Newsweek columnist Anna Quindlen, a favorite of Katie Couric and Tom Brokaw, takes on "myths" about Campaign 2008 in her column in the back of the magazine this week. First up: who says Hillary is a liberal? She's firmly in the political middle:
"Today many of the contenders are enshrouded in the mists of myth. One is that Hillary Rodham Clinton is a flaming liberal. Would that this were buttressed by the facts. If it were, she might have voted against the Iraq war, and the health-care initiative she oversaw as First Lady would have been a sweeping plan for universal coverage instead of a timid column A/column B effort. It's laughable to talk about the senator moving toward the middle. She's been there for years."
It's always amazing to see someone argue that nationalizing one-seventh of the economy was a timid centrist thing to do.
But Quindlen goes on then to bash the leading squishy Republicans in the race: that "the real argument against Giuliani's candidacy is that he was uncommonly divisive and mean-spirited during his time in office, alienating most of the city's minority communities." (It was so unlike the racial peace of David Dinkins' time as mayor?) And: "John McCain must grapple with an important part of his persona that may, sadly, morph into myth: the notion of the former POW as a man who fearlessly speaks his mind." She recalled he couldn't make up his mind on the Confederate flag.
So who would be a real liberal for this race, someone Quindlen could support? Sen. George McGovern recently spoke at the National Press Club (reprinted by The Nation), and was delighted that Quindlen endorsed his book as the basis of all future national unity for giving up on Iraq:
I give you the respected journalist of the New York Times, and now of Newsweek, Anna Quindlen who told Charlie Rose on his excellent TV program: "There is a wonderful book I am recommending to everyone. It's a very small, readable book by George McGovern and William Polk called Out of Iraq. And it just very quickly runs you through the history of the country, the makeup of the country, how we got in, the arguments for getting in--many of which don't withstand scrutiny--and how we can get out. It's like a little primer. I think the entire nation should read it and then we will be united."
—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Memo to Quindlen: It's really
January 31, 2007 - 07:20 ET by Mica the MagnificentMemo to Quindlen: It's really this simple concerning Hillary:
Polls show 60% of Americans support the war in Iraq
Hillary: I support the war in Iraq.
Polls show 60% of Americans do not support the war in Iraq
Hillary: I do not support the war in Iraq
Any questions?
Ever since he wrote the WSJ
January 31, 2007 - 07:21 ET by sarcasmoEver since he wrote the WSJ piece about trying to run a "bed and breakfast" and encountering big government regulations & quit running for president, I've kinda liked ol' George. (IMO real world experience instead of politics, even if it's at some cushy law firm, would have similarly-helped to better season Barak Obama for a run for the Presidency, but sadly for him and maybe the nation, it hasn't happened!) Anyway, here's sarcasmo's distilled wisdom from the column.
I liked this quote: "I mention the neoconservative theorists to recall Walter Lippman's observance, 'There is nothing so dangerous as a belligerent professor.'" Too-true, IMO.
This was McGovern's toughest question: "In your initial campaign for the Presidency, Mr. Bush, you described yourself as a 'compassionate conservative'. What is compassionate about consigning America's youth to a needless and seemingly endless war that has now lasted longer than World War II? And what is conservative about reducing the taxes needed to finance this war and instead running our national debt to nine trillion dollars with money borrowed from China, Japan, Germany and Britain? Is this wild deficit financing your idea of conservatism? Mr. President, how can a true conservative be indifferent to the steadily rising cost of a war that claims over $7 billion a month, $237 million every day? Are you troubled to know as a conservative that just the interest on our skyrocketing national debt is $760,000 every day. Mr. President, our Nobel Prize-winning economist, Joseph Stiglitz, estimates that if the war were to continue until 2010 as you have indicated it might, the cost would be over a trillion dollars."
For "the Nation," it's a pretty good interview. But I'm still amazed the rest of the news media is ignoring this Nation article...It's almost as if the news media have a pervasive "pro-major-party" bias, and would deliberately & blatantly ignore certain bipartisan scandals, but by now we all know I couldn't possibly believe THAT!
JMR
Interesting questions posed b
January 31, 2007 - 15:20 ET by dscottInteresting questions posed by McGovern. However, like all liberals he has a premise to his question that he is expecting you and me to accept. I reject his premise. Needless and Endless are subjective judgements by those who oppose the GWOT and Iraq being part of the GWOT. The US lost over 400,000 soldiers in WWII, whereas we so far have lost 6,500 in the GWOT, so if the premise is W is taking too long to resolve the issue, then I say taking our time is a good thing because we certainly have done a magnificent job of not getting our kids killed en mass.
Much of the rising debt as in annual budget deficits is due to SS and Medicare payments in fact the entire increase in the annual deficit from 2000 to 2006 is the source of our problems. So again, I reject the premise of his accusation about W not being a conservative, he tried to deal with the problem but the Dems obstructed for political purposes. Also, we must reject the premise of spending on the war as not being conservative, the money was spent for a purpose and not aimlessly wasted on buying votes. Freedom from tyranny always comes with a price, Freedom is the most costly possession we have. So if McGovern is complaining about spending a trillion dollars by 2010, tell him to renounce Christianity, convert to Islam and start worshiping Allah as prescribed. That's the price of peace at any price, so says OBL.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
People ignore McGovern because he deserves to be ignored.
January 31, 2007 - 15:30 ET by acaiguanaPeople ignore McGovern because he deserves to be ignored.
QED
ACA
...
Acaiguana says: "I love blind Monkeys and any inference that I am making fun of blind Monkeys would be wrong.
