#Obamacare: first time in a long time I’ve agreed with Bill Clinton

October 5, 2016
"Obamacare has arrived"

“Obamacare has arrived”

Boy, this must annoy just about everyone else in the (Social) Democratic camp, including his wife and the current president: former President Bill Clinton being honest (1) about one aspect of how painful Obamacare is for Americans. Jim Geraghty quotes him:

If you’re already on Medicare or if you get enough subsidies on a modest income then you can afford your healthcare. But the people who are getting killed in this deal are small business people and individuals who make just a little too much to get in these subsidies. Why? Because they’re not organized. They don’t have any bargaining power with insurance companies and they’re getting whacked. So you’ve got this crazy system where all of a sudden 25 million more people have healthcare and then the people are out there busting it sometimes 60 hours a week wind up with their premiums double and their coverage cut in half. It’s the craziest thing in the world.

Darn right, Mr. President. And a lot of us have been saying Obamacare is crazy for a long time.

Welcome to the party, pal.

Footnote:
(1) Must’ve been an accident.

 

Advertisements

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

April 8, 2015

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.

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 post 358 more words


Two reasons why Hillary had the secret email account. Choose one.

March 4, 2015
x

“Emails? What emails?”

Really, you have to wonder why she (and Bill) would do something so dumb, so dangerously likely to come out and potentially cripple her presidential run.

Why, Hillary? Why??

Well, there are a couple of plausible explanations. Let’s look at both.

First, there’s the “facing the truth about herself” argument from National Review‘s Kevin Williamson: Hillary was preparing for her own failure:

Mrs. Clinton knows – she must know, at some level – that she has been grossly unprepared for every position she has held in public life other than that of first lady. She was a New York senator who knew the parts of the state more than 40 miles from a park-view room at the Plaza about as well as Robert F. Kennedy Jr. knows Muleshoe, Texas. She was a presidential candidate whose only recommendations were ovaries and a surname beloved – but not quite enough — by Democratic primary voters. And then she became a secretary of state appointed to the position mainly to appease the bruised feelings of Clintonites and to keep her from making mischief in case of a first-term Obama administration meltdown.

But she was a grossly incompetent secretary of state who knew that she was going to run for president again, and thus she took positive steps in advance to put in place protocols that would help her to mask her inadequacy. It is difficult even for her admirers to make a credible argument that her time in that office was anything other than disastrous. She knows this.

There’s really no denying any of this. Hillary’s sole means of advancing herself has been by riding the coattails of powerful men. It’s the reason she stayed with Bill, even after his serial infidelities, the most famous of which lead to her national humiliation: these men were her key to power. When she bungled the nominating race in 2008 and lost to a more nimble, younger, male candidate what everyone had assumed for years would be hers, her only hope of gaining the presidency she was inadequate to win on her own was to be a good soldier and make “the deal.”

And whenever those powerful men have given her important assignments –Hillarycare, under Bill; Secretary of State, under Obama– she’s been awful at them.

She bungled them all. She just wasn’t up to the task, whatever it was.

So, as Secretary of State, she used a private email account to hide her failings.

Like I said, “plausible.” I was willing to run with this, until further information came out. (More on that in a bit.)

The other theory is Stanley Kurtz’s. Kurtz, who also writes for NR and is a PhD in Social Anthropology, has written a couple of excellent books on President Obama. He’s a trained observer of cultural and political behavior. In his estimation, the news about the secret email account fits with a “Clinton family culture” that ingrained in her a habit, a reflexive need to evade executive responsibility:

The problems go back as far as Bill’s failed congressional campaign of 1974 and extend through a long series of cases in the Arkansas Governor’s Mansion and the Clinton White House. Typically, Hillary appeared on no flow chart and held no official authority, yet she intervened to delay or reverse existing decisions, sowing confusion. Desperate to disguise the extent of her de facto power, Hillary was driven to an obsessive secrecy that only increased the administrative chaos.

When Hillary finally secured a formal role as leader of the health-care initiative in the Clinton White House, the problem simply took on another form. Hillary circumvented the policy-planning apparatus of the White House by creating an unwieldy and hyper-secret parallel health-care bureaucracy of her own. The result was political and administrative disarray.

With direct access to Bill putting her beyond any official White House record-keeping, Hillary grew used to acting without a paper trail. To avoid that eventuality entirely, she began disguising her West Wing activities by using White House staffers as proxies, creating further confusion.

Hillary also forced White House aides to spend endless hours “erasing her fingerprints” from controversial decisions such as closing off the White House press corridor or firing White House travel office personnel to replace them with Clinton cronies. Vince Foster’s suicide may have been a direct result of Hillary’s attempt to evade responsibility for her own decisions. After erasing Hillary’s fingerprints from the travel office firings, Foster knew he’d be vulnerable to charges of having misled congressional investigators while he was under oath.

This is the more credible theory, I think, especially when one considers the news that the Clintons had, not just a private, semi-secret email for her conduct of State Department business, but their own private email servers in their home, set up by a man no one can so far trace. Consider:

Operating her own server would have afforded Clinton additional legal opportunities to block government or private subpoenas in criminal, administrative or civil cases because her lawyers could object in court before being forced to turn over any emails. And since the Secret Service was guarding Clinton’s home, an email server there would have been well protected from theft or a physical hacking.

Fits to a tee with the “obsessive secrecy” angle, doesn’t it?

I suppose one could argue that both could be true, the secrecy being a protective layer over the awareness of her own incompetence. But, whatever the truth, two things are certain: Where the Clintons are concerned, there is no shortage of popcorn-worthy drama, and there is no way she should ever be let near the Oval Office.

What do you think?


Bill Clinton is a despicable race-baiter

July 6, 2011

There’s no other way to describe this:

Bill Clinton likens GOP effort to Jim Crow laws

Former President Bill Clinton Wednesday compared GOP efforts to limit same-day voter registration and block some convicted felons from voting to Jim Crow laws and poll taxes.

In a speech to liberal youth activists Wednesday, the former president called out proposals in battleground states like Florida and Ohio that could limit the voter rolls.

“I can’t help thinking since we just celebrated the Fourth of July and we’re supposed to be a country dedicated to liberty that one of the most pervasive political movements going on outside Washington today is the disciplined, passionate, determined effort of Republican governors and legislators to keep most of you from voting next time,” Clinton said at Campus Progress’s annual conference in Washington.

“There has never been in my lifetime, since we got rid of the poll tax and all the Jim Crow burdens on voting, the determined effort to limit the franchise that we see today,” Clinton added.

Clinton mentioned Florida Gov. Rick Scott’s move in March to overturn past state precedent — including under former GOP governors — that allows convicted felons to vote once they’ve served they’ve finished probation periods.

“Why should we disenfranchise people forever once they’ve paid their price?” Clinton said. “Because most of them in Florida were African Americans and Hispanics who tended to vote for Democrats. That’s why.”

(via my blog-buddy Sister Toldjah, who’s likely to have some choice words for the former president very soon.)

This is disgusting and a damnable lie against those who want to ensure the integrity of the voting system. John Fund has amply documented the myriad problems with motor-voter and same-day registration, while states have always had the authority to restrict the franchise of convicted felons.

But it isn’t unusual for Democrats to make this kind of scurrilous accusation. Almost exactly one month ago, Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, the chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, accused Republicans of wanting to revive Jim Crow. As I wrote at the time:

Let me give you a little history lesson about your own party, Deb:

  • Q. Which party defended slavery? A. The Democratic Party.
  • Q. Which party opposed slavery? A. The Republican Party.
  • Q. Between 1875 and 1964, which party passed every major civil rights bill until the 1964 act? A. The Republicans.
  • Q. Which party created and defended Jim Crow for over 90 years? A. The Democrats.
  • Q. Which party fought every anti-lynching law introduced between the Civil War and 1964? A. The Democrats.
  • Q. Which party introduced segregation into the federal government? A. The Democrats, under Wilson.

You get the picture, Representative Wasserman-Schultz? Not only is your assertion a bald-faced lie, not only is it a contemptible slander against Republicans in general and in particular against anyone concerned about the integrity of our elections, not only is it a loathsome form of race-baiting intended to play Blacks for suckers, but it is also something that should never, ever be uttered by any Democrat, given your party’s dirty history on race.

This is obviously a coordinated Democratic strategy to fight any effort to shore up the integrity of the voting system. They have to resort to waving the bloody shirt of racism because they have no honest argument for opposing something as reasonable as presenting a photo ID when voting, because to be honest would be to admit they want to make fraudulent voting as easy as possible so they can cheat their way to victory.

Just when I’d about forgotten what an amoral weasel Bill Clinton was as president, he does something like this.

Thanks for the reminder, Bubba.

UPDATE: Sure enough, ST comes out swinging.


Weinergate: Question of the day, double-standards edition

June 10, 2011

Writing at Pajamas Media, Rand Simberg first thinks back to how hard (1) Bill Clinton fought to stay in office after a far worse sex scandal in a far more important office, then looks at all the Democrats suddenly calling on Congressman Anthony Weiner to resign and asks a simple question:

Can someone explain to me what Anthony Weiner did that was so much worse than what Bill Clinton did that he is being asked by his fellow Democrats to resign?

As someone who had the graphic details of then-President Bubba’s sexual escapades seared —SEARED! (2)– into my mind at the time, I have to say this is not only a simple question, but a good one.

