BAD NIGHT FOR HILLARY
Can Hillary give a straight answer on anything?
IMMIGRATION
Disclosure
-
Your ad here.
Your ad here.
Can Hillary give a straight answer on anything?
IMMIGRATION
Disclosure
October 31st, 2007 at 6:29 am
The whole exchange about the records was pointless. Carter, iirc, signed a law that said former President’s records were to be released 12 years after they left office. I’m sure Clinton signed that onto that just like Reagan and BushI did. W did, however, try to suppress the release of Reagan’s records as President. As far as archiving goes, that’s probably true. Sad but true fact is that Obama’s campaign has now gone on the skids. Look to see him poll numbers starting to drop.
October 31st, 2007 at 6:30 am
Can we get better questions at these debates? A Bush apologist like Timmy asking questions? A lightening round like it’s a game show. Please.
October 31st, 2007 at 6:34 am
carolnie
Hillary sounded like a used car salesmen. I was waiting for her to say what is the definition of “is”? SHE IS BUSH/LIKE!
How can you vote for someone that Bart agrees with more on issues than you?
October 31st, 2007 at 6:40 am
John,
IMO, she sounded like she was avoiding a “gotcha” question to me.
You’re going to give Bart a stroke by saying things like that!
October 31st, 2007 at 6:49 am
caroline
Hey it is true!
Bart and Hillary issues they agree on.
Immigration
Trade
Iran
Iraq
Spending
Education
Abortion
October 31st, 2007 at 6:57 am
She sounded like she was trying to hide her NEOCON/NEOLIB views!
Iraq
Iran
Immigration
Always the same answers from Hillary blame Bush but support his policy!
October 31st, 2007 at 7:05 am
FYI
From NBC’s Chuck Todd
For those looking for a contentious debate got their wish. This was easily the fight of the year when it comes to the Democrats. Now, who will in the post-debate spin war?
The Clinton camp has an interesting challenge in the spin room tonight. Both the Edwards and Obama camps are convinced that Clinton was off her game tonight. Was she? Eye of the beholder on this; At times, she seemed on her game but she did “let ‘em see her sweat” at other times. Obviously, Edwards and Obama have the same goal tonight, make it seem as if Clinton “lost” this debate. Well, it’s not clear who won it if she somehow lost it. I’m not convinced anyone has won, but it does appear that both Obama and Edwards have accomplished what THEY wanted to do tonight and Clinton’s camp probably is glad that neither Obama nor Edwards outshined the other. Her best asset right now is the fact this is still a 3-way race.
As for the rest of the field, Biden, once again, had the one-liner of the night re: Giuliani. If Biden wasn’t known as a gaffe machine, he’d be a bigger player in this race, I’m convinced of it. I know that sounds like a back-handed compliment but it’s the burden of being Biden.
READ MORE
October 31st, 2007 at 7:46 am
I watched the entire debate…these two clips aren’t even the best of it.
Hillary got spanked last night.
October 31st, 2007 at 7:52 am
Ding,
This was all the clips I could fine.
I agree this was a BAD night for Hillary!
October 31st, 2007 at 8:29 am
Hillary looked most foolish when talking about her wealth as it relates to tax cuts.
While she did bomb as bad as I remember a frontrunner doing, MSNBC is watched by so few people, will it even matter?
The dem version of Ron Paul really came across well last night with his call for impeachment to end every answer and UFO sighting…LOL! And why wasn’t Mike Gravel invited…are you dems restricting the ability of your candidates to participate in the primary?
October 31st, 2007 at 8:33 am
Johnoline,
Both of you had to be thrilled with the NeoMarxist rhetoric…surrender as soon as possible, healthcare for all, college for all, pre-K for all, tax the wealthy, Bush sux….did you both just fall all over yourselves with every word off the lips of John Edwards?!
October 31st, 2007 at 8:38 am
Bart
Is Tom Price a NEOMARXISTS?
You know he supports the Romney/Hillary plan. In fact he seats on Romney’s healthcare advisory board on healthcare!
October 31st, 2007 at 8:43 am
No John, you are a Neomarxist.
The panel he and Phil Gingrey joined with others to explore market based solutions to our healthcare system has not yet even begun its work. How do you know that the result will be anything like yours and Hillary’s socialistic proposal?
October 31st, 2007 at 9:05 am
I didn’t see the debate last night but before Edwards gained some points with me with an anti-Bush statement. And I think frankly the “Democratic underground” (a.k.a. real Americans) want to stop Hillary worse than Sean Hannity does. Same goes for the “Republican underground”. If she’s not stopped it’s simply more of the same. With corporatized globalists in charge, hence her popularity with certain Republicans. Also she’s important with the c.y.a. (cover your ass) crowd with the neocons because the Clintons definitely have the Bushes’ back. This is what the “Bush Clinton Cabal” is all about. Add to this the “defeatist wing of the Republican party which is always muttering away in loserville about something. In this case it would be “I hope Hillary wins so people can see how bad Democrats can be for the economy. Maybe then they’ll regret criticizing Bush.” Again we’re talking loserville here.
October 31st, 2007 at 10:01 am
Bart,
Romney plan is almost the same as Hillary’s plan. Price supports the Romney plan what are you talking about?
October 31st, 2007 at 10:32 am
John,
Why don’t you ask him yourself at the CCRP breakfast meeting Saturday morning?
But if you want FACTS, here you go: From the press release announcing Romney’s Health Care Policy Advisory Group — “With today’s announcement, Co-Chairs Congressman Tom Price and Tim Murphy issued a joint statement saying, “More than any other presidential candidate, Governor Romney actually has a record of putting conservative principles to work in health care. With that experience and leadership, we know that he will take the steps necessary to help reform our health care system to the benefit of every American.”.
Romney’s plan:
- Step 1: Establish Federal Incentives To Deregulate And Reform State Health Insurance Markets So Market Forces Can Work. Many in New Hampshire can’t afford private health insurance because state markets are over-regulated and in serious need of reform. In New Hampshire, there are 30 mandated benefits included in health insurance plans. Governor Romney will provide federal incentives for states to deregulate and reform their health insurance markets. This will bring down the cost of health insurance and facilitate greater consumer choice, while giving states like New Hampshire the power to institute the reforms that suit them best.
- Step 2: Redirect Federal Spending On “Free Care” To Help The Low-Income Uninsured Purchase Private Insurance. Currently, taxpayers subsidize “free care” for millions who are uninsured but receive treatment when they need it. Governor Romney will end subsidized care for “free riders” by redirecting these existing federal and state resources to help the low-income uninsured purchase their own private health insurance. States like New Hampshire are free to craft their own programs and institute their own eligibility requirements. Most importantly, this can be done without the need for new spending or taxes.
- Step 3: Institute Health Savings Account (HSA) Enhancements And The Full Deductibility Of Qualified Medical Expenses. The tax code currently discriminates against those who do not buy their health insurance through an employer and creates incentives for the over-consumption of health care services. Governor Romney will make private insurance more affordable for every Granite Stater by reforming the tax code. He will expand and grow HSAs. He also supports the full deductibility of qualified medical expenses, which will allow people in New Hampshire to deduct the cost of their health insurance and out-of-pocket medical expenses, where accompanied by at least catastrophic insurance.
- Step 4: Promote Innovation In Medicaid. States have very little flexibility under current law to enact innovative changes to Medicaid that will help more citizens while containing costs. In New Hampshire, more than 72,000 people receive Medicaid benefits and the average annual Medicaid payment per enrollee is $5,865. Governor Romney will block-grant federal funds to states and remove the burdensome administrative requirements that prevent New Hampshire and other states from improving the program.
- Step 5: Implement Medical Liability Reform. Too many doctors are practicing defensive medicine because of frivolous lawsuits and an out-of-control medical liability system. Governor Romney will implement medical liability reform, including federal caps on non-economic and punitive damage awards in medical malpractice cases. He will also encourage states to engage in additional medical liability reforms that will both honor the rights of patients and respect the work of physicians. New Hampshire has passed a number of tort reforms but more must be done nationally.
- Step 6: Bring Market Dynamics And Modern Technology To Health Care. Consumers in New Hampshire are not empowered in the current system to make intelligent decisions about the purchase of health care and many aspects of the health care system remain technologically backwards. Governor Romney will bring health care into the 21st century by enhancing the use of information technology, establishing cost and quality transparency, encouraging more HSAs and co-insurance products, and calling for more provider options.
October 31st, 2007 at 10:34 am
Compared to Hillary(John)care (government provided), I’ll take my chances with Romney’s free market proposal if he becomes the nominee.
October 31st, 2007 at 10:36 am
Bart
Romney’s plan is the same as Hillary’s plan accept Hillary makes people mandatory pay and Romney makes business pay for people.
October 31st, 2007 at 10:40 am
John,
Take a breath, read the two proposals located on their websites…stark difference.
Hillary had such an awful debate, it is hard to recount all of the errors, omissions and big nanny recommendations. One other that comes to mind is her call for a “Blue Ribbon Committee” to study Social Security. At least for the time being (you know she will change her story as she did last night during the drivers license exchange), Hillary sees no problem with Social Security (she must have Paul Krugman, that little twit on her advisory board). God help America if she gets elected.
October 31st, 2007 at 10:41 am
Bart
Mass. Gov. Romney’s health care plan says everyone pays
By Julie Appleby, USA TODAY
You have to buy car insurance if you own a car. You have to buy home insurance to get a mortgage. Why don’t you have to buy health insurance?
Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney re-ignited that debate last month when he announced a plan to expand health coverage to all the state’s residents, with a caveat that those who don’t buy coverage could face a penalty.
READ MORE
October 31st, 2007 at 10:44 am
John,
Do you have difficulty grasping the concept that what passed in Massachusetts may not be necessary for every other state? Romney calls for states to have the ability to design their own plans (local control John). What part of local control do you now disagree with after so many rants about the need for local control?
BTW, one more try — John the Constitutionalist,
Answer the question — One simple question John the Constitutionalist (or more appropriately, NEOMARXIST) — Please identify the section of the U.S. Constitution where our Founders provide healthcare for parents so that their children will not suffer. While you’re futilely searching for that specific provision, also provide us with the section that says healthcare is a RIGHT to be funded by producers for those who refuse to accept responsibility for their own lives.
October 31st, 2007 at 10:50 am
Bart
I go with facts not spin!
This is just one example of how you defend PARTY over real facts! Romney has made it clear what he attends to do and Price’s endorsement of Romney and SCHIP proposal show what he thinks about healthcare.
Spin it anyway you want but any logical person can see the spin from facts.
October 31st, 2007 at 11:44 am
FACTS JOHN — Answer the question.
FACTS JOHN — Price did not endorse SCHIP, he joined other GOPers to kill it as proposed by your party.
Now John, pls answer the question.
October 31st, 2007 at 12:23 pm
The health care plans of Governor Romney, Senator Clinton, and the other major presidential candidates are nothing more than convoluted tweakings of our dysfunctional system. For the people who believe the ‘free market’ will provide solutions for our health care, Where is the proof for that? The free market is what we currently have.
In America, we treat health care as a business commodity and our health care system is structured to create dollars first and health care second, a distant second. If that is what you want, then by all means continue with our current multi-payer, greed-laden system. It is marvelously successful at creating dollars. Our health care expenditure has now topped 2 trillion dollars yearly, and we spread this windfall across fifty states so that fifty sets of politicians with all their local city-county, business-political comrades can share the wealth. This could be termed wealth care. But so many communities and the individuals who live in them do not share in the health care from our health care system.
