Tag: Hillary Clinton

Categories
ideological culture political challengers

The BWIA Taboo

Last week, a Mommy Maelstrom unleashed when Democratic strategist Hilary Rosen, interviewed as an “expert” on CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360, charged that Ann Romney, who reared five boys as a stay-​at-​home mom and continues to be the better half of presidential candidate Mitt, had “never worked a day in her life.”

Super-​swaddling mothers of all sorts were outraged. Their husbands, as I can attest, were offended as well.

Stay-​at-​home mothers work. Hard. Long hours. So, there!

After denouncing Ann Romney’s career status, Rosen added that, “She’s never really dealt with the kinds of economic issues that a majority of the women in this country are facing in terms of how do we feed our kids, how do we send them to school and, and, and how do we worry — and, why do we worry about their future.”

So perhaps Rosen wasn’t attacking Mrs. Romney’s decision to stay home and rear her kids, but, instead, Romney’s commission of a more heinous crime: BWIA (Being Wealthy in America). She should be ignored not because she’s a homemaker, but because she’s rich.

That bias against “the rich” is nearly official national policy. Though a devoted and hardworking mother, Ann Romney should be seen and not heard.

What upset Ms. Rosen was not that she might be seen and heard by us, but by her husband, if elected. You see, when we vote for a president we in effect vote for an unofficial advisor. With Bill Clinton we got Hillary; with Mitt we’d get Ann.

By Washington’s standards, Rosen’s worst transgression was to remind voters that Ann Romney exists — for as soon as Ann gets into the picture, Mitt doesn’t look so bad.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
folly ideological culture national politics & policies

Saving the World

Tonight, President Obama will address the nation — perchance to explain the parameters, if there be any, to our nation’s military intervention in Libya. Certainly, no one else in his administration has yet successfully done so, and not for lack of babbling on.

“The bottom line and the president’s view on this,” explained Deputy National Security Advisor Denis McDonough on CNN, “is it’s important to bring the country along.” (Gee, thanks.) “Obviously the president, ah, is solely, ah, has this, ah, responsibility to deploy our troops overseas.…”

“We would welcome congressional support,” offered Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on ABC’s This Week, “but I don’t think that this kind of internationally authorized intervention … is the kind of unilateral action that either I or President Obama were speaking of several years ago.”

A long, long time ago, there were no “humanitarian bombing” campaigns. Had such a cause been proposed, it would have been called war. Our president would have had to not only phone a couple congressmen to chat them up, but actually secure their votes on a declaration of war. 

As we wade into our third war in the Middle East, Defense Secretary Robert Gates says, “No, I don’t think it’s a vital interest for the United States.”

Whether you are a dove or a hawk, Republican or Democrat or sane, how is it working out for us that one man can so easily decide to embroil 300 million Americans in war? 

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
ideological culture U.S. Constitution

Potted Presence

The State of the Union Address has become political, said Justice Alito last week, so he will follow the lead of Justices Scalia and Thomas and not sit in Congress while the Commander in Chief intones his annual duty.

Last January, Alito objected to President Obama’s little stab at the Supreme Court when the prez decried the Citizens United decision. Obama said that the Court had “reversed a century of law” and would “open the floodgates of special interests … to spend without limit in our elections.” Alito mouthed the words “NOT TRUE.” 

And Alito was right. The decision certainly did not overturn a century of law. Not even a teensy bit … Well, maybe a teensy-weensy bit, if we count Progressive’s wishes to run everything by bureaucracy and “experts.” (It’s worth remembering that Progressives had a populist wing, supporting initiative and referendum a century ago.) The Citizens United case was about the unfortunately successful censorship of a movie. About a Democrat, Hillary Clinton.

So you can see why politicians — especially, these days, some Democrats — might oppose free speech around election time. The better to control the opposition.

No wonder Alito won’t “be there in January.” He doesn’t want to serve as a “potted plant.”

