Okay, “like” may be too strong a word, but in the hollow socialist panderfest that is the Democrat primary, I can’t help but pull for Hillary. Not that I would ever vote for either of them, that would be like chosing between the pit and the pendulum, but its all a bit like Stalingrad…you absolutley hated them both, but you still routed for the Russians.  It’s easy to pull for her really, she’s behind in the polls (perhaps insurmountably), she’s been given a raw deal by her former allies in the Trotskyite press, and of course there’s all those schadenfreudistic impulses like watching Bill Clinton systematically dismember the last vestiges of his political legacy, watching the bloodbath caused by the autocannibalistic Hydra that is the intra-party interest group battle, or watching the Democrats throwing away boatloads of valuable campaign cash on their ludicrous and comically protracted proportional representation primary.

But on the other hand, despite her crocodile tears and her increasingly frayed appearance, Hillary Clinton has managed to hang in there tenaciously, and relatively speaking, seems to be the one imbued with a modicum of gravitas, geostrategic realism, and policy sense. Which isn’t to say that she isn’t an endlessly calculating leftist panderer, she is, but next to Obama she seems like the stronger option, and each day when I turn on my TV and see him fixing to play paddy-cake with Ahmadinejad while she’s shouting “this may go into overtime” from atop a stack of Maker’s Mark barrels, my gut says she’d be a better commander-in-chief. Point is, I find myself in Hillary’s corner, and I hate it here.

It’s not as though I needed any help disliking Obama, he’s like a Frankenstein of all the lefties I can’t stand, I mean he’s Barbara Boxer on domestic issues and Jimmy Carter on foreign affairs for crying out loud. To make matters worse he’s nearly as smooth as Bill Clinton, and he’s got JFK’s fawning, supine fan-base to boot. He’s the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate, has a preacher stricken with ecclesiastical Tourettes, a political steering committee headed by tie-dyed terrorists, a prospective first lady that’s the political equivalent to Nurse Ratched, and a tax policy invented by Robin Hood…oh, and he’s endorsed by Hamas too.  Now that the iron man primary is nearly over and the politburo is ready to put the stamp on Obama, the real circus begins. Forget about all that stuff he said about America, guns, God, fear, bitterness, etc., it’s time for the general election…so slap on the flag pin, print up the faith-based bifolds, and roll out mom and the kids. Let me know when we actually see him eating apple pie.

No thanks. At least I know Hillary Clinton, indeed I’ve always enjoyed disliking her, and when compared to the nouveau-internationalistic-egalitarian-trans-utopian-social-metamorphistic-whatever-you-call-it drivel that drives Obama’s latte-drinking drones crazy, I’ll take good old Mrs.Clinton’s Machiavellian scheming any day, and chalk it up to one more reason I dislike Barack Obama.

Recently John McCain proposed a Federal “tax holiday” on all gasoline from Memorial day to labor day. Hillary Clinton similarly supports the idea. The “Obamamaniacs” however, strongly oppose this idea.

Opponents of the tax holiday are as correct that it will not do much to ease the price at the pump as the proponents of the idea, who claim that it will ease the price – there are too many variables to be certain. Unfortunately, the Obamanics, in an effort to distinguish their god from Hillary and McCain have taken a very one-dimensional view of this solution. Regardless, there are some serious considerations we should make regarding taxes on vehicle fuel.

The very purpose of the tax holiday was not to directly turn thousands of dollars back to taxpayers, but to affect the entire consumer market – namely by minimizing the decrease in summer travel. Summer travel is peak business time for many small businesses across the country. If the American consumer fails to travel during the summer because of high fuel costs, it negatively affects the small business owners, who form the backbone of the U.S. economy.

Obamamaniacs, however, would have you believe that this tax holiday was bred out of stupidity and politics (are the two ever separate?) and that the real effect would be to line the pockets of big oil with more revenue, having little impact on the price we pay at the pump. The Obamamanics may be right, but that does not mean the tax holiday should not be enacted. A greater evil would befall the small business owners who rely on summer travel if travelers curtail their auto use in 2008.

Of course on one level it is hard to see how repealing any tax is a bad thing, let alone one that so negatively impacts the market. Taxes are bad, and federal use taxes, whose revenues are spread out over all 50 states, are bad for the consumer. Ultimately, what needs to happen is a total revamping of the Federal gas tax idea.

