Categories

Archive for the ‘Hillary’ Category

Debbie Wasserman-Schultz has more egg on her face now that Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have agreed to do 4 more debates. Though the details of the agreement are still being worked out, what’s clear is that Ms. Wasserman-Schultz’s iron-fisted statement that there would be 6 debates was thrown under the proverbial bus. This just additional proof that Ms. Wasserman-Schultz has lost control of the party she supposedly leads.

When the article starts by saying “If the Democratic National Committee were to sanction a Democratic debate on Feb. 4 in New Hampshire, it would likely do so without being co-sponsored by the state’s largest newspaper, three sources familiar with the plans have confirmed,” that’s stating the DNC has essentially lost control. Ms. Wasserman-Schultz’s past statements can now be hung around her neck. She fought for keeping a lid on the debates.

Now that Hillary’s in trouble, Hillary wants additional debates. Sen. Sanders agreed but only if it was expanded to multiple debates. Mrs. Clinton wanted a single debate right before the New Hampshire Primary. Here’s a hint for Hillary. Additional debates might help in the short-term but they won’t help save her from the fact that she’s a terrible candidate.

It isn’t a stretch to think that campaigns plant questions at town hall meetings. It isn’t often, though, that these planted questions are exposed like it was this time. One of the questioners from the audience tossed Hillary a softball, asking “I just wanted to know which of our previous presidents has inspired you most and why.”

Unfortunately for Hillary, that isn’t the only thing Brett Rosenberg, the questioner and an undecided voter, said. He prefaced the inspirational president question by saying “Secretary Sander… Clinton… Oh, sorry. I can see why they gave you this question… I just wanted to know which of our previous presidents has inspired you most and why.”

Whether you say that the cat’s out of the bag or whether you say that CNN and the DNC are playing favorites, there’s no hiding the fact that someone, either the Clinton campaign, the DNC (pardon the repetition) or CNN (pardon the excessive repetition), planted the question.
I wrote here that Hillary was on the defensive the entire night. Sen. Sanders accused her of fighting the progressive fight only when it’s politically convenient. Sen. Sanders cited Hillary’s Johnny-come-lately approach to TPP and the Keystone XL Pipeline project as proof that she’s a calculating politician, not a progressive activist at heart.

Whether you’re talking about Hillary’s plant or the fact that she’s out of touch with the party she wants to lead, the truth is that she’s frittered away her air of invincibility.

Technorati: , , , ,

It’s bad enough when Hillary’s campaign spokesman tries spinning his way out of the predicament Hillary created. That’s what he’s paid to do. It’s quite another when the media, in this case CNN’s Jeffrey Toobin, start playing the roll of Hillary apologist.

Toobin went straight to the ‘the government classifies too many documents’ card, saying “She is now suffering from that because people are saying there’s all this classified information she’s dealing with, but there is not a bright line between classified and unclassified, and you can see, at least to a certain extent, why she was not clear on what was what.” Hillary’s biggest problem thus far is that the Intelligence Community IG identified multiple emails that had the highest security clearance, that of SAP or special access programs. The only people with a security clearance high enough to read this information other than the President and Vice President are the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the director of the CIA and the director of National Intelligence and their deputies. That’s right. Only 10 people have a clearance to read SAPs in the entire government.

That’s because this information identifies drone deployments, submarine deployments and spies who have infiltrated terrorist networks and cells. If this information gets into the wrong hands, people will die. That’s why it’s tightly held information.

There’s no doubt that the federal government classifies too many documents. That isn’t what’s at issue here. What’s at issue is this nation’s most sensitive information. It isn’t unreasonable to expect the Secretary of State to guard that information with her life.

If ever someone should tread lightly when it comes to criticizing corruption, it’s Hillary Clinton. Gabby Morrongiello’s article highlights some tweets that Hillary is going to regret. During the debate, Hillary’s staff tweeted a quote from Hillary about corruption. During the debate, Hillary said “There should be no bank too big to fail and no individual too big to jail.”

The Twitterverse response wasn’t what Mrs. Clinton’s staffers were expecting. One tweet said “@HillaryClinton That includes you, Hillary.” Another tweet said “Does this include yourself? #possibleindictment” Still another said “‘No individual too big to jail’ – I can’t believe she just tweeted that with a straight face”

To that last tweet, this person must be young. When it comes to chutzpah, Hillary’s got more chutzpah than Mr. Trump’s got mean-spirited quips. Hillary’s tweet originated from a belief that the American people are either stupid, forgetful or both. When she was squashing bimbo eruptions during Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential campaign, she could get away with statements like that. That doesn’t work because the universe has changed by orders of magnitude.

