bill clinton

On the main page, Jon Henke offers a template for Republican mea culpa that should allow us to move forward.  I agree with the assessment that we owe the American people an explanation of where we went wrong AND (let's not forget) where we went right over the past eight years.  That said, such a mea culpa has to concentrate on the issues where we actually WENT WRONG as opposed to the one major issue where George W. Bush sacrificed his personal popularity to lead the United States (and the entire world) to a better tomorrow.

On that note, these are the seven legitmate issues for a Republican Mea Culpa:

1) Terri Schivao

2) Harriet Miers

3) TARP and Bailout Nation.

4) 2002 and 2008 Farm Bills

5) Duke Cunningham, et. al.

6) 2005 Highway Bill

7) Continuing and expanding Carter/Clinton "affordable housing" policies.

Things that have NO PLACE on this list: IRAQ, Medicare Part D, Katrina, Missle Defense, or ANYTHING related to the War on Terror.

Agnostic: No Child Left Behind, Immigration.

Thoughts/Suggestions?!?

In the mid to late 1990's the Clinton Adminstration discovered a wave of arson allegedly being directed at the black church in the Deep South.  This issue quickly become an important issue for the Clintons, who made it a point to ensure such crimes were investigated and prosecuted http://www.cnn.com/US/9701/18/clinton.radio/index.html

President Clinton reported Saturday on the progress made by a task force he established last June to investigate a series of arsons against churches, saying the probes have been "remarkably successful."

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/church_arson/arson98.php

Indeed, in 1996 a new federal statute was enacted making church arson a federal offense

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?tab=summary&bill=h104-3525

It appears, that far from the Deep South, we may have a new politically motivated church arson  http://www.ktuu.com/Global/story.asp?S=9516339

ANCHORAGE, Alaska-- Gov. Sarah Palin's home church has been badly damaged in a suspicious fire.

Larry Kroon, the pastor of the Wasilla Bible Church, estimates damages at more than $1 million to the church.

Kroon says the fire broke out Friday night while a small group of women were working on crafts, and were alerted to the blaze by a fire alarm.

By the time he got to the church, Kroon said he could see smoke pouring out of the building.

Kroon declined to say if the blaze was politically based or directed at Palin.

Palin spokesman Bill McAllister said the governor stopped by the church Saturday morning and apologized if the incident was related to her.

In a written statement McAllister said Palin, "told an assistant pastor that she apologizes if the incident is in any way connected to the undeserved negative attention the church has received since she became a vice presidential candidate on Aug. 29. Whatever the motives of the arsonist, the governor has faith in the scriptural passage that what was intended for evil will in some way be used for good."

Let's see if the Obama Justice Department makes this act of political terrorism directed at Christians a federal case.  After all, we are all entitled to equal protection under the law.

Aren't we?

Why is this woman

NOT the Democratic Party's 2008 nominee for president?

Simple. It is because of this man:

I cannot think of a single person I've spoken to who disagrees with this fact. I especially have never spoken to a single Democrat who disagrees. Bill Clinton's presidency was NOT one of the greatest in history, despite it having been described as such as he was introduced last night to the Democratic National Convention in Denver. A great presidency is never a liability to a successor, unless that successor is a gross mediocrity; and no one at last night's convention would countenance that Barack Obama is a mediocrity. But a bad presidency is a liability to  anyone closely associated with it.

It is reported that Hillary Clinton is quite close to that liability.
____________________

What I have heard said by many conservative pundits since John McCain won the Republican presidential nomination (presumptively) is that John McCain was the "media's" choice for the Republican post. Of course, this assertion is always issued with contempt, as the media are largely portrayed by the conservative punditry as a hive of leftists. In many senses this is true; the media do tend left. And it is also true that many on the left, including those in the media, are not uncomfortable with a McCain presidency. I recall diehard leftists -- among my friends and family -- during the 2000 election cycle telling me that they were impressed with McCain and that I should be, too.

But if the media created John McCain's presumptive place atop the Republican Party, it was the Republican machinery -- along with countless conservatives -- that put Barack Obama atop the Democratic Party. Let me put it this way:

Why is this man

enjoying his ascendant celebrity?