Presently gas tax is a combination for Federal, State and other local taxes, adding a not-so-insignificant amount to the price of a gallon. The trouble is that most of these taxes are arbitrary and imposed simply as a method to generate revenue. Any gas tax should be a use tax so that the revenue is provided directly to the streets, roads and highway funds the person buying the gas actually drives. Although this kind of tax on gas generates a higher price at the pump, it also results in a better road system. California, for example, has a state use tax on gasoline. Their highways are comparatively smooth, constructed quickly and the stoplight systems are near perfect – this is a use tax at work. Maintaining a world-class infrastructure is of paramount importance to the Republic. The trouble with the current system is that the tax is a federal tax, rather than a state tax, which means that the revenue is applied to projects that may have little to do with our roads. Accordingly, if we have to retain a federal fuel tax at all, it would be better were it implemented as follows:

States should independently and individually adopt use tax on all motor vehicle fuel. Any governmental tax like this should be from the local, state government, not the Feds;
Abolish all current Federal tax on motor vehicle fuel;
Implement a small federal domestic transportation user fee on all goods transported via trucks using the interstate system. Based on weight of the payload, a percentage would be paid to the Feds for Federal highway projects. Truckers are the biggest beneficiaries of the Federal Highway System, so it fair that companies using truckers to ship goods should bear a fair share of the weight for its maintenance;

Of course, if were going to solve any of fuel problems, were going to have to increase the supply, which means more (responsible) domestic and hemispheric drilling, hugely increased refinery capacity, make major strides in fuel efficiency, and a make major investment in nuclear power. To achieve all this of course, it would be nice to adopt another tax break – a reduction in the corporate tax from 35% (second highest in the world) to 25% – a move that would stimulate investment, research and development, and the retention and expansion of domestic jobs…but then again, this is an idea endorsed by Senator McCain, and pilloried as “tax breaks for the rich,” by those on the left (including Clinton and Obama) who continue to view the economy through the thoroughly discredited Marxist lens of class warfare, finite wealth, and income redistribution.

 Not if Michigan conservatives have anything to say about it.

Despite his lead in national polls, conservative Republicans are deeply distrustful of John McCain. While most concede that the nationally-known McCain could be their best hope for retaining the White House in November, many feel that McCain’s embrace of liberal positions – from pushing amnesty and campaign finance reform, to opposing tax cuts and promoting greater federal regulation - would amount to little gain.  Indeed, many contend that a President McCain, already predisposed to compromise with Democrats, and widely rumored to have considered leaving the Republican Party, would be a GOP disaster. 

All eyes are now focused on Michigan, where tomorrow’s primary could have an enormous repercussions for Republicans. A McCain victory could boost the Senator’s standings nationally, and provide the momentum necessary to give him a resounding win in South Carolina, where he currently leads in the polls.

With so much riding on Michigan, throughout America, the conservative war cry has gone up - vote Romney.

Though most readily concede that Romney is an imperfect candidate, he is by all accounts, the leading Reagan conservative in the field – the others being former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson, and California Congressman Duncan Hunter, who has gained little traction. 

The late enthusiasm for Romney however, isn’t due to a sudden epiphany by conservatives that Romney is their guy, rather, it’s a concession by most that other than Thompson, Romney is the best shot for true conservatives.

Thompson, the candidate that most excites conservatives has performed poorly in the race, and despite a surprisingly good debate performance last week, still trails McCain, Huckabee and Romney in South Carolina. The Palmetto State is largely seen as a do or die contest for Thompson, and a surging McCain, fresh off a Michigan victory over Romney would almost certainly spell disaster for Thompson and could propel McCain right through to the nomination.

By contrast, a Romney win in Michigan would mark a sea change in the race. Romney, who has been on shaky ground since his victory in Wyoming, needs a big state win to keep himself in the race and increase his momentum heading into the southern primaries. Moreover, such a victory would send a message across the country – that Reagan conservatism is still at the heart of the GOP.

Despite the press’ characterization of the Republican race as a free-for-all, battle lines have increasingly been drawn around complimentary campaigns; it’s now a struggle between two groups – the more liberal McCain and Huckabee versus the more conservative Romney and Thompson.

Weekend polls showed a slight trend toward Romney, but with so many variables, it’s difficult to tell who will take the Great Lakes State. An open primary, such as Michigan has, is widely regarded as favoring McCain, whose appeal to independents and moderate Democrats could give him the win. Moreover, Michigan is familiar territory to McCain, who beat rival George W. Bush there in 2000. Still, with every Democratic candidate besides Hillary Clinton boycotting the Michigan primaries, it is unclear whether enough registered Democrats or Independents will turn out to either vote against Hillary Clinton by choosing “uncommitted,” or vote for John McCain.

Despite the open primary, Romney also has reason to smile. The name Romney is familiar to Michiganites, as Mitt Romney was born in Michigan, and his father, George Romney, served as Michigan’s governor, as well as chairman of the Detroit-based American Motors Corporation. Romney’s association with the state, and his reputation as a successful businessman, adept at turning failing organizations around, may propel him to a win with an electorate suffering from economic woes. Add to that a possible enthusiastic turnout from conservatives, including Thompson supporters, and Romney could eek out a win that would have enormous implications.

At this point it’s simply too close to call, but Michigan may hold the key to the GOPs immediate future – will it be the continuation of the Reagan model offered by Romney and Thompson, or a trend left, toward the compromise and economic populism offered by McCain and Huckabee?

In the end, turnout, and the will of non-Republicans may hold the key.

Not to distract you from yesterdays post about Hillary Clinton’s Wellesly Thesis, it is a must read for any American voter from any party. The sheer amount of bandwth transferred from our site yesterday shows the incredble interest in this document. The document is Now up (link fixed) on a dedicated page as a permanent resource.

The war in Iraq is the defining polcy for President Bush. Bush’s efforts to fight terrorism and fight tyranny have been assailed by media and leftists at every opportunity. Nancy Morgan at RightBias, however, has pointed out that the New York Times has made a 180 degree turn on its postion on the Surge in Iraq.

For five years now, the New York Times has been relentless in its antiwar message, reporting every civilian death as evidence of misguided American imperialism. Reporting every screw-up made by the Bush administration as evidence of Bush’s inferior intellect. The NYT’s had all but conceded that the recent ’surge’ was a failure, even before it started. Reporting on military success stories was relegated to page 391, if reported at all.

read it all here; Its a good read and Nancy does a good at RightBias.

Not to be outdone, however, Slate today in an Op-Ed piece tells us that the good news does not matter. The U.S. faced a similar situation in Viet Nam:

In 1975, Army Col. Harry Summers went to Hanoi as chief of the U.S. delegation’s negotiation team for the four-party military talks that followed the collapse of the South Vietnamese government. While there, he spent some time chatting with his North Vietnamese counterpart, Col. Tu, an old soldier who had fought against the United States and lived to tell his tale. With a tinge of bitterness about the war’s outcome, Summers told Tu, “You know, you never defeated us on the battlefield.” Tu replied, in a phrase that perfectly captured the American misunderstanding of the Vietnam War, “That may be so, but it is also irrelevant.”

It was true in Viet Nam is is true today, the media is losing this war for us. The generals and soldiers should be left alone to do their jobs. Body counts, as sad as they are, are not necessary for broadcast. Since day 1 of this invasion the media has been against it or has been looking for the story to make it look bad. As Slate points out this has an effect on the populace.

Winning in Iraq will take time and patience – it will be worth it.

DECEMBER 9 2007 UPDATE: Here it is. A searchable PDF of Hillary Clinton’s Wellesley Thesis.

Thanks to an intrepid reader who took the Original .PDF version of the Thesis we posted, converted it to .doc and then converted it back into a searchable .PDF. Alot of work was put into the conversion of this important document. Hillary’s true thoughts on socialism and one possible future for America is one click away. You can use the links at the bottom of this post to email this to your friends.

There are three formats avaiable to view, choose your reading format:
paginated jpegs (hosted at GOPublius)
PDF (about 1.72 megs; searchable, hosted at GOPublius)
Original scan PDF(not searchable, originally posted at GOPublius, now hosted at Freedom Underground)

ORIGINAL POST:

GOPublius has obtained a copy of Hillary Rodham’s senior thesis at Wellesley College. Click here to read it.

