Monday, January 14, 2008

On Morality and Character

I saw a bit of Hillary's performance on Russett's show yesterday morning. She wasn't exactly thrilled with his line of questioning from the incorporation of the cackle laugh when Russett brought up the time of the Lewinsky scandal and from her insistence that she be given more time to answer her Iraq vote questions. And, that she tried to claim victory for the Dems with the surge was just too yummy. I can't believe her eyes are blue.

I read an interesting article in the American Thinker by Bruce Walker, entitled "A Moral Challenge for the Democrats". The author uncovers his thoughts on the differences between Hillary and Obama. He writes that the difference isn't political policy but ethics and character.

Walker goes back to a different time in politics, a step into the wayback machine, and reminds the reader of Mike Mansfield, a Dem Majority Leader of the Senate. He was far left for his time but yet he was a good man and his character was strong, his ethics not in doubt. He was a decent person. Adlai Stevenson, Hubert Humphrey, and those of that political era were completely wrong on political theory and policy, from a conservative's view, but the country didn't suffer because of their personal ideology. Political discourse marched on but the divide between the parties didn't split and paralyze the country.

The Republicans removed Nixon from office when it was discovered he was a crook. The Democrats, under the guidance of today's Democrat leadership, hung on to Bill Clinton and rallied around him. They actually defended his indefensible lying to a grand jury and to the American people. They felt obliged to come out and support the man, as many of his cabinet members did, solely to remain in power. The establishment of the Dem party continue to back Bill and Hillary even though it is hard to imagine a married political couple more amoral and corrupt. It's solely about power.

"The mere fact that the wife of an impeached president is seriously contending for the presidency is a low water mark in ethical standards in the history of our nation. What makes this more troubling is that Obama gives Democrats virtually everything, ideologically, that they could hope for. He is left of Hillary on almost every issue. His politics should delight all the Left, which is nearly all Democrat. And Obama appears highly electable. So why is Hillary even in this race?"

"It is not how Hillary wins that matters to these Democrats. It is what she will do when she is in power. We already have seen the last few years have the abuse of prosecutorial power can lead to the most contemptible justice (ask Scooter Libby). We have seen how Bill Clinton simply ignored Congress by legislating through executive orders. And, of course, we have all seen how the Clintons both lie almost pathologically."

"The question for the Democrat Party is a question of national trust. If Democrats wish to nominate a very liberal, apparently honest, quite electable black man, then they have in Obama all that they could hope for in a candidate. If the Democrats do not care about political philosophy and do not care about being trusted by the rest of America, then they can nominate Hillary Clinton. It is a moral challenge for our nation's oldest political party."

I think both Hillary and Obama would be devastatingly tragic for our nation, especially on the foreign policy front. And the tax and spend self righteousness is scary for those of us who know the tax cuts of the current administration brought back our economy from the 9/11 attacks and the recession the former Clinton presidency left for his successor. The fact that Hillary goes on national television talk shows and bashes "big oil", "big pharma" and other corporations and then is exposed for taking hundreds of thousands of dollars from them for her political campaigns is telling. Hillary says she wants more transparency in government, that the Bush administration has been the most secretive in history. Pardon me as I collect myself. And, she wants the cronyism out of the next administration, her administration. From the start of Bill's time in the White House, she brought along all their peeps, from TravelGate on throughout their time there. It is all ridiculous.

Neither Hillary or Obama are my candidates of choice. I want much better for the direction of this country. Neither will heal the divide, as they both claim they will. Neither has a record of any such thing. For example, if Obama wanted to truly try a bi-partisan approach in the Senate he would have joined with the Gang of 14 to work on judicial nominations. He didn't and went the easy route of appeasing the far left, as his record repeats each and every time.

If the choice is between the two, however, Obama is the pick. He is dangerously wrong on his politics but I don't doubt his level of sincerity. I think he truly believes what he is selling.


Paul is a Hermit said...

Mr. Walker gave the Democrats all they need to know to probably win the presidential election. Will they listen?
The Gang of 14 prevented the establishment of an up or down vote on judicial nominees for which McCain should be forever doomed from getting to be President, without even mentioning his other RINO work.

The WordSmith from Nantucket said...

I think there is something in our culture that's changed, and is reflected in how our politicians have so much partisan divisiveness, today.

I fear Obama more than Hillary in the general election. But if a Democratic candidate wins the presidency, I'd rather it be Obama than Hillary.

Right Truth said...

The difference in Hillary and Obama is "ethics and character" is true, so far as we know anything about Obama's character or ethics. I would prefer Hillary over Obama for several reasons. One, I think when push came to shove, Hillary MIGHT be more inclined to protect the US against terror than Obama would. I certainly could be wrong and hope I don't have to find out.

Debbie Hamilton
Right Truth

GrEaT sAtAn'S gIrLfRiEnD said...

"Hillary and Obama would be devastatingly tragic for our nation, especially on the foreign policy front."

The temptation to act out would be too great for illicit regimes - there would be 'tests and probes' of the new party in power that could have scary effects.

I would prefer HRC - Her caveat about retaliation 1st was sweet to hear - plus, since she doesn't seem to have a prob with late term choice - certainly she wouldn't have a prob delivering a W style wickismack to any regimes, militias that did act out or annihilating any supervillan terrorists that she could.

Treaties, trade or the UN - not so sure of her...