“Hillary Clinton is the most conservative” Democrat running for president. So says columnist Bruce Bartlett, who argues that Hillary’s policies would resemble Bill’s: “Outstanding” on trade, “far better than George W. Bush” on the budget, and “no worse than” W on regulatory policy.
We should add, as Michael Crowley did recently in a cover story for the New Republic, that Hillary “has always been more comfortable with the military than many of her liberal boomer peers.” She comes from the Truman-Kennedy foreign-policy wing of her party, and despite enormous pressure from her base, she refuses to recant her vote authorizing the Iraq war. She is also co-sponsoring a bill to sanction U.S. companies that do business with Iran.
Equally to the ire of primary and caucus voters, Hillary deplores violent and sexual content in video games—though because she’s not a knee-jerk leftist, she has proposed a voluntary ratings system rather than a mandatory one. Indeed, she talks more about our national morale and faith, which are far common from the mouths of Republicans than Democrats, than she does about gay marriage and abortion. A few months ago, she even declared that the latter is a “sad, even tragic choice.”
In short, Hillary has left behind her HillaryCare days and embraced the political center. She focuses more on consensus than partisanship. And if you think I’m exaggerating, well, just ask such adversaries-turned-allies as Rick Santorum (on restricting graphic media for children); Sam Brownback (protecting refugees fleeing sexual abuse); Lindsay Graham (expanding health care services for the National Guard); and Newt Gingrich (reforming health care).
And yet, pace Bartlett, Hillary is not the most conservative Dem. That honor belongs to Bill Richardson, about whom Reason magazine sums up the case nicely (not yet online):
[As governor] Richardson cut New Mexico’s income tax from 8.2 percent to 4.9 percent, halved the capital gains tax, and eliminated the gross receipts tax. He frequently and explicitly drew a link between lower taxes and economic growth. . . . [He] not only supports the right to carry a concealed weapons but holds a concealed-carry permit himself. He . . . endors[es] charter schools (but not vouchers) and medical marijuana (but not decriminalization).
And in case you think a presidential run has caused Richardson to revisit his views, as it has donetoothers, two things he said last week should quell your fears. First, on taxes: “Democrats, whenever we have a solution, we want to tax. I’m different. I’m a tax cutter.” Second, on guns: “I’m a Westerner. . . . The Second Amendment is precious in the West.” In fact, Richardson has the highest rating from the National Rifle Association of any candidate for president, Democrat or Republican.
Finally, Richardson’s resume stands heads and shoulders above those of all his Democratic challengers: Governor, U.N. ambassador, congressman, cabinet secretary. As Karen Tumulty of Time puts it, “He has rescued hostages and negotiated with some of the toughest characters on the planet.”
Others have noted that Congress is now in the hands of Democrats largely because Democrats ran blue-dog candidates in November. A Clinton-Richardson ticket would entrench this conservative trend.
Addendum (5/4/2007): Citing various quotes from Hillary, but no specific policies, the Club for Growth calls Bartlett “crazy.” Comments Club President Pat Toomey:
Her distrust of individual freedom, her distaste for the capitalist system, and her faith in government control places her at the far left end of the political spectrum. A President Hillary Clinton would do everything in her power to make America look more like our neighbors across the Atlantic and less like the capitalistic free-market enterprise that has made this country great.
And in case Karen’s quote about Richardson’s diplomatic successes left you curious, the Las Vegas Review-Journalelaborates: He’s pried free a journalist from Sudan, concessions out of Kim Jong Ill, prisoners from Castro and Americans from Saddam.
Addendum (11/10/2007): Rich Lowry joins the conservatives-for-Hillary club:
It’s a paradox of this election season that the most conservative candidate in the Democratic presidential field is the one most hated by conservatives. Hillary Clinton will not make extravagant promises about pulling American troops from Iraq, defends declaring elements of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards a terrorist organization and won’t endorse massive new payroll taxes to fund Social Security.
Residents of the District of Columbia want a voting representative in Congress, and Senators Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Joe Lieberman (D-CT) have introduced legislation to grant their wish (the House has already passed such legislation). This seems perfectly legitimate and long overdue; after all, simply living in the nation’s capitol shouldn’t disfranchise you.
But the way the franchise is established makes all the difference. As Matthew Spalding of the Heritage Foundation explains in the above video, doing so by legislative fiat is unconstitutional. The Constitution created Congress for representatives of the “people of the . . . states,” and since DC is not a state but the seat of the federal government, its residents cannot constitutionally claim suffrage.
Yes, this is harsh, especially because District residents certainly pay taxes (whatever happened to no taxation without representation?) But short of redistricting DC into Virginia or Maryland, or both, the only remedy is a constitutional amendment. As Congresswoman Louie Gohmert (R-TX) put it, “The Constitution is clear. Let’s follow it or amend it.”