Congress, of course, takes occasion to seem “potted” in another sense. Amidst congressional applause and shouts, there’s scant room for reason.

Our third president, Thomas Jefferson, merely sent his report to Congress. Obama should, too — and save Alito RSVP duty.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
First Amendment rights national politics & policies

Stop Us Before We Kill Free Speech Again

The Supreme Court has yet another chance to refer to the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. And follow it.

The case before the court, Citizens United versus FEC, has to do with how federal campaign finance laws and the regulations issued by the Federal Election Commission are violating freedom of speech.

Citizens United is a conservative non-​profit organization that produced a documentary critical of Hillary Clinton during the presidential campaign last year. A D.C. court ruled that producing it with the help of corporate funding was a violation campaign finance law, specifically the McCain-​Feingold Act.

Eight former FEC commissioners have now filed an amicus brief in the case. They argue that the lower court’s decision violates the First Amendment — you know, the part about not making any law to abridge freedom of speech. One of the former commissioners, Hans von Spakovsky, explains in the Wall Street Journal that it is virtually impossible to know under the convoluted regulations exactly when one is allowed to engage in political speech and when one must shut up. Why not just let everyone exercise his First Amendment rights?

Spakovsky concludes that friends of campaign finance restrictions on speech have “lost sight of a basic truth: The answer to speech they disagree with is not to restrict that speech, but to answer it with more speech.”

That’s just — and this is — Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
general freedom too much government

Ideas Semi-​Move the World

Ideas move the world. Want a better world, spread good ideas as widely as possible.

If you can expose enough people to the right ideas, everything will work out for the best, with an ever-​wider vista of freedom and achievement as the inevitable consequence. Right?

Well … not quite. Ideas and values don’t have any kind of independent existence. Individuals must accept and apply them. Hillary Clinton once admitted to being inspired by Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand’s mammoth novel celebrating freedom and entrepreneurship and attacking socialism. Yet Hillary still ended up trying to ram socialist health care down our throats. And she ain’t done yet.

Or take Vladimir Putin, the repressive semi-​post-​Communist Russian leader whose government just invaded the former satellite country of Georgia. The autocratic Putin is no Stalin, but he’s no Jefferson either … even if he did attend a Cato seminar on the values of a free society.

It’s true! I recently stumbled across a 2004 issue of Cato Policy Report, published by the libertarian Cato Institute. Ed Crane, Cato’s president, reported that during a long meeting with Putin, Crane and others discussed the benefits of a free press and concerns that the Russian government was repressing the media. Putin seemed open to a more across-​the-​board freedom. He even said he wanted to “make Moscow the center of liberal debate in Europe.”

Really? Try a little harder, Vlad.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
free trade & free markets too much government

Bootless Economic Policy

When I was a kid, what we now call flip-​flops were called thongs. When I use the word “thong” about footwear, today, I get funny looks from the kids.

Whether it’s today’s thong, or yesteryear’s, both are skimpy. When you walk, the footwear goes “flip flop, flip flop”; what happens to the underwear, well …

Modern Democratic Party economic policy is like the underwear — it quickly creeps into uncomfortable places. Republican economic policy resembles the Democrats’, but also the footwear. Take John McCain’s economic policy: “flip flop, flip flop.”

Recently, McCain pompously took credit for “putting” and “keeping [Americans] in their homes.” Give me a break! He’s not paying the mortgage. I liked it better when, after the housing bubble began to burst, McCain said we should be wary of subsidizing bad business decisions with a massive bailout.

But not long after saying that he then specified a whole bunch of bailout measures. Flip. Hillary Clinton chortled that at last he was getting it, but he wasn’t going far enough.

His basic problem, though, goes back to his philosophy. He said that he’s “committed to using all the resources of this government and great nation to create opportunity and make sure that every deserving American has a good job and can achieve their American dream.”

Flop. To ensure his goal, he should not use all the resources of government!

Sometimes less is more. Like … sandals.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.