Bill Clinton

Mitt Romney [Hearts] Bill Clinton

Posted by on August 9, 2012 at 11:47 am. 1 Comments :

I sat down this morning intending to write an article about the absurd new crush that Mitt Romney and the GOP have on Bill Clinton. It’s a flagrant rewriting of history concerning the man that Republicans tried to impeach, but seek to cuddle up with now that he’s one of the most popular former presidents. But as I was doing research for the article I discovered that Michael Tomasky had already written it for the Daily Beast. So here are a few brazenly appropriated paragraphs:

It’s hardly a secret what Mitt Romney is up to in trying to invoke Bill Clinton’s name in ads and speeches. Clinton was the good Democrat. The sensible centrist. And—let’s lower our voices here—the white one. It’s been transparent since it started in May, made all the more so this week by using Clinton to slam Obama on welfare.

I hope he uses the occasion of his convention speech, and for that matter the whole fall campaign, to destroy Romney, saying to every swing voter: “If you voted for me, you’d be nuts to vote for this guy. He’s making up a version of me to serve his own purposes, and he’s against almost everything I stood for and stand for.”

Bill Clinton

It’s obvious that using Clinton to try to appeal to the Clinton swing voter is pretty central to the Romney plan. As soon as Romney polished off Rick Santorum back in May, he started singing Clinton’s praises. It was his way to appeal to the center. He doesn’t have the courage to do that by taking any actual centrist positions, of course. The positions remain hard right. So he chose to do it instead by using Clinton as the vehicle through which to make ominous insinuations about Obama, implying to audiences that Clinton was the sober pragmatist whose legacy the ultra-liberal Obama had defenestrated.

Clinton can do more than validate Obama. He has the authority to shred Romney. Some conservatives appear to have this fantasy, expressed by Jennifer Rubin in The Washington Post yesterday, that Clinton has more in common with Romney. That’s too ridiculous even to bother rebutting, except to note that it can provide fodder for some great laugh lines built around the idea that yes, back when he was president, Clinton did agree with Romney on several things, like abortion rights and the assault weapons ban. Then Romney changed all his positions. And, of course, there is the one issue that looms above all others, which Clinton could frame as a simple and devastating question: “Governor, if you think I’m so great, if you agree with me so much, why don’t you support my tax rate for the top 1 percent?”

Mitt Romney and his Republican Disinformation Society want Americans to forget that they were not merely opposed to Clinton’s agenda, they were veritably obsessed with demolishing him personally and politically. In addition to the impeachment over private personal matters, Republicans launched fruitless investigations into Arkansas land deals; they alleged that he ran drugs from state airstrips; they accused Hillary of murdering Vince Foster. The budget bill that led to years of prosperity did not receive a single Republican vote in congress. What it did receive was assertions of socialism and predictions of the end of America. Sound familiar?

Voters need to remember this when they hear Romney et al praise Clinton. They need to remember that their own agenda is diametrically opposed to the Clinton Doctrine. Republicans have a desperate need to latch onto Clinton because their own past presidents were such horrific failures. Clinton will be making the official nominating speech for Obama at the Democratic convention. George Bush won’t even be attending the Republican convention.

We can expect Bill Clinton’s name to be heard often in this election season. And it will be mentioned by both sides because they know that the American people respect him and his achievements. But every time Mitt Romney and the GOP mention Clinton’s name should be a reminder to vote for Obama, just as Clinton is going to do.

And The Olympic Gold For Freestyle Stupidity Goes To Dick Morris Of Fox News

Posted by on July 31, 2012 at 11:15 am. 2 Comments :

Dick Morris has done it again. I wouldn’t cover this ignorant gasbag if it wasn’t so much damn fun. He has absolutely nothing of substance to say and what he does say is certifiably bonkers.

Dick Morris

Last night on the Sean Hannity program on Fox News (not exactly a Mensa gathering either), Hannity introduced his theory that Bill Clinton would be a drag on President Obama’s reelection campaign:

Hannity: You know Bill Clinton better than anybody else. Now here is a guy that I suspect, before all is said and done, is gonna, in his own way, undermine Barack Obama’s reelection chances.

First of all, Morris has not had any relationship with Clinton for sixteen years, since he was fired when it was revealed that he had allowed a toe-sucking prostitute to listen in on conversations with the President. That’s the sort of character that compelled Fox News to hire Morris. In response to Hannity, Morris said this:

Morris: I guarantee you, Sean, based on what I have heard from third parties or I have spoken to that William Jefferson Clinton is going to cast his ballot for Mitt Romney. However, he’s going to open his mouth for Barack Obama because his wife is hostage. They have her under lock and key as secretary of state, and he is scared that Obama will lose and blame him if he undermines Obama. So he will do everything he asks him to do and then he will jab him whenever he can.

Of course. It’s so obvious. Right after Clinton officially nominates Obama at the Democratic convention he’s going to rush off and vote against him. As if denying Obama that one vote will counter all the positive PR his convention speech will produce. Morris thinks that a life-long Democrat is prepared to vote against a Democratic incumbent for president based on what he’s heard from third parties.

The business about Hillary, however, is the truly idiotic part of this. Morris seems to think that making a woman the most powerful diplomat in the world is equivalent to tying her up in the back room of a flop house. And if Clinton is so worried about being blamed for an Obama loss why would tell anyone that he that he is voting for Romney? Particularly anyone who would actually speak to Dick Morris.

The manure spread by Morris is high grade bullshit. And it’s something he does frequently. Take for example his 2008 book “Condi vs. Hillary,” which contained his astute prediction for the 2008 race in the title. That didn’t exactly pan out for him, did it? From the introduction to the book:

{T]here is no doubt that Hillary Clinton is on a virtually uncontested trajectory to win the Democratic nomination and, very likely, the 2008 presidential election. She has no serious opposition in her party […]

The stakes are high. In 2008, no ordinary white male Republican candidate will do. Forget Bill Frist, George Allen, and George Pataki. Hillary would easily beat any of them. Rudy Giuliani and John McCain? Either of them could probably win, but neither will ever be nominated by the Republican Party.

So Morris got the Democratic nominee wrong, despite his conviction that there was “no doubt.” He also got the Republican nominee wrong. And the Republican who Morris said could not be nominated, but would win if he were, was nominated but actually lost. Is there any way he could have been more wrong?

And now Morris delivers that sort of analysis on Fox News. It is perfectly aligned with the low bar for intelligence and reason that Fox sets for their pundits and anchors. And anyone who watches and believes this tripe deserves the howls of ridicule they will receive when they are inevitably proven to be as stupid as Morris et al.

GOP Chairman Rush Limbaugh Chides Democrats For Straying From Message

Posted by on June 4, 2012 at 7:52 pm. 3 Comments :

In an exercise of Olympian hypocrisy, Rush Limbaugh, the de facto chairman of the Republican Party, spent much of his radio program today lambasting Democrats who he alleges have gotten off message or, even worse, “endorsed” Mitt Romney. Chairman Rush’s unique and dishonest means of expressing this observation is to say that the offending Democrat was “taken to the woodshed.”

“So it looks like Bill Clinton, ladies and gentlemen, was taken to the woodshed. Bill Clinton was taken to the Cory Booker Memorial Woodshed for endorsing Romney last week. You’ve got to wonder, what is in this woodshed to get so many people to change their tunes so quickly? It’s gotta be a pretty big woodshed. All these Democrats have been taken to the woodshed. In Clinton’s case, it could almost be anything in that woodshed: pictures, stained dresses. The mind boggles.”

Oh boy, is that Rush fella a barrel of laughs, or what? Although, I haven’t figured out exactly what he’s talking about when he says “All these Democrats…” The only ones that Chairman Rush identifies are Clinton and Booker, and neither of them were taken to a woodshed, or anywhere else. They have always been, and continue to be strong supporters of President Obama. Clinton even said that if Romney were elected it would be “a calamity for the country and the world.” I suppose that’s what Chairman Rush considers an endorsement because, on the GOP side, so many of Romney’s supporters have been achingly public about how much they hate him. It was Newt Gingrich who called Romney a “Massachusetts Moderate.” And Rick Perry called him a “Vulture Capitalist.”

But the really striking departure from reality for Chairman Rush is that no one exemplifies the persona of a strongman dictator better than Rush himself. Last year there were several high-ranking GOP leaders who were called to come before their master and grovel for forgiveness. They included Michael Steele, John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, Darrel Issa, Mark Sanford, Phil Gingrey, and even Sarah Palin, who excused Rush’s use of the word “retard,” so long as it was used against liberals.

