If you want to understand the, sad but deep, strain of American distrust and loathing of intellectuals read the Gail Collins column in today’s New York Times. Erudite but essentially stupid these Big Media intellectuals be.
In her stupidly titled column, Never Trust Anybody Over 49, Collins proves that as someone who long ago saw the age of 49 – by her own standards she is worthy of zero trust.
Collins calls Hillary risk adverse because of the recent debate answer on Social Security.
When she was asked if she favored lifting the cap on Social Security taxes (currently only the first $97,500 in income is taxed), all she would say was that she wanted to “put fiscal responsibility first.”
Collins also did not like that Hillary stood her ground when pressed by Russert:
When the moderator, Tim Russert, asked whether she was completely ruling out the idea of lifting the cap, this is what Clinton had to say:
“Well, I take everything off the table until we move toward fiscal responsibility and before we have a bipartisan process. I don’t think I should be negotiating about what I would do as president. You know, I want to see what other people come to the table with.”
This is an excellent example of how to string together the maximum number of weasel words in one sentence. It was also pretty typical of Hillary’s entire evening. It’s one thing to refuse to answer a hypothetical question about whether there is any circumstance under which you might ever use nuclear weapons against Iran. It’s another to refuse to commit on who you’d root for if the Yankees played the Cubs in the World Series. No young person is going to fall in love with politics because of a candidate who says: “I would probably have to alternate sides.”
Collins, one of our Big Media elite intellectuals, has so bought the Ripublican bias on Social Security that she does not see the wisdom in Hillary’s response. Collins and other Big Media buffoons also laughed at Bill Clinton when he fought the deranged 105th Newt Gingrinch Ripublican Congress.
Those 105th Congress Ripublicans, and their schemes to destroy the hard won Clinton economic victories, which put the nation on the right fiscal track in the 1990s, were successfuly fought by Bill Clinton when he employed the slogan “Save Social Security First”. Collins, trapped in her self-imposed dotage, appears to have forgotten that Social Security battle.
We wrote in Hillary Clinton And American Voters Lied To By Tim Russert a mild refutation of Russert’s views on Social Security, which Gail Collins needs to read:
The more substantive battle between Hillary and supposed non-candidate Russert was on the question of Social Security. Russert repeatedly demanded that Hillary and the other Democrats accept his formulations on Social Security which lead to “accepted” Social Security “solutions” by the wealthy elite of elites of Big Media.
Hillary, wise woman that she is, firmly focused on her wiser policy of ‘first things first’. First, you adopt fiscal responsibility – then you see the results of fiscal responsibility. Only after that post-fiscal responsibility accessment do you begin to devise solutions to the situation. Russert was a glum plum.
Collins was befuddled with the Iran question (it was about Israel attacking Iran). It is also charming that Gail Collins is so hip she knows how young people process thoughts on baseball and Hillary.
Collins is also distressed by Hillary’s answer on second graders reading books about two princes in love.
In that last debate, the candidates were asked if they thought it was appropriate for a teacher to read young children a story about a handsome prince who marries a — handsome prince. Clinton started off by taking an all-purpose stand against divisiveness and ended with a plug for hate crimes legislation. In between, she said this: “With respect to your individual children, that is such a matter of parental discretion. I think that, obviously, it is better to try to work with your children, to help your children understand the many differences that are in the world and to really respect other people and the choices that other people make, and that goes far beyond sexual orientation.”
Now people, don’t you think the most gifted person of her generation could do better than this?
That’s a pretty good answer we think. Collins of course does not provide her brilliant answer on this question so we don’t have the benefit of a comparison answer. Collins could grace us, days after the debate, with a better response to the question Hillary answered at the spur of the moment.
Collins also does not say if she is satisfied that any other candidate on that stage gave a better answer. We recall what the other candidates replied. The other candidates’ answers were only “an all-purpose stand against divisiveness”. Hillary added to that Collins ridiculed answer with the need for hate crimes legislation as well as understanding that there is a parental role on this issue. We would love to hear Gail Collin’s answer on this question that is better, but we doubt the great New York Times intellectual can come up with one no matter how much time she is allowed to respond.
Gail Collins today warned us not to trust anyone over 49. Gail Collins is correct in at least one instance – herself.