Michael Walsh is heartily tired of politicians promising to "fight" for this fine-sounding policy or that snappily-acronymed law. Mrs Clinton's New York speech set him off.
Fight, fight, fight — the Democrats, it seems, always want to fight. But who are they fighting for? And who are they really fighting?

The short answer is: they’re not fighting at all. Since LBJ, the Pansy Party never met a war it wanted to fight to win, only a war it could use for domestic political advantage in its eternal quest for personal enrichment and societal destabilization. Reagan ended the Cold War with a decisive victory over the Soviet Union (which collapsed in defeat), but the Democrats have managed to resuscitate it via the “reset” button. Bill Clinton was content to make bellicose noises, and fire off a few missiles in the general direction of the Middle East during Saddam Hussein’s moments in the desert sun, and let bin Laden escape when his lawyers overruled his military men. The Democrat defeatist disease even infected two Republican presidents, Bush pere et fils, both of whom knew how to pick a fight in “Iraq” but neither of whom knew how to properly end it.
How things change in a half-century. The Democrats used to blame the Republicans for recessions, and the Republicans used to blame Democrats for wars. The last active politician to respect that tradition was probably Senator Dole, failing to gain any traction with mention of "Democrat wars" in 1996. Mr Walsh suggests there are limits to societal destabilization, and the various freakazoids that make up the Democrat coalition are discovering them.
Ah, but rhetorically, it’s a different story over on the increasingly deracinated, psychotic Left. Since they live in a pan-sexual academic world of signs and portents and nuances and microagressions, everything is a threat, and therefore the only proper response is to “fight.” Their candidates rage against the inequities of the vast conspiracy against special snowflakes that is the real world, and promise “safe spaces” for their precious charges — even though Democrats have been in the White House every year since 1993, with the exception of the Bush II eight-year interregnum. If they could run against themselves, they would and, practically speaking, they do. Because, you see, There Is Only the Fight.
In the past few days, we've seen the special snowflakes waging war on the snowflakery of others. There isn't enough time tonight to gloat over all of them.

The scrap between Mrs Clinton's snowflakes, and Mr Sanders's unicorns, is only beginning. We have much to look forward to.
Nor, for all her nasty disposition and truculent temperament, Hillary Rodham Clinton. She’s interested in “campaign finance reform” because (like McCain) it was her ox that was gored by the Citizens United decision. She’s “fighting” for “national security” because it was on her watch that the world went to hell in a handcart. She “fighting” for the economy, even though it was under the Obama presidency that the country has spent seven years in misery and penury, with only the crony capitalists like the Clintons living high on the hog. And she’s “fighting” for families because it is her political party whose policies have been at the heart of the destruction of the American nuclear family. Besides, her own family — which has been looting treasuries around the globe in the name of its “charity” — is doing just fine, thanks.

“There is only the fight.” And she means it. The problem is, the only thing Hillary Clinton thinks worth fighting for is herself.
We'll likely get Crying Hillary and Screech Owl Hillary as the campaign unfolds. Some attack ads will write themselves.

No comments: