Archive for the ‘Feinstein’ Category
When honestly assessing the Obama administration’s abstention in Friday’s UN Security Council vote on Israeli settlements in the West Bank, it’s impossible to say that the administration didn’t want to stab Israel in the back on its way out the door. It’s impossible to say that the Obama administration’s speech after the vote wasn’t extremely dishonest. Finally, Samantha Power’s vote represents the worst betrayal of Israel in US history.
As usual, Charles Krauthammer provided the most detailed explanation of what the US abstention meant. In his explanation, Dr. Krauthammer said “what happened today is that the United States joined the jackals of the UN — that was a phrase used by Pat Moynihan, the great Democratic senator and former ambassador, who spoke for the US standing up in the UN and to resist this kind of disgrace. To give you an idea of how appalling this resolution is, it declares that any Jew living in the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem — the Jewish Quarter, which has been inhabited by Jews for 1,000 years, is illegal and breaking international law, essentially an outlaw, can be hauled into the International Criminal Court or international courts in Europe, which is one of the consequences. The Jewish Quarter has been populated by Jews for 1,000 years. In the war of 1948, the Arabs invaded Israel to wipe it out. They did not succeed but the Arab legions succeeded in conquering the Jewish Quarter. They dispelled all of the Jews. They destroyed all of the synagogues and homes and for 19 years, no Jew could go there. The Israelis got it back in the 6 Day War and now it’s declared as not being Jewish territory.”
Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s statement shows the Democrats’ hostility for Israel:
President Obama’s refusal to veto today’s UN Security Council resolution condemning Israeli settlements sends a strong message that the United States still supports a two-state solution. Ending settlement activity in the West Bank and East Jerusalem is an absolute necessity if we’re ever to achieve a lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians.
I’ve watched with growing concern the increase in Israeli settlements over the years, where approximately 400,0000 individuals now live. I believe the expansion of settlements has but one goal: to undermine the viability of a two-state solution.
I’ve met with displaced Palestinian families who have been kicked off land they’ve lived on for many generations. The ill will that results from these settlements is a significant roadblock to peace, and I again call on Israel to end their expansion so that a two- state solution remains a possibility.
That’s incredibly naïve. Either that or it’s utterly dishonest. The biggest thing preventing a 2-state solution are the Palestinian terrorists that the Israelis have to negotiate with.
Technorati: Barack Obama, Samantha Power, The Jackals of the UN, UN Security Council, Palestinians, United Nations, Dianne Feinstein, Democrats, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Donald Trump, Benjamin Netanyahu, Jewish Quarter, Jerusalem, Wailing Wall, Republicans
This video shows how in the tank and/or stupid MSNBC is about the Constitution:
Here’s what Andrea Mitchell said about the shootout at the I’m not a sixth grader corral:
I brought my handy pocket Constitution with me today just to make the point that this (the fight between Sen. Cruz and Sen. Feinstein) was not a fair fight because Ted Cruz thought that, somehow, he was going to take on Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who began her career in politics facing the bloodshed in San Francisco when she was elevated to become the mayor after the assassinations there.
Ms. Mitchell is a blowhard and a political hack. Notice that she didn’t address the arguments Sen. Cruz made in belittling Sen. Feinstein in the Judiciary Committee. Here’s that video:
Here’s what Sen. Cruz said that ripped Sen. Feinstein’s arguments to shreds:
My fourth and final point is that the Constitution should be the touchstone of everything we do. Some have suggested in this hearing that the role of Congress is to pass laws and it’s up to the courts to determine constitutionality. I would point out that every one of us takes an oath to defend the Constitution and that is a fundamental obligation of every member of this body.
