July 27th, 2015

Is Hillary in trouble?

Perhaps a better question would be: how much trouble is she in? And: what difference will it make?

The answer I would give right now to both questions is the same: not much (trouble, or difference). But perhaps some.

As Mark Halperin points out, Sanders is rattling Clinton, and will deplete more of her resources to fight him than she expected to have to expend at this point. What’s more, he’s pulling her to the left, which could hurt her with whatever remains of the middle.

That said, I continue to believe that she will be nominated (Halperin agrees), and that most Democrats would not even think of voting for a Republican in the general, whoever that Republican might be.

There are some lessons here, however. The first is that Clinton is a paradoxical candidate. On the one hand, she’s just not likeable, even with many Democrats. But as Obama famously put it (although he meant it to be a put-down), she may indeed be “likeable enough”—likeable enough, that is, to win the nomination and to win the presidency.

The second is that (and conservatives who are angry at the GOP, please take note) the way to win the fight is to pull a party to your side, not to form a third party. In the case of the Democrats, this meant that someone like Bernie Sanders, who is actually a socialist, is working within the mainstream Democratic Party right now rather than becoming the nominee of the Socialist Party or any other third party. Third parties in this country tend to act as spoilers in elections. But influencing a party within that party (as the left has done to the Democrats) can be very effective.

Whether or not the socialist Norman Thomas said in 1944 what he is commonly quoted as having said, it has been happening for many many decades:

The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of ‘liberalism,’ they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.” [Thomas] went on to say: “I no longer need to run as a Presidential Candidate for the Socialist Party. The Democratic Party has adopted our platform.”

As Upton Sinclair—who had run for office in California first as a Socialist and then as a Democrat—once wrote to Thomas:

The American People will take Socialism, but they won’t take the label. I certainly proved it in the case of EPIC. Running on the Socialist ticket I got 60,000 votes, and running on the slogan to ‘End Poverty in California’ I got 879,000.

Nationally, Bernie Sanders would be next to nowhere as a Socialist—except in Vermont, where he ran as a third-party candidate initially and then as an Independent; see his Wiki bio for more of the scoop on his electoral history, and the arrangement he has with the Democratic leadership in the Senate. But as a Democrat he’s doing rather well on the national scene.

45 Responses to “Is Hillary in trouble?”

  1. sdferr Says:

    Of course she’s in trouble, but then criminals are always in trouble, particularly when their primary objective is to obscure or cover-up their knowing criminality.

  2. parker Says:

    IMO hrc will fall to the wayside if warren decides to run, and the more shaky hillary looks the more willing warren will be to challenge her, and the more she will come believe she can beat her.

  3. physicsguy Says:

    “the way to win the fight is to pull a party to your side, not to form a third party. In the case of the Democrats, this meant that someone like Bernie Sanders, who is actually a socialist, is working within the mainstream Democratic Party right now rather than becoming the nominee of the Socialist Party or any other third party. ”

    The flaw in your thesis, Neo, is that the Dems are not actively trying to destroy Sanders, and the more radical left wing of the party. That certainly is not the case for the GOP. There’s really no chance of Cruz et al pulling the GOP to the right from within given the hostility the Tea Partiers and others experience from the RNC, and the likes of MConnell and Boehner.

    It’s frustrating as a weak, newly formed 3rd party would put Clinton (or heaven help us Sanders or Warren) in the WH. But SOMETHING has to be done with the GOP. As it exists now, it’s just as much an enemy as the Dems.

