Saturday, May 31, 2008
|
|
Bill Clinton's Wrath
|
|
Posted by:
Hugh Hewitt at
9:07 AM
|
Politico.com has a fascinating story on the anger of Bill Clinton. It begins:
With Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign on the verge of defeat, Bill Clinton has been placing blame on enemies including a brazenly biased media that tried to suppress blue-collar votes, a powerful anti-war group that endorsed rival Barack Obama and weak-willed party leaders unable to stand up to either of these nefarious forces.
With many decades left before him, expect Bill to nurture his grudges and act on them.
What will fascinate is his and Hillary's conduct between now and November. Will he and she undermine the already troubled Obama candidacy, having concluded that four years of McCain and a return to the White House in 2013 is to be preferred to eclipse at the hands of a rookie and his band of radical friends and backers?
If the DNC Rules Committee does other than either seat all of the Michigan and Florida delegates or punt, its anti-Clinton members will go on to the payback list. Better for some, surely, to punt to the Credentials Committee and get out of the middle of the Clinton-Obama wars.
|
|
in part.
Hillary and Bill did think they were entitled to the White House again and were shocked that Barack Obama could come out of nowhere and take the nomination from them. Pfleger is wrong about race, it was about what the Clintons want. White or black, male or female, the Clintons would have attacked.
But it is interesting how Hillary and Bill had no problem throwing out racial comments in an attempt to tear Barack Obama down. In short, Operation Chaos success is more due to Hillary and Bill's own actions than anything Rush or conservatives did. Although Rush did get where the weakness was, like the guy placing the small explosive charge to bring down an avalache.
It will be hard for the Clintons to really support Barack unless Hillary is on the ticket. Undermining him for a run later is very dangerous for them (but good for McCain and the GOP).
While I do not see Hillary really wanting to be second fiddle to Barack and Michelle, she is realizing that this is it for her. Hillary would rather be there, just in case anything "happens" to Barack. Because she rationalizes it is the right thing for the country. |
|
|
Sometimes you really are a load. There is nothing to analyze in anything that wind bag priest says. That sermon was no obnoxious that he has forever earned himself the label of "crazy, ambitious, fame-seeking hate monger". We don't waste our time studying what Charles Manson says, why waste even one minute on this guy. Focus! That is why you find yourself defending the indefensible and supporting an ultra-liberal socialist like Shoeless John. You manage to find logic where none exists, at least in your warped way of thinking where facts are malleable, and morality and principles are relative. Where the label "Republican" justifies anything. |
|
Misreading Clinton is a Republican pastime. Like Hugh, he throws everything and the kitchen sink into the fray and, like Hugh, when he loses, he lines up like a disciplined member of the party. Unlike your typical Republican, he is not going to nurture and act on grudges for his remaining years.
If he undermines Barack's run, if there is even a hint of that, he'll lose everything: his defenders, his historic reputation, HRC's future career, even Chelsea's future career. If, in contrast, he backs Barack to the hilt (which he will), he not only restores himself to the good graces of the Democracy, he creates the space that restores his reputation.
Hugh is a sap who imputes all kinds of nasty attributes on the 42nd President. Bill Clinton's primary sin is that he brought the proverbial gun to the knife fight. Dems have a civic fidelity that trumps their partisanship. Reeps don't. As a result, Reeps take advantage--and have taken advantage for some time--of the Dems civility and good faith. Clinton didn't play that game. He played the Reeps "win at all costs" game. And in the process, he was elected and re-elected President of the United States. But the same self-interested calculus forces different reasoning when it comes to Barack and the Dems.
Sorry, guys, Clinton is on our team. You're gonna have to deal with him in the general. |
|
|
trying analyze the source or the repercussions of Bill Clintons'discontent when we can just sit back and enjoy it. |
|
|
Maybe I'm not paying close enough attention and I might be wrong but I don't remember Hugh defending Shoeless John. It seems to me his contribution to the GOP cause has been narrowed to being a loyal party attack dog. I really don't expect Hugh to use his skills building a phony case for McCain after he made his views so clear during the primaries. I wouldn't be surprised if, in the anonymity of the voting booth, Hugh votes for Bob Barr. But that's just me engaging in wishful thinking. But....well... |
|
I suspect you were shouting and spitting at your monitor when you wrote that last post. Seriously, you and Pfleger have a lot more in common than you realize.
