Says Meade, after I say "Send me that link," as I often do, when he's talking about something he's read on line and sets off my blogging instinct. In this case, he's already closed that tab, and he'd have to Google it and then IM the link, a 2-step process, and if I just Google "knowingly inappropriate Clinton," he's says, "it'll come right up."*
He's right. Here: "There is no doubt in my mind that we have never done anything knowingly inappropriate in terms of taking money to influence any kind of American government policy."
Oh, he never did anything knowingly inappropriate. Knowingly. That's the key word. Whatever he did, he's telling us, if anything's wrong, he's got a plan to say he didn't know it was wrong.
And so it is time once again to roll out the famous "Was that wrong?" scene from "Seinfeld":
Why it was only just about exactly one year ago that I went looking for that because it was the perfect paraphrase of something some prominent American political figure was saying. (In the scene, George had sex on his desk with the office cleaning woman and, confronted by his boss, says: "Was that wrong? Should I have not done that? I tell you I gotta plead ignorance on this thing because if anyone had said anything to me at all when I first started here that that sort of thing was frouned upon, you know, cause I've worked in a lot of offices and I tell you people do that all the time."
That old post ends without revealing which American political figure got me thinking about the old "Was that wrong?" defense, but I did say the context provided a humorously useful clue. So it must have been Bill Clinton, right?
_______________________________
* I read this paragraph out loud to Meade, to get his okay to use those quotes. He suggests an additional sentence: "And he's already onto the next thing, which is 'Arlene, I'm sorry for what I've done....'" I play that and say, "That goes well with Bill Clinton. Hillary, I'm sorry for what I've done..." And Meade says "He's a sexual predator." The guy in the song is a flat-out murderer.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
५२ टिप्पण्या:
aka The Costanza Defense
They could try the Gore Defense:
There is no controlling legal authority that says this was in violation of law.
Earlier Bill Clinton version: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." He hunts and hides in a maze made of words. You'll never catch him.
Clintons' best defense: It may be unethical, immoral, evil, a conflict of interest, and directly contrary to agreement, but, technically, it's not illegal.
It was accidentally inappropriate.
The Gore defense requires work or at least implies that research was done... except to the extent that the word "controlling" is there to be mobilized to exclude any legal authority that turns up.
I'm sure there will be moderates and fence-sitters who see the Clintons and figure "they have long been up to some shady stuff, but none of that affects me, and their politics are similar to mine and anyway the GOP are a bunch of repellant nuts." That sort of thinking is why Clinton won both elections in the '90s and is why Hillary is so high in the polls today.
But these moderates should note that the Clintons have demonstrated that not only are they up to shady stuff, but they are often doing pointlessly shady things--taking bribes when they're already wealthy and would benefit more at this point from even ten scandal free years, the e-mail mess that easily could have been avoided--and this can only be understood when you consider that the Clintons are insulated by a sense of entitlement and invincibility. Their inner circle perpetuates this--to these people the Clintons can do no wrong--and the Clintons prefer that coccoon to any honest counsel. So the question is--isn't there something dangerous about the the delusionally entitled running this country? If the Clintons feel themselves untouchable, incapable of wrong, what will that mean when they're back in the White House? Does the fact that we luckily managed to avoid disaster in the '90s mean it can't happen when we get the Clintons, Part II?
Walking into work today, in the rain, I noted a car outside the Shell with a I'm ready for Hillary! bumper sticker.
Wished I had an add-on bumper sticker that said to leave the race that I could paste on top of it.
It depends on the meaning of never, done, anything, knowingly, and inappropriate, taken singly or in any partial or full combination.
And the Clintons have a 45-year long record, not 25 as the pundits tend to state. They did the same things when he was attorney general in Arkansas, just on a smaller scale.
"It's not a lie...if you believe it."
Brando said...
I'm sure there will be moderates and fence-sitters who see the Clintons and figure "they have long been up to some shady stuff, but none of that affects me, and their politics are similar to mine
...
The classic political conundrum. Do I vote for the unethical POS who has, generally, my politics, or the other guy, who doesn't?
Ya gotta vote for the crook, no?
I mean, it's the criminal Clintons or Paul Ryan throwing your own grandmother off a cliff, isn't it?
So if something is illegal and you don't know it's illegal, then it's okay. I learn so much law from this blog.
We know and see through all the classic Clinton moves. Cliché and predictable. They would be embarrassing if a Clinton could be embarrassed.
And yet they're still here.
Brando, I'l take issue with one word in your post: "pointlessly".
