Archive for the ‘Hillary’ Category
Quinnipiac’s latest swing-state polling shows Hillary getting crushed by pretty much every top GOP presidential candidate. Tim Malloy, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll, said “As winter moves into the Rockies, Coloradans say the Democratic front-runner would get bruised and beaten by all the top GOP opponents, and absolutely crushed by Sen. Marco Rubio and Dr. Ben Carson,” adding that a “chilly if not frigid reception for former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in her second quest for the White House.”
The terrible news for Hillary is that “Colorado voters back any leading Republican contender over Clinton by wide margins.” Rubio leads Clinton 52–36 percent. Carson leads Clinton 52–38 percent. Cruz tops Clinton 51–38 percent. Trump beats Clinton 48–37 percent.
In other bad news for Hillary, “Clinton has the lowest favorability rating of any top candidate in Colorado, a negative 33–61 percent.” The news for Trump is better but Trump “gets a negative 34–58 percent favorability rating.”
Other important findings:
- Rubio has the best score for honesty, 58–28 percent, with Sanders at 56–30 percent, Carson at 57–33 percent and Cruz at 50–35 percent.
- Carson has the lowest grades for having strong leadership qualities, a divided 45-44 percent, with Sanders at 45–43 percent. Trump leads on leadership, with 58–39 percent, followed by Rubio at 56–30 percent, Cruz at 52–35 percent and Clinton at 51–47 percent.
It’s time people started noticing that Hillary isn’t a top tier candidate like her husband was. She’s just the least objectionable option that the Democrats have this cycle. Voters don’t trust Mrs. Clinton. Voters don’t like her, either. If Mrs. Clinton can’t be competitive in Colorado, which Democrats worked hard for a decade to turn blue, then she’s in serious trouble in the general election.
After last night’s debate, Jeb Bush appeared on America’s Newsroom to insist that his campaign isn’t on life support, which means his campaign is on life support. It’s like when progressives insist that the science is settled and the debate is over on climate change. George Will properly noted that people who insist that the science is settled and the debate is over are usually fighting the fight of a lifetime and they’re losing the debate.
If David Catanese’s article is accurate, which I’m confident it is, Jeb Bush’s campaign is in trouble. The biggest attention-grabbing part of Catanese’s article is the part where he shares vote goals in Iowa. According to a report selectively leaked to the media, “Bush’s vote goal, according to the document, is to attain 18 percent of the vote share, or about 23,700 votes.” That isn’t optimistic. It’s unrealistic by orders of magnitude.
According to Catanese’s article, Gov. Bush’s “campaign identifies just 1,281 known supporters in Iowa, even after making over 70,000 calls and collecting more than 5,000 emails through mid-October.” That means Gov. Bush just has to increase his known support by eighteen times. The chances of that happening are nonexistent. The chances of him going from 1,281 known supporters to 5,000 supporters is a difficult, if not a near-impossible, proposition.
That’s before talking about something that other pundits haven’t talked about. Jeb Bush is a terrible candidate. Whatever people think of Jeb’s brother, the reality is that he loved campaigning and it showed. Jeb isn’t a good campaigner. He looks better suited to be a policy wonk at a DC think tank, where campaign skills aren’t required.
Jeb tried going negative during the CNBC debate. He looked awful attempting it. If you’re awkward going negative against Hillary, she’ll slice and dice you before turning you into “thousands of Julienne Fries” for breakfast.
Last night, Glenn Beck was on Megyn Kelly’s show. Beck said that Republicans should listen to Bernie Sanders in one respect. Beck paraphrased Sanders as saying “the way that Washington is functioning is immoral.” Later, he revisited that part of Bernie’s riff, saying that Sanders added “and everybody knows it.”
First, it’s important to note that Beck said to “take away everything of what his solutions are because his solutions just don’t work.” What’s important for Republicans to note, however, is the outrage at how Washington is corrupt.
This week, the Justice Department announced that they wouldn’t prosecute Lois Lerner, the corrupt IRS agent who tried to prevent American citizens from exercising their rights to participate in the political process.
Last Friday, Hillary Clinton said that the VA scandal wasn’t as widespread as Republicans would have you believe. Then she said that Republicans were criticizing the VA in their attempt to privatize VA hospitals.