Simple. It is because of this man:

During the height of the Democratic primary season, former Democratic vice-presidential nominee Geraldine Ferraro drew much attention to herself when she asserted that Barack Obama was enjoying great success in his bid for the White House because he was black. Of course, the attention Ms. Ferraro drew from her leftist peers was largely filled with ire, though some in her party were quite sympathetic to her views. While it could be reasonably argued that Ms. Ferraro's observation has some merit, her reasons for saying what she did were really a type of cover. What I believe Ms. Ferraro was doing was concealing something about the candidate she was not only supporting but advising: She was concealing the fact that her candidate, Hillary Clinton, was losing NOT because Barack Obama was black, but because Bill Clinton was her husband. (Please note that I am in no way impugning Mr. Obama's obvious abilities and talents.) Instead of looking at the heart of the problem, Ms. Ferraro looked to alleged external causes for her candidate's struggles.

Last fall, I attended a Barack Obama event. It was very much a surprise to the local folks who know me who were also in attendance, as my conservatism often precedes me when I go to such events. What I noted afterwards was how many liberals came up to speak to me; all had one thing in common. They agreed with the (very conservative?) position that the Clintons were a bad choice for the 2008 nomination; they agreed that Bill Clinton was a liability to winning the general election; they agreed that the Clinton machine would destroy and digest any person who stood in their way; they agreed that the Clintons were motivated by power and avarice.

But to what were these liberals agreeing? That's right. They were agreeing with what Republicans had been saying about the Clintons since 1992.

Hence, the Democratic Party, staring directly at the very competent wife of "one of the greatest presidents in history" and a US Senator in her own right, took its cues not from itself but from the Republicans' "Anyone-but-Billary" meme. By the thinnest margin, Hillary Clinton missed a nomination because of too much baggage, with her husband being most of that baggage. Barack Obama might NOT be a better leader, legislator, or chief executive, but he isn't a Clinton, and has a better chance of winning the general election because he was not born  of such a pedigree; or so concluded many in the Democratic Party. Perhaps that explains why he did so well during his exploration process among the middle-aged white women comprising his earliest focus groups.

What I am saying is that the "vast right-wing conspiracy" has ultimately kept Hillary Clinton out of the White House... for now. But what I am also saying is this: The Democrats know where their party's weakest link is, and they don't want you to know it. Their weakest link is Bill Clinton. And it is for that reason that the Republicans should use all their muster to show why the Democrats don't really believe that Bill Clinton is the "greatest president" and why 9/11, the war on terror, and even the current housing crisis (or so they could argue) were all born during his presidency. Reminding voters of Bill Clinton's great national liability, and not Barack Obama's assumed weaknesses, is the key to Republican victory in November.

(One place to start: You know those "47 million uninsured Americans" who don't have health care and are being exploited by Democrats to foster sympathy for a nationalized health care system? Were they insured under Bill Clinton?)

___________________

Here's the calculus for a Republican win: Constantly remind the electorate that this man

is where he is because of this man,

and because the Democrats don't want Americans to recall what occurred on Clinton's watch, under his "great leadership" when, as even he said last night, he led "our nation to a new era of peace and broadly shared prosperity." That the Clintons have been pushed aside by many in their party proves that Democrats accept the Republican verdict on Mr. Clinton's presidency: it was not what he and his party think it was.

And the Democratic Convention's penchant for revisionism, a revisionism brazenly shaped in plain view, reveals the party must conceal Mr. Clinton's failures.

"Peace," Mr. Clinton? What peace? The peace of the World Trade Center bombing? The peace in Somalia, the Balkans? The peace which led to continuous military strikes against Iraq? The peace in 1998, when Osama bin Laden issued his fatwa in the heart of your presidency, calling for the murder of Americans everywhere, and that largely because of your abuse of Iraq? You mean the peace that led to 9/11?

You get the picture, and it's grim. It's no wonder the Democrats are revising history before our eyes in Denver. They are desperate for change.

Bill Gnade ©2008. All Rights Reserved.

How can you tell the difference between a good politician and a great politician? Good politicians can succeed in good contexts, but can't change the context when things go south. Great politicians can alter the underlying context they operate under in their favor.

Many of us have wondered why John McCain can't seem to recapture the magic from his 2000 run. But maybe we should stop wondering so much. Here, it is all about context. McCain succeeded in the context of being an underdog primary challenger to an establishment candidate with the media on his side. He could deploy arguments he can't now. He's the top guy now. There's no one's eye left to poke, except Obama's, and that's conventionally partisan and not media fodder in the same way the original Straight Talk Express was.