There has been a suggestion that Heller would allow this regulation. I would point out that I am not unfamiliar with the Heller case. Indeed, I represented 31 states before the Supreme Court in the Heller case. So I have an intimate familiarity with that case, having been an active part in litigating and winning it 5-4 before the Supreme Court. And what the Supreme Court said in Heller — it did say there are some restrictions on the Second Amendment that are permissable. For example, it specifically identified the current ban on fully automatic machine guns. But it also said that weapons that are in common use, such as, in that case handguns were the principle issue being discussed, and the same arguments that are being suggested about why assault weapons could be banned were made by the District of Columbia in Heller why handguns could be banned.
The Supreme Court said “No, if they’re in common use for self defense, they cannot be banned consistent with the Second Amendment.” We have heard testimony that there are some 4,000,000 weapons that would be covered by this legislation. I would suggest that, by any measure, 4,000,000 weapons qualifies as common use. So, under the terms in Heller, they can not be constitutionally prohibited.
Mitchell’s argument is based totally on the logic that Sen. Feinstein has been in DC a long time. She’s the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Therefore, she wins the fight. Sen. Cruz’s argument is based on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Heller, which dealt with Washington, DC’s ban on handguns.
In that case, the Supreme Court ruled DC’s handgun ban unconstitutional because it infringes on people’s right to defend themselves and their families. That’s consistent with the plain language of the Second Amendment.
If Ms. Mitchell wants to argue against SCOTUS’ ruling in Heller, she has to argue against the plain language of the Second Amendment. That’s an uphill fight at best.
Sen. Feinstein’s argument, if it can even be classified as such, isn’t based on the Constitution. It’s based on the time-tested liberal axiom of “Surely, we must do something.” That axiom isn’t rooted in thinking things through. It’s based on emotion, which is basing policy on the shakiest of grounds.
Ms. Mitchell is right in the sense that this wasn’t a fair fight. Sen. Feinstein was overmatched by the freshman Republican who knew substantially more about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights than the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
It’s pretty embarrassing when a freshman schools a committee chair on the chair’s supposed area of expertise. That’s what happened, though. That’s because Sen. Feinstein didn’t think about the rights protected by the Constitution. Conversely, Sen. Cruz had an intimate and thorough understanding of the Bill of Rights and the Supreme Court’s Heller ruling.
What’s most delightful is that the best is yet to come. Sen. Feinstein’s bill doesn’t stand a fighting chance in the Senate. I’d bet that Republicans won’t filibuster Sen. Feinstein’s bill because they’ll want vulnerable Democrats to vote on Sen. Feinstein’s bill.
The confrontation between Sen. Feinstein and Sen. Cruz showed how little respect Sen. Feinstein has for the Bill of Rights. When she told Sen. Cruz that she “isn’t a sixth-grader“, she guaranteed tons of publicity for her bill. Here’s the key exchange between Sen. Cruz and Sen. Feinstein:
“Would she consider it constitutional for Congress to specify that the First Amendment shall apply only to the following books and shall not apply to the books that Congress has deemed outside the protection of the Bill of Rights?” Cruz said, speaking to Feinstein.
“Likewise, would she think that the Fourth Amendment’s protection against searches and seizures, could properly apply only to the following specified individuals, and not to the individuals that Congress has deemed outside the protection of the law?”
Pointing her finger and glaring at Cruz, Feinstein shot back.
“One, I’m not a sixth grader,” Feinstein said. “Senator, I’ve been on this Committee for 20 years. I was a mayor for nine years. I walked in and I saw people shot with these weapons.
“I’m not a lawyer,” she added, “but after 20 years, I’ve been up close and personal with the Constitution. I have great respect for it. … So I, you know, it’s fine you want to lecture me on the Constitution. I appreciate it. Just know I’ve been here for a long time.”
“I thank you for the lecture. Incidentally, this does not prohibit — you used the word ‘prohibit’ – it exempts 2,271 weapons. Isn’t that enough for the people of the United States? Do they need a bazooka? Do they need other high-powered weapons that other people use in close combat? I don’t think so.”
First, Sen. Feinstein apparently thinks that it’s ok to infringe upon people’s rights to defend themselves. Second, it’s apparent that Sen. Feinstein thinks there’s a secret exception to the Second Amendment, one where it’s ok to prohibit the manufacture of certain types of weapons as long as a pompous senator “saw people shot with” the weapons she wants banned.
Using Sen. Feinstein’s logic, she’d be fine with banning the manufacture of handguns, too. In fact, handguns kill more people than so-called assault weapons by a huge margin.
What’s frightening is Sen. Feinstein’s criteria for violating the Bill of Rights. Apparently, Sen. Feinstein thinks anything that looks frightening should be banned. Sen. Feinstein apparently didn’t pay attention to the SCOTUS rulings on the DC and Chicago bans on handguns. The text of the Second Amendment is clear:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Passing laws that prohibit the manufacture of certain types of guns is infringing on the people’s right to protect themselves.
What’s most frightening isn’t that Sen. Feinstein isn’t smarter than a sixth grader. It’s that she doesn’t respect the clearly written text of the Bill of Rights.
California certainly is know for its catastrophic earthquakes. I remember watching the opening game of the San Francisco-Oakland World Series earthquake, when Al Michaels went from being a play-by-play announcer of the World Series to being the ABC earthquake correspondent within minutes.
Though nothing is likely to replace that as the most dramatic, high profile earthquake in California history, a new, unanticipated earthquake of a political nature might be taking shape. If the polling in this article lasts, this could be the biggest earthquake since the World Series Earthquake:
A little over a year before she faces re-election, voters in California have given Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein the lowest grade in her nearly two-decade tenure, according to a new poll released Friday.
A survey by the California-based Field Poll shows 44 percent of voters don’t want to send Feinstein, who was first elected in 1992, back to Washington for a fourth full term, while 41 percent support her re-election. Until now, the poll has never showed the senator’s re-election support to be under water.
Over the past 20 years, the Field survey has found Feinstein’s job approval ratings to be consistently positive by comfortable margins. Now, that margin is much narrower: 41 percent approve of the job she is doing in the Senate while 39 percent disapprove. This is Feinstein’s lowest grade in her Washington career, according to the survey. She receives majority approval (60 percent) from her political base, but 21 percent of Democrats disapprove of her job performance. Among non-partisan voters, 40 percent approve while 32 percent disapprove.
It’s too early to say that DiFi is in trouble but it isn’t too early to say that this is historic. That polling is startling.
Sen. Feinstein’s fundraiser, Kinde Durkee, is accused of wiping out Sen. Feinstein’s campaign warchest, too:
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said her campaign is among those that may have been “wiped out” by a Burbank-based Democratic campaign treasurer who was arrested on federal fraud charges earlier this month.
Kinde Durkee is accused of taking thousands of dollars from the campaigns of several elected officials, including Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-Garden Grove), Rep. Susan A. Davis (D-San Diego) and Assemblyman Jose Solorio (D-Santa Ana). The Los Angeles County Democratic Party reported that more than $200,000 had been taken from its fund.
Though this is tragic, it’d be a mistake to think that an entrenched incumbent like Dianne Feinstein won’t be able to resupply her warchest relatively quickly. Sen. Feinstein’s campaign manager shouldn’t worry about the warchest as much he or she should worry about the fact that she’s in the biggest fight of her political career.
If Sen. Feinstein’s campaign was complacent before this polling, they can’t afford to be complacent a minute longer.
Based on recent events, it’s apparent that there will be lots of political earthquakes that first Tuesday in November, 2012. Only time will tell if the biggest political earthquake’s epicenter is in California.
This am, Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s op-ed carries with it an ominous tone, one that isn’t justified in my opinion. Here’s what Sen. Feinstein said that isn’t justified:
A year ago this week, American officials wrapped up a two-day inspection of a Russian strategic missile base at Teykovo, 130 miles northeast of Moscow, where mobile SS-25 intercontinental ballistic missiles are deployed.
Twelve days later, their Russian counterparts wrapped up a two-day inspection at Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri, home to a strategic bomb wing.