  4. K-E Says:

    I can’t imagine Sanders winning the presidential election, if he’s the nominee. There is just too much dirt to use against him (socialist agenda) and too many people who won’t show up at the polls for him (have you heard about the African-American dislike for him?). Hillary gets worse by the day. I’m not sure how any normal Democrat could show up at the polls and pull the lever for her. Both choices are terrible. The other candidates are non-starters at this point, but since Bill Clinton came out of nowhere, I’m expecting the same at some point in the primary process…

  5. neo-neocon Says:


    The flaw in your argument is that Sanders didn’t appear out of nowhere. I didn’t go into the whole history in such a relatively short post, but fifty years ago Sanders would have been an outlier in the party and now he’s not because (as commenter “Eric” often writes) the leftists have been playing the activist game and transforming our country and the Democratic Party, moving both further and further to the left. Sanders running as a Democrat and getting as much support as he does is the result of all of that, many decades of patient preparation. Bernie Sanders’ predecessors were fought by the Scoop Jackson wing of the party for quite a while. What you’re seeing is late in the game, not early. Moderate Democrats didn’t just lay down and die.

    If conservatives did the activist groundwork the establishment Republicans would have less and less power and less and less ability to fight them. I have noticed again and again—and I am sorry to have to say this, because I consider myself a conservative—that conservatives seem to have little patience compared to the left, which has almost infinite patience. So, the establishment is battling to protect its turf? Big deal. That’s enough to make conservatives give up and say it’s impossible to win, and that they’d rather pull down the whole country and surrender to the enemy? That seems like destructive madness to me.

    The “something” that needs to be done to the GOP is to primary the ones you don’t like, with good conservative candidates rather than just any old conservative, and to win and take control of the party. And to stop saying that because it hasn’t succeeded yet it therefore can’t be done. And to get better at playing Eric’s “activist game.”

  6. KLSmith Says:

    I haven’t seen a lot of specifics on what it is the “activist right” is supposed to be doing. Conservatism is a much harder sell than giving out free stuff – the ratchet always turns left. Respectfully, me being fed up with “the party of almost as big government as the other party” is not what is pulling down this country. I would think especially after what McConnell pulled this weekend you would entertain rethinking your position. And I’m not surrendering to anybody. I’m planning on moving out of blue Virginia where most of my neighbors voted to destroy their country. I’m going somewhere with wide open spaces to enjoy my retirement and sit under a tree and look at the mountains, listen to running river, watch birds fly, catch a fish, hopefully not get eaten by a bear and pretend like I still live in a free country.

  7. Doom Says:

    Uhrm, a little old for that, Bill (or any man) probably hasn’t gone near that danger hatch in longer than… Oh… not that kind of trouble? :p

  8. Judith Says:

    For the first time, I think Hillary’s in trouble. Case in point: MSNBC’s Morning Joe, with Andrea Mitchell and others not really covering for her. I think this will start to get some real coverage in the press. I would not have said this even a week ago, but what the heck, I’ll go out on a limb: I don’t think Hillary gets the nomination. However, full disclosure: I never expected Bill Clinton to get elected twice, so my political prognostication skills are not the best.

  9. charles Says:

    “The second is that (and conservatives who are angry at the GOP, please take note) the way to win the fight is to pull a party to your side, not to form a third party.”

    Oh, how I do wish more on the conservative/Republican side could/would listen to this sage advice.

    But, I fear, that they won’t.

    It will be so-and-so isn’t a real conservative, or he is a RINO, or he isn’t against abortion enough, or so-and-so is “insert whatever makes the Republican nominee less than ideal in their eyes” and they will vote third party (no doubt, because they think they will be sticking it to the Republicans!) or to vote for their pie-in-the-sky “ideal” candidate or stay home because there isn’t “anyone worth voting for”; and then, wham! – we have another 4 (or 8) years of a Democrat.

    The problem is where do we go? I really cannot afford another 8 years of this Obamanation economy. Applying for work that is only temporary; along with the hundreds of others applying for the same position and we are all competing with H1B1 workers. Paying higher taxes so that I can provide “free” stuff for others.

    Where do we go? Please think about that those who are angry with the GOP!

  10. RonaldF Says:

    Hillary could lock herself in a bunker for the next year and still receive 40% of the vote – especially in high electoral States. Democracy has severe limitations if people don’t care. I say she is our next President.

  11. Ymarsakar Says:

    The “something” that needs to be done to the GOP is to primary the ones you don’t like, with good conservative candidates rather than just any old conservative, and to win and take control of the party.

