Tag Archives: Republicans

It’s Time For The Other 13 Candidates To Drop Out, by Ann Coulter

From Ann Coulter at anncoulter.com:

At what point in Donald Trump’s inaugural address do you figure the GOP establishment will finally grasp what’s been happening?

The establishment — not “elites,” because they’re mostly bland functionaries who went to third-rate schools — have thrown absolutely everything they have at Trump. I’ve never seen so many Republicans featured on MSNBC.

At least no one will be able to say the Republican National Committee didn’t give it the old college try (and, again, that would be third-rate colleges).

Trump is a runaway hit with Americans for the simple reason that he’s the only candidate saying anything Americans care about.

After the San Bernardino terrorist attack, committed by Muslim immigrants — which followed the 1993 World Trade Center terrorist attack committed by Muslim immigrants; the 9/11 terrorist attacks committed by Muslim immigrants; the Fort Hood terrorist attack committed by a Muslim immigrant; the Boston Marathon terrorist attack committed by Muslim immigrants, and on and on — Trump suggested a temporary pause on Muslim immigration.

The other candidates responded by attacking him viciously. Now, the eunuchs are duking it out over who has the most aggressive approach to … fighting ISIS!

Asked why he called Trump’s proposal “unhinged,” Jeb! explained: “Well, first of all, we need to destroy ISIS in the caliphate.”

Marco Rubio said: “The problem is we had an attack in San Bernardino,” adding that “what’s important to do is we must deal frontally with this threat of radical Islamists, especially from ISIS.”

Ted Cruz said: “We need a president who understands the first obligation of the commander in chief is to keep America safe. If I am elected president … we will utterly destroy ISIS.”

Why are Republicans talking about starting a war in Syria to stop Muslim immigrants from killing Americans in America? Is it our job to straighten out Syria? Can’t our government just stop bringing the terrorists here? If Rubio thinks he knows how to govern Syria, he’s free to run for president there. (Except he’d have to stop talking about his dad the bartender because Muslims don’t drink.)

Republicans love pointing out that all the gun restrictions proposed by Democrats after every mass shooting would have done absolutely nothing to stop that particular mass shooting.

But the GOP’s demand that we take out ISIS would also have done nothing to prevent the San Bernardino attack. As we know from Jim Comey, the director of the FBI: Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik were planning a terrorist attack against Americans before ISIS existed.

To continue reading: It’s Time For The Other 13 Candidates To Drop Out

The Republican War — Over War Policy, by Patrick Buchanan

From Patrick Buchanan at buchanan.org:

Rand Paul had his best debate moment Tuesday when he challenged Marco Rubio on his plans to increase defense spending by $1 trillion.

“You cannot be a conservative if you’re going to keep promoting new programs you’re not going to pay for,” said Paul.

Marco’s retort triggered the loudest cheers of the night:

“There are radical jihadists in the Middle East beheading people and crucifying Christians. The Chinese are taking over the South China Sea. … the world is a safer and better place when America is the strongest military power in the world.”

Having called for the U.S. Navy to confront Beijing in the South China Sea, and for establishing a no-fly zone over Syria that Russian pilots would enter at their peril, Rubio seems prepared for a confrontation with either or both of our great rival nuclear powers.

Dismissing Vladimir Putin as a “gangster,” Marco emerged as the toast of the neocons. Yet the leading GOP candidate seems closer to Rand.

Donald Trump would talk to Putin, welcomes Russian planes bombing ISIS in Syria, thinks our European allies should lead on Ukraine, and wants South Korea to do more to defend itself.

Uber-hawk Lindsey Graham did not even make the undercard debate. And though he and John McCain are the most bellicose voices in the party, they appear to be chiefs with no Indians.

Still, it is well that Republicans air their disagreements. For war and peace are what the presidency is about.

Historically, Republican presidents appear to line up on the side of Rand and Trump.

To continue reading: The Republican War—Over War Policy

Former Congressman: I’m Quitting GOP, by Tom Tancredo

A former congressman realizes he’s part of the government uniparty and quits the Republican branch. From Tom Tancredo at breitbart.com:

In a panel discussion at the University of Colorado after the recent Republican debate, I was asked by a student why she should be a Republican. The question forced me to ask myself the same thing.

I gave the young woman the standard talking points–that Republicans believe in smaller government, individual rights, fiscal responsibility, and free enterprise. But as I drove home, her question–and my inability to respond with any level of real conviction–got me thinking: Does the Republican Party leadership fight for these values and principles today?

After much thought, I reluctantly concluded that the answer is “no.” The proudly socialist Democrats are full of passionate intensity, while the Republican leadership is full of pathetic excuses. After this week’s House GOP “budget deal,” which betrays nearly every promise made to grassroots conservatives since 2010, I have decided it is time to end my affiliation with the Republican Party.

This decision has been incubating over the past 17 years, years of watching the downward spiral of the Party of Lincoln and Reagan into the Party of Democrat Lite.

• As a Member of Congress for ten years (1998-2008), I was subjected to threats and pressures from the Congressional Leadership and President George W. Bush to support the creation of an expensive Medicare prescription drug program–even though creating a new government spending program financed by massive debt flies in the face of the Republican Party’s core principles.

• Our most powerful and influential “leaders” were shoving this down our throats in a crass political effort to use taxpayer money to buy the votes of senior citizens–particularly in the state of Florida in the next presidential election.

• I was incredulous about the fact that the most intense lobbying I had ever seen undertaken by our “leadership” was not an effort to limit government or the dollars it spends; it was to do just the opposite.

• That incident came just months after I was told by President Bush’s top political operative, Karl Rove, “never to darken the door of the White House again” because of my criticism of the administration’s dangerously lax immigration policies in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks.

When I first arrived in the U.S. House of Representatives, I naively believed that it was primarily the Democrats who were committed to open borders. But I quickly learned the entire Republican establishment also supported a policy of immigration non-enforcement.

I was repeatedly pulled into the office of the then-Majority Leader, Tom DeLay, and threatened with dire consequences if I continued to speak out publicly for common-sense immigration policies and true border security – particularly if I was doing so in the districts of other Republican Members of Congress.

For most of those years after 2000, we had a Republican President and a Republican-controlled Congress, but the conservative agenda was largely ridiculed and abandoned.

To continue reading: Former Congressman: I’m Quitting GOP

The Little Dutch Boy, from The Burning Platform

See also “They Said That? 10/28/15,” SLL.

A Lesson From Scott Walker’s Political Collapse: Playing Neocon Warrior Is No Path To Presidency, by Doug Bandow

And then there were 15 (“Snow Black and the 17 Dwarfs,” SLL, 8/05/15). It’s hard to distinguish yourself from the pack when you and the pack are mouthing the neocon mantra. From Doug Bandow at forbes.com, critiquing both Scott Walker and neoconservative folly:

There may be no sadder political spectacle than a Republican governor running for president. He knows nothing about foreign policy. But he recognizes that Neocons dominate the GOP and expect the nominee to advocate perpetual war. So he plays faux warrior, insisting that he is more likely than his competitors to wreak death and destruction around the globe. Then his presidential campaign collapses.

So it was with Rick Perry. Now it is with Scott Walker, who yesterday abandoned his presidential bid.

The Wisconsin governor won some significant domestic political victories. In contrast, his foreign policy credentials were nonexistent. He tried to compensate by claiming to be tougher and meaner than any other Republican presidential candidate. That meant threatening to sacrifice the lives of folks who wear the uniform he never donned.

It obviously didn’t win him many votes. In the last poll he rated only an asterisk.

Walker spoke often on international issues, even delivering a formal address at the Citadel. He assumed that to prosper “we need a safe and stable world.” Which is simple nonsense. When has the earth been “safe and stable”? During the many European wars of the 18th century? The Napoleonic wars? The multiple conflicts during the rise of Germany? The Balkan wars and decline of the Ottoman Empire? World War I? The rise of the Bolsheviks? The Great Depression and triumph of fascism? World War II? The creation of the People’s Republic of China? Multiple conflicts during the Cold War? The messy break-up of the Soviet Union?

Naturally, Walker lauded Ronald Reagan, who governed when the world was neither safe nor stable but during which America prospered. Today Walker and other hawks take Reagan as their patron saint, yet Neocons denounced President Reagan as an appeaser for dealing with the Soviet Union’s Mikhail Gorbachev and withdrawing from Lebanon’s civil war. Reagan deployed the military in only three limited actions, and never to engage in social engineering. Reagan was appalled by the possibility of war, which impelled him to advocate missile defense and negotiate with Moscow.

Walker contended that “America is not safer” than seven years ago. True, but mainly because of the dangerous military interventions he and other Republican candidates reflexively supported. Iraq remains the gift that keeps on giving. Only because of George W. Bush’s foolish invasion did the Islamic State develop, arising in opposition to the U.S. occupation and sectarian, Shia-dominated regime in Baghdad. The Bush administration failed to press reconciliation in Iraq and negotiate a status of forces agreement for a permanent U.S. garrison, for which GOP candidates perversely blame President Obama. Yet a continuing occupation would only have turned U.S. forces into targets of extremists on all sides.

To continue reading: A Lesson From Scott Walker’s Political Collapse

100% risk of a 50% stock crash, by Paul B. Farrell

From Paul B. Farrell, on a guest post at theburningplatform.com:

“Who will get the Dreary Recovery Going?” taunts Mort Zuckerman in a Wall Street Journal op-ed. The head of U.S. News & World Report warns America that a recession is coming: “They occur about every eight years and America is ill-prepared to weather the one on the horizon.” Ill-equipped.

Yes, the clock is ticking, every 8 years. 2000. 2008. Next 2016, even with a President Trump.

Another great newsman, Bill O’Neill, publisher of Investors Business Daily, author of perennial best-seller “How To Make Money in Stocks,” agrees: Markets have peaked and crashed roughly every four years for the last century, with bigger crashes, long recessions, every eight years. And still most investors will be ill-prepared.

Sounds like a double-teamed confirmation of Jeremy Grantham’s famous BusinessInsider prediction for 2016: “Around the presidential election or soon after, the market bubble will burst, as bubbles always do, and will revert to its trend value, around half of its peak or worse.”

Get it? A mega crash is coming, dropping half off its peak, down below Dow 5,000. Not just another 1,000-point correction like last month. But a heart-stopping collapse coinciding with the 2016 elections … then a long systemic recession … probably lasting till the 2020 presidential election, maybe longer … no matter who’s in the White House, Doanld Trump, Jeb Bush or Hillary Clinton.

Yes, recessions hit every eight years. The last was just about 8 years ago, warned Zuckerman with these facts: “The period since the Great Recession ended in 2009 has seen the weakest U.S. recovery since World War II,” Our aging bull is actually warning us … recession dead ahead.

Why no “urgency from the White House,” no push to strengthen the U.S economy, avoid the coming recession? asks Zuckerman. Why? GOP candidates are worse, immature teenagers offering a “handful of Band-Aids.” Any leaders? Trump the egomaniac? God help us.

Next another disturbing Journal op-ed gets tossed into the mix: Dick Cheney is on the attack, sounding like fellow Republican Trump’s motto, “Make America Great Again.” Build a bigger Pentagon war machine, says the architect of the $5 trillion Iraq War fiasco. His latest rally cry: “Restoring American Exceptionalism.” Sorry folks, but the GOP’s relentless efforts to sabotage the White House the last six years (like 50 repetitive and futile House votes to repeal Obamacare) was the exact opposite, an “exceptional” failure of leadership.

The former vice president also quoted conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer: We’re at a “hinge point in history.” And former New York Times war correspondent Chris Hedges one-upped Cheney in Salon.com: The “world is at a crisis point the likes of which we’ve never really seen.” Like the 1848 European revolutions. Hedges even warns liberals, “climate change is the least” of the world’s problems, don’t even think that “voting for Hillary will make any difference.”