These inspections are noteworthy because they are the last to be conducted under the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, or START, which expired in December 2009. No American inspectors have set foot on a Russian nuclear base since, depriving us of key information about Russian strategic forces.
Worse, if Republicans in the Senate succeed in delaying ratification of the New START agreement, a distinct possibility, it may be months before American inspectors get another look at Russian nuclear weapons.
What’s dismaying to me is that Sen. Feinstein is attempting to blame Republicans for the Democrats’ failure. That isn’t warranted based on this post on the White House’s blog. Here’s a portion of President Obama’s opening statement:
Finally, this day demonstrates the determination of the United States and Russia, the two nations that hold over 90 percent of the worldâ€™s nuclear weapons, to pursue responsible global leadership. Together, we are keeping our commitments under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which must be the foundation for global non-proliferation.
While the New START treaty is an important first step forward, it is just one step on a longer journey. As I said last year in Prague, this treaty will set the stage for further cuts. And going forward, we hope to pursue discussions with Russia on reducing both our strategic and tactical weapons, including non-deployed weapons.
President Obama made that speech 7 months ago. Had Democrats wanted to get START ratified, perhaps it shouldn’t have shut down the Senate all of August and October and most of September. Perhaps, they would’ve been better served holding hearings.
Inattentiveness on the Democrats’ part shouldn’t constitute a crisis on the Republicans’ part. In short, Feinstein’s Democrats shouldn’t have waited months and months, then expected Republicans to exactly do what Sen. Feinstein tells them to do. Frankly, Sen. Kerry should’ve called hearings in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in May and gotten it ratified months before the August recess.
Here’s the closing paragraph of Sen. Feinstein’s op-ed:
It would be foolish and wrong to let partisan politics bring this era of cooperation to an end. Worse, it would make us blind to the true size and capabilities of the Russian arsenal. There is no question this would weaken our national security. That would be indefensible.
Sen. Feinstein, what’s indefensible is waiting 7 months without conducting a hearing on the START Treaty. The Democrats own the gavels in the Senate. If this treaty is that important, why didn’t John Kerry, the committee chair, conduct hearings months ago? Why didn’t his committee give its ratification long ago so the full Senate could ratify it before the election?
This isn’t really a crisis. Sen. Feinstein just wants people to think it’s a crisis.
When President Obama signed the omnibus spending bill that will fund the beast the rest of FY2009, he also signed the DC Voucher Scholarships out of existence. My question now is simple: Will President Obama side with the NEA or will he side with needy children who deserve a first class education? Based on internal Democrat communications, Democrats have no intention on re-instituting the DC scholarship program:
Prominent lawmakers said throughout the debate on cutting D.C. school voucher funding that they would consider reauthorizing the program, but an internal document shows House Democrats have no intention of doing so.
The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which has jurisdiction over the D.C. voucher program, appears to have made up its mind, according to an internal document obtained by The Washington Times.
“Currently, the Committee is unaware of any pending legislation to reauthorize the D.C. school voucher initiative. Therefore, the Committee does not anticipate reauthorizing the program,” the Democratic committee staff said in a 2010 budget document circulated Friday.
President Obama needs to make a stand on this. Will he side with underprivileged DC children? Or will he continue to let Prime Minister Pelosi run roughshod over these children? This is partisan politics at its worst. Not only is David Obey, et al, willing to eliminate an important program but they’re willing to do that as payoff for one of their best political allies.
Rep. Obey’s giving DC children the finger is one of the most despicable pictures I’ve seen in political life.
It’s a profile in cronyism at its worst.
Unless President Obama fights for these children’s right to a first class education, he’ll lack credibility as a thoughtful postpartisan politician. If he doesn’t fight for this scholarship program, we’ll have proof that he’s just another partisan politician who does what his puppeteers tell him to do.
That isn’t change I can believe in. It’s change I’m disgusted with.
Democrats who voted against Mr. Ensign’s amendment shrugged off accusations that passing the bill would kill the program, saying they would hold hearings or re-evaluate it before making a decision.
“Senator Lieberman’s committee is going to take a close look to see if this program has worked,” Sen. Richard J. Durbin said. “I do not understand the reluctance on the other side to have an honest evaluation of the program that has cost us over $70 million in taxpayer funds.”
What’s the need for hearings? Durbin’s spin is disgustingly transparent. How difficult is it to figure out whether underprivileged children are better off attending Sidwell Friends, where President Obama’s daughters attend school, or whether they’re better off being imprisoned in dangerous academically-challenged schools?
This is a cheap ploy designed to distract us from the fact that Democrats oppose vouchers. They’ve opposed vouchers since the day the NEA told them to oppose them. This isn’t complicated. It’s one of the few things that’s transparent in DC these days.
Likewise, Sen. Diane Feinstein of California has said she would be open to supporting the program if hearings show that it is working.
Why do these empty suits start with the position that it might not be working? It’s as though they assume that this program can’t work. That’s a disturbing predisposition on Durbin’s and Feinstein’s behalf.
But a spokeswoman for Rep. Edolphus Towns, New York Democrat and chairman of the committee, confirmed that the panel does not intend to green-light the program as of now. “Since Chairman Towns has not seen any legislation regarding the voucher program, he is not anticipating taking up reauthorization,” spokeswoman Jenny Thalheimer said.
A spokesman for Rep. Darrell Issa, a California Republican and the committee’s ranking member, accused Democrats of being disingenuous. “Talk of hearings, assertions that no final decision had been made were deceptive doubletalk. Democrats on the House committee that would have to reauthorize the program had already decided poor D.C. children shouldn’t be in private schools,” spokesman Frederick Hill said.
The only thing these hearings will do is kick the can down the road until it disappears from the radar screen. Rep. Towns’ spokeswoman makes that abundantly clear.
What’s particularly offensive is that the Democrats’ attempt to look like they’re fiscally responsible is really their willingness to be the NEA’s puppets. The Democrats’ behavior is morally reprehensible and shouldn’t be tolerated. This program needs to be re-instituted ASAP so that as many underprivileged children aren’t subjected to DC’s failing schools.
Technorati: Education, Private Schools, Public Schools, School Violence, DC Scholarships, Joe Lieberman, Dick Durbin, Dianne Feinstein, David Obey, Speaker Pelosi, Edolphus Towns, Hearings, Unions, NEA
Cross-posted at California Conservative
Each election, candidates are scrutinized from a variety of directions and on an even wider variety of issues. Two issues that shouldn’t be debated, though, are the First Amendment and our nation’s prosperity. With that in mind, every candidate or incumbent nationwide should answer some questions on those subjects. Let’s get to the questions:
Do you support reviving the Fairness Doctrine? If you do, explain why? If you don’t, why not? Please keep your answers as precise and on point as possible.
If you support the Fairness Doctrine, outline with specificity how it could be implemented. Also, explain what impact it would have on the radio industry.
To House candidates:
Do you support Rep. Michael Capuano’s proposal to make it mandatory that representatives get prior approval to post work-related content on blogs, YouTube and other websites containing advertising on them? If you support it, why do you support it? If you don’t, why don’t you?
To all candidates and incumbents:
Does McCain-Feingold need to be reformed? If yes, which specific portions of it need reforming? If it doesn’t need reform, why doesn’t it?
Has McCain-Feingold been a success? If it has, what successes can you cite that happened directly because of McCain-Feingold? If it hasn’t been a success, why wasn’t it successful?
If McCain-Feingold wasn’t successful, were its shortcomings forseeable?
Does McCain-Feingold limit free speech? If it doesn’t, explain why it doesn’t.
As for prosperity, let’s ask the candidates this:
1) What specific steps would you take to curb inflation?
2) Can you curb inflation without dropping the price of oil? If you think you can, explain how that’s possible. If you think you can’t, explain how you’d lower the price of a gallon of gasoline.