Here’s what Beck said:
These fit perfectly with what Mr. Beck said:
The IRS is immoral and everyone knows it. Lois Lerner wasn’t prosecuted because the Justice Department is immoral and corrupt and everyone knows it. The way that the VA mistreats veterans is immoral and everyone knows it. When Democrats defend Planned Parenthood’s practice of infanticide for profit, it’s immoral and everyone knows it.
Hillary Clinton’s State Department didn’t supply additional security to Libya, which got Ambassador Christopher Stevens murdered by terrorists. That was immoral and everyone knows it. Telling the American people that Christopher Stevens died as a result of an anti-Islam video but telling the Libyan president and the Egyptian prime minister that it was a terrorist attack is immoral and everyone knows it.
Most importantly, Hillary saying that 300,000 veterans died without getting medical treatment is the Republicans fault is highly immoral and everyone knows it.
I won’t pretend that there’s no corruption within the Republican Party. I also won’t pretend that the Democratic Party gives a damn about morality. The Democratic Party is corrupt to the core and everyone knows it.
Hillary Clinton has started using the gender card so often that I wonder if she thinks that the only qualification she needs to be the next president is being a female. The truth is that the biggest thing Mrs. Clinton is missing is a heart. This past weekend, Mrs. Clinton agreed to a softball interview with Rachel Maddow. Let’s just say that Mrs. Clinton managed to piss off an entire group of people. This time, she shot her mouth off about the VA hospital system. According to S.E. Cupp’s article, things got ugly pretty quick.
It started when Ms. Maddow asked about the VA scandal. That’s when Mrs. Clinton said “You know, I don’t understand why we have such a problem, because there have been a number of surveys of veterans and, overall, veterans who do get treated are satisfied with their treatment.” Unfortunately for Mrs. Clinton, she was just getting started. Next, she said “Now, nobody would believe that from the coverage that you see, and the constant berating of the VA that comes from Republicans in part in pursuit of this ideological agenda that they have.”
That’s breathtakingly dishonest. It isn’t surprising that Hillary blamed the VA scandal on Republicans. That’s a reflex with her. What’s disappointing is that she deflected blame away from the corrupt administrators who gave themselves bonuses while veterans died while waiting to get treatment. No amount of money would’ve fixed that. In fact, more money might’ve made the problem worse.
Ms. Cupp then asks a pair of important questions:
When did it become politically permissible to either ignore or accept the systematic negligence of our servicemen and women? And then blame the other political party for pointing it out?
Hillary Clinton doesn’t care about people outside her inner circle of friends. Think about this:
- Will Hillary fight for a single mother’s right to defend her family in the crime-infested neighborhoods of her hometown of Chicago?
- Will Hillary fight for veterans to get timely medical treatments from some of the nastiest medical conditions?
- Will Hillary fight for unemployed construction workers who want to build the Keystone XL Pipeline?
We know the answer to those questions. The answer isn’t no. It’s hell no.
This is a presidential campaign. I know that the candidates will play hardball. That’s fine. Presidential politics is a contact sport. What’s beyond the pale, though, is saying that 300,000 veterans dying without getting treatment is the fault of partisan politics.
That’s as disgusting as Hillary saying that she takes “full responsibility” for Benghazi in one sentence, then insisting that she neither approved or rejected any of Christopher Stevens’ requests for additional security.
Normally, Kirsten Powers is one of the somewhat sane liberals in the national media. Ms. Powers’ latest USA Today article proves that there’s an exception to every rule.
The subject of Ms. Powers’ latest column is last week’s Benghazi hearing. According to Ms. Powers, who seems to have digested the Democrats’ chanting points then regurgitated them for this column, Republicans “bungling and bullying at Thursday’s hearing should count as an in-kind donation to the Clinton campaign.” Of course, Ms. Powers then said that what “happened in Benghazi matters” before saying that “investigating security failures, especially those that resulted in the deaths of Americans, is a laudable endeavor.”
Unfortunately, she then asked “does anyone really believe that’s what the Republicans were up to last week?”
The reason I suspect that this is a world-class spin job is this question:
But is it really a mystery as to why a friend of at least two decades would have her email address?
That’s spin. It isn’t surprising that Sid Blumenthal would have Hillary’s email address. It’s that Christopher Stevens didn’t have it. This emphasizes the point:
“During the hearing Michael McFaul tweeted, “As ambassador in Russia, I enjoyed multiple ways to communicate with Secretary Clinton. Email was never one of them.”
Actually, McFaul might’ve highlighted something important in that tweet. Clearly, he was able to “communicate with Secretary Clinton.” Why wasn’t Ambassador Stevens able to communicate directly with Mrs. Clinton? It’s clear that Stevens tried getting Mrs. Clinton’s attention often. According to documentation introduced at the hearing, Christopher Stevens literally made hundreds of requests for additional security.
According to Mrs. Clinton’s testimony, she never received a single request. She said that she “neither rejected or approved” any of Christopher Stevens’ security requests.
Ms. Powers says that “hate-blinded Republicans” bungled the hearing. That’s a cheap shot and then some. Republicans weren’t blinded with hate. They were determined to find out why Mrs. Clinton failed to protect Christopher Stevens, the man Mrs. Clinton called her “dear friend.” Is it typical for Mrs. Clinton to treat dear friends like that? If it is, then I’m thankful I’m not one of Hillary’s dear friends.
Does Ms. Powers think that it isn’t a big deal that Mrs. Clinton repeatedly told the American people for well over a week that a video caused the terrorist attack after telling her daughter that it was a terrorist attack? Does Ms. Powers think it isn’t a big deal that Mrs. Clinton told the Egyptian prime minister and the Libyan president that Christopher Stevens died in a terrorist attack?
If asking tough questions of Mrs. Clinton is bullying, then this nation’s best days are in its past. If trying to hold Mrs. Clinton accountable for her decisions is proof that Republicans hat Mrs. Clinton, then Ms. Powers has a dramatically different definition of hatred than I do. Does Ms. Powers think Mike Pompeo bullied Mrs. Clinton when he asked her why nobody at the State Department got fired for not approving Christopher Stevens’ requests for additional security? Does Ms. Powers think Susan Brooks bullied Mrs. Clinton when she asked Mrs. Clinton if she ever talked with Christopher Stevens after he was sworn in as U.S. ambassador to Libya?
Personally, I’d call those important, thoughtful questions proof that Republicans on that committee took their jobs seriously.
Finally, I’d love hearing Ms. Powers response to whether these questions are either a) inappropriate or b) proof that I’m trying to bully Mrs. Clinton.
Hillary Clinton’s worldview is shaped by a visceral hatred of Republicans. This article highlights Hillary’s hatred of Republicans by quoting her as telling Rachel Maddow that “the constant berating of the VA that comes from the Republicans, in – in part in pursuit of this ideological agenda that they have. They try to create a downward spiral, don’t fund it to the extent that it needs to be funded, because they want it to fail, so then we can argue for privatization.”
That’s a glimpse into the stunning dishonesty of Hillary Clinton. The VA scandal wasn’t caused by underfunding of the system. The VA scandal is about corrupt bureaucrats that didn’t deliver medical care to veterans while paying themselves huge bonuses. Further, there was bipartisan support in the House and Senate to give veterans the option of getting treatment at private clinics or hospitals. It was so bipartisan that Bernie Sanders attended the bill-signing ceremony. If Rachel Maddow and Hillary Clinton think that Bernie Sanders is interested in privatizing government, then they need to be institutionalized, preferably to a VA facility.
Let’s hear Hillary explain this away:
An inspector general’s report last year found that veterans in Phoenix waited 115 days on average for an initial doctor’s appointment, while official data claimed that the average wait was only 24 days.
The IG’s report showed that this didn’t just happen in Phoenix, either. It happened all across the nation, which means the corruption has metastasized to the point of being inoperable.
Hillary should admit that.
Robert Tracinski’s article introduces us to a new acronym for the Democrats. That acronym is TINA, which stands for “There Is No Alternative”, which is what the Democrats have now that Hillary is finally the inevitable candidate she’s always thought she’d be. The good news for Democrats is that Hillary is their all-but-official presidential nominee. The bad news for Democrats is that Hillary is their all-but-official presidential nominee.
Thanks to Hillary’s ‘competitors’ either dropping out or showing that they aren’t seriously attempting to win the nomination, the excitement that a competitive campaign would’ve produced disappears. That’s easy to illustrate. CNN’s GOP debate attracted over 20,000,000 viewers. CNN’s Democratic debate attracted less than 15,000,000 viewers. Now that the Democratic nomination is essentially finished, what’s there to get excited about?
Bernie Sanders was attracting big crowds before he said he was tired of hearing about Hillary’s emails. Since then, those types of headlines have disappeared, too. That’s predictable. The far left was aching for a serious hardline progressive candidate. Their first choice was Elizabeth Warren but they would’ve settled for Bernie Sanders.
