The Shrill, Unhinged Strains Of Hillary Clinton

Yesterday, Hugh Hewitt played the following sound bite from Senator Hillary Clinton. This came from a campaign rally for Sherrod Brown, who is challenging Mike DeWine for his seat in the Senate. Now, we all know this woman can be incredibly shrill. For those that don't remember this is a woman who shrieked at the top of her lungs that "we have a right to disagree with this administration!" back in 2004. (My ears still hurt when I think about that clip.) This one will come close to doing damage to my ears again, but it's not the tone that's key to this little rant. It's her view of facts, and I'll take them one at a time after you read what she had to say.

(And for those that don't believe this is what she said, here's the link to the MP3 of this statement, courtesy of Generalissimo Duane. 10-11shrillary.mp3)

You know, ordinarily, you'd think "Might not vote for Sherrod, might not vote for a Democrat;" Don't give up on them this year. Because I've seen, all over New York, lots of Republicans are coming to my events. And they all say the same thing:

"You know, we didn't sign up for all of this. We didn't sign up for this huge debt. We didn't sign up for a war in Iraq that has been marred by strategic blunders, and mistake after mistake. We didn't sign up for taking our eye off of bin Laden in Afghanistan, and diverting resources away from that pot. We didn't sign up for a government that couldn't rescue Americans when a hurricane struck along our Gulf Coast. We didn't sign up for these cuts in these programs that are essential to the future of America. We didn't sign up for the abuse of power and the undermining of our Constitutional democracy."

Make sure we reach out and tell people that they can sign up and vote for the next senator from the state of Ohio, Sherrod Brown!

Before I go any further, let me just encourage all you good conservatives/Republicans out there to scroll up, hit that link for Mike DeWine, and contribute time to his campaign, or money. He's going to need as much help as possible to make sure Madam Hillary's wish doesn't come true.

Now, onto her points. The Debt. While she may hype up a huge debt for America, she's wrong about it. See, she's not talking about the national debt. She's talking about the defict, which is a common tactic with the Left. They whine and moan about how we're spending, yet do nothing to rein it in. And as of 13 September, Breitbart released a story regarding the US deficit. It's going down. According to the report, it's down 14.1% already, and it's estimated to be reduced from the $314 billion right now to close to $260 billion by fiscal years' end. (The White House doesn't have that optimistic of a figure; theirs is around $295 billion by years' end.) BUT, it also means that the government is running on a surplus right now, as the Breitbart report points out. So much for her version of skyrocketing debt. And I guess she missed this report from Reuters which talks about the record-high Dow and how close it is to 12,000.

Point Two was the Iraq War, and it's "strategic blunders." I love the general terms she uses without any specifics. Which blunders would these be? No armor for the troops? Problem solved, including "up armoring" the Humvees, which was a dead talking point for the Left in 2004 when they tried to make it a campaign issue. Abu Ghraib? Isolated incident, and already handled. Upswing in violence? Not according to Generals Casey and Abizaid. They maintain that it's business as usual in Iraq, and there really isn;t as significant an uptick in the violence as the press presents. And here's a hint for Madam Hillary: It's about the war zone, stupid. Did she think we were playing patty-cake with the animals abroad? Come on, already. And let's not go into foreign affairs blunders. Her husband had his fair share,/li> of such failures. (Including that last one, just to jog her memory.)

Point Three accuses the administration of taking it's eye off of bin Laden in Afghanistan. That one leaves me scratching my head. Last time I checked, we're still in Afghanistan, and fighting Taliban and al Qaeda elements. Our current intelligence guys think that he's either in the mountains between Pakistan and Afghanistan, or he might be in the South Waziristan region of Pakistan. The recent deal struck between triabl leaders and the Pakistani government just might have given bin Laden his much-needed safe haven. And the last time I checked, bin Laden was still wanted by the US government, "dead or alive." (Personally, I'd prefer dead, and verifiable.) And I should remind readers that it's the Democrats in Congress who keep screaming at us that we need to withdraw the troops. IF they gain back power in both Houses (highly unlikely, but I love wargaming hypotheticals), then Iraq won't be the only place we end up withdrawing from. Afghanistan will be next on that list, then we can ask her who took their eyes off of whom?