Even a crazy lunatic like Pfleger can recognize Hillary Clinton's ruthless ambition. Fortunately she is not going to get the nomination. You seem intent on making sure Pfleger's man Barack Obama gets elected to President of the United States.
Really, it is you who are the pathetic one, where your goal of conservative third party justifies anything. |
|
Pasadena Phil wrote: "There is nothing to analyze in anything that wind bag priest says. That sermon was no obnoxious that he has forever earned himself the label of "crazy, ambitious, fame-seeking hate monger". We don't waste our time studying what Charles Manson says, why waste even one minute on this guy. Focus! That is why you find yourself defending the indefensible and supporting an ultra-liberal socialist like Shoeless John."
So to prove how right you are, you will help elect Barack Obama who is the guy that "crazy, ambitious, fame-seeking hate monger" is supporting (and who by the way also received $100,000 to $250,000 in earmarks from Barak Obama)? Glad to see you are using your considerable logic and thinking. |
|
I am rejecting Barack Obama for associating with them. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1810338,0 0.html
Pasadena Phil, you are trying to get him elected. Your out of proportion hatred of John McCain has blinded you. You are in many ways just as mypoic as those FBI bureaucrats were in thwarting John O'Neill and allowing 9/11 to happen. Your type of "conservatism" we could all do with out. |
|
YOU are going to elect Barack. You RINOs won't fight for principles so you have thrown away the support of the biggest and most active voting block in American, conservatives. You nose-holders are complicit in enabling Democrats to take control of the GOP now live with it. Yes, Obama is probably going to be the next president. We'll be fine and when 2010 comes around, we'll again find ourselves in demand with anyone who wants to win elections. Until thne, without all you RINOs blocking us from going after liberals directly anymore, we will be able to do the job ourselves. Get it? We are going to vote against the one-party system.
Has it yet occurred to you RINOs that you don't have an argument? Everytime you resort to fear mongering (Oh no! Obama!! Save us!!!), you lose? Isn't that the lesson that was learned in November 2006 and those three special elections that cost the GOP redder-than-red Congressional seats? How many times do you guys have to put your hands on a hot stove before you figure out that it's not a good idea? Keep doing it. I love it. |
|
"Pasadena Phil, you are trying to get him elected. Your out of proportion hatred of John McCain has blinded you."
That is what is wrong with you Joe, you see things in terms of "hate". I don't have to take it to that level to disagree with someone. You have to know someone to hate them. I see McCain as leading the "B" team for the liberal one-world-without-borders-
big-government-runs-everything one-party system. |
|
|
The RNC decided they had to have an amnesty candidate. If you want to place blame for McCain's impending defeat, it belongs with The RNC and people like you who knowingly nominated the one guy running in the GOP field who was anathema to conservatives. You knew when you nominated him that many of us would not vote for him. The RNC thought they could put us in a corner and we would fall into line. Guess what, we won't. Live with it. You did it. |
|
If you do not hate John McCain, fair enough. It sure reads that way sometimes. I know you do lose your temper all the time.
I do not see things in terms of hate. I definitely do not hate you. I actually find much of what you write thought provoking. You mean well and are sincere. You occasionally lie about me and misstate facts, but that is probably out of posting when you are pissed off about something I wrote and you feel compelled to lash out. You are right on some issues. You are just wrong on helping Barack Obama become president.
Because that is what you are doing.
I make no apologies for supporting McCain in the primaries. I would have possibly voted for Fred Thompson if he ever decided to actually run. But apparently he enjoys staying home with Jerri so good for him.
But I recall you supporting Duncan Hunter (who I also like, but who got virtually no support from the voters) and then pinning your hopes to Mitt Romney. But that was more due to Mitt not being John McCain than anything substantive.