Now, they don’t have either as a legitimate option.
Prior to Sanders’ surprising rise in the polls, Hillary had a significant enthusiasm gap crisis. Now that it’s obvious that they’re stuck with Hillary, what is there to get excited about??
Meanwhile, Republicans still have a competition on their hands. That guarantees large viewing audiences for their debates. That means people can see the difference between solutions-oriented conservatives and a career politician with a thin list of accomplishments.
If Republicans nominate a principled conservative, the swing state map will expand in the Republicans’ favor.
We’ve known that Hillary’s been planning on running a negative campaign. That’s why it isn’t surprising that Jennifer Palmieri, Hillary Clinton’s communications director, stopped just short of admitting that Hillary intends on running a thoroughly negative campaign. When Ms. Palmieri said that Hillary “will launch a forceful fight against the Republicans,” she might as well have said she plans on throwing everything including the proverbial kitchen sink at the GOP nominee.
That’s because Hillary can’t win without tearing her GOP “enemy” down. That’s because Hillary’s accomplishment list, whether we’re talking about as First Lady, senator or Secretary of State, is microscopic. As First Lady, Hillary was put in charge of implementing universal health care. The initial reviews were glowing. That was its high point. HillaryCare didn’t even get a vote in the House Ways and Means Committee. As New York’s junior senator, Mrs. Clinton didn’t author any major legislation. As President Obama’s Secretary of State, Mrs. Clinton’s first act was to give Russia’s Foreign Minister the infamous Reset Button. Since then, Russia has disrespected the United States, first by annexing the Crimean Peninsula, which was part of Ukraine until the Obama administration rose to power. Then Russia ‘mediated’ a deal for the world to get rid of Syria’s chemical weapons. Syria still has those WMDs plus it’s got Russian protection from the United States.
Hillary was part of President Obama’s foreign policy team that pushed for the removal of U.S. troops in Iraq, which led to the rise of ISIS, aka the JV team in Lakers uniforms.
All of those things pale in comparison with Hillary’s decision to not protect Christopher Stevens. Thanks to her inattention, 4 American patriots were murdered by terrorists while serving their country. Hillary’s deceitfulness and Hillary’s incompetence got Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith, Ty Woods and Glenn Doherty murdered in a well-coordinated, well-trained terrorist attack on the 11th anniversary of the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history.
Other than that, Hillary’s list of stellar accomplishments is impressive.
During her testimony Thursday at the House Select Committee on Benghazi, Hillary Clinton made some exotic statements that require follow-up questioning. During Rep. Adam Schiff’s, (D-CA), first round of questioning, Hillary testified that “I’ve thought more about what happened than all the rest of you put together. I’ve lost more sleep than all the rest of you put together. I have been racking my brain about what more could’ve been done or should’ve been done.”
Stephen Hayes’ article includes a quote from Charles Woods, the father of murdered American patriot Ty Woods, about what he was looking for at the hearing. In the quote, Mr. Woods said “The truth, hopefully.” One of the unasked questions from Thursday’s hearing relates to Mrs. Clinton’s statement that she’s racked her brain about what more could’ve been done. The proper follow-up questions should’ve been ‘Mrs. Clinton, while you were thinking about what more could’ve been done, did you think that you should’ve contacted Christopher Stevens directly? After all, you knew from your daily CIA briefings that the security situation in Benghazi was rapidly deteriorating. At minimum, shouldn’t you have directed your staff in charge of embassy security to contact Ambassador Stevens directly to see if his security was adequate?’
Another important question that didn’t get asked was with regards to the steep decline in email traffic between Mrs. Clinton and her staff about Libya. In 2011, there were sometimes hourly updates on Libya. The stack of printed out emails for 2011 was almost a foot high. The pile of emails for 2012 was 67 pages. Mrs. Clinton explained that little of her communications were via email. The proper follow-up question should’ve been ‘How do you explain the significant use of emails in 2011 to the virtual elimination of using emails to communicate in 2012? Mrs. Clinton, what caused you to virtually stop using emails in 2012 after using prolific amounts of emails in 2011?
During one of his outbursts, Elijah Cummings wondered aloud why people focused on Sid Blumenthal. The easy explanation is that Mrs. Clinton promptly replied to more than 180 of Mr. Blumenthal’s emails compared with Mrs. Clinton’s testimony that she never approved or rejected Christopher Stevens’ requests for additional security because they never got to her desk.
