Althouse: Bill Clinton says (about Republicans): "They’re trying to get you to check your brain at the door, start foaming at the mouth."

September 15, 2014

Bill Clinton says (about Republicans): "They’re trying to get you to check your brain at the door, start foaming at the mouth."

"The last thing they want you to do is think."

Emotional politics. He recognizes what he knows very well.

100 comments:

Beta Rube said...: I wonder if Monica foamed at the mouth.; 9/15/14, 10:01 AM
MayBee said...: We are all in this together! We must see ourselves as one! And that's why you utterly reject those people with whom we disagree!; 9/15/14, 10:04 AM
dreams said...: Projection and typical spin from the Dem.; 9/15/14, 10:05 AM
MayBee said...: “This is about, we are going to define the terms in which we will relate to each other and relate to the rest of the world…we are interdependent, we are in this together. Are we going to build a future together or play it winner take all? Is it going to be conflict or cooperation?”

in other words,

'I guess we all have our destinies... I serve freedom and love. You guys serve detainment. That's cool.
'I hope you feel free... I hope when you're f***ing your spouses you really feel alive. That you feel thankful, full of gratitude for the freedom that you have, that you share with the people of this country.'; 9/15/14, 10:06 AM
AmPowerBlog said...: "I wonder if Monica foamed at the mouth."

Heh.; 9/15/14, 10:07 AM
Robert Cook said...: How are the Democrats any different?; 9/15/14, 10:08 AM
SteveR said...: Pot meet kettle; 9/15/14, 10:09 AM
jacksonjay said...: Quit dissin Swaggy and dumping on poor sweet Harry!; 9/15/14, 10:20 AM
Unknown said...: How dare you be upset with your democrat masters. Shut up, get in line and worship.; 9/15/14, 10:23 AM
Rumpletweezer said...: Bill Clinton is a pig. He lies when he doesn't need to...probably just to keep in practice.; 9/15/14, 10:29 AM
traditionalguy said...: Clinton is pitch perfect in standard accusing the GOP of exactly what the Dems are doing. Confused yet? If so then the suggestion is to just trust SOB's smile and persona. Funny how that happens to be the opposite of rational analysis.

Sweet Old Bill's world of illusions is out of date. Besides it cannot carry the punch line of trust the speaker when Hillary opens her cackling and entitled mouth next.; 9/15/14, 10:29 AM
AustinRoth said...: Says the man from the party that brings us, "Civilization as we know it today would be in jeopardy if Republicans win the Senate", among other gems.; 9/15/14, 10:30 AM
Wince said...: "The last thing they want you to do is think.

...how could you possibly say that the worst thing that ever happened to you was not being able to black bag unlimited amounts of money?” Clinton asked.

The last thing the Clintons want is for you to remember.

Clinton's critics alleged that Rich's pardon had been bought, as Denise Rich had given more than $1 million to Clinton's political party (the Democratic Party), including more than $100,000 to the Senate campaign of the president's wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and $450,000 to the Clinton Library foundation during Clinton's time in office.

...Clinton himself would later express regret for issuing the pardon, saying that "it wasn't worth the damage to my reputation."

Evidently, awash in lucrative "speaking" deals, Clinton's rates have gone up.; 9/15/14, 10:32 AM
Bruce Hayden said...: Projection and typical spin from the Dem.

I don't think that it is really projection and spin by Slick Willie. Rather, I would suggest rank cynicism. He and his wife are centimillionaires from their "public service". Not quite as rich as his VP got, but still now safely in the .01%. He is just too bright to not know the reality of his party and their positions.

But, the thing that you hear about Republicans from so many in his party are that they are dumb, and are haters. I saw this repeatedly in the comments to a Bernstein Volokh Conspiracy piece recently trying to discuss why Jews were so much more likely to be Democrats. And, for a lot of posters, it was because they weren't the party of stupid haters.

Which of course is silly. The two top Dem politicians in Congress (Reid, Pelosi) have repeatedly shown us both. No Republican could maintain power at the national level if they showed a fraction of the hate that just these two do. And, they aren't alone. Rather, the MSM just assumes that they are virtuous, and ignores their rants.

And, talking about the Stupid Party - the Dems reflexively and almost automatically back projects and legislation that depends on humans being virtuous, and the presence of large amounts of pixie dust and wishful thinking. And, last week every single Democratic Senator voted to amend the Constitution to weaken the 1st Amdt to give themselves the right to decide what is unfair political speech. Progressive thought and theory is based on false premises, as well as all that pixie dust and wishful thinking. Anyone believing in it is an awful lot dumber than those evil Republicans opposing such.; 9/15/14, 10:33 AM
Original Mike said...: Sounds to me like he's describing the War on Women meme.; 9/15/14, 10:39 AM
exhelodrvr1 said...: If anyone is guilty of not thinking, it's the demographics who overwhelmingly vote Democrat.; 9/15/14, 10:39 AM
Brando said...: I wonder if he stopped raping anyone long enough to say that, or if he had to say that mid-rape.

What smug cluelessness goes into the thinking that your own side has a monopoly on "thinking". Yes, it's much better to just assume you have the answers, that the other side is automatically dumb, than to ever reflect on whether there may be other points of view worth engaging and arguing. The statement is revealing, and very typical of the king of dirty politics.

On a related note, what is everyone's guess as to which minority group is going to be most thrown under the bus by President Hillary? My guess is the American Muslim community. They may prove a bit too inconvenient for a couple that had no trouble tossing under the gays, the blacks and the civil libertarians.; 9/15/14, 10:39 AM
Skeptical Voter said...: Well actually Bill has his own war on women; likes them to get on their knees at the door. Checking their brains is optional; it isn't their brains he's interested in. Of course he's more likely to succeed with the brainless ones, but he'll take them as they come.; 9/15/14, 10:42 AM
James Pawlak said...: I am glad I read this before leaving for the hardware store as I had forgotten to put a pair of "Monicas" (ie Knee Pads) on my shopping list.; 9/15/14, 10:45 AM
FullMoon said...: I wonder if Monica foamed at the mouth.

I always wonder about her parents.

At one point it was "Monica is doing great, she actualy works in the White House and speaks to the President."

Were the parents assholes always bragging about Monica to bask in her glory and let everybody know how inferior their kids were in comparison.
Or are they the decent people who rarely mentioned it and did not deserve the humiliation?

It must hurt every time it is brought up, through no fault of their own.; 9/15/14, 10:47 AM
Anonymous said...: I wonder if Bill Clinton also has a poster of the Blue Fist hanging above his desk.; 9/15/14, 10:47 AM
Bruce Hayden said...: How are the Democrats any different?

To some extent, there is a lot of overlap. But one of the differences in the two parties is that a lot of Republicans strive for virtue, whereas Democratic politicians most often just strive for power. I suggest that this comes from several differences. One is that the Dem party has long been the party of big government and machine politics, the latter essentially using political power for personal or crony enrichment. The purpose of politics, for them, is the passing the wealth around, and how much they can cut out for themselves. Yes, Republicans do this too, esp. national politicians, but the rank and file often disapprove, as shown by the primary defeat of Eric Cantor and the rise of Tea Party politicians.

The Republican party, from its inception has been the more religious of the two parties. During the Civil War, the backers of Republican Abe Lincoln sung the Battle Hymn of the Republic while marching into battle, while their Dem counterparts were rioting being drafted, or singing Dixie to protect the continued enslavement of Blacks. And, this is still the case 150 years later, with the fundamentalism of someone's faith being a good predictor of their party allegiance.

And, Bill Clinton is a good example of this. If he had been a Republican, with the parties reversed in Congress, he would most likely have been impeached, convicted, and removed from office. It is only because the Dems in the Senate voted for party power, and not morality, that he escaped conviction by that chamber. Democrats are expected to be corrupt, and so their partisans continue to return them to office for decades, while Republicans routinely turn their candidates out who exhibit the sort of corruption that Dems find acceptable, and, maybe even desirable and honorable.; 9/15/14, 10:52 AM
Drago said...: madisonfella said...
I wonder if Bill Clinton also has a poster of the Blue Fist hanging above his desk

Why? Would that make his serial sexual assaulting of women more palatable to you than it already is?; 9/15/14, 10:53 AM
Richard Dolan said...: This is all aimed at the Dem primary voter in places like Madison -- the academic crowd, uber-lefties, Sierra Club types, trial lawyers, etc. For them, Clinton's spiel is all par for the course, verging on a truism. In contrast, I doubt that this way of framing the Dem message would have any impact on the various ethnic and racial groups in the Dem base -- they are more likely to respond to the kind of race- and class-warfare that was aimed at Romney.

Clinton's rhetoric is aimed at just the group that Hillary! will need to get the nomination, who might otherwise be inclined to give Sen. Warren or some other candidate a close look. Just another indication that Bill foresees a fight for the Dem nomination, not the coronation Hillary! would prefer.

Say what you will about the Slickster, but he is no dummy when it comes to manipulating the various components of the Dem coalition.; 9/15/14, 10:54 AM
Anonymous said...: Calls for national unity and partisan name-calling don't go nearly as well together as Clinton thinks they do.; 9/15/14, 10:58 AM
I'm Full of Soup said...: What is the greatest thing Clinton accomplished for the country while he was president? "Crickets"

What will he be remembered for in 100 years? Monica? Welfare reform? Not taking the opportunity to kill Bin Laden which led 911 and the international morass we have been in since?; 9/15/14, 11:01 AM
Bruce Hayden said...: On a related note, what is everyone's guess as to which minority group is going to be most thrown under the bus by President Hillary? My guess is the American Muslim community. They may prove a bit too inconvenient for a couple that had no trouble tossing under the gays, the blacks and the civil libertarians.

My vote is women, Blacks, and Muslims. She is (theoretically) a woman, and so can safely dump on them, knowing that the mere fact that she was in the White House would be a sufficient sop to them. Blacks because Obama showed that the Dems could shit on them and maintain their votes. And, yes, Muslims because they are inconvenient, don't provide enough votes, and Hillary! never attended the types of Muslim schools that Obama did, and formed the attachments that he seems to have to that religion.

Hispanics I expect will be coddled, with further loosening of immigration, etc., since they are a rapidly growing demographic that is still somewhat in play. And, unions/labor, because they have long supported her, and, are also somewhat in play as an electoral demographic. This demographic is more and more comprised of government workers, who benefit personally from voting Democratic.

I see gays essentially abandoned. They got most of what they wanted and could plausibly get under Obama, are too small of a demographic, and are not really in play, as they are most likely to consider Republicans as stupid haters.; 9/15/14, 11:01 AM
Unknown said...: Imagine an American political landscape where the Clintons are no longer relevant.

It's like a sunny day after a cleansing rain.; 9/15/14, 11:06 AM
chuck said...: Clinton is smart and a good politician, but lacks even a smidgen of integrity. It's a sheme, he coulda have been a contender.; 9/15/14, 11:10 AM
dreams said...: Another way the Republican politicians are different is that most of them come to politics after having been successful in the private sector which has the advantage of being a screen for competence for their elected office and also their motives are more pure as in wanting to provide real government service whereas for the Dems, government was always their career ambition. This is also the reason why I believe the Dems are better at politics than the Republicans, they've had more practice.; 9/15/14, 11:12 AM
show me one socialist success in world history said...: "Calls for national unity and partisan name-calling don't go nearly as well together as Clinton thinks they do."

Agreed, Paul, but her base is emotionally driven. They're not interested in 'national unity', just 'us' vs 'them'.

Your comment made me wonder if weactually have a national figure that is a unifier today? Anyone?; 9/15/14, 11:12 AM
Anonymous said...: Imagine if Democrats actually took his advice to "think" in the next election.; 9/15/14, 11:15 AM
Curious George said...: "madisonfella said...
I wonder if Bill Clinton also has a poster of the Blue Fist hanging above his desk."

That's all it would take for you to put on a blue dress.; 9/15/14, 11:15 AM
Drago said...: AJ Lynch: "What is the greatest thing Clinton accomplished for the country while he was president?"

Screwing up so badly that the public voted in Republican control of the House and Senate for the first time in 40 years in 1994.

Of course, we know that the dems were not able to accept this fact as well as refusing to give the republicans any credit for Welfare Reform, budget concerns etc.

Remember this oldy but goody where the dems were trying to convey to the public that it was only dems that worked with Clinton to reduce the deficit?

http://www.politifact.com/rhode-island/statements/2010/jun/25/sheldon-whitehouse/sen-whitehouse-forgets-which-party-controlled-cong/

Remember, the lie that it was all dem control throughout Clintons tenure was a purposeful one put forth by senior members of the dem party because those leaders know that their base is the largest conglomeration of unthinking bots ever assembled in these United States.

And they still are.; 9/15/14, 11:15 AM
bgates said...: I wonder if Bill Clinton also has a poster of the Blue Fist hanging above his desk.

Is that what he calls it?; 9/15/14, 11:16 AM
Bruce Hayden said...: What is interesting to me is to contemplate which of the major Dem contenders for their nomination would win the Republican one, if the Republican field were narrowed to just those politicians.

My guess is that Hillary! would come in dead last, due to her history of corruption, from being thrown off the Watergate investigation for ethical violations, to selling Presidential pardons for her Senate seat. Andrew Cuomo would be down there for similar reasons. Ditto for Reid and Pelosi. Warren would be rejected because she not only got where she got in academia by repeatedly playing the Affirmative Action card, but even worse, she lied to get into a protected class. Which really leaves Slo Joe Biden, who may be experiencing some level of dementia, but at least his lies and plagiarisms were amateurish and somewhat endearing.; 9/15/14, 11:17 AM
Bruce Hayden said...: Another way the Republican politicians are different is that most of them come to politics after having been successful in the private sector which has the advantage of being a screen for competence for their elected office and also their motives are more pure as in wanting to provide real government service whereas for the Dems, government was always their career ambition. This is also the reason why I believe the Dems are better at politics than the Republicans, they've had more practice.

I think that in addition to the last point, Republicans seem to have a lot more scruples. For a lot of Dems, it seems that anything is fair, as long as they win. And, at the top level, that means that rampant illegality is accepted, because they know that they will control the levers of justice (through the DoJ) if they win (think, of course, Eric Holder and how he has used the DoJ to protect Dems and prosecute Reps).

What I find interesting, and in my more irreverent moments, somewhat humorous, is that progressive thought is based in wishful thinking, pixie dust, and an unrealistic view of human virtue. And, then the party and politicians pushing progressive solutions inevitably is led by those with the least amount of virtue. They assume that humans aren't innately greedy and self-serving, and then put the most greedy and self-serving among them in power over everyone.; 9/15/14, 11:24 AM
Hagar said...: It does not matter what Bill Clinton says; the important thing is that the way he says it makes everyone there feel good.; 9/15/14, 11:26 AM
dreams said...: "Screwing up so badly that the public voted in Republican control of the House and Senate for the first time in 40 years in 1994.

Of course, we know that the dems were not able to accept this fact as well as refusing to give the republicans any credit for Welfare Reform, budget concerns etc."

I remember that time well and in Jan 1995 after the Republicans took control of the house, the stock market took off. That was the start of the big bull market that Clinton and Dems with the assistance of the liberal media claimed for themselves.

I used to show people the chart of the stocks spiking up early in 1995 but it has been so long ago that most available charts only go back ten years.; 9/15/14, 11:28 AM
Insufficiently Sensitive said...: There's a constant eruption on Facebook, from progressives or liberals or lefties, whatever, and from some factory or other they obtain an unending supply of pre-printed calumnies of just Bill Clinton's sort. These fancy graphics get posted in place of reasoned opinions, to signify to their fellow artistes and scholars that they hold correct attitudes and are willing to join in the lynch mobs once sufficient political power is obtained to hold conservative heretics' feet to the fire.; 9/15/14, 11:30 AM
Hagar said...: There is a lot of complaining about what a poor bench the Republicans have got for the 2016 election, while not so much is heard about Hillary! apparently being the only candidate the Democrats have.; 9/15/14, 11:32 AM
garage mahal said...: I wonder if Bill Clinton also has a poster of the Blue Fist hanging above his desk.

Yea whatever happened to that story? Any apology? Smear a woman using a drunk, violent racist as a source, and no apologies?; 9/15/14, 11:34 AM
Brando said...: If any of these politicians were serious about the whole "bringing the country together" thing they'd avoid the cheap shots at the other party as being the party of "stupid" or "bigotry" or "free stuff for everyone". A real uniter would acknowledge that there are those who have a different outlook that may be wrong, without having to belittle the opposition. A uniter would be able to "get" the opposition and either win some of them over or compromise in a way of getting at least half a loaf for his own side.

That's not what we've seen in recent years though--it's not enough to think the Right is wrong about cutting taxes or eliminating spending, or that the Left is wrong about enhancing social safety nets or regulating parts of the economy. It's not enough to simply think another's foreign policy outlook is misguided or their approach to crime won't work. Instead, their motives must always be questioned, their worth as human beings must be denied. Conservatives must favor certain policies because they don't care about black people (even if these conservatives are black or have black loved ones), progressives must really be about wanting someone else to pay for free stuff for them (even if these progressives would be the ones paying for the free stuff and not receiving it). It's much easier to dismiss an argument without considering it--who wants to bother arguing with a bigot or a mooch?

Clinton has traded in this from the get-go. In '92 he couldn't simply argue that Bush's policies were bad for the ecomony, he had to make Bush look out of touch. For Clinton, it's always been about being with him or against him--nothing pissed him off more than his long-suffering wife (who put up with much public and private humiliation to further Bill's career) having earned the Democratic nomination only to have it plucked from her grasp by an upstart young black man--and this, after all Bill beleived he had done for blacks! Blacks loved him, why could they not appreciate his wife? So Bill tried dismissing Obama as a "fairy tale" because it wasn't his turn, it was Hillary's turn and no one should dare get in their way.

Since then, they've only gotten nastier--in every Democratic primary Clinton has taken the side of those who backed his wife and gave the cold shoulder to anyone who backed Obama instead. They are now making it clear that if anyone tries to pull an Obama again, they're DOA in the DNC. They will stop at nothing to win this time, because this is her last shot.

Shame on the Democrats for tolerating these awful people, and shame on the GOP if they can't find a way to win the general election.; 9/15/14, 11:37 AM
Brando said...: "There is a lot of complaining about what a poor bench the Republicans have got for the 2016 election, while not so much is heard about Hillary! apparently being the only candidate the Democrats have."

The Democrats' lack of bench (due to the impending coronation) may be their downfall, as Hillary is both polarizing and inept as a campaigner. But the GOP shouldn't count on that, as the Dems lead big in certain demographics and states--the GOP can't afford to screw this one up.

Part of the problem for the GOP is that while the Dems seem to be good at leaving their nominees intact by the end of the primaries, and uniting behind them for the general (because they fear GOP victory more than they prefer their own candidate in their primary), the GOP is not so great at that. They need someone who is already popular enough with the base that they can early on tack to the center, winning moderates and putting a lot more states into play. The electoral strategy Bush Jr. used leaves far too little room for error.; 9/15/14, 11:43 AM
tim maguire said...: Bill Clinton: (under his breath) I still got it!; 9/15/14, 11:43 AM
MadisonMan said...: They will stop at nothing to win this time, because this is her last shot.

The Republicans can still screw this up, of course, by nominating a nutcase mouth-foamer, true, but I will be very surprised if Hillary!! is elected to anything.; 9/15/14, 11:43 AM
richard mcenroe said...: I've seen more foaming at the mouth in a faculty lounge than at a Tea Party rally.; 9/15/14, 11:46 AM
dreams said...: I think the Republicans have a strong bench. What has John Kerry, Hillary or name any other Dem politician ever accomplished? Including the socialist who is thinking of running.; 9/15/14, 11:47 AM
richard mcenroe said...: If Democrats and progs didn't foam at the mouth Robert Stacy McCain would have nothing to write about.; 9/15/14, 11:47 AM
richard mcenroe said...: Clinton has a picture of a hand on the wall of his office.

It sort of looks like it's making a fist, until you see what it's holding...; 9/15/14, 11:49 AM
Brando said...: "The Republicans can still screw this up, of course, by nominating a nutcase mouth-foamer, true, but I will be very surprised if Hillary!! is elected to anything."

That's what I'm afraid of--that despite her weak campaigning Hillary gets elected by default. I don't think the GOP would nominate a nutcase, but rather that they would nominate a weak campaigner who spends the whole election trying to unite the party rather than expand the voting pool enough to swamp the Democrats.

That was part of the problem with Romney and McCain--watching their campaigns was like watching a football team continue to try and run the ball up the middle only to hit a wall of defenders and never try a pass or a lateral run.

Part of the problem for the GOP has been nominating candidates distrusted by the right (Romney, McCain, Dole) who couldn't then use their moderate cred to peel the middle away from the Dems. Picking someone mistrusted by the moderates would be a similar challenge, because they'd have a harder time shifting to the middle after having a long record to overcome. Ideally, they pick someone who has cred on both sides (e.g., Paul Ryan or Rick Perry). But then the question is whether this nominee is good on the stump and on TV, as that's where the heavy lifting will be.; 9/15/14, 12:10 PM
Fandor said...: Yeah, check your brain at the door, since you don't know how to use it.; 9/15/14, 12:13 PM
Anonymous said...: "The Republicans can still screw this up, of course, by nominating a nutcase mouth-foamer"

If only we could be so fortunate. Instead we'll get more milk toast because idiots listen to the news and believe the above quote about some conservatives, when it couldn't be further from the truth.

Now if you want real nut cases, you don't have to look further than the Democrats.

Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank? These are the more normal Democrats, and they are bat shit crazy.; 9/15/14, 12:19 PM
Anonymous said...: "The Republicans can still screw this up, of course, by nominating a nutcase mouth-foamer, true, but I will be very surprised if Hillary!! is elected to anything. "

Heh, I didn't notice this at first, but from the quoted piece here at Althouse:

"They’re trying to get you to check your brain at the door, start foaming at the mouth."

I think he's talking about Madison Man.; 9/15/14, 12:22 PM
Todd said...: dreams said...
I think the Republicans have a strong bench. What has John Kerry, Hillary or name any other Dem politician ever accomplished? Including the socialist who is thinking of running.
9/15/14, 11:47 AM

Apparently, that is not a requirement on the left. What did O ever accomplish prior to his run, other than being "not white"? What did he really accomplish after 4 years that earned him another 4? What has Nancy or Reed ever done other than poke sticks in Repub eyes? They still all get elected. Its sad really...; 9/15/14, 12:23 PM
Brando said...: "Now if you want real nut cases, you don't have to look further than the Democrats."

Maybe that's the GOP's problem. The Democrats can nominate two clods as stupid and venal as Gore and Kerry, and each time come a hair from winning the White House (and then win it twice with an inexperienced cypher). The GOP factions tend to split off and stay home when they feel they didn't get their preferred nominee.

2016 may be different, as eight years out of the White House can focus a party (as well as the prospect of a Clinton restoration).; 9/15/14, 12:25 PM
garage mahal said...: but I will be very surprised if Hillary!! is elected to anything.

I would be surprised if she wasn't elected. But, the progressive base hates her, and Hillary is a horrible campaigner. The progressive base wants Bernie Sanders, and wants him bad. Should be fascinating because I do think Sanders is going to run. I saw him speak on Saturday and it sure sounded like it. He referred to "Clinton Republicans" on a few occasions.; 9/15/14, 12:28 PM
MadisonMan said...: Heh, I didn't notice this at first

I obviously did.; 9/15/14, 12:29 PM
MadisonMan said...: but I will be very surprised if Hillary!! is elected to anything.

"I would be surprised if she wasn't elected."

Therefore, one of us will be surprised.; 9/15/14, 12:30 PM
The Crack Emcee said...: "Emotional politics"?

Jesus Christ, is there another kind? And if there was, would the lament then be for dispassionate engagement?

Republicans are into an apocalyptic thinking phase with Drudge (I've been mentioning it a lot lately) but y'all prefer to blow off The observation for Monica jokes.

Get out of politics, Folks, you ain't got the skills,....; 9/15/14, 12:43 PM
Brando said...: I don't think Hillary is much afraid of Bernie Sanders, as his appeal is limited to the far left and at most might annoy her. Cuomo also (if he did run) had the advantage of being a governor with another famous name, but he's been a bit scandal-plagued lately and might be scared off running (as running against Hillary means all sorts of grudges from the First Family).

Joe Biden might be interesting to watch--he's run in two primaries before, has good name recognition, and as VP fulfills a recent tradition of VPs getting nominations when they want it (Gore, Bush, Mondale, Humphrey, Nixon) and being the Administration's standard bearer. Would Obama choose between Biden (a longtime loyalist) and Hillary (an untrustworthy backstabber that he no longer needs)? Biden may be an idiot, but he might be the only idiot on the Democratic bench who can take down the Clintons.

If he chooses not to run, I dont' see anyone else in that party giving her a real challenge. It'll be up to the Republicans to put a stop to her.; 9/15/14, 12:45 PM
n.n said...: It's the same message we hear from all quarters. Surely, someone is lying.

Is life or message the game? I suppose it's the latter until someone loses their dignity or head.; 9/15/14, 12:46 PM
Drago said...: Crack: "But y'all prefer to blow off The observation for Monica jokes."

I see what you did there.

Plus capitalizing the t in "The" was nice for dramatic effect.; 9/15/14, 12:53 PM
Drago said...: MadisonMan: "Therefore, one of us will be surprised."

This observation is not surprising in the least.; 9/15/14, 12:54 PM
Quaestor said...: How are the Democrats any different?

Equivocation. The stage just before panic.; 9/15/14, 12:55 PM
Charlie said...: Juanita Broaddrick could not be reached for comment.; 9/15/14, 1:11 PM
Sigivald said...: Chutzpah!; 9/15/14, 1:19 PM
Bilwick said...: Mencken, thou shouldst be alive at this moment . . . if for no other reason to dissect Slick Willie selling the snake-oil to the rubes the way Mencken dissected William Jennings Bryant.; 9/15/14, 1:21 PM
hombre said...: Yes, genitalia voters - LGBTs, vagina voters, pro aborts - AA racists, Hispanic racists, food stamp and Medicaid dependents, students, the mediaswine and convicted felons, i.e., the immutable Democrat base, are renowned for deep thinking about politics and the future of the country.

LOL.; 9/15/14, 1:24 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: The Democrats' lack of bench (due to the impending coronation) may be their downfall, as Hillary is both polarizing and inept as a campaigner. But the GOP shouldn't count on that, as the Dems lead big in certain demographics and states--the GOP can't afford to screw this one up.

I agree that the Dems have much of a bench, but disagree to some extent as to the reason. My theory is that they tend to clog their leadership positions with life-long politicians. But, with life-long political office, often comes corruption. They may have come to DC decades earlier full of hope and good intentions. But, power corrupts, and constantly getting reelected takes a lot of money, so most seem to become ever more corrupt as they hold onto their political offices.

So, on average, the Dems at the top of the heap in DC tend to be older, more corrupt, and fewer, than their Republican counterparts, thanks to this dynamic.

As to the Republican bench - there are plenty of quality potential candidates right now. Sure, they haven't been around DC, or power, as long as Hillary! has, but they tend to be much younger, fresher, and much less corrupt. They have a bunch of governors (Perry, Jindal, Walker, Pence, Cristie, Haley, Hernandez, Sandoval, etc.) along with some from Congress (Ryan, Rubio, Cruz, Paul, etc.) Who do the Dems have? First tier is Hillary!, Slo Joe Biden, and Fauxhauntus Warren, and in the second tier? Cuomo? Who else?; 9/15/14, 1:35 PM
The Crack Emcee said...: Drago,

You're an assuming idiot:

I'm posting from my phone.

But you KNOW what I'm doing, right?

Moron,...; 9/15/14, 1:37 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: Joe Biden might be interesting to watch--he's run in two primaries before, has good name recognition, and as VP fulfills a recent tradition of VPs getting nominations when they want it (Gore, Bush, Mondale, Humphrey, Nixon) and being the Administration's standard bearer. Would Obama choose between Biden (a longtime loyalist) and Hillary (an untrustworthy backstabber that he no longer needs)? Biden may be an idiot, but he might be the only idiot on the Democratic bench who can take down the Clintons.

I do like Slo Joe Biden. Somewhat the happy warrior, and that would probably sell. Debates would be more fun - I expect a lot of drinking games revolving around his fables, whoppers, and inventions of facts. Should be fun. It is fun sometimes to watch him, as he goes on autopilot, telling falsehoods and invented stories with great aplomb. He never seems to be embarrassed when caught, rather, just continuing as if everything he said had been real, instead of a figment of his imagination.

Still, that stands in stark contrast with President Obama who takes himself so seriously, even though few others do. And, that may, in the end, help Biden win the nomination, and, maybe even the Presidency.; 9/15/14, 1:43 PM
Bilwick said...: Not think? I thought he must be describing Uncle Crack. Well, that's different then. Never mind.; 9/15/14, 1:51 PM
Unknown said...: Typical Crack thread jacking caught on video.

I'm the Crack Emcee, whitey! Watchoo gone do about it?

Bravo sir, bravo.; 9/15/14, 2:03 PM
The Crack Emcee said...: Zedediah Grimm,

Typical racist thread jacking caught on video:

http://gawker.com/lsu-frat-boy-brawl-documented-with-perfect-video-selfie-1634895158

White People R Funny,...; 9/15/14, 2:13 PM
Bilwick said...: Members of the Eloi-like Cult of the State criticizing the opposition for non-thinking is irony indeed. If you wanted to see someone doggedly resisting the labor of thinking (about either his premises, his agenda, or its consequences), any post by Uncle Crack will serve as a textbook example.; 9/15/14, 2:21 PM
Unknown said...: Crack,

OH THE HUMANITY!

WHITE PEOPLE RIOTING! Somebody call the LAW!

Silly rabbit! Black people are so funny!; 9/15/14, 2:27 PM
SomeoneHasToSayIt said...: Why would Bill Clinton use a metaphor that brings to mind a white substance oozing out of the mouth?

Are ALL Progressives tone deaf?; 9/15/14, 2:33 PM
Paco Wové said...: "Are ALL Progressives tone deaf?"

The "Repubs dissing the awful, awful Democrat bench" bit would be a lot more convincing with some electoral victories.; 9/15/14, 2:49 PM
Marty said...: What dreams and Beta Rube said.; 9/15/14, 3:03 PM
SomeoneHasToSayIt said...: Paco Wové said...
"Are ALL Progressives tone deaf?"

The "Repubs dissing the awful, awful Democrat bench" bit would be a lot more convincing with some electoral victories.

In times where raw emotion supplants Reason, the side that sticks more to reality and the truth, is necessarily in the minority.

I'll take truth over popularity, any day.; 9/15/14, 4:01 PM
Hagar said...: John McCain is a loose cannon with appaling personal judgement, and no one can tell what he is going to do next.

No one knows what Joe Biden is going to say next - not even Joe Biden, but we know that when it comes time to vote, he will vote as he is told. So, a President Joe Biden might be the safer bet, since the party regulars presumably would get to have some influence again.; 9/15/14, 4:33 PM
Michael said...: I think Bernie Sanders would be an excellent choice for the Democrats. He is a real dynamo, fabulous speaker, a leader in most every respect. High name recognition. Snappy dresser. Great debater. Whiz on foreign policy with loads of experience. Same on economic policy.

He is a bit reticent, but if we could give him the microphone and get him to open up I think the Dems and the country would have a winner.; 9/15/14, 5:18 PM
Drago said...: Crack the helpless: "I'm posting from my phone."

Whitey lets you have a phone?!

Well, I nevuh!!; 9/15/14, 5:22 PM
garage mahal said...: High name recognition. Snappy dresser. Great debater.

He's a little more down-to-earth than a trendy, 60-ish yr old, Atlanta suburban metrosexual like yourself. The people that came out to see him last Saturday were many small farmer/rural types. They came to see him and only him. You would be surprised. He said he was speaking in many southern states. Ohhhh nooooo.; 9/15/14, 7:18 PM
buwaya said...: If anyone doubts the end times are approaching, see here -

http://www.citylab.com/work/2014/05/rate-new-business-formation-has-fallen-almost-half-1978/9026/

Still collapsing.; 9/15/14, 7:18 PM
Original Mike said...: "They came to see him and only him. You would be surprised. He said he was speaking in many southern states. Ohhhh nooooo."

Would you advise the Repubs to concede now?; 9/15/14, 9:00 PM
Annie said...: Projection.; 9/15/14, 9:28 PM
Annie said...: And, talking about the Stupid Party - the Dems reflexively and almost automatically back projects and legislation that depends on humans being virtuous, and the presence of large amounts of pixie dust and wishful thinking.

No, that would make them the Party of Graft. Back projects and legislation that depends on humans having big hearts for the poor, the victims, Mother Gaia. Oh, look at us an dour intentions....while skimming off large chunks for themselves and cronies and buying the votes of others they need to keep dependent.; 9/15/14, 9:39 PM
LilyBart said...: Projection; 9/15/14, 10:15 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: I think Bernie Sanders would be an excellent choice for the Democrats. He is a real dynamo, fabulous speaker, a leader in most every respect. High name recognition. Snappy dresser. Great debater. Whiz on foreign policy with loads of experience. Same on economic policy.

Sorry, anyone who is an avowed democratic socialist is brain dead when it comes to economics. Yes, he voted against a couple of the really bad things that the Dems did in the 111th Congress. But, then voted for some other really bad things. And, his rant about the Koch brothers pretty much says it all - that he is a demagogue, and pretty corrupt.

Also, he is too old. He is 73 now, and will be 75 in the 2016 election. How is a 75 year old going to win Gen X, Gen Y, and the Millennials? Esp. since his probable opponent will likely be maybe 25 or so years younger than he. Age is likely to be a problem with Hillary!, Slo Joe Biden, or Fauxhauntus Warren, but they, at least, were all almost Baby Boomers. Sanders was born almost two months before Pearl Harbor.

I just don't see the American public signing on to even more left wing economic policies, after being mired for the last six years in the Obama Recession (partially made possible by votes by Sanders). If they want a decent recovery, they are going to have to start voting out the people and party that mired us in that recession - the Democrats (and those, like Sanders, who vote with them).; 9/16/14, 12:01 AM
chillblaine said...: "...which minority group is going to be most thrown under the bus by President Hillary? My guess is the American Muslim community."

Not with Huma Abedin as her closest advisor. I would say African Americans, being that their votes are taken for granted.; 9/16/14, 12:20 AM
Robert Cook said...: "I just don't see the American public signing on to even more left wing economic policies, after being mired for the last six years in the Obama Recession...."

Hahahaha! Obama? "Left wing policies?" Hahahaha! He's as much Wall Street's man as Bush or Clinton or Bush or Reagan. The "Obama recession," by the way, is a continuation of the financial meltdown caused by the banking industry and Wall Street back when GeeDub was in office.

(This just proves Obama is Wall Street's man: given the catastrophe they caused, he could have instituted radical reforms, prosecuted the Mafioso in the corner offices, and made efforts to stop and turn back the power grab Wall Street has successfully accomplished. But...the man of "Hope" didn't "Change" things...he hired Wall Street toads to man his cabinet, and he was very, very nice to Wall Street and the banks, but let the people languish.); 9/16/14, 6:35 AM
Robert Cook said...: "Says the man from the party that brings us, 'Civilization as we know it today would be in jeopardy if Republicans win the Senate,' among other gems."

Well, of course, that's true. But then, it's also true if the Democrats win the Senate.; 9/16/14, 6:45 AM
Rusty said...: We know what Bill thinks with so needs to be taken with a large grain of salt.; 9/16/14, 7:23 AM
Bruce Hayden said...: Hahahaha! Obama? "Left wing policies?" Hahahaha! He's as much Wall Street's man as Bush or Clinton or Bush or Reagan. The "Obama recession," by the way, is a continuation of the financial meltdown caused by the banking industry and Wall Street back when GeeDub was in office.

Couple of points here.

You seem to be caught up in the distinction between fascist type socialism and communist type socialism, in your comment about the banks. What we had with Wall Street was some of the most egregious crony capitalism imaginable. Not only did the taxpayers bail them out from their folly, but then turned around and gave the biggest banks in the country protection against smaller banks in the form of Dodd-Frank. Heads they win, and tails, the taxpayers lose. BUT, the Dems and Obama raked in a lot of contributions as a result. Moreover, some of these financial institutions managed to buy very powerful positions in the early Obama Administration.

Now we get to the Obama Recession itself. Yes, it was triggered by the bursting of the housing bubble. And, that happened under Bush 43, but also during the 110th Congress, where the Dems had retaken both Houses in the 2006 elections. The Bush Administration tried to deflate that housing bubble a bit more slowly, but was thwarted by prominent Dems running Congress, and lead in the House by the infamous Barney Frank (see above for where his loyalties were).

And, how did we get into the housing bubble? Real start was during the Clinton Administration, and its push to bring everyone into the middle class by making them home owners, even if they didn't have the credit or income to support home ownership. So, subprime mortgage loans were invented. Then, as insurance, and a good place to dump loyalists, they made Fannie May and Freddie Mac sinecures for Clinton Administration veterans. This became important a couple years later when private subprime lending started to dry up, and those two government guaranteed entities stepped in, and guaranteed the bad loans. This got progressively worse, until the bubble finally popped, and the taxpayers were left on the hook for many many billions.

But, that really doesn't answer why it is the Obama Recession. And, the answer there is that the problem wasn't the housing mess (caused almost entirely by Democrats), but rather, the idiotic economic policies enacted by Obama and the Dems in his first two years of office. They did Porkulus (including Cash for Clunkers, Green Energy loan guarantees, etc.), Dodd-Frank, ObamaCare, etc., along with cutting off the secured creditors in the GM and Chrysler bankruptcies in favor of union allies. And, the Administration continued to borrow a trillion or so every year, nearly doubling the national debt in six years. What is important here is not why we entered the recession (because we have had recessions on a regular basis since the founding of the Republic), but why we didn't come out, and that is laid almost entirely at the feet of Obama, his Administration, and the Dem controlled 111th Congress.; 9/16/14, 8:16 AM
Bruce Hayden said...: (This just proves Obama is Wall Street's man: given the catastrophe they caused, he could have instituted radical reforms, prosecuted the Mafioso in the corner offices, and made efforts to stop and turn back the power grab Wall Street has successfully accomplished. But...the man of "Hope" didn't "Change" things...he hired Wall Street toads to man his cabinet, and he was very, very nice to Wall Street and the banks, but let the people languish.)

Of course Obama is Wall Street's man. That just means that he is a socialist of the fascist crony capitalist type, and willing to be bought. But, then, who bought his original election, and then reelection? Wall Street and the banks were big there.

Why should you expect anything different from a Dem politician who learned politics the Chicago Way? Machine politics at its worst. It was silly and naive to have expected anything different from him. And, if he had tried, he wouldn't have succeed, given the Dem takeover of Congress two years earlier. They are the party of crony capitalism, where everything is up for sale. And, after so long in the wilderness, where they didn't have full control of the government money/graft spigot, they weren't about to let this neophyte get in their way.; 9/16/14, 8:23 AM
Todd said...: Bruce Hayden said...

and said very well. Congratulations on a nice history wrap up but don't expect the usual suspects to read, understand and acknowledge this history lesson. As this history is not available at the DK or MSNBC or Mother Jones they will not believe you.; 9/16/14, 9:16 AM
Robert Cook said...: But Bruce, you seem to think the Republicans would do anything any differently. They wouldn't! They're all servants to Wall Street! They all bow to the same masters! The problem with the Democrats is that they have become just like the Republicans. The Republicans are the template, the Democrats simply the "me, too" party.

Also, in your attempt to blame the Democrats for all that has happened in the last 25 years--even during the eight years Bush was president--you overlook that any laws passed to assist low-income citizens from buying homes did not permit or mandate that banks break laws or forge buyers' signatures onto mortgages they never signed, ("robo-signing"), or to convince people who could manifestly not afford an offered mortgage that they could. The banks simply used laws meant to help renters become home-owners to their own advantage. The banks are entirely to blame for the housing bubble and collapse, which led to the financial meltdown in 2008.

You also forget--or ignore--Bush's own concerted push of "the ownership society."

"...the problem wasn't the housing mess (caused almost entirely by Democrats)...."

Of course! Isn't every catastrophe "almost entirely" the fault of the Democrats? (I don't mean to absolve the Democrats of ills they have caused or contributed to, but the Republicans are no less at fault, not in the least.)

"...(Obama) is a socialist of the fascist crony capitalist type...."

Of course! Hahahaha! Obama is acting like a Republican? That proves he's a "socialist of the fascist crony capitalist type!"; 9/16/14, 9:48 AM
Bruce Hayden said...: Cook - I disagree to your main points. Sure, at one time, Wall Street may have been more Republican than Democrat. But that has not really been the case for a long time. And, this speaks to a long time split in the Republican party, between Wall Street and Main Street. Over the last couple of decades, a lot of Wall Street has seemingly moved to the Democratic side.

This distinction is also a big part of the rise of the Tea Party. They saw a party whose leaders had sold them out for Wall Street (and other big corporation) money, and are trying to take it back. The recent defeat of Eric Cantor is just one example of this dynamic - he thought that he could overcome the will of the Republicans in his district by raising and spending huge amounts of outside money (some from Wall Street). He couldn't. For much of the Republican rank and file, large corporate (including Wall Street) money is believed to be evil.

As for Bush 43, we can all theorize about what he might have done if al Quaeda had not attacked the homeland 13 years and 3 days ago. But, they declared war on us, and he took us to war against them. And, the rest of his two terms of office were spent concentrating on that war. That said, the leading Dems in Congress (led in the House by Barney Frank) did prevent his Administration from cleaning up the subprime mortgage loan problem.

Finally, I will not defend the way that the mortgage loan market was badly managed. But, the robosignature argument is really pretty bogus. The companies involved most often had the legal and moral right to sell (and transfer) the securities. They just cut corners doing so, given the volume involved. What they did affect was the formal chain of title. But, did nothing that couldn't be cleaned up if they were given time (and the parties involved had the legal obligation to do so). So, company A had a bundle of loans, and sold them to company B. The transfer of title for each of the loans in the package would, at times, use forged signatures. But, the buyer inevitably had the legal right to require that the signatures be redone correctly.; 9/16/14, 1:22 PM