Posted on 04/04/2008 1:25:53 PM PDT by joanie-f
Hillary Clinton’s campaign ads here in Pennsylvania are focusing significantly on the slogan, ‘The purpose of my life has been standing up for people who weren’t getting a fair shake.’
I’d like to take a look at just three, of countless, people Hillary Clinton has ‘stood up for’ and then ask the readers here whether they would want to be the recipient of Hillary’s particular brand of altruism:
Juanita Broaddrick, who very credibly claims she was raped in 1979 by Ms. Clinton’s husband -- and then advised to ‘put some ice on it’ -- stated the following during an interview with Sean Hannity, in which Ms. Broaddrick described what occurred at a fund-raiser that took place just two weeks after the rape:
She made her way, just as quick as she could, to me.
I got nauseous when she came over to me. She came over to me, took ahold of my hand, and said, ‘I’ve heard so much about you, and I’ve been dying to me you. I just want you to know how much Bill and I appreciate what you do for him.’
I said, ‘Thank you,’ and I started to turn and walk away. This little soft-spoken – pardon me for the phrase -- dowdy woman, who seemed very unassertive, took ahold of my hand and squeezed it and said, ‘Do you understand? Everything that you do.’
I could have passed out at that moment. I got my hand from hers and I left … I mean cold chills went up my spine. That was the first time I became afraid of that woman.
[Hannity: You interpret that to mean that she knew about the incident?]
I certainly do. And she was saying ‘Thank you for keeping quiet.’
I perceive Juanita Broaddrick to be a woman who hasn’t been given a fair shake and I would give anything to be able to ask Ms. Clinton whether her treatment of Ms. Broaddrick should be broadly defined as ‘standing up for’ such people.
Billy Dale had worked in the White House Travel Office for three decades. He had served eight presidents in that capacity. But Hillary Clinton wanted to replace Dale and his staff with a group of political cronies who had donated to the Clinton campaign, and who had provided a million dollars in deferred travel expenses for the campaign, thus allowing that money to be used to foot other campaign expenses.
So Hillary had Dale fired. Just three months after her husband took office, Dale and all of the other employees of the Travel Office were given one hour's notice to pack up their belongings, and they were escorted from the White House grounds in a windowless van. Their replacements, the Clinton cronies, were hired without the customary receiving of competitive bids.
Ms. Clinton then spearheaded an effort to have Billy Dale and the rest of the Travel Office staff accused of, and prosecuted for, improper financial practices during their employment in the Travel Office. In addition, the Internal Revenue Service was told to investigate Mr. Dale’s personal finances. Yet, despite Hillary’s obsessive efforts to defame a man whose record was without blemish, and who was well thought of by all who knew and worked with him, all charges against Dale and the other Travel Office workers were eventually determined to be groundless and were dismissed.
I perceive Billy Dale to be a man who hasn’t been given a fair shake and I would give anything to be able to ask Ms. Clinton whether her treatment of Mr. Dale should be broadly defined as ‘standing up for’ such people.
Back in 1974, Hillary Clinton attempted to deny Richard Nixon the right to counsel during the Watergate investigation. You see, if Nixon had enjoyed the benefit of counsel, then E. Howard Hunt (who coincidentally knew a great deal about crimes committed during the Kennedy administration -- crimes that would have made Watergate look like a walk in the park) could have undergone cross-examination. Hillary and her ilk wanted to prevent such cross-examination, at any cost – even the Constitutional rights of a sitting president.
In order to garner enough votes on the House Judiciary Committee to change House rules and deny Nixon the right to counsel, Hillary wrote a fraudulent legal brief. And in order to disguise her brief as factual, she removed all files that would have revealed the lies contained in her brief. She had them taken to her office, which was not accessible to the public.
When the investigation ended, Jerry Zeifman, who was then chief of staff of the Judiciary Committee, fired Hillary from her position on the committee staff as a result of her attempts to defraud and deceive, and, to this day, he asserts that, if Hillary had submitted her deceptive, baseless and fraudulent brief to a judge, she would have run the real risk of facing disbarment proceedings.
No matter one’s feeling about Nixon, the man, I perceive him to be a man who was judged by a different yardstick than that used to judge others, before or since. In that way, he hasn’t been given a fair shake. And I would give anything to be able to ask Ms. Clinton whether her treatment of Mr. Nixon should be broadly defined as ‘standing up for’ such people.
I also suspect that the waitresses she has stiffed, the campaign workers whose health insurance premiums she has neglected to pay on time, the White House staff who were instructed never to look her in the eye when they passed her in the hallways, and countless other ‘little people’ with whom Hillary has crossed paths during her saintly life of devotion to bettering the lives of ‘the underdog’ might also take issue with the portrait that her campaign advertisements paint of Saint Hillary.