    That’s still politics, not countering tactics using out of the box thinking.

    As for what activists are doing, check out GamerGate, Sad/Rabid Puppies, and reddit resignations.

  12. F Says:


    West Virginia or right here in northern Nevada. The trouble with Northern NV is the number of Californians coming here to escape high taxes in CA. Many of them brought their politics with them. Darn it!

  13. Matt_SE Says:

    Democrats may not vote for Republicans, but that doesn’t mean they’ll turn out for Hillary. She is so personally loathsome that many Democrats will simply stay home.
    Obama only won against Romney (a WEAK candidate) by 4%. Hillary is polling worse than Obama currently in every category by about 10%, except women where she’s only losing by 4%.
    Hillary won’t get the turnout, but she will get the nomination because she’s too ruthless and Dems have nobody else.
    The only way she wins is if the GOP nominates someone weak again like Jeb, or if the shenanigans in the Senate completely infuriate the base.

    Then, even if the GOP wins the presidency, McConnell could easily have us lose the Senate.

  14. Yann Says:

    She’s a good candidate for Democrats because she’s the least revolutionnary candidate you can imagine. And people in US are slightly fed up with revolutions and change lately.

    If republicans were clever, they would be linking her as much as possible to every change Obama has made. The more you focus in blaming Obama, the more Hillary gets apart, safe and sound, as the “moderate one”. Unless you break this moderate image, she can win the presidency.

  15. Ymarsakar Says:


    Is an example of subverting the Left. I look at it through the lens of warfare and lawfare, not social political activism.

  16. Barry Meislin Says:

    Is Hillary in trouble?

    Not as much as she should be.

  17. Beth Says:

    I can hold my nose and pull the lever for anyone, but Bush. I can even vote for Trump.
    Steven Hayward at Powerline wrote Angelo Codevilla and asked his opioni on Trump. Yesterday he published Codevilla’s response: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/07/does-trump-trump-angelo-codevilla-on-our-present-moment.php

  18. physicsguy Says:

    Good point, Neo, about this being the endgame for the Dems move to the left; I hadn’t thought of that. But, you also bring up a point that we’ve discussed before: the difference between the left and the right.

    You are correct that the left seems to have infinite patience and will power. I mentioned this a few days back. It takes a group of people who dedicate their entire life to political gain. While most conservatives care about politics, they don’t make it the focus of their entire existence. I still am amazed how the leftists I know live, eat, and breathe politics…what kind of life is that? Maybe it’s the fundamental difference between the left and the right? A Gramscian march of the right would never happen as conservatives really “have better things to do.” Getting pissed off and charging onto a ship to throw a bunch of British tea overboard; that’s probably more the style.

  19. Eric Says:


    Are you a leftist plant? Whatever is opposite of agitator – pacifier, I guess.

    If you’re not one on purpose, you sound exactly like one.


    The activists who founded this nation did a lot more than spoil British East India Company tea for a lot longer than one winter’s night. That was just one move in the Narrative contest of their activist game.

    From a practical ‘ground game’ perspective, Left activists are closer akin to the Founders than conservatives who celebrate the enshrined political concepts while glossing over the practical destruction rent throughout colonial America by the activist Founders in order to create the new nation.

    For an easy reminder of the practical nature of the Founders, go to Canada and review their American history.

    Ask Tonawanda, our resident Columbia-graduate commenter, about Alexander Hamilton’s radical activism while at King’s College, eg, the Hearts of Oak, that characterized his career as a founding father.

    The Founders set the bar for what it takes to compete for this nation. To seize it. To keep it. To define it. To change it. Again. And again.

    The Constitution set out some general procedures and principles, but fundamentally, the post hoc Constitution was not how our nation was founded. It wasn’t even the 1st version that hewed to the original vision that informed the revolution. The latter Constitution was itself a subsequent activist creation.

    Activism is prepolitical. It is more fundamental to the birth and living cycle of our nation than its vision statement and constitution. It’s not loyal to any one ideology, even the concepts in our nation’s charter. It’s the method of real social cultural/political competition available to anyone zealous and smart enough to apply it right.

    Left activists are no less than faithful to the activist bar set by the Founders.

    In contrast, the conservatives you describe are following the doomed path of the colonial ‘conservatives’ who deferred the activist game to the British Crown like modern-day conservatives defer the activist game to the GOP.

    Their choice puzzles me because conservatives generally take pride in knowing their American history, yet they’ve chosen the path that was proven to lose by our nation’s founding while the Left has chosen the path that was proven to win by our nation’s founding.

    Deferring didn’t work then in the activist game that founded our nation and it won’t work today competing against zealous, dedicated (as you’ve described them), pragmatic activists in our fundamentally activist nation.

    The Left simply competes for real in the only social cultural/political game there is. In any contest, when only one side chooses sincerely to compete for the prize, that side normally is the side that seizes the prize.

    If conservatives choose “better things to do” rather than compete for the nation as the Founders did and the Left does – as activists – then ceding the nation to genuine competitors is their choice.

    Our cousins in Canada can tell you about the consequences of the similar choice made by their colonial American forefathers – which is the choice that KLSmith promotes and you justify.

    That the choice is understandable, then and now, doesn’t stay the competition nor mitigate the consequences of losing the contest.

    It’s not complicated. It’s just competition. What makes it complicated is the contradiction of appreciating the nature of the contest, which Neo and her commenters do, warning of defeat in dire terms, which Neo and her commenters do, and demanding the fruits of victory as necessary, which Neo and her commenters do, yet with all that, still refusing to compete for the prize in the proven effective way.

    But KLSmith has his Canada.

  20. KLSmith Says:

    Oh no, Eric is on to me. Well at least I don’t post the same comment, complete with the same phrasing, 95% of the time I comment here.
    Why don’t you explain to us traitors how using the Marxist tactics of the left won’t taint the right with this same Marxism. Or better yet, why don’t you lead our new movement and bore the left to death.

  21. Frog Says:

    Sorry to be blunt, but I have come to regard the “activist game” as a lot of unfocused chatter. Just play the game, huh?

    It is the essence of conservatism to conserve. To keep the best of the past and hang on to it tightly. That is true progress. By its essence, then, it is not utopia-seeking. and therein lies its inherent failure to defeat utopians. Once the will to preserve, to stand for what is right and just is defeated, all else falls as well.

  22. Artfldgr Says:

    Ymarsakar Says: “That’s still politics, not countering tactics using out of the box thinking.”

    thats funny… because people in the area of actually accomplishing anything are not the people your referring to as to tactics (again… rolls eyes)…

    the point your missing is that the rules as to party funds changed years ago… probably before you got wet behind the ears and learned to play bull sh(t bingo…

    the use of catch phrases… go here to learn how to play: http://www.bullshitbingo.net/cards/bullshit/

    the funding goes to the PARTY now, when they changed the rules i think post reagan, to prevent another reagan…

    you really should read the FEC website and learn what it was, and what changed before you spout in ignorance and call up “tactics” like a video gamer in their mothers basement or over dads garage.


    you can donate to (bearing in mind a commitee in russian is “soviet”):

    Candidate Committee
    PAC1 (SSF and Nonconnected)
    State/District/Local Party Committee
    National Party Committee
    Additional National Party Committee Accounts2

    the wiki has a line item that the FEC doesnt have, which says you can give to a candidate… but guess where that goes?

    read the Federal Election Campaign Act 1971:
    In 1974, Congress passed amendments to the FECA establishing a comprehensive system of regulation and enforcement, including public financing of presidential campaigns and the creation of a central enforcement agency, the Federal Election Commission. The new regulations included limits on campaign finance, including caps on (1) individual contributions to candidates, (2) contributions to candidates by “political committees” (commonly known as Political Action Committees, or PACs), (3) total campaign expenditures, and (4) independent expenditures by individuals and groups “relative to a clearly identified candidate.”

