Tuesday, September 25, 2007

Why this blog?

I like George W. Bush. I supported the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and I supported Bush against John Kerry, but Bush’s second term has been enormously disappointing. He seems to have wandered out of his depth. He has not provided convincing leadership-- especially on human rights issues. He doesn’t even seem to have a basic grasp of why it is that people think human rights are important. It’s hard to imagine that either Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton would have failed to take decisive action after Abu Ghraib, would have let the Guantanamo Bay fiasco drag on and on as it has, or would have allowed the nation’s military to get so thoroughly bogged down in Iraq at such enormous risk and expense.

But Bush isn’t the real problem. Bush himself is relatively moderate. Unfortunately, with the exception of John McCain, those Republicans who are seeking to replace Bush are way off to his right. Abuses that have arisen because of Bush’s limited competence seem destined to be deliberately intensified and expanded if he is succeeded by another Republican. Mitt Romney’s remark that “we ought to double Guantanamo” captures perfectly the general attitude of the Republican contenders.

America can’t afford a new wave of ideologically blinkered right-wing zealots who have the mindset of being at war with the rest of the world. Hillary is the moderate alternative: intelligent, mainstream and predictable. Hillary is about as radical as a jar of peanut butter. America needs a return to the traditional American values that conservatives are so fond of -- the values enshrined in the Constitution —and Hillary is the candidate most likely to bring that about.

This blog is not intended to promote Hillary the person—I have no idea what the woman is really like—but to promote Hillary the candidate. I reserve the right to criticize her views on occasion, and even to change my mind and endorse a different candidate if changing circumstances warrant it (although I don’t think that’s likely to happen), but it’s becoming more and more obvious to me that Hillary is the only person in the field who can be trusted to restore America’s moral high ground. Look at the alternatives: do we really need the unpredictability of a loose cannon like Rudy Giuliani or Barak Obama in the Oval office? I think not.

2 comments:

Greg GVILurker said...

I appreciate your thoughtful and reasoned analysis. I haven't decided who I will support yet. You make a good case for Hillary, although I worry about a the abuses that might occur with a Demo Pres and Demo Congress. I think the abuses that occurred during 2001- 2006 were in large part due to the Repubs holding all the cards. If it looks like the Dems will hold the congress in 2008, I might vote for the Republican, especially if it is McCain. And the little I've heard from Ron Paul has been interesting.

Do you have any idea why so many "conservatives" are so vehemently negative on Hillary (or Billary as some say)? I use quotation marks because many of these people seem to be more passionately anti-Democrat or anti-Leftist than passionate proponents of conservative principles.

Thanks for your good work.

Conservatives for Clinton said...

Thanks for visiting, Greg.

I think disproportional hatred of Hillary is probably just a bad habit that goes all the way back to the Gennifer Flowers afair. People saw an intelligent and strongwilled woman standing by a philandering husband and felt that she could only be allowing herself to be put through this because there was ultimately something in it for her. They view Hillary as power crazed. But politics is the science of power, so all politicians run for power.