In an unprecedented occurrence, more than one hundred thousand Pennsylvania republicans have changed their registrations to democrat for the upcoming primary election on April 22nd. It will be interesting to see for which of the democrat candidates these 'temporary democrats' cast their ballots. Both candidates are Marxists. Both are pathological liars. And both are megalomaniacal, self-serving ideologues in humanitarian clothing.
Talk about a rock and a hard place.
~ joanie
Allegiance and Duty Betrayed
Jeepers B4Ranch, I didn't realize that I held McCain in a "lofty position." At all. To me, he's just the best of a bad bunch. To say as much is not exactly to praise his character....
Still, I do applaud your statement, to the effect that Washington-type politicians see the Constitution as a document that "MUST be defeated because it erects walls around them. Any man with power knows that these walls must be knocked down. It's kind of like a fence, knock it down. Never tolerate one to be built while you are in office."
Yet the Constitution precedes such types; and every last one of them must swear an oath to it, in order to enter into elected office.
Our job is twofold: (1) To weed out the worst of them in the first place; and then (2) to ever hold the successful candidate's constitutional feet to the fire during his/her incumbacy in office, on pain of prospective impeachment for breach of his/her freely-sworn Oath of Office, which is a criminal offense under our Constitution (worse than any other species of perjury)....
It is obvious to me that private citizens committed to the principles of our Constitutional order of liberty under equal justice need to be more forcefully engaged in the public arena these days.... Free Republic is here to help...but finally, we must all make personal efforts....
Thank you for writing, B4Ranch.
>Jeepers B4Ranch, I didn’t realize that I held McCain in a “lofty position.” At all. To me, he’s just the best of a bad bunch. To say as much is not exactly to praise his character.... <
To designate him as “best of a bad bunch” is quite lofty. Much more lofty than the man deserves. IMO
>Yet the Constitution precedes such types; and every last one of them must swear an oath to it, in order to enter into elected office.<
Yes, they “must swear an oath to it” but unfortunately they don’t have top follow through with that Oath of Office. If they did, our current CinC would have been removed long ago.
Our system of government is collapsing. The fear of prospective impeachment, no longer exists. You’ve heard about “the FBI Files” in relation to Clinton, haven’t you?
Here’s the real reason behind Senator Larry Craigs arrest.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/02/14/sullivan_atf_confirmation_blocked/ This is what can happen if you don’t “go with the flow”. Yes, he’s despicable but all queers are. He didn’t go along with the crowd so somebody with some pull had him arrested. Who do you think is going to be the next Senator to resist the political bosses in DC?
Ah, but he does.
As nicmarlo so ably points out in post #54, McCain has been anything but an adherent to the U.S. Constitution, citing the atrocious McCain-Feingold Act, an assault on our First Amendment, and cannot be counted on to nominate conservative judges. He is on record as believing in Global(oney) Warming, favoring more consultation with foreign countries and the UN rather than acting unilaterally (which may be required where vital American interests are threatened), doesn't believe in secure borders but does believe in granting amnesty to millions of illegal aliens. He likes the idea of the International Criminal Court (ICC), the Law of The Sea Treaty (LOST), and similar international entanglements that would inhibit us from taking fast action while burying us in a sea of international red tape.
McCain is not only not a conservative, he barely qualifies as a Republican, and then only because he is a RINO.
It will take someone with a far more flexible set of principles than mine to pull that "least worse" lever for McCain. Sometimes, you can lose by winning...
Yep!
Who said anything about pessimism?
WE SHALL OVERCOME BY THE BLOOD OF THE LAMB AND THE WORD OF OUR TESTIMONY AS THE WORD OF GOD ASSERTS!
It may get interesting. But I’ve read the end of the book. God wins . . . and carries us with Him as winners IN & THROUGH HIM. What could be better than that.
I sometimesk/often appear to emphasize the negatives on the horizon because I’m trying to wake up sleeping frogs in slowly warming buckets.
YUP.
Horiffically true.
Love God. Believe Him. Trust Him.
Czar,
Thanks for the ping.
joanie,
Thanks for giving Czar another pingable post. Well done. Well said.
You sure make it hard to disagree.
BB, I am with Czar. As bad as the Dems are — or more accurately BECAUSE the dems are as bad as they are, the worst that they would try to foist upon us will be shut down as even the dems will oppose a lot of it after hearing from their constituents.
Otoh, the seemingly moderate McCain will be successful in pushing through more McCain-Feingold type legislation regardless of which party holds Congress. He’ll ‘reach across the aisle’ to the dems and a GOP Congress will do what they can to accommodate a GOP president.
I see disaster no matter who wins but whichever party is in the WH will be turned out and locked for at least 2 or 3 terms. So you have to ask, who do you want to be in control after the next four years?
Certainly not a Democrat. And certainly not a Democrat in the next four years either, especially if the Democrat party picks up seats in Congress as it's predicted they will this year.
