A month out from the November election, the last place you expect to find a former President is in the middle of blue territory in a reliably blue state. But former President Bill Clinton’s visit to UC Davis was more about four Congressional races than about the Presidency.
A huge crowd estimated loosely by officials to be 8,000 to 12,000 and, given the gaps in the configuration, the lower estimate is likely more accurate, packed in to watch the former President who last appeared at the ARC in 2008 – a venue that ended up with 5000 angry people on the outside looking in.
“It is really good to be back,” the former President said in greeting the crowd. “I love this campus, I love it every time I come.”
“I want to do something that is rather atypical of political rallies. Something rather different from that last debate,” he said. “Let’s go back to facts. The folks that run debates are called moderators and they’re supposed to ring a bell or something if somebody says something that wasn’t so.”
“The bell never rang, so we’re going to ring the bell today,” he said.
The former President was there to help the four congressional candidates.
He told the crowd, “You look at these guys, you see what America is about. We have standing, four people who believe for very different reasons that a country of ‘we’re all in this together’ works way better than a country of ‘you’re on your own.’ “
He added, “And a country of shared prosperity, a growing middle class, where poor people have a dignified honorable chance to work their way into it is way better than trickle down.”
“A government that focuses on the future rather than giving away everything to the rich and the powerful works better.”
Local Congressman John Garamendi finds himself in a tough battle with Kim Vann, but perhaps this was more about Congressman Jerry McNerney, and challengers Ami Bera and former-astronaut-turned-Congressional Candidate Jose Hernandez.
President Clinton spoke glowingly of Congressman Garamendi who worked in the Clinton administration as a Deputy Secretary of the Interior, working to protect the environment.
“John Garamendi has been a leader in the Congress of trying to bring manufacturing jobs back to America,” the President said. “He knows there is no great manufacturing country on the face of the earth where the government and the private sector don’t work together.”
Jose Hernandez had a particularly compelling story. Growing up as a farm worker, he tried 12 times to become an astronaut before making it. He is now running in a conservative congressional district in the heart of the San Joaquin Valley against former State Senator Jeff Denham.
“When Mr. Romney talks about how dependent we all are, we Democrats don’t believe in self-reliance, he [Jose Hernandez] tried not once, not twice, but twelve times until he was finally accepted as an Astronaut and went into space at the Space Station for us,” he said. “That is a long way from a migrant farm worker.”
“We don’t need directions on self-reliance,” he added. “What we need is a road map to a brighter future.”
Then you have Ami Bera, who was narrowly defeated by Congressman and former Attorney General Dan Lungren in one of the narrowest contests in the Republican-dominated 2010 election.
President Clinton called Ami Bera, “a product of the American Dream,” from an immigrant family, who got into medicine to help people, volunteering for seventeen years at free student-run clinics.
As Chief Medical Officer in Sacramento County, President Clinton said Dr. Bera is a “man who believes that poor people deserve the same healthcare that the rest of us get. And believes that many people need health care so medical professionals ought to worry about giving it to them instead of trying to control women’s choices.”
The President noted, “The United States ranks first or second in surveys in the capacity to produce electricity from the sun and the wind.”
“Want to know the big difference between the two candidates? Barack Obama and the Congress supporting him have done more to take us from the back of the pack to the front of the pack in approaching solar and wind energy than any administration in history,” President Clinton said. “His opponent says we have to get rid of those tax credits for wind. We have to get rid of those tax subsidies…”
The President then moved on to more general topics.
He said, “You know sometimes I think the most popular line in my speech at the convention was arithmetic. Arithmetic does help to clear things up.”
The President said that despite the roadblocks that President Obama faced, to his jobs bills and other initiatives to improve the economy, “since the beginning of 2010… the private economy has produced 5.3 million jobs. That is twice as many as were produced in the seven years of the Bush administration after the first recession in 2001 and before the crash – we won’t count the crash against him. Even if we don’t, Obama wins two to one.”
“Why are we talking about going back to what didn’t work in a different package?” he asked.
The President noted that Mitt Romney touted Massachusetts’ great educational system. He said, “I thought, I was Governor of Arkansas and we were the number one rice producer in America, but I didn’t have anything to do with it.”
President Clinton also hammered Mitt Romney on his tax plan that he claimed was not a $5 trillion tax cut.
“Let me be fair here,” the President said. “What he really said was we’re going to start by cutting everybody’s taxes by 20 percent, but don’t worry I’ll make it up by repealing deductions.”
“The problem is, everybody who knows anything about the arithmetic says if you’re income is high enough, you can take all the deductions away and you still get a big tax cut,” he said. “So we’re going to dig the debt hole deeper before we start pulling our way out of it.”
“That was obscured in that debate,” he said.
President Clinton noted that when the unemployment rate finally dipped below 8%, “I swear I’d never seen so many long faces in my life.”
He spoke of Jack Welsh, the former CEO of General Electric and his comment that the Obama Administration cooked the numbers.
“The interesting thing was, when the unemployment rate was above 8% every month when it came out, the same Republicans said this is right up there with the commandments Moses brought down from Sinai. This is enshrined in stone and perfectly accurate and shows how terrible, terrible, terrible, our president is,” he said. “But oh when it falls below eight percent it is a colossal problem.”
“I sympathize with the Republicans because they worked real hard on their number one priority which is to keep unemployment about eight percent,” he continued. “It’s disappointing when you work hard for three years and you almost get to the finish line and poof, it turns out the American people are so good… and all these other things are working so well, you just can’t quite get it done and in spite of your finest efforts… in spite of all of it, it still went down below eight percent.”
President Clinton’s visit coincides with a surge in the polls by challenger Mitt Romney, following the President’s seemingly poor performance in the debate last week.
These numbers show a virtual dead heat now, despite better economic news and a concerted push back by the Obama Campaign to highlight the points that he did not combat forcefully last week.
On Thursday, the Vice Presidential candidates will clash and there are two more Presidential debates in what is now considered by many an up-for-grabs Presidential election.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Ami Berri?? Ami Berra?? Dr Berra? But u spelled Lungren right.
With the re-emergence of Bill Clinton on the public scene, Monica Lewinsky has secured a deal for her tell-all book. Excerpts from this book indicate that Mr. Clinton’s image will be quite tarnished. Ms. Clinton too. Ms. Lewinsky will be very pleased that Clinton’s popularity is still strong.
Now Jeff, there’s a book about a Democrat that I might actually purchase. It might be interesting reading to learn how much of a pig Clinton acted like during his presidency.
Rusty, I still think it is probable that Hillary was complicit in allowing Bill to chase around the interns. Ms. Lewinsky thinks it to be the case. The problem was Bill’s baldfaced lie on national TV. It amazes me that he is so popular having this stain on his image. The left is apparently very forgiving on their own.
“Monica Lewinsky has secured a deal for her tell-all book.”
Who is Monica Lewinsky?
[i]Who is Monica Lewinsky?[/i]
The intern working for the Clinton Administration that was the subject of Bill’s famous baldfaced lie on TV…
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiIP_KDQmXs[/url]
Now watch this… about the 56 minute mark…
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpCv-UT2yCU&feature=related[/url]
i think he was being sarcastic
Jeff:
“It amazes me that he is so popular having this “stain” on his image.”
LOL Jeff, I love your choice of words. You know whatever she writes the koolaid drinkers are going to call her a liar. Well, the way it all shook out Billy was actually the one who lied because the “stain” doesn’t lie.
[i]i think he was being sarcastic[/i]
Are you sure? He is pretty young you know.
Even if it was sarcasm, he needs to be reminded apparently.
yes i actually worked in dc that year.
my point was – that’s most people’s reaction to lewinsky at this point.
David:
“my point was – that’s most people’s reaction to lewinsky at this point.”
I think Miss Lewinsky will be revived and very well known soon when her revelations about the Clintons are out there for all to see.
I’m sure her book will be a best-seller, and I’m sure it won’t make the slightest difference in the sky-high approval ratings enjoyed by both Clintons.
[i]I’m sure it won’t make the slightest difference in the sky-high approval ratings enjoyed by both Clintons.[/i]
Their sky-high approval ratings are a product of poor and/or selective memory and the relative disatisfaction with the current Democrats in office.
I don’t have too big of a problem with Clinton except for his giant, in-our-face, lie. He is a communitarian which appealed to me at one time. I initially was going to vote for him over anger at Bush Senior raising taxes, but then Ross Perot became the better choice for this fiscal conservative.
I think the lie was one of the most damaging things done to America by any sitting President. It was for an act that many people could relate to… infidelity. However, the main message was that it was okay to lie… and that it should be done directly, forcefully and with great passion. And after the lie, if you get caught, you can just apologize and move on.
I wonder if Bernie Madoff got his ideas watching Clinton.
Jeff Boone: “[i]The problem was Bill’s baldfaced lie on national TV. It amazes me that he is so popular having this stain on his image. [b]The left[/b] is apparently very forgiving on their own.”[/i]
Help me out here Jeff, wasn’t there a foreign policy expert of the Republican persuasion who ran into a few difficulties earlier in his career while President? Would that not suggest to you that excessive forgiveness may not be an exclusive problem of ‘the left?’
[b]Jeff: It’s Harmless Clinton-speak[/b]
When it comes to “known and proven liars” [url]http://www.chris-floyd.com/component/content/article/1-latest-news/2286-debatable-matters-firelight-frost-and-the-dark-end-of-the-street.html[/url] … aka the Fallacy of the False Dichotomy, the Mouthpieces, Empty Suits and Useful Idiots of the tired, phony, left/right dialectic used as social control in the U.S political Kabuki Theater…
It all depends on what your definition of “is” is…
Jeff Boone: “[i]I think the lie was one of the most damaging things done to America by any sitting President.[/i]”
Really? More damaging than starting two unnecessary wars? How many Americans died from Bill’s truthiness issues? Give me a break.
Mark: [i]Would that not suggest to you that excessive forgiveness may not be an exclusive problem of ‘the left?'[/i]
Honestly, objectively, stepping out of my conservative bias to look back in… at least the best I can…
I think, on average, people owning stronger left-leaning political viewpoints are more forgiving of the behavior of people demonstrating their same viewpoints, and of people fitting into some protected group.
Conversely, I think people with right-leaning viewpoints will more likely turn on anyone over behavior… and not accept any excuse related to group affiliation.
The main reason Clinton won in 1992 was because voters like me were disgusted with Bush Senior’s broken promise to not raise taxes and we jumped ship to vote for Perot. Bush was riding 80% approval ratings after the Gulf war. It really didn’t take much for his supporters to turn on him… just one clear broken promise.
The Clinton lie was unique in how relatable, definitive and undeniable it was. The morality of his infidelity wasn’t so much an issue with conservatives (aside from the minority of bible-thumpers); it was the lie. And then the simple statement that he was sorry. It was a defining moment of Clinton character. It was a leadership teaching moment that sent a terrible message to a nation previously demanding the highest personal integrity from people in leadership positions.
I could be wrong, but if W had done anything similar, Kerry would easily won the election and W would not be very popular with his current fans.
I think it has been said that more Democrats than Republicans tend to fall in love with their candidates and politicians. For many Democrats, I think this is even to the point of failing to recognize when they are in an abusive relationship and need to get out.
[i]Really? More damaging than starting two unnecessary wars? How many Americans died from Bill’s truthiness issues? Give me a break. [/i]
Well Mark, in terms of damage, I think it is clear that our individual and collective American moral compass has sunk below the toilet. My problem as a conservative and free market capitalist is that the principles require strong individual morality and these have been eroded. When a President lies it is amplified millions of times as being a form of acceptable behavior. The message was “if I can get away with it, then the lie is ok.” Then look what happened in our mortgage business and Wall Street. How much damage did we suffer primarily from a lack of moral compass?
The thing with Clinton… this was just a selfish lie. There was nothing about that we could justify as “bending the truth” toward a policy conviction. If Bush lied about what he knew about Iraq (and I think it is clear by now that he did think Saddam was a threat to the US), it was at least for a conviction of leadership. In Clinton’s case it was a lie to protect him from bad behavior only for his personal pleasure. And the damage done was the lie… and the way he delivered the lie… and the way he followed up on the lie.
“I am not a crook.”
Ring a bell Jeff? You apparently have a very selective memory.
Clinton’s “lie” was only an issue for Republicans in congress who couldn’t stand to see him be successful. You are right it was not a moral issue, it was pure political theater with the sole purpose of putting a Republican in the White House. The electorate simply doesn’t care about the Presidents sex life and it would not have been an issue if not for the Rights ‘moral indignation’ hogwash.
Now Bush’s lies were truly whoppers with serious consequences, but you and the rest of the radical Right have been quite quick to ‘forgive and forget.’
Jeff Boone: “[i]Bush was riding 80% approval ratings after the Gulf war. It really didn’t take much for his supporters to turn on him… just one clear broken promise.[/i]”
I have never understood why Republicans turned on Bush Sr. for being fiscally responsible and raising taxes when needed. The amazing thing is that he didn’t do anything different than Reagan in that regard, yet you all tore him to pieces. That resulted in the empowerment of Grover Norquist and his ‘no taxes’ crowd, leading to the current idolization of Paul Ryan and his band of ‘no on everything’ clowns. Talk about shooting yourselves in the foot.
Mark, Nixon resigned. He had no support from his base.
Clinton’s lie was a BIG moral issue unless you do not have a problem with President lies.
I agree that the electorate does not care about a President’s sex life. But we very much should care about honesty. Are you saying that it is okay for a President to go on national TV and point his finger at the lens and say “I did not have sex with that woman Ms. Lewinsky.”, when he had sex with her several times based on the excerpts I have read from her book?
[i]”I have never understood why Republicans turned on Bush Sr. for being fiscally responsible and raising taxes when needed.”[/i]
Let me help here. Because he lied. He made a campaign commitment and then he did the opposite. Contrast that to Obama that has broken hundreds of campaign commitments but he is still loved by and supported by his base.
Jeff: Which was the bigger lie? I didn’t have sex or there are WMDs in Iraq? Selective outrage is what I am hearing from you. I think the issues are more important because I frankly expect the President not to tell the complete truth as that is a critical part of the job. Your outrage is silly and misdirected.
Nixon resigned, and then was resurrected by the Right as a Foreign Policy Expert, or did you forget that. Reagan lied about Iran Contra or did you forget that? Bush Sr. did the responsible thing and you tore him to shreds. What a foolish choice, of course that meant that Clinton was elected and we had eight years of prosperity so I’m not complaining. Bush Jr. lied throughout both terms and brought the County to near ruin but you think he was the second coming. Now you want us to elect the biggest liar of them all. What exactly is it again that Republican’s stand for? Honesty right?
Romney: taxes, deficit, health insurance, abortion — he’s switched positions so many times I bet you couldn’t tell me his current stance on any of them. When someone literally takes directly contradictory positions on a specific issue, is that lying?
Clinton and Bush Sr. were fiscally far more responsible than Reagan or Bush Jr. Both had much more successful and considered foreign policies. Their lies were trivial compared to Iran-Contra or lying us into a war. The notion that Clinton’s lie was impeachable was laughable, but nearly paralyzed our government.
[i]Which was the bigger lie? I didn’t have sex or there are WMDs in Iraq?[/i]
[quote]Lie: “To lie is to deliver a false statement to another person which the speaking person knows is not the whole truth, intentionally.[/quote]
So we are back to that left chant “Bush lied, people died”.
Bush did NOT lie. The Bush Administration was wrong. The CIA was wrong. The French and the British were wrong. Or, else they were all correct but the weapons moved to Iran or Syria before the US military could locate them.
Clinton lied. No question about that.
Regardless… Bush was trying to keep the country safe.
Clinton was trying to keep himself in pleasure and power.
I don’t understand how anyone can draw any moral or ethical equivalency to these two things.
The following people made prominent public statements about weapons of mass destruction that were found to be untrue.
George W. Bush
Donald Rumsfield
Dick Cheney
Ari Fleischer
Colin Powell
Some were misled, most likely including Colin Powell. But a statement of this sort from Dick Cheney is a lie:
“Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.”
There was not merely doubt, there was no evidence of it. Cheney participated in the promulgation of that lie at several levels, including the clearly impeachable offense of outing a covert CIA officer.
When George W. Bush said [i]”Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.”[/i] — you cannot make a statement of such certitude without evidence. He had no evidence. Is that a lie?
When Ari Fleischer says “[i]We know for a fact that there are weapons there”[/i] and they don’t know it for a fact, is that a lie?
When the president says in his State of the Union address that there are [i]”25,000 liters of anthrax … 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin … materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent … upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents … several mobile biological weapons labs … thousands of Iraqi security personnel … at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors.”[/i] — isn’t that a level of specificity that indicates some evidence? If you don’t have that evidence, and you say it anyway, is that a lie?
In short, when the entire administration is complicit in offering and perpetuating untruths in the furtherance of starting an unnecessary war that cost thousands of American dead, tens of thousands of Iraqis dead, tens of thousands of more of both countries maimed for life, and a trillion dollars from our treasury (off book, of course), you’re right: I also “[i]don’t understand how anyone can draw any moral or ethical equivalency to these two things.”[/i]
Re: Jeff Boone’s comment
“The Clinton lie was unique in how relatable, definitive and undeniable it was. The morality of his infidelity wasn’t so much an issue with conservatives (aside from the minority of bible-thumpers); it was the lie. And then the simple statement that he was sorry. It was a defining moment of Clinton character. It was a leadership teaching moment that sent a terrible message to a nation previously demanding the highest personal integrity from people in leadership positions.”
In many societies thruout history, lies by married people about their infidelities (or ‘indiscretions’ as they were typically called in the good old days), when asked by a member of the public such as a report, were considered to be a familial duty; these were considered “honorable” lies in order to preserve the dignity of the family, particularly of the spouse who was cheated on. Why an honorable lie? Mainly because sexual indiscretions are not the business of the public to know about; frankly they are nobody’s business but the married couple; thus it is not appropriate in most circumstances to ask a married person about his/her fidelity to spouse.
The true disgrace in the Clinton case was the scumbag prosecutor (may his name and memory be forgotton for all time) who insisted on asking these and many other personal questions. After relentlessly hounding Clinton for month upon month and trying to find some dirt on him; the only thing he was able to come up with was Clinton lying during the investigation about a sexual affair that was nobody’s business outside the marriage & Monica. Remember, a sexual affair itself is not a crime; and as far as I’m concerned the scumbag prosecutor had no business asking Clinton about details of his sexual life; even though it is technically perjury I am inclined to consider Clinton’s lie about his sexual affair an honorable lie under the circumstances; to save his family (not just himself) from embarassment and humiliation.
Just to clarify; I am not a liberal, not a democrat, and not a Clinton supporter.
But in my view what the prosecutor did was far worse than anything Clinton said or did.
So Don, Did Obama and his Administration lie about Benghazi? (Ask Lara Logan.)
And, if so, what would the possible motives might explain their lie?
And next, let’s assume that Bush and his administration lied about their concern about WMDs.
What possible motives might explain their lie?
Let me help you here.
Obama’s motivation is to make sure he gets re-elected on one of the only accomplishments that he can claim… keeping the US safe from terrorist attacks. He is so motivated to keep his power, that he was willing to trash away our First Amendment rights.
Bush’s motivation was to keep us safe after 9-11 proved we were vulnerable.
Jeff
With regard to your statement the those on the left tend to be more biased in their acceptance of unethical behavior of those with similar beliefs,,,,,,are you joking. What about the acceptance of Dole who also cheated on his first w I’ve, or Gingrich who was busy doing the same thing while criticizing Clinton. I certainly didn’t see any right wing rush to repudiate these men.
And for those who believe that it is the lie that matters and not the infidelity, you have to look no further than the current Republican presidential candidate who can hardly speak without lying ! Where is the right wing outrage over his difficulties with telling the truth ? Or are we truly to believe that he believes the endless stream of contradictions he voices ?
“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.
That is our bottom line.”
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear.
We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
“Iraq is a long way from USA but, what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.”
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
“We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.Constitution and Laws, to take necessary actions, (including, if appropriate,
air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction
programs.”
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998
“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
“Hussein has .. chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
I am shocked and appalled that any career politician would be less than 100% honest and forthright!! The horror of it all, the horror of it all. After all we all know that politicians are the role models that virtually every person in the country models their behavior after.
J.R.: Clinton and Albright didn’t take us to war. Those statements you posted were, in fact, true. The ones I posted were not. Clinton and Albright pursued a policy of containment against Saddam Hussein, using no-fly zones and sanctions, on the basis of his prior behavior. Bush and his administration stated as a certain fact that Hussein was in possession of specific weapons of mass destruction. Those statements were lies.
Do you understand the difference? Have you read the whole history of how we were deceived into going to war with Iraq?
Clinton would have asked his minions to show him the proof. Evidently, to be charitable, George W. Bush didn’t.
We don’t know yet if anyone lied about Benghazi.
[i]And next, let’s assume that Bush and his administration lied about their concern about WMDs.
What possible motives might explain their lie? [/i]
The desire to take us to war against Iraq was to “keep us safe”? Against what? Some of the more conspicuous lies, repeated by our vice president on more than one occasion, had to do with the connection between Iraq and terrorists.
So let me understand this. Your code of ethics is that it is ok for the president and his top administration officials to lie, repeatedly, in furtherance of specific policies, so long as you think those policies are noble? But you are indignant about a president lying about sex?
And next, let’s assume that Bush and his administration lied about their concern about WMDs.
What possible motives might explain their lie?
They went into office with Iraq on their minds…unfinished business. 9/11 was just the pretense. The whole affair was one big F***ing lie. If you won’t see that there is no hope for you.
[quote]Mark, Nixon resigned. He had no support from his base. [/quote]Yeah,,, he not only lied, bur he sought to corrupt government… he WAS IMPEACHED, and he knew he would be convicted… Hell, Ford had to pardon him!.. Presidents who were guilty of moral failures…. Clinton, Nixon, Kennedy, Eisenhower, FDR, Harding (Republican who dies of a sexually transmitted disease, in SF)… however, many of these men will stand the test of time for what they did for the country, rather than the betrayal of their marriage vows. Harding and Nixon would be the exceptions… both republicans, as I recall. I’ll say Nixon’s moral failures appear to be unrelated to the bedroom. Suspect he was impotent, but probably an innocent man in that regard. Pat Nixon was a hero. Not so her republican husband.
BTW two other presidents were impeached… one resigned before he was tried by the Senate, the other two were tried and NOT CONVICTED. The only one who chickened out was a Republican.
[i]They went into office with Iraq on their minds…unfinished business. 9/11 was just the pretense. The whole affair was one big F***ing lie. If you won’t see that there is no hope for you.[/i]
I’m hopeless then. If you think deeply about this you are saying that Bush and his entire Administration would send soldiers to die just to… what? To “finish business”? Wow Mark, that is beyond any accusation that I would make about any President past or present. I might think Obama has socialist leanings from his upbringing, but I would never accuse him, or any other President, of sending soldiers to die for selfish reasons.
I frankly do not think you and others think this through full circle. Or else you are filled with such dislike for W and his Administration that your anger is getting the best of some common sense. Because what you are implying is that Bush sent soldiers to die just to avenge his daddy. That is crazy conspiracy stuff, don’t you think?
You are not the first very intelligent person that I have tangled with on this. But, honestly I continue to be flabbergasted about the argument. The requirements for evidence on this should be very, very, very high. You would need undisputed proof… a smoking gun. Because it would be evidence of evil. It would mean that Bush, the president was the worst type of human on the planet… someone that would send young men and women to their death just to cement a legacy for him and his father. Do you understand the implications of that claim? It is one of the worst things you could say about a human.
The problem you and others have… it does not add up. There is nothing in the man that would justify and back this claim. This is a man that loves his country and loves soldiers next to God and family. He is that antithesis of the type of person that would do what you claim. Come on now… pick up on the queues of human behavior. Saddam Hussein = bad guy. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad = bad guy. George W Bush = good guy.
The simple fact that seems to elude my smart left-leaning friends is that Bush and the Bush Administration made a risk-averse mistake in judgment as to the level of threat Saddam Hussein was to the US. 80% of Congress supported this. 80% of the American people supported this. Other nations thought he had WMDs. The CIA thought he had WMDs. We know that the CIA wasn’t functioning very well at the time.
Now we have a bunch of arm-chair quarterbacks making these fantastic claims that 9-11 was an inside job, and Bush sent soldiers to die for a Bush legacy. It is despicable all right, but I think it is those making those claims that are despicable. Either that or they are poor judges of human character. Or, their political emotions are getting the best of their objectivity.
If you truly believe this than I think there is no hope for you (on this topic… otherwise there is plenty of hope).
Why has the conversation turned to Bush, Reagan and Nixon. I thought it was the lying scumbag Clinton that spoke at UCD yesterday.
[i]With regard to your statement the those on the left tend to be more biased in their acceptance of unethical behavior of those with similar beliefs,,,,,,are you joking. What about the acceptance of Dole who also cheated on his first w I’ve, or Gingrich who was busy doing the same thing while criticizing Clinton. I certainly didn’t see any right wing rush to repudiate these men.[/i]
Medwoman: go back and read again what I wrote. I said that the conservative disgust for Clinton had very little to do with his sexual escapades. Frankly, and this is hard for me to admit, much of my conservative friends were actually a bit more impressed with Clinton being human. It was pretty clear that he and Hillary were not real affectionate around each other. It was the lie that set them off. Here is the President of the US making the US look like crap having a President that would go on TV and tell the world that he did not do something he clearly did… several times according to Ms. Lewinsky. Let me ask you this… how would you feel about a husband that cheated and then lied about it when confronted? Now, just move from husband to President and the effect is amplified by millions.
[i]And for those who believe that it is the lie that matters and not the infidelity, you have to look no further than the current Republican presidential candidate who can hardly speak without lying ! Where is the right wing outrage over his difficulties with telling the truth ? Or are we truly to believe that he believes the endless stream of contradictions he voices ?[/i]
You are just spouting MSNBC and Obama campaign talking points here. It is unprecedented that a sitting President would claim his opponent is lying. The Obama campaign – the one supporting that President that made one commitment after another that he failed to deliver on, and flips and flops like a carp out of water – is pathetic, desperate and losing. Biden is going to be funny to listen to tomorrow. Apparently though, the entire Obama Presidency is resting on his debate performance tomorrow. Again… desperate.
It is a crack up. Romney moves to the center on his platform, and the lib-Dems start screaming he is lying. What exactly is it that lib-Dems want? Never mind… it is clear that where the real political polarization is coming from. I think more and more center-left folk are going to start migrating to Romney starting to realize exactly this point… that the left is rabid and out of control. They don’t want compromise even as the claim the GOP does not. What they want is an American transformed to match their desire model of European socialism. That does not appeal to the majority of Americans. They only need to wake up that this is exactly what Obama represents and it is over.
[i]Why has the conversation turned to Bush, Reagan and Nixon. I thought it was the lying scumbag Clinton that spoke at UCD yesterday.[/i]
LOL! Rusty I seem to buy ink by the truckload and still cannot say it as well as you…
Jeff LOL, I wish I had your wits and writing skills. I tend to be a man of few words, just ask my wife.
Let’s try this again, Jeff.
What is Romney’s position on abortion?
On health insurance reform? On the individual mandate?
On raising taxes? On cutting taxes?
On cutting the deficit?
What were his positions on those things yesterday?
What will they be tomorrow?
He hasn’t “moved to the center.” He has misrepresented his previous positions. He has, to be blunt about it, lied. Repeatedly. On public television, in front of millions of people. This is the most dishonest presidential candidate we’ve had in years.
Any suggestion that Obama “flips and flops” compared to Romney is absurd.
I still give you odds right now: Obama at 300 EC votes on Nov. 6.
George W. Bush was talked into going to war with Iraq to further long-standing geopolitical goals of a specific set of advisers, men who were largely clustered around Dick Cheney. A permanent military presence in the Middle East has been one of their goals since the early 1990’s. They tried to maintain that presence in the waning years of the Bush administration, but they had lost their clout. Unfortunately, they are among Romney’s prominent foreign policy advisers.
“What exactly is it that lib-Dems want?”
Acknowledge that George W. Bush was the worst president of modern history. His fiscal policies were a disaster. His foreign policy was an unbelievably costly disaster. The legacy of his mistakes will take considerable time to correct.
It took the combined efforts of George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton to get the US back on a reasonable fiscal path after the disastrous fiscal policies of Ronald Reagan. It took 12 years, but we got to a surplus. It took modest tax increases, and prudent reductions in the growth of federal spending. Acknowledge that it is likely to take a similar amount of time — 10- 12 years or so — to undo the disastrous fiscal policies of the Bush years as well as pay for the economic recovery acts passed in the last year of Bush’s administration and the first year of Obama’s.
Stop trying to shut down the government when you don’t get your way. Accept that it is going to take compromise to deal with this long-term fiscal issue. Accept modest tax increases coupled with reductions in spending, even if at a 4:1 ratio of cuts to taxes. Stop holding America’s credit rating hostage to intractable demands about taxes. Accept your party’s responsibility for part of the debt, and accept that political solutions require settling for less-than-perfect legislation.
In other words: throw off the Tea Party and act like grownups again. That’s what we want.
With respect to motives for the war in Iraq, Wikipedia has a good overview in their article about Richard Perle.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Perle#War_with_Iraq[/url] Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith, John Bolton, and others had been advocating for regime change in Iraq for years before 9/11.
[i]”What is Romney’s position on abortion?”[/i]
I don’t care. The issue is media and extreme left twaddle. Roe v Wade exists and states can do what they want. Women will be fine. We have much bigger things to worry about.
[i]”On health insurance reform?[/i]
A little specific here aren’t you? You mean on health care reform? He has been clear that he supports states coming up with their own plans… including their right to implement an individual mandate. He supports greater insurance competition. He supports tort reform. He supports Medicare. He supports eliminating the problems with pre-existing conditions for people that maintain their health insurance. This is logical because requiring insurance companies to cover those without insurance means that a boatload of people would just wait until their liver starts to fail from drinking too much and then go buy their insurance. Having states implement their own healthcare reform will be a way for 50 models to be tested so there are more great ideas and the best models will thrive and be adopted by the rest of the states. He does NOT support more Federal government control and take-over of the healthcare industry. Neither do I.
[i]On raising taxes? On cutting taxes?[/i]
He has been clear that he wants to keep tax revenue neutral and simplify the tax code by reducing the base income, corporate and capital gains rates, and eliminating certain deductions. But he has also been clear that he does not support tax cuts for the wealthy. He also has been clear that he does not support tax cuts that add to the deficit. Frankly, Romney is just a stepping toward a flatter tax. He saw the appeal of 9-9-9 even though Cain was not that good at explaining how it could work. I support a flat tax. The complexity of our system of taxation means no transparency from politicians mining looting more dollars from producers’ pockets to buy votes with. He does not provide specifics because there are a lot of stakeholders for picking deductions. It will require a collaborative effort. He has a track record of working with Dem legislators. Obama does not have any record working with GOP legislators. He just pokes at them and then complains when they won’t come over and play with him.
[i]”On cutting the deficit?”[/i]
Grow the economy. Not trickle-down government.
Romney’s positions have not shifted. It is just that the liberal media and the Obama campaign was throwing crap out there about him that wasn’t accurate.
You know that everything you said above is completely contradicted by Romney himself in his public statements, and that I could find them for you? His own words?
The only reason you support this guy is that he’s not Obama.
Just today he was criticizing Obama for not supporting the Wyden-Bennett health bill, which contained a federal individual mandate. So does he support an individual mandate at the federal level? Or not? You don’t know, because he has said directly contradictory things about it. So are you sure he is against the mandate? Because just yesterday he criticized the president for not supporting a plan that had the individual mandate.
[i]He supports eliminating the problems with pre-existing conditions for people that maintain their health insurance. This is logical …[/i]
It’s only logical if you don’t care how many people you leave uninsured. As in millions. Plus, he’s said various things about this. Sometimes he forgets to add the ‘for people who maintain their health insurance’ part, as if he really supports the provision in the Affordable Care Act that is so popular about pre-existing conditions.
HIs positions on abortion have changed even within the last 48 hours.
Important note: three justices would overturn Roe v Wade right now. The next president will very likely appoint more justices.
[i]He also has been clear that he does not support tax cuts that add to the deficit.[/i]
Except that the tax cuts he has repeatedly proposed for months and months and months would add to the deficit. Nobody, [i]nobody,[/i] believes him that they would be revenue-neutral. You certainly can’t believe he’s got $5 trillion in loopholes to eliminate? That the economy will magically grow enough to cover that? He can’t possibly believe it himself. But of course, he won’t specify the deductions and ‘loopholes’ he’d eliminate that would somehow magically make them revenue-neutral.
Let’s see. The last president who promised us that the economy would outgrow the deficit was Ronald Reagan. It took us the next 3 presidential terms to clean up that mess.
You think he wants a flat tax? Has he said so? What makes you believe this new idea that he has never mentioned or campaigned on? Is this just a hunch of yours?
His numbers don’t add up. And he’s a liar.
Don, later today I will post a long list of things Obama has said and supported and now says and does the exact opposite. Talk about liar. Clinton too. Talk about liar. Reagan too. Talk about liar. All politicians are liars by your definitions.
With all due respect, I think you are getting your shorts in a bunch and heading down the wrong path for political dialog. Frankly, that is what you the left and the liberal media is doing.
Ya’ll should dialog on the ideas and the ideology and not continue this silly exercise of holding the other guy to some higher standard than your Teflon messiah. It really looks desperate and petty from the other perspective.
Romney, like any President, is allowed to offer plans that don’t include accounting down to a detail he would not control. The idea of lowing general tax rates and cutting loopholes is a valid tax strategy. It is moving us to a flatter and similar tax. That approach is supported by most people that pay taxes. It is supported by business. Of course people are going to squirm and complain when they see certain favored deductions proposed to be eliminated. It would be stupid to get into that level of detail… you know you would just start flailing away on that too!
If we want to address the “liar” label, look at the left. It does not matter what GOP candidate we get, or what he or she says or does. The left is unhinged and half nuts. It will say anything to stay in power. But, give them credit as they are consistent in their approach of character assassination of the other side instead of debating any ideas on merit. Unfortunately, it comes off really, really bad. It is the main source of political polarization in this country.
The Democrats have been in control, and are in control of a lot of the country. But, it is almost like they have devolved to something much different than the grant old Democratic Party… they have lost the self-assurance they need to govern. They are insecure and lashing out at anything thing that threatens them, instead of leading on their ideas and their records of accomplishment.
All Romney has to do is to keep agitating the left so the voters see how they respond.
On Obama “lies” (as defined by the new low political benchmark of civil discourse established by Paul Krugman and embodied by the Ivy League Chicago Thug Obama campaign team):
[quote]Barack Obama says “millionaires” should pay more taxes, when all his proposed tax increases clearly start at individual incomes of $200,000.
Benghazi violence was caused by an internet video & demonstrations
Under Gov. Romney’s definition … Donald Trump is a small business
Romney and Ryan will gut pell grants for low-income college students.
My budget will cut the deficit by $4 Trillion over 10 years.
You Didn’t Build that.
American oil production is the highest that it’s been in eight years. (Infering he had something to do with this.)
Virtually every Senate Republican voted against the tax cut last week.
GOP Responsible for Obama Jobs Bill Not Passing.
Fence between US and Mexico is “Practically Complete”.
Rich doesn’t pay their fair share.
Mitt Romney would deny gay people the right to adopt children.
The health care bill will not increase the deficit by one dime.
If you like the health care plan you have you can keep it.
Under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place.”
We have run out of places in the US to drill for oil.
We shouldn’t Mandate the purchase of health care.
Obama says he’ll save average family $8,000 in gas.
I am immediately instituting PayGo “Pay as you go”.
I beleive marriage should be defined as man and woman.
I will cut the Deficit in Half by end of first term.
Health Care deals will be covered on C-span.
Guantanamo bay to be closed within a year.
No more wiretapping of citizens.
Have troops out of Iraq by March 31, 2009.
[/quote]
I can go on and on and on…
[i]Barack Obama says “millionaires” should pay more taxes, when all his proposed tax increases clearly start at individual incomes of $200,000. [/i]
These facts do not contradict each other.
[i]Benghazi violence was caused by an internet video & demonstrations [/i]
“Unclassified documents from the Central Intelligence Agency suggest the answer may have to do with so-called talking points written by the CIA and distributed to members of Congress and other government officials, including Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. The documents, distributed three days after the attacks that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens, said the events were spontaneous.”
[i]Under Gov. Romney’s definition … Donald Trump is a small business[/i]
Some of his businesses are, and might benefit from some tax cuts. Definitely a stretch.
[i]Romney and Ryan will gut pell grants for low-income college students. [/i]
Under the Ryan budget, more than 1 million students would no longer be eligible for Pell grants in the next decade, according to Education Trust, and those who did qualify would receive less aid.
[i]My budget will cut the deficit by $4 Trillion over 10 years.[/i]
PolitiFact: half-true. “On its own, Obama’s plan does not produce the full $4 trillion. Both the source cited by the Obama campaign and a separate group, one that puts a premium on deficit reduction, say the president’s plan will shrink the cumulative gap between spending and revenues by well over $2 trillion over ten years. The remainder comes from the 10-year impact of cuts already approved.”
[i]You Didn’t Build that. [/i]
You are fully aware of the context of this statement.
[i]American oil production is the highest that it’s been in eight years. (Infering he had something to do with this.) [/i]
The statement is true, regardless of the inference you draw.
[i]Virtually every Senate Republican voted against the tax cut last week. [/i]
This was back in December. The statement was true. Sen. Susan Collins of Maine was the only Republican to vote for it
[i]Fence between US and Mexico is “Practically Complete”.[/i]
I don’t know what he was talking about. Can’t verify statement or truth of it.
[i]Rich doesn’t pay their fair share.[/i]
An opinion, not a statement of fact.
[i]Mitt Romney would deny gay people the right to adopt children. [/i]
Gov. Romney believes that states should be able to make their own rules about the specifics of domestic partnerships. He opposes gay marriage and seems to oppose civil unions. Under his position, states could disallow gay adoptions, and Romney is ok with states disallowing gay adoptions. But he is on record himself as saying gay adoption is acceptable.
[i]The health care bill will not increase the deficit by one dime.[/i]
The CBO agrees. Further, the CBO says that repealing the Affordable Care act will increase the deficit.
[i]If you like the health care plan you have you can keep it.[/i]
Absolutely true.
[i]Under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place.”[/i]
Obama attached an executive order to the Affordable Care Act providing for this. Pro-life groups think it doesn’t go far enough.
[i]We have run out of places in the US to drill for oil. [/i]
Exact words were “And that’s part of the reason oil companies are drilling a mile beneath the surface of the ocean — because we’re running out of places to drill on land and in shallow water.” Which is true. A lot of federal land is protected. Shallow coastal waters aren’t drilled because the people who live near them don’t want that. You can disagree with why his statement is true, but it remains true.
[i]We shouldn’t Mandate the purchase of health care.[/i]
Sorry, I don’t find evidence he said that.
[i]Obama says he’ll save average family $8,000 in gas. [/i]
Sorry, I don’t find evidence he said that or what it was about.
[i]I am immediately instituting PayGo “Pay as you go”. [/i]
I have no idea how to determine the truth of this.
[i]I beleive marriage should be defined as man and woman. [/i]
He did say that.
[i]I will cut the Deficit in Half by end of first term.[/i]
CBO: “”This year’s deficit will be three-quarters as large as the deficit in 2009 when measured relative to the size of the economy.” He cut the deficit 25%.
[i]Health Care deals will be covered on C-span. [/i]
Yes, he said that. Promise broken.
[i]Guantanamo bay to be closed within a year. [/i]
You know why the administration was unable to close Guantanamo, right?
[i]No more wiretapping of citizens.[/i]
What he exactly said was “No more [b]illegal[/b] wiretapping of American citizens.” Note the difference.
[i]Have troops out of Iraq by March 31, 2009.[/i]
He promised to have most out by 2010, and all out by 2011. He kept that promise.
[quote]You are just spouting MSNBC and Obama campaign talking points here.[/quote]
Jeff,
Once again, I would like you to address what I am saying rather than where you think I get my ideas or what informs my opinions. I have actually spent a lot more time watching Romney giving his own speeches than I have watching the “talking heads” interpreting them. He contradicts himself, waffles, changes positions and drifts with the wind as much as any politician I have ever seen. When he thinks he needs support from the right, he is adamantly opposed to abortion, when he previously needed to appear more middle of the road, he was a supporter of a woman’s right to choose, now that he again feels the need to tack to the center, he opposes a woman’s right to choose but only in case of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother.
First 47% of Americans are greedy “moochers”, then it was inelegantly stated ( although presumably still true), and now it is just wrong. This is not spin from the left, these are Romney’s own words.
Yes, I agree, Obama has also changed positions. But not on virtually every issue.
[quote]The left is unhinged and half nuts. It will say anything to stay in power. But, give them credit as they are consistent in their approach of character assassination of the other side instead of debating any ideas on merit. Unfortunately, it comes off really, really bad. It is the main source of political polarization in this country. [/quote]
Now let’s see. What could be wrong with this statement. ” The left is unhinged and half nuts” .
” it ( presumably the actions of the “left” are the main source of political polarization. “
Really Jeff, you don’t think your view that anyone who does not see the situation as you do is “unhinged” could possibly have a little polarizing effect in and of itself ?
medwoman said:
[quote]First 47% of Americans are greedy “moochers”, then it was inelegantly stated ( although presumably still true), and now it is just wrong. This is not spin from the left, these are Romney’s own words.[/quote]
Let me try to explain it simply to you meds.
When you use quotation marks, as you did with “moochers”, that means the person you claim said that used those actual words. If they didn’t, then what you said is untrue.
Now go back and check what Romney actually said.
And not only did you mislead about what he said, you actually follow up with a statement that
[quote]these are Romney’s own words[/quote]
And you did this to attack Romney for not being truthful!
Romney said that 47 percent of the population will not vote for him because they are dependent on government.
A few points.
He would have been correct if he used a number more like 20%. He inflated the number for effect to appeal to a group of conservative campaign donors that have grown extremely angry at what the Democrats have done, and are doing, to the direction of the country. In my opinion he made a big mistake doing exactly what Obama and his supporters have been doing… demonize a class of people to win favor for another class. This is a despicable thing, and Romney should have known better. But let’s be honest about this. Romney had one slip and he apologized for it and retracted it. Obama has not. He and his campaign continue to demonize successful people. Biden did it in buckets in tonight’s VP debate. He is taking a page right of the Saul David Alinsky book of rules for radicals.
[quote] Always remember the first rule of power tactics: Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.
The second rule is: Never go outside the experience of your people.
…The third rule is: Wherever possible go outside the experience of the enemy. Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat.
…the fourth rule is: Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.
…the fourth rule carries within it the fifth rule: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.
…the sixth rule is: A good tactic is one that your people enjoy.
…the seventh rule is: A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.
…the eighth rule: Keep the pressure on.
…the ninth rule: The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.
The tenth rule: The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.
…The eleventh rule is: If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside.
…The twelfth rule: The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.
…The thirteenth rule: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.
[/quote]
Sounds just like Obama and the Dems, doesn’t it?
[i]”When he thinks he needs support from the right, he is adamantly opposed to abortion, when he previously needed to appear more middle of the road, he was a supporter of a woman’s right to choose, now that he again feels the need to tack to the center, he opposes a woman’s right to choose but only in case of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother.”[/i]
But of course you are fine that Obama spent his entire campaign and the first three years of his Presidency not supporting gay marriage, and then did a 180. You are fine because it is an outcome you favor. So, please don’t get all logical on this point about Romney’s flip flops when you don’t do the same for the Teflon Messiah. Geeze, you complain about Romney maintaining positions that you disagree with, and you complain about Romney when he moves toward your worldview.
The fact is that a lot of politicians on both sides of the isle have changed opinions about abortion. It is a highly emotional, spiritual and personal issue. I support people having different opinions. I also support people changing their opinion for reasons that make sense.
[quote] I still think it is probable that Hillary was complicit in allowing Bill to chase around the interns. Ms. Lewinsky thinks it to be the case[/quote]
It is interesting to me that you are willing to indict Hillary for Bill’s actions on no basis at all except your personal dislike. Would I be correct in stating that you do not personally know the Clinton’s and therefore are not privy to the inner workings of their marriage ? Or are you willing to accept the purchased word of
Ms. Lewinsky who now will doubtless attempt to capitalize on any real or imagined deficiencies in Hillary as a wife in order to profit from her shameless behavior in this situation. Please tell me what on earth would make you believe anything written by this woman whose only claim to fame is having been sexually involved with the former president.
JR
You are absolutely correct that my phrasing could have led one to believe that I was claiming that Romney had used the word “moochers” when in fact I am well aware that he did not. Except that would be completely ignoring the context of to who my comment was directed, namely Jeff, who frequently uses this expression to describe those that he believes take from others unfairly. It was a poorly placed short hand to refer to a particular group whom it appeared the Romney was speaking against for the benefit of his wealthy donors as Jeff has also stated. The word in quotes was a reference to Jeff’s actual choice of words but completely reflected Romney’s clear sentiment about this group.
No lie about Romney intended. I will clearly have to tighten my editing in the future, especially if I ever want to run for president.
Having cleared that up, I will stand 100% behind my comment that I believe that Romney was saying exactly what he meant and describing the world exactly as he sees it. I have watched the tape a number of times. Do any of you seriously believe that he would have retracted that statement had it not gone viral ? Would he have had a sudden epiphany about the harshly divisive, imperious and arrogant nature of that statement had it not appeared that it might harm him politically ?