[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
(s)Elections See other (s)Elections Articles Title: Neocons Salivate Over Hillary Neocons Salivate Over Hillary Sunday July 29th 2007, 1:27 pm It should come as no surprise prominent neocons are gushing over Hillary Clinton, as noted by the Seattle Times. Fred Barnes of the neocon house organ, the Weekly Standard, couldn’t contain his admiration for the Bilderberger Queen. Ditto for Rich Lowry of National Review, David Brooks, and the Joseph Goebbels of the neocon movement, Charles Krauthammer. “She excels,” Lory praised. “Clinton has run a nearly flawless campaign and has done more than any other Democrat to show she’s ready to be president,” that is to say any other neocon, or neolib, not that there is a whole heck of a lot of difference, as the neocons understand. Clinton has repeatedly indicated her desire to “confront” Iran, that is to say bomb the country, or at least starve it into submission, and that naturally warms the cockles of psychopathic neocon hearts, or lack thereof. “All this from a crowd that has spent the better part of two decades demonizing Clinton and her husband, former President Clinton,” writes a clueless Matt Stearns, corporate scribe for McClatchy Newspapers. “Is the conservative chattering class just hedging its bets, wary that Clinton might win the White House and banish them all?” No, Matt. Point is, demonstrated well enough here, there is little difference between mainstream Democrats and neocon “conservatives,” who take their pedigree from Trotskyites and Jabotinskyite, Arab-killing terrorists. Some of them are fond of Carl Schmitt, the Nazi jurist, who wrote about dictatorship and the “death machine” of the state, while others admire Niccolò Machiavelli and the idea of principe nuovo, a pragmatic and ruthless dictator. A few of them gathered at the foot of Leo Strauss, who advocated the concept of Plato’s “noble lie,” that is to say brazen deception, a common enough practice in government these days. Paul Wolfowitz and Abram Shulsky were students of Strauss, while Andrew Sullivan, Elliott Abrams, Alan Keyes, Richard Perle, Bill Kristol, and Irving Kristol studied under the Straussian Harvey C. Mansfield, who advocates a “strong executive,” that is to say the sort of decidership Schmitt wrote about. Democrats, while not explicit Straussians or stark raving fascists along the lines sketched out by Carl Schmitt, are indeed authoritarians, more socialist in a classical sense but despots nonetheless. Hillary Clinton was selected by the ruling elite to be the next president, so it makes sense the neocons, who have made a career out of attacking and slandering Democrats, as part of the false left-right political paradigm, are enthusiastically onboard, praising the Bilderberger selectee Clinton now, same as the old communist politburo praised without hesitation the leader appointed by the Central Committee. If serious neocons understand anything it is that power from on-high must be respected and obeyed, lest they are led to the political wilderness, a dreaded prospect worse than death for most of the neocon megalomaniacs. “Hillary Clinton is our best shot to win the White House. That’s pretty much consensus by Republican insiders,” the Seattle Times reports “a Republican strategist with a top-tier GOP candidate” as admitting. In other words, none of the Republicans currently strutting, preening, and bloviating have a chance, as the elite want a Democrat this time around, not that there is a lick of difference between Democrats and Republicans. It is interesting this admission comes from a “strategist” for a “top-tier GOP candidate.” But then not so interesting or surprising, as little of substance will change under Queen Hillary. Of course, the masses will be fooled again, as usual, and that’s why the corporate media is now trotting out letters Hillary Rodham wrote to high school friend John Peavoy while attending Wellesley College back in the day. “The letters were written during a period when the future Mrs. Clinton was undergoing a period of profound political transformation, from the ‘Goldwater girl’ who shared her father’s conservative outlook to a liberal antiwar activist,” reports the Boston Globe. In other words, lib Dems need not be concerned, as deep down inside Hillary remains “a liberal antiwar activist.” Meanwhile, Republicans may rest easy knowing Hillary got her start supporting Goldwater, not that the neocon Republicans of today follow the principles of Barry Goldwater, indeed a real conservative.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 2.
#1. To: Kamala, palo verde, Cynicom, Esso (#0)
(Edited)
This makes it clear that Hillary's the SELECTION and acutely obvious that there is no difference between republicans and democrats. Wonder how the freeptards, bots, and Limbaugh are spinning this one?
Heck, they're probably loving it. Four to eight more years of material for Limbaugh, who originally gained stardom by "bashing" the Clintons. Free Republic was basically started for the same reason. I bet both Rush and RimJob can see the dollar signs already. Cha-ching!
There are no replies to Comment # 2. End Trace Mode for Comment # 2.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||