Tag Archives: Bill Clinton

Dems Gone Wild

Posted on by
Reply

You’d think Bill Clinton would avoid anything prurient after he almost lost the presidency over (and over seems the appropriate word) Monica Lewinsky.

Not our Bill. Caution isn’t part of his personality. According to the Washington Free Beacon, ABC’s show “Scandal” counts him among its fans. In particular, Clinton likes star Kerry Washington.

The actress, who spoke at the Democratic National Convention last year, told Entertainment Weekly she was surprised to find out the former president was a fan of the show:

The show has averaged more than 220,000 tweets per episode since January, according to SocialGuide; some of these fans include Oprah Winfrey, Lena Dunham, and Mary J. Blige. “Bill Clinton was another person where I was like, ‘What?! You watch Scandal?!’” Washington says. “I feel like it happens at least once a week — that I am totally floored by somebody who watches the show.”

In the show, Washington stars as a crisis communications professional in Washington, D.C., who also has an on-and-off affair with the young president of the United States.

No wonder Republicans don’t watch ABC.

Who’s on Fire?

Posted on by
Reply

We on the right side of the aisle knew before the first question was raised that PolitiFact was going to be PolitiFiction. It took any comment made by a Republican and dissected it to find something untruthful. Any comment by Democrats was explainable.

Jesus could have been said to have “Pants/robe on fire” if they had thought he was a Republican.

Take, for instance, today’s PolitiFact Tennessee says “Cohen’s criticism of Delta Air Lines Rings True.” Not a hard call when all Cohen said was “Delta Air Lines has once again broken a promise they made to me and to the people of Memphis.” I don’t know what promise they made to him anyhow, do you? Really out on a limb with that one, criticizing a company nobody here likes.

Conservative Fact Check took a look at PolitiFact and compared. Here’s a chart summing up their findings:

You can see who they consider the betes noires (is that racist?) to be. When Bill Clinton is one of the least liars it invalidates the whole process.

A White House Insider Comments

Posted on by
Reply

I enjoy reading the White House Insider, a sort of deep throat in the Obama administration who regrets helping put Obama there. He sends missives to another mysterious person, Ulsterman, who shares them on facebook.

Is it all true and real? I can’t say that for sure, but the observations he makes often pan out correctly later.

Yesterday “Ulsterman” shared this:

A quick on-the-road communication from a longtime D.C. political operative rips the cover off of what is being reported as a surprise visit by President Barack Obama to the daily White House press briefing. This was no surprise visit – it was a carefully planned and staged event with the complicit cooperation of White House approved media figures all intended to gain political points by reigniting the now old and tired “war on women” ploy.

Here’s what the Insider shared:

You asked for more real time updates, so thought you might like to know the following. If you haven’t seen it yet, president staged a surprise visit to the WHpc today. WH handlers had made contact with at least three members of media beforehand. They wanted to ensure question on the Akin rape comments was asked. Prepared notes for response by president were rehearsed. The moment was to provide campaign with a “soundbite backdrop” to fire up the war on women tactic they believe provided a bump in the polls couple months back. This kind of thing isn’t new. Pretty common with administrations to have some media folks they can cherry pick during a p.c.

Thing on this though is that WH staff divided on whether or not to run with this one. They are not sure some guy running for Senator is right to try and make a national campaign issue out of it and they fear the Romney team has a prepared response to create backlash. This shows a couple things. One, Romney and Ryan are totally in the Obama team’s head. Got them biting each other up pretty regular now. Second, they are losing confidence in how to run a national campaign big time.

I’m not going to share which side of the argument I think is the right one on this. Don’t want to give an assist to the Obama folks. I’ll just say that the final decision came down to “get him out there” and that is what happened. Obama was pushed out onto the stage with some crib notes and instructions to wait for the abortion question. The question came and the president read from his notes. If you find a video of it, you will notice him looking down at those notes. I had to laugh when Obama tries to manufacture outrage when he gets to that word. You can see the little rodent in his head spinning around the wheel telling him to “act outraged” but the guy just can’t pull it off anymore. What Akin said was clumsy but it sure as hell wasn’t what the media and Obama are trying to spin it off as. That’s the game being played there though, so that is that. They are gonna try and make this a national issue, move some swing state numbers, we’ll see about that.

Oh, and one other thing. BC (Bill Clinton) is negotiating the content with the Obama team for the convention. They are trying to tell Clinton what he can and cannot talk about. BC told them to go f-ck themselves. That they need him not the other way around. Pretty sure Bill is gonna get his way on this one. Not sure what the payback for him is on this but there has got to be one. More than just the national spotlight. No, he’s gonna squeeze Obama for everything he can. A Clinton never forgives. Never.

Did you catch that Newsweek cover? The Old Man (his confrere, a Wall St. Insider) must have added another zero on the check for that one.

Almost forgot. There was a big to do over FnF (Fast and Furious) inside the Republican leadership. One of them, I didn’t get a name, but one of them threatened either the Speaker or the Senate minority leader. The threat was to go public now with information instead of waiting it out. Apparently the leadership is telling him they must roll it out careful, that the timing is good for the election, etc. This guy has had it with that sh-t. He is telling them politics shouldn’t have anything to do with it. That it needs to be an all or nothing moment. That tells me some kind of information got out during the investigation. Or somebody told them there is something in those docs that are being covered up when Obama declared Executive Privilege. That’s me guessing but nothing else makes sense. This guy has been pretty quiet following the party line lead on all of this for months and now he’s extremely pissed off. When that kind of in-house defection happens, look for leaks. They often soon follow. Will follow up if I get specifics on who it was screaming at the leadership. Republicans don’t normally carry on like that, so it’s got to be something significant.

-WHI

Gloom at the White House

Posted on by
Reply

It must be bad at the White House. Consider this from Dana Milbank, stenographer extraordinaire for the Democrats, in The Washington Post:

It has been a Junius Horribilis for President Obama.

Job growth has stalled, the Democrats have been humiliated in Wisconsin, the attorney general is facing a contempt-of-Congress citation, talks with Pakistan have broken down, Bill Clinton is contradicting Obama, Mitt Romney is outraising him, Democrats and Republicans alike are complaining about a “cascade” of national-security leaks from his administration, and he is now on record as saying that the “private sector is doing fine.”

Could it get any worse?

Early Monday morning, Obama learned that it could. His aides delivered the news to him that his commerce secretary had been cited for a felony hit-and-run after allegedly crashing his car three times over the weekend. In one incident, the previously obscure Cabinet officer apparently rear-ended a Buick, spoke to the car’s occupants, then hit the vehicle again as he left.

If you’re in the mood for a good dosing of schadenfreude, read the rest of the article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/car-wreck-at-the-white-house/2012/06/11/gJQAl8MpVV_print.html

Getting Snippy

Posted on by
Reply

Democrats seem to like having the U.S. taxpayer pick up the bill for their barbershop costs. Remember Bill Clinton tying up the airport in LA. and John Edwards’ $400 hair cut?

Well, our current president has continued the practice of trimming the taxpayer for his cuts.

The Daily Mail reports:

Finding and keeping a good hairdresser or barber can be a tough task — especially when relocating and attempting to find someone who can continue doing a decent job. But according to past and current reports, such a conundrum hasn’t been a problem for President Barack Obama, who allegedly flies his Chicago barber to Washington, D.C., twice per month to cut his hair. Despite this claim, which has been discussed in media before, it seems his barber, Zariff, is refusing to provide details about his arrangement with the White House.

Recently, German Public Radio repeated the claim that the barber, who has been cutting the president’s hair for nearly two decades, gets regularly flown to the capitol, at the tune of $300. Taken in their entirety, these trips may cost up to $7,200 each year. When contacted by the Daily Mail, Zariff was purportedly cryptic and refused to confirm the frequency of his visits to Washington. Additionally, he declined to delve into how the funds are allocated from the trips — by Obama or by the government.

“I get there. I keep his hair well groomed,” Zariff told the Daily Mail. “It’s not important how I get there and when.”