So really it is time for you to grow up and start making rational decisions on who is better McCain or Obama. Because that is where we are at. |
|
It is the voters in the primaries who picked the candidates. The RNC did not pick McCain.
|
|
|
If the Clinton Mafia doesn't whack B. Hussein as I predict, expect Hillary to endorse McCain and immolate the entire party a la Michael Corleone during the baptism. She will then reengineer herself as an "Independent" whose party left her. All the Oba-maniacs that deserted her will rue the day they turned on La Dona Clinton. |
|
|
Democrats and independents, as well as liberal northeastern Republicans. It was basically over before any of us got a chance to express our preference at the polls. The calender and the delegate apportionmnet was rigged for the result we have. It was the result the RNC wanted. They did not want amnesty on the table as an issue. Their donors wouldn't like it. Either would Juan Hernandez. |
|
"You mean well and are sincere. You occasionally lie about me and misstate facts, but that is probably out of posting when you are pissed off"
I don't hate anyone. I have bad days where I'm too rushed to edit what I wrote.
The only times I lie is when you resort to dragging me into a discussion in absentia as a straw man and attribute statements and positions to me that you know aren't true. I don't attack people unless they attack me first. and disagreeing with me is not attacking me. I just would like to see facts and logic dominate our discussions. Put aside your gimmicky traps.
I spend all day, everyday, researching professionally and have learned over the many years that conventional wisdom ("everybody know...") is almost always wrong. Politicians ALWAYS pander to conventional wisdom in getting elected. They are just hired guns Who don't know anything but will do whatever it takes to make their sponsors (money) happy. They don't deserve your blind loyalty. The country is better served when we torture these guys in public because it exposes the wide gulf that has developed between what they say and what they do. You are defending an image that is not supported by reality.
Susan Sarandon is doing the same things as you when she threatens to leave the country if McCain wins. He represents exactly those things that she supports! But like you, her judgment is clouded by knee-jerk partisanship.
Start thinking for yourself and don't be afraid to accept reality, especially if it conflicts with your politics. It's a big red alert! |
|
|
If and when Hillary loses this thing, don't expect reconciliation anytime soon, it just isn't in her or Bubba's nature. Only if they perceive that they can gain will they even come half way aboard with Obama. How did we allow us to come so far down this road, not a statesmen to be seen anywhere. The proof of the leftward movement by the country club Repubs was right before our eyes, and we looked away. Specter over Toomy should have been our wake up call, but no. |
|
I agree with most of what you wrote immediately above about knee jerk partisanship. But please do not assume I am just following conventional wisdom. But unless there is a deal breaker with a candidate, once the nominees are picked you generally have to pick one. Because protest votes are a pick too, and generally end up electing the wrong guy.
Your arguments about reform are valid, but the best way for that to happen is at the grass roots within the existing system. Michael Reagan not that long ago expressed that about his father. Michael is right. You can start with your city council and school board and just keep moving up the chain. That will acheive real reform more than imploding the GOP and starting a third party. |
|
"Your arguments about reform are valid, but the best way for that to happen is at the grass roots within the existing system."
Third parties are "within the existing system". And I can speak from first hand experience that this GOP is NOT open to grass roots influence. Those doors are closed and locked. Try offering your services to your local party. You might find a Congressional candidate desperate for your help but he is NOT getting any help from the RNC (or any state committee either in CA) but the national party is only interested in your money. It's every man for himself and if you are comfortable defending that, you are either hopelessly out of touch with the situation on the ground or you ARE a knee-jerk partisan. There is no other possibility so which is it?
And Michael Reagan described his father's 40-year campaign. We don't have time. We simply cannot elect man who destroyed the party by design for his own selfish ambitions. Indefensible. |
|
John McCain did not cause the GOP to lose its majority in 2006.
That honor goes to George W. Bush and the GOP Congressional members who destroyed the party through a series of unforced errors and seeking short term gains without understanding the consequences.
That can be reformed and can be reformed from the grass roots. so your bianary question is false, there is a third way (without going third party). You say we don't have the time, but your third party way would probably take longer and has far less chance of success. |
|
Billy Bob's got a lot of speeches to give if he hopes to make up the 20 million Hillary flushed down the toilet of her campaign.
|
|
http://thepublicsquare.blogspot.com/2008/03/southern-appeal -on-mccain-hagee.html
Feddie at Southern Appeal: Many social conservatives (including yours truly) have, at times, questioned Senator McCain’s commitment to the pro-life cause. Well, last night I was watching Chris Matthews’s Hardball College Tour interview with the good senator, and I must to say that I was extremely impressed with his performance. His finest moment by far, in my humble opinion, was the strong stand he took for a Culture of Life in this country:
Well done, Senator McCain. I am proud to support you.
