I like a lot of what Carly Fiorina has to say, but…

April 16, 2015
"On the attack"

“On the attack”

I like the relentlessness of her attacks on Hillary Clinton, hitting Lady Macbeth again and again on her record and her hypocrisy. The former Hewlett-Packard executive is the only (almost-) candidate in the race (so far) who can do that without exposing herself to the “sexism card.” That’s takes away one of Hillary’s main ways to dodge any difficult question. Here she is, for example, on the Left’s (and Hillary’s) “selective outrage” over corporate CEO salaries:

She also rapped the Democrat’s recent attack on CEO pay. “I find the selective outrage of the left kind of interesting. They don’t seem to be outraged by the salaries that movie stars make. They don’t seem to be outraged by the salaries that sports stars make. They don’t seem to be outraged by a lot of salaries except for CEOs,” she said.

True enough: they’re happy to fly to California or New York and schmooze the wealthy glitterati (including sports owners). Their salaries are apparently pure as the driven snow. But the head of an investment bank or industrial firm? EVIL!!

Funny, though, how she’s willing to take their money. Perhap’s she has the “Royal Touch” that heals cash payola of its evil the moment she lays hands on it.

Anyway, back to Carly Fiorina and my hesitation. I’d be more comfortable with her as a potential POTUS if she had first won a lesser race, including the Senate race she lost against the eminently beatable Barbara Boxer. If the “feisty Fiorina” I’m seeing now had shown up then, I think she might have taken it. Clinton is likewise eminently beatable, but if Fiorina were nominated and her 2010 version showed up…

That said, and while I don’t doubt the sincerity of what she’s saying, I think Carly Fiorina is running more for vice-president than president.

Still, for however long she’s in the race, it will be fun to see her kick Her Majesty in the shins again and again.

smiley popcorn


Report: The Clintons Referred To Secret Service Agents As “Pigs”

April 8, 2015

Phineas Fahrquar:

The Reagans and the Bushes were known for their kind treatment of their Secret Service details. The Clintons, apparently (and I’ve heard other stories), not so much. Nice way to teach their daughter about the men required to take a bullet to protect her. Points out who the real “pigs” are.

Originally posted on Nice Deb:

Excerpts from a new book about the White House paint a not altogether complimentary picture of the Clintons’ tumultuous time there. Although some staffers remember the Clintons fondly, others remember screaming fights complete with foul language and flying lamps, as well as their secretive, suspicious and vindictive ways. Most shockingly, the florist remembers overhearing a telephone conversation where Chelsea Clinton referred to a Secret Service member as a “pig” because that’s what her parents call them.

In her article at the Politico, Kate Andersen Brower, who spent four years covering the Obama White House for Bloomberg News, provided these juicy tidbits from The Residence: Inside the Private World of the White House.

White House Florist Ronn Payne remembers one day in 1998, after President Clinton had publicly admitted to his affair with a former White House intern, when he was coming up the service elevator with a cart to…

View original 358 more words


Hillary has nothing to hide, and she wiped the email server to prove it

March 27, 2015
Above the rules.

Above the rules.

Keep this in mind: Hillary Clinton conducted all her State Department official correspondence on this private server. Her top, close aides at State all had accounts on this server. It is inconceivable that sensitive United States Government information  –information foreign intel services would love to have– was not stored on it. The server was astoundingly insecure; in fact, we know it was hacked.

Ergo, it is in the interests of the United State and its people to find out in a verifiable manner –not just taking Hillary’s word for it– what was on that server and if the official records of her work have all been turned over to State, as commanded by law. Also, a forensic analysis of the server is imperative to determine if anyone else had hacked it: who, when, what did they get? Beyond questions of Benghazi or the questionable dealings of the Clinton foundation, we need to know how much damage may have been done to the national security and foreign relations of our country. The potential security breach could make Edward Snowden look like an amateur.

Which is why she wiped the server:

The head of the House Select Committee on Benghazi says former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has erased all information from the personal email server she used while serving as the nation’s top diplomat.

“We learned today, from her attorney, Secretary Clinton unilaterally decided to wipe her server clean and permanently delete all emails from her personal server,” Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) said in a statement Friday.

He said while it’s “not clear precisely when Secretary Clinton decided to permanently delete all emails from her server, it appears she made the decision after October 28, 2014, when the Department of State for the first time asked the Secretary to return her public record to the Department.”

Last week, Gowdy sent a letter to Clinton’s attorney asking that the email server be turned over to a third party in the hopes that an investigation could recover about 30,000 emails that her team deleted before turning the rest over to the State Department.

Gowdy said “it is clear Congress will need to speak with the former Secretary about her email arrangement and the decision to permanently delete those emails.”

Emphasis added. This wasn’t just a wipe to reinstall Window Server or whatever outdated software she was using. When she received word that State wanted those emails, she ran downstairs to hit the SCRAM button. It’s no longer a question of “if,” but “what.” What was on that server she was so desperate to hide? Whatever it was, she arrogated to herself the right to decide what was and wasn’t relevant. In spite of the law. And now we’ll likely never know.

This is like an embezzler burning down a building to hide his crime.

The high-handed corruption of the Clintons never fails to astound.


The man, the moment: “Draft Biden” is on

March 23, 2015

Joe Biden

Come on, Democrats. You just know America is yearning for the chance to vote for four years of politics’ answer to Professor Irwin Corey.

John Fund at NRO:

Mark Halperin of Bloomberg News says the buzz is that “if Hillary Clinton fails, he’s the man.” The vice president himself is said to be scrambling for a way to somehow run for president a third time.

Joe Biden? When the next president is sworn in, he will be 74 years old, but that’s only the beginning of his problems. A creature of Washington since he was elected to the Senate at age 29, he personifies the bloviating Beltway that voters have come to loathe. Like the best of bloviators, he can be oblivious to his habit, telling GQ magazine in 2013: “I never speak about anything I don’t know a great deal about.”

But at other times, he can be insightful and revealing about his own career. He told an audience at a 2012 Democratic fundraiser in Chicago: “I never had an interest in being a mayor ’cause that’s a real job. You have to produce. That’s why I was able to be a senator for 36 years.”

Look, Ted Cruz has already declared he’s running a populist, “us against D.C.” campaign; so why not run the ultimate Washington insider against him, should Cruz win the nomination? Can you imagine the debates between them?? Blogging gold!

Fund, of course has to be a bit of a killjoy:

I don’t think Biden is stupid, but I do think he is unserious. Not unserious in quite the same way that Donald Trump is. After all, Trump usually knows when he is being outrageous — and acts in this way consciously to build his brand.

I fear Biden, if not serious, is at least sincere, both when he is on the stump and in the many policy meetings in Washington where he leaves attendees scratching there heads. If so, we should all worry.

Few modern politicians have unfairly vilified their opponents as often as Biden has. In 2012, Biden stood before a Virginia campaign crowd, about half of whom were African Americans, and said of Mitt Romney in a comic, down-home accent: “He is going to let the big banks once again write their own rules, unchain Wall Street. He is going to put y’all back in chains.” Even Willie Geist, a co-host of MSNBC’s Morning Joe, put it bluntly: “If Paul Ryan, the Republican candidate, said that to an African American audience, there would be calls this morning for him to get out of the race, for Mitt Romney to withdraw from the race. There’s a double standard.” Biden refused to apologize, because he knew the media would let him get away with not doing so.

Just this month, Biden told a union audience that its adversaries were “intent on breaking unions” and wore “blackshirts,” a clear reference to the skull-crackers of Mussolini’s Fascist Italy. As media critic Jack Shafer noted in Politico: “Biden’s political provocation drew slim attention. The near-universal newsroom response seems to have been, It’s only Uncle Joe going off again.”

Yeah, Biden is a boor, and there is some reason to question, if not his intelligence, at least his grip on reality. But, as Fund points out, he’s currently polling better with Democrats than Elizabeth Warren. If Hillary falters, who can the Democrats going to turn to?

Ready for Hillary Joe?


(Video) Bill Whittle on “The criminal arrogance of Hillary Clinton”

March 22, 2015

Whittle draws an interesting comparison between the arrogance and contempt for the rule of law shown by Hillary Clinton, on the one hand, and King George III on the other. More galling than her apparent crimes themselves is the attitude behind them: that the law, which, under the common law system that is our heritage from Great Britain, is supposed to apply equally to all citizens high and low, does not apply to her — nor to the governing class of which she is a part.

That is, our new aristocracy:

Time to put them back in their places, it is.


In which Debbie Wasserman-Schultz asks a loaded question, and the Right pulls the trigger

March 14, 2015
x

Sorry she asked.

So, last night, the congresswoman from Florida and Chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee (1)(2) asked a question on Twitter:

As you can guess, many of us listed all our favorite Democrat policies. The Blaze recorded many responses, including my own:

Ah, five seconds of fame at last. Too bad Debbie Downer probably never saw it, since she blocked me on Twitter. (So thin-skinned these progressives are!) smiley cool hey babe

Check out The Blaze to see the rest, and thanks to Pie Guevara for sending me the link.

Footnotes:
(1) Whose term in office has seen the slaughter of Democratic candidates at the state and federal levels, including loss of the Senate. Good work, madame Chairwoman!
(2) Or, more likely, one of her interns, who’s now getting yelled at.


Kamala Harris for president? @JimGeraghty is trying to scare me to death. UPDATE: Fake confessions are okay!

March 12, 2015
President Harris?

Ready for Kamala?

It’s been said that the Democratic “bench” in the upcoming presidential race is weak. Desolate, even. A toxic combination of assuming the nomination belongs to Hillary Clinton and the decimation of the Democratic Party at the state and federal levels in the 2010 and 2014 elections have left them with few other choices. Senator Elizabeth Warren, the fake Native American? The Democratic base would love her, but I doubt her act would play well outside of New England and the West Coast. Former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley? Who? New York Governor Mario Cuomo? Nah, he’ll probably be too busy with his campaign to stay out of federal court. Jim Webb? Maybe, but the champion of the “White working class” voter is going to have a hard time winning the enthusiasm of the modern Democratic Party.

So, really, all they have is Hillary. And yet, with scandals already piling up and considering Clinton’s poor political skills (did you see that press conference of hers at the UN, yesterday?), it’s not inconceivable that Lady Macbeth won’t be the nominee.

But if not her, then who?

Enter California’s Attorney General and likely next federal senator, Kamala Harris. Jim Geraghty gives her qualifications:

How about California state attorney general Kamala Harris? Yes, she’s running for the Senate right now. Part African-American, part Asian-American; first female state attorney general of California; vocal proponent of gun control; tough on those “predatory” banks; she tried to fight evictions of people who stopped paying their mortgages; opposes the death penalty; eager prosecutor of hate crimes; created an “Environmental Justice Unit” in the San Francisco DA’s office, and of course, enthusiastic supporter of EMILY’s List…

Tell me she isn’t the kind of candidate who would have progressive activists doing cartwheels. She’s the “tough D.A.” figure who goes after all of the liberals’ perceived enemies.

Some of you know I’m a lifelong Californian. Having grown up in Northern California, I still have an interest in San Francisco’s affairs, even though I now live in the south part of the state. And there’s something about the politics of the “Special City” that make one want to follow its wacky antics, much the way one can’t stop watching a slow-motion train wreck. Hence I know a little bit about Harris’ career. While everything Jim says above is true, consider the following few points that should have moderates and conservatives reaching for the Pepto:

  • Harris is a dogmatic opponent of the death penalty. While to her credit she defended California’s law (1), as San Francisco’s DA she notoriously refused to seek death for a cop-killer in 2004, an action almost unprecedented in California. Federal law enforcement, President Harris will have your back.
  • She has in the past shown questionable managerial skills and judgment, at best. In 2010, a district judge ripped Harris for her office’s concealment of evidence from defense attorneys in a scandal involving the SF crime lab and shrugging her shoulders over accountability.
  • She hates the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms in self-defense. She sought to intervene in a case in San Diego against the local sheriff’s restrictions on gun permits, even though no state law was challenged and the sheriff said he wouldn’t appeal. The only reasonable explanation is that she is so opposed to gun rights that she will stretch her office’s powers beyond their limits to fight them. Imagine the DoJ and BATF under her control.

Could Hillary’s weaknesses create room for another obscure state-level official who’s only recently come to national attention? Who knows?

But, if she does become president, it’s Geraghty’s fault.

Footnote:
(1) Before anyone says that shows she’s really a moderate, defending that law is her job as AG (2). The LA Times praising her for that is like praising the janitor for taking out the trash — that’s what he’s supposed to do.
(2) Though not doing so is an alarming trend among Democrat state AGs.

UPDATE: I’d forgotten about this one. To make a long story short, a prosecutor in Kern county (Bakersfield and environs) attached a fake confession to the transcript of an interview with a defendant, apparently hoping to coerce a plea deal or score a win in court. He was found out, the judge rightfully dismissed the case, and Kamala Harris appealed the dismissal:

Incredibly, the State of California, via Attorney General Kamala Harris, decided to appeal the case. The state’s key argument: That putting a fake confession in the transcript wasn’t “outrageous” because it didn’t involve physical brutality, like chaining someone to a radiator and beating him with a hose.

Forget a mostly joking reference to Harris running for president; she has no business being in the Senate or holding any office whatsoever. (h/t Crosspatch)


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 14,978 other followers