3) Can you lower gas prices without exploration in areas that are currently offlimits? If you can, explain how that’s possible.
4) If you think you can’t lower prices without expanding exploration in areas currently offlimits, would you support opening up new areas for exploration?
5) Are marginal tax rates an important component to national prosperity? If they aren’t, why aren’t they? If they are, explain what role they play in fostering prosperity.
Candidates should be willing to answer each of these questions. Any reticence on their behalf to answer these questions specifically should be seen as their attempt to hide their unpopular opinions. This should tell us where candidates stand on two of the most important issues of this election cycle.
Cross-posted at California Conservative
Following the Supreme Court’s idiotic ruling giving terrorists the same rights as a street criminal, Sen. Dianne Feinstein is now saying that Gitmo was a blight on the integrity of the United States. Here’s what she said specifically:
“Guantanamo has been a terrible blight on the integrity of this nation,” says Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat who has proposed closing the prison complex.
This is typical Democrat thinking on foreign policy. They say these things because they’re more worried about being popular than respected. In fact, they worry more about being popular than being safe. Their go-along-to-get-along attitude isn’t keeping American safe.
What’s keeping America safe is George Bush’s policy of attacking terrorists where they live. President Bush hasn’t given the terrorists any breathing room. As a result, we’ve gone almost 7 years without a terrorist attack. That didn’t happen by accident. Because President Bush had the wisdom to implement this aggressive policy, we’ve been protected.
Had DiFi gotten her wish, there isn’t any doubt that we would’ve been more popular with America-hating squishies like Jacques Chirac, Gerhard Shroeder and Jose Zapatero of Spain. Big deal. Their dislike for President Bush’s hardnosed policies should be worn as a badge of honor. The commander-in-chief’s affirmative responsibility is to protect America from her enemies. PERIOD.
Democrats are too nuanced to get that. That’s why Americans have rightly rejected them in 7 of the last presidential elctions. That’s why they should restore Republicans to the amjority in the Senate. We can’t have unserious people engaged in world popularity contests. We need serious people who’ll make smart decisions that will protect us.
Cross-posted at California Conservative
According to this Redstate Action Alert, Democrats have slipped the AG Jobs bill into the Senate emergency supplemental appropriations bill. Why we care is because the bill has an amnesty provision in it. Here’s an overview of that provision:
Blue card status:
Authorizes the granting of temporary â€œblue cardâ€ status to an alien who pays a $100 fee, and who DHS has determined to:
- have performed agricultural employment in the United States for at least 863 hours or 150 work days (one work day is defined as 5.75 hours, so this is the equivalent of 21.5 40â€hour work weeks, or less than half of a standard 50â€week work year), whichever is less, during the twoâ€year period ending December 31, 2006;
- have applied for blue card status during the 18â€month application period beginning on the first day of the seventh month after enactment;
- have not been convicted of any felony or a misdemeanor involving bodily injury, threat of serious bodily injury, or harm to property exceeding $500; and
- be otherwise admissible (with specified waivers available);
- Caps the number of aliens to be granted blue card status in the five years following enactment at 1.5 million;
- Requires each employer of a blue card alien to annually provide a written record of employment to that alien and to provide a copy of that record to DHS (lest the employer be fined up to $1,000 per violation), but sunsets that obligation six years after enactment; and
- Requires DHS to provide each blue card alien with a secure, biometric identification document (e.g., encrypted identification strip, biometric identifiers).
Do we really want to reward people for breaking the law? If you’re opposed to rewarding illegal behavior, call your senator at (202) 224-3121.
It’s time that we reminded the politicians that We The People oppose this ban in huge numbers.
Cross-posted at California Conservative
I wish that were the case but it isn’t. That said, Obama delivered a hard blow to Hillary’s chin if this Mo Dowd column can be believed. Here’s what I’m talking about:
Making an economic speech in Knoxville, Iowa, earlier that day, the New York senator had touted her own know-how, saying that â€œthere is one job we canâ€™t afford on-the-job training for, thatâ€™s the job of our next president.â€ Her aides confirmed that she was referring to Obama.