Fourth Point was Hurricane Katrina. No, she didn't mention it by name, but what other hurricane hit the Gulf Coast last year. Notice that she's not willing to admit the failures of the local government--those who were in charge of the evacuation and coordination of relief efforts--when they were clearly at fault. No, she's grabbed the Left's talking point about how the relief efforts were all Bush's fault. Never mind the simple fact that he--legally--couldn't have done a thing. The state must move in first, then ask for help. They can't even ask the federal government to step in beforehand. The federal government can plan assistance, but they can't go in without the approval of the governor, and Kathleen Blanco never asked for that help. She waited and dithered until after the hurricane had hit, and then demanded to know why Bush hadn't sent in the cavalry. And did she forget about Mayor Nagin's ineffective use of the school buses. Those buses could have been used to evacuate, but then we have to go back to Governor Blanco's seeming inability to call for evacuations until it was too late. Yes, she can blame the administration, but had the president moved ahead of time, he could have been impeached for violating the Constitution when it comes to State sovereignty.

Point Five is yet another charge that lacks any specificity whatsoever. What programs have been cut? Medicare has undergone it's big government reform. Social Security is still waiting to be overhauled; a program that is long overdue in being fixed. No Child Left Behind is full funded, and has been since its implementation. Welfare spending has not decreased as much as it should as more people become employed. (I guess she forgot those low unemployment numbers--lower than that of the previous administration.) So, what frelling programs are being cut? I'd like to know. But she's being mum on the subject. Again, we're presented with generalizations, and quietly we're asked to eat it and like it. Sorry, Madam Hillary, but I can't swallow that line. Not with spending where it is. But I'd like to know when they're going to start spending the money needed to win the war, which includes better border security, and more HUMINT on the ground.

The Final Point she brings up is the abuse of power. Talk about the pot and the kettle. I guess she forgot about 19 April 1993 when the FBI and ATF laid siege to the Branch Davidian compound. Subsequent investigations showed the government couldn't prove its allegations that the Davidians started the compound fire to commit suicide. And I know she had a lot on her mind in April of 2000 (had her mind on what they were taking from the White House, I'm sure) when federal agents violated the 11th Circuit Court's order that Gonzales wasn't to be returned to Cuba, but the decision was apparently made based on public opinion polls. And if she's referring to the NSA TSP, then I question where her law degree came from. Every time the question has been asked of the federal courts, they have agreed that the president has inherent authority in the realm of intelligence gathering when it comes to national security. It's been upheld in: Butenko, US vs. US District Court, Truong, Katz, Hamdi, Buck, and United States vs. Cassius Clay. But the Democrats still won't buy it. In Sealed Case, the worst blow came from the FISA Court of Review when they not only agreed that the president had the power to utilize such far-reaching means of surveillance, but thhey also chastised the FISA Court for re-implementing guidelines that the Patriot Act specifically removed; Namely the wall between law enforcement and intelligence operations.

Hillary does her best to spin the Bush Administration, and Republicans , in general. You read all of this above, and this is the primary reason why the Democrats will keep losing if they don't change their ways and their rhetoric. America's not stupid. We're veritable nobodys at The Asylum. Amongst the smallest fish in the blogosphere. But with this sort of recollection--backed up by the facts--how can they think they'll win. They don't have enough moonbats to buy their bull.

And as a Republican, I'm offended that she hypes up the point that "so many Republicans" come to her events complaining about the leadership. Either these are some of the most uninformed members of the Republican party, or they're "quasi-GOPers;" Those who claim they are, but really aren't. I don't buy it. I don't buy the polls, and I don't buy the bull. The Democrats are folling themselves if they think this sort of rhetoric--these sorts of verbal assaults--are going to make November any better for them. They're just setting themselves up for another hard fall.

Publius II