Eight years ago Hillary Clinton won the New Hampshire primary, on her way to being elected president that November. The chief Watergate counsel responded :
I have just seen Hillary Clinton and her former Yale law professor both in tears at a campaign rally here in my home state of Connecticut. Her tearful professor said how proud he was that his former student was likely to become our next President. Hillary responded in tears.
My own reaction was of regret that, when I terminated her employment on the Nixon impeachment staff, I had not reported her unethical practices to the appropriate bar associations.
Hillary as I knew her in 1974
“she was a liar,” “She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.”
“The Clintons corrupted the soul of the Democratic Party.”
This year she got her ass kicked in New Hampshire, and walked away with as many delegates as Sanders.
“You know, comrades,” says Stalin, “that I think in regard to this: I consider it completely unimportant who in the party will vote, or how; but what is extraordinarily important is this — who will count the votes, and how.”
-Memoirs of the former secretary of Stalin
Mr Dooley made a similar observation on the Boer War right about 1901. It’s delightfully free at Gutenberg.org but they gratefully accept donations.
Clinton’s reign did feature full employment, debt converging on zero and only one economic crash when Congress forced him to issue AML rules. But while throwing away old issues of Physics Today, the one with an oil engineer in flaming Iraq on the cover struck me. If the Kuwaitis gratefully signed generous oil deals in exchange for reinstatement, that injection of cheap energy into the US economy would explain a lot of the ensuing slow run-up in securities values. Naturally I voted against all DemoGOP candidates and platforms, and always will. But most economic disasters come from the mystical prohibitionist side of the aisle.
“Clinton’s reign did feature full employment, debt converging on zero and only one economic crash when Congress forced him to issue AML rules.”
Thanks to a Rebublican named Newt.
Clinton inherited a roaring economy right at birth of the dot.com bubble. Sometimes I wonder how much better that time would have been if the USA had not been under reign of the biggest scumbag administration ever.
I vote against the Dem and GOP and have for 35 years. But the GOP’s use of the communist income tax to enforce religious fanatic prohibition has been the cause of more economic losses–including the Great Depression–than all the communist sympathizers still clinging to that sinking hulk of altruist collectivism.
“Debt converging on zero?” Where do people get this nonsense?
The debt continued to rise throughout the Clinton presidency. In 1993 it was $4.4 trillion, in 2000 it was $5.6 trillion. Unemployment rate dropped from 7.3 to 3.9% .
After the dot-com bubble burst in 2001, unemployment jumped to 5.7%.
https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000
At the end of the dot-com bubble there were balanced budgets, i.e. inflow=outgo. That was not enough to pay down the debt.
The budget was balanced by bringing social security into the same pot. It was an accounting gimmick, not fiscal discipline. That gimmick is actually hurting Obama today, now that social security is also running a deficit. But Obama has his own ways of hiding deficit spending. (last year, for instance, they only counted half the year)
Don’t take this as a partisan comment. Republicans have been no better. The last legitimately balanced budget was in 1969, the year we put men on the moon. Almost $19 TRILLION has been borrowed since, but we’re no longer capable of putting a man on the moon. I want my money back.
The individual mentioned didn’t fire Hillary Clinton; he had no authority to do so, as she was on another committee altogether. In fact, she was not fired from any Watergate committee. The individual claiming the firing did so only after a nearly 30 year wait, in a book.
In my opinion, H.C. is an amoral, pathological, serial liar, unfit to be dog-catcher. However, it does no good, nor does it add anything to the discussion, when facts are not presented correctly. This is clearly a case of ‘confirmation bias’, where a belief or an opinion overwhelms the facts.
The party of the “little guy” that cancels out the little guys’ votes with elite “super delegates.”
A parody of one of my favorite movie scenes…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FECIYlo3KRY
We LIBertarians urge you to listen closely to what our opponents are saying about each other, and remember those things when you see LIB on the ballot.
The quote in this post is from Jerry Zeifman. He did not fire Hillary from the Whitewater investigation, nor was Hillary fired from this investigation by anyone else.
Zeifman doesn’t claim he “fired” Hillary, he claims he “terminated” her along with others whose work was finished. He claims he did not give her a letter of recommendation–a rarity–and that he regretted not reporting her unethical behavior.
I searched in vain for confirmation of Zeifman’s story. There’s a response on Snopes:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/zeifman.asp
and observations by Ron Rosenbaum (no fan of Hillary) in Slate:
http://primary.slate.com/articles/life/the_spectator/2008/02/hillary_i_vs_hillary_ii.html
Which came first in 2008, Clinton supporters fostering the birther controversy or Zeifman’s hit piece? One may have been payback for the other..
The link in the blog post is to the Zeifman story.
I read it. Seems like a goad for Clinton, but she couldn’t address it without clarifying that Bill was impeached and Nixon wasn’t.
Such a tangled web poor Hillary’s woven. She can’t be truthful without admitting she’s a serial liar.
Billy,
Your comment is just about as clueless as they come.
You’re free to dislike Hillary for whatever reasons you like, but basing your dislike on things she’s actually done would be better than made up reasons.
Reading comprehension skills?
And of course, Nixon wasn’t fired either. He resigned, completely on his own. No one actually gets fired in Washington. They’re ordered to resign. That’s just the way it works there.
Incidentally, this Hillary firing story is nothing new. It’s been around for a long time. A very quick search brought up links going back to at least 2008:
http://www.wnd.com/2008/04/60962/
And I’d certainly heard about it long before then. The claim may, in fact, be false. I wasn’t there. But calling it “made up” is absurd, when the story has been common knowledge for decades.
Has the Democratic Party ever had a soul?
That’s what I was going to ask!
What was left of it died in Dallas, in 1963.
“This year she got her ass kicked in New Hampshire, and walked away with as many delegates as Sanders.”
This corruption of the election process is as galling as anything I have seen.
Perhaps more astonishingly surreal is the deafening silence from those people who turned out in large numbers to cast a vote against Hillary.
I find it even more amusing, since party shenanigans are very possibly the reason Obama beat Hillary in 2008.
Show me in the constitution where political parties get to vote. In 2008, the whole process was so screwed up there’s no way to tell who really won. I’m hoping for a blatant theft this year. Let’s finally get this oligarchy out in the open.
Best case scenario, from my borderline anarchist point of view:
Trump and Bernie both win small but unambiguous pluralities in the voting, and both get thrown out in the conventions. If a general election between two invalid candidates doesn’t wake people up, there’s no country left to save. In that case, it won’t even matter who wins.
On the subject of not mattering who wins, the Scalia death may well make the election moot. If Obama can push through another Kagen, the democrats will officially own the government. If she’s smart, Ginsburg will announce her retirement within the next few weeks. The senate MIGHT be able to hold up one appointment for a year. But with two empty slots, they’ll have a lot more pressure on them.
I guess NH Democrats just have a primary for show because their votes don’t matter. And their state motto of “Live Free or Die” is also as meaningless as when the current president draws a line in the sand.
The Republicans set turnout records in all their primaries so far while Democrat participation is miserably low. I think that is a pretty good indication of the way the General election will go no matter who gets nominated on each side.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/feb/21/gop-sets-another-turnout-record-democrats-numbers-/
I suspect we will see the term ‘Trump Democrats’ being used by the press after the General election.