An Example of Clinton’s Lack of Integrity
Nov 10, 2007 Political
Hillary Clinton’s campaign admitted today that it had been caught planting a question from an audience member at one of her campaign stops in Iowa. Clinton called on a young college student who asked a question about global warming and Clinton responded that she gets these kinds of questions all the time from the young people. My question is, if she gets these questions all the time why the need to plant it? Surely if she gets them all the time she would get it at this event.
There are many troubling items in the story. The story indicates that she did not know which questioners she would be calling on so why plant the question? How likely is it she would pick the plant unless she knew who it was? The article indicates:
“But the source of the question was no coincidence — at this event ‘they wanted a question from a college student,’ Gallo-Chasanoff said.” Fox News
The campaign is in defense mode because this might offend Iowans for whom “the caucus is held sacred and the impromptu and candid style of the town hall meeting is held dear, Clinton’s planted question may come as a great offense to Iowans.”
I realize that there are supporters of Clinton who will comment that all candidates do this. I am sure many of them do though she is the only one caught. More importantly, she is supposed to be presenting herself as a different choice for the voters. If she is doing the same thing as everyone else, how different is she?
I imagine there are even those who will say this is not wrong to do or that it is no big deal. I agree that it is no big deal but if I were running I would just address the issue without the questioner. But then again, the Clinton campaign wants to look like it is addressing the everyday concerns Americans (and the Chinese and Europeans) have. I have suspicions that she is not asked this all the time. If there is any doubt that it was viewed as wrong, even by the campaign, they pointed out that they believe it was when they stated:
“…it would not happen again.”
Of course, they might mean they won’t get caught again or they might mean not again as in Bill will not molest women again.
Despite the claims made by others, integrity does not seem to be held in high regard in that camp. Consider this post an example to support the claim (that she lacks integrity).
Tags: caucus, fox news, global warming, Hillary Clinton, honor, integrity, lies, planted questions
A Tip for Hillary and Her People
Nov 9, 2007 Link Fest, Political
There was a big deal made yesterday about Hillary Clinton not leaving a tip when she stopped for a meal and campaign appearance at some diner. The waitress mentioned it in response to a story about Hillary using that waitress and her life experience in her next stump speeches. According to the report the comment was not made as a knock but mentioned as part of the interview. I don’t know if Hillary or her people left a tip or not and I don’t care. It would seem to me that Hillary would not be the one to handle such things. That is, after all, why she has staff following her around. Besides, the news report stated that Hillary’s meal was free so any tip would be added to the bill of the people with her. I would be more interested in seeing if she claimed the meal as a donation in kind. I would not have even given this a second thought except that the Hillary camp is refuting this story and in so doing they have told conflicting stories.
In a new website the campaign claims that it left a $100 tip. The new site, designed to dispel the myths put out in the media, was mentioned in the news but I have not visited it. It is funny that they would put up a site to dispel myths, as if we can believe what they write. Just because they write it, it must be true, at least in their world. The problem is that The campaign said it left a $100 tip that was added to the charge card of the bill. The receipt shows that only the total of the bill was paid (even the receipt the campaign produced). So a staff member went to the diner and told the waitress that a $100 tip was added to the charge card and when that was shown to be incorrect he said that a $100 bill was left. This uncertainty would lend credence to the claim of the staff that no tip was left. Additionally, when the waitress said that no one there got a tip the staffer gave two waitresses $20.
This could all be a mix up. The tip could have been left and pocketed by another employee though the waitress says her co-workers would not do that. Maybe they left it on the counter and another customer took it. Given how careless these people are with our money it is no stretch to believe that they would be this careless with donated money. It would have been a great PR move if they had ensured they gave the money to someone and it had been seen. All of this uncertainty and the subsequent money given leads me to believe that no tip was left. They really do not care about the little guy except when they want his vote.
I do not know if they left a tip and I don’t care. I am more focused on this mini cover-up of the incident. If they did not give a tip why not just admit that they thought someone had and send the employees a check or a gift? Why not just say it was an oversight, which can happen. Continuous harping on the “we left a tip” mantra draws attention to a non-issue and the differing stories cannot bode well for a candidate with a history of cover-ups and lies. If the tip is not on the credit receipt they cannot prove they left one even if they did so why not play this better instead of trying to paint regular workers as liars or criminals? That might not be the intent but that is how it can be seen just as the $20 given by the staffer can be seen as an admission that they are either unsure or did not leave a tip.
If they did not leave a tip making it right would be easy. If they did and cannot prove it then saying there must have been an oversight and leaving another tip would have solved the problem and showed people that the campaign can admit mistakes and make things right. When Hillary is raising millions of dollars, a $100 tip should not demand this much effort to make right.
As I stated, I don’t know if a tip was left. I would not be surprised if they did not leave one because of the attitude toward working people and the carelessness with other people’s money. However, I would also not be surprised if they did leave a tip and it was somehow not accounted for.
While this should not be an issue the glimpse into the world of Clinton spin and damage control should bring back memories of an administration that carried the same name.
Others with similar stories:
Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson’s Website, The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary’s Thoughts, Right Truth, Adam’s Blog, The Populist, The Amboy Times, Leaning Straight Up, The Bullwinkle Blog, Cao’s Blog, Pursuing Holiness, Nuke’s, third world county, Allie Is Wired, Woman Honor Thyself, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, CommonSenseAmerica, Wolf Pangloss, Dumb Ox Daily News, High Desert Wanderer, Right Voices, Church and State, The Yankee Sailor, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Tags: campaign appearance, donation in kind, Hillary Clinton, stump speeches, waitress
Hillary’s Best is Always the Worst
Nov 6, 2007 Link Fest, Political
Hillary Clinton stated today that she was not at her best [examiner.com] in the last debate, ya think? Despite what some people might think, she herself has admitted that she did not do OK. She indicated that she has answered thousands of questions and she has made clear her positions on everything and how she would pay for her programs. This, of course, is a flat out lie. Clinton has not been clear. There are a number of news articles from the past year that show she has taken one position in one location and another position in a different geographic location. He suggestion that she has been open about things is just plain BS and anyone with a thinking brain knows it.
Bill Clinton has refused to authorize the release of documents that would support Hillary’s claim that she gained her experience as First Lady. Let me repeat that for the uninformed, the uneducated, or the plain ignorant; Bill Clinton has done absolutely nothing to speed up the release of documents that have any bearing on the race. He asked that certain documents that related to what he did be released but he specifically said that the communication between him and his wife is not to be released.
These are the cold hard facts and while some Hillary sycophant could claim that it is not she who is holding up the process one would have to dispense with reality by believing that Hillary cannot get the documents released if she wants them released. She has Bill’s testicles in a lock box and in all reality he wants to get back in the White House as badly as she does. He wants the life that comes with living there and she has a strong desire to have her ego stroked. Therefore, I can only conclude that the papers that they refuse to release would damage her candidacy. There are things there that they do not want out in the public prior to the election for one reason and one reason only, they are harmful to the Hildebeast. Rest assured, if those papers made it look like Hillary walked on water without getting her ankles wet Bill would release them yesterday with her in tow to ensure they got out. Since word is they will not be released until well after the election [ABC] we can only conclude that they are hiding something. I mean, they have had eight years to get them ready for issue so the only two things holding it up are Bill and Hillary.
No folks, Hillary has not been straight forward and she has not been honest. Bill has been less than honest as well though none of this should surprise anyone. Bill claims to be working to have papers released quickly when he is actually impeding the process. Hillary says that she has been clear when she has not.
Hillary said she did not have her best night the other night. If she wins in 2008 the country will not be having a good night but that night will not go away. It will morph into a 4 or 8 year nightmare with Satan at the helm.
Others with similar items:
Outside the Beltway, The Virtuous Republic, Perri Nelson’s Website, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Rosemary’s Thoughts, The Midnight Sun, Adam’s Blog, Right Truth, The Populist, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, Conservative Cat, Pursuing Holiness, Adeline and Hazel, Conservative Thoughts, third world county, Allie Is Wired, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, CORSARI D’ITALIA, High Desert Wanderer, Right Voices, The Yankee Sailor, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Tags: bill clinton, candidacy, ego, first lady, Hillary Clinton, sycophant, uneducated, war
Clinton, not Russert, is Misleading
Nov 3, 2007 Political
During the last debate Tim Russert asked Hillary Clinton if she was prepared to disclose her White House related documents before the election so that people could judge her qualifications. The correspondence in question is mostly between Hillary and Husband Bill. She has made claims that her time in the White House has given her experience and it is this experience which makes her the better candidate. Russert asked specifically about those communications:
RUSSERT: Senator Clinton, I’d like to follow up, because in terms of your experience as first lady, in order to give the American people an opportunity to make a judgment about your experience, would you allow the National Archives to release the documents about your communications with the president, the advice you gave? Because, as you well know, President Clinton has asked the National Archives not to do anything until 2012. [emphasis mine] National Review Online
Hillary stated that as far as she knew the health care papers had been released and that things were moving as quickly as the archives could go. When Russert told her that President Clinton had written a letter asking that communications between the two of them not be released she said that she did not believe it was in their control. This is a misleading answer and Bill Clinton’s response was just as misleading.
