Here’s some friendly advice from a conservative to Democrats: you’re making a huge mistake by letting Hillary Clinton be your candidate instead of Bernie Sanders. It’s hard for me to say that since Sanders is the ideological opposite of conservatives, but judging by the way that Clinton is being indoctrinated as the best bet by Democrats, it’s important for me to state the truth.
Clinton is a scoundrel. She accomplished absolutely nothing as a Senator, but that’s better than the damage she did as First Lady which is better than the greater damage she did as Secretary of State. It’s not just the conservative in me that’s saying those things, either. Keep in mind that I was even more critical of Colin Powell when he was Secretary of State under George W. Bush. Condeleeza Rice was better, but not by much.
For whatever reason, the media and the DNC have already decided that Hillary Clinton is the Democrats’ candidate. If I were a Democrat, I would be crying foul and doing everything I could to contest this travesty.
As a conservative who usually votes Republican, I welcome the possibility of Clinton being the candidate, and as much as I want to keep my mouth shut and let it happen, I consider the ever-so-slight possibility of her winning the general election as being too much to risk. I don’t believe in Bernie Sanders as a President because his policies are obtuse to me, but I would welcome a Sanders Presidency over Hillary Clinton. In fact, I would welcome a Sanders Presidency over Donald Trump or Jeb Bush.
There are plenty of false claims being made about Sanders. Those false complaints include:
- Sanders is Too Old: Yes, he’s over six years older than Clinton, but there are multiple sources that say her health is more of a concern than his.
- Sanders it Too Liberal: First, it’s important to note the distinction between actions and labels. Sanders is labeled as a socialist and he is. President Obama and Clinton are not labeled as socialists, but they are. In the Senate, Clinton and Sanders voted alike 93% of the time. Despite Clinton’s occasional attempt to appeal to the moderates (depending on who she’s speaking to at the time) her record and her declared policies are nearly as liberal as Sanders. The second thing to note here is that being too far to the left or too far to the right has never stopped a candidate. In fact, looking back over the last few decades, the more extreme candidate won nearly every time with the exception of Michael Dukakis who probably would have won had he not been competing against Ronald Reagan’s “third term” with George H.W. Bush.
- Sanders Can’t Debate: Based upon the single performance so far, one can easily argue that Clinton was the better debater. However, that’s within her own party with a friendly host in the form of Anderson Cooper. We can assume that the debate would be more challenging when she’s up against a GOP candidate. In that situation, I would give the advantage to the ideological Sanders.
Those aren’t the only falsehoods being put out there, but the biggest thing going for Clinton against Sanders is that people on the moderate side of their party believe that he’s too polarizing. He’s facing the same challenge as Ted Cruz for the Republicans. In both cases, they would be far superior candidates in a general election than their moderate foes.
Traditional logic would dictate that conservatives would want the easiest Democratic candidate to win the nomination, but as a realist it’s important to consider the consequences. If Clinton were to face Trump, she could actually win the Presidency and that’s a prospect that I cannot imagine. I’d rather take my chances beating a tougher candidate like Sanders than risk the farce that the country would be if Clinton somehow gets in.
via Soshable http://ift.tt/1MjMUDu
No comments:
Post a Comment