McCain on Pro Life (speaking with Chris Matthews on it): http://www.southernappeal.org/index.php/archives/2494 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15309654/
|
|
First time I saw Bill Clinton, in any real way, was the, "defensive Bill", 60 Minute's interview in late 1991.
That was the first LIE (discovered 2 years later) I heard him tell as he, with wife Hillary at his side, denied any sexual relationship with Jennifer Flowers.
Only two years later, he admitted to the affair with Jennifer Flowers--but only after smearing her with vile discredits.
He repeated this same pathetic, tired narrative while addressing allegations levelled by:
1.) Paula Jones
2.) Kathleen Willey
3.) Juanita Broaddrick
His M.O. was always the same:
1.) Parse the story
2.) Attack the accuser
3.) Roll out his wife.
It was clockwork in its model. Hillary claimed a "VAST-RIGHT-WING-CONSPIRACY", and other obfuscatory crap any time someone criticized their behaviors.
AND------LIBERALS ate it up hook, line, and sinker. As far as they were concerned, Clinton's could do NO wrong. And this prevailed throughout his 8 years as POTUS and beyond.
Only now, those who have declared OBAMA as their new Messiah---only now do they have critical views and negativity to toss in the Clinton's direction. These feckless Liberals do not even see their own laughable fickle fantasies playing out.
Some pathetic Liberals even have the gall to label the Dems and Clintons as "civil", Indeed, the blinders are hillaryous. |
|
|
Did he join the suit against WI Right To Life? |
|
|
You are right. Bush and company destroyed the GOP which is what made it possible for McCain to become the GOP nominee to solidify the new liberalism of the GOP. The GOP fulfilled the big government ambitions that Democrats couldn't and wouldn't have delivered without their help. Post-partisan "reaching across the aisle" McCain style. That is what the nose-holders will be voting for. |
|
|
The selling out of the RNC and GOP to the cheap labor express belongs squarely to George W. Bush. McCain has been a willing participant and will suffer the consequences. GOP voters are not like Democrats. The RNC will find that out the hard way. |
|
|
As you all fume over Bush, the DNC decisions, the political outcome of the Clinton rage, the Obama gaffes and associations with nutters who like him are a bunch of socialist pacifists, will benefit electorally ole John if not the House and Senate Gopers. There will be at least 28% of Clinton female voters who will swing to John. Obama will continue to allienate white rural voters and the South. With some female voters, singles especially, not loving the new Messiah, they will turn to McCain but not the GOP in general. Bubba's rage will actually benefit the top of the GOP ticket. Let him spout and fume. Sort of like some of the posters here. |
|
Pasadena Phil wrote;
-----------
"I wouldn't be surprised if, in the anonymity of the voting booth, Hugh votes for Bob Barr. But that's just me engaging in wishful thinking. But....well..."
-----------
Phil, I don't know how often you listen to Hugh's radio program, but as a regular listener, I can tell you that Hugh is most animated about fighting Islamic Jihadists.
Bob Barr opposes the Iraq War, and Hugh would NOT vote for someone who opposes the Iraq War.
Also, Hugh is very passionate in his defense of traditional marriage.
While Bob Barr may not be in favor of same-sex marriage per se, Barr did voice support for the judicial activist way in which the California Supreme Court usurped the will of the people on the issue.
Thus, Bob Barr is definitely not someone Hugh Hewitt would be voting for.