Or look at Bush. He thoroughly owned the American political space from September 2001 to the spring of 2005. Ever since, it's owned him. Here again, Bush was highly susceptible to the political context. The long and consistent slide in his approval ratings post-9/11 suggested he was on something akin to political autopilot. It was only when he tried to exercise some control over his political destiny and define his opposition (during the 2004 campaign) that the trend reversed itself. But once Bush shifted from campaign mode into official mode, he was again subject to the laws of political gravity.

In modern history, only two politicians have been able to dramatically alter the context in which they operated: Reagan and Clinton. Reagan brought his own context -- an optimistic, can-do America to replace the dreariness of the '70s. And he was always able to bounce back from scandals or setbacks like Iran-Contra. And Clinton during impeachment was able to boomerang a personal scandal back on his opponents by making it all about the accusers, not the accused. In so doing, he was able to dodge the natural tendency of Presidents to get dragged down by voter fatigue.

Time will tell if Obama fits in the "good" or "great" category. He certainly hasn't been tested, and the media hasn't turned on him in anything more than a glancing way. But given the tendency to make stupid mistakes like "bitter" and Wright and not apologize for them, I wouldn't put him in the "walks on air" category just yet.

In today's Washington Post , Bill Clinton's Treasury Secretary, Lawrence Summers, sounded as if he had joined the Heritage Foundation in expressing profound skepticism that the Chris Dodd Mortgage Bailout Bill will not implode at stupendous cost to the taxpayer.

While adopting the Bush adminstration posture that the crisis at Fannie and Freddie made even a wretched bill better than inaction, Lawrence Summers offered zero grounds to believe that we will not be back doing this all over again real soon. 

Unfinished Business at Freddie and Fannie

What the Government Should Do if the Housing Giants Can't Stand on Their Own

Anyone who cares about the health of the U.S. economy should welcome the enactment of the Treasury's rescue plan for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, along with other measures to support the housing market. While there is room for argument about details, the risks to the financial system were too great to allow delay. .......

No one should suppose, however, that the issue is satisfactorily resolved, even for the short term. Emergency legislation was necessary because market participants were unwilling to buy Fannie and Freddie's debt; investors doubted that the government-sponsored enterprises, or GSEs, were healthy enough to repay it and did not draw sufficient reassurance from the implicit guarantee of federal support. If their debt proves easier to place now, it is only because this guarantee has been strengthened, not because anything has changed at the GSEs.

This, to put it mildly, is a highly problematic posture for policy. While I strongly supported the Federal Reserve's policy response to the crisis at Bear Stearns, because it was necessary to avoid systemic risk, it is easy to sympathize with those who fear that bailouts inhibit market discipline. Consider how much more problematic the Bear Stearns response would have been had policymakers signaled their commitment to back the company's liabilities without limit; left management in place with no change in the business model; and allowed dividends to be paid and shareholders to keep going with hope for a better tomorrow. Yet all these elements are present in the cases of Fannie and Freddie.

To see the temptation and danger inherent in such a situation, one need only look back to the mismanagement of the savings-and-loan crisis.... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/27/AR2008072701167.html

 

One of the arguments against term limits is that more experienced officeholders will learn from their mistakes. Throw that argument out. Since Chris Dodd and co. are eager to re-enact the 1989-90 Savings & Loan debacle, while adding another zero to the ultimate price tag, we can garner that one learns nothing from service on the Senate Banking Committee besides how to invite financiers to fundraisers.  

Woman, husband said to shackle victims to beds, keep them in dog cages without food
<!-- end deck -->Posted: July 01, 2008
1:49 am Eastern

<!-- copyright -->© 2008 WorldNetDaily <!-- end copyright -->

<!-- begin bodytext -->

Joy Johnson

A Democratic Party official and her husband are facing charges in connection with alleged satanic rituals involving the kidnap, rape and starvation of another couple in North Carolina.

Joy Johnson, 30, a vice-chairwoman of the Durham County Democratic Party and vice chairwoman of the Young Democrats, made an appearance in court yesterday after she and her spouse, Joseph Craig, were arrested Friday.

Craig, 25, is charged with second-degree rape, second-degree kidnapping and two counts of assault with a deadly weapon for an incident in January and another in May. Johnson is charged with two counts of aiding and abetting.

According to published and broadcast reports, prosecutors said a man and a woman met Craig through a shared interest in Satan worship, although the couple never consented to any physical abuse.

Joseph Craig

Craig allegedly shackled his victims to beds, kept them in dog cages and starved them inside his home. Police say he beat the man with a cane and a cord, and raped the woman.
 

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=68469