While it may not seem important on a small scale, the latter prospect of taxpayer funding for presidential haircuts, especially ones that include cross-country trips, would cause outrage among some Americans, especially at a time when calls for tax increases and spending cuts are commonplace. While Zariff wouldn’t delve into these details, he did tell the Daily Mail that he works diligently to make sure that Obama looks spiffy and “his best at all times.” He also highlighted that the services the president receives are oddly cheap.

“He pays $21 like everyone else. We don’t care about how famous you are or who you are,” the barber said. “Everyone gets the same price.”

So today’s outrage is a haircut. Obama pays a minimum for his haircut, but gets us to pay the tabs for his travels. Talk about a cheapskate!

(Disastrous) State of the Union

Posted on by
Reply

Some blogosphere reactions to Obama’s State of the Union speech:

Jim Geraghty of National Review writes:

Man, was that a long speech. Sixty-five minutes of speaking, and he started late. And it felt even longer for being terrible. I mean, terrible in the sense that you and I kept rolling our eyes at the insinuation of blame, the proclaiming of fantastic results, the grandiose promises, and everything else from this president that grows ever more tiresome. I figure Obama might see a bump in his numbers from this speech, because he basically said he can deliver utopia in exchange for some tax hikes on millionaires.

It’s not often that “confrontational” is an adjective used to describe a State of the Union address, but that’s what the Los Angeles Times goes with

:

By using his State of the Union speech to draw sharp contrasts with Republicans on such high-profile issues as taxes and the housing market, President Obama opened an election-year debate on the role of government that could be more intense than any in decades. Warning Congress that “I intend to fight obstruction with action,” he painted a confrontational picture that stands in sharp contrast with the conciliatory approach taken by the last Democrat to seek a second term, Bill Clinton.

Our old friend Mark Hemingway observes

:

Obama’s State of the Union might be most notable for what was not said. There were 44 words dedicated to health care reform. There was no mention of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, aka stimulus bill.

That is rather telling, considering that these are Obama’s two largest policy achievements. . . .

As for the rest of the speech, it was bookended by some strong military metaphors (even if they were an unpleasant reminder that the president wants to gut the armed forces budget). That leaves over an hour of something something building wind turbines with American workers something something still won’t cover our $30 trillion Medicare shortfall. Snooze.

Clark Judge of the White House Writers group wrote:

But let me get this straight: 1) banks will be punished (do I understand this right, by a committee headed by Eric Holder?) if their lending is too risky, 2) and they will be required (by the same committee) to give more home loans (meaning, it must be, to people who would otherwise not qualify for the loans, or else the government would not have to be involved) at lower rates (which means rates that do not compensate them as much as the market says they need to be compensated for the risks they are taking, all of which sounds like a new edition of the policies that brought on the financial collapse), 3) which must mean that they will have to pull back on risky lending someplace other than homes, 4) the only place that most banks would be able to pull back on riskier customers would be loans to small and new businesses, 5) but these are the businesses that have created just about all the jobs over the last 20 years and he said early in the speech he wants to encourage them, 6) so maybe their growth capital will come from selling stock to the kinds of people who invest in new and small businesses, 7) but through the Buffet Rule he’s going to double the tax rate on investment income for those people, meaning that, like the banks, they can’t be fully compensated for the risk of backing small and new businesses, 8) so they will not invest more in small and new companies but in big established firms, 9) so more of those small and new firms will have to turn to the government for capital, 10) which luckily he said would up its investing in early stage businesses with “the best” ideas, 11) “the best” ideas meaning, I guess, as with Solyndra, ideas that advance his agenda through companies whose owners support his candidacy), 11) or maybe it would be companies that agree to invite unionization (since the unions have failed to organize the new and dynamic sectors of the economy, which is why they have been shrinking), 12) but then with the big businesses, he wants to punish American companies if they invest overseas, 13) and he wants to increase exports, 14) but being competitive in the global markets often means having part of your production near your markets, which is why many companies have opened production facilities abroad and many foreign companies (BMW and Honda, for example) have opened their facilities here, 15) so he’ll make these companies less competitive, meaning less able to export anything that might be paired with some other product the company makes abroad in order to attract buyers, 16) and it also means he’ll have the U.S. ignoring many of the international trading rules of which we have been the principal sponsor since the end of WWII, rules that have led to an incredible growth in widely shared wealth all over the planet, 17) which means that, if he follows through, he’ll blow up the post-WWII global economic system, 18) which in the very short run may help the uncompetitive American labor unions but in the not-so-long run would devastate every economy on earth, 19) but it would also mean he would be in a position to decide where big companies could invest, and when, just as he’ll be in control of all new and small businesses, too, 20) meanwhile he is going to tell states and localities what their budget priorities should be, 21) and make them adopt his policies for running their schools, leaving me to wonder, when he’s through, what won’t he control?