:) |
|
|
Oh I see. You can now tell us what people think and what they do in the ballot box. How old are you again? McCain's creds as terrorist fighter are suspect too, unless you haven't been paying attention. He would stand by and allow thousands of innocents die rather than subject terrorist prisoners to 35 seconds of harmless waterboarding. Real tough guy that McCain. |
|
Restricting freedom of speech is worth defending? And it was restricting the free speech of a group defending life. Very inconsistent if you ask me. And definitely not conservative.
|
|
|
McCain-Feingold was a dagger aimed at Right-to-Lifers and the NRA. If you read the McCain interview by Wayne LaPierre and Chris Cox, McCain simply cut and paste prepared answers and came across as phony and slimy. He supported the ban on "assault weapons" that Bob Barr opposed and led to expiration. Obama gets an "F" from the NRA. McCain a "C-". Barr gets an A+ and may very likely get the NRA endorsement because McCain's response on the McCain-Feingold question was very unctuous. |
|
sabotaging his own Presidency. Yep, a true Sicky, but real Basic Psych.101. Never in ol'Billy C's brain was there any wish to do anything but the same for his Lambchop's run. In the world of a high-scale Malignant Narcissist, there can be room for No Other. Note his talking endlessly about himself at any whistle stop for Wifey this year! A Hoot.
Psychologist, Dr.Paul Fick, wrote a fascinating little book mid-way through the 1st term of Clinton's presidency. "The Dysfunctional President: Understanding the Compulsions of Bill Clinton". (1995, Citadel Press)
It's application is just as valid today as it was 13-years ago. |
|
Pasadena Phil wrote;
---------------
"Oh I see. You can now tell us what people think and what they do in the ballot box. How old are you again?"
---------------
Pasadena Phil,
Like I said, I don't know how often you listen to Hugh's radio program, but Hugh clearly articulates every day that he is voting for John McCain, and he clearly articulates his reasons for doing so.
For you to suggest that I'm merely guessing whom Hugh will vote for is just plain silly.
:) |
|
HELL HAS NO FURY LIKE A CLINTON SCORNED...
Arthur McVarish, Houston |
|
|
More power to the Clinton's ! May they be successful in derailing Obama's campaihn right off the tracks ! It will be a sad day indeed if he is elected as teh leader of this nation. |
|
|
Again, do not make the mistake of letting ideology take the place of analysis. |
|
|
With Hillary no longer inevitable - and think about it - for the past 12 years everyone - everyone - has simply assumed she was going to be President in '08 - the Clintons' marketability is going to drop severely. I don't know how many more books the public can stomach from them, and Bill is not going to be able to promise his wealthy patrons much in the way of access. This is why he is whacko angry. |
|
The American electorate (the half of them who even bother to vote) waste an inordinate amount of time on small issues THAT "THEY" WANT the electorate and media to focus on.
The "THEY" group? The BOYZ just behind the curtain. Nope, no tinfoil hats required. Just some actual research into WHO is really raping this nation and the world.
And the electorate debates endlessly about preachers, associates, gaffes on the "campaign trail", polls, running mates, AND ON AND ON. SHINY TOYS! Look over HERE.... not over there.
While the cheshire cats in the background sit back and smile... and keep on cashing in... on the backs of the American citizenry.
Ask Pasadena Phil; he can tell you. |
|
Repub vs. Dem...
"left" vs. "right"...
"liberal" vs. "conservative"..... and on and on.
Us vs Them.........
Yelling at each other.
Right where the Boyz want the American people to be.... lost in THIS vs That. |
|
"The BOYZ"(?)
"...WHO is really raping this nation and the world..."(?)
"THEY"
"Just ask Pasadena Phil"(?)
Man, you are throwin' alot out there aren't ya?
I am guessing you are one of the proud and prolific conspiracy theorists, "OUT THERE".
Hey amigo---I am not asking Pasadena Phil anything akin to what you suggest-----however----praytell, why don't YOU explain all of these little seed-plantings you engage in.
You got something, come clean!
You aint got nothin', please spare us, and join the ranks of,
Rosie O'Donnell---"WTC #7 was brought down in calculated fashion."
Charlie Sheen---"WTC a controlled demolition."
...and the myriad other conspiracists...
|
|
|
Should Hillary force BHO's hand and demand a place as "veep", BHO had better sleep with one eye open. This remind me of a story of 4 cheaters around a poker table. They had to put the spitoon in the middle of the table, because no one was stupid enough to turn their head to spit. This will be a really funny 4 yrs. |
|
Like Clarity, I got'sta know.
Since you've not struck delicate, fuzzballish Neo as a Tower 7 Type, please 'slain your thinkin', will ya, Boyo? |
|
|
|