Conservative Bruce Bartlett offers Hillary as the conservative choice for 2008
posted at 6:37 pm on May 7, 2007 by Bryan
Right. Sorta like John Francois Kerry being the “conservative” choice for 2004, I guess.
Bartlett worked for Reagan and Bush 41 so his opinion holds far more sway than Sullivan’s, but still:
On economics, it is reasonable to assume that Mrs. Clinton’s policies would not be altogether different from Bill Clinton’s. This is not a bad thing. On trade, his record was outstanding and on the budget was far better than George W. Bush’s. While Mr. Clinton raised taxes in 1993, it should be remembered that he cut them in 1997, including a cut in the capital gains tax. On regulatory policy, Mr. Clinton was no worse than the current administration and probably better on net.
Democrats know all this, which is why our most liberal pundits, like Bob Kuttner, are attacking Mrs. Clinton for being a clone of her husband on economics and attacking her support for “Rubinomics,” named after former Treasury Secretary Bob Rubin. Its essential elements are a commitment to deficit reduction and globalization which are both anathema to the Democratic Party’s liberal base. It wants a hard-line against imports to save jobs and an expansive fiscal policy to pay for a wide range of new social programs.
At some point, politically sophisticated conservatives will have to recognize that no Republican can win in 2008 and that their only choice is to support the most conservative Democrat for the nomination. Call me crazy, but I think that person is Hillary Clinton.
It’s equally reasonable to assume that Mrs. Clinton is far more liberal than she was allowed to be during Bill Clinton’s 8 years in the White House. It’s reasonable to believe, because she has said as much, that she’ll try to nationalize health care again. It’s reasonable to believe, because she has said as much, that she’ll pull a mini-Chavez and confiscate oil profits and use them to advance her leftist agenda. Somehow none of those reasonable possibilities made it into Mr. Bartlett’s article. He thinks the GOP has already lost in 2008. That’s where many Democrats thought they were in 1992–backing a sure loser no matter who they nominated, because the political winds were against them. We all know how that turned out.
Bartlett went on the Laura Ingraham show today. It’s fair to say that Laura found Bartlett unpersuasive on all points. Click to play.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
……..(stifles)……..(snickers)……(can’t….hold…it…in….)
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHA!!!!!!!
Oh dear God thats funny
Defector01 on May 7, 2007 at 6:39 PM
I heard that this morning. It was completely nonsensical. What happened to Bruce Bartlett?
kmcguire on May 7, 2007 at 6:45 PM
Remind me again, in your system of government, who is it that proposes and passes bills?
If my memory isn’t faulty, there was a democrat congress in 1993, and a republican congress in 1997.
Ergo, by applying the simple logic that the democrats when they had a democrat president raised taxes, would it not follow that if “the Clinton” is elected president, taxes will go up?
Canadian Imperialist Running Dog on May 7, 2007 at 6:51 PM
I really want a Kucinich Candidacy. I would laugh my arse off watching the Dems run away from him and the Nut roots get upset at the abandonment.
They’d have to take away the knives at Democratic dinners for years.
William Amos on May 7, 2007 at 6:52 PM
Hillary must have paid him.
F15Mech on May 7, 2007 at 6:53 PM
Like Fred?, Shrillary has no executive experience, so all we have to go by is her adventures in socialized medicine and the White House travel office. We can expect secret deliberations on solving problems through nationalization and handing off government functions to cronies, which by her funding raising prowess we know she has plenty.
pedestrian on May 7, 2007 at 6:55 PM
Off topic:
Is anybody else getting a “popping” sound when playing this audio? Or is it just my computer?
Lovely Laura puts ‘em in their place!
kevcad on May 7, 2007 at 6:58 PM
Do you get the impression that at some point before the last election, Soros plunked down a briefcase on Bartlett’s desk, and Bartlett opened it up and found a folder full of compromising 8×11 glossies, a revolver, and a single bullet, and he looked up and said…”Wait…is there…an alternative?“
see-dubya on May 7, 2007 at 7:01 PM
Put money on a unnamed Dem vs and unnamed Rep.? Given the disgusting way the Dhimmicrats are acting in both houses of congress, the HUGE amount of legilation they’ve been able to get passed, the way they are using our men and women in the field as political tools, I’ll take $50 of that.
P. James Moriarty on May 7, 2007 at 7:03 PM
Being a centrist, even I find this laughable. I can make no better points than Bryan did considering her “conservative” tendencies. The woman hasn’t got a chance, and if he thinks he can convince conservatives to back someone with the last name of Clinton, he’s sniffing teh glue.
SouthernDem on May 7, 2007 at 7:04 PM
Tell me something… do you think that the president… any president… has a direct effect on the economy? Every time thet are either credited or blamed for the economy, it’s immediately “debunked.” In Cliton’s terms, it was around 12K. Now, it’s over 13.3K. It’s been over 12K far longer than the dimz takeover.
Mazztek on May 7, 2007 at 7:05 PM
OK, Bruce… fair-minded individuals, the IRS, and the FEC all want to know. How much did Hillary pay you for that blurb of yours?
flutejpl on May 7, 2007 at 7:06 PM
Bruce Bartlett has obviously surrendered any hope of a republican president on 08 and is attempting to find rationalizations for voting for the Devil herself. Is Bartlett French? Surrendering a battle that hasn’t even been fought yet is either a French or Democratic thing to do, maybe he is a French dummycrat in disguise. I wouldnt vote for Shillery for Dog licker…Er I mean Dog catcher…
Rock on……………..
doriangrey on May 7, 2007 at 7:07 PM
Sexist pig! Claiming she has no thoughts of her own…
Trust me, she is the LAST person I’d want to defend, but that’s just dumb.
