Today's Paper Latest stories 2018 election city/county races Most commented Obits Traffic Newsletters Weather Puzzles + games

Forget, for a moment, if you possibly can, all the scandals that the Clintons have given the American people over the years. Forget, for a moment, if you possibly can, that if Hillary Clinton is elected president of the United States, Bill Clinton will be big news again. Forget, for a moment, if you possibly can, that the 1990s will be back, and every time a press release is issued from the White House, you'll have to ask yourself what's the catch this time.

Forget, for a moment, if you possibly can, clinton clauses. It's been said in this state--for years--that Bill Clinton would rather climb a tree and play olly olly oxen free with the truth than stand on the ground and be completely honest. And forget, for a moment, if you possibly can, that Hillary Clinton has learned at the foot of the master in that regard.

Forget, for a moment, if you possibly can, impeachment, the vast right-wing conspiracy, Elian Gonzalez, Marc Rich, bimbo eruptions, White House pardons, the Starr report, Whitewater, the Clinton Foundation, and 1990s music and hairstyles.

Forget, for a moment, if you possibly can, all the Clinton controversies that had little to do with Bill. How about Travelgate, or non-existent sniper fire, or email servers, or cattle futures, or Debbie Wasserman Schultz and hacked emails, or four dead in Benghazi.

Forget, for a moment, if you possibly can, the millions of dollars that the Clintons have made giving speeches to the same kind of Wall Street players that they rail against today. And all the conflicts of interest when Bill was taking big money on behalf of folks who had business with the government when his wife was Secretary of State.

Forget, for a moment, if you possibly can, Hillary Clinton's ho-hum Senate career or her calamitous time as Secretary of State. Is there a moment she'd be proud of in either job? If so, why aren't her supporters bragging about one? Is Libya or Egypt or Syria or Iraq or any spot in the Middle East better off today than in 2008? Name a vote--any vote--that she took as a United States senator that will be remembered. Besides the votes that she now apologizes for.

Forget, for a moment, if you possibly can, all of that.

Look to the future.

What is this woman promising to do to us? And why in the world would anybody vote for her?

You think college is expensive now, wait till it's free. The Wall Street Journal reported this summer that her plan to make college tuition free for most Americans would cost at least $500 billion in new spending over the next decade. But others say that estimate is low. Bloomberg reports that her double-down on Obamacare would add $90.4 billion to the deficit. She'd expand Social Security and pay for it by taxing the wealthy more. Isn't that always the case? How long before that golden goose is cooked? Or is it well-done by now?

Hillary Clinton's website brags that a third Clinton term would give regulators more power over banks and financial institutions. She said during the debates that she'd use Dodd-Frank to break up banks if they pose a risk. And despite all the money she's made from them over the years, she vows to "rein in" Wall Street. Does anybody actually believe that?

She claimed in the first debate with Donald Trump her economic plan would create 10 million new jobs. How? Through more regulation and taxes? That either shows how little Hillary Clinton knows about economics or how tied she is to her liberal ideology.

Does increased government spending often lead to economic bliss? You'd think so if you saw all the projects Hillary Clinton promises to spend your money on--or send us all further into debt. Check off each item on the liberal Big Government grocery list:

More money on job training. Check!

Clean energy. Check!

More paid leave. Check!

Child care. Check!

Maybe it'd be easier to list the things she hasn't promised to spend more money on. After all, she's had to promise so much to so many in order to keep up with her primary opponent that it's easy to find speeches in which she's promised the moon. Or at least broadband networks.

But at least she'll harm the economy by opposing free trade, too. She and Donald Trump are fighting to the bottom over that one. She's even questioned NAFTA, which might be her husband's signature accomplishment for the economy.

Back when she was Secretary of State and had some responsibility, Hillary Clinton called the 12-country Pacific trade deal the gold standard of trade deals. After Bernie Sanders started giving her fits, she had to come out against it. But that happened a lot in this campaign. You should see her plan for the federal minimum wage after Senator Sanders pushed her further to the left. On second thought, read it: "We need to raise the federal minimum wage back to the highest it's ever been in this country and make sure it keeps rising over time."--Hillary Clinton press release, May 18.

Highest it's ever been. And make sure it keeps rising.