I believe they did not blunder into these situations. I believe they carefully considered what the options and chose to do exactly what they did, e.g., taking foreign money or setting up a private e-mail system and then destroying it at the opportune time.
They deemed the risks to be within acceptable bounds, and given their history, who can say their judgment was flawed? We'll see.
Two movie clips come to my mind about this whole Clinton fiasco.
First, Paul Newman in Absence of Malice. Paul gives a DA who is giving him a hard time a large donation and does it anonymously. It makes the DA look very bad. In th einquiry Paul Newman is asked why and he says "I believe in good government. I gave anonymously because I didn't want a bunch of hassle"
Brimly says "It looks like you bought him off" to which Newman replies "Prove it"
The other scene is from Godfather 3 where the other don pulls out his checkbook and writes Michael Corleone's foundation (like Clinton's a bit nefarious)a large check. I want to be part of it, he says.
Buncha grifters, these Clintons. I simply do not understand their supporters.
John Henry
"Vote for the crook. Yeah, it's important"
I remember this as a campaign slogan in favor of a felonious candidate for governor in Louisiana not that far back.
John Henry
With the alternate universes theory, there is a universe where the Clintons and Obamas don't exist and Democrats are honest, rational political actors working for the good of the country.
Sigh.
"frouned "?
"I checked with Hillary and she assured me we were OK" is surely his best one yet.
The Clintons are still the king and queen of chutzpah!
Tank said...
The classic political conundrum. Do I vote for the unethical POS who has, generally, my politics, or the other guy, who doesn't?
I can see that reasoning in the general election, but in the primaries there should be multiple people who share your general world view. To stick with the Clintons, and allow them to keep out any less-corrupt Democrats, takes dedication.
So, you could say they didn't know torture was illegal?
The Costanza defense is common even among people who don't have sex with cleaning people on their desks. A few employees have asked me to authorize company rules and employee handbooks so that employees would know what's OK and what's not OK.
I say "you're supposed to know that stuff! That's why we hired you, because you have good judgement!"
The inclination to have everything codified comes from not having basic confidence in one's own morality. That's one of the reasons why the campus-sex thing is so big these days. It's easier to say "just let me consult the rule book" than to actually have to decide what's right and wrong.
"What is not explicitly forbidden is allowed."
"What is not explicitly allowed is forbidden."
I am with George on that one.
"Brando, I'l take issue with one word in your post: "pointlessly"."
Well, look at it this way--in a universe where the Clintons after leaving office in 2001 decided they wanted to get back in via Hillary, what would be the smart move? Stay clean--make money like all ex-presidents do, have Hillary hold some posts that would keep her in the public eye for another run at the White House--or pull some shady crap that risks losing votes? And for what--a few million more when you're already rich and famous?
Why make yourself even slightly less likely to get elected just to pull some shady crap when you already can make tens of millions having some piece of crap book ghostwritten for you? The only explanation is that these are dangerously entitled people. People like that will do the most damaging things when in power, and regardless of political views that should be a nonstarter.
"I can see that reasoning in the general election, but in the primaries there should be multiple people who share your general world view. To stick with the Clintons, and allow them to keep out any less-corrupt Democrats, takes dedication."
Even from a purely partisan "anything to keep the Dems in the White House" standpoint, it's a foolish risk to put it all in the Clintons' corner. She's a risky nominee--her ability to lose in 2008 with all her advantages means her strength is overrated--and even once in power, how can they trust her not to sell them out? Now would be a good time for them to find another top tier candidate.
The Clinton defense is a rope-a-dope strategy, where the dope is public opinion. You start with Costanza ("was that wrong?") and sort of evolve toward a well, that might have been wrong, and eventually, "in fact, it was wrong".
That should probably occur around November 2015. We have discovered that there was not just an appearance of conflict of interest, but even the possibility that such conflicts could be plausible. That's why we're returning all of the money and will sin no more forever.
The chicken or the egg? Do the Clintons seek power in order to make money or do they make money in order to gain power? It's all part of the double helix of their married souls.......I think Bernie Sanders is an honest man. I would prefer Hillary to Bernie. The fact that Hillary is corrupt shows that she is susceptible to reason......Also, the Clintons are to be congratulated for introducing the tax deductible bribe into politics. This is tremendously innovative. In effect, the federal government is subsidizing their bribery. Win win for everybody.
Clinton statements like that beg the response
"Do you think I'm an idiot?'
(And I can see Bill's sly half smile)
"Now would be a good time for them to find another top tier candidate."
The Dem bench is old and weak. Other than O'Malley (whose possibilities went up in smoke last week), what viable candidate do the Dems have that's not old enough to qualify for Medicare?
"Party of youth" my aunt Fanny.
"The classic political conundrum. Do I vote for the unethical POS who has, generally, my politics, or the other guy, who doesn't?"
After four decades in audit, finance and accounting, I’ve concluded that most people are lying cheating cowards. Cheating on spouses, stealing from employers, lying to customers, fudging resumes. They aren’t committing full scale felonies or murder, but the truth is always elusive. It doesn’t bother me, because I now expect people to disappoint me. I actually enjoy playing the game. But don’t expect people to suddenly want to vote for competency and honesty. People never vote for their better, they are more comfortable with the rogue they recognize.
Mad Men creator Matthew Weiner commented that Pete Campbell, the character everybody loves to hate, actually represents 90% of people out there. I think he’s right.
"The Dem bench is old and weak. Other than O'Malley (whose possibilities went up in smoke last week), what viable candidate do the Dems have that's not old enough to qualify for Medicare?"
If I were a paid consultant to the Dems (full disclosure--I'm not!) I'd suggest finding a dark horse. Their bench is relatively weak--they have a few "up and comers" like Kamala Harris and the Castro brothers, but Harris is still only a state AG and the Castros aren't top tier politicians yet. Cory Booker probably would be my choice--he gets lots of good press and I haven't seen anything that would disqualify him--he could probably win enough moderates to give the Dems an edge. Besides that, this may be a cycle they'd be better off running a dark horse and hoping the GOP self destructs.
But I think even a dark horse has a better shot than Hillary--we already know the Clintons have baggage and she's a poor campaigner.
Who is trying harder to sabotage Hillary's campaign, Bill or Obama?
@Bob Ellison: "The inclination to have everything codified comes from not having basic confidence in one's own morality. That's one of the reasons why the campus-sex thing is so big these days. It's easier to say "just let me consult the rule book" than to actually have to decide what's right and wrong."
^^^THIS^^^
"After four decades in audit, finance and accounting, I’ve concluded that most people are lying cheating cowards."
If you worked four decades in a hospital emergency room, you would conclude that most automobiles are death traps.
"Buncha grifters, these Clintons. I simply do not understand their supporters."
Their supporters are grifters too.
All Prog politics is the pursuit of Other People's Money. To their Prog credit, the Clintons have shown they are very good at it.
Ha Ha, Thanks Scott, I never thought about that. I do spend a lot of my time bayonetting the bodies after the carnage. But when I show up before the wreck, it’s always a good idea to assume that somebody has been siphoning the gas. You hope they haven’t cut the brake line.
"But that would be wrong..."
Richard Nixon/ 1973
"Buncha grifters, these Clintons. I simply do not understand their supporters."
I separate Clinton supporters in the following camps:
1) Lickspittle sycophants who are paid to back them or have financial interests in prolonging their corruption.
2) Leftists who don't like the Clintons but see them as the only thing standing between scary rightwingers and the White House. These are similar to libertarians who backed Bush, or right wingers who might grudgingly back his brother.
3) Moderates who are cynical about politics, figure the Clintons represent moderation, figure both parties are corrupt, or don't follow these scandals closely, and will back the Clintons over what they see as a more extreme GOP alternative.
Group 1 is fairly small, and groups 2 and 3 can be peeled off if they see some other alternative, or if the Clinton slime reaches a level that is beyond being rationalized away (smoking gun, indictments). Or, if the GOP picks someone who can appeal to the middle, the moderates may vote for him and the Leftists might decide to stay home.
"I'm ready for Hillary!"
Just add the "..no evil" monkeys sticker.
or..http://i.imgur.com/n0RcIbk.jpg
Why do people expect Hillary to not do this EXACT SAME THING if she wins?
The Left was STUNNED at what a sleaze Clinton was when he left office --- ignoring that the Right had nailed his character down cold years earlier.
Progressives who claim to love Sunshine laws should never support Hillary as, rest assured, you will see her records purged routinely to insure nothing but pleasantness comes out.
After all, why was she so anxious to erase emails about her daughter's wedding and all?
Group 1 is fairly small, and groups 2 and 3 can be peeled off if they see some other alternative, or if the Clinton slime reaches a level that is beyond being rationalized away (smoking gun, indictments). Or, if the GOP picks someone who can appeal to the middle, the moderates may vote for him and the Leftists might decide to stay home.
The GOP ran unmistakably moderate candidates in 2008 and 2012. The press STILL described them as extremists.
Notice too when Bill says:
""It's an acknowledgment that we're going to come as close as we can during her presidential campaign to following the rules we followed when she became secretary of State," he said."
As "close as we can". Considering we already know they broke the rules they agreed to, as "close as we can" isn't saying much, huh?
So, without a conviction, the Clintons are totally innocent.
I can't think of a Republican treated similarly in regards to allegations.
Romney was slandered and the media ran with it. The NYT claimed McCain had an affair with a woman he absolutely did not.
"The GOP ran unmistakably moderate candidates in 2008 and 2012. The press STILL described them as extremists."
Mitt was one of the most moderate candidates the GOP had available in 2012, but in that campaign he could not appeal to moderates--largely because he was trying for so long to shore up the conservative wing of the party (McCain, who was geneerally conservative but seen as moderate, did the same thing).
A candidate who can appeal to moderates doesn't necessarily have to be that moderate--Reagan and Bush Sr. (and Bush Jr. somewhat) could do that, and carried key suburbs that helped win states that the GOP hasn't won at the presidential level since the '80s. Of course the GOP could reanimate Nelson Rockefeller with Jake Javits as his running mate and the Left would still pretend they're Barry Goldwater and Pat Buchanan, but the quality of the candidate will determine whether that would fly.
But if I'm Hillary, my best hope is that the GOP nominee is easily branded as a right wing extremist, or a squishy tool of the right wing. Because if the voters see this as a contest of character and competence, Hillary cannot win.
But if I'm Hillary, my best hope is that the GOP nominee is easily branded as a right wing extremist, or a squishy tool of the right wing. Because if the voters see this as a contest of character and competence, Hillary cannot win.
My view is that if the race is between a far left Democrat and a very squishy Republican, the Dem will always win.
Reagan won, largely, because he provided a major contrast with his opposition.
Plausible deniability is one of the Clintons' core competencies.
"My view is that if the race is between a far left Democrat and a very squishy Republican, the Dem will always win."
Nobody likes a "squish"--but a candidate who can appeal to moderates (even if conservative himself) does not have to be a squish.
On the other side of the aisle, Bill Clinton was an example of a candidate who could appeal to moderates (and he did--look at the red states he won that the Dems won't even try for anymore). John Kerry was a squish who tried to appeal to moderates, and was generally unsuccessful.
Even Reagan--who came from his party's right--could appeal to moderates. His performance in the debates in the final weeks of the 1980 campaign was a good example of him doing so, and it accounted for a lot of the late-breaking votes that swung his way.
Interestingly, Hillary seems to be trying hard to roll up her party's left--the longer (and more stridently) she tries to do this, the more it puts moderates in play for the GOP. All the more reason she's vulnerable to such an appeal. The ideal GOP candidate has enough cred with the right that he can take the time to appeal to the middle, putting the Clintons in the tough position of trying to hold both wings of their party together.
They don't sweat the Costanza defense.
The Clintons are still using 'I didn't have sex with that woman' defense along with the 'what does the word "is" mean' defense.
Might take them a while to catch up, but hey, it worked before, right?
Cashmere!
Brando,
There is no such thing as a moderate. There are people who pay attention and care about the process, and people who dont.
The people who don't care are influenced by late night tv, people magazine, and Hollywood stars.
These people are going to believe that any candidate picked by the Republicans is evil, racist, sexist, homophobic, and beholden to the tea party right wingers.
Have fun picking another McCain or Romney because the media tells you moderates will vote for them.
"Have fun picking another McCain or Romney because the media tells you moderates will vote for them."
I'm hoping they DON'T pick another McCain or Romney--I've made that pretty clear. But the reason Romney was picked wasn't because the "media" tricked GOP primary voters--it's because he was the only top tier candidate in that race. Did you really think Gingrich or Santorum were going to get the nod? Perry might have had a shot, but he jumped in late and imploded.
As for McCain, he managed to be the "last man standing". Remember who was getting the buzz as the "conservative" alternative to McCain in 2008? Mitt Romney! His other near rival was Huckabee, who may have wowed the religious crowd but was scaring the economic conservatives with his populist talk.
I'd agree with you if either of those guys was picked over a conservative yet plausible candidate, but there just wasn't one in either of those races--arguably, McCain was the closest thing to a "conservative" in his race on the big issues (Iraq War and taxes) and Romney had tried to adopt conservative positions in 2012. Neither really "ran" as a moderate as you suggest.
But I'll point out it's not being a moderate so much as being able to appeal to moderates. If the GOP strategy is to stick with just the most conservative voters, they're simply not going to win. The electoral votes won't work in their favor.
Nice Blog! Thank you so much for sharing Such a Wonder full information northern virginia handyman services providing Cleaning services for Residential and Commercial Areas in Northern Virginia
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा