“Hillary was stunned when she heard the president talk about the Benghazi attack,” one of her top legal advisers said in an interview. “Obama wanted her to say that the attack had been a spontaneous demonstration triggered by an obscure video on the Internet that demeaned the Prophet Mohammed.”
This adviser continued: “Hillary told Obama, ‘Mr. President, that story isn’t credible. Among other things, it ignores the fact that the attack occurred on 9/11.’ But the president was adamant. He said, ‘Hillary, I need you to put out a State Department release as soon as possible.’”
After her conversation with the president, Hillary called Bill Clinton,
“That story won’t hold up,” Bill said.
“I know,” Hillary said. “I told the president that.”
“It’s an impossible story,” Bill said. “I can’t believe the president is claiming it wasn’t terrorism. Then again, maybe I can. It looks like Obama isn’t going to allow anyone to say that terrorism has occurred on his watch.”
Help me out here people. Am I understanding this story correctly? Is Hillary saying, thru surrogates, she should be trusted to be our president, because she could be, if indeed she was, trusted to follow thru on president Obama's request, to put out a story she knew to be false?
Is 'I am a good trusted liar' a resume enhancer now?
If this is not coming from Hillary's camp, I expect an unequivocal denial.
105 comments:
It's cute the way Klein refers to Bill Clinton as "one of her top legal advisers".
Of course Bill doesn't think perjury is a deal-breaker.
Lem said: "Help me out here people. Am I understanding this story correctly? Is Hillary saying, thru surrogates, she should be trusted to be our president..."
The answer is yes, of course. Lem, you neglected to consider the earlier lines where she said she called, not her colleagues in State, but her husband for advice. In that action you see the virtually priceless, yet free, braintrust that would be working to the benefit of all with Hillary in the Whitehouse.
Don't fail to recognize what two great minds can do when working as a team.
"Is 'I am a good trusted liar' a resume enhancer now?"
On the left - you bet it is.
The question is whether you were lying then or are you lying now... or whether in fact you are a chronic and habitual LIAR!
The Clinton's desperation for power forces them to bounce from one lie to the next. She was on board with the lie until it blew up in her face. So now the fresh new excuse is Loyalty.
The media and Hollywood adore the Clinton's lies. So sexy.
@Lem,
'I am a good trusted liar'
In the world of politics, that's a great resume enhancer. Having lived & worked in the DC area for 34 years, I can tell you that the political class sees loyalty to mentor & party as a much greater virtue than personal integrity. The ability to "take one for the team" or to "fall on one's sword" is highly valued. I would even say it's the most highly valued trait in a staffer.
Remember, this is the administration that destroyed Susan Rice's career by sending her out to peddle the "film riot" story. She wanted to be Sec of State, but she was the loyal employee who was sacrificed for the team. No doubt, she'll get some cushy position at a university or think tank as recompense after 2016.
So, yes, in the world HRC runs in, holding fast to the administration's party line is seen as a cardinal virtue.
What's interesting about the article, and by extension the book, is that, in trying to place distance between HRC as Sec of State & the Obama Administration, the book essentially corroborates the main attack points by right wing pundits on the Administration's Benghazi narrative.
This puts the Democrats in a real bind. In order to enhance Hillary as a candidate, they have to take the millstone of Benghazi off her neck. But in trying to shore up Hillary, they reveal not only the Administration, but also the liberal pundits & the rest of the Democratic party machine, as either being out & out liars or simply too lazy to actually think about the questions Benghazi raised.
During the Clinton's 1992 to 2000 tenure in the WH, they were notorious for throwing the rest of the Democratic Party under the bus as needed, so this "distancing" will come as no surprise to Democratic Party insiders.
Refresh my memory. It was Rice that spread the story on the Sunday shows. When did Hillary say it?
ChipS, Great quip!
This is a big story if confirmed. Because Hillary also decided it was more important to put her own political future first than do the right thing and resign.
When did Hillary say it?
That's a good point Deb... I just added to the post Hillary's video tying the attack to the 'Innocence of Muslims' video.
A video that costs taxpayers $70,000. In other words... The taxpayers paid to be lied to about an attack where American citizens where killed at a place where taxpayers where already paying for that embassy to be secured. Talk about adding insult to injury.
So did this leak come from Hillary's camp? It would be sneaky to feed it to Ed Klein so they could deny it later and pretend it was not them. The MSM will not trust anything Ed Klein says. Still, I could see Michelle and Valerie having some Chardonnay in the near future…
YoungHegelian @ 1:33 PM
Careful now, you are starting to sound just like me. ;)
Thing is, it's the job of SecState to carry out the orders of the prez. I know, following orders. But for her to backtrack does not look good.
Ultimately, I can't help but think Obama is out to screw her, i.e., throw her under the bus.
@Deborah,
It was Rice that spread the story on the Sunday shows. When did Hillary say it?
I don't think she ever did, and, in the immediate post-Benghazi administration media blitz, HRC was conspicuous by her absence. All the more conspicuous since she was Sec of State, and an attack on an embassy was in her baliwick.
But, in her now infamous appearance before Congress ("What difference, now, does it make?"), she danced around the administration's narrative without explicitly backing it.
Under Canon Law, knowing the truth and not speaking it when morally required is called a sin of omission (not to be confused with a sin of emission --- that's a whole different ball game). I suspect that in this case, that all the Republican & some of the Democratic members of the House panel sided with the catechism's view of what it means to tell a lie.
"Refresh my memory. It was Rice that spread the story on the Sunday shows. When did Hillary say it?"
Here's another example at 00:45.
But note the careful wording - "...heavy assault on our post at Benghazi" vs. "rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful internet video..."
This was Sep 14. Rice's appearances were on Sep 16. The Benghazi post was not an "American embassy."
She knew the truth but was working on her personal deniability while appearing to support the Administration's deliberately constructed lies while standing in front of the coffins.
She is a truly awful person.
"Thing is, it's the job of SecState to carry out the orders of the prez."
So far she has been let off easy... not so sure after she announces.
Hillary got some mansplaining to do.
Rabel, thanks. Yes, she does go with the story. But now she is backtracking and saying she was pressured and following orders.
All, this will not be popular, but when dealing with the likes of Putin (not the hero he's made out to be, I don't think), and the NORK dude, well, I think we need someone with balls.
And, by God, do not start treating me like Althouse because I speculated she may be suitable.
Pretty cool how he was able to be on both ends of someone else's phone conversation at the same time!
All, this will not be popular, but when dealing with the likes of Putin (not the hero he's made out to be, I don't think), and the NORK dude, well, I think we need someone with balls.
Powerballs!
Hillary does whatever she thinks will gain her more power.
Pretty cool how he was able to be on both ends of someone else's phone conversation at the same time!
No biggie. The NSA does this all the time.
There's no point listening to the US government about anything. The actual truth doesn't seem to come out until 2 to 10 years later.
Too late to respond, unless one begins to act on the premise that whatever they say is a lie and one assumes the absolute worst possible reason until proven otherwise.
So far that has worked for me. And by government I include the state-loving media.
This puts the Democrats in a real bind. In order to enhance Hillary as a candidate, they have to take the millstone of Benghazi off her neck. But in trying to shore up Hillary, they reveal not only the Administration, but also the liberal pundits & the rest of the Democratic party machine, as either being out & out liars or simply too lazy to actually think about the questions Benghazi raised.
There is absolutely positively got to be WMD in Iraq!
There is no question of a link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda!
As big a bind as those lies put Republicans in?
She's a liar. He hides shit. Typical political stuff. If you want to root for your team though then you have to figure out how this rivals those lies. Maybe it does. But that takes placing the costs of Iraq/911 and the costs of an attacked embassy on equal footing. Perhaps the American people do lack the perspective necessary for avoiding that. Or perhaps they really are such grand moralizers as to not care for any huge difference in cost between those things.
If this hideous gasbag wins, that'll mean that the 4 boomer prezzes will be the 2 Clintons, Bush, and Obama.
Either the best of the boomers were killed in 'Nam or the Greatest Generation wasn't so great at parenting.
No biggie. The NSA does this all the time.
In which case I'm supposing this Klein guy is planning his defection to Russia in 3… 2… 1… etc.
Might not be a bad idea.
It's a certainty that he'd better have a first-rate tax lawyer.
I am not voting for junior senators.
Reminds me, I have to check my Ohio classic lotto ticket for Weds....
If this hideous gasbag wins, that'll mean that the 4 boomer prezzes will be the 2 Clintons, Bush, and Obama.
Right now the Dems and possibly middle are so fed up with the GOP though that they will start to figure why finally object when it's their turn but not when W. did it.
The obstructionist House is so dead-set on nothing other than their lust for power that, I'm telling you, a lot of non-righties who hate Hillary won't mind seeing the iron power-bitch that they need her to be putting them back in their places and pouncing on everything they do. Sure, it could be a disaster, but so is a country governed by Republicans too drunk on the privilege of governing to acknowledge where and when they fucked up and how to correct it let alone make amends for it.
We see now that Hillary is not only the monster that we fear, but the monster that Republicans need in power in order to justify their paranoia at doing anything else, let alone anything constructive.
I am not voting for junior senators.
Hillary was a junior senator.
Are you really that impressed by her performance at State?
Are you really that impressed by her performance at State?
I'm impressed by nothing other than her capacity for power-lust to rival those of the Repubbies who fear/loathe/love/respect/hate her for it.
It's simply a question, in my mind, of whether they deserve her to be thrust upon them and their wretched ways of screwing everything up in the name of winning elections. And with each passing day, I'm coming to the conclusion that, yes, they do.
Republicans too drunk on the privilege of governing to acknowledge where and when they fucked up and how to correct it let alone make amends for it.
I think this is an accurate description of McCain and other establishment Repub types, but not people like Rand Paul, or maybe Scott Walker.
Got two numbers out of six.
R&Bs,
You don't actually believe that? If I used a Game of Thrones analogy the Establishment GOP leadership would be Reek to the Democrats Ramsey Snow.
Okay, I exaggerate a bit.
But isn't it a position of an opposition party to be...well...in opposition? On what issues are the GOP leadership absolutely not cooperating with Barack Obama?
I think this is an accurate description of McCain and other establishment Repub types, but not people like Rand Paul, or maybe Scott Walker.
You're still buying the ideological hype.
Rand Paul's recent acquiescence to McCain on going back into Iraq tells you how strong his convictions are. And all Scott "Redeye" Walker cares about is letting ALEC legislate the unions out of existence. Come on, these are not profiles in courage. They're profiles in rhetorical stand-offs.
Well, I can't speak to their leadership Evi because I'll confess that a lot of that leadership vs. grassroots dynamic escapes me - not that I can't understand it on a basic and democratic level. And honestly I don't think that this Brat guy in VA can be all that bad if he pointed out how cushy and squishy Cantor was with the big money.
But the number of times spent trying to repeal an un-repealable Obamacare and the shut-down/default/downgrade were just exercises in complete obstructionist regression, as far as I can tell. Sure, the latter might have stemmed more from a prima donna Cruz trying to steal a limelight that he later earned the leadership's scorn for - but the fact that he got that far and still inspires others to do the same doesn't lead me with much confidence in the prospects for a party interested in getting things done.
Evi, the House passes numerous budgets that Obama wouldn't like at all, but the Senate rejects them.
The House holds numerous hearings on Benghazi, the IRS, and I dunno how many other issues, and Obama floats along.
The House did manage to induce Obama to propose the sequester.
What would you have done if you were Speaker?
"Are you really that impressed by her performance at State?"
It's not about that, but who can deal with other leaders on the world stage. She's a player, she knows the game. Rand, Rubio, Ryan are noobs.
I guess not all of what the right is going through is bad, it seems to mirror some realizations from the left from long ago, actually. But what really concerns me is how one goes about defining a sensible Republican these days. In my mind, in this video, it's Chuck Hagel. But it worries me to wonder how many people assume it's actually Jeff Miller.
deborah is making some good points. Maybe not so much for electing Hillary, though. More like making the case that Romney looks like the only Republican with the chops to be competitive with her.
What was Reagan's foreign policy experience before he was elected?
Excellent point. Romney… ugh. Puke. We either elect a robot who will rubber-stamp what all the corporatists tell him to do or a mercenary at least prepared to do battle with the corporatists while they fight their internal battle over what representation means.
Yup - a guy who insults a billionaire capable of winning competitive contracts with NASA, sending rockets into space for resupply and travel, reinvigorating the American auto industry in Silicon Valley with rechargeable technology endorsed by Daimler and with a $20 million profit to the American people. But we should like the robot instead for shuttering American companies just because he has a few hundred million of his own. A guy who put nearly his entire fortune on the line to save what he believed in. The same guy who invented online finance itself.
Musk is the next Edison - and possibly Morgan - all rolled up into one. Romney would have been the competitor to Morgan who didn't know who to bankroll.
But I guess that makes him a great Republican.
I'd go with Hillary.
I want to hear more about her breaking ranks with Obama. That is key, and that is important, and that will sell.
A continuation of his policies isn't in the cards.
She's a player, she knows the game. Rand, Rubio, Ryan are noobs.
Domestic policy may prevail in 2016. It sure will in 2014. Hell, we may go so far Republican/Tea Party this fall that a Democratic counterbalance will be needed.
But Hillary needs to distinguish herself more from Obama. The putrid stench of the Benghazi cover up needs to get resolved and shown to be what it was -- a cynical reelection stunt. She needs absolution from that. Two more things Hillary should do: put the DoJ and the IRS back in their place -- and end suspicion targeting of Republican states with immigration crises. All these could be done by affecting a duty of candor.
A continuation of his policies isn't in the cards.
Lol. We want more Bush-Cheney policies! And throw the newly insured off their coverage! Keep the rate of increase in Medicare back up where it was! Unemployment back to 9% and the DJIA crashing to half its value! Another housing bubble! Another 9/11! Bring it all back! Osama bin Laden back on the run and wanted at large! Make this nightmarish mess hoisted on us by the Obama administration come to an end! Just make it stop Lord oh please make it stop!
Thanks for the laugh, Chickie. I really appreciate you adding that to my day.
Refresh my memory. It was Rice that spread the story on the Sunday shows. When did Hillary say it?
In the NY Post article Lem linked to it says: "shortly after 10 o’clock on the night of September 11, she released an official statement that blamed the Benghazi attack on an 'inflammatory (video) posted on the Internet'.”
R&B, the GOP base wants the GOP majority in the house and the minority in the Senate to be obstructionist because they are (mostly) against what the Democrats are trying to do.
I am sure the GOP leadership would just roll over on ObamaCare but for it causing a major revolt with its own base. Same on immigration reform.
Of course Obama over played his hand and is now facing bad disapproval numbers over ObamaCare and mishandling immigration (by his wink to Central Americans to start sending their kids over the border). That and this IRS scandal and now Benghazi blowing up again.
If I were Speaker of the House...
I wish Boehner was more of an active leader in the process like Tip O'Neil was with Reagan. I disagreed with many of O'Neil's policies, but I recognize he was a more effective speaker than John Boehner has been.
I wish he was more charismatic and outspoken with the press and media. Who can promote a conservative agenda and speak over the press to the people.
The feud goes back to '08, of course, but the "claim" is perfectly true; the Hildabeast (Neal Boortz coined the term, not Moochelle or ValJar) was feathering her own nest as much as the Choom Gang's.
Rhythm and Balls said...
This puts the Democrats in a real bind. In order to enhance Hillary as a candidate, they have to take the millstone of Benghazi off her neck. But in trying to shore up Hillary, they reveal not only the Administration, but also the liberal pundits & the rest of the Democratic party machine, as either being out & out liars or simply too lazy to actually think about the questions Benghazi raised.
deborah said...
All, this will not be popular, but when dealing with the likes of Putin (not the hero he's made out to be, I don't think), and the NORK dude, well, I think we need someone with balls.
And, by God, do not start treating me like Althouse because I speculated she may be suitable.
Of course not, dear. She Whose Name Must Not Be Uttered would not want a woman with balls.
So when are you heading out to meet up with your future sweetie and blog all about it?
:-))
Rhythm and Balls said...
There is absolutely positively got to be WMD in Iraq!
There is no question of a link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda!
Poor Ritmo!
He must be going berserk, seeing all his talking points shot to Hell.
Who knows what might be possible to accomplish with some compromise on immigration. Obama's deportation rate after all is higher than Shouting Thomas' wettest wet dream. There is not serious support for repealing the Obamacare that Americans now (finally) see the benefits of, and the IRS had nothing to do with Obama. Your ranks believe it might because they might have finally ended up getting what little more traction out of Libya that might ever have been there. But it's still at the end of the day a GOP political project in embarrassing him that others see little benefit to.
But at the end of that same day, the state we're in speaks for itself. Look at fall 2008 and look at today. I keep hearing how it's so wrong to invoke Bush and then every GOPPER tells us how they want the exact same policies. The policies that didn't work. There's an adjustment to what Obama's slowly getting right but people aren't nostalgic for the way things were. They don't want Arabia to turn into a dozen new U.S. states. They don't want imperial foreign policy. They don't want imperial foreign policy expenditures, either. They haven't gotten that. So I guess that's why the punch-up on Libya - Republicans must be seriously peeved to have lost the high ground on foreign policy.
And we have a stabilized economy, no bubbles that anyone can see of the 2008 variety and even more important (because bubbles can't be predicted), none of this gassy inflated euphoria over the markets from that era either. People are approaching things more seriously, they're taking ideas about education and healthcare more seriously, and they don't want Republicans to come back in and claim to hell with it because government should do something more incompetently than the people are finally figuring out how to do it.
We're taking our people seriously as our nation's most important resource and we're not going back to a party (or ideology) that doesn't.
Eduardo: At least I know how to speak and think for myself.
"Talking points" are the province of a dupe like you who can do neither.
Back to the basement with you!
the Obamacare that Americans now (finally) see the benefits of
Guess again.
Rhythm and Balls said...
Who knows what might be possible to accomplish with some compromise on immigration.
No, it's quickly becoming Choom's Katrina.
Consider Drudge's sidebar
WORD-OF-MOUTH EXODUS TO USA...
CENTRAL AMERICAN MEDIA SCRAMBLE
Honduran President: Illegals come in search of amnesty...
White House Admits 'Rumors' Motivating Crossings...
Thousands stuck in Mexican stash houses...
Biden Hints Some May Get Citizenship...
Hundreds of Infants, Toddlers Under 2 Years Old Apprehended...
Cartels Use Influx as Cover...
Not to mention all the swell Third World diseases coming with them.
Eduardo: At least I know how to speak and think for myself.
Really?
At least, I never bought the fiction the WMDs weren't there.
It must be so sad to be you.
And the basement's all yours.
"Talking points" are the province of a dupe like you who can do neither.
Yes, but you're the one that belches them.
President-Mom-Jeans said...
That disgusting old hag needs another fall and brain injury.
I think she still suffers from the last one.
Everybody talks about how google-eyed she is. Contacts serving the same function as her Rove glasses would do that.
Go ahead, Advisor Chip. Recommend they try repeal again. Maybe the 56th time will be the charm.
And wouldn't you know it? Objective Ed chimes in to tell me the importance of getting one's facts from Matt Drudge's sidebar.
You know, dipshit, they generally tailor those things to the reader. It's called internet advertising.
But whatever. Matt Drudge - unbiased imprimatur of the American interest. You heard it from the unemployable eduardo. Let's give him a hand.
He links to actual articles, whereas Ritmo blows it out whichever orifice is most open.
Go ahead, Advisor Chip. Recommend they try repeal again. Maybe the 56th time will be the charm.
For a guy who knocks ed for using talking points, you certainly have this gambit down pat: When you're losing on the merits, talk about the politics.
How in the fuckity fuck are the Repubs supposed to have repealed Obamacare when the Senate is controlled by the Dems? That's 100% talking point bullshit.
Advisor Chip advises Repubs to run hard against Obamacare, thru the simple tactic of telling the truth. Like this, for ex.
Remember how abuse of the ER by the uninsured was one of the main drivers of health-care costs, and how O'care was gonna fix that?
ed - why are you still jerking around on the internets? Is Matt Drudge getting you a job? Does he have a want-ads or classifieds section? Why aren't you prioritizing around that goal? Do you walk into interviews with the intent of impressing them with how much free political advocacy and pontificating you do online? I say, get a job first, then impress everyone with all you've learned to repeat verbatim about national policy. Mkay thanks.
It's a political discussion in the first place. And it goes to the waste of time that Repubs have proven themselves to be. If they were realists, they'd devote time to bills that have a chance, or that they can convince others to compromise on. But they don't. Much like how they ran the country.
The numbers you quote are a misleading snapshot because they don't break down according to what people request to do next. And the people are often contradictory and misinformed. Tell them what's in the bill and they don't want that repealed. But if you knew things like that you might have found a way to align your ideology with a party that actually represents it and can win.
Chip, i'm convinced you just want to bend the cost-curve of Medicare back upwards as that would make its spending untenable and thereby fulfill your dream of having an endless talking point about how horrible government is.
Making that part better is dirt in the eye of your project. So I would just admit that you don't want to make things better and instead prefer destructive things like wasteful spending and gridlock because they give you an "in" that your current 5% political representation doesn't allow.
Others are not so destructive as that. That's probably why they get larger results with the electorate.
It's a political discussion in the first place.
Not for me.
Step 1: Figure out a rank-ordering of policies, based on actual analysis of likely outcomes.
Step 2: Find a candidate whose views most closely conform to yours.
But to address the politics here: for just about any bill that passes by more than one vote, Congressional voting is mostly about signaling to your constituents. Repubs have been forcing Dems to cast pro-Ocare votes in prep for the next election.
You're judging the success or failure of this strategy prematurely.
Chip - bend the Medicare cost-curve upward. Remember, to kill the government, we first have to destroy the things it's doing. Libertarians need to create crises to get the momentum of anti-government sentiment they think will be effective. (Even though usually the opposite happens). Make healthcare and Medicare spending too onerous. That's the way to roll this one.
Step 1: Figure out a rank-ordering of policies, based on actual analysis of likely outcomes.
Step 2: Find a candidate whose views most closely conform to yours.
Chip, Chip! You forgot one!
Step 3: Ignore political and social reality first.
Otherwise, it's excellent.
Chip, i'm convinced you just want to bend the cost-curve of Medicare back upwards as that would make its spending untenable and thereby fulfill your dream of having an endless talking point about how horrible government is.
That's an absurd straw man even for you.
Not to sound hostile, but can you find anything I've ever said anywhere on the entire internet to substantiate this ridiculous assertion?
Now, as for the facts about medicare, here's one: Medicare is in fact on an unsustainable trajectory. Every single person in DC knows this. Some just choose to lie about it.
There are only two basic ways to deal w. that: rationing or a Ryan-type plan. Period. Anything else is just a shell game.
Ocare's restriction of available hospitals and doctors offers a very clear forecast of what's ahead.
You know I just so happened to peak at what's trending on twitter. Lester is cruising along against the A's.
Iraq is trending right now...
The question popped into my head... Where was captain Hillary on the decision to abandon Iraq to the wolves?
Do I have to think of everything?
Ritmo claims to be his own man, but he's sounding more and more like some phony folksy, the Baghdad Bob of TOP.
Is that his problem, schizophrenia?
And if anyone jerks off on the 'Net, it's him.
Not to sound hostile, but can you find anything I've ever said anywhere on the entire internet to substantiate this ridiculous assertion?
No. But I'm pretty convinced that's the likeliest strategic outcome for the hardest-core libertarian GOP strategists. Like Grover Norquist. Even though he says the opposite, I'm convinced that GOPPERS want to run things incompetently, ineffectively and so wastefully as to make inevitable the self-fulfilling prophecy that it needs to go. And I brought it up because you ignored the one thing I thought would matter most to you: Better spending results. Why am I worried about your purported aims and you worried about mine? I realize mine are more likely because I get somewhat better representation than a strict libertarian would, but these things take time. So in the meantime, why are you ignoring the story on costs?
Now, as for the facts about medicare, here's one: Medicare is in fact on an unsustainable trajectory. Every single person in DC knows this. Some just choose to lie about it.
Some choose to lie about the fact of a changing trajectory.
There are only two basic ways to deal w. that: rationing or a Ryan-type plan. Period. Anything else is just a shell game.
Fair enough. But I'm losing interest. The improved trajectory of outcomes and spending interest me more. I don't look at life as a way of achieving an ideologically utopian goal, just something better if possible. And yep, it's possible.
Ocare's restriction of available hospitals and doctors offers a very clear forecast of what's ahead.
If you mean that it shows that the waste in healthcare was as much consumer-driven as it was provider-driven, that's not news to me.
And, oh yeah, payor-driven.
Step 3: Ignore political and social reality first.
This is a long-debated point in policy analysis.
You're correct that my own view is the one that Milton Friedman always argued for, which is that it's better to perform your analysis on first principles and then let the "political reality" respond. To let the "political reality" constrain your analysis is defeatist.
I think experience supports his argument. Consider the draft, which Friedman (and others) opposed back when it must have seemed hopelessly naive and idealistic to do so. It turned out that just putting the issue on the table--clearly and persuasively--was enough "battlespace prep" to induce a pragmatist like Nixon to see how it could work to his favor.
Same thing w. school vouchers.
And, I might add, slavery.
So, yes, put me squarely in the camp of those who don't let the political winds of the day set their course.
ed, if you believe that, then have I got the job offer for you!
(In Kathmandu).
Don't forget, Chip - The Constitution! That most Americans support what they believe to be the constraints of the constitution is itself a political reality. So, fuck that, principles first!
Principles re: Slavery would be that the Dred Scott was a horrible decision, but one to abide by and one that hastened the only realistic and legal way of ending the political reality and the political conflict maintaining it: War.
I'd try being more open-minded on principles and social reality. They're often not as opposed to each other as you presume. Yes, aligning them is tough work, but only the lazy need complain about tough work.
Politically lazy Republicans. ;-)
It's fine to oppose something when it's unpopular to do. I do that here all the time. But I account for the reality of what it would take to convince others. I'm fine with my principles not always being popular when I first formulate them. Not fine philosophically. But fine by experience. Experience has taught me that you can see some good results over the course of the decades and one's life if you're lucky and people are wise enough to have kids that learn from their mistakes. Yes, it sucks that often mistakes - sometimes horrible mistakes - must be made first. But then is when you quietly say that you told them so.
You're more progressive than you let on, Chip.
Lem,
About your question re "captain Hillary on the decision to abandon Iraq to the wolves" -- according to this article, Hillary was a "leading champioon of Iraq withdrawal."
Lots of quotes in the piece. I like this one: "Are the Iraqis all going to get along with each other for the foreseeable future?” Clinton wondered in one 2011 interview. “Well, let’s find out.”
She has a way with words, doesn't she? That "well, let's find out" reminds me of "what difference does it make."
*champion*
If you mean that it shows that the waste in healthcare was as much consumer-driven as it was provider-driven, that's not news to me.
Explain to me why, if I pay for my own healthcare, I shouldn't be allowed to choose my own doctor.
The basic problem w. Ocare, of course, is that it's completely blurring the distinction bw. healthcare paid for by the people who get it and healthcare paid for out of general tax revenue.
Explain to me why, if I pay for my own healthcare, I shouldn't be allowed to choose my own doctor.
Geez, dude. Tell that to your insurance company. You're making a case out of this now! A little behind the curve ball, man.
The basic problem w. Ocare, of course, is that it's completely blurring the distinction bw. healthcare paid for by the people who get it and healthcare paid for out of general tax revenue.
Which was the only tenable outcome to your preference in the status quo ante: Unregulated rationing by a series of powerful corporation. Now they will be more beholden to the political process. That's not the same as beholden to the consumer, but you're either completely naive or completely disingenuous if you'd take the necessary corollary of pretending that consumers had any power over shaping their behavior before.
It keeps coming down the basic libertarian ideologue's conundrum: People in general are smart enough to realize that coercion, power and force are wrong no matter who wields them. But libertarians view this realization as a stumbling block to always trying to convince them that they should prefer the coercion, power and force over them of entities deemed to be "non-government actors". But they don't.
People in general are smart enough to realize that coercion, power and force are wrong no matter who wields them. But libertarians view this realization as a stumbling block to always trying to convince them that they should prefer the coercion, power and force over them of entities deemed to be "non-government actors". But they don't.
I've known a lot of libertarians, and I can tell you w/o hesitation that (aside from me) they're uniformly smarter than "people in general."
Now, it's also true that lots of them are pretty aspergy, and can get a little carried away w/ their dismissal of the occasional usefulness of gov.
But your assertions of ignorance about how private insurance works signal to me a bit of intellectual insecurity on your part. Of course insurance policies contain all sorts of restrictions. Do you really think that a typical libertarian doesn't know that? They don't expect to find a free lunch; they just want to be able to choose their own lunch.
Yes, yes, Ahoy! I was behind every single one of your predictable litany of anti-Democratic complaints, and more! Especially that whole Redskins thing. Yep, that was entirely me.
Other than that, the rest of your typical grumpy-at-not-getting-your-way rant was predictable as ever. Do you take grumpy pills or something? Do you ever smile? Do you just wake up and search out things to curse at?
Your anger is a blessing to the GOP and to all of Darth's minions across the entire imperial galaxy.
I've known a lot of libertarians, and I can tell you w/o hesitation that (aside from me) they're uniformly smarter than "people in general."
Well, that explains in part some of their callous reaction to those "other people's" situations.
Now, it's also true that lots of them are pretty aspergy, and can get a little carried away w/ their dismissal of the occasional usefulness of gov.
I'm grateful for your admission in this regard.
And seeing as how you made it, it couldn't have escaped your attention that "aspies" generally have a greatly reduced capacity for any people skills, which one would think might be in demand when it comes to an understanding of political matters.
But your assertions of ignorance about how private insurance works signal to me a bit of intellectual insecurity on your part.
There's no insecurity, Dude. If you take on the "aspy" mantle, (or at least identify with it politically), you might want to accept that the disconnect between what the consumer knew was possible and what they often got was huge. Or, if you prefer more technical terms, "market failure".
Of course insurance policies contain all sorts of restrictions. Do you really think that a typical libertarian doesn't know that? They don't expect to find a free lunch; they just want to be able to choose their own lunch.
You're broadening the point to one where we can't even discuss the particular issue at hand. It's almost like the reverse of a reductio ad absurdum. It's an expansio ad absurdum.
Spoon-fed horse shit…
I find that this strange and dark view into the writer's mind seems even more disturbing for the way it combines scatology, farming and the nurturing of infants into a single, pained yelp.
What's the issue, Ritmo? The stupidity of people who disagree w. you? The general enthusiasm for Ocare? How Repubs have failed to repeal Ocare? Why the prevailing political winds should affect people's analysis of what's good policy?
You gotta see how it's hard to keep track.
The irony of someone collapsing into a moodily obsessive personalization and vulgarity with every other word while complaining about the immaturity of his dismissed (and supposedly thick-headed) friends is a bit too delectably rich to ignore.
@Lem, 5:54: Next time, how about waiting 'til the game's over to brag about our 4th-place team?
What's the issue, Ritmo? The stupidity of people who disagree w. you? The general enthusiasm for Ocare? How Repubs have failed to repeal Ocare? Why the prevailing political winds should affect people's analysis of what's good policy?
You gotta see how it's hard to keep track.
I'm not sure what you're getting at with this. I suppose the entirety of all that combine to make me feel politically optimistic, but I'd have thought that was beside the point. I'm perfectly capable and willing to go over whichever discrete (or blended) phenomena of the day are capturing your interest at the moment.
At the moment, the most urgent issue for me is the upcoming bottom of the 10th in Oakland.
Game over. Never in doubt.
But I need to accelerate my rate of alcohol intake for the rest of the afternoon.
Good plan.
Ritmo,
I've read through your comments in this Hillary thread and as near as I can tell your defense of the Democrats amounts to a bastardized version of Pee Wee Herman's "Yeah, well you're one too" applied to third parties.
In total it's a bit confusing, but perhaps you're typing on your new wrist watch phone while jogging or masturbating or both and understandably unable to get your point across clearly. Multitasking can be hard.
That's OK actually, because my professional* opinion, after viewing a few of Hillary's recent interviews, is that mentally she's lost a step, or two, and is not as sharp as she once was (however sharp or dull one might have considered her to be).
Whether it's due to the blood clot/concussion/stroke/brain trauma or the sad effects of aging, I couldn't say, but I don't think she will be the Democrat nominee. She may not have accepted that herself at this point but within a year or two it will be difficult to pretend the problem doesn't exist.
That's good for you though because you can recycle the same argument you're using now regardless of the name of the Democrat nominee. This will be good for your wrist if you copy and save this thread.
* I didn't say which profession, but I've seen quite a few people "age out" of their skills and poor Hill is walking that path.
You're totally right, Rabel. The eventual decision to support Hillary would be one of the worst ones I'd have to make. But one I'd feel forced into doing by lack of other options.
It's like when the Israelis keep talking about how they don't have a proper negotiating "partner" on the Palestinian side. It kind of makes them go with more drastic actions than they'd otherwise go with.
She was never sharp, either - just abrasive. Still is. And that's precisely what makes her just the sort of opponent the opposition needs.
Look at any vote I might cast for her as a soft of "though love" for Republicans. I don't want to have to vote for her, but their actions are putting me into the position of having no choice. What they're making me do in voting for her will hurt me worse than it would them, but it's for their own good, and by extension, mine.
"You're totally right, Rabel."
I couldn't agree more. Oh, and it looks like Mr. Drudge has joined the party.
I love the line from the link, "as soon as Bill appeared on the scene and was able to assess Hillary’s condition for himself, he ordered that she be immediately flown to New York–Presbyterian Hospital in the Fort Washington section of Manhattan".
Willie, of course, in addition to all his other skills, is supposed to be a world-class cardiologist.
What he was looking for was a place where his New York hangers-on could clamp a lid on things, not someplace that could treat a very sick woman.
Surprised he didn't say, "You know, you ought put some ice on that".
Rhythm and Balls said...
You're totally right, Rabel. The eventual decision to support Hillary would be one of the worst ones I'd have to make.
Like Eric Cantor Hillary is not a particularly likable personality and, as Cantor discovered, that can really hurt you in politics. Many woman seem to embrace her unlikability as 'strength', which provides some insight into how they view men. It is going to be an interesting election.
My preference would be Rand Paul with a Democrat congress. They would block his domestic agenda and he would make them rationalize their own policies. More importantly, together they could reframe our foreign policies, which have not worked in our long term interests since the end of WWII. Our foreign policy appears to have been set by a group of stereotypical idle old gossips with nothing better to do than interfere in other people's business.
Maybe that could be Hillary's motto, 'a country of old busybodies run by an old busybody'.
Excellent point, Rabel. Time will tell.
Zowie. Just read the excerpt from Drudge. She was stellar in the last campaign, but that took a lot out of her, especially considering pre-existing problems.
R&B:
Our economic decline is a combination of both parties and has been going on for a long time. Republicans are to blame you say? Well when Henry Paulson does an op-ed arguing for massive global warming spending, I would agree. Who benefits from that? Guys at Goldman Sachs.
Republicans did not (alone) cause the decline in 2008. What recovery there was certainly was not due to anything Barack Obama did. But the system is sick and needs to get back to fiscal reality. That means less spending, a budget, reduced deficit with the goal of no deficit.
Oh that surplus Bill Clinton had at the end of his term? You can thank that to a combination of Republicans and Democrats not spending as much then due to the end of the cold war and baby boomers reaching their peak earning cycle.
I am not saying Republicans are going to save us. God knows they can fuck things up just as much as the Democrats can. What will save this country is people realizing the free ride of entitlements is going to end sooner rather than later.
Hillary is just a symptom. A lying weak woman who doesn't even know what the truth is, other than she and her husband want power.
I can only hope the GOP will find a competent candidate to run this cycle.
Not to worry, according to an article on Hillary in The Guardian, she's once again in top form and opines on just why that is. I feel I should issue a *trigger warning*, though, before you read the excerpt:
Clearly, something about her time since she left Foggy Bottom and returned to "ordinary" life has suited her. Maybe it was the peace and quiet of the cosy, carpeted, sun-drenched study at home in Chappaqua, upstate New York, with views over the treetops, where she wrote much of Hard Choices in longhand. Maybe it was hanging out with Bill, now that they are both out of office for the first time since 1983 – walking their three dogs, binge-watching House of Cards, and generally "continuing a conversation that began more than 40 years ago at Yale law school and hasn't stopped yet". Maybe, as she told People magazine, it was the calm of organising her closets or doing water aerobics and yoga.
Republicans alone did not cause the bubble - Hill's husband deserves a lot of blame for not only signing onto all that (including, until we can vindicate it otherwise, Glass-Steagall's repeal), but for influencing a half-generation of Democrat pols to embrace corporate money-chasing.
But what is clear is that it has always been harder to get/find Republicans willing to rebel against corporatist political expectations than it is Democrats. If Brat's win over Cantor finally vitiates the corporate cause from the right, then I'm willing to see that as a good sign, and a stronger reason to be open to their candidates.
But until then, I'll prefer to see what we can get out of the party at the same side of the spectrum as Bernie Sanders, Ralph Nader and even that wacko Dennis Kucinich.
I want to hear what Obama has to say about this "revelation."
I can't know if it's true, and I don't know if Mr. Klein is a serious guy; but this story clearly serves Hillary Clinton's interests. If she runs, she will continue to distance herself from Obama, but carefully. It wouldn't surprise me if her responses to this are denials that are artfully calibrated.
Some of you are put off by the reliance on Bill aspect, but this helps her on balance. Bill Clinton's record looks pretty good to all but partisan GOPers. Especially on...the economy.
Fair or not, Hillary has a reputation for being tough. As someone here has illustrated by claiming she will be a ferocious war president.
So the thing to do is let Obama take the fall for everything, only it will be gradual, careful, indirect. And the leftist media will help. They think it's her turn, and that she'll fix the problems. And while Obama will not like it, he won't want Hillary to lose; she cements his legacy, even as she subtly says, I won't screw up like you know who.
Chip Ahoy...
Discussing politics with a loyal partisan Democrat is the same thing as bashing your head against a brick wall, talking with a straight up mother fucking resolutely retarded shit ass who wants nothing more than to stink up the place. And that is all you will ever get out of them. There is not a trace of sincerity present in the entire goddamn party. Not a single trace of it to be found.
As a former registered Democrat I cannot find a single thing wrong with that remark.
Fr Martin Fox said...
Bill Clinton's record looks pretty good to all but partisan GOPers. Especially on...the economy.
Said as if Bill Clinton did all that by himself, without any help in Congress.
Tell me, when was the last year Congress passed a formal annual budget?
Hint: not within the time frame of this administration.
This whole concept of Hillary as different than Obama amuses me. Any vote for Hillary is a vote for Obama II...e.g., Obama redux. Neither of them was ever qualified to lead a nose picking party, but their publicity machines built monuments to them, based not one whit on any accomplishment either has ever had. Y'all.
Aridog:
Fair enough, I'm on an iPad, and typing is a pain; I was too brief.
But your point about the GOP Congress, which I agree with, doesn't hurt my point: it looks like Hillary will have a GOP Congress, doesn't it? A replay of the results of that combo looks appealing.
AllenS...you gotta give Obama time, since he only learned of Hillary's dissent by watching the television last night. The man is acute and on top of shit...if it relates to golf that is...
Ready or not for Hillary, but the next president will be a Roman Catholic named Martin.
Martin O'Malley.
Post a Comment