    this basically made contributing to the candidate directly chump change.. then Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act did this:
    Under FECA, corporations, unions, and individuals could contribute unlimited “nonfederal money”—also known as “soft money”—to political parties for activities intended to influence state or local elections. In a series of advisory opinions between 1977 and 1995, the FEC ruled that political parties could fund “mixed-purpose” activities—including get-out-the-vote drives and generic party advertising—in part with soft money, and that parties could also use soft money to defray the costs of “legislative advocacy media advertisements,” even if the ads mentioned the name of a federal candidate, so long as they did not expressly advocate the candidate’s election or defeat.

    so your 2600 limit is completly drowned out by the 50 million to unlimited that the unions can give… ergo, your nothing they are everything…

    tactically a flea has not much ability…

    once this was done, the money poured in..
    45.6 million went to the dems in 1993
    by 2001-2002 it rose to 199.6 million

    in 1993 59.5 million went to republicans
    in 2001-2002 221.7 million went to republicans

    by that time, the soft money was up to half a billion

    but the larger point was that poor people didnt have to donate, and middle class was completely washed out of the equation.

    there is a lot more… but they were strategically way ahead of you, and your “tactics” and catch phrase “out of the box” is completely meaningless… though it sounds nice.

    in essence you wanted to use the word strategy, not tactics
    strategy “a plan of action or policy designed to achieve a major or overall aim.”


  23. Assistant Village Idiot Says:

    Related to this discussion, a story of one fewer HRC voter: I work in a very liberal environment, one in which people quite boldly make bigoted remarks about conservatives and bemoan how unfairly liberals are attacked. They are feeling very protective of Hillary around here, and reflexively assume that any accusation against her is a dishonest political attack.

    It often feels as if any contrary voice is quickly washed out, whether it is forceful and strident or mild and humorous. I was reminded yesterday that even in an environment with no conservatives, there are independents, and there are liberals who defect on an issue or two who might be able to hear. When speaking, remember that it is not your goal to win the room – that is too socially well-defended, and no intellectual argument could ever prevail. Your job is to secretly address those present who dare not speak up. It is even better if your comments can create a little space for others to put their oar in, but even without that you can tilt the balance for a few.

    I fumed and argued in my head a good deal last week over a very brief work encounter with an attacking uberliberal who made a sneering, unacceptable public comment. I had made a mild replay with an attempt at humor. I later wished I had let him have it. Yet a co-worker later mentioned that she thought I had a good point: she mostly agreed with Hillary, but the corruption was just too much to bear. She had been planning to vote for Bernie in the NH primary, but was resigning herself to supporting Hillary in the general. “But I just can’t. It IS too much. She’s just a cynical machine politician. I just won’t vote.” I smiled mischievously and asked her to see if there was ONE of the Republican nominees who she might actually show up to vote for.

  24. Artfldgr Says:

    Ymarsakar Says: [link to hacker article omitted] Is an example of subverting the Left. I look at it through the lens of warfare and lawfare, not social political activism.

    funny since the money quote from the article is:
    The actions of this ‘federation’ are not seen as right in the eyes of the public. So here we are, the social justice warriors, seeking to reclaim some sort of lulz for the years and thousands of dollars that Planned Parenthood have wasted and made harvesting your babies

    something is not right in denmark…
    look at the terms they are using…
    Social justice is not a term of the anti abortion crowd its a term of the socialist left…

    you dont see the outcome of this?
    they get to claim that their servers were hacked and emals that would have been taken to court, now have doubt on them!!!

    the hack job HELPS planned parenthood, not harms them… its making history again

    think things through please and stop acting like a kid in a video game world… the idea here is to prevent these emails from being used in court as proof… which now they are tainted as evidence..

    the not left (what you call right) does not have hacker armies against socialistm… duh… most of the kids in the hacker community are very much socialist in their dreams. (i was one of them way back)..

    given the very long history an lists of hoaxers and games you swallowed the whole thing hook line and singer…

    they are using the numbers of a very famous puzzle based group cicada 3301… but left out the cicada and didnt do it as a puzzle.

    I work in IT and have done so since i started on mainframes in the 1970s, and then became a hack, and still comment on security and so on. hard to keep hacks out… you would be flabbergasted as to how things work in these areas!!!! its NOTHING like the public thinks…

    i would be glad to explain how exploits work..
    depending on which ones… (lately i have been reading on malformed character sets, amazing stuff)

    Cicada 3301 is a name given to an enigmatic organization that on three occasions has posted a set of complex puzzles to recruit “highly intelligent individuals” from the public The first Internet puzzle started on January 4, 2012, and ran for approximately one month. A second round began one year later on January 4, 2013, and a third round is ongoing following confirmation of a fresh clue posted on Twitter on January 4, 2014

    the funky thing is that they do not announce their work!!!!!!!!!

    so i doubt 3301 is cicada… besides, knowing who and what i know in that community… well, this isnt their shtick… its not Anoymous shtick either.

    i doubt its valid given things and who the “victims” are…

  25. Artfldgr Says:

    Assistant Village Idiot
    Just remember where you get your information and the way that a crowd if on the left can have 100 people but is reported as thousands, and a crowd with thousands if on the left is reported as small..

    its a game… like reading pravda in the 1980s..

    the idea is straight out of havlocks change agent guide and other such expensive books on gaming people… ie. dialoguing to consensus.

    the idea is to describe a sitatation erroneously, so that people change their minds and then switch sides making the false news real.

    the more the left can control the more the world in front of you seems like a house of mirrors for those who can sense things are not right and are looking for cracks in the glass.

    the average leftist takes everything from their side on face value and does not care about how bad or evil X is, cause they are evil for a good cause to them. they really believe the ad copy and that being a good nazi, good communist, a good lover of santa clause, is going to result in their being rewarded, despite the system they hope to gain from has no idea they exist and could care less about their being worm food.

    think of the leftists that sneer like you describe like tissue in a snot box… the tissue thinks its so important, that its roll in life is great and they are of great import to the cold nose… what is farthest from their mind is how they are percieved by the side using them!!!! the tissue thinks, i am important, i ahve a use, i support the cause of such and so i will get my just rewards as the system i am in does not give just rewards (as they think)… then they are used up, and like obamas babysitter in the stained underwear, a nothing bitter hasbeen no one cars about. discarded into the trash bin..

    its how the left works.. from robspierre onwards..

  26. Cornflour Says:

    This is a comment about what people here are calling “conservative activism,” rather than the topic of the particular blog post (Hillary’s troubles). My apologies for straying off topic.

    Just about a year ago, Neo wrote a brief post asking whether conservatives have the patience for the long march. To the extent that the march is cultural, then I think that conservatives most definitely do. To the extent that the march is political, then I’m pretty sure that they don’t. Still, I think that there’s a solution that exemplifies conservatism, and — in a slightly different way — libertarianism. That covers a lot of Americans, and if the message is kept simple, success might be possible.

    The simple message would be a campaign to depoliticize people’s lives and, by extension, American culture. I think that gets to the heart of “Tea Party” efforts. Most of my working career has been spent in academia, and all the horrible stories about left-wing idiocy are true, but there are many people here who are profoundly sick of the left. By temperament, I’ll never be a political activist, but I do talk to people — both formally and informally — and, over the last ten years or so, I’ve found that more and more people want to be free of a government that’s grown too large and too invasive. I often say that the next generation won’t be a conflict between democrats and republicans; it will be one between the authoritarian left and conservative libertarians. I usually find that people agree with that. I don’t push people to take sides, but the implication is obvious. And this kind of talk is taking place at a university — a place that conservatives have long correctly written off.

    There are already quite a few people who’ve written about the kind of conservative libertarianism I’m talking about — I happen to like Yuval Levin — but there’s plenty of room for more. For example, I’d like to see Neo write a book about the psychology of political change, why it’s so hard, and why it’s now so necessary. Neo also raised the issue of finding good candidates for republican primaries. While this is a critical piece of local politics, people can do a long list of other local things like finding good candidates for school boards. Republicans have traditionally been very involved in this kind of local “activism,” and social conservatives started their work at the local level, and haven’t given up.

