I'm struck by: 1. Calling Hillary Clinton, the dominating presidential candidate, "his wife." 2. Using a gun violence metaphor — "takes aim" — about an American presidential candidate. (Never do this, whatever your politics. It's never needed. And there are weak people with impressionable minds.) 3. Dehumanizing Hillary's opponents as a "machine." 4. The idea that problems relating to Bill Clinton's interactions are manufactured — machine-made — and don't come from real people who think there really was something wrong. (I have always had a problem with the sexual harassment aspects of Bill's misdoings, though I was never a Republican, and I voted for him twice.) 5. A supposedly serious newspaper straining so obviously to carry the Clintons' message: It's old, it's manufactured, it's unfair, it's (metaphorical) violence against women. 6. The mixed metaphor: a manufacturing device, a gun, and — "gain new traction" — a vehicle.
So I clicked. At the article, the headline is different, and much more appropriately journalistic: "For Hillary Clinton, old news or new troubles?" It's so different that I didn't think I'd arrived at the article I'd clicked on. But the byline is the same — Karen Tumulty and Frances Stead Sellers — and I double checked.
Tumulty and Sellers observe that the sexual troubles are old but there's a "fresher case being made" that Hillary has been "hypocritical"...
In November, Hillary Clinton tweeted: “Every survivor of sexual assault deserves to be heard, believed, and supported.” She has made women’s issues a central focus of her campaign and is counting on a swell of support for the historic prospect of the first female president.... or, worse, "complicit."
[Juanita] Broaddrick, now a Trump supporter, tweeted Wednesday: “I was 35 years old when Bill Clinton, Ark. Attorney General raped me and Hillary tried to silence me. I am now 73. . . .it never goes away.”And times have changed. We have "a new sensitivity toward victims of unwanted sexual contact." Interesting. I remember when we had "a new sensitivity" in the early 1990s, when male Senators, chided with "You just don't get it," stepped up and took it very seriously. That new sensitivity got lost to a politically opportune insensitivity when Democrats decided it was more important to protect their President. They subordinated feminism to Democratic Party power, and it required a long struggle to get back to a second new sensitivity. And so, once again, the question is whether sensitivity or insensitivity better serves the interests of the Democratic Party.
If you don't remember "You just don't get it," here's a Washington Post column from May 5, 1994, by Richard Cohen: "Bill Clinton's Anita Hill":
Conservatives (and others) have wondered out loud the last several weeks why The Post, which reported [Anita] Hill's allegations [against Clarence Thomas], was so silent about a similar accusation lodged against Bill Clinton....
As few conservatives failed to note, the Jones story and the Hill story have much in common.... The fact remains that both women have made unsubstantiated accusations of a grievously wounding nature. They both amount to bulletless assassinations...Ugh! Another cheap gun violence metaphor.
... of character and possibly of career. It's hard, moreover, to gauge their relevance -- although if Jones is on the level, then Clinton has truly given womanizing a bad name. Her story is revolting, and the purported use of state troopers as procurers is deeply disturbing. But liberals had this coming...And thus the new sensitivity became the new insensitivity until a new sensitivity seemed like a good idea again and now — once again for the Clintons — it seems to be time once again for a new insensitivity. As if feminism is nothing but what the Democratic Party needs it to be and believing women depends on whether we like what they are saying.
The mere invocation of the phrase "You just don't get it" during the Thomas hearings seemed to banish common sense, not to mention decency. In Thomas's case, so much -- feminism, the abortion movement, civil rights -- was invoked to justify the public trashing of a man who, whatever his politics, was hardly evil. It's hard to see him now and not wonder what all the fuss was about. Hill was just the means to try to bring about Thomas's end.... Paula Jones is to Bill Clinton what Anita Hill was to Clarence Thomas. It's that simple -- and that regrettable as well.
I get it.
BUMPED: Originally published at 6:53 AM, but it got buried.
पोस्ट्स
१४५ टिप्पण्या:
Annalysis of a headline.
Not a very flattering picture of Hillary! They must of had a ton of pictures to choose from, and they picked this one. Why?
It's the essential question from the movie "Crazy, stupid love". Do women want Steve Carrell or Ryan Gosling?
Here's the real issue: What kind of woman sticks with Bill Clinton given all of these incidents; some of them being quite recent?
The question answers itself.
And YOU want her dealing with Iran, Russia and China?
I saw her in person this week. She might be competent to run Iowa Western Community College. Maybe.
There should be mercy shown to Hillary. She has endured a long life of suffering from hearing the many made up stories from money grubbing Trash Women who claim to have used her Co-President Bill as their plaything. I suggest we declare a year of silence in her honor.
Soap opera women are the MSM audience, with politicians free-riding on the narrative they tune in for.
It's a business thing, not hypocrisy or patriarchy or anything else. Whatever gets ratings is what happens.
Whether soap opera should continue to govern the nation is today's question, thanks to Trump.
With Obama "triggering" the increase in gun sales, they figure they better "target" that demographic.
But here at Altparse, I suggest:
The Clintons: Kinda rapey
"I'm struck by . . . A supposedly serious newspaper . . ." Why struck? Supposed by whom?
"As if feminism is nothing but what the Democratic Party needs it to be and believing women depends on whether we like what they are saying. I get it." Almost. Just leave out the "as if."
The Clintons are white trash. Time for them to retire, and go away.
As if feminism is nothing but what the Democratic Party needs it to be and believing women depends on whether we like what they are saying.
I get it.
You do get it. Congrats toots I knew you would eventually figure it out. Congrats toots!
The headline gives a good example of the standard Clintonian defense--old news, nonhumans behind the accusations, poor defenseless "wife". Prepare to see this in overdrive this year.
As for the Clinton scandals themselves, they exposed the difference between "feminism" and "fauxminism", the latter being a generally leftist, Democratic tool attempting to use the issue when convenient and dropping it when not. Hillary absolutely needs to be grilled on why her husband's many accusers do not deserve to be believed, when otherwise we should give the benefit of the doubt to accusers in every other context. Should feminists (not "fauxminists") be able to trust this woman as their standard bearer when we can see her true colors?
Anita Hill's sexual-harassment accusations against Clarence Thomas were lies.
David Brock's book The Real Anita Hill: The Untold Story is a journalistic masterpiece. It’s one of the best books I ever read. The story's essence is as follows.
Anita Hill was an incompetent lawyer. Her understanding of the law was mediocre, and she could not write well. Her main qualification was that she was an African-American woman. She would work at one place until her incompetence became too obvious, and then she would go to work at some other place.