Tell Trump the ISIS War will increase taxes, add trillions of new debt

Yes, folks, the GOP neo-con hawks are back at it again, want new wars … liken Obama to Hitler … fueling Cheney’s latest bout of extreme hubris … arming another Bush effort to take over America a third time … Cheney claims America is weaker today than at the start of his costly ill-fated Iraq War. He should endorse Trump, they both want a new superpower military ready to start new wars, fight revolutionaries, add big debt, run up casualties.

To continue reading: 100% risk of a 50% stock crash

The Foreign Policy of the GOP, by Justin Raimondo

From Justin Raimondo at antiwar.org:

They’ve learned nothing because they remember nothing

If the “first tier” Republican presidential debate revealed anything, it is the huge empty space that is at the heart of the conservative mind, circa 2015. No wonder a vacuous nonentity like Donald Trump is leading in all the polls: his gargantuan ego has invaded that vast emptiness and expanded like a giant hot air balloon. As to how soon that gaseous zeppelin will pop – well, it’s anybody’s guess. All we know is that if and when it does another big nothing will take its place.

Speaking of a big nothing, the performance of Sen. Rand Paul, once the great hope of anti-interventionists and libertarians, was even worse than this writer expected. The first mention of foreign policy was the following question posed by Fox News anchor Brett Baier to the junior Senator from Kentucky:

“BAIER: Senator Paul, you recently blamed the rise of ISIS on Republican hawks. You later said that that statement, you could have said it better. But, the statement went on, and you said, quote, ‘Everything they’ve talked about in foreign policy, they’ve been wrong for the last 20 years.’

“Why are you so quick to blame your own party?

“PAUL: First of all, only ISIS is responsible for the terrorism. Only ISIS is responsible for the depravity. But, we do have to examine, how are we going to defeat ISIS?

“I’ve got a proposal. I’m the leading voice in America for not arming the allies of ISIS. I’ve been fighting amidst a lot of opposition from both Hillary Clinton, as well as some Republicans who wanted to send arms to the allies of ISIS. ISIS rides around in a billion dollars worth of U.S. Humvees. It’s a disgrace. We’ve got to stop – we shouldn’t fund our enemies, for goodness sakes. So, we didn’t create ISIS – ISIS created themselves, but we will stop them, and one of the ways we stop them is by not funding them, and not arming them.”

Pauls’s answer was not merely inadequate, and shot through with an undertone of abject cowardice – it was confusing as well. To begin with, as Baier phrased his question, Paul’s original critique was directed at “Republican hawks,” i.e. the neoconservatives, a group of Republican ideologues the Senator used to criticize quite freely and regularly. Yet Paul let Baier get away with equating this group with every single Republican on earth: instead of challenging the premise of the question, Paul did what he’s been doing for months now, at great cost to his campaign – he backtracked.

Missing a great opportunity to point out that the neocons – his enemies – have indeed been spectacularly wrong about everything for the last 20 years, Paul instead went into a vague peroration about how we’re supposedly sending arms to allies of ISIS without specifying who those allies are. Are they the Turks? The Saudis? The Qataris? All three of these countries have been implicated in funding or otherwise assisting Syria’s jihadis, including ISIS. What I presume Paul meant is that the United States has been funding the Syrian rebels, who have gone over to ISIS and Al Qaeda in large numbers. Yet he didn’t deign to say that – which left millions of television viewers scratching their heads in puzzlement.

To continue reading: The Foreign Policy of the GOP

Are key Republican leaders in D.C. being blackmailed? by Wayne Allyn Root

SLL thinks the things that happen in Washington out in the open are organized crime. Who knows what happens sub rosa? Wayne Allyn Root at personalliberty.com raises an interesting possibility, one that has probably crossed the minds of many readers and should not be dismissed:

Hi. I’m Wayne Allyn Root for Personal Liberty. I have the most important question of a lifetime for all of you. Are key Republican leaders in D.C. from the Senate, House and Supreme Court being blackmailed?