Bill was out trying to extinguish the flames after Hillary’s poor debate performance and Bill stated that Russert asked a “breathtakingly misleading” question:
Former President Clinton said Friday that a letter he wrote to the National Archives was to expedite release of his papers, not slow the process or hide anything as rivals are suggesting in criticism of his wife.
Hillary Rodham Clinton was quizzed during this week’s Democratic presidential debate as to why correspondence between her and her husband from their White House years remained bottled up at the National Archives. Barack Obama said that was a problem for her as a candidate after “we have just gone through one of the most secretive administrations in our history.”
One issue is whether Bill Clinton had sent a letter to the Archives asking that the communications not be released until 2012, and whether Hillary Clinton would lift any ban, a question raised by debate moderator Tim Russert.
“She was incidental to the letter, it was done five years ago, it was a letter to speed up presidential releases, not to slow them down,” the former president told reporters Friday. “And she didn’t even, didn’t know what he was talking about. And now that I’ve described to you what the letter said, you can readily understand why she didn’t know what he was talking about.”
Russert’s question “was breathtakingly misleading,” Bill Clinton said. [emphasis mine] Yahoo News
Let us see who was misleading in all this. First of all, Clinton wrote a letter on August 19, 1994 asking that all categories of his correspondence be kept from disclosure until twelve years after his term as President expires (which would actually be 2013). This is an admission by him in the 2002 memo. I do not think that is asking the National Archives to speed anything up, as Clinton claimed in the interview. It is likely that he was ensuring that the records would remain sealed for a future Hillary run. Remember, these two have been planning this campaign for a long time and not releasing them until 2013 would ensure she could run for a second term, assuming she won a first. Even releasing them in late 2012 would not hurt her by the time people were able to request and get them the election would be over.
Secondly, the letter Clinton wrote in 2002 where he asked that certain items be released earlier than 2013 and those two categories were appointments and submitting advice. However, in the body of the letter he explicitly excludes communication between Hillary and him; “… communications directly between the President and the First Lady, and their families, unless routine in nature…” This means that he DID NOT ask for this to be released early because he excluded it from the request. It also means that Russert was 100% correct in his questioning and that Bill Clinton was the one who was “breathtakingly misleading” because he said he wrote the letter to speed up the process, not to slow it down but since he excluded items between him and Hillary he did not speed up the process that Russert asked about. Russert specifically asked about items between her and her husband. This is typical Clinton double speak and their mind numbed, eye glazed, followers will listen to him and believe every word he said.
This is no different than I did not have sex with that woman or I was closer to getting bin Laden than anyone or any other statement he has made that has proved to be false. I wonder if he wagged his finger when he was talking about this? That is a tell tale Clinton is lying sign. In any event, he was breathtakingly misleading and the Clinton camp is trying to put the focus on Russert and indicate that he was unfair. He was 100% fair and he asked the follow up questions that too few are willing to ask her highness, Hillary. Hillary was finally taken to task and not allowed to steer off subject or to avoid answers. When she gave a non answer she was called on it and then instead of being honest she played around until she was able to take two contrasting positions in two minutes. The Clintons can blame Russert but it is they who are being dishonest with America. Unfortunately, those who support her and worship him will never be able to see this.
Clinton used the words “breathtakingly misleading” which was his way of saying Russert distorted the truth. In fact, the Clintons, as is their pattern, are the ones who do more than mislead. They outright lie and expect everyone to believe them. Included in this post are the news items relating to this as well as the document Clinton wrote in 2002 (in which he references the 1994 memo) and there is no doubt what he is asking of the National Archives.
What is in their communications that they do not want people to see? What is it that they are afraid of? We already know they will do anything to keep unfavorable information from seeing the light of day. The whole Sandy Burglar incident is testimony to that so it is no stretch to believe the Clintons are trying to keep information from getting out until it can have no effect.
Hillary has claimed a huge amount of experience based on her tenure as First Lady so it is reasonable to ask for documented proof of her claim. If she truly did wonderful things while in the White House it would be to her benefit to release the items and let us see. She has never run anything, never been a leader in government (such as a governor) and she has never been the head of a corporation or company. If she wants us to believe she has leadership experience, any communications she could disclose to shed light on that claim would be helpful.
One thing is certain, if the Clintons are not releasing the papers it is because they do not help, and probably hurt her. She will release anything that makes her look good but the Clintons will go to any length, including have a surrogate steal from the National Archives. Clinton hurt herself in the debate. The years of secrecy and lying are finally catching up and many will awaken and see what a shill she actually is. Those running against her for the Democratic nomination hope they awaken before the primaries.
If they don’t, I hope they awaken before next November.
Sources:
Clinton 2002 Memo [pdf]
Complete debate transcript [NYT]
Clinton on Russert and the question [My Way News]
As an aside, I wonder if Media Matters will pick this up and expose the lies.
Tags: debate performance, former president clinton, Hillary Clinton, misleading answer, national archives, Obama, presidential debate, white house
Empty Promises of the Democratic Party
Oct 28, 2007 Political
There is a segment of society that believes people are entitled to everything in life at no cost whatsoever. These people have been around for quite some time but they have multiplied in numbers since the 1960s when LBJ and his policies created a group dependent upon government for everything. These policies helped to breed new generations of people who believed that they were entitled to anything they wanted from health care to college free of charge, paid for by the government. Unfortunately, those among this group who chose to go to school were failed by the educational system that did not teach them that whatever the government gives away is taken from others who have worked hard to earn it.
Those in the government, particularly the Democratic party, who espouse higher taxes and wealth redistribution believe that this is only proper and that it is our duty to care for those less fortunate. People like John Edwards, Martin O’Malley (Maryland Governor), Hillary Clinton, and B. Hussein Obama believe that we should all contribute to these programs or that we all have to sacrifice. They use euphemisms to mask what is really taking place and that is extortion. We do not make contributions and we are not sacrificing because these are acts that are voluntary. We are relieved of our money under threat. Our money is coerced from us under the strong arm of the government and the jack booted IRS who will crush us and put us in jail if we refuse to pay those who are extorting from us. A bigger problem is that the federal government can increase the amount we are required to pay at any time and we either take it or go to jail, or we find ways to earn less money so that we do not pay as much to the tax collector.
The Democratic hopefuls for the office of President have all expressed their desires to raise taxes on those who work so that those who do not may reap benefits from our hard work. I do not believe that people are entitled to free heath care and they are not entitled to a free college education. Of course, it would only be free to them because someone, those paying taxes, would have to pay the bills.
I believe that people are entitled to affordable health care and affordable education. I have, many times, written about health care and how it could be made affordable. My plan involves less government intervention and requires people to be responsible for their choices. I also believe that education should be affordable and that people should be able to take out low cost loans in order to get an education. None of these items requires taxpayers to foot the bills. Of course, in order for people to be able to get a good college education we must overcome the dismal performance of public schools in preparing people for college.
Another issue is Social Security and this is also an area where the Democrats do not want people to have a choice. They are content with raising the rate or cap upon which SS is based in order to pay out meager retirement checks and thus keep the elderly beholden to the government. Social Security should be privatized so that people can make their own retirement decisions. Any plan that involves retirement money should allow people to pass their savings on to their heirs, something the Democrats oppose.
No matter how it is sliced the Democrats espouse class warfare with social programs that force those with money to pay for those without. Unfortunately these programs have a stifling effect on production and growth and cause more and more people to become dependent upon the big nanny government. The Democrats know this and that is their end game. The more people beholden to them the more votes they can count on.
The unfortunate reality is that most people who vote Democrat do not see the error of these kinds of policies. They go through life blind to the realities and as long as they get their checks they do not care.
Related item:
Concord Monitor
My Way
Tags: democratic hopefuls, extortion, heath care, Hillary Clinton, irs, John Edwards, o malley, Obama, tax collector, wealth redistribution