And Keith Koffler of White House Dossier found this:

If there was any question whether President Obama’s State of the Union address was actually a prettied up campaign speech, Obama himself answered it with an email to supporters just before his appearance asking them to contribute to his campaign.

The email, titled “Before I speak,” was sent by “Barack Obama” through the campaign email system and signed, “Barack.” Here’s the full text:

I’m heading to Capitol Hill soon to deliver my third State of the Union address.

Before I go, I want to say thanks for everything you’re doing.

Tonight, we set the tone for the year ahead. I’m going to lay out in concrete terms the path we need to take as a country if we want an economy that works for everyone and rewards hard work and responsibility.

I’m glad to know you’ll be standing with me up there.

Barack

—–

Support President Obama. Make a donation today.

The last sentence in the email includes a link that brings recipients to a page where they can make their donation.

Also telling is Obama’s remark that the speech will “set the tone for the year ahead.” When you say to your political supporters that you are setting “a tone,” it seems a pretty clear reference to a campaign theme, not a list of serious proposals that might pass Congress and help the economy.

Christmas Food for Thought

Posted on by
Reply

If you have to spend Christmas with liberal relatives and they bring up the topic of the economy (because you as a conservative would not be so rude as to bring up political skirmishes at the dinner table), Economic Collapse Blog has put together a list of 50 facts that might elucidate them. Here goes:

1. A staggering 48% of all Americans are either considered to be low income or are living in poverty.
2. Approximately 57% of all children in the U.s. are living in homes that are considered to be low income or impoverished.
3. If the number of Americans that wanted jobs was the same today as it was back in 2007, the official unemployment rate put out by the U.S. government would be up to 11%.
4. The average amount of time that a worker stays unemployed in the U.s. is now more than 40 weeks.
5. One recent survey found that 77% of all U.S. small businesses do not plan to hire any more workers.
6. There are fewer payroll jobs in the U.S. today than there were in 2000 even though we have added 30 million extra people to the population since then.
7. Since December 2007, median household income in the U.S. has declined by a total of 6.8% once you account for inflation.
8. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 16.6 million Americans were self employed back in December 2006. Today that number has shrunk to 14.5 million.
9. A Gallup poll from earlier this year found that approximately one out of every five Americans that do have a job consider themselves to be underemployed.
10. According to author Paul Osterman, about 20% of all U.s. adults are currently working jobs that pay poverty level wages.
11. Back in 1980, less than 30% of all jobs in the U.S. were low income jobs. Today, more than 40% of all jobs in the U.S. are low income jobs.
12. Back in 1969, 95% of all men between the ages of 25 and 54 had a job. In July, only 81.2% of men in that age group had a job.
13. One recent survey found that one out of every three Americans would not be able to make a mortgage or rent payment next month if they suddenly lost their current job.
14. The Federal Reserve recently announced that the total net worth of U.S. households declined by 4.1% in the 3rd quarter of 2011.
15. According to a recent study conducted by the Black Rock Investment Institute, the ratio of household debt to personal income in the U.S. is now 154%.
16. As the economy has slowed down, so has the number of marriages. According to a Pew Research Center analysis, only 51% of all Americans that are at least 18 years old are currently married. Back in 1960, 72% of all U.S. adults were married.
17. The U.S. Postal Service has lost more than 5 billion dollars over the past year.
18. In Stockton, Calif., home prices have declined 64% from where they were when the housing market peaked.
19. Nevada has had the highest foreclosure rate in the nation for 59 months in a row.
20. If you can believe it, the median price of a home in Detroit is now just $6,000.
21. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 18% of all homes in the state of Florida are sitting vacant. That figure is 63% larger than it was just 10 years ago.
22. New home construction in the U.S. is on pace to set a brand new all time record low in 2011.
23. 19% of all American men between the ages of 25 and 34 are now living with their parents.
24. Electricity bills in the U.S. have risen faster than the overall rate of inflation for five years in a row.