MamaAJ on May 7, 2007 at 7:07 PM
And, yes, there was some audio popping.
Probably someone’s head exploding…
Mazztek on May 7, 2007 at 7:10 PM
After his fine work, Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy, Bartlett is really hurting his credibility.
Anyone with Billary delusions has to be kidding themselves.
After Inauguration Day, Bill will spend most of the term on the road continuing his gloryhog poke-a-hog tour- only returning to D.C. to restore his legacy when the glacier screws up.
Valiant on May 7, 2007 at 7:22 PM
The concept that a more moderate Democratic candidate is good for Republicans goes against common sense. However, it is ludicrous to argue that’s Hillary anyway.
BTW, Bartlett referred to Tradesport and a 55/45 split. That’s ***not*** a prediction of Democrats winning 55 to 45. That’s a percentage assessment of the Democrats winning. It would be expected to widen at *any* point of difference (whether or not statistically significant) in the relative percentages of Democrats v. Republicans. In other words, a 51/49 split in the vote expectation could rationally lead to a “55% chance” of Democrat victory on a predictive market.
Anil Petra on May 7, 2007 at 7:34 PM
The values on Tradesport aren’t percentages either. They are the discounted value of a possible payoff. Investments that are highly correlated with the market portfolio are worth less than investments that add diversification. Since the election of a socialist would lower the market, the rate of a return on a Democrat payout would be lower since it is in effect a form of insurance against a market dive resulting from their election. That would tend to raise the value quoted on Tradesport, so the probability of a Democrat being elected is being estimated as less than 55%.
pedestrian on May 7, 2007 at 7:50 PM
I don’t know, folks. Is Hillary a possible President? Sure. Soft centre. Reagan utilized it, Bill Clinton utilized it, and Bush (to some extent) did the same thing. Hillary will have the same group that her hubby had working to get her elected.
Do I like her? Do any conservatives? Not the point. Enough neutral observers might.
Krydor on May 7, 2007 at 7:50 PM
Even granting his (weird) premises, I’m not sure I buy Bartlett’s argument anyway. If we did somehow know a Democrat was going to win office, a priori, would it be in the best interest of conservatives that he or she be the most conservative amongst them?
I can see arguments at least as compelling Bartlets suggesting the opposite; that a victory for the most radically leftist Democrat would be preferable. If one believes that leftist policy when put into practice truly is repellent to the bulk of American voters, then the tenure of such an ideologue could serve to alienate most of the electorate, actually improving the chances for Republicans to regain control of one or both houses mid-term(as happend with Clinton), as well as increasing the likelihood that the liberal would serve a single term then fall to a strong–and likely more conservative than otherwise–reaction in favor of Republicans come the next presidential cycle (as happened with Carter).
That scenario would reflect a short-term setback for conservativism, but a long-term gain. Alternatively, Bartlett’s notion of backing the apparently most middling pragmatist in the Democrat field could result in, rather than a future reactionary turn towards the conservative, the mere propagation of yet more middling pragmatists (from both parties) come future elections. Such a move toward centrist homogeneity could actually serve to damage long-term conservative prospects.
Blacklake on May 7, 2007 at 7:52 PM
ConservativeHillary lover Bruce Bartlett offers Hillary as the conservative choice for 2008Fixed it for you Bryan
TheBigOldDog on May 7, 2007 at 8:26 PM
Being a “contrarian” in the Republican ranks has become a very well rewarded position. This fetish of self criticism is, in my opinion, what will prevent our return to being able to make any serious progress.
TBinSTL on May 7, 2007 at 9:35 PM
So what if the Republicans numbers are in the tank. What’s his point? Last time I checked, so was most of the Democrats leadership.
raz0r on May 7, 2007 at 9:58 PM
I will say this:
Hillary Clinton is the one person who has the best chance to get away with launching a few w88′s. She’s a woman so she wants to appear tough internationally. She’s a lib so she’ll get more of a pass than anybody else.
Nah, still not enough of a carrot for me to vote for her.
Metro on May 7, 2007 at 11:11 PM
Woah, you think running an Aircraft Carrier and Dulles International Airport doesn’t count as experience?!!
- The Cat
MirCat on May 7, 2007 at 11:25 PM
Bruce Bartlett is being an utter nitwit idiot. No conservative in his or her right mind would think of supporting her. I live in New York and see plenty of Hillary coverage. Hillary might say something at times that may sound moderate, and she may cast a vote that may seem moderate. But it is all a matter of political posturing; Hillary Clinton is no moderate much less conservative. Hillary Clinton is a committed left winger; she is socilaist at heart in domestic policy and an anti-military appeaser in foreign policy. We cannot afford to have another Clinton in the White Hous when radical Islam is on the rise.
Phil Byler on May 7, 2007 at 11:30 PM
This guy sounds like a pusillanimous wuss.
Hilts on May 8, 2007 at 9:38 AM
Krydor on May 7, 2007 at 7:50 PM
Krydor, don’t be fooled. Her husband was pragmatic, and shifted with every poll, including to the right. He signed welfare reform, recall.
She is an idealist socia*ist, the most dangerous kind.
Entelechy on May 8, 2007 at 1:57 PM
Clinton knew that the Republicans could overturn his veto. You’re right that he’s a chameleon, and shifts colors for political expediency. He realized that it would be dangerous to oppose the Contract with America, so instead he took credit for it all.
You’re also right in how much more dangerous Hillary is.
Freelancer on May 8, 2007 at 3:13 PM
That popping is the sound of the pilot light in Bruce’s brain trying to come on.
rightwingprof on May 8, 2007 at 5:08 PM