Tell me you haven’t thought the exact same thing. Something is very wrong. Something smells rotten in D.C. — rotten like a dead fish left at the front door of a congressman’s office by the Obama crime family, rotten like a photo of a Supreme Court justice with his robe down at his ankles.

Because what’s happening just isn’t normal. Please tell me how it’s possible that President Obama and his socialist cabal suffered the most massive and historic defeat in modern political history only nine months ago and, since then, they’ve gotten everything they’ve ever wanted handed to them on a silver platter. Does that make sense to you?

How’s it possible that the GOP — the party that won in a massive, historic landslide — gained nothing and won nothing? Not one victory. Zero. Zilch. Or in a language Democrats understand, “Nada.”

Not only did Obama’s party lose badly, it lost everywhere from top to bottom. Senate, House, state legislatures, mayors, governors — you name it. They lost the governorships of deep-blue Maryland and Massachusetts. They were destroyed.

And it was all about Obama. He wasn’t defeated; he was repudiated. Democratic Senate candidates refused his help. Democrats would not stand next to him on the same stage. Democrats treated Obama like a New Jersey toxic-waste dump. Democrats treated Obama like a rotten fish.

Since then, conservatives have lost everything. Name something we won or achieved after that smashing victory? Name one thing. Name anything. I dare you. I double dare you.

And you don’t think someone has photos of GOP leaders in bed with little boys?

Far-fetched? Really? Think two words: Dennis Hastert.

Somehow, the government knew he was taking his own money out of his own bank account. I didn’t even know that was a crime warranting an interview by the FBI. But this government knew. That’s because they know everything.

To continue reading: Are key Republican leaders being blackmailed?

Getting High On Their Own Supply, by Robert Gore

The Wall Street Journal recently had an editorial on Mike Huckabee’s presidential aspirations, “Huckabee’s Revival Campaign,” 5/6/15. It noted that evangelicals support Huckabee, but as governor of Arkansas, he was a taxer and spender. The editorial was pedestrian, but the concluding sentence revealed why this august newspaper’s editorial page is fast becoming go to humor for anyone with a fealty to facts and a disdain for political parties and the powers that be: “It’s hard to see the logic of a Huckabee candidacy in this era of conservative reform, but if anyone can sell bigger government to Republicans, it’s probably him.”

About that “era of conservative reform,” when did it begin? It must have been when Republican majorities in both houses were sworn in last January, but less than four months hardly seems to qualify as an era, and what “reform” can Republicans lay claim to in that short span? Their brain trust has proposed a long term budget that will, like most such plans, increase spending now but supposedly cut it in the future. Like most such plans, it will soon gather dust in some Congressional archive. Republican partisans will argue given opposition from President Obama, implementation is not what’s important, but rather to illustrate the difference between their party and those fiscally irresponsible Democrats in 2016.

No doubt those Democrats are fiscally irresponsible, but swallowing small government Republican mythology requires complete ignorance of: history for the last six decades; the party’s electoral base, and its foreign and military policies. The last fiscally responsible Republican president was Eisenhower; Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush, and Bush all left the national debt, and the government, larger than when they took office. All five talked good games, but you can count on one hand the number of programs they eliminated, and if those are netted out against the programs they started, you will need negative fingers.

Republican apologists blame Democratic-majority Congresses, but the second Bush had Republican Congressional majorities from 2001 to 2007 (from 2001 to 2003, the Senate was split 50-50, however there was a Republican vice-president to break ties) and the debt went from $5.769 trillion to $8.951 trillion, a 55 percent increase (Wikipedia, “History of the United States public debt”). For complete chapter and verse on Republican fiscal irresponsibility, see David Stockman’s excellent The Great Deformation (see “Entomology 101, A Review of David Stockman’s The Great Deformation,” SLL, 10/9/14). He was Reagan’s Budget Director, and he does not flinch recounting the Gipper’s spending and debt bacchanalia.