And it keeps on. The author lists 50, ending with this:

50. During the Obama administration, the U.S. government has accumulated more debt than it did from the time that George Washington took office to the time that Bill Clinton took office.

If you’d like to read them all, they are at http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/50-economic-numbers-from-2011-that-are-almost-too-crazy-to-believe.

The Right Stuff

Posted on by
Reply

As Rick Perry said yesterday, he “really stepped in it” at the debate. However, his staff’s response to his gaffe has been extremely good.

At 2 a.m. on Thursday they had sent out a press release about the mistake, saying that Americans, too, would like to forget some of our agencies and invited people to go to the website and vote on which one they would pick for elimination. Then Perry went on the morning shows, admitting that he had made a mistake and exhibiting an exceptional good humor and humility about it.

I was listening to the Laura Ingraham show as she talked about him and urged him to get on the phone and talk to her. Within a half hour he did and they had a frank and good discussion about it. Later in the day he popped up on other shows, culminating in a funny David Letterman Top Ten list.

Granted, it was a setback for the campaign, but he handled it as well as possible. Some pundits had talked about the oops moment Bill Clinton had that almost derailed him. He had made an overly long speech at the Democratic convention in 1988 and did so poorly he became a laughingstock. Clinton remedied it by going on the Tonight Show, laughed about it and now few remember the incident at all.

The Perry response reminded me of Gone With the Wind. At one point Scarlett is caught flirting with Ashley Wilkes. She was sorry to get caught and told Rhett she didn’t want to go to the party that night. He told her she would and she would put on her most attention getting red dress complete with decolletage and go out and face her friends. She did. It was what you have to do to persevere.

On the other hand, Herman Cain’s staff seemed to stumble from the start when accusations came out about him, even though they had ten days notice it was coming. A staffer spoke with Geraldo and failed to address the charges. Cain came out and gave conflicting accounts of the accuser, saying he didn’t remember it, then he did, that she got 3 months’ salary, then it was a year’s.

As the accusations mounted Cain blamed the Perry camp and accused Curt Anderson of being the leaker. Anderson quickly put that charge to rest. Cain then blamed Rahm Emanuel. Then his manager, Mark Block, got on Hannity and accused a Politico writer of being the son of an accuser. Only problem: it was the same name, but no relation and the reporter didn’t even work for Politico. Most candidates would have fired Block then.

Who knows what else they might have done had the Perry gaffe not taken off some of the heat. I’m still not sure that story is over.

Bad as the Perry problem is, his staff showed a great deal more competence than the Cain people. Even a diehard liberal would have to admit that Perry showed a lot of character and courage to do his mea culpas. He didn’t blame anyone but himself and he didn’t shy from responsibility.

Actually, that’s the kind of president I would like.

The Newt Deal

Posted on by
Reply

Those who were too young to remember 1994 when Newt Gingrich became Speaker of the House and who have heard him debate might look kindly on the grizzled old politician.

Yes, he’s very intelligent. Yes, he answers questions well. Yes, he debates beautifully. But as Quin Hillyer points out in an article in the American Spectator (spectator.org/archives/2011/11/03/newtonian-physics) they might want to reconsider voting for him as the Republican presidential nominee.

I, for one, can’t get past the ad where he and Nancy Pelosi sit on a couch on a beach, lamenting global warming. Then there was his odd tour with Rev. Al Sharpton. Remember how he backed RINO candidate Dede Scozzafava against Doug Hoffman in the New York special election? He ranted against conservatives, calling those who differed in opinion with him “purists.”

Then when Paul Ryan came out with his budget, Gingrich trashed it. He called it “radical change” and said it was “right wing social engineering.” He faulted it and trumpeted that on talk radio. Not the view I want a president to hold.