Unlike many other people, I lack the ability to predict what McCain would do if elected, except perhaps WRT one issue, the war on Islamofascism. National security is the single biggest concern I have at the present time. McCain would hang tough, the others would try to wiggle out, destabilizing the entire Middle East in the process.... The consequences would be devastating.
Thank you so much for your thoughtful essay-post, Harvey105!
Actually you do have the ability to predict what McCain would do. The best evidence of that would be what he has already done and has said he would like to do. Projecting from that should be all anyone needs to get a good fix on McCain. No need to wonder at all. Previous posts here have covered at least 80% of it. All you need do is consult the record.
As I said earlier, "Sometimes, you can lose by winning..."
I was just listening to Laura Ingraham. She was playing clips from a weekend talking head show with McCain. They gave him every opportunity to talk about Obama’s lack of experience & qualifications to be president. What does McCain do? He defends Obama and compares him to Jack Kennedy......
WTH?
Either that or he's determined to carry on those wonderfully unsuccessful Bush policies known as "new tone in Washington" and "compassionate conservatism".
All of this keeps getting stranger and stranger...
It seems you are of the mind that having a Democrat elected president is a really good idea, on the theory that whoever it is would do such a lousy job, the public would be screaming for a Republican in four years....
Did I understand that correctly? If so, please forgive me: I think that idea is both rash and foolhardy. National survival and sovereignty are a heck of a lot more important than partisan political wrangling. Or so it seems to me. FWIW.
No, it just means they all suck and it’s hard to defend the indefensible.
Your words, not mine.
"It seems you are of the mind that having a Democrat elected president is a really good idea, on the theory that whoever it is would do such a lousy job, the public would be screaming for a Republican in four years...."
Your conclusion and your words, not mine.
"Did I understand that correctly?"
I don't know, but since they are your own words and conclusions, I assume you understand what you said and concluded.
"National survival and sovereignty are a heck of a lot more important than partisan political wrangling."
What makes you think you can have one without the other? National sovereignty, in fact, may be more at risk under McCain than under the other two fools, something you would understand if you had been paying any attention whatsoever to previous posts on the point.
What is obvious to me is that you still have not done any real research on McCain. You seem to harbor a rather childlike belief that American sovereignty is safe with McCain. Many of us do not share that belief for reasons that have already been explained. If you want to vote for McCain, that's fine--just don't try to persuade us that he's anything more than what his own record, actions and words say he is.
Again, "sometimes you can lose by winning".
When he appoints Warren Buffett, maybe some folks will get it.
Check out what I actually said, Czar, rather than what you are imputing to me: I concluded exactly nothing. For me to do so would be foolish with regard to such open-ended questions.
We do not live in a "zero sum game"; and you can't foretell evereything about the future from the stock of your present knowledge. Things change; and yet over vast reaches of time, they stay the same. Go figure.
The point of my speech was to ask you what you thought, so I might better understand your point of view, and so in due course we might have a rational exchange of ideas.
I'm still waiting for the "due course" part.
I detest McCain. He is the single worst possible Repub candidate out of all the other possibilities. We couldn’t have done a worse job this time.
If either of the two Dems gave any sign that they even remotely understood the requirements of waging war, I would happily sit this one out. No one deserves more to be left hanging in the lurch than John McCain, because no one has been more unfaithful in terms of either loyalty or principle than has John McCain.
And, for the sin of nominating someone like McCain, no party more richly deserves to be abandoned than does this year’s Republican Party. For all the nonsense about “who’s the next Reagan” and “where are the real conservatives” what we got was McCain. Among people I know personally, I would promote one or the other of the conservatives, and I’d get the same answer. “Well, he doesn’t really impress me much.”
Well, fine. So our fellow Repubs aren’t “impressed” with conservatives. So you get what you get, and I frankly want no part in it. I promise you, if Obama gave even the remotest hint that he wasn’t a complete and utter fool, if the Dems could manage something more along the lines of a foreign policy debate beyond merely arguing over who will execute the more precipitous retreat, I would gladly sit this one out. I frankly couldn’t be more disgusted.
But, given the greatest opportunity in a generation, to win the White House in a landslide, the Dems are going to fumble it. All they had to do was pretend to be grown-ups and half the conservatives would sit it out. But, they couldn’t manage it.
And to avoid a disastrous rout in Iraq, to avoid having the work we’ve paid for in blood being flushed down the storm sewers, I have no choice but to support the single worst Repub candidate in my lifetime. I have never been less happy about the man I was about to support. His attackers are, every one of them, right on the money about him. No one is less deserving of the presidency than John McCain. If the war weren’t hanging in the balance, I would not go near the guy. As it is, I need a shower.
Huh?
You put words in his mouth that didn’t resemble anything he posted
and now you purport that it was asking a question?
Calling your post revisionist history would be too polite.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.