It will be smaller, not bigger government, that Republicans will have to “sell” to their own base. In 2013, the latest year for which figures are available, 23 percent of the budget went to Medicare, Medicaid, and other health care entitlements, and 22 percent went to Social Securities. Much of that spending goes to older people, the heavy-turnout group that tends to vote Republican. The demographics and economics are clear: these entitlements will, left unchecked, swallow an increasing share of the budget and drive taxes and the government’s debt to levels the economy cannot sustain.

Only a brave, or foolhardy, Republican would even bring up the subject, much less propose effective reform and have the tenacity to fight for it. The best chance the Republicans had was during the Bush presidency when they were in the majority in both houses of Congress, but pusillanimity was the order of the day. Now, the baby boom generation’s retirement is no longer on the horizon, but an ongoing fact, as the ranks of the eligible-for-benefits elderly swell. Any cuts in those benefits, increases in the age of eligibility, or taxing more affluent seniors will require an improbable and Herculean sales job. If getting their checks means that the government must continue to grow, then most recipients will swallow whatever qualms they might have about bigger government.

Here are facts of which many Republicans seem unaware. The military and intelligence agencies are part of the government. Global intervention is a “big government” program. Surveillance is a “big government” program. There is just as much waste in military and intelligence programs as there is in welfare and government medical programs (see “How to Build a $400 Billion F-35 That Doesn’t Fly,” SLL, 3/17/15 and “American F-35 vs Russia SU-30. Who wins?” SLL, 3/26/15). Finally, dollars spent on military and intelligence come from somewhere—either taxes or from borrowing that adds to annual deficits and the national debt (the military accounts for 19 percent of outlays before veterans’ benefits). Nobody has to “sell bigger government” to Republicans when it comes to defense and intelligence budgets and fighting wars all over the world; increasing the former and more of the latter will be planks in the party platform.

The Wall Street Journal’s concluding sentence is advertising copy, like “Miracle Eat All You Want Diet,” or “Natural Extract Cream Eliminates Wrinkles.” There is a saying in the advertising industry: “Don’t believe your own bullshit,” and a similar one in the illegal drug industry: “Don’t get high on your own supply.” We are not in an “era of conservative reform,” and Republicans don’t need to be sold on “big government.” The Journal and Fox News (both owned by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp.) have come to believe their own tirelessly recirculated Republican bullshit. High on their own supply, they were genuinely surprised that Barack Obama’s base stuck with him in 2012 and that many libertarian-leaning voters, those who actually want reform and smaller government, sat on their hands for big government Mitt Romney. For 2016, they either have their fingers crossed or are unaware that a two-minute Google search—“Historical federal budget”—is sufficient to dash their mythology. Either way, it won’t stop them from riding that mythology hard, or from being any less clueless if Hillary Clinton wins.

A GREAT NOVEL FOR PREPPER STOWBAGS!

TGP_photo 2 FB

AMAZON

KINDLE

NOOK

One of These Is Just Like the Other, by Robert Gore

Kudos to Hillary Clinton; her email kerfuffle illustrates perfectly the contemptible state of American politics, governance, and the electorate. Start with Hillary herself: a woman of scant accomplishment who owes every position she has obtained to her husband’s influence and political skills. Search the record of her public utterances and writings, an exercise only a committed masochist could endure, and you won’t find a hint of originality or imagination. She craves control for control’s sakes, driven not by any vision, but rather by whatever meager and pathetic satisfactions can be extracted from the obsequience and adoration of fawning masses, media hacks, and bureaucrats, most of whom she despises.

None of this matters one whit to her supporters, who are glad she kept her emails safe from prying eyes. The Democratic party has become the answers to two questions: What’s the payoff? and: Will the government get more? People vote their meal ticket, and Mitt Romney’s 47 percent is now 49 or 50 percent who are beholden to the government. Hillary will keep the payola coming until the economy collapses, debt markets blanche, or producers go on strike. Consequences are those things that nobody thinks about because they’re never going to happen…until they happen.