In 1992, the media universe essentially consisted of CNN (which was then nicknamed the Clinton New Network by Rush Limbaugh), NBC, ABC and CBS, the New York Times and the Washington Post. Talk radio was just getting started. Al Gore was just inventing the internet. Social media didn’t exist.

Chris Cillizza’s article certainly isn’t the type of review she was hoping for. Cillizza’s article put Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley in the debate’s winner category. It put Mrs. Clinton into the loser category.

Cillizza highlighted the fact that Sen. Sanders “got tripped up a few times during the debate on his voting record — especially on guns” before noting that “he was the prime mover in virtually every discussion from Wall Street reform to health care to climate change. He was on offense, accusing rival Hillary Clinton of half-measures and political caution at a moment when boldness is required.”

Of O’Malley, Cillizza wrote that Gov. O’Malley started the debate by whining about being ignored but then he “turned the corner on getting ignored and by the end of the debate was downright likable.” It’s nice that O’Malley came across as likable but it’s utterly irrelevant. He’s a total non-factor in the Democratic presidential nomination fight. That fight is between Mrs. Clinton and Sen. Sanders.

Here’s what Cillizza wrote about Mrs. Clinton:

So, why is she in the loser column? Because she did nothing in the debate to slow the momentum that Sanders is building in Iowa and New Hampshire. Aside from guns, where Clinton scored a clean win against Sanders, she was unable to effectively cast him as a pie-in-the-sky idealist and herself as the only person who could truly fight and win on for Democratic priorities. Time and again, she was boxed into defending a status quo that the American public, Democrats and Republicans alike, is dissatisfied with.

Simply put, Hillary is out of step with voters. At a time when the American people want to grab politicians by the short and curlies, she’s preaching the virtues of staying the course and continuity. This, of course, puts a smile on President Obama’s face but it isn’t what the American people want.

One of the disputable truths about politics is that politicians, generally speaking, aren’t leaders. They’re mostly followers. Bill Clinton had a vision for America, a destination he wanted to take people to. Hillary Clinton struggles with “the vision thing.” She’s mostly a check-the-right-boxes candidate. Environmental activists want this. Promise them what they want. Unions want unswerving loyalty. Hillary’s response is ‘you’ve got it.’ At no point does Mrs. Clinton tell people how all these separate promises create a vision that unifies the nation.

In fact, the only candidate with that type of vision in either party is Sen. Rubio. That’s why lots of Democratic strategists have said — off the record, of course — that Sen. Rubio frightens them the most.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

Donald Trump’s ego got the better of him yesterday when he took credit for the Iran hostage release. Mr. Trump should’ve quit while he was behind. Later, in a totally bizarre change of direction, Mr. Trump criticized the terms of the swap.

In other words, Trump criticized the prisoner swap that he took credit for. Is that an example of New York values? I could certainly make an argument that wanting it both ways happens to lots of northeastern liberals. Hillary’s certainly tried having it both ways. Chris Christie supported strict gun control laws and Sonia Sotomayor’s appointment to the Supreme Court before categorically denying he’d supported either thing.

That’s before talking about John Kerry’s infamous “I actually voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it” episode:

Only in the northeast would a person think that there’s nothing wrong with wanting things both ways. In fact, I’m betting that Trump would have a hissy fit if people called him on it. I’d bet the proverbial ranch on it, in fact.

It’s important that we take 2 things away from this. First, Mr. Trump didn’t actually do anything. His ego is too big, though, to admit that he didn’t have anything to do with the swap. Next, and more importantly, Mr. Trump’s behavior is, putting it charitably, unhinged. What type of people talk out of both sides of their mouth, then criticize people for when they call him on his manic behavior?

Mr. Trump is acting this way before a single vote’s been cast. Why shouldn’t people think that he’ll crack if he’s ever the president when he has real responsibilities? Right now, he’s just a loudmouthed candidate and former reality TV celebrity. If he’s that out to lunch now, why shouldn’t we think he’d crack when he’s given legitimate responsibilities?

When Ted Cruz didn’t criticize Donald Trump early in the campaign, conservatives, including myself, criticized him. Clearly, he had a well-thought out plan that he’s started implementing this past week. When he started talking about Donald Trump’s New York values, he must’ve known that Trump would attack viciously. When Trump invoked 9/11 during Thursday night’s debate, Sen. Cruz politely applauded the heroism of 9/11 first responders, firefighters and police officers.

Charles Krauthammer said that that was a low point for Cruz. It’s easy to conclude that if you’re looking at it from a debate-only maneuver. The truth is that Sen. Cruz baited Trump into this fight. The truth is that it’s a fight Trump can’t win. I don’t know that Cruz will win. Trump is hitting him hard, too. Still, Sen. Cruz is giving better than he’s getting. Catherine Frazier, Sen. Cruz’s campaign spokesperson, hinted that there’s plenty more criticism heading in Trump’s direction:

“The question is, do we want our future leadership to look like that of New York City’s?” she said. “Where the government mandates how much soda you can drink, where it is illegal to protect yourself with a firearm, and where its elected officials say that people who value unborn life aren’t welcome?”

“Or do we want our next president to embrace the values that get government our of the way, that reward hard work, that champion faith, family, and individual liberties?” Frazier continued. “There is no doubt that America wants more of the latter.”

Sen. Cruz’s ad, titled “Donald Trump on New York values – in his own words” uses Trump’s statements against him:

Cruz and Trump have engaged in a scripted dance where each pretends to like the other. With the Iowa Caucuses 2 weeks away, both men are throwing uppercuts, not jabs. Until now, Trump has gotten away with being a New York liberal. Saturday on Twitter, TriciaNC attacked Trump this way:

Good Grief! You even supported Democrat Charlie Crist over @MarcoRubio http://patriotupdate.com/donald-trumps-donations-to-democrats/ … tcot

Later, she chimed in with this shot:

You became so #prolife that you donated to Right To Life groups instead of PP and NARAL, right? Oops, your bad

Rick Tyler, the senior communications advisor to Sen. Cruz’s Jobs Growth and Freedom PAC, threw this shot at Trump:

In 2008, the Real Donald Trump gave $50,000 to the New York State Democratic Party #NYValues
Rick Tyler ?@rickwtyler The Real Donald Trump gave $41,000 to liberal Democrat Eliot Spitzer #NYValues

It’s official. The floodgates have opened. Mr. Trump had better get used to a steady barrage of specific criticisms of how he’s supported liberal politicians from Hillary Clinton to perverted former Gov. Eliot Spitzer. Glenn Beck jumped into the fight with this tweet:

Amanda Carpenter jumped into the fight with this tweet:

Amanda Carpenter Who supported the big bank bailouts? Trump. Trump. Trump. Not Cruz

Trump’s thin skin won’t let him continue taking this pounding without responding. If people couple his thin skin with his financial support for Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation and his vote for President Obama in 2008, it isn’t difficult to see Mr. Trump taking a sustained pounding. Lots of things can happen in the next 2 weeks.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

CNBC’s Larry Kudlow has earned the reputation of being pro-immigration reform. That’s why Mr. Kudlow’s NRO op-ed is startling. Mr. Kudlow admits that we’re at war with Islamic terrorists and that “there should be no immigration or visa waivers until the U.S. adopts a completely new system to stop radical Islamic terrorists from entering the country.” If that sounds like Trump’s plan, it’s because it’s similar but it isn’t the same.

Kudlow explains “Let me emphasize that my support for wartime immigration restrictions is not based on religion. I think Donald Trump made a big mistake here. Instead, I agree with this Rupert Murdoch tweet: ‘Complete refugee pause to fix vetting makes sense.'”

That’s the point I’ve made from the start. Let me outline the principles I’d use to prevent the next Paris or the next San Bernardino. First, I’d establish a tiered list of countries to accept refugees from. The first tier would be countries that we’d never accept refugees from. Basically, any nation whose government exists in name only would be on that list. Syria, Somalia, Mali, Libya and Yemen would be on that list.

I’ve nicknamed the second list the Procto list. Refugees from these countries would be given a full proctology examination. Each refugee would be given a full examination including everything up to the person’s tonsils. Twice. I picture nations like Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Turkey and Greece on that list. It isn’t that there are many Greek terrorists. It’s that a bunch of ISIS terrorists stopped in Greece on their way to the west from Iraq and Syria. Pakistan, Iraq and Afghanistan are marginal allies but they’re terrorist hotbeds, too.

I wrote this article to highlight the corruption within the Obama administration, especially in the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security. Tashfeen Malik, the terrorist bride, didn’t “slip through the cracks” like the administration is spinning it. They all but rolled out the red carpet for her by shutting down a program that likely would’ve put her terrorist husband, Syed Farook, on the federal government’s no-fly list because he attended a radicalized mosque.