“There is only one fight …” an analysis of the Alinsky Model

Although I have no ‘loving wife’ to thank for keeping the children away while I wrote, I do have many friends and teachers who have contributed to the process of thesis-writing.

Senator Clinton is running for President and, like all candidates, it is important to be familiar with her beliefs. This document was hidden from public view during her husband’s presidency – an apparent favor to the Clintons from contacts at Wellesley College – and interest in the thesis fell when Bill Clinton left office. Now with Hillary a top Democratic candidate for President, this document is once again generating considerable interest.

Many will argue it is the rantings of a young 20 year old in the late sixties, but others will regard it as exposing the true ideological roots of one of the most powerful people in Washington. Mr. Alinsky, the subject of the paper, was a radical leftist bent on a popular revolution. Why was Senator Clinton’s thesis suppressed? Does Senator Clinton stand by this thesis? Does this document contain political philosophy offensive to traditional notions of American liberty? You be the judge.

Click here to download and read her thesis (right click: “save as …”)

Reference to the story. This is an important document about a candidate for President. below are other links to this Thesis and commentary.

American Thinker: Hillary, Soros, Alinsky and Rush 

WELCOME Tammy Bruce readers, we appreciate your interest!WELCOME Daily Kos readers! This is the Rosetta Stone of Hillary studies. Read it here.IF YOU WOULD LIKE THE .PDF VERSION, PLEASE EMAIL US AT INFO (AT) GOPUBLIUS.COM OR VISIT FREEDOM UNDERGROUND 

UPDATE AUGUST 21, 2007: Andrew Walden wrote a piece which made it to frontpagemag.com; Tammy Bruce has analysis and links.

LINKED with ANALYSIS: The Hawaii Reporter

LINKED: Arkansas Conservative Acton Network.

UPDATE AUGUST 10, 2007: ANALYSIS BY Nuke.

UPDATE AUGUST 9, 2007: “ANALYSIS” BY The People’s Cube ; Link to this story at The Hillary Project

UPDATE AUGUST 8, 2007: ANALYSIS BY Edward Clinevia Maverick News Network. It is a lengthy analysis which compares Hillary Clinton’s relationship with Alinsky to that of Ellsworth Toohey and Catherine Halsey from Ayn Rand’s “The Fountainhead”. Well played and worth the read.

No matter how slickly “human” she presents her made-over self to the public in debates or during interviews, one can still detect in her the desire to kill in every American his integrity, self-respect, sense of values, the heroic, and happiness. When she left Wellesley, she decided to become the “star,” someone whom uncounted others would come to depend on and thank for that dependence.

UPDATE AUGUST 7, 2007: ANALYSIS BY Snooper.

Page 97 is interesting. Paraphrasing: “Government will bring about the changes required”.

Where have we heard this before?

UPDATE: ANALYSIS BY JEREMAYAKOVKA.

The nearly 100-page inquiry into the thought and activism of radical leftwing organizer Saul Alinsky can be considered, until proven otherwise, young Ms. Rodham’s first complete set of intellectual fingerprints — or rather her first carbon (her first carbon copy, that is) intellectual footprint.

UPDATE AUGUST 2, 2007: FREEDOM UNDERGROUND HAS THE PDF HERE – BEE KIND, DO NOT HOTLINK

When Bill Clinton was elected to office in 1992, the cornerstone of his fist term domestic agenda was national health care reform, and it was a program he delegated to First Lady Hillary Clinton.  Her plan, popularly derided as HillaryCare, was a massive federal takeover of the personal well being of American citizens, and would have resulted in a colossal and costly federal bureaucracy designed to doll out medicine to the populace.  The public reaction to HillaryCare and Clinton’s first term was the largest GOP victory in history.

15 years later, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is running to be the next president of the United States, and one of the central policy objectives of her administration would be the adoption of universal health care.  What exactly that proposal will be is unknown, but most will concede that it will require the adoption of a massive federal bureaucracy and tax increases to implement it, and will be part of what Mrs. Clinton describes as our need to replace an “on your own” society with one based on shared responsibility and prosperity.

It doesn’t require a political scientist’s expertise to recognize that Mrs. Clinton’s true intentions are nothing short of a giant step toward open, unabashed, socialism.

(more…)