    I don’t want to get too cute with paradox, but I really believe that conservative libertarians can succeed with both the ideological and tactical aspects of politics if they always emphasize the need to depoliticize life. Politics is, after all, a low form of human activity. Unfortunately, if we ignore it, the lowest kind of people will take over.

  27. neo-neocon Says:


    Conversations such as the ones you describe are definitely part of activism, as are getting into politics by promoting good candidates at the local level. There are many ways to be an activist.

    Don’t worry about straying off-topic, by the way!

    My beef is with people who throw up their hands because things don’t go their way, and either give up or (much worse) say they want it all to burn, or even say they’ll vote for the opposition in order to force things to a head.

  28. Artfldgr Says:

    for those interested in the kinds of things that go on when you are doing security and so on… here is a good example of what such programming entails… compared to what the public thinks about, its miles and miles away from how it actually works..

    Windows Kernel TrueType Font Engine Vulnerability

    its incredible stuff… and as i said NOTHING lke what anyone in the public thinks!

  29. physicsguy Says:

    Part of my pessimism stems from spending 30+ years in academia. I spent the time since 9/11 trying to be more active in holding back the leftist tide at my small corner of the world, only to be beaten down, marginalized, my children threatened, with no support from other faculty except privately. One would think that if one person is making a statement, others who think the same way might offer support, but sadly no…. after awhile I just ran out of energy… I can’t do it alone. So, now I’ve decided I need to have much less stress in my life, and look forward to retirement. Hence my outlook, that “they have won” and there’s not a whole helluva lot we can do.

  30. KLSmith Says:

    Yeah, I also don’t understand why anyone would vote for the opposition. I might think chances of things getting better are slim, but I do know things could be a heck of a lot worse. I would stay home before I voted for a Democrat.
    I also think there is a difference between giving up and tilting at windmills. The Republican party isn’t going to get more conservative anytime soon. And activism at the local level is great, but they have been nationalizing almost everything. Hopefully, people will get more libertarian with time, but then you loose a lot of conservatives.

  31. Artfldgr Says:

    Obama: ‘I’m a Pretty Good President’ And If I Ran For a Third Term, I Could Win

  32. neo-neocon Says:


    I think a big part of the problem is that you’ve been trying to do it alone. I’m not sure what the answer is, but going it alone isn’t going to work.

    I understand the exhaustion, but it seems you’ve been beating your head—alone—against a brick wall. If you could find (or even organize) a group of like-minded people to brainstorm other approaches, that might help. Or give money to groups such as this or this. Of course, perhaps you’re already involved in that sort of thing.

  33. Artfldgr Says:

    Now hillary is in trouble

    Linda Tripp breaks silence after nearly 20 years, unloads on Hillary


  34. Artfldgr Says:

    Rand Paul Calls for Hillary Clinton to Return Donations from Planned Parenthood Officials


  35. Artfldgr Says:

    and just for the fun of it as there is no place else to put it

    The Secret Roots of Liberation Theology

    History often repeats itself, and if you have lived two lives, as I have done, you have a good chance of seeing the reenactment with your own eyes. Liberation theology, of which not much has been heard for two decades, is back in the news. But what is not being mentioned is its origins. It was not invented by Latin American Catholics. It was developed by the KGB. The man who is now the head of the Russian Orthodox Church, Patriarch Kirill, secretly worked for the KGB under the code name “Mikhailov” and spent four decades promoting liberation theology, which we at the top of the Eastern European intelligence community nicknamed Christianized Marxism.

  36. physicsguy Says:

    Already a member of NAS..went to one of their national meetings in Boston a few years back and it was
    therapeutic…but then I just return back to my school and the same ol’ BS.

  37. G6loq Says:

    Hillary is firmly in control:
    Hillary Clinton Gives Climate Policy Speech In Empty Room With No Audience…
    Why read satire?

  38. Cornhead Says:

    Hillary Clinton must be defeated.
    Carthage must be destroyed.

  39. parker Says:

    Carthage is not the problem. Rome (DC) must be destroyed before it destroys all of us, the willing and unwilling alike.

  40. Cornhead Says:


    Like Carthage, Hillary is a mortal threat to the Republic. That’s why she must be defeated and destroyed.

  41. Frog Says:

    parker, I am also a member of the National Association of Scholars (NAS). For those of you motivated toward honesty in Academia, membership is open to you all. Peter Wood, the NAS president, is nobly doing his best.

    Read this (it’s long):

    Neo, parker is surrounded by enemies. It is a lonely place to be. The Leftism of modern academia is truly disgusting and repellant. For all we know, parker may be at Bowdoin.

  42. Ymarsakar Says:

    Frog, that’s physics guy not parker.

  43. JuliB Says:

    Assistant Village Idiot – next time suggest voting 3rd party (Green?). Every vote from a liberal 3rd party is a vote that helps us.

    As far as activism, I understand, to an extent. But then I look at the gun rights arena and see that we’ve barely held the line, and have slid in certain areas.

    But then I look at the pro-life arena, and feel somewhat encouraged.

  44. JuliB Says:

    Another thing that is hard to counter is the pure demonization of conservatives and Christians. It’s like we’re kulaks and it’s a tsunami.

  45. wilbeforce Says:

    Im confident there will be a late reconciliation and a Clinton/Sanders ticket in 2016. It will have the irresistible appeal to male and female liberal voters of a dominant female socialist and a submissive male socialist partnership. Just like looking in the mirror. The scold and the cuckold.

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

About Me

Previously a lifelong Democrat, born in New York and living in New England, surrounded by liberals on all sides, I've found myself slowly but surely leaving the fold and becoming that dread thing: a neocon.

Monthly Archives


Ace (bold)
AmericanDigest (writer’s digest)
AmericanThinker (thought full)
Anchoress (first things first)
AnnAlthouse (more than law)
AtlasShrugs (fearless)
AugeanStables (historian’s task)
Baldilocks (outspoken)
Barcepundit (theBrainInSpain)
Beldar (Texas lawman)
BelmontClub (deep thoughts)
Betsy’sPage (teach)
Bookworm (writingReader)
Breitbart (big)
ChicagoBoyz (boyz will be)
Contentions (CommentaryBlog)
DanielInVenezuela (against tyranny)
DeanEsmay (conservative liberal)
Donklephant (political chimera)
Dr.Helen (rights of man)
Dr.Sanity (thinking shrink)
DreamsToLightening (Asher)
EdDriscoll (market liberal)
Fausta’sBlog (opinionated)
GayPatriot (self-explanatory)
HadEnoughTherapy? (yep)
HotAir (a roomful)
InFromTheCold (once a spook)
InstaPundit (the hub)
JawaReport (the doctor is Rusty)
LegalInsurrection (law prof)
RedState (conservative)
Maggie’sFarm (centrist commune)
MelaniePhillips (formidable)
MerylYourish (centrist)
MichaelTotten (globetrotter)
MichaelYon (War Zones)
Michelle Malkin (clarion pen)
Michelle Obama's Mirror (reflections)
MudvilleGazette (milblog central)
NoPasaran! (behind French facade)
NormanGeras (principled leftist)
OneCosmos (Gagdad Bob’s blog)
PJMedia (comprehensive)
PointOfNoReturn (Jewish refugees)
Powerline (foursight)
ProteinWisdom (wiseguy)
QandO (neolibertarian)
RachelLucas (in Italy)
RogerL.Simon (PJ guy)
SecondDraft (be the judge)
SeekerBlog (inquiring minds)
SisterToldjah (she said)
Sisu (commentary plus cats)
Spengler (Goldman)
TheDoctorIsIn (indeed)
Tigerhawk (eclectic talk)
VictorDavisHanson (prof)
Vodkapundit (drinker-thinker)
Volokh (lawblog)
Zombie (alive)

Regent Badge