But the believers in the ‘free market’ for health care solutions have nothing to worry about. None of the ‘electable’ presidential candidates will do one thing to change the status quo of the health care economic market place.
($2,000,000,000,000)— Look at all the zeros in that number.
R. Garth Kirkwood M.D.
http://www.equalhealthcareforall.com
doctork@equalhealthcareforall.com
October 31st, 2007 at 1:33 pm
Dr K
For “proof” that the free market can solve problems (especially in health care) I sincerely hope you’re not waiting on the edge of your seat for an “FDA approved study”. Those things cost millions of dollars. Instead all you really have to do is use the same methodology that top scientists around the world use. It’s called the “scientific method”. When you do this you can find hundreds of examples of modern day “Galileos” who have been shut down because they were outside of “corporate approved” medicine.
October 31st, 2007 at 1:39 pm
Bart
Price CO-SPONSORED A SCHIP BILL!
PLEASE DEAL WITH FACTS!
Rep. Price: Free Healthcare For All?
Price co-sponsors SCHIP alternative
As Congressman Price describes his proposed health care plan in the Cherokee Ledger, it is a first step toward free healthcare for all. If the government starts paying for catastrophic healthcare (an idea that Price says his bill opens the door to), it is only a matter of time before it picks up the whole tab. Paying for preventive medicine is cheaper than paying for catastrophic results, thus governments will, in the future, start providing full coverage to save money.
I think Tom’s heart may be in the right place on this issue, but if we do not make people pay something how can we afford this? My solution of mandatory payment from for those who can afford it, and partial payment based on income for people who cannot, is tough medicine but is more realistic.
CL-The same day the U.S. House failed to override the president’s Oct. 3 veto on the bipartisan bill that would reauthorize the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), another piece of legislation was introduced Oct. 17 sponsored in part by a Cherokee legislator.
In addition, U.S. Rep. Tom Price (Right), R-Roswell, is calling for Democratic support on the alternative bill he co-sponsored.
“The House sustained the president’s veto on the flawed SCHIP bill that was introduced by the Democrat-controlled Congress,” Price said. “It gives us a great opportunity to now work together and come up with an appropriate renewed and reauthorized SCHIP program.”
One of the programs at stake is PeachCare, Georgia’s SCHIP program, which serves about 256,000 Georgia children. About 5,988 of those children live in Cherokee County.
The federal government extended the SCHIP program, which was originally set to expire in September. SCHIP’s new deadline is Nov. 16.
Price said he feels this is a good time for both political sides to get together to form a compromise.
The new bill reauthorizes SCHIP at 200 percent of the federal poverty level—$42,000 per year for a family of four. It also provides premium assistance in way of a tax credit for families who make $42,000 to $62,000 per year, Price said.
The new bill also gives states greater flexibility for creating programs to help their uninsured.
“If Georgia wanted to institute a program that provided for catastrophic insurance for all folks without health insurance, then they would be able to do that,” Price said.
October 31st, 2007 at 2:45 pm
Health insurance is NOT healthcare. You want to deal in facts, deal with that. Both plans shift money further from actual care to Wall Street insurers, placing health CARE deeper into the hands of accountants rather than doctors and patients.
October 31st, 2007 at 2:55 pm
John,
Tim lied to you guys. Here’s a pdf of the letter that Clinton wrote in 2002:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/62133
The first letter was signed in 1994 and it is required by law that all presidents sign the 12 year rule.
Don’t you get tired of these Bush apologists lying to you all the time? You see, this is why the GOP has no credibility. Time and again they are caught just making things up.
October 31st, 2007 at 2:59 pm
bb,
You really don’t know where the candidates stand do you? Romney instated universal coverage in MA. It’s pretty much the same thing Hillary and Obama are offering.
No wonder the GOP is in such bad shape. They make things things up, create a strawman out of fantasy and then beat up said strawman. Pathetic.
October 31st, 2007 at 3:30 pm
John,
Congressman Price voted against SCHIP, then joined with others to offer an alternative. This is why you would never have made it in Congress…you have no idea how to play the game. You would be like Ron Paul, Cynthia McKinney and so many others who have little to no credibility when it comes to legislating.
Now, one more time — Answer the question John the Constitutionalist (or more appropriately, NEOMARXIST) — Please identify the section of the U.S. Constitution where our Founders provide healthcare for parents so that their children will not suffer. While you’re futilely searching for that specific provision, also provide us with the section that says healthcare is a RIGHT to be funded by producers for those who refuse to accept responsibility for their own lives.
October 31st, 2007 at 3:33 pm
Actually caroline, I know exactly where each candidate stands (a position that is impossible for people like yourself who support a lady who can’t even keep her story straight during a one minute debate answer).
Speaking of stands, you never answered the question earlier…do you support the mother of all tax increases proposed by Charley Rangel, endorsed by Bill Clinton and danced all over by the woman who shares a home address with him?
October 31st, 2007 at 3:36 pm
Bart
So you think Tom Price is a NEOMARXIST?
October 31st, 2007 at 4:02 pm
Why won’t you answer the question John? You portray yourself as a strict constitutionalist yet support redistribution programs with government mandates.
Where in the U.S. Constitution that you use as a convenient source when defending certain issues does it say that parents should be provided healthcare for the benefit of their kids? Where did the Founders slip in a call to give healthcare to all by taking from producers to fund mooches (Neomarxism John…your ideology fits perfectly).
October 31st, 2007 at 7:28 pm
Doctor K in his post #24 states:
“The health care plans of Governor Romney, Senator Clinton, and the other major presidential candidates are nothing more than convoluted tweakings of our dysfunctional system.”
And I would comment that Doctor K admits HIS health care plan covers ILLEGAL ALIENS in the U.S (estimated at 38,000,000 plus). I believe this plan could be construed as TREASON as it effectively aids and abets the invasion of this nation and gives comfort to the invaders. 38,000,000 plus illegal foreign nationals on our soil is indeed an invasion, in the minds of many. And of course, this is my opinion, which I believe is shared by many!
October 31st, 2007 at 7:44 pm
Bart
We are doing it now! So we can let kids die in the streets or fix the problem. I am for fixing the problem. Are you for letting kids die who get sick and their parents do not have the money?
October 31st, 2007 at 7:57 pm
Bart -
You’re beating your head against the wall. Please remember the “Konopian Theorem.”
It CLEARLY states “When asked a direct question requiring factual data and possibly personal analysis, under no circumstances should you answer the question directly!
First, try to shift the issue to something completely unrelated that seems to appeal to the masses. If that’s unsuccessful, try asking a rhetorical question that can’t be possibly be answered without extensive research being accomplished. It that, too, fails use the following pre-determined question to completely baffle the questioner; Is Bill Buckley a Conservative?” In the extremly rare case that even THAT fails, quickly add, “why do you hate children?” OR “Why do you hate America.”
Now keep that in mind Bart. Frankly, I’m surprised you’ve forgotten “Konop’s Theory of Relativity” so quickly. Shame on you.
VOTE GOP! Stop Hillary before it’s to late!
October 31st, 2007 at 8:23 pm
bb,
You’ve been flip flopping around issues so much and you literally make things up. From someone who said something to the effect that you don’t think the Bush years were bad fiscally, well, I think that you really don’t know anything about taxes or finance. When I googled what you are talking about the only thing that came up was some blogs and conspiracy sites. Are you now into conspiracy sites too? You can’t answer a question based on fantasy. Good luck with your strawmen. I hope they keep you warm at night!
And have fun pushing the pathetic pygmies known as “giving W a third term”. I always wondered how those telemarketers with their scams made any money. Now I know. They’ve found a whole cache of people just like you.
October 31st, 2007 at 8:47 pm
Mac
The guy who is pro letting kids die who parents cannot pay for healthcare!