When it comes to taxes, she has all kinds of plans. Which you'd expect. Surtaxes on higher income. Minimum tax rates on households. Increases in the estate tax. How about that for boosting the economy: More taxes, more regulation and tear up free trade agreements.

Has she talked to her husband lately? Say what you will about him, and we often do, he could be the first to find the flaws in that economic strategy.

We're running out of space, and we haven't even talked about her support for Planned Parenthood ("And as president, I will always have your back!"), her non-support for charter schools, and in February she was still actually bragging on her dealings with Iran. ("I did put together the coalition to impose sanctions. I actually started the negotiations that led to the nuclear agreement, sending ... my closest aides to begin the conversations with the Iranians.")

In the final analysis, Hillary Clinton's greatest liability is her trouble with the truth. How did a woman who seemed honest enough as First Lady of Arkansas slide so far down the slippery slope--to the point that the majority of Americans consider her dishonest? We had a notoriously dishonest president not long ago--namely Richard Nixon. We saw how badly that turned out.

If Gentle Reader detects frustration in this editorial, we're glad you don't misunderstand. If the polls are any indication a month out, then Hillary Clinton has a very good chance to be the next president of the United States. If that happens, let's hope a responsible Congress can keep the government from repeating certain years circa 2009-2010.

Editorial on 10/09/2016

Print Headline: Not for Hillary

Sponsor Content


You must be signed in to post comments
  • WGT
    October 9, 2016 at 8:17 a.m.

    Screw you. You are deplorable.

    October 9, 2016 at 9 a.m.

    Way to damage what's left of your editorial integrity, Paul.


    Arkansas deserves a real paper.

  • Rightwhanger
    October 9, 2016 at 10:35 a.m.

    Is schoolyard "you are too" taunt the best you can do? Hillary's resilience, endurance and toughness in the face of the bully slander campaign you lead as a right-wing gang member is inspiring.

  • Foghorn
    October 9, 2016 at 11:51 a.m.

    It's actually Interesting to witness the desperate twisting and flailing as the clock runs out to Nov 8th. It's as if PG and his kind went out for a space walk and became untethered. We can see the fear on their faces and read their lips but there's no sound - thankfully. We watch them as they drift away into oblivion and, for a fleeting moment, wish we could reach them but know, they are too far gone. We return to the ship and realize their absence means more MRE's for the rest of us. Nom nom nom...good riddance.

  • RBear
    October 9, 2016 at 1:33 p.m.

    I think these comments help sum up the critique of this waste of print space. You attack Clinton because a) she wants to invest in job training in an economy that desperately needs retooling, b) she wants to help improve our environment through clean energy (key word there, CLEAN as opposed to DIRTY) that could also help improve the economy through new jobs and infrastructure, and c) child care at a time when our workforce is being pushed to work more hours to make ends meet.
    Instead, you spend most of the article in schoolyard taunts, a litany of "forgets" served to make the reader "remember," and really no strong points regarding why Clinton would be bad for our country compared with Trump. Coupled with his non-endorsement, you basically took the chicken squat way out of this election. The rest of the country has newspapers stepping up to the plate and getting involved in the process. The D-G? Too lazy to really even craft a credible non-endorsement.
    Sorry, but you embarrass me. I can't even really post these non-endorsements for my friends across the nation to read because of how poorly crafted they are. In other words, your lack of real journalistic value makes my state look like Jethro coming out of his library/outhouse to yuck his way to some engagement.

  • 23cal
    October 9, 2016 at 3:26 p.m.

    RBear.....Exactly right.

  • GoBigRed
    October 9, 2016 at 5:34 p.m.

    Why waste a vote on Trump when you could back a 3rd party and give them enough support that they could start challenging the standard Democrat and Republican tickets?

  • GoBigRed
    October 9, 2016 at 5:37 p.m.

    I foresee that Congress will take the same path with Clinton that they took with Obama and block anything and everything she proposes.

    October 9, 2016 at 5:41 p.m.

    Greenberg: Pussy.

  • GrimReaper
    October 10, 2016 at 12:25 a.m.

    The intensity of desperation within the Hillary cult is going off the charts. Nothing they throw at Trump seems to stick because decent people know well her litany of sins.