I disagree, and as I've sai
January 31, 2007 - 15:49 ET by sarcasmoI disagree, and as I've said before Iraq is really 3 countries, and Dave Barry was right about how to deal with Saddam, but go read the other Nation article I linked above -- if that doesn't prove Gen. PX Kelly right when he said "war is a racket" I don't know what does! In this case, the Nation followed the money and found another bipartisan scandal the media is conveniently ignoring. Do we have a sarcasmo theme for the day yet??
JMR
Well Anna, let's review; afte
January 31, 2007 - 07:56 ET by Right Wing Attack DogWell Anna, let's review; after Hillary was elected in her first term in '92, there were a couple of initiative's that she came up with that may not support your attempt to mask a socialist as someone in the middle, I'm sure you just forgot "Don't ask, Don't tell" and then there was the largest % tax increase in the history of the country, after the voters were promised a middle income tax cut.
It IS a myth that the Dragon
January 31, 2007 - 08:03 ET by HumanEventsIt IS a myth that the Dragon Lady is a liberal. She's an ultra-liberal! And a Marxist and socialist. Like wanting to nationalize one seventh of the economy with her goverment run "health care" "plan" is extremely radical. It's not moderate just because some radicals went even further wanting a single payer system.
Yes she will be willing to appear more centrist at times during her sCampaign. Just as The Great Stainmaker did (eg. in 1992 repeatedly calling for a tax cut on the middle class but then in February of 1993, shazam! I just can't do it because I didn't realize the deficit was this high. But then we never got a tax cut from him in 8 years even when there was a surplus. Because he [and she] are really huge lefties).
Good grief Anna Quindlen, all anyone has to do is look at her lifetime voting records of both conservative and liberal sources. She scores high in all the liberal ones and low in all of the conservative ones (like her lifetime ACU rating is 9% and ADA [Americans for Democratic Action] rated her a 95%). The National Taxpayer's Union gave her an F and Citizens Against Government Waste gives her a lifetime 8% rating.
Also interesting how you libs make so much effort to try to decieve people that you are not libs, whereas we conservatives embrace that word like a badge of honor.
Hillary ...
January 31, 2007 - 08:44 ET by Dave PierreYes, Hillary is ultra-liberal. 1995 ratings: 100 from ADA and 100 from NARAL (link). Even a well-known left-wing site calls her "progressive," a label reserved for those especially dedicated to liberal causes (I captured a screen shot of the site that day; see the image.).
Especially when Hillary makes
January 31, 2007 - 15:25 ET by dscottEspecially when Hillary makes statements to the effect, that taxes should be raised because the government spends your money better than you can. That's liberalism at it's arrogant core.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
...interesting how you libs
January 31, 2007 - 11:29 ET by Tom1969caAnd that, my friend, is the quintessential difference between liberals and conservatives (and the same holds true here in Canada): we tell people we're conservatives and people vote for us; they tell people they're not liberals and people vote for them.
See? Politics is simple!
~~~
VOTE DEMOCRAT!
(It's easier than thinking)
I love these columns that try
January 31, 2007 - 08:31 ET by Chris NormanI love these columns that try to convince us, that despite all evidence, what we believe about someone or something just isn't accurate. Liberal writers, like Quindlen try to show that they're smarter than everybody else by "correctly" reinterpreting, for us, cut and dried evidence. Hillary isn't a Liberal? That's going to disappoint a lot of her followers.
Regarding McGovern: "I think the entire nation should read it and then we will be united".
United for what? Never doing anything else militarily again, other than Peace Corps missions?
The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.
- Arabian Proverb
Like the guy whose wife caugh
January 31, 2007 - 11:45 ET by MikeBLike the guy whose wife caught him in bed with another woman: "Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?"
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
“It’s a very small, reada
January 31, 2007 - 09:43 ET by JPR1“It’s a very small, readable book…very quickly runs you through the history of the country…It’s like a little primer.”
Right there is a big part of the problem. These pinheads want you to think you can aquire an understanding of extremely complex issues without really doing any thinking.
It’s not a “primer” Anna, but let me recommend Mark Styn’s America Alone. Please read it carefully and if you can concisely refute his statistics, reasoning or conclusions I’d love to hear from you.
I haven’t finished it yet myself but I think if the entire nation read it, they just might…“get it”.
I suppose I have to agree wit
January 31, 2007 - 09:45 ET by AlgerHissI suppose I have to agree with little Anna. Hillary is not a liberal.
She is a leftist. And there is a difference.
Rochester, Minnesota: A Fem_Leftist City!
The fact that she is a Demo
January 31, 2007 - 11:18 ET byThe very meaning of a Democracy is that which says, "Mob Rules." How much more liberal can one get than that?
Democracy says that those in office are simply puppets who should be willing to break the law and break their vow, which is to uphold the US Constitution. This could some day include changing the Constitution, which in ways (by way of bad interpretation) the liberals already have done.
It also says that those in office buy votes with our tax dollars and eventually will bankrupt our nation. Then socialism will totally take over and Communism is birthed out of that.
***We are a Republic. As per the 4th section of the 4th article of the US Constitution.
Bet Anna considers GWB a rabi
January 31, 2007 - 12:22 ET by Dave RBet Anna considers GWB a rabid right-wing extremist, too.
As for The Hildebeast, does threatening me and my doctor with criminal prosecution for going outside of her "healthcare" plan sound even remotely moderate to any of you?
good point
January 31, 2007 - 12:35 ET bygood point
Sounds downright tyrannical t
January 31, 2007 - 12:59 ET by mattmSounds downright tyrannical to me....
"If Liberals were liberal, they wouldn't be Liberals." - Publius
Quindlen
January 31, 2007 - 17:33 ET by Jerry MackWhat a hatchet job! Hillary is not a liberal and both Giuliani and McCain are racist. Nothing like honest reporting.