Will the government get more? Hillary is a government lover’s dream. She’ll expand existing welfare state programs, and she’ll undoubtedly find some heretofore “neglected” American group that “needs” government assistance and can be brought into the fold of reliable Democratic voters. Someone in her retinue, suffering from delusions of cleverness, will label it “The Great New Society,” or the “The New Covenant Deal,” or the “New New Greatness,” or something similarly catchy, and Hillary will assume her place in the pantheon of Democrat greats devoted to what they call “redistributive justice,” and those who pay for it call “something for nothing.” Redistributive justice does indeed have to be paid for, so taxes will go up. And Hillary will place the firm and all-knowing hand of government on any remaining dark, unregulated corners of American life.

There is simply no way that someone of her gifts can or should be confined to the comparatively small stage of the United States of America. Following a long bipartisan tradition, she can be excepted to send US military and intelligence might anyplace she deems in need of our enlightened intervention. She has repeatedly endorsed such intervention, since her husband bombed Bosnia, Yugoslavia, and a Sudanese aspirin factory when he was Bombardier in Chief. She’ll be the Dronemeister in Chief, but don’t think she’ll limit herself to remote warfare. A “muscular” foreign policy is one in which the boots of muscular but hoodwinked young men and women are placed on the ground in faraway places to protect whatever the leaders consider US interests, while they stay back in Washington and make speeches praising duty, sacrifice, heroism, Clint Eastwood movies, and the NSA. Hillary will have no problem feeding American youth into bloody maws around the globe. Being female, it will be entirely appropriate if she lets dribble a tear or two at one of those Memorial Day or Veterans’ Day addresses from Arlington Cemetery.

After six years of tagging President Obama as a sissy, Hillary’s muscular foreign policy presents a problem for the Republicans. They march in lockstep—even Rand Paul has fallen into formation—to the drumbeat of foreign intervention. Itching for a war somewhere, anywhere, they have given Benjamin Netanyahu standing ovations, sent a letter to Iran, pressed for a convoluted plan to take out Isis and then Assad (see “They Said That? 3/12/15,” SLL, 3/12/15), and are looking for Vladimir Putin’s scalp. Regime change everywhere! Nothing gets the testosterone going quite like wartime propaganda, remote control drones, espionage, fast planes dropping big bombs, collateral damage, domestic surveillance, and sending someone else’s kids off to die. The problem: Hillary’s got just as big as testicles as the Republicans—just as much testosterone courses through her veins. She’ll call their chicken hawk bets and might even raise them an intervention or two.

That leaves the Republicans few fallbacks to attack her. They will promise lower taxes, less regulation, and less spending, their usual chestnuts. Unfortunately, the last Republican president blew their cover. While Obama ranks as the all time spendthrift and borrower, “W” is in second place. His predecessor, Hillary’s husband, had a much slower rate of discretionary spending growth and actually managed to run surpluses for four years. The government is $18 trillion in the hole and has over $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities, and the baby boomers are drawing on old age entitlements. Even with a Laffer curve-based advertising campaign, it’s hard to imagine tax cuts getting much traction. Keep in mind, too, that since tax-cutter W’s day, the tax-paying class has shrunk and the tax-receiving class has expanded.

Republicans will rail about Obamacare, but they always rail about Democratic programs…and then accept them. Both parties are batting 1000 when it comes to not eliminating programs. The same can be said for not eliminating regulations and for not opposing crony-capitalistic bailouts during the last financial crisis. How about less spending? The three biggest items in the federal budget are Social Security, Medicare, and military and defense. Old people are a Republican electoral redoubt, so absent a financial crisis forget Social Security or Medicare reform, and how are we going to have a “muscular” foreign policy if we cut defense?

Which gets us back to Hillary’s scandals. Both parties want the same things: your money, your freedom, and your life. The only difference, a purely cosmetic one (as the coming election will make abundantly clear), is rhetorical. So Republicans, having no issues to plausibly differentiate themselves, will be left with Hillary and her husband’s scandals. She will be left trying to dispel widespread doubts that she’s actually a human being, not a automaton control-bot programmed by a team of demented geniuses in a New World Order laboratory somewhere.

REMEMBER FREEDOM?

TGP_photo 2 FB

AMAZON

KINDLE

NOOK