Tag Archives: Bill Clinton

political news

Hastert scandal drips with irony

If you think for a moment about the scandal involving former House Speaker Dennis Hastert, you come away scratching your head at the incredible irony.

A grand jury has indicted Hastert on charges that he spent money illegally to keep someone quiet about an alleged sexual encounter between Hastert and the then-student at the high school where Hastert was a teacher and a coach.

That part of it is weird enough.

But consider the context of the time he was selected to become speaker of the House of Representatives.

* The House had impeached President Clinton for lying to a federal grand jury about an extramarital dalliance he was having with a White House intern.

* The then-speaker, Newt Gingrich, who railed incessantly against the president for his moral failings, resigned from public office after it was revealed that he, too, was fooling around with a woman who wasn’t his wife.

* Up stepped Rep. Bob Livingston, who was set to become speaker. But oops! He dropped the effort because he also was involved in an extramarital affair.

Man, sex was in the air.

Then came the Boy Scout, Denny Hastert. He was chosen to become speaker — and the first person, after the vice president, in line of succession to the presidency of the United States of America.

I guess they didn’t vet him at all, let alone thoroughly.

Thus, the irony.

national news, political news

‘Protecting the homeland’?

Forgive me, please, for expressing this, but Jeb Bush might be suffering from brotherly-love blindness.

He was questioned by Bob Schieffer on CBS’s “Face the Nation” news talk show.

Schieffer asked the former Florida governor and likely 2016 Republican presidential candidate what he learned from his brother, former President George W. Bush.

“Well, the successes clearly are protecting the homeland,” the former Florida governor opined. “We were under attack, and he unified the country, and he showed dogged determination, and he kept us safe.”

And he kept us safe. He said that.

OK, let’s reel this back a bit. The 9/11 attacks occurred on President Bush’s watch, which Jeb has acknowledged. It’s been reported from various sources that the president likely ignored warnings from his national security team that a major attack was imminent. He was briefed by his predecessor, Bill Clinton, about the threat that al-Qaeda posed.

And yet …

The attack occurred on that bright Tuesday morning in New York and Washington.

President Bush “kept us safe”?

Yes, but only after all hell broke loose.

national news, political news

Media turn 'bloodthirsty' over Duggar coverage?

Hey, let’s cool the hyperbole, former Mike Huckabee.

The ex-Arkansas governor and current Republican presidential candidate, says the media are “blood-thirsty in their coverage of the Josh Duggar scandal. Duggar, one of the “19 Kids and Counting” featured in the former TLC reality series, has admitted to molesting young girls, including some of his sisters, when he was a teenager.

Huckabee is a family friend, who’s received the Duggars’ endorsement in his run for the presidency.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/huckabee-slams-media-for-blood-thirsty-coverage-of-duggar-molestation-report/ar-BBk7Vps

Bloodthirsty?

Hmmm. Were the media bloodthirsty in its coverage of former U.S. Rep. Anthony “Carlos Danger” Weiner’s “selfies” of his private parts? I don’t recall the governor saying such a thing then. Do you?

How about the media’s treatment of former President Bill Clinton — Huckabee’s home boy from Hope, Ark. — and the president’s affair with the White House intern? Were the media piling on about that? I believe the governor was silent about that, too.

Did the media pile on then-U.S. Rep. Barney Frank when they reported his dealings with a male hooker? Come on.

Granted, Josh Duggar was just a dumb teenager when he did those things. But he’s grown up now. He’s become politically active, right along with Mom and Dad Duggar. He became involved with the Family Research Council, a highly political organization that promotes “traditional family values” and high morals. What’s more, Mom and Dad kept it all secret for several years before being outed by a magazine.

This outrage needs to be covered by the media. There’s no political blood lust involved.

national news, political news

Fibs = lies? Sometimes

Someone asked me the other day if I could explain the difference between a “fib” and a “lie.”

My quick answer to him was that I “like the word ‘fib’ better.”

“Fib” has a less-damaging ring to it than “lie.”

I’ve given some further thought to the question, which actually is a pretty good one.

Here’s my more thoughtful answer: A fib is meant to describe a false statement that doesn’t carry as much consequence as a lie.

I used the term “fib” to describe, in this latest instance, what NBC reporter/news anchor Brian Williams had said about being shot down in Iraq. He fibbed about it. He wasn’t shot down. He was riding in a helicopter that accompanied the ship that actually was shot down.

Why is that a “fib” and not a “lie”? Because all it means is that one man’s career is likely ruined. The rest of us will carry on.

What, then, constitutes a lie?

Let’s try this one: “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky.” That came from President Bill Clinton as he wagged his finger at the American public and told a lie about what he did with the White House intern. All by itself, that shouldn’t constitute a lie. Except that the result of that untrue statement — which he also made to a federal grand jury — resulted in his impeachment by the U.S. House of Representatives.

I suppose I could go on with more actual lies, such as when the Bush administration kept telling us about Saddam Hussein’s alleged complicity in the 9/11 attacks. We all know where those lies led us.

It’s one thing to fib about a personal experience and another thing to lie when it involves the future of the country.

Awww, what the heck. I still like the sound of the word “fib” better.

 

national news

Not exactly Felix and Oscar, however …

The Hill calls them Washington, D.C.’s newest “odd couple.”

They are Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and Barack H. Obama, the Democratic president of the United States of America.

McConnell has been saying nice things about the man he once pledged to make a “one-term president.” The one-term notion didn’t work out, as Obama was re-elected in 2012. But hey, life goes on.

Washington’s new odd couple: McConnell and Obama

I rather like the idea of these men becoming “friends,” even if it’s a relationship of convenience.

They aren’t the first national political leaders to link arms and find common ground in an Oscar Madison-Felix Unger sort of way.

Let’s go back to the 1960s, when Democratic President Lyndon Johnson and Republican Senate Leader Everett Dirksen teamed up to help enact the Voting Rights and Civil Rights acts. How about when Republican President Ronald Reagan and Democratic House Speaker Tip O’Neill would bash each other in public, but then toast each other over whiskey after hours? Democratic President Bill Clinton and GOP Speaker Newt Gingrich worked together to balance the federal budget. Republican President George W. Bush and Democratic Sen. Ted Kennedy found common ground in pushing education reform through Congress.

See? It can be done, ladies and gentlemen.

McConnell and Obama are on the same page regarding international trade. The president, in fact, is finding his stiffest opposition coming from the left-wing base of his own party. But he’s got a pal on the other side of the aisle.

The arrangement doesn’t surprise some Capitol Hill hands. “It validates what McConnell has been saying for the last six and a half years. If the president wants to join us on something that’s good for the country, we will work with him. This is an example of that,” said Don Stewart, McConnell’s spokesman.

Well, for what it’s worth, some of us out here in the Heartland are surprised.

And pleasantly so, at that.

 

media news, national news, political news

Now it's Stephanopoulos on the block

What gives with media superstars who keep making serious professional “mistakes”?

Brian Williams fibs about being shot down during the Iraq War and he gets suspended by NBC News.

Bill O’Reilly fibs about “covering” the Falklands War while reporting from a safe distance … but he’s still on the job at Fox.

Now it’s George Stephanopoulos giving 75 grand to the Clinton Foundation and then failing to report it to his employers or to his ABC News viewers.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/05/the-great-stephanopoulos-mess-117971.html?ml=po&cmpid=sf#.VVjyylLbKt9

ABC calls it an honest mistake. It’s standing by the “Good Morning America” co-host and moderator of “This Week.”

It’s been known for 20 years that Stephanopoulos was an avid supporter of Bill and Hillary Clinton. He worked in the Clinton White House as a senior political adviser. Then he made the switch to broadcast journalism and by most accounts — yes, some conservatives haven’t been so charitable — he’s done a credible job.

Why did he give to the Clinton Foundation — with one of its principals, Hillary Clinton, running for president? He said he’s deeply interested in two issues the foundation supports: the fight against deforestation and HIV/AIDS.

OK, fine. Has he not heard of, say, Greenpeace and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation who fund efforts to fight those very causes? If he was interested more in the causes and less in the people who champion them, then he could have given to any number of reputable foundations to carry on those battles.

He didn’t. Now his reputation as a journalist has been called into serious — and legitimate — question.

Stephanopoulos isn’t the first political hired hand to make the transition to TV news. Diane Sawyer once wrote speeches for President Nixon and the late Tim Russert once was a key aide to New York Gov. Mario Cuomo. They made the switch. Others have gone into political commentary after working for partisan pols — or themselves been politicians — on both sides of the aisle.

None of them, though, gave large sums of money to overtly political foundations while working as journalists or pundits or commentators.

George Stephanopoulos has created a huge mess for himself — and for his colleagues.

political news, State news

Can HRC carry Texas in '16? Not a chance

I’m enjoying reading the stories about Hillary Rodham Clinton’s many friends in Texas organizing her presidential campaign, some of whom are deluding themselves into thinking she actually has a chance of winning the state’s 38 electoral votes in November 2016.

Do not hold your breath.

The Texas Tribune article attached here looks back when she and her boyfriend, William J. Clinton, worked diligently to register Democratic voters who, they hoped, would make the 1972 party nominee, George McGovern, president of the United States.

http://www.texastribune.org/2015/05/16/clintons-take-texas-1972/

One of their better friends was a young man named Garry Mauro, who went on to serve as Texas land commissioner from 1983 until 1999. Mauro said he knew McGovern was going to lose Texas in 1972. I’m guessing the young couple — Clinton and Hillary Rodham — knew as well.

I figure these days, Hillary Clinton’s best hope is to make Texas competitive. Even that’s a long shot.

The last Democrat to win the state was Jimmy Carter in 1976. It’s been downhill for Democrats ever since. Two years later, Texans would elect the first Republican governor since Reconstruction — and that’s when the tide began to turn from solid Democrat to even more solid Republican.

I figure, though, if Clinton — who I will presume will be the Democratic nominee — can make any inroads with her party’s natural constituency, African-Americans and Hispanics, then the Republican nominee will have to spend more time and money on Texas than he otherwise would spend.

Democrats keep talking about their hopes for turning the state into a political battleground.

So far, though, it’s just talk.

 

political news

Mike Huckabee: closet liberal

Bill Press is a Democratic Party operative and commentator. He once co-hosted “Crossfire” on CNN and he’s been sort of a progressive/liberal TV talking head for many years.

He posted this item on Facebook that I have to share on this blog. It seems to be quite revealing.

***

Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee announced he’s running for president yesterday, the sixth Republican to do so.

Now, here’s what’s funny: As a presidential candidate, he may talk about his time as FOX NEWS talk show host, but he won’t talk about his time as governor. He can’t. Because today he’s running as a conservative – but, back then, he governed as a liberal!

As Igor Volsky from Think Progress told us on the show yesterday, Governor Huckabee had a record which Bill Clinton, another Arkansas governor, would have been proud of.

One of his first acts as governor was to raise the sales tax to pay for improvements in schools. He also convinced voters to raise taxes to pay for improvements to Arkansas highways. As governor, he supported in-state tuition and scholarships for students who came to this country illegally.

Like President Obama, Huckabee’s signature achievement was health care. He expanded health coverage to kids whose parents earned too much to qualify for Medicaid but still couldn’t afford private insurance – and the number of uninsured children dropped from 22 percent to 6 percent.

As Governor, Mike Huckabee built a strong, progressive, pro-government record. Too bad he can’t run on it today.

***

That’s quite a record. Gov. Huckabee ought re-own it.

political news

HRC really is going to 'hit the road'

I do not intend to comment on every little thing Hillary Rodham Clinton does as she launches her second bid for the presidency of the United States, but this development is rather intriguing.

She’s driving — actually riding — in a van to Iowa.

No fancy jet. No limo. A van.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/hillary-clinton-2016-hits-the-road-116911.html?hp=t2_r

This might be a sign of her attempt to connect with everyday Americans, folks who perhaps really and truly understand what it means to be “dead broke,” or those who struggle meet monthly financial obligations.

Clinton’s announcement Sunday that she’s running for president has been seen as wildly different from when she declared her candidacy for the 2008 Democratic nomination.

It was the absence of the letter “I,” as in the first-person pronoun that so many politicians are prone to use. Commentators noted today that she didn’t even mention herself until about halfway through her remarks. Might that, too, be a sign of newfound humility? OK, it well might be stagecraft, calculated to make observers like yours truly take note.

Hillary Clinton’s campaign is fraught with some unique characteristics. Perhaps the most unique — as some have noted — is that she’ll have to put distance between herself and not just one president, but two: the current president, Barack Obama, and the man to whom she’s been married for nearly 40 years, Bill Clinton.

President Obama is now heading into the final turn of his time in office and he’s seeking to build his legacy. Former President Clinton remains arguably the nation’s most recognizable and political force of nature. It’s that relationship and its proximity to the Hillary Clinton’s campaign that presents the most potential trouble.

Hillary Clinton will have to demonstrate she’s her own woman, with her own ideas, world view and that she cannot  be overshadowed by the Democrats’ Big Dog.

But hey, first things first.

She’s going to climb into that van and ride through the Midwest to Iowa. It’s time to connect with folks out here in Flyover Country.

 

national news, political news

HRC needs to prove she's authentic

Authenticity.

That’s the one word, I believe, that sums up Hillary Rodham Clinton’s major hurdle as she begins her second quest for the presidency.

It starts once again on Sunday. She’ll convene some small-group sessions. She’ll talk to voters who about herself, which is what all politicians do when they discuss campaigns for public office.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-begins-her-entry-into-the-2016-presidential-race/2015/04/10/f5f08ef0-df9c-11e4-a1b8-2ed88bc190d2_story.html

I’m left to wonder, though. Just who is this person?

I also am going to venture a guess that a lot of Americans are going to seek to find the real Hillary Clinton, whoever she is.

The email kerfuffle and her delayed reaction to it just stokes the flames of those who think she’s a phony. She’s got all that big-time money backing her, yet she’s going to say that the Citizens United case — which allows corporations to give unlimited amounts of money to politicians — needs to be overturned. She told us a while back she and her husband, the 42nd president, were “dead broke” when they left the White House in January 2001; well, a lot of Americans define “dead broke” differently than the way Hillary Clinton defined it.

Is she for real? Does she really connect with me, or you, or most Americans?

Her campaign begins once again in about 24 hours. She’s going to be the Target No. 1 of every Republican running, or thinking of running, for president in 2016. She’s going to draw fire from those on the far left wing base of her own Democratic Party who are looking for signs that she isn’t too cozy with Wall Street.

What’s more, on top of all this, she’s got the baggage she’ll be lugging around from her time as first lady, when the entire Republican Party establishment — and before we knew about the TEA party wing of the GOP — was out to get her husband tossed out of office. She drew her share of enemy fire during that time. Is she ready to take more of it?

Just who is the real Hillary Rodham Clinton?

We’re about to find out.