Even if what Limbaugh is saying were true, it would not be particularly surprising for the President to express his desire that his surrogates be aligned with his agenda. He is the candidate and the leader of the party. However, it is appallingly inappropriate for a radio loudmouth to make actual politicians cower before him and seek his blessing. Limbaugh may think he’s cute with his “Cory Booker Memorial Woodshed” business, but it’s Limbaugh who invented the concept and still demands that Republicans subject themselves to his dominance or face the “Rush Limbaugh Memorial Waterboard Shed.” And the sad part is that the Republicans so willingly acquiesce to Limbaugh’s authority.

Clinton Paranoia Endures At Fox Nation

Posted by on February 20, 2010 at 1:23 am. 1 Comments :

The most frightening thing to a Fox Nationalist must be the countenance of a Clinton. They are still trembling at the very thought of the Big Dog. That’s why they were spooked by rumors that Clinton was plotting some dastardly assault on their beloved Tea Partiers. They featured a headline story lamenting their perilous fate.

That’s right. Bill Clinton is plotting a Tea Party attack. The headline linked to a story on Andrew Breitbart’s hilarious parody of a news web site, BigGovernment.com. But they are deadly serious when they accuse the former president of concocting fiendish schemes aimed at the teatotaling Crusaders:

“Big Government has learned that Clintonistas are plotting a ‘push/pull’ strategy. They plan to identify 7-8 national figures active in the tea party movement and engage in deep opposition research on them. If possible, they will identify one or two they can perhaps ‘turn’, either with money or threats, to create a mole in the movement. The others will be subjected to a full-on smear campaign.”

Imagine that. The Tea Crusaders may be subject to a ghastly attempt to oppose their racist, corporate-funded, circus masquerading as a grassroots movement. The Fox Nationalists and BigGovernees must have gotten the impression somewhere that political activities were never supposed to be criticized or countered.

Even more appalling, Breitbart’s deep opposition research has turned up evidence that Clintonistas might engage in deep opposition research. How dare they? Never mind that Breitbart doesn’t bother to disclose the source of his “evidence.” He doesn’t even cite the ubiquitous “anonymous” source who seems to see everything in Washington. He merely says that he’s “learned” of these aborning plots. And to make matters worse, he’s “learned” that Clinton ally James Carville will be heading up the mission.

Breitbart’s pseudonymous stooge further exclaims his surprise that Clinton would go to bat for Obama. He implies that the President’s animosity toward the Clinton clan ought to have prevented that. Much in the way that it prevented Obama from naming Hillary Clinton his Secretary of State.

Oops…Scratch that. In fact, scratch the whole thing. The fact that Fox Nation is getting its scoops from Breitbart should have been the signal to stop paying attention.

Hillary Clinton’s Strange Bedfellows

Posted by on April 21, 2008 at 2:54 am. NO Comments :

Last month Hillary Clinton met with the editors of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review to discuss her campaign in the Pennsylvania primary. The Tribune-Review is owned by ultra right-wing media baron Richard Mellon Scaife. Now the Tribune-Review has published their choice for the Democratic presidential nominee.

“For Pennsylvania Democrats, the smart choice Tuesday is Mrs. Clinton.”

This development caps a weekend of irony for Clinton.

On Saturday a recording was released wherein we hear Clinton bashing MoveOn.org, and accusing them of intimidating her supporters. With the Tribune-Review endorsement we have the unlikely scenario of Clinton slamming a loyal progressive organization that was founded to defend her husband from impeachment, while being endorsed by Scaife’s organization that fought for his impeachment and accused her of murder.

On Sunday Barack Obama was quoted as saying that he, Clinton and McCain would all be better than George Bush. Clinton seized on that statement to say…

“We need a nominee who will take on John McCain, not cheer on John McCain.”

I wholeheartedly agree. Which is why I found it so distasteful when last month both Hillary and Bill Clinton cheered on McCain. Breathe in the hypocrisy:

Hillary: “[McCain] will put forth his lifetime of experience. I will put forth my lifetime of experience. Senator Obama will put forth a speech he made in 2002.”

Bill: “…it would be a great thing if we had an election year where you had two people [Hillary and McCain] who loved this country and were devoted to the interest of this country.”

Politics…bedfellows…whatever.