The logical question at that point should’ve been ‘Mrs. Clinton, how can you justify prompt responses, many of which happened while you were in the State Department Building, to an employee at the Clinton Foundation, especially considering the fact that you never responded to security requests from your ambassador serving in one of the biggest hot spots for terror in the world? Shouldn’t you have put a higher priority on making sure U.S. ambassadors are safe than you put on responding to Clinton Foundation employees?’
During questioning by Rep. Jim Jordan, (R-OH), the American people found out that Mrs. Clinton told daughter Chelsea that “two” people had been killed by al-Qa’ida-inspired terrorists less than an hour after she’d issued an official statement that suggested a video sparked an attack in Benghazi. Here’s part of Mrs. Clinton’s testimony:
And if you look at what I said, I referred to the video that night in a very specific way. I said, some have sought to justify the attack because of the video.
The logical question should be which people “have sought to justify the attack because of the video”?
Isn’t it reasonable to say that Mrs. Clinton’s priorities were badly wrong? Isn’t it reasonable to ask why she put a higher priority on taking time during a terrorist attack to tell her daughter about a terrorist attack while the terrorist attack was still being fought? In 2008, Mrs. Clinton ran a campaign ad about a phone call coming in at 3:00 am that suggested she, not Barack Obama, was the only one prepared to take that call.
The call from Libya came in at 5:00 pm ET. Mrs. Clinton and President Obama both failed to protect Christopher Stevens and 3 other American Patriots. Then they failed to tell the American people the truth about the terrorists’ coordinated attacks. Doesn’t that mean that the biggest unanswered question should be whether either of them was qualified to be commander-in-chief?
Here’s Hillary’s racking my brain video:
According to Hillary Clinton’s testimony yesterday, Christopher Stevens, the late U.S. Ambassador to Libya, had a great sense of humor. When Mrs. Clinton was questioned by Rep. Susan Brooks, (R-IN), about security conditions in Benghazi, Mrs. Clinton said “Well, Congresswoman, one of the great attributes that Chris Stevens had was a really good sense of humor. And I just see him smiling as he’s typing this, because it is clearly in response to the email down below talking about picking up a few ‘fire sale’ items from the Brits.” Rep. Brooks responded indignantly, saying “Those ‘fire sale’ items by the way, are barricades. They are additional requests for security for the compound.” Doing her best to look unflappable, Mrs. Clinton replied, saying “Well, I thought it showed their entrepreneurial spirit, Congresswoman. And I applaud them for doing so.”
Making light of Benghazi’s deteriorating security conditions after an ambassador and 3 other American patriots were murdered is ghoulishly morbid. It’s the type of thing that only pathological liars are capable of doing.
This morning on Morning Joe, Chuck Todd said that “Hillary was untouched” yesterday. Last night on Special Report, A.B. Stoddard said that Hillary “looked presidential” while fielding the Committee’s difficult questions. Stoddard and Todd are making my case. Mrs. Clinton looked unflappable because she doesn’t think that she failed Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith, Glenn Doherty and Ty Woods, the 4 American patriots that were murdered during the terrorist attack of 9/11/2012.
When Mrs. Clinton was told that Christopher Stevens made over 600 requests for additional security, it was after she’d admitted that she’d personally responded to over 180 emails from Sid Blumenthal. Mrs. Clinton then said that “Chris Stevens certainly knew how to get in touch with me directly.” That’s an especially damning statement considering the fact that Mrs. Clinton later testified that she never saw Christopher Stevens’ 600+ requests for additional security. In that testimony, Mrs. Clinton said that she neither rejected or approved Christopher Stevens’ security requests.
If “Chris” knew how to get directly in touch with Mrs. Clinton and if “Chris” was Mrs. Clinton’s dear friend and if Mrs. Clinton knew that the Benghazi compound’s security had been breached, why didn’t Mrs. Clinton reach out directly to Christopher Stevens?
The answer is contained in Mrs. Clinton’s testimony that she couldn’t recall meeting with or talking to Christopher Stevens after his swearing in as the U.S. Ambassador to Libya.
The unspoken gist of Mrs. Clinton’s testimony is that “Chris” was a dear friend of hers that Mrs. Clinton never talked to literally for months and that she didn’t lift a finger to protect. To real human beings, that isn’t the definition of a friend.