Tag Archives: Bill Clinton

HRC is an ‘outsider’? Really?

clintonhillary07282015getty

Hillary Clinton calls herself an “outsider.”

Hmmm. I heard that this morning on “Face the Nation.” I’m still trying to process her logic.

The Democratic presidential candidate answered a question about the leading Republican candidates — Donald Trump, Carly Fiorina and Ben Carson — given that they are political outsiders.

Clinton then said something quite astonishing. Clinton said her gender makes her a supreme outsider.

Outsider label

Let’s see what the record shows.

  • Eight years as first lady during her husband’s two terms as president.
  • Eight more years as a U.S. senator from New York.
  • Four years as secretary of state.

OK, she’s run for president once already, getting closer than any woman in history to winning the presidential nomination of either party.

Is she an “outsider” in the mold of, say, Trump, Fiorina and Carson? Not by my — or most folks’, I’m willing to reckon — definition of the term.

She’s been at or near the center of power in Washington going back to when President Bill Clinton took the oath of office in January 1993.

That’s 22 years!

Outsider? I don’t think so.

 

Here’s what Gov. Kasich didn’t say

TAMPA, FL - AUGUST 28:  Ohio Gov. John Kasich speaks during the Republican National Convention at the Tampa Bay Times Forum on August 28, 2012 in Tampa, Florida. Today is the first full session of the RNC after the start was delayed due to Tropical Storm Isaac.  (Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images)

Ohio Gov. John Kasich deserves the credit he sought during the Republican presidential debate for helping bring about a balanced federal budget back in the 1990s.

He spoke about his work — as chairman of the U.S. House Budget Committee — in helping erase the chronic deficits that plagued the budget for previous decades.

However, Kasich left out an important element in that good work. It was that he was able — along with House Speaker (and fellow Republican) Newt Gingrich — to work with a Democratic president, Bill Clinton in crafting a budget that balanced and, in fact, produced surpluses. (Full disclosure: One of my sons brought this tidbit to my attention. So, I’m running with it in this blog.)

Oh yeah! I almost forgot. The former president is married to the Democrats’ current frontrunner for the 2016 Democratic nomination, someone against whom Kasich would face were he to win the GOP nod next summer.

Of course, any mention of bipartisanship — which is one of Kasich’s many strengths — doesn’t play well to a primary crowd starving for the red-meat rhetoric the candidates in both political parties are serving up to their respective bases.

Accordingly, Gov. Kasich wasn’t about to mention that those budget surpluses disappeared almost immediately after another Republican, George W. Bush, took office in 2001; we suffered the horrendous attack on 9/11, went to war with the terrorists — and then the government cut taxes at the same time.

I just thought it was important to add some context to what we heard on that debate stage in Cleveland.

Listen carefully to the thumping: Biden might run once more

BOCA RATON, FL - SEPTEMBER 28: U.S. Vice President Joe Biden speaks during a campaign event at the Century Village Clubhouse on September 28, 2012 in Boca Raton, Florida. Biden continues to campaign across the country before the general election. (Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

Put your head to the ground and listen intently.

Those of us who are interested in such things are beginning to hear the faint thumping of feet. They’re the soldiers, so to speak, who want to see one more prominent Democrat enter the 2016 presidential primary campaign.

That would be Vice President Joe Biden.

Before you dismiss it as so much mindless chatter, I’d like to remind you of a few things about the vice president.

* First, he’s not a young man. He’s 72 and will be 73 when the campaign gets revved up next year, the same age that President Reagan was when he was re-elected in 1984. Biden has always wanted to be president and this represents his last chance to go for the gusto.

* Second, he and the president, Barack Obama, have formed a remarkable relationship during their two terms together. Did you notice their embrace during the memorial service for the vice president’s son, Beau, who died a few weeks ago of brain cancer? Did you also notice the kiss-on-their-cheeks the men exchanged after that man-hug? Only true friends do that in public.

* Third, their relationship puts the president in a highly unusual bind. Then again, it’s been stated time and again that Barack Obama and the Clintons — Hillary and Bill — aren’t exactly close. Yes, the president has spoken highly of Hillary Clinton’s work as secretary of state and, yes again, President Clinton delivered that stirring 2012 oration in Charlotte, N.C., extolling the president’s signature domestic accomplishment, the Affordable Care Act. But you get the feeling deep down there’s a reservoir of mistrust. Might that feeling get in the way of the president endorsing Hillary Clinton’s candidacy for the Democratic presidential nomination?

* Fourth, the vice president — for all his well-known tendency to speak a little too freely and casually at times — is a foreign policy expert. He has built tremendous relationships with foreign dignitaries — from kings and queens on down to minister-level functionaries. He knows the ropes.

* Fifth, Joe Biden also has great friendships with many members of Congress — in both chambers and on both sides of the political divide. Those lawmakers with whom he has these friendships is dwindling, as many of them are retiring and are being replaced by whippersnappers with zero institutional knowledge of the relationships built between Congress and the White House. Thirty-six years in the U.S. Senate bought the vice president a lot of clout in the upper congressional chamber.

Maureen Dowd of the New York Times recounts a moment near the end of Beau Biden’s life that perhaps speaks to the urges that might be pushing the vice president toward one more effort to reach the brass ring.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/02/opinion/sunday/maureen-dowd-joe-biden-in-2016-what-would-beau-do.html?ref=opinion&_r=0

I, of course, have no knowledge of what the vice president will do. Others are reporting that his team is “ramping up” its activities with the hope of launching a presidential campaign.

But from my perch out here in Flyover Country — where a Biden candidacy wouldn’t necessarily be welcomed — I think I would enjoy seeing this man mix it up with his party’s presumed 2016 frontrunner and the three men seeking to have their voices heard.

Run, Joe, run!

“Four more years!” for Obama?

There can be no doubt about this: Barack Obama’s critics went ballistic when the president said he could win a third term in the White House if he had the chance to seek it.

He reminded his hosts in Ethiopia today that the U.S. Constitution prohibits him from seeking another term. But then he said he’s been a “good president” and well might win in 2016.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/28/politics/obama-third-term-win-ethiopia/

Ah, yes. And he’d say anything about it if he thought he’d lose? Hardly.

The 22nd Amendment was enacted in 1947, spearheaded by a Republican congressional majority that was alarmed by the four elections won by Democratic President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. They feared an “imperial presidency.” An earlier Democrat, Grover Cleveland, sought the office over the course of three consecutive elections, but lost his bid for re-election to a second consecutive term in 1888; he would come back four years later and be elected to a second term.

I am not at all thrilled about the term-limits provision for presidents, although I understand that the stress of the office has persuaded almost all the men who’ve held the office to bow out after a second term.

Still, Barack Obama isn’t the only recent president to look wistfully at the possibility of a third term.

Republican President Ronald Reagan said as much as his second term came to an end in January 1989. Twelve years after that, Democratic President Bill Clinton also mused aloud over whether he could win a third term.

I don’t recall President George W. Bush ever broaching the subject in public, given that the economy was collapsing when he left office in January 2009.

Whatever the motive for bringing it up this time, President Obama well might have been talking way past his audience in Africa and sticking it in the ear of his foes back home.

I’m quite sure they heard him … loud and clear.

Texas AG faces possible indictment

This one seems cut-and-dried, but it’s probably not going to be determined that way.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has actually admitted to securities fraud. He was elected anyway in 2014 as the state’s top lawyer, its chief litigator. He should be above reproach. Isn’t that correct?

http://www.texastribune.org/2015/07/28/grand-jury-looming-paxtons-team-and-prosecutors-sp/

He’ll be investigated by a Collin County grand jury, which will get evidence presented by the Texas Rangers, the elite investigative arm of the Department of Public Safety.

Cut-and-dried?

The Republican attorney general admits to soliciting investment clients for a friend without notifying the state in accordance with state law.

So, is Paxton guilty as charged?

Let’s walk back a few years to around 1998.

President Bill Clinton took an oath to tell the truth while testifying before a federal grand jury. The panel asked the president some questions relating to his relationship with a young White House intern. The president didn’t tell the truth about that relationship.

What did the House of Representatives do? It impeached President Clinton.

Ostensibly, the impeachment really wasn’t about the inappropriate affair with the intern. It was about whether the president followed the law. The House said his lying to the grand jury constituted an impeachable offense.

The Senate, though, acquitted the president of the counts brought against him.

So, when a state constitutional officer — the attorney general — admits to breaking state securities law, does that constitute an indictable offense?

Cut … and … dried. Maybe.

Trump to launch third-party bid? Oh, boy!

Donald Trump says the Republican National Committee had better treat him right at its presidential nominating convention, or else …

He’s going to run as a third-party candidate for president of the United States.

Wow! Where do I begin?

Exclusive: Trump threatens third-party run

Trump has been hammering the daylights out of his GOP foes. They, too, have returned the fire. The name-calling, insults and cheap shots are piling up all around the knees of the principals.

Trump, who will not be the nominee, is going to insist on a prime-time TV slot to make his speech. His Republican foes don’t want that. They’re going to insist he gets pushed aside, forced to speak at some pre-prime time spot, or perhaps not at all.

But truth be told, RNC officials must be shivering in fear at the prospect of a Trump third-party candidacy.

Trust me on this: He’ll take far more votes from the Republican electorate than he would from the Democratic side — unlike the 1992 independent candidacy of Ross Perot, who gets blamed by Republicans for costing President George H.W. Bush re-election that year and for handing the election to the young Arkansas governor, William J. Clinton.

Polling data from that election, though, suggests something quite different. It is that Perot took votes equally from both Clinton and Bush and that without the third man in the fight, Clinton would have been elected anyway.

Does anyone believe Trump would have a similar impact on a 2016 general election if the nominees are, say, Republican Jeb Bush and Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton?

If the RNC is smart, it’s going to give Trump the prime-time spot he desires, let him yammer his nonsense, then show him off the stage, escort him out the door and then let the nominee accept his party’s nomination.

However, the RNC will have to determine which course of action will do the party the least harm.

Heck, it might decide that giving this guy maximum exposure at its nominating convention isn’t worth the reaction he’s going to get.

Let’s all stay tuned.

Trump: flip-flopper extraordinaire

LAS VEGAS, NV - APRIL 28:  Chairman and President of the Trump Organization Donald Trump yells 'you're fired' after speaking to several GOP women's group at the Treasure Island Hotel & Casino April 28, 2011 in Las Vegas, Nevada.  Trump has been testing the waters with stops across the nation in recent weeks and has created media waves by questioning whether President Barack Obama was born in the United States.  (Photo by David Becker/Getty Images)

Donald Trump’s true identity might be a little harder to determine than we thought.

“Meet the Press” today took note of some important changes in Trump’s political evolution.

* He used to be “pro-choice” on abortion. He said in 1999 that he detested abortion, but insisted that obtaining one should be the woman’s prerogative. Today? “I’m pro-life,” he says.

* Trump once said that he admires and likes Hillary Rodham Clinton; he also expressed affection for her husband, former President Bill Clinton. He now calls her the “worst secretary of state in the nation’s history.” He probably speaks differently of the former president as well.

* The Donald once said that Barack Obama was a man of considerable accomplishment. These days he says the president is feckless and has been a disaster.

Those are just three examples.

The Republican Party presidential candidate needs to explain himself. Trust me on this: His Republican opponents are going to be ready to pounce. If hell freezes over and he gets the GOP nomination next summer, well, just wait until the Democrats get him in their sights.

Rubio takes heat, gives some of it back

Welcome to the national spotlight, young man.

Sen. Marco Rubio, a Republican presidential candidate, is finding out first hand how tough it is to keep some aspects of one’s personal life out of the glare of public view.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/marco-rubio-hits-back-at-new-york-times/ar-BBkXhm9

It really cannot be done.

The New York Times has published a couple of stories about the senator from Florida. One of them details the number of traffic tickets he and his wife (mostly his wife) have run up in the past 18 years. The other examines the couple’s spending habits.

The stories aren’t exactly flattering. In fact, they’re quite unflattering. Rubio has hit back at the Times over the personal finances story. He wrote an email: “It’s true, I didn’t make over $11 million last year giving speeches to special interests,” Rubio said. “And we don’t have a family foundation that has raised $2 billion from Wall Street and foreign interests.” Those examples appear to be shots at Democratic frontrunner Hillary Rodham Clinton, who’s come under scrutiny herself for the money she has earned since she and her husband, President Bill Clinton, left the White House in 2001.

Personally, I think the traffic-ticket story is overblown. Indeed, if he is elected president in 2016, neither he or his wife will be sitting behind the wheel of a motor vehicle on public streets for at least the next four years. So, what’s the point, right?

As for the financial story, the Rubios reportedly have thrown a good bit of money that Sen. Rubio seem to indicate they don’t have. According to U.S. News & World report: “The Times also said Rubio has handled his personal finances in a manner that ‘experts called imprudent,’ with a low saving rate, substantial debt, buying an $80,000 boat and leasing a $50,000 2015 Audi Q7.” Rubio is going to insist on prudent spending by the government as he campaigns for president. Do as I say and not as I do? Is that it, senator?

Here’s a thought for the Times’s editors to consider: If you’re going to examine the personal spending habits and the portfolios of the candidates, be sure to look at Sen. Bernie Sanders’s account statements carefully. He is the “Democratic socialist” who’s campaigning for the Democratic Party nomination on a platform that seeks to redistribute wealth throughout the country because of what he calls the “obscene” wealth of too few Americans.

As for Rubio and the treatment he’s gotten from the media, there’s much more scrutiny to come.

It goes with the territory.

 

Rick Perry: Governors make better presidents

Rick Perry actually makes sense when he extols the virtues of governors seeking the presidency of the United States.

That doesn’t mean in the least that I intend — at this moment — to vote for him if lightning strikes and the Republican Party nominates him in 2016. I’m going to keep an open mind, though, as the campaign progresses. Honest. I will.

But in his campaign rollout speech in that sweltering hangar in Addison, Perry said that governors are those with actual executive experience.

http://www.texastribune.org/2015/06/05/perry-stakes-defining-contrast-on-executive-experi/

He ought to know. Perry served as Texas governor for 14 years — even though it seemed much longer, at least in my eyes. He made a lot of executive decisions during his time as governor. Some of them were good decisions, even though I need some time to think of them.

He goofed on a few as well, such as the one he made requiring junior high school girls to be vaccinated for sexually transmitted diseases. The Legislature overrode that order in 2011, which of course is an action that Perry never mentions while campaigning for president.

Back to the point.

Perry’s assertion that governors make better presidents seems to have some merit. He said, according to the Texas Tribune: “The question of every candidate will be this one: When have you led?” Perry added, posing the same query that is a regular part of U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz‘s 2016 stump speech. “Leadership is not a speech on the Senate floor. It’s not what you say; it’s what you do. And we will not find the kind of leadership needed to revitalize the country by looking to the political class in Washington.”

My only question, though, is this: Does he include former Govs. Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton among those who did well as president?

I’ll answer my own query: Probably not.

Sex takes center stage in Hastert drama

Margaret Carlson of Bloomberg News — no fan of conservatives, to be sure — has identified, I think, the reason that sex has become the No. 1 media issue in the Dennis Hastert controversy/scandal.

Hastert, the former speaker of the U.S. House, has been indicted on a felony charge of making illegal hush money payments to someone.

It’s the reason for the hush money that’s become the focus here, not the charges spelled out in the indictment, according to Carlson.

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-06-04/hastert-joins-crowded-ranks-of-fallen-moralists

Hastert allegedly sexually abused at least one young man when he was a teacher and coach in Yorkville, Ill. There could be more, the late victim’s sister alleges.

Why the keen interest?

It’s the context of how Hastert became speaker of the House.

He succeeded a serial adulterer, Newt Gingrich, who had to quit his position after admitting to an affair with a staffer — all while he was ranting, raving and railing against President Clinton’s indiscretions with a White House intern.

Then came Bob Livingston, another Republican from Louisiana. Livingston was supposed to succeed Gingrich as speaker. Oops! He, too, fooled around with women other than his wife. Multiple times. One of his paramours was a lobbyist. He was out.

The House then looked for a Boy Scout, a man whose reputation was beyond reproach. Poof! There was Hastert. Hey, he’s as clean as they get.

Except that he wasn’t.

Hastert didn’t make a big show of his reputedly upstanding past. He didn’t prance around proclaiming himself to be without sin. He allowed others to say it.

Carlson, though, does say that Hastert proved to be as duplicitous about morality as Gingrich and others in Congress: (H)e followed in the hypocritical footsteps of his predecessors, devoting much energy to shaming others about their sexual behavior. He advanced the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act through the House and proposed a constitutional amendment to annul same-sex unions in states that allowed them.”

Therein, throughout all of this, likely lies the reason for the fixation on the sex and not the money.