Bill Clinton is the new morality of the Democratic Party. Such was
vouchsafed after Clinton gave a much ballyhooed speech last night at
the Democratic National Convention, asking the nation to trust him
that Barack Obama's stillborn promises for America's return to prominence will eventually come true. Of course, when one speaks of morality in this instance, it is of the same shade of gray matter to which Clint Eastwood referred when calling Joe Biden "the intellect" of the Democratic party.
The truth is, if last night and the duration of the 2012 Democratic National Convention have proved anything thus far, it is that the Democratic Party knows nothing of morals. It may know even less about how a government which punishes economic outliers and hinders upwardly mobile wage-earners (as opposed to wage-takers) has historically proven to be anathema for a productive economy. For reasons so simple you don't even need arithmetic or, dare one say, "fuzzy math."
Clinton was impeached for lying about his adulterous relationship with Monica Lewinsky back in the late 1990s (which was also apparently the "Golden Age" of the Democratic party), and yet here he is again with his characteristic smirk and televangelist's scalp, asking the American people to trust him and to trust Obama that Barack actually has their/our(?) best interests at heart. Riding the donkey's ass of Barack's sea-quelling vision encompassed most tangibly by the "achievements" of the Recovery Act, the Affordable Care Act, and the auto industry bailout, America is destined to see brighter days, Clinton promised. They are just around the corner. Really.
Forgive one for showing pause.
Back at the 2008 convention, Clinton discoursed at length about how Obama's "policies" would remedy declining incomes, poverty, inequality, and foreclosures. Seeing that these areas have gotten worse or, at best, stayed the same under Obama, Clinton changed course and attempted to rally the "folks," as Democrats and Obama especially are so wont to call the American people, by portraying Obama's dreams as the dreams of his brothers and sisters (nee father). Obama, similarly, must now tilt at a new sort of windbag after chiding Clinton for selling out Democratic principles in an orgy of what Obama called "triangulation and poll-driven politics" in the 2008 election. The truth is, empty rhetoric and poll psychology are all this man has left. It's all he had in the first place! The irony of his making like the Constitutional Law professor which he is much more suited to being than president and appealing to the nation's "founding vision" indeed rings as hollow as the Liberty Bell's crack. This nation's founding fathers were immigrant land owners and educated men who got that way not through the English government's help (remember taxation without representation?), but through their own vital spirit and ethics, competitiveness, and survival of the fittest.
While the Christian ethic of "to whom much is given, much is expected," and the Marxist, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" certainly ring as true today as ever (and not in a way that vacuously fissures the cochleas), never in the history of world government has the Robinhood ethic of stealing from the rich and giving to the poor actually worked. Creating a highly centralized government which treats its population as so many children, circumscribed not only by geotaxis, but also Obama's, will only serve to create 99% more crying dreamers who spend more time looking at YouTube videos and posting faces than they do looking for jobs. It will create an economy based on a people's subsistence on the government's teat—an executive b**ch/branch which vilifies the same oil companies which employ millions of people. It is the milk, blood oil, after all, which makes all those GM factory-assembled cars you point to as your presidency's crowning achievement actually run, Barack.
(And Atlas Shrugged...)
Much has been made of the democrats making a point to not refer to God or Jerusalem as the capital of Israel or a living fetus as anything more than a polarizing anti-reactionary tool to attain votes. But what is one really to make of Bill and Barry's butter-mouthed words? The Democrats have done a darn good job of filling the convention hall with camera-ready photo-ops of minorities, young people and women (did he say "triangulation?"), but whether they or the Republicans for that matter will do nearly as good a job running this country into 2016 (gulp) certainly suspends one disbelief.
At the conclusion of Bill Clinton's speech, he asked: "Folks, whether the American people believe what I just said or not may be the whole election. I just want you to know that I believe it. With all my heart, I believe it." It's not difficult to picture Bill's twinkling eyes and gesticulating thumb meeting index finger when he said this. What is more difficult to believe is whether Barack Obama's vision of a "middle-class sense of aspiration" will work in the face of history's dissuasion. A middle-class sense of aspiration would seem to sound to someone who works out like a spare tire right around one's midsection. To make America great again, there needs to be a great deal more bootstrap pulling and a compounding ethic that does not depend on an executive-"vision" (now four years' stale) devoid.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 6
Are you saying that the best way show how credible Clinton is as the standard bearer id go find those with similar resume of corruption. DO you believe it would be a fair demostration of the values of an organization that each and every member be tested or shold it be limited to those who are held as 'leaders'?
Do believe a teach in a classroom shold be held to a different standard than the poorest student or that a police officer should be held to a standard to the criminals in their community, or that the President of the USA should be held to the same standard of the precint delegate of their party?
I would offer that the person who is to be held as the pinnecle of an organization should exhibit the core values of that orgainzation. When they are select and lionized by the members of the organization then I believe their core values are endored by those members.
When the Democratic Party and the President select former President Clinton to make the speech and nominate President Obama they know what his values are and they endired them with their select.
Do you Beleive that the Republicans made the same selection? I have heard nothing in the speakers at the GOP that even approach Clinton's record of personal actions.
Not clear on your viewpoint, Sean. Get that you hate Clinton, get that you don't respect Obama, but suspect that you are an Ayn Rand fan? If so, you lost me right there.
Easy to criticize, but it's hard to lead where few will follow. what's your plan, if I may be so obstreperous as to inquire?
Do you know Sean on a more personal level? From what I read Sean maybe disappoint in the actions of both Clinton and Obama, but I am hard pressed to read anything in the Post that indicates a personal nature, no emotional attacks on either person.
So to say that Sean 'hates' Mr. Clinton seems at best an inapproptiate superlative that you and at worst and exaggeration that you have invoke to undermine the credibitlity of what he is saying. It suggests of a personal attack rather than a questioning or challenging of what he has said.
It would also suggest that you feel they actions of both men have been appropriate for their situations. If that is the case then you have a rather unique view, even to the point of feeling violation of the law is justifiable for certain individuals.