Posted by
Bert Chapman on Tuesday, April 22, 2008 9:00:51 AM
During this year's Democratic presidential campaign, we've seen Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama denounce interest groups or "special interests" as they euphemistically refer to these organizations. Both candidates claim that they will listen to the people and "stand up to special interests." What Clinton and Obama actually mean is that they will only listen to interest groups they approve of and "stand up" to interest groups they don't approve of. For instance, both Clinton and Obama, as ardent abortionists, will pay particular heed to Planned Parenthood and other members of the abortionist lobby while they will oppose pro-life groups. They will also pay more attention to entreaties from organized labor groups such as the AFL-CIO and AFSCME while dismissing the viewpoints of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce or other business interests.
Clinton and Obama are arrogant enough to think Americans won't see through their self-serving and deceitful rhetoric about interest groups. They forget that a key feature of the U.S. Constitution is that Americans as individuals and organizations have the right to petition their government for redress. This applies to individuals and organizations of all ideological perspectives. Recent years have seen, as the Abramoff scandal demonstrates, abuses in this process. Such abuses are, however, the failings of individual lobbyists, individual legislators, and the leaders of individual organizations. They are not reflective of inherent problems with the concept of citizens being able to lobby their elected and appointed represenatives. Legislation such as last year's ethics reform legislation will not be able to outlaw governmental corruption but may pose onerous reporting requirments on organizations (some of which are quite small) that desire to advocate their interests before congress.
Hillary Clinton has also been audaciously claiming that she will be a tough and decisive commander in chief as opposed to Obama. This has just been demonstrated in Pennsylvania where Hillary claims she will obliterate Iran if it attacks Israel. I'd love to hear the Iranian mullahs laughing to this response. Hillary Clinton voted for launching military operations in Iraq, but claims she's against the conflict now that she's contending for the Democratic presidential nomination. Talk about shades of John Kerry's rhetoric claiming he voted for the war before he voted against it. If Hillary can't stand up against Code Pink or Moveon.org, how in the world can she stand up against Iran or any other hostile anti-American threat. Hillary Clinton showed no sign of decisive national security viewpoints during her husband's presidency. Their is no evidence that she urged Bubba Gump to take a hardline against the perpetrators of the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, the U.S.S. Kohl bombing, the 1998 African embassy bombings, Serb atrocities in the Balkans, Chinese attempts to intimidate Taiwan, Saddam Hussein's defiance of international sanctions, or other national security crises occurring during her husband's "presidency." I highly doubt the Iranian mullahs, North Korea's Kim Jong Il, Venezuela's Chavez, the Al Qaida leadership, Chinese leaders, Vladimir Putin, or other existing or potential anti-American despots are experiencing sleep deprivation worrying about Hillary's imaginary rhetorical bellicosity.
If Hillary wants to emulate a decisive female leader, she should study Margaret Thatcher's career in power and service as British Prime Minister between 1979-1990. Unfortunately, for Hillary, Margaret Thatcher had solid intellectual, political, and moral convictions that making such decisive leadership possible.