October 31st, 2007 at 10:49 pm
caroline,
RE: post37 — Huh? Did you fail to take your meds today? Or were you just simply over-served at the favorite watering hole prior to scaring all the trick or treaters with your Hillary costume?
October 31st, 2007 at 11:03 pm
Professor Mac,
The high priest of Konopian analysis, you provide sound advice. But this simple question goes to the heart of the Konopian response — “So we can let kids die in the streets or fix the problem. I am for fixing the problem. Are you for letting kids die who get sick and their parents do not have the money?”
John the Constitutionalist finds it within the right of government to take from those who strive toward prosperity to give to those who live irresponsibly. And he REFUSES to defend the position…shocker!
According to Konopian logic, kids w/o healthcare protection will “die in the streets” with their blood oozing from the hands of NEOCON Republicans. He disparages Congressman Price for offering alternative legislation to dem SCHIP expansion, then chastises the GOP for letting “kids die in the streets”. Typical NEOMARXIST BS.
John…you are less consistent than Hillary regarding this matter.
November 1st, 2007 at 5:26 am
Bart
So your solution is let the kids die if they do not have the money for healthcare.
November 1st, 2007 at 6:41 am
bb,
I guess you are so far off the scale that reason doesn’t register with you. We thank you for your help with the 2008 elections.
November 1st, 2007 at 6:46 am
caroline
Bart is for Hillary deep down!
November 1st, 2007 at 8:47 am
John the “Constitutionalist,” (Thanks for the Bart - it’s PERFECT!)……
Unlike you, I believe in the vision of our Founders. I DON’T believe in re-distribution of responsible people’s money or property to those who are irresponsible. Also, I DON’T believe in that mythical “right” to abortion on demand. That’s such a “good” law, the general population has NEVER been affored the opportunity to vote on the issue. Oh, did I mention that particular “right” appears nowhere in our Constitution?
You may have dreams of “free” (read: Taxpayer Funded) programs like universal healthcare and SCHIP, but when the People get the opportunity to vote on these socialist programs they’ll go down in flames.
This Nation was founded on the principles of individual liberty and individual opportunity. Individual responsibility goes hand in hand with each of those.
People who are totally irresponsible and refuse to use some kind of protection, should go seek help from charities, NOT the U.S. taxpayer.
I realize that’s totally opposite of what Konopian Logic dictates, but that’s the facts. Perhaps you should attempt to use a few facts from time to time.
It’s odd, but try as I might, I STILL can’t find your answer to Bart’s questions. Is there some reason you refuse to answer? Could it possibly be that you can’t refute the truth?
VOTE FOR ANYONE WHO OPPOSES SOCIALIZED MEDICINE AND SCHIP!
November 1st, 2007 at 9:09 am
Mac,
John won’t answer because he can’t. But I will persist, especially the next time he tries to tell us how strictly he follows the document on which this country was founded.
Instead he posts the usual hyperbole straight out of his dem playbook…vote against a bloated healthcare redistribution bill…”kids die in the streets”…one can almost see John the Constitutionalist morph into Nancy Pelosi as he types the words!
November 1st, 2007 at 9:32 am
Bart,
John Konopelosi? THAT’S IT!
VOTE AGAINST SOCIALISM!
November 1st, 2007 at 1:19 pm
Response to Chris #27:
You are absolutely correct. I presume that when you say “Both plans…” you are referring to the plans of Gov. Romney and Senator Clinton.
What is your solution for the problem that you have outlined in your comment?
My solution is contained in EQUAL HEALTH CARE FOR ALL, an overhaul of our entire health care system including which type of administrator handles payment to health care businesses and providers.
R. Garth Kirkwood M.D.
http://www.equalhealthcareforall.com
doctork@equalhealthcareforall.com
November 1st, 2007 at 4:08 pm
From today’s WSJ:
In the 1990s, “Clintonesque” became a by-word for political double-speak. We even became, briefly, a nation of deconstructionists when President Bill Clinton mused on the meaning of “is.”
Such existential questions seemed to be in the past. But with another Clinton running as if she’s all but a sure thing for the White House, Clintonesque is once again becoming a politically relevant adjective. In Tuesday night’s Democratic Presidential debate, the moderators and Hillary Clinton’s fellow panelists took pains to pin her down on one question after another, without notable success. The junior Senator from New York seems increasingly to have adopted her husband’s political methods, minus the savoir-faire. The result is that it’s impossible to know what she believes about anything.
On Iran’s nuclear ambitions, moderator Brian Williams asked a number of the candidates what their “red line” was. As he put it to Barack Obama, “What would make it crystal clear in your mind that” the U.S. “should attack Iran?” When he repeated the question to Senator Clinton, her answer was, in sum, “I think that what we’re trying to do here is put pressure on the Bush Administration.” She added, “we’ve got to rein him in.” And, no, she didn’t mean Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. When pressed by Mr. Williams, she clarified, in a way. “We’re not in my view, rushing to war. We should not be doing that. But we shouldn’t be doing nothing.”
A bit later Tim Russert, the other moderator, tried again: “Senator Clinton, would you pledge to the American people that Iran will not develop a nuclear bomb while you are President?”
“I intend to do everything I can to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear bomb,” Mrs. Clinton replied, in a formulation that would make her husband proud. “But you won’t pledge?” Mr. Russert asked.
“I am pledging I will do everything I can to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear bomb,” Mrs. Clinton repeated. Mr. Russert then tried a third time, with the same ambiguous result.
The question of experience came up repeatedly, and Mrs. Clinton wasn’t shy about citing her time as first lady as a main qualification to be President. She was less forthcoming about the records of her time in the White House, however. Mr. Russert asked: “In order to give the American people an opportunity to make a judgment about your experience, would you allow the National Archives to release the documents about your communications with the President, the advice you gave, because, as you well know, President Clinton has asked the National Archives not to do anything until 2012?”
Mrs. Clinton’s initial response was to blame the Archives, but Mr. Russert asked whether she would lift her husband’s “ban” on releasing their correspondence. “That’s not my decision to make,” was her reply. Apparently we are supposed to believe that the former President would refuse his wife’s request to release those records if she asked. Even gentle Mr. Obama couldn’t bite his tongue about that one, comparing the episode to the “secretive” Bush Administration.
Senator Clinton was especially clumsy in trying to evade any clear position on New York Governor Eliot Spitzer’s proposal to give driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants. When asked why, in her words, it “makes a lot of sense” to give licenses to illegals, her first answer sounded like an endorsement. Mr. Spitzer is trying to “fill the vacuum left by the failure of this Administration to bring about comprehensive immigration reform,” she said.
But after Senator Chris Dodd disagreed, calling a license a “privilege” not a right, she broke in a moment later to clarify: “I just want to add, I did not say that it should be done, but I certainly recognize why Governor Spitzer is trying to do it.” This prompted Mr. Dodd to interject that her second answer didn’t sound like her first. So Mr. Russert tried again: “Do you support [Mr. Spitzer’s] plan?”
“You know, Tim, this is where everybody plays gotcha,” Mrs. Clinton replied. “It [Spitzer’s proposal] makes a lot of sense.” So, she does support it? Unfortunately, she wasn’t done speaking. “Do I think this is the best thing for any Governor to do? No.” At that point, Mr. Williams changed the subject.
The story was similar on taxes and Social Security. On Charlie Rangel’s tax plan, she “agree[s] with the goal” and “admire[s] his willingness to take this on.” It’s just that she doesn’t share that willingness, at least not before she’s in the White House. And on Social Security, she said “I do not advocate” and “do not support” raising Social Security taxes. But she would still “consider” it.
The political strategy is clear enough. Mrs. Clinton wants to roll to her party’s nomination on a tide of “inevitability” while disguising her real agenda as much as possible. But Democratic voters ought to consider whether they want to put all their hopes for retaking the White House on Mrs. Clinton’s ability to obfuscate like her husband without his preternatural talent for it. Aside from lacking her husband’s political gifts, Hillary’s challenge is that we’ve all seen this movie before. And performances like Tuesday’s might be enough to convince voters to opt for a candidate who is his own man.
November 1st, 2007 at 7:13 pm
The Constitution absolutely allows for government to participate in healthcare.
It’s called Article I, Section 8 - Powers of Congress
(Look for “general welfare”)
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States
November 1st, 2007 at 7:16 pm
quote:
WASHINGTON – It started in 1952.
Nearly every person elected as president of the United States since then – and nearly every opponent – has belonged to a secretive, globalism-oriented organization known as the Council on Foreign Relations.
Some presidents and their challengers have belonged to additional clubs of internationalists – the Bilderberg Group and the Trilateral Commission. Running mates, too, more often than not have had ties to the groups.
That the groups exert enormous influence on public policy is indisputable. What is disputed is whether such groups are, as adherents and members argue, just discussion forums for movers and shakers, or, as critics have long alleged, secret societies shaping a new world order from behind the scenes. On that last point at least, no one could challenge the critics: All these groups operate in considerable secrecy, away from the scrutiny of the American public.
Regardless of how one characterizes them, the fact that virtually all presidents belong to the same secret clubs prompts the author of a new book to wonder if the 2008 election will also be a contest between globalist insiders. Judging from the list of frontrunners of each party, Daniel Estulin, author of “The True Story of the Bilderberg Group,” may be on to something.
According to a variety of sources, the following presidential candidates are either members of one of the groups or have strong ties: Hillary Rodham Clinton, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Barack Obama, John McCain, John Edwards, Fred Thompson, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd and Bill Richardson.
Mike Huckabee, though not a member, spoke to the CFR in September. Since then, his political star has risen to the point that he has become a top-tier candidate.
So often throughout recent history it has been the case.
http://tinyurl.com/38e9cr
===================
No wonder voters are upset with both parties.
November 1st, 2007 at 7:27 pm
I would add that I believe there are members of those organizations that also are representatives in several of the Central Banks, especially in Europe and here.
Is that a problem? Or is that an asset? How much do you trust the Federal Reserve and other Central Banks the Fed deals with daily to regulate money supplies?
Quote:
The New York Fed offers banking and financial services to over 200 foreign central banks, foreign governments, and international official institutions. Services for foreign official account holders are in four main areas: demand deposit transactions, investments, custodial and safekeeping responsibilities, and foreign exchange operations. The New York Fed offers other services on an occasional basis, such as technical assistance and training of foreign central bankers.
http://www.ny.frb.org/aboutthefed/whatwedo.html
===================
November 2nd, 2007 at 6:00 am
bb,
An opinion piece from the WSJ ranks as “news”? Only in a ditto monkey world!
November 2nd, 2007 at 7:50 am
Mr. Parker,
I suggest you read the preamble first. After all, it does appear FIRST.
It clearly says PROMOTE the general welfare, NOT PROVIDE for the general welfare.
Stop trying to make the Founders Socialists like yourself.
You’ve made some ridiculous comments in the past, but this one is really out there.
How long did it take you to find that? 30 Years?
Get a grip!
VOTE AGAINST SOCIALISM! The GOOD news is that I’ll be cancelling out Mr. Parker’s vote!
November 2nd, 2007 at 8:43 am
leave it to neomarxist caroline to not know how to differentiate between opinion and news…then blame it on her contrived ditto monkeys! you do provide entertainment caroline.
November 2nd, 2007 at 9:16 pm
Bart and Mac
PRO BIRTH AND ANTI LIFE!
November 2nd, 2007 at 9:50 pm
All the candidates are bad.. Edwards and Paul are the only ones i can respect. Hillary is too far to the left and I know she will lose Iowa
November 2nd, 2007 at 9:51 pm
all she does is blame bush… thats it