During 1982, she was working in the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). For a while she worked under the supervision of a lawyer named Chris Roggerson, who was the Executive Assistant of Clarence Thomas, who was the EEOC’s Chairman. Roggerson was a notorious sexual harasser, and he harassed Hill. During that time, Hill confided to a lawyer friend, Susan Hoerchner, about Roggerson’s harassment.
Hill and Hoerchner drifted apart in about 1984.
In 1991, when Thomas was nominated to the Supreme Court, Hoerchner telephoned Hill out of the blue and asked whether Thomas was the supervisor who had sexually harassed her. Hill responded ambiguously, and Hoerchner took that response as a confirmation. In the following days, Hoerchner secretly passed this false accusation to various people who were trying to stop the nomination of Thomas.
As the situation developed, Hill decided to go along with the false accusation — but on the condition that she herself remain anonymous. The idea was that when the anonymous accusation eventually reached Thomas, then he himself would be compelled to withdraw from his nomination rather than endure public embarrassment.
As it turned out, though, Thomas stubbornly refused to withdraw from his nomination, and then the secret false accuser’s name — Anita Hill — was leaked to the press. From that point on, Hill felt compelled to press forward with her false story.
Hill is a despicable person, a character assassin. She ended up teaching law at the University of Oklahoma. As throughout her career, she is incompetent in this professional position too.
"As if feminism is nothing but what the Democratic Party needs it to be and believing women depends on whether we like what they are saying."
I wonder why that is? Hmmmm, maybe because of this?:
"I have always had a problem with the sexual harassment aspects of Bill's misdoings, though I was never a Republican, and I voted for him twice."
Democrats complaining about a "Republican machine" is pretty funny.
There once were such things, but that is almost 100 years ago now.
This post might deserve your metaphor tag, too.
David Begley said...
Here's the real issue: What kind of woman sticks with Bill Clinton given all of these incidents; some of them being quite recent?
Respectfully, that is not the issue. She can have whatever kind of a business arrangement with Bill she wants. The real issue is how she was part of the "Nuts and Sluts" hit squad that attacked and smeared all of the many women who made (probably truthful) allegations about her husband's sexual harassment and worse. It's her own behavior that is the real issue.
Paula Jones is to Bill Clinton what Anita Hill was to Clarence Thomas. It's that simple
Well...no. Bill Clinton actually physically attacked Paula Jones. Clarence Thomas may or may not have made a dumb joke. Apart from the pettiness of Anita Hill's accusations, her own behavior clearly showed she wasn't that put off by it (she kept her wagon hitched to his star long after these supposedly horrid events took place).
Politically speaking, feminism is just another tool in the politician's arsenal, to be elevated or subverted as required. Consider Germany, where thousands of North African men apparently roamed common spaces in gangs in at least three cities, groping, robbing, and in at least two cases, reportedly raping women. This story was buried for several days, and the response from the female mayor of one of the cities was, “There’s always the possibility of keeping a certain distance of more than an arm’s length – that is to say to make sure yourself you don’t look to be too close to people who are not known to you, and to whom you don’t have a trusting relationship”.[..]
In the Clinton case, feminism was subverted to the Democratic Party; in today's Germany it is subverted to the view of North Africans as innocent immigrants whose arrival can only benefit the host country.
@chris
Thanks. Done.
I do find it interesting. I had somewhat forgotten that the idea that the severity of the claim was more important than the actual facts behind it really came from the Anita Hill/Clarence Thomas thing. There never was much in facts behind that - the allegation was pretty innocuous to start with, and Hill continued to follow Thomas agency to agency after that, which tended to corroborate his story over hers. She always looked like the spurned woman to me, esp. with Thomas marrying a white woman. The purpose of her allegations appears to me to have been to give Senate Dems cover for voting against a Black Supreme Court nominee. Nothing more - the one thing that would save them from a charge of racism would be a claim of sexism by the nominee, no matter how ridiculous. But, what was really choice there were some of the Dem Senators pushing this, like Kennedy and Dodd. It worked - Teddy Kennedy who had killed one woman with his drinking, and had tried for sloppy seconds when his nephew raped that woman at their family compound in Miami, could get away with calling Thomas a sexist. Nevertheless, I am glad that the attempt to kill the nomination of Thomas by Hill, Dem Senators, and Dems with bylines (i.e. the MSM) failed, as it seems to have made him more conservative, and he is, still to this date, my favorite sitting Justice.
And, then not that many years later, the same Democrats were willing to accept almost anything on the part of the Clintons to keep them in office. It wasn't possibly a single dirty joke, but a years long pattern of sexual abuse and misuse of government power for sexual gratification, up to, and including possibly rape, that was excused as private behavior, just to keep them in office.
"You just don't get it." And thus the new sensitivity became the new insensitivity until a new sensitivity seemed like a good idea again and now — once again for the Clintons — it seems to be time once again for a new insensitivity. As if feminism is nothing but what the Democratic Party needs it to be and believing women depends on whether we like what they are saying.
I get it.
By George, I think she's got it! By George, I think she's got it!
I think that the difference this time is going to be that the scandals are cumulative. In addition to Bill being a sexual predator, and Hillary his enabler (and the former continuing unabated after he left office), she also has to answer for how horribly she did as Secretary of State, how she sold American foreign policy to benefit her family and family foundation, and how and why she used a personal email server instead of the government supplied one that she was legally required to use to send and receive work related emails, much of which contained classified materials. The rumors last weekend were that the FBI would suggest that she be indicted for this in the next two months or so, and that they would be in full revolt if AG Lynch turned them down (for the obvious political reasons), since it would essentially make it impossible for them to go after any govt. employees for misappropriating or mishandling government secrets. So, not only is she Bill's sexual harassment enabler, she is also a very horrible person all on her own, totally unqualified for even the lowest level elected offices. Thanks partially to her, the Middle East is still aflame, generating the refugee problems that we are seeing in Europe (and here), the Russians and Chinese likely had full access to anything that she did as Secretary of State, and the Clintons and their family foundation are much richer.
If I remember correctly, the courts ordered US Navy interns to examine Clarence Thomas' penis, Thomas was convicted of perjury forfeiting his law licence for a period. Clarence Thomas subsequently settled Anita Hill's lawsuit against him for $850,000.
Yes, Thomas and Clinton sexual harassment problems are the same. WTF!
Tank
Good point. Hillary destroyed those women so that she could become rich and powerful.
Not too different from destroying that young rape victim in court so she could get the rapist off in her court appointed criminal defense case
And there is audio tape of her laughing about it. Laughing..
It is all about money and power for Hillary.
Gotta Pee Lil Lena, Joyless Behar and Kneepads Nina all agree, sexual harassment is totes cool for Dems. Whoopi asks "Is it rape rape?" These right-wing haters need to shut the fuck up!
Hear hear!
Not only did Hillary laugh about dragging a child over the coals in a rape case, a child who was in fact a victim of rape which Hillary admitted to know, but she threw her client under the bus by making a public thing of his actual guilt after getting him cleared in a court of law.
I don't know about ethics, but isn't telling everybody your client was actually guilty some kind of violation?
There were two reporters who published accounts of the Soviet famines--Gareth Jones and Malcolm Muggeridge. Gareth Jones led an interesting and adventurous life. He was shot by Chinese bandits when he was thirty. What are the chances someone in Hollywood will make a movie about his brave life as opposed to far less appealing characters like John Reed, Dalton Trumbo, and Dan Rather........I bring this up because of the recent news from Germany. It's a scandal that over a thousand women can be sexually molested or assaulted, but the larger and more grotesque scandal is that news of these crimes was deliberately suppressed by the media.........The pundit class are always preaching to us about how we need to be more introspective and aware of of our moral failings. They are completely oblivious of their own deficits in this regard. The sins and outright crimes of Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy were parsed and ignored while the fact that Judge Thomas rented a porn movie while in college was given wide publicity and taken to be a disqualification for public life.......Who will shame the shamers?
That new sensitivity got lost to a politically opportune insensitivity when Democrats decided it was more important to protect their President.
This seems inherently a criticism, a value judgement, since an observation carries no meaning. Isn't it odd to make this value judgement immediately after admitting you did the same thing?
(I have always had a problem with the sexual harassment aspects of Bill's misdoings, though I was never a Republican, and I voted for him twice.
Shorter version; the headline worked. It got you to click. The headline worked so well, that it got the Althouse blog to feature the story just for the headline, and further expand the reach of the story and develop more clicks.
Mac McConnell
If I remember correctly, the courts ordered US Navy interns to examine Clarence Thomas' penis, Thomas was convicted of perjury forfeiting his law licence for a period. Clarence Thomas subsequently settled Anita Hill's lawsuit against him for $850,000.
You do not remember correctly.
Feminism has always been the central lie that makes Althouse (and Hillary) a con artist.
There is no good feminism. It's always been about greedy white women playing the "I'm a nigger, too!" con game. Women never really had a bitch in the U.S. Corrupt, lying upper class white women piggy-backed on the black civil rights movement out of sheer greed. That's the history and totality of feminism. A disgusting, reprehensible tactic that called on chivalry in men. Men, fools as they are for tits and ass, bought in. I did, too, when I was a kid.
There is nothing in Althouse's (or Hillary's) life to justify this lie that she ever had a bitch. Her status makes that clear. Althouse is a brutally self-interested con artist. She played out this con game again on behalf of her son over the gay marriage BS.
The prof can be a decent person and an interesting intellect when she isn't playing out this lying con game. She's a horrible con artist, and consummate office politics liar when she gets into feminism. It's her Achilles' heel.
The feminism lie makes Althouse laughable and corrupt. Time to drop it and apologize for the con, sister. Maybe try to ameliorate the damage you've caused?
I think that the difference this time is going to be that the scandals are cumulative. In addition to Bill being a sexual predator, and Hillary his enabler (and the former continuing unabated after he left office), she also has to answer for how horribly she did as Secretary of State, how she sold American foreign policy to benefit her family and family foundation, and how and why she used a personal email server instead of the government supplied one that she was legally required to use to send and receive work related emails, much of which contained classified materials. The rumors last weekend were that the FBI would suggest that she be indicted for this in the next two months or so, and that they would be in full revolt if AG Lynch turned them down (for the obvious political reasons), since it would essentially make it impossible for them to go after any govt. employees for misappropriating or mishandling government secrets. So, not only is she Bill's sexual harassment enabler, she is also a very horrible person all on her own, totally unqualified for even the lowest level elected offices. Thanks partially to her, the Middle East is still aflame, generating the refugee problems that we are seeing in Europe (and here), the Russians and Chinese likely had full access to anything that she did as Secretary of State, and the Clintons and their family foundation are much richer.
I just thought this should be read twice by people. Very nice summary -- except for the indictment rumor, which I assume is wishful thinking.
Sean Hannity is claiming on twitter that new accusations (I think he says bombshell!) of sexual assault will be coming forward soon about Bill Clinton. Which, if true, would make since. If he has been assaulting women since the 70's why stop in the late 90s?
Also, wasn't it Joy Behar on the view who said recently that she would vote for a rapist as long as he had the right policies?
As if feminism is nothing but what the Democratic Party needs it to be and believing women depends on whether we like what they are saying.
I get it.
Well that's a start .....however......you still voted for him twice, and no one would be surprised if you voted for Hillary also.
"I'm struck by"
Struck? Why rail against violent imagery "aim" and such, and then use violent imagery?
Hillary didn't ignore Bill's callous womanizing. She covered for it and used character assassins to try and ruin and discredit the women.
You know the stories about Bill are true because the women he accosted are all a bit off. They are easy to disbelieve. Like any predator, Bill understands how to select his victims. He read Hillary perfectly. Ambitious, insecure, above average intelligence but vulnerable to manipulation, and low self esteem.
I think Bob Packwood is a better comparison than Thomas.
What I get from that article is that the Washington Post does not expect Clinton voters to read past the headline.
If you're in the tank for the Democrat, no need to read!
Or the person who wrote the headline is in a fight with the journalists. The journalists want to do the story, and the uppity ups want to kill the story. "Don't read this!" screams the headline. "It's full of right-wing propaganda!"
Not a very flattering picture of Hillary!
I noticed that as well. Maybe somebody didn't get the memo?
President Obama spent a tearful press conference explaining to America, using the bully pulpit of his office, that I as a law-abiding owner of legal guns am the moral equivalent of psychotic mass murderers and Islamic jihadis and violent criminals, simply for exercising an individual right enumerated in the Constitution. He even stated that the Congress was holding Americans "hostage" over gun laws.
Take your demand for civility and shove it where the sun don't shine. It only occurs when someone points a metaphor at a Democrat.
It's too late to even call it polyamory.
Althouse: "As if feminism is nothing but what the Democratic Party needs it to be ...."
Well setting the delusions aside, that's the story, isn't it? Aside from its political value to the Democrats, secular feminism is pretty much about fear: fear of motherhood's impact on careerism, fear of competing with men, fear of being objectified sexually, fear of physical vulnerability, etc.
What are it's negatives? Abortion, breakdown of family and family values, degradation of women in entertainment and pornography (you know, those sexually emancipated women), women who depend on the state to say "no" for them (in University and the workplace) and to provide their contraceptives, emasculation of male oppressors, i.e., most white males, and the coincident vulnerability to non-emasculated males (See, e.g., Cologne, Rotherham), perversion of the language and the education system, metro-sexualization of the country an it's armed forces.
What a boon to personkind!
I just can't stop thinking about Bill Clinton's cock, even after 20 years. We never even got to see it!
Events in Germany, England, and America have renewed public interest in Democrat tolerance of violence perpetrated against girls, women, and babies too. The Clinton's membership in the pro-choice Party and support for anti-native policies has American fathers and mothers concerned for the lives and dignity, and the future of their Posterity (i.e. babies, children) which The Supreme Court has determined can be freely excised under abortion rites emanating from a penumbra.
The feminist long ago inherited the title of female chauvinist. There is a better reconciliation of men and women's rights and imperatives, but the female chauvinists cannot see past the political, social, and economic leverage they have enjoyed while slandering men and boys.
The Democrats need to reconsider their adoption of an open liberal ideology that includes the pro-choice doctrine, anti-native policies, denigration of human dignity, and debasement of human life through progressive morality.
Bruce Hayden: "I do find it interesting. I had somewhat forgotten that the idea that the severity of the claim was more important than the actual facts behind it really came from the Anita Hill/Clarence Thomas thing."
Actually, the "severity of the charge" being more important than any actual evidence was the gambit by the dems (and other lefty crazies like Robert Cook on this blog) to kick off an independent counsel investigation accusing Reagan of colluding with the Iranians to keep Americans hostage until after the 1980 election.
All the usual suspects and lefty insanity were involved and it was Tom Foley, dem speaker of the House who actually stated that there was no evidence but that the severity of the charge required an investigation.
So, skip forward to today and you'll see nothing much has changed for the lefties.
Hillary and Bill won't themselves play the war on women card now.
Trump warned them off, and they shut up about it immediately.
But the WaPo, NYT, etc will carry the water.
"...if Jones is on the level, then Clinton has truly given womanizing a bad name." - Richard Cohen. Yeah, otherwise the bitch deserved it.
"... if Jones is on the level, then Clinton has truly given womanizing a bad name."
Heh. Yeah, Bill Clinton totally ruined womanizing for the rest of us.
Someone said, not sure who, that Bill Clinton put the women's movement out on a street corner in a short skirt and fishnet stockings.
I remember that polling at the time of the Thomas-Hill brouhaha indicated a majority believed him. I also remember that a poll taken a year later indicated that a majority believed her. Isn't that interesting?
If she had divorced him in the wake of the Lewinsky scandal, even if the divorce was obviously the result of political calculation, none of this would be an issue.
As it is, she has to continue the charade that it was all a right wing conspiracy. She cannot admit that what everybody knows about her husband's 'sexual adventuring' is true.
What is Bill up to these days? It's hard to believe that he has reformed. If nominated, she could be one scandal away from losing the presidency because of him. We have a press, remember, that managed to 'not see' that presidential candidate John Edwards obvious extra-marital affair, including his knocking up his mistress, and her giving birth to their child while he was campaigning for president.
That story was broken the National Enquirer, not the MSM.
There's a website tracking of all kinds of web statistics, sort of like a Guinness Book of World Records for blogs. I mention it because with that last comment Garage set the all time record for most blog comments without a single intelligent posting.
Althouse trivia.
garage mahal said...I just can't stop thinking about Bill Clinton's cock, even after 20 years. We never even got to see it!
Of course, it's just about sex.
Nobody ever believed that, but at the time there were enough willing to pretend to believe it. I think you'll find times have changed and your usual corps of liberal liars aren't willing, won't be willing, to sing your tune anymore.
Garage has a good point. LEAVE BILL CLINTON ALONE. Stop this War on Womenizers.
"Nobody ever believed that, but at the time there were enough willing to pretend to believe it." If you've spent enough time at the blog, you'd know that there's no limit to the stuff garage mahal is stupid enough to believe.
Meanwhile--once again--this cartoon summarizes it:
http://cdn.pjmedia.com/instapundit/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Hillary-war-on-women-cartoon.jpg
Billy was just doing the sexual assaulting that needed doing until the left was able to import enough muslims to get the assault rate to where it needed to be.
So far the lefties have succeeded wildly in Europe and now they are doubling their efforts thru obambi to get these single, male, military age islamists into the US as rapidly as possible.
BTW, you can always tell from the quality of his posts when garage has had a less than stellar commissionable sales month, which, no surprise here, is just about every month.
When you spend your day cutting and pasting from lefty websites on company time and equipment, that sort of performance is to be expected.
Blogger Meade said...
Garage has a good point
Garage has a large hole in his head; but that's beside the point.
Garage..just bit your lip really hard and play pretend (or contact Titus)
Between Hillary's criminal conduct with respect to national security and Bill's adventures on pedophile island and the shared fundraising scams between the two of them will The Federal Bureau Of Prisons give them a double wide prison cell?
Question for the lawyers commenting on this blog and our hostess: can a president revoke a pardon issued by his predecessor?
Does America really, really want all of that DRAMA back in the White House?
We know the MSM does want that drama on its screens so it can compete with Netflix. Think about it in terms of cash flow and cutting the cord.
Changing times seems to have put a dent in Dem party partisans ability to look the other way when it comes to Bill Clinton and his sexual assaults on women. The talking point that Bill isn't running for office as a way to excuse this behaviour once again is not doing well at the moment.
What a spectacular exhibit of cognitive dissonance: "I have always had a problem with the sexual harassment aspects of Bill's misdoings, though I was never a Republican, and I voted for him twice."
Anyone who believes that the American President should have integrity -- defined, loosely, to exclude things like perjury and conspiracy to obstruct justice; mere bald-facing lying is routine among all politicians -- ought regret voting for Bill Clinton, whether one's a Democrat, independent, or a badly-confused Republican.
It would be refreshing to hear a Democrat or independent say, "I voted for Bill Clinton, and I'm ashamed of it, not just because he's a dog, but because I knew he was a dog when I voted for him."
Or if not "I'm ashamed," at least: "I regret."
At 65 this poor old Rodham woman had a terrible blood clot from a concussion when she fell. She now suffers post concussion syndrome which slows thinking under stress and requires that she gets lots of rest just to walk back to the car after events.
How does Trump get this info before we hear about it. Rumors are powerful channels.
After the murders by the crazy anti-abortion killer in Colorado I respect Althouse's choice to not contribute to the language that could help influence the insane in a less peaceful direction.
Now, we just need to help convince folks that killing a baby is bad too, although if a rare rape baby completely acceptable within the confines of my conscious. Killing millions of babies so you can profit to the extent you have plans of buying a Lambourgini is evil. Making me pay for it as a taxpayer is cause for revolt.
Tangent: I wonder if Limbaugh's "feminism was created to allow unattractive women access to the mainstream" or whatever he says exactly is a part of the reason why positions on the feminazi side are so opposed to seeing evil as evil and not excusing it?
"Garage has a good point. LEAVE BILL CLINTON ALONE. Stop this War on Womenizers."
Not at all. Carry on. Just commenting about a weird obsession.
garage mahal said...
I just can't stop thinking about Bill Clinton's cock, even after 20 years. We never even got to see it!
Everything you ever wanted to know about the "Clinton Kink" but were afraid to ask.
For us geezers, Hillary's zeal for extinguishing "Bimbo Eruptions" is very old news. But for the 20-something crowd whom Hillary really really needs to vote for her this fall, this may be dampen the enthusiasm to make the trip to their local polling place the first Tuesday in November.
So 20 years ago, the Democrat line on Lewinsky was that everything was okay because Hillary was fine with things, and Lewinsky was legally a responsible adult, and the Republicans were sex-obsessed prudes for pursuing impeachment charges. The MSM echoed this line.
Nowadays, the problem is that what the MSM and Dems said was okay two decades ago is bad, and it is only common sense -- and progressive -- to consider what Bill Clinton did to be worthy of civil and possibly criminal prosecution. It is now mandatory among dems to be as sex-obsessed and prudish as they accused the GOP of being in 1998.
I almost feel sorry for them. Maybe they could all go to some island where they can only screw with each other? You know, and leave normal people out of their psychodramas?
What Hillary needs is a huge turnout from people with a "high tolerance for ambiguity."
Now that Trump has sucked the air out of the War-on-Women issue. What other card can Hillary, or Bernie play? Perhaps, the give-me-more-free-shit card?....but I don't think that resonates with a majority.
"When you spend your day cutting and pasting from lefty websites"
I have not cut or pasted anything, Einstein. You are so dumb. So very very dumb.
Not at all. Carry on. Just commenting about a weird obsession.
The programming is out of whack again.
Who has the weird obsession? The people carrying around mattresses and dragging Cosby into court decades later? The people wanting to teach men about a rape culture? The DA going after an entire rugby team?
Or the people pointing out the hypocrisy of the Clinton's?
The term "bimbo eruption," when related to the Clintons, imply an event orchestrated by the Clintons themselves to divert the media's attention whenever they feel the hounds are getting to close to some actionable scandal.
Betcha any money women will be flocking to the vulgar, sexist candidate with a history of infidelity and alleged spousal abuse. Everything has been neutralized!
garage: "I have not cut or pasted anything, Einstein. You are so dumb. So very very dumb"
LOL Sure garage.
It's hard not to notice that the guy who barely scraped his way out of some rural high school way back when spends so much of his time calling everyone else dumb.
With all of your projecting that you've been engaged in, we are getting a very clear picture of exactly what it is about your own life that bothers you the most.
It's a pity you are incapable of introspection, but then again, if you were capable of introspection and self-appraisal you wouldn't be you, would you?
Althouse wrote: As if feminism is nothing but what the Democratic Party needs it to be and believing women depends on whether we like what they are saying.
There's another little phrase feminists were fond of back in the "nekid nineties". What was it, now? Oh, yes... Wake up and smell the coffee!
"You are so dumb. So very very dumb."
This was cut-n-pasted from here:
http://michiganstate.247sports.com/Board/93/Contents/So-25-of-the-Defensive-Scheme-is-changing-36907980?Page=2#M36912224
The ChiComs pay people 50 cents for every comment thread they can derail. I am sure though that Democrats would never stoop so low.
"I have not cut or pasted anything"
Was cut-n-pasted from here:
http://www.fanstory.com/listbookcomments.jsp?storyid=247706
garage mahal wrote: I have not cut or pasted anything, Einstein.
By that he means with safe-to-run-with scissors and edible paste.
“[Hillary] came directly to me[Juanita Broaddrick] as soon as she hit the door. I had been there only a few minutes, I only wanted to make an appearance and leave. She caught me and took my hand and said ‘I am so happy to meet you. I want you to know that we appreciate everything you do for Bill.’ I started to turn away and she held onto my hand and reiterated her phrase — looking less friendly and repeated her statement — ‘Everything you do for Bill’. I said nothing. She wasn’t letting me get away until she made her point. She talked low, the smile faded on the second thank you. I just released her hand from mine and left the gathering.”
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/429405/vox-fairly-explains-rape-allegation-against-bill
That should disqualify her right there.
"LOL Sure garage."
What have I cut and pasted? Where is it? Find the last post where i cut and pasted anything. You'll be looking a long time. That is if your bright enough to figure out how to do that, which I seriously doubt you can.
garage mahal: "Betcha any money..."
LOL
Mike Sylwester said...
"Mac McConnell
If I remember correctly, the courts ordered US Navy interns to examine Clarence Thomas' penis, Thomas was convicted of perjury forfeiting his law licence for a period. Clarence Thomas subsequently settled Anita Hill's lawsuit against him for $850,000.
You do not remember correctly."
You are correct, Thomas was also fined $85,000 in addition to losing his law lic for obstruction of justice.
See Clinton and Thomas nookie harassment were exactly the same.
I have no doubt that Garage Mahal never stops thinking about Bill Clinton's penis. None what so ever.
When it comes to the Clintons truly there is nothing new under the sun.
Everything old is new again. What a sad state of affairs it is that one of the two national parties has been reduced to having this old grifter and serial criminal and her equally scummy husband as the standard bearers for the party. This is the best the Democrats can offer and worse yet at the minimum forty percent of vote will go to her.
I feel the same way about the Clintons as I do about the Skywalker family - they're terrible for the Galaxy. I wish they were far, far away.
Yeah you got it Ann. If it hurts the Clintons it's bad. If it helps the Clintons it's good.
It's like feminists are a piece of tissue, used to wipe up a mess and then thrown away. The Democrat party subsists on deluded feminists who believe that the Dems give one whit about them.
Meanwhile, after the headline writer declares war on the journalists, the photo editor says, "oh yeah? Let's see what kind of Wicked Witch photo of Hildabeast I have in the archives!"
I would have gone with this one.
"And times have changed. We have "a new sensitivity toward victims of unwanted sexual contact." Interesting. I remember when we had "a new sensitivity" in the early 1990s, when male Senators, chided with "You just don't get it," stepped up and took it very seriously. That new sensitivity got lost to a politically opportune insensitivity when Democrats decided it was more important to protect their President. They subordinated feminism to Democratic Party power, and it required a long struggle to get back to a second new sensitivity. And so, once again, the question is whether sensitivity or insensitivity better serves the interests of the Democratic Party."
Bravo.
Garage cannot stop thinking about Bill Clinton's cock and has (sadly for him) never seen it. What can I say?
I am actively heterosexual, but have no issues with homosexuality, as a conservative libertarian. In my sexually active post-divorce life (and my pre-marriage 1970's life) there were many women who impressed me mightily. However, I cannot think of one whose P@@@y is something I cannot stop thinking about.
You have some weird obsessions Garage. But, we know that already!
Hillary! had/has more important things to do than keep Bill satisfied sexually. So Hillary! willingly outsourced the BJs etc.
However, Hillary! made Bill's sex life conform to Hillary! Sex Rules: Bill was not to leave any DNA evidence behind. Consequently the sex Bill was able to partake of was not "sex" as a normal mature adult would imagine it. Sex for Bill had to involve vulnerable easily intimidated powerless women without the resources or know-how to fight back. And sex with Bill would involve cigars, the Oval Office, solicitation by Arkansas State troopers for a quick weird encounter in a hotel room during a work break.....etc. etc.
Hillary and Bill have a marriage even the most ardent feminist would not recognize as a marriage.
Garage cannot stop thinking about Bill Clinton's cock
Hey, very clever internet psychologist! I'm not obsessed about Clinton's cock, YOU are!!!!!
I bet your commentary is still a big hit with the flunkies in the Isthmus comment section.
"Times" had already changed when the Lewinsky scandal broke. Only Prog politics hadn't. Just ask Bob Packwood, "a U.S. politician from Oregon and a member of the Republican Party. He resigned from the United States Senate, under threat of expulsion, in 1995 after allegations of sexual harassment, abuse and assault of women emerged." 1995. Of course, "allegations of sexual harassment, abuse and assault of women" had no bearing on Bill's reelection. Because Dem. Call it the Behar rule: he may be a rapist, but he's her kind of rapist.
garage: "That is if your (sic) bright enough to figure out how to do that,...."
LOL
Just think what garage might be able to accomplish if he would simply stop posting on company time.
He might even have time to take that night course at the local CC that would be the first step to something decent in terms of employment.
Alas.
garage mahal said...
I just can't stop thinking about Bill Clinton's cock, even after 20 years. We never even got to see it!
1/7/16, 1:00 PM
With all the information out there, about everything, and everybody, this sad fact remains. Million upon millions of voters are actually less informed than Garage. And that's a fact.
One serious point. Thinking about the news out of Germany and Austria today.
No good can come when women's rights are handed over to the benefit of one political party. Then women and their bodies become just another interest that needs to be balanced.
As we see in Europe, women and their bodies will be sacrificed for a "greater good".
Women have no one to blame but themselves. They have allowed the most extreme political partisans to hijack feminism. Women must regain control of the agenda and the term feminism.
Hillary vs Trump. This is going to be a painful year watching headlines and then watching the left and the right cry about how the media is trying to drag down their candidate.
I can't find any information on the Internet about Clarence Thomas being fined or losing his law license in connection with the Anita Hill brouhaha.
I can't find any information on the Internet about Clarence Thomas being fined or losing his law license in connection with the Anita Hill brouhaha.
He didn't. The person was sarcastically comparing the outcome of the Thomas lynching to the outcome of the Clinton impeachment.
The Clinton Machine is merely resurrecting the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" distraction from her many very real scandals and incompetence bred failures that threaten her acquisition of power.
Hey, very clever internet psychologist! I'm not obsessed about Clinton's cock, YOU are!!!!!
And yet, you keep mentioning it, when everybody else is talking about rape and sexual harassment.
Joy Behar argued that it is expedient that one man should be allowed to rape for the sake of the progressive policies that he makes into law. But is it just one man? Isn't it a fact that at all progressive colleges there is a rape culture as testified by progressive women? (In fact, there is a rape culture everywhere progressive except among Muslim men assaulting German women at German outdoor festivals. There there is shortage of long-armed German women. Or perhaps a shortage of armed German women.)
What I mean is: when an important man gets to rape because he is progressive, then less important men say that their progressive policies also exempt them from prosecution for rape or at least for stealing from state, city and local government - see Illinois. Pretty soon the "progressive" policies can't be carried out because of extensive theft, kickbacks, deals - which can't be reformed because the people involved are progressive. - see Detroit. Pretty soon "progressive" is sort of political 007 - licensed to rape and steal- see Democratic Party candidate Hillary Clinton and her husband.
Somewhere there is a happy progressive women or a girl, (happy now) who will be the first to be raped by Bill and trashed by Hillary and considered an acceptable sacrifice by Joy Behar if Hillary becomes President. Wonder what she looks like?
If you want reform, even reform of the Democratic Party, vote Republican - only Republicans are held accountable.
With all the information out there, about everything, and everybody, this sad fact remains.
Are you having a sad that after 20 years you still haven't been able to view the Clenis?
Just think what garage might be able to accomplish if he would simply stop posting on company time.
Tip: (not that you can comprehend)
I do not get paid by "the company". Ponder!
Why did they write "The Bill Clinton Scandal Machine"?
Shouldn't that have been "The Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy?"
Anita Hill lied. You could prove that several ways. And what she lied about, had it been true, would not have amounted to much of anything. She was forced into it by previous lies she had told. I started out believing Anuta Hill but then listened to the testimony.
One BIG LIE was the nonsense about staying with Clarenece Thomas because the Department of education might be abolished. Like as if that would have meant everybody would be fired.
traditionalguy said...1/7/16, 2:44 PM
At 65 this poor old Rodham woman had a terrible blood clot from a concussion when she fell. She now suffers post concussion syndrome which slows thinking under stress and requires that she gets lots of rest just to walk back to the car after events.
How does Trump get this info before we hear about it. Rumors are powerful channels.
Ivanka Trump, Donald Trump's daughter, and Chelsea Clinton, Hillary's daughter, are or were close friends. Or one or both of them were fooling the other.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/18/politics/chelsea-clinton-ivanka-trump-2016/
"They have been out together, they have been on a double-date with their husbands," Emily Heil, co-author of The Washington Post's Reliable Source column said. "There's so much that they understand about each other. If there's anyone who understands what Chelsea Clinton has been through it is Ivanka Trump."
Both women also married men of the Jewish faith, with Ivanka converting to Judaism.
On social media they both seem to be president of the other's fan club -- tweeting at each other and posting praise on Facebook.
Earlier this year, Ivanka tweeted a quote of Chelsea Clinton, adding the hashtag "wise words."
Well said, @ChelseaClinton. http://t.co/xTRiAcMHTO #wisewords #quote pic.twitter.com/V48wJp5lWk
— Ivanka Trump (@IvankaTrump) June 4, 2015Chelsea told "Vogue" magazine that there's nothing "skin deep" about Ivanka, that she is always aware of everyone else around her.
See also:
http://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/256525-politics-wont-stop-chelsea-clintons-friendship-with-ivanka
garage: "I do not get paid by "the company". Ponder!"
I'm not surprised to hear it.
Ponder.
"And thus the new sensitivity became the new insensitivity until a new sensitivity seemed like a good idea again and now — once again for the Clintons — it seems to be time once again for a new insensitivity. As if feminism is nothing but what the Democratic Party needs it to be and believing women depends on whether we like what they are saying."
joy behar all but said as much in the view the other day
She'd support Clinton, even if it was proven that he did rape or at least sexually harass women. Because he passes laws that are in her interest.
garage: "Tip: (not that you can comprehend)"
LOL
I don't think you have this "Tip" concept nailed down yet.
Garage doesn't like you saying mean things about the Clintons.
So his intent is to spike the thread by starting a flamewar.
The sad part is that Althouse will allow it and most of you will be "best buds" with him after he's played you. Again.
So, to summarize: the left is really up in arms about the #WarOnWomen but they just love Bill Clinton and islamist refugees.
Ponder.
Garage, when you think about Bill Clinton's cock do you have to change your shorts ? Or do you use Kleenex?
The sad part is that Althouse will allow it and most of you will be "best buds" with him after he's played you. Again.
Althouse allows just about anyone to comment here? Gawd! And you thought this was a safe little winger commenter nest where the host would feed you beak to mouth like a fledgling until you reached adulthood. ohhhh you poor fucking baby!
"I get it"
About time.
..... post concussion syndrome which slows thinking under stress and requires that she gets lots of rest just to walk back to the car after events.
How does Trump get this info before we hear about it. Rumors are powerful channels.-----
And yet Obama is constantly learning about critical national security issues when he reads them in the paper. Compare and discuss.
Do you get it, Althouse?
Do you fucking get it?
Slowest.
Smart.
Learner.
Ever.
I just can't stop thinking about Bill Clinton's cock, even after 20 years. We never even got to see it!
1/7/16, 1:00 PM
Tip
1/7/16, 7:41 PM
Just the tip, "garage mahal"?
@MM: I just thought this should be read twice by people. Very nice summary -- except for the indictment rumor, which I assume is wishful thinking.
Maybe a bit, but the rumor was all over the place last weekend. At least in the more conservative side of the Internet/Blogosphere. The reason why this rumor is so interesting to me is that the FBI Director is one of the few top level bureaucrats whom the President cannot fire, and typically has a ten year term of office (Dir. Comey's term of office expires in 2023). Making things worse for Hillary, the FBI director (Comey) was a US Attorney and Deputy AG under Pres. GW Bush. He has a reputation for being a straight shooter. So, I think that there is a decent chance that if there is sufficient evidence to justify filing charges against Hillary, the FBI is likely to do suggest such. And, I think esp. with the number of classified documents found on her email server now exceeding 1300, I think that it is decently possible that the FBI would recommend her prosecution. We shall see. And, yes, then the hot potato will be within the Obama Administration's responsibility, which means that the AG can use discretion to not file charges against her. But, will they? But, if the evidence is pretty strong, is that wise? Maybe best all around (at least on the Dem side of things) would be for Obama to pardon Hillary before she goes on trial.
Sometimes I think people forget to ask the question "As compared to what."
In looking at the 1992 election, the choice was Bill the Democratic woman abuser (though we didny yet have the full picture), vs. Bush the Republican from the Constitution abusing Iran-Contra Reagan administration that had run up the deficit. Between Bill Clinton and an angel, I would have chosen an angel. Given the choice I had, I chose Clinton, who I am still mad as hell at for how he treated women, and for not resigning over Lewinsky (esp. because I think the scandal cost Gore the electoral vote.) At the same time, he left office with a surplus.
(In a world where the conventional wisdom is that Republicans are more fiscally responsiblr than Democrats, a look look at bedget deficits and economic growth show both are better under Democratic administrations)
Now, we are looking at a likely choice between Hillary Clinton the enabler and often non-friend of women, and Trump, the birther philanderer with multiple bankruptcies who keeps saying things that make it seem like he is grossed out by women, and who is anti immigrant despite having hired Polish illegal laborers to help biild Trump Tower, this avoiding worker protections for dangerous construction labor.
Between her and an angel, I would vote for the angel. Between her and Trump, given that I prefer democratic fiscal responsibility and other policies to begin with, I will vote for her. As compared with him, not as compared with the perfect candidate.
I stopped reading at "Bill's misdoings".
Maybe insensitivity will be necessary if things go the way this article predicts. http://thefederalist.com/2016/01/07/to-take-down-trump-you-must-attack-him-personally/ When things get really, really nasty not caring is the only defense.
Meade wrote: LEAVE BILL CLINTON ALONE. Stop this War on Womenizers.
Womenize... is that anything thing like Simonize? (Wax it, baby. Polish my knob.)
Maybe Seth Green would consider a re-dub.
Secret Service is denying any ability of the media to ask Hillary Clinton any question.
The one important question she WAS asked concerned her accomplishments as Secretary of State. This is the gem we got:
“My accomplishments as Secretary of State? Well, I'm glad you asked! My proudest accomplishment in which I take the most pride, mostly because of the opposition it faced early on, you know… the remnants of prior situations and mindsets that were too narrowly focused in a manner whereby they may have overlooked the bigger picture and we didn’t do that and I’m proud of that. Very proud. I would say that’s a major accomplishment.”
- Hillary Clinton, March 11, 2014
Hillary and Bill won't themselves play the war on women card now. Trump warned them off, and they shut up about it immediately. But the WaPo, NYT, etc will carry the water.
Actually, it looks to me that Trump is not going to leave them alone, regardless of what those two say or not say about him. If sexism is brought up by the Clintons themselves, their surrogates at the NYT, or anyone else prominent enough in the Democrat party to break into the news cycle – Trump will attack.
The surrogates can’t help it – it’s what they do. The Clintons probably wish the NYT wasn’t trying to be so helpful.
garage mahal said...
I just can't stop thinking about Bill Clinton's cock, even after 20 years. We never even got to see it!
1/7/16, 1:00 PM
It's not about Bill Clintons cock.
Ponder.
In case we forget the Washington Post's original reaction to an important news story -- a story that ultimately led to impeachment of a president, here's Howard Kurtz writing (an opinion commentary not a news article)in 1994:
"In the six weeks since Paula Jones, a former Arkansas state employee, publicly charged that Bill Clinton had sexually harassed her when he was governor of Arkansas, conservative critics have questioned why The Washington Post has not published a story on the matter"
Take aim at and so forth are such dead metaphors that there's no galvanic stirring.
Between her and an angel, I would vote for the angel.
You do know that she is still only a candidate in the primary?
Melissa – partisans like you always find a way to justify voting for your team, no matter what.
Just curious – of all the current Republican field, who would you vote for instead of Hillary?
@Mick 5:42
I can't stand her, but she never said that. Slopes it.
(rhhardin) "Take aim at and so forth are such dead metaphors that there's no galvanic stirring."
Galvanic stirring is in the eye (heart? mind?) of the beholder. On this 5th anniversary of G. Gifford's injury, remember that a cross hair on a map is incitement to gun violence.
Love Trumps hate and Hillary is the best the Democrats, the oldest political party in the oldest democracy in the world, can do!
given that I prefer democratic fiscal responsibility
Really?
"When President Bush entered office, 1/20/01, the debt was at $5.7 trillion.
When the Democrats took control of both houses of the Congress on January 3, 2007, the debt was at $8.6 trillion. So in six years, Pres. Bush and the Republican Congress increased the debt by three trillion dollars while dealing with the aftermath of 9/11 and fighting the war on terror. (increased the debt by $500 billion a year)
When President Obama took office on January 20, 2009, the debt was at $10.6 trillion. So in two years President Bush and the Democratic Congress raised the debt another two trillion dollars. (raised the debt by a trillion a year)
In January 2011, when the Republicans took control of the House of Representatives the debt was at $14 trillion. In two years, President Obama and the Democratic Congress raised the debt by three and a half trillion dollars. (raised the debt by $1.75 trillion a year)
So President Bush (even with a Democratic Congress his last two years) left us a debt of $10.6 trillion, and a deficit of $1 trillion a year. The Bush administration added $5 trillion to the debt in eight years.
After two years of President Obama we have a debt of $14 trillion dollars, and a deficit of $1.75 trillion a year. The Obama administration has added $3.5 trillion to the debt in two years."
I wrote that 5 years ago. Today the debt is at $18.9 trillion. So so far, Obama has added $8.3 trillion to the debt in seven years.
The best performance was a Republican president with a Republican Congress. ($500 billion a year)
The next best is a Democratic president with a Republican Congress. (less than a trillion a year)
The third best is a Democratic President with a split Congress (about a trillion a year)
The worst is a Democratic president and a Democratic Congress ( $1.75 trillion a year)
The deficit gets higher the more control the Democrats get.
Melissa, I don't know what world you live in to think democrats are more fiscally responsible than republicans. Which party made up the house and senate under Clinton? Who forced him kicking and screaming, to do some welfare reform and let him take credit for that so-called 'surplus' (really a myth but they were moving in the right direction).
Now, which party's policies forced the banks, under penalty of law, to give loans to people who could not pay them back if the economy tanked? Which party was running Fannie/Freddie, and was handing out obscene bonuses to party cronies/members, lying up until the housing bubble collapsed? Which party labeled Bush a racist when he meekly tried to do something about it before it did? And now under obama, he has racked up more debt than all previous presidents combined. We're nearing 20 trillion in debt and you think your Dear Leader and party is more fiscally responsible.
When it comes to the lesser of two evils, between Hillary and Trump, I'm going with Trump. From what we know, he has not bought and sold influence from foreign governments while serving in the higher echelons of government for his own personal gain. He did not get four Americans killed, including an ambassador, and lied his ass off about it and covered it up. His wife did not cover for him and enable him to assault more women nor attack any women that came forward and complained of any assaults. He did not defend a rapist against a little girl, insinuate the little girl was 'provocative', and then laugh about it when he knew his rapist was guilty as hell. As far as we know, his name was not on the roster to Pedophile Island, either.
There has been no women come forward and accuse him of sexual harassment, rape, or discrimination in the workplace. And he never said he was against immigrants. He talks about 'illegal' immigration but you know that.
But you keep drinking that progressive Kool-aid to justify your voting for a woman who is worse than her pig of a husband and party of fiscal insanity.
Gahrie
I was being sarcastic, all those things did happen to President Clinton, he's a criminal and Mrs. Clinton is a grifter.
Just for the record:
Since 1993:
There have been 7 years with a Democratic president and a Republican congress. The deficit averaged $248 billion during these years. (6 years of Clinton, 1 year of Obama) The only year with no deficit was one of these.
There have been 2 years with a Republican president and a split congress. The deficit averaged $334 billion per year.
There have been 4 years with a Republican president and a Republican congress. The deficit averaged $572 billion a year.
There have been 4 years with a Democratic president and a Democratic congress. The deficit averaged 1.005 trillion a year.
There have been 2 years with a Republican president and a Democratic congress. The deficit averaged 1.010 trillion a year.
It is clear that the congress has more effect on the budget than the president (duh) and that Democratic congresses spend more than Republican congresses. (duh)
One year of Obama with a Republican congress was almost equal to six years of Clinton with a Republican congress. The only trillion dollar deficits in our history all occurred under the Pelosi/Reid regime.
Under Obama we have rolled up almost twice as much debt as we had during our country's whole history except for him and Bush. (Bush rolled up as much debt as we had in our entire history before him)
Bush was bad, but Obama has been nearly (and will probably wind up as after his last year) twice as bad as Bush.
The worst thing about Hillary is that she was behind the many efforts to squash the women's voices who came out. She ran the whole Bimbo eruption scene for years = there is a lot of evidence about this.
There are so many sources and books written already that back this up - she will NEVER win because there is a sordid trail of her involvement.
Joe Biden will come in late when Hillary's Palace Guard media finally realizes what an uphill battle it will be to defend her own private and dishonorable "War on Women"
Hillary will NOT be the Dem candidate - that's for sure.
Well that's a start .....however......you still voted for him twice, and no one would be surprised if you voted for Hillary also.
Our hostess may or may not vote for a Democrat this time around but she voted for Romney in the last presidential election. Assumptions can be tricky.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा