the drug companies, the Iranians. (LAUGHTER) Probably the Republicans. (LAUGHTER)
In closing:
CLINTON: Thank you very much, Anderson. And thanks to all the viewers who tuned in tonight. I think what you did see is that, in this debate, we tried to deal with some of the very tough issues facing our country. That’s in stark contrast to the Republicans who are currently running for president.
What you have to ask yourself is: Who amongst us has the vision for actually making the changes that are going to improve the lives of the American people? Who has the tenacity and the ability and the
So I take it that you are now an enthusiastic support of my girl Hillary!
10,000% !
Jason is right about the influence down-ticket. If Hillary runs an aggressive campaign against a weak Republican (they are all weak at this point), she will drag the legislative branch towards the D’s as well.
I think that even Republicans expect her to be the next President at this point and that could make a lot of them stay home next November.
Now we just need Democrats like Tom Carper and John Carney to start banging the drum.
[patiently waiting for Dorian or the Don to begin extensive monologue regarding the bullshittedness of Clinton being the defacto nominee at this point in time…]
I kid, I kid…
Seriously, though, I find myself almost as intrigued at how a HRC administration would play out as I was in 2008 with a BHO administration. Not for nothing, but if there’s one “group” that hard-core conservatives seem to dislike more than minorities/afr.-americans, it’s women! Could make for good theater (how an HRC admin jousts with GOP congressional members].
I am sure she got it a minimum of 3 days after everyone else got it and she downloaded the appropriate focus group created hot button talking points.
Whatever. When I started blogging, 33 years ago, I could only dream of a top Democrat dropping truth bombs on Republicans, focus group tested or not.
In spite of his earnest and dogged attempts to disabuse me of the notion, I somehow thought Obama was going to “get it” at some point. Oh well. Onward!
Obama was a consensus builder in a town that never wanted consensus with him. And he was dumb enough not to realize that.
Hillary leads from behind and often seems to do it out of political expediency. She is practically John Carney in a pantsuit.
” She is practically John Carney in a pantsuit.”
If she had his ankles, she wouldn’t wear the pantsuit.
If she was a little slow coming to some of her more liberal positions, I chalk that up to being thoughtful. But I can see why the “she leads from behind” talking point gets some traction among Republicans.
It’s interesting watching all you “liberals” fall in line. I understand that there’s a political process that needs to be reckoned with. A liberal candidate needs to be palatable to enough people. I get it. But to frame it like this… to say that the biggest problem facing the country is another political party… really weird stuff. Intellectually lazy and just bizarre… falling for the made-for-TV script kind of deal.
Think about what you’re saying. The biggest problem isn’t institutional racism, the environment, massive income inequality and a rigged economy, accessibility to affordable health care, education… it’s the other party. It just frames the entire thing like a football match. Which, by the way, is the reason we get hardly any progress on any of the real issues. We gladly accept glacial, incremental scratches at the surface because of some irrational horror of people with an (R) after their names.
I know you all truly believe that this is the best we can do. Otherwise a Republican gets elected and we get nothing or worse. This is a very simple and defeatist attitude. No imagination, no conviction, no real strong belief… just a marginally acceptable political calculation to be swallowed with a spoonful of quasi-liberal sugar.
Again, all I ask is that you never ever again write a post wondering why people don’t vote. Because you know the answer.
“If she was a little slow coming to some of her more liberal positions, I chalk that up to being thoughtful.”
I’ll have to remember that one the next time Carper or Carney or Coons is campaigning. Just change the gender of the pronoun.
“The biggest problem isn’t institutional racism, the environment, massive income inequality and a rigged economy, accessibility to affordable health care, education… it’s the other party. It just frames the entire thing like a football match…”
1) That’s intellectually dishonest. I know you like floating above our petty concerns on a cloud of pure reason, but you are better than this.
It is mere liberal baiting to wave off the fact (yes – fact) that the GOP has become radicalized in a way that is doing grave damage to the country.
2) Get over yourself, you fop.
You’ve been sucked into some type of strange surreal theatre. I suspect you watch too many internet videos.
I never said that the GOP wasn’t getting more radical. I also didn’t say they couldn’t do political damage to the country. I said that to call out another political party as the biggest threat to the country is alarmist and hysterical.
What’s a “FOP”? If I’m called a new insult or epithet I like to know what it is.
It is an old insult. Jason’s been reading Shakespeare again (or possibly consulted a Shakespeare insult generator).
I hope it stands for Fucking Old Person. I take that as a compliment… also… you may have forgotten, I attended a certain birthday celebration of a certain someone who’s of a certain’t age. 🙂
You know what it is, you supercilious popinjay.
As for the rest, let me explain the error in my dear friend and comrade’s thinking in the form of an extended metaphor. Suppose you live in the mountains and have cancer and need to get to the hospital for chemo therapy, but there is a landslide which as closed your one access road to the hospital.
The cancer is the more serious problem, but it isn’t the most pressing problem. Get it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fop
It must’ve been the cravat.
Oh.. an Elizabethan insult. I’m flattered actually.
Every day I listen to the drum beat of talk radio and fix news demonizing liberals and democrats all day long with the most dehumanizing and false characterizations possible. Maybe you guys should look in the mirror
Good analogy. But you just said biggest not most pressing…
Anyhow, mouse, do you think my argument is out of line? Too idealistic? Hair-splitting? I’m not sure what you mean but I’m interested. Be my mirror. (Sincerely, I’m not sure what you’re driving at.)
@liberalgeek… Thanks for the link. I suppose with a pseudonym of an Oscar Wilde character I was really asking for that one. 🙂
http://prospect.org/article/frustration-driving-both-parties-voters-toward-radical-make-believe
John… it’s a fair criticism. In the American political environment Socialism is “radical.” I accept that. But I just don’t see the benefit of framing every election into a two-party, good-guy bad-guy deathmatch. Trying to operate based on “pure reason” is now unreasonable. This is a very strange paradox, no?
We can keep the maniacs at bay another few years and accomplish next to nothing. I understand why this is, but if I argue against it am I in a land of make believe?
I wish we didn’t have the trial by jury system. A “prosecutor” and a “defense attorney” … it is all so made for TV drama.
Oh well. Our laws and traditions bequeath us this clunky decision making process, therefor my mandate is to get as good at using this system as the other guy. Because in this ludicrously reductive, Dialectical Inquiry, system it is better to win than to lose.
Like I said, I understand where you’re coming from. I just 1.) don’t have to be excited about it and 2.) don’t think it should exempt the nominee from critical examination.
I don’t think these two things are unreasonble.