What a Surprise: Hillary Flip-Flops on Trade
In the Daily Beast, Ben Domenench -- a.k.a., that guy who writes that other morning newsletter that's almost as good as this one -- offers a supremely cynical view on the consequences of Hilary Clinton's flip-flop on the Trans-Pacific Partnership: These rules do not apply to Clinton, which is why it's pointless to make a fuss about her stated "position" on TPP. She is likely lying about what she thinks, and even if she's not, her words have no necessary relationship with her true policy goals. The odds of Clinton pushing this agreement forward yesterday were 50/50, and today they are 50/50. It is a position taken for the sake of advantage at this juncture of a long campaign—and there is no reason she will feel bound by it once in the White House. Clinton's campaign positions are just about doing whatever will do her the most political good in the moment, like Lucille Bluth deciding between her least favorite children. Her positions are just words designed to get herself into the desk where she can then decide what is best for all the little people. Clinton's words are the cake she lets the voters eat. And eat it they will. See, the fact that Hillary Clinton is trusted by anyone might shake a conservative's faith in the good judgment of the electorate. But remember, not many people do trust her, and the ones that do are down-the-line partisans: "Voters say 63 - 32 percent, including 68 - 26 percent among independent voters, that Clinton is not honest and trustworthy." Acknowledging her shiftiness could create too much cognitive dissonance for the diehard Democrats. Here comes Josh Krashaar with a truth bomb: Put another way: Clinton is now nearly as unpopular with men as Dobald Trump is with women. That's saying something . . . For all the self-inflicted problems that Republicans have in reaching out to a diversifying country, Hillary Clinton's favorability with white men is worse than Jeb Bush's with Hispanics, Ben Carson's with African-Americans, and Carly Fiorina's with women in the same survey. If a candidate implies that the preferred policies and stances on issues don't really matter -- as flip-floppers do -- he or she is asking to be judged by his or her record (in Hillary's case, yeesh) or charisma and personality (double yeesh). Remember Susan Rice's contending that Hillary's biggest accomplishments at the State Department were the Trans-Pacific Partnership -- which Hillary is now opposing -- and . . . er . . . ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Those ISIS Chemical-Weapons Attacks in Syria & Iraq Haven't Stopped Meanwhile, over in Iraq: The government of Iraq's semiautonomous Kurdish region says several Peshmerga troops have tested positive for mustard gas after battles in August with Islamic State (IS) fighters. The Ministry of Peshmerga Affairs said on October 7 that blood samples taken from some 35 fighters who were exposed in the attack southwest of the regional capital, Irbil, along with an examination of wounds, showed "signatures of sulfur mustard." The samples were sent to a laboratory outside of Iraq for analysis, the statement said. It did not say if any of the troops had died as a result of the attack or how severely they had been wounded. Unidentified United Nations officials stated last month that ISIS figured out how to manufacture its own chemical weapons. From a Wednesday New York Times article on victims of chemical attacks in Syria: Sulfur mustard causes burns that can damage the skin, eyes and respiratory tract. Carcinogenic and extremely toxic, it can also cause invisible internal damage, including to bone marrow, reducing blood-cell production. Heavy exposure can cause death within days. Should Kelo v. New London Be a Conservative Litmus Test? Is it just me, or is the comments section of NRO getting more skeptical of Donald Trump? (Thankfully, the one constant, the North Star that we can set our course to, remains undisturbed: that I'm terrible, the complete epitome of the sellout, spineless Ruling Class, "GOPe," an establishment-RINO-running-dog Acela-class disgrace to the legacy of William F. Buckley, and so on.) Trump probably thought he was helpfully clarifying his views on eminent domain. He emphasized that while he would never take a person's property without their consent -- which is what eminent domain is; "Here's a check, now move, the government has decided it wants your property" -- for the construction of a private residence, the benefits of job creation justify taking land and turning it over to large private development projects "for the public good." Is a hotel a public good? Is a casino? Is a luxury condominium complex or shopping mall? Jonathan Tobin observes that if you don't understand the dangerous implications of the Kelo decision, you don't understand what drives conservatives. Indeed, as Jeff Jacoby wrote in COMMENTARY in May 2009 in a review of a book about the subject, the 2005 decision in the case of Kelo v. City of New London, in which a 5-4 Supreme Court majority allowed the Pfizer company to destroy a neighborhood and seize the property of a few holdouts who refused to succumb to pressure and sell their homes, is an apt symbol of all that is wrong about an out-of-control big government in the 21st century . . . The problems with such an approach are obvious. The Constitution's prime purpose was to provide a framework whereby individual liberty would be defended from the caprices of politicians and special interests. The Fifth Amendment's "takings" clause allows government to seize property with just compensation but only when it is for "public use." But when the term "public use" is expanded to allow it to mean that government can pick favorites in a property dispute between the powerful and the weak then the safeguards established by the Founders are rendered meaningless. The Kelo decision was significant precisely because it allowed government to seize property without a compelling public purpose beyond the business interests of a corporation and the desire of politicians to expand their revenue base. Kelo essentially trashed property rights and individual liberty and prompted a backlash in which many states correctly passed laws to ensure that such outrages would not be repeated. It is to be expected that liberals would defend eminent domain, but when someone pretending to be a conservative for the purpose of running for president does so, genuine conservatives should be up in arms. ADDENDA: Thanks to everyone who pre-ordered Heavy Lifting. Every pre-order counts towards the first week's sales, which is what gets a book on those coveted bestseller lists. Besides the obvious personal satisfaction for Cam and myself, I think you can imagine the . . . cultural ramifications of a demonstration of a widespread appetite for a funny tribute to the glories of growing up, getting a real job, getting married, and having kids. All the guys who are living in their parents' refurbished basement, lamenting the job market, and playing Xbox all day need to realize that there's more to life and they need to start living it. . . | 
Comments
Post a Comment