His wife’s enormous bill at Tiffany’s has never adequately explained by Gingrich. He’d undergo intense scrutiny about it if he were the nominee.

Hillyer also discusses an incident mentioned by Senator Tom Coburn and some budget cutting where Newt went ballistic. Seems he lashes out more at his fellow Republicans in private than he does to Democrats.

And it was Republicans who suffered when Gingrich pursued the government shutdown. That was a gift to Bill Clinton. He did it again with Monica Lewinsky and the impeachment debacle. Was it hubris that made him think he could be carrying on an affair and it wouldn’t be noticed? Was he naive enough to expect Clinton wouldn’t go after him? Talk about bad judgment! In the next election Republicans lost ground in Congress.

There is also a disturbing self destructive twist with Newt which might partly explain his impeachment pursuit.

It’s nice to be able to debate well in a presidential campaign. Once won, however, a debate isn’t going to help you deal with the Chinese, the Europeans, the economy or even the opposition at home. If people go beyond that and look at the man’s record, it will be hard to see a viable candidate in him.

McConnell’s Op ed

Posted on by
Reply

Senator Mitch McConnell penned a piece in USAToday. It’s titled “If Obama stiff-arms us, we’ll go to the people.”

He writes: “The simplest way to view the debt ceiling debate in Washington is as a struggle over the kind of government we want. If you want a government that runs everything from the student loan business to car companies, then taxes will have to go up. If you think government is too big already and should start to pull back, then Washington has to change its ways – fast.

This is the message I have brought to the White House for more than two years in an effort to persuade President Obama to rein in a government that has lost all sense of limits. This is also why, when those discussions failed to bear fruit, I had hoped an approaching limit to the president’s borrowing power would cause him to think again.

Unfortunately, it was wishful thinking. As it turned out, the president is simply too committed to big government to agree to serious belt-tightening. At the same time, however, the president realizes that most Americans fear government is too big already. that’s why he has tried to portray himself in recent weeks as advocating a ‘balanced approach.’

But the facts speak for themselves.

With the government expected to spend $1.4 trillion more than it takes in this year alone, the White House presented us with two bad options: a so-called ‘big deal’ that, even if you accept its numbers, would have only lowered our debt from $26 trillion to about $22 trillion over the next 10 years; and a smaller deal that would cut $2 billion next year out of a $3.7 trillion budget.

Another catch: Both offers came with massive tax hikes – which we know, and the president has acknowledge, will hurt job growth.

When Republicans refused both proposals, the president responded that he only wants to tax ‘the rich,’ but, again, the facts are clear. Raising taxes on the ‘top 2%’ would not only create yet another roadblock for small businesses to create jobs, it would come up about $10 trillion short on our bills.

So the president can claim he only wants to tax jet owners, but Washington’s deficits and debt are so big that pretty soon he’ll have no choice but to sock it to families flying in coach as well. He can claim he is willing to make concessions, but Republicans will not deceive Americans by calling what he refers to as concessions anything other than a preservation of the status quo.

There is some dispute about what will happen if we fail to raise the debt limit on August 2. One thing that is not in dispute, however, is that on that date the president would suddenly be in the position of picking and choosing who gets the more than 80 million checks Washington issues every month. This is a power that no president should have.

That’s why I have proposed a last resort plan that would take default off the table as Republicans continue to press the White House for meaningful cuts and reforms. And this week, Congress will vote on a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, and the ‘Cut, Cap and Balance’ bill. The goal is a balanced budget amendment that would not rely on persuasion in getting the president to rein in a government he has done so much to expand – it would require it.

If the White House is not willing to work with us, then we will go around it and directly to the people.

What Republicans want is simple: to cut spending now, to cap runaway spending in the future and to save our entitlements and our country from bankruptcy by requiring the nation to balance its budget. We want to finally get our economy growing again at a pace that will lead to significant job growth.

When President Bill Clinton famously declared that the era of big government is over. Washington’s annual budget was $1.6 trillion. Sixteen years later Washington is now borrowing nearly that much every year. The president has asked for shared sacrifice, but many are beginning to realize that what we may really be sacrificing in this debate is a chance to have the kind of government Americans really want.”