Addendum (5/4/2007): Wikipedia offers a decent overview of the competing arguments. Interesting footnote: John Kerry, George Will and the Congressional Research Service all favor the status quo, while Ken Starr, Viet Dinh and Mike Pence support suffrage.
A version of this blog post appeared on TechPresident on May 2, 2007.
Former Virginia governor Jim Gilmore formally announced his bid for the Republican presidential nomination yesterday. In case you missed it (as I did until I came across Marshall Manson’s post at On Tap), you’re not alone. Here’s why:
1. If you Google “Jim Gilmore,” you need to scroll through 32 other sites before you get to GilmoreforPresident.com. Unless you’ve changed your preferences on Google.com, this means you must click through three pages of results (ask yourself when was the last time you went past the first page?). Indeed, as this techPresident chart shows, Gilmore’s campaign site is by far the hardest to find among all the candidates.
2. Equally discouraging, clicking on Google’s 36th result for “Jim Gilmore”—http://jimgilmore08.com/issues.htm, which is supposed to be a mirror to GilmoreforPresident.com—produces the message, “The requested URL /issues.htm was not found on this server.”
3. As soon as Gilmore for President loads, the home page hits you over the head with a video, which automatically starts playing, instead of allowing you, a la YouTube, to click Play at your discretion. This is not only bad etiquette (the equivalent of typing in all capital letters), but it’s technologically unsound, since it makes you averse to returning to the home page. (Incidentally, the same problem plagued the process for embedding videos from OURcountry.com, which is currently undergoing an upgrade.)
4. Worse, this video is not Gilmore’s announcement for president, but his announcement of an exploratory committee. To find the former, you need to click on a link.
5. While this link contains the video you want, it was uploaded using Adobe FlashPlayer, which does not allow embedding the video into your own blog.
6. The savvy user—if you’re still interested and patient enough—will then hop on over to YouTube. You search for “Jim Gilmore,” and the first video that appears comes from a self-described “official” GilmoreforPresident account. But this account only contains one video (the exploratory announcement), hasn’t been logged-into for two months, and goes by the handle “Ed Ruff,” not “Jim Gilmore.”
7. You realize something’s amiss, so you do another search for “Jim Gilmore.” This time, you click on the fourth result, titled “Jim Gilmore announces for president (Part One)” and uploaded by Gilmore4Pres. Finally, you are able to watch, share, save and embed the governor’s announcement for president.
According to the AP, Gilmore “made his announcement in a Webcast . . . sent out over his campaign’s Web site.” (As Gilmore himself notes, “We’re doing much of this, of course, over the Web page [sic] here today.”) This indicates that somebody in the campaign at least recognizes the Internet’s potential.
At this point, however, Gilmore’s online presence is causing him more harm than good. This is regrettable because it’s still very much correctable; in fact, with a robust about-turn, Gilmore could slide into the second tier of candidates.
In short, the Internet offers Jim Gilmore both the cheapest and the most effective chance to raise his profile. That he’s in over his head is understandable, but that he’s wasting the one bullet in his gun is not.
Addendum (5/3/2007): Rob Bluey points out another depressing detail: less than 10 weeks ago, Gilmore promised the weekly gathering of conservative bloggers that he would be the first blogger in chief.
Congress’s “effort to micromanage the Iraq war,” by sending the president a bill this afternoon with a timetable for the withdrawal of American forces, “is nothing less than shameful,” argues Peter Brookes of the Heritage Foundation.
Let’s play devil’s advocate for a minute. Fact: Each branch of government is supposed to act as a check and balance on the others. Question: If the legislative branch disapproves of an action taken by the executive, what should it do?
To wit, what should Congress do with respect to war, so as not to “micromanage”?
Is oversight limited to such things as a (toothless) Sense of the Congress resolution? Or, since Congress has the power of the purse, should it defund the war by withholding money or tying money to certain conditions (say, that Iraqi oil pay for 25% percent of our expenses)?
Addendum (11/4/2007): In his column today, George Will provides the answer:
American history is replete with examples of Congress restraining executive warmaking. (See Congress at War, a book by Charles A. Stevenson.) Congress has forbidden:
Sending draftees outside this hemisphere (1940-41); introduction of combat troops into Laos or Thailand (1969); reintroduction of troops into Cambodia (1970); combat operations in Southeast Asia (1973); military operations in Angola (1976); use of force in Lebanon other than for self-defense (1983); military activities in Nicaragua (1980s). In 1993 and 1994, Congress mandated the withdrawal of troops from Somalia, and forbade military actions in Rwanda.
When Congress authorized the president “to use all necessary and appropriate force” against those complicit in 9/11, Congress refused to adopt administration language authorizing force “to deter and pre-empt any future” terrorism or aggression.
Posted by Jonathan Rick in 
Before entering the digital space…
I flacked for the American Conservative Union and the Cato Institute, and reported for Time magazine and the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.