FYI- That likely would’ve meant Malik’s visa being rejected, too.

Larry Kudlow should be applauded for changing his very public stand. The late economist John Maynard Keynes was once asked why he’d changed his policy. His epic reply fits here:

When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”

Exactly right.

Hillary Clinton insists that the United States must up their game to defeat ISIS. That’s true in one extent. Hours before the ISIS terrorist attacks in Paris, President Obama insisted that ISIS was contained. Hours before the San Bernardino terrorist attack, President Obama insisted that ISIS didn’t pose a threat to the United States.

Considering how frequently his administration hasn’t caught terrorists before they hit, there’s plenty of room for improvement from this administration.

It isn’t fair, though, to say that the Obama administration isn’t the only group of Democrats that need to pull their head out of their butts. It’s certainly fair to tell Hillary that she’s been almost as worthless at fighting terrorism as President Obama has been. Hillary’s statement that Muslims “have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism” is frighteningly stupid. That’s one of the dumbest statements I’ve heard a politician make.

Hillary said “What happened in San Bernardino was a terror attack. No one is arguing that.” Except Democrat senators like Feinstein and Boxer from California, Murphy and Whitehouse from Connecticut and Schumer from New York. They’re the ones who introduced a gun control bill before law enforcement determined what had happened in San Bernardino.

Hillary herself brought up the issue of gun control in the minutes after the terrorist attack in San Bernardino. Mrs. Clinton didn’t ponder the possibility that terrorists had attacked. Instead, Mrs. Clinton played the role of lead ideologue instead of finding a solution to this crisis.

As long as Mrs. Clinton, President Obama and the Democrats put a higher priority on playing politics than they put on fighting terrorism with all of the weapons in the United States’ arsenal, they’ll rightly be seen as being part of the problem, not part of the solution.

President Obama has the opportunity of starting fresh with the right strategy of defeating ISIS when he addresses the nation tonight from the Oval Office. It’s a shame he won’t use that opportunity to make America safe again.

If people want to read a good fictional novella, I’d recommend that they read Rand Paul’s op-ed. What Sen. Paul’s op-ed misses in serious policies, it makes up for with sensationalism and old-fashioned BS.

Early in the article, Sen. Paul reveals his goal by talking about Hillary Clinton’s and Marco Rubio’s “liberation foreign policy.” After that, Sen. Paul’s op-ed reads like a letter from an angry child upset that nobody’s paying attention to him. There’s good reason for that. Sen. Paul’s upset that nobody’s paying attention to him. There’s a reason for that. He’s sounding more and more like a not-quite-as-crazy-as-his-dad-noninterventionist.

First, Sen. Paul’s accusations are without merit. He’s basing his statements on a myth. Early in the op-ed, he said “When I forced the Foreign Relations Committee to debate an authorization of military force against ISIS, Senator Rubio and McCain insisted that the new authorization be unlimited temporally or geographically. Basically, they want a war without end against an undefined enemy in an unspecified region of the world.”

I don’t recall Congress putting a time limit on FDR after Pearl Harbor. I don’t recall Congress giving FDR permission to declare war on Japan but not on Germany and Italy. War is, by its chaotic nature, open-ended time-wise. I’d be worried if Sen. Rubio and Sen. McCain agreed to give President Obama an AUMF that had an expiration date. That’s the definition of insanity.

This sounds like a petulant child:

Senator Rubio wrote the President at the time that he saw “no legal reason preventing” him from using his “commander-in-chief” powers to attack ISIS. His letter makes no mention of the Constitutional requirement to seek Congressional authority.

There’s a reason for that. The AUMF that the House and Senate passed gave the president, then George W. Bush, the authority to go after terrorists “with global reach.” ISIS definitely fits that definition.

As we enter into the season of determining the next Commander in Chief, I hope voters will seek out a leader who will learn from history and not pursue a reckless policy that seeks to liberate the world but in reality traps us under a mountain of debt and beguiles us into perpetual war.

I hope that voters will learn from recent history that the terrorists haven’t quit fighting a war against us. Sen. Paul apparently hasn’t figured it out that we don’t quit fighting a war if the terrorists haven’t quit waging war against the United States. That’s the definition of national suicide.

Sen. Paul isn’t concerned with preventing terrorist attacks. The thing that he’s most worried about is “mountains of debt.” It’s time he figured out how to fight the terrorists while reducing the debt.