Look at prior congressional sex scandals:

  • In 1983, Congressman Gerry Studds (D) was reprimanded for having sex with a 17-year old male House Page. Studds not only didn’t resign for what was arguably a worse offense (3), he turned it into a triumph, actually being applauded in the House when he stood on the floor to receive his reprimand.
  • Idaho Senator Larry Craig (R) was caught soliciting sex in a public restroom. He first resigned, then stayed to finish out his term.
  • Senator David Vitter (R) visited brothels, probably committing a crime (4), yet he not only did not resign, he was reelected.
  • And, my favorite, Barney Frank (D), whose “personal aide” ran a gay escort service from Frank’s apartment. (Frank claims he never knew until… Yeah, right.) And Barney is still there.
  • In a non-sex scandal, New Orleans “Dollar Bill” Jefferson (D) was widely believed to be as corrupt as the day is long, but he only left when defeated for reelection.

I’m sure we can think of others that are worse than a congressman cheating on his wife with phone and internet-sex, yet weren’t asked to resign. And all these people lied as much as Weiner — though probably not so wretchedly.

(Note: While John Ensign did resign in the wake of his scandal, there is a strong possibility of criminal violations in this case.)

So, to repeat Simberg’s question, if Clinton, Studds, Craig, Vitter, and Jefferson all got to stay, why does Anthony Weiner, whose offenses were lesser, have to go?

To be frank, since no crime was committed that we know of, let his voters pass judgment on him. They’ll be passing judgment on themselves, too.

And, as a partisan who wants to see the Democrats crushed in 2012, I want Weiner to stay so that our side can turn him into one of the “faces of Congress” for the election. Ask yourselves why the Democrats are pressuring him to go, now — it’s because they’re scared we’ll do just that.

So, there’s your question for the day, folks: Dear Democrats — if Bill could stay, why not Tony?

via Ed Driscoll

Footnotes:

(1) Get your minds out of the gutter.

(2) Just like Kerry in Cambodia, only this really happened.

(3) Not the sex itself (the age of consent in DC is 16), but for violating the trust implied in parents sending their teens to work in the House.

(4) Or is that not a crime in Louisiana?

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


President Cipher

December 11, 2010

During the day yesterday, I’d read online of the bizarre impromptu joint press conference held by President Obama and former President Clinton after a meeting they’d had about how to save Obama’s bacon best sell the tax compromise. Apparently, a few minutes into the event, the President of the United States walked out to go to a party, leaving his Democratic predecessor in charge. Commenters online were generally aghast, but I figured it couldn’t be as bad as it sounded.

I was wrong. Watch this.

What the…??

Yo, Chief! You’re the President of the United States. The man in charge. You wanted the job!

And you just walk out of a press conference and let your stand-in handle it so you could go to a  party? I doubt you could make yourself look any more feckless if you tried. At least Nixon had the decency to issue a formal resignation.

After watching that video, I had to check to see if Clinton had named his Cabinet, yet.

And speaking of former (and current?) President Clinton, I offer a few observations, based on the video clip:

  • Self-serving to the last, he says he didn’t like the securitization and reselling of sub-prime mortgages by Fannie and Freddie. Bill, it was your administration that fed the beast!
  • He also thinks the financial regulation bill is a good idea. Ummm… Sir? Who signed the deregulation legislation? Oh,yeah
  • Ten years out, and he’s still more on top of policy than Obama. You can just tell he misses the job*.
  • Obama must be thanking his lucky stars for the 22nd Amendment. I really do think, if he could run again, Bill would beat Obama in the 2012 primaries.

But, back to the man who is supposedly our president… Will anyone, foreign or domestic, take him seriously after this last week?

*And the interns. Especially the interns.

LINKS: Bryan Preston calls this a cry for Bubba-Wan, while Ed Driscoll thinks something weird is going on. Fausta calls it amateur hour. Obi’s Sister suspects Clinton used the Force on Obama: “This isn’t the President you’re looking for!”

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Winner, “Hypocrite of the Year”

June 8, 2010

Okay, okay. There’s a lot of competition for this award, especially in politics and celebrity circles, but this has got to be one of the finalists:

Bill Clinton calls Louisiana senator ‘sinner’ in fundraising letter

Former President Clinton has sent out a fundraising letter on behalf of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee under his own name warning that Republicans are trying to “derail’ President Obama’s agenda.

Not much unexpected there.

But along with the letter, Clinton has included a flyer from the DSCC that’s bound to raise eyebrows.

“DSCC funds go towards efforts to unseat far-right Republican senators like admitted sinner David Vitter…” the flyer says, referring to the Louisiana senator who admitted patronizing a prostitution service when he was in the House.

Bill Clinton decrying someone else for being a sinner? Bill “Blue dress” Clinton? William Jefferson “I did not have sex with that woman” Clinton?? What was the DSCC thinking?

Someone check the exchanges, because I think he just cornered the market on brass.

What’s next? Eliot Spitzer denouncing someone for the sin of lust? John Edwards lecturing on fidelity? Barack Obama on not blaming others? Wait. Scratch that last one

Wow.

(via Ben Domenech)