Pressed to respond, Obama offered a zinger feathered with amused disdain: â€œMy understanding was that she wasnâ€™t Treasury secretary in the Clinton administration, so I donâ€™t know exactly what experiences sheâ€™s claiming.â€
If Hillary wants to claim credit fo running the Clinton War Room, I’m ok with that. If she wants to claim credit for the various appointments to second-tier DOJ jobs, most of whom didn’t make it through, I’ll stipulate to that. If she want to take credit for the Clinton economic policies, I’ll laugh in her face. Tony Blankley’s latest Townhall column pokes fun at her experience claim, too:
What plausible claim does Miss Hillary have to experience in managing a national economy, balancing a budget or fixing income inequality? Even on health care, according to her husband, the aspiring “first louse (he wants to be called first laddie, but I think the derivation from first spouse works better) claims that she didn’t have much to do with Hillary Care — it was his fault.
Is the national media actually going to accept without even a murmur of skepticism Hillary Clinton’s claim to possess all the experience gained by her husband as president? If Obama (or for that matter any other candidate in either party) were to claim such experience, a reporter might well ask him on what basis he claims such experience.
Hillary’s only policy experience was a flop. Hillarycare didn’t singlehandedly deliver the House majority into GOP hands for the first time in 40 years but it would’ve had the House not gotten caught with the House Banking Scandal and House Post Office scandal. Simply put, Hillary’s health care plan scared people.
That’s the only real policy experience she’s had. It was a disaster.
If I were advising a candidate who was running against her, I would lay into her loudly and often with a challenge to her claim of experience. If she actually was managing the national economy from 1993-2000 from her perch as wife of the president, let her release White House documents showing her active participation in such management. When I worked in the Reagan White House, I wrote hundreds of memos on my areas of responsibility. There was a paper trail. If Hillary actually was doing what she implies she was doing, there will be a long paper trail of memos that she either wrote or commented upon.
EXACTLY!!! Hillary’s claims of being the experienced candidate in the race would be more believeable if she showed documented proof of that alleged experience. If she’s claiming this great experience, she should produce proof of it. Al Gore didn’t have a right to claim credit for Bill Clinton’s economic successes because the credit rightfully goes to Bill Clinton and LLoyd Bentsen, to his successor Robert Rubin. That said, Al Gore had more right to claim his experience than Hillary.
The ‘invested in Hillary media’ wants to give her a pass on this, that’s their right. Rational people won’t give her a pass, though. These days, we’re too into the accountability and credibility thing to blindly accept Hillary’s claims without doing our due diligence first. Here’s another quote that can’t make Hillary’s advisers happy:
â€œShe hasnâ€™t accomplished anything on her own since getting admitted to Yale Law,â€ wrote Joan Di Cola, a Boston lawyer, in a letter to The Wall Street Journal this week, adding: â€œShe isnâ€™t Dianne Feinstein, who spent years as mayor of San Francisco before becoming a senator, or Nancy Pelosi, who became Madam Speaker on the strength of her political abilities. All Hillary is, is Mrs. Clinton. She became a partner at the Rose Law Firm because of that, senator of New York because of that, and (heaven help us) she could become president because of that.â€
Hillary knows that she wouldn’t have a serious chance at winning the White House if there hadn’t been a President Bill Clinton. What real credentials does Hillary have? She’s touted as the “smartest woman in the world” but that’s just opinion. What proof do we have of that? Ms. Di Cola makes a great point in citing DiFi’s experience as running San Francisco.
Things are changing now that we’re drawing close to the Iowa Caucuses. Media scrutiny appears to be ramping up. Thus far, I haven’t seen Hillary’s offer of proof that she’s presidential material. Her most memorable moments thus far are her fumbling a simple question about whether illegal immigrants should be issued drivers licenses and her planting questions with the audience.
That isn’t exactly the best thing to be remembered for.
Cross-posted at California Conservative