Granny meaningless offends the left.
http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/hillary-irks-blacklivesmatter-activists-saying-all-lives-matter
The Blaze reports that Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton spoke at a Missouri church this afternoon, addressing the Charleston church massacre and efforts to remove the Confederate flag.
Then she made the mistake of asserting that “all lives matter” - a phrase that set off the #BlackLivesMatter crowd online. They responded with a barrage of disapproving tweets, a sampling of which is below:
Hillary Clinton, in a Black church, just said "All lives matter." Fam...
If she didn't get a "no" from me before, she sure does now. "@yoauntielikeit Hillary, in a Black church, said "All lives matter." Fam..."
Hillary Clinton really and truly said "All lives Matter"
OMG
SHE HAS TO BE ONE OF THE DUMBEST POLITICIANS THIS NATION HAS EVER PRODUCED
I wish Hillary Clinton would realize the violence and erasure behind the reactionary "All Lives Matter" BS. Or maybe she does.
To say "All Lives Matter" in a black church less than a week after Charleston is, I have to say, pretty violent and despicable.
Liberal eating their own. Whoda thunk it!
http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/hillary-irks-blacklivesmatter-activists-saying-all-lives-matter
The Blaze reports that Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton spoke at a Missouri church this afternoon, addressing the Charleston church massacre and efforts to remove the Confederate flag.
Then she made the mistake of asserting that “all lives matter” - a phrase that set off the #BlackLivesMatter crowd online. They responded with a barrage of disapproving tweets, a sampling of which is below:
Hillary Clinton, in a Black church, just said "All lives matter." Fam...
If she didn't get a "no" from me before, she sure does now. "@yoauntielikeit Hillary, in a Black church, said "All lives matter." Fam..."
Hillary Clinton really and truly said "All lives Matter"
OMG
SHE HAS TO BE ONE OF THE DUMBEST POLITICIANS THIS NATION HAS EVER PRODUCED
I wish Hillary Clinton would realize the violence and erasure behind the reactionary "All Lives Matter" BS. Or maybe she does.
To say "All Lives Matter" in a black church less than a week after Charleston is, I have to say, pretty violent and despicable.
Liberal eating their own. Whoda thunk it!
I want to be your champion!
http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/shine-comes-hillary-some
A young woman who says she was inspired by Hillary Clinton's last run for president and the "18 million cracks in the glass ceiling" it produced, now says she's losing faith in the woman that inspired her to get involved in politics. In an op-ed for USA Today, New York City barista Carolyn Osorio writes that the cheapness of the Clinton campaign is shocking.
When Hillary announced her second run for the White House, I felt my passion for politics reignite. I quickly applied for and was offered a position as a Hillary for America Fellow to work on the campaign. I couldn't have been more excited until I was told I'd have to move to Nevada and work full-time on my own dime.
Osorio acknowledges that unpaid internships are common in politics and many other places but that she expects more from Clinton.
But it doesn't bode well that a campaign seeking younger votes would callously overlook my generation's biggest struggle: employment. Nearly 14% of us are unemployed. After two straight years of unemployment, I thought things were looking up with a potential Hillary victory.
Internships, once a prestigious foot-in-the-door experience, have increasingly been shown to be an abusive way for employers to gain free labor. I myself had bad experiences at unpaid internships in both California and New York. I promised myself when I graduated two years ago to never let anyone do that to me again.
Progressives have been campaigning against such internships in business for years but that hasn't stopped Hillary from using the system. Just last week Clinton decried the youth unemployment problem and rolled out her proposals to fix it.
Apparently it doesn't include paying interns.
http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/shine-comes-hillary-some
A young woman who says she was inspired by Hillary Clinton's last run for president and the "18 million cracks in the glass ceiling" it produced, now says she's losing faith in the woman that inspired her to get involved in politics. In an op-ed for USA Today, New York City barista Carolyn Osorio writes that the cheapness of the Clinton campaign is shocking.
When Hillary announced her second run for the White House, I felt my passion for politics reignite. I quickly applied for and was offered a position as a Hillary for America Fellow to work on the campaign. I couldn't have been more excited until I was told I'd have to move to Nevada and work full-time on my own dime.
Osorio acknowledges that unpaid internships are common in politics and many other places but that she expects more from Clinton.
But it doesn't bode well that a campaign seeking younger votes would callously overlook my generation's biggest struggle: employment. Nearly 14% of us are unemployed. After two straight years of unemployment, I thought things were looking up with a potential Hillary victory.
Internships, once a prestigious foot-in-the-door experience, have increasingly been shown to be an abusive way for employers to gain free labor. I myself had bad experiences at unpaid internships in both California and New York. I promised myself when I graduated two years ago to never let anyone do that to me again.
Progressives have been campaigning against such internships in business for years but that hasn't stopped Hillary from using the system. Just last week Clinton decried the youth unemployment problem and rolled out her proposals to fix it.
Apparently it doesn't include paying interns.
[h=2]Hillary Clinton: A Voice for Everyday Chinese Billionaires[/h]BY: Andrew Stiles
June 23, 2015 11:34 am
SHARE
TWEET
EMAIL
Committed liberals who take principled stands on the key issues are looking for a champion, and may have found one in Bernie Sanders, the socialist Senator from Vermont. Chinese billionaires, meanwhile, are also looking for a candidate who speaks to their concerns. Fortunately, they have Hillary Clinton.
Bloomberg reports:
Yan Jiehe, who is sometimes described as the “Donald Trump of China,” has been criticized for his aggressive construction practices. For example, Yan’s company, in coordination with the Chinese government, literally flattened 700 mountains to make way for a $3.5 billion development project, despite warnings from environmental groups. In 2011, while Hillary was serving as secretary of state, Yan hosted a CEO forum in Shanghai that paid his “good friend” Bill Clinton $550,000 to speak.
“Lots of people say she’s not as friendly as her husband on China policies,” Yan told Bloomberg. “But I believe she won’t hold up her tough stance on China once elected.”
Has Bernie Sanders even met a Chinese billionaire? Didn’t think so.
This entry was posted in Politics and tagged 2016 Election, Bill Clinton, China, Clinton Foundation, Hillary Clinton. Bookmark the permalink.
June 23, 2015 11:34 am
SHARE
TWEET
Speaking up for the little guy. (AP)
Committed liberals who take principled stands on the key issues are looking for a champion, and may have found one in Bernie Sanders, the socialist Senator from Vermont. Chinese billionaires, meanwhile, are also looking for a candidate who speaks to their concerns. Fortunately, they have Hillary Clinton.
Bloomberg reports:
A Hillary Clinton presidency would be “friendly” toward China despite the perception the architect of the U.S. military rebalance to Asia was a combative secretary of state, according to Chinese billionaire Yan Jiehe.
Yan Jiehe said he has met former U.S. President Bill Clinton at least five times since 2010, with Clinton attending the Shanghai wedding celebrations for Yan’s son, and met Hillary in the U.S. A sizable donor to the Clinton Foundation, Yan is the founder of China Pacific Construction Group.
First, some context: Bloomberg News suspended one of its reporters in 2013 for writing an article critical of the Chinese government and its ruling elite.Yan Jiehe said he has met former U.S. President Bill Clinton at least five times since 2010, with Clinton attending the Shanghai wedding celebrations for Yan’s son, and met Hillary in the U.S. A sizable donor to the Clinton Foundation, Yan is the founder of China Pacific Construction Group.
Yan Jiehe, who is sometimes described as the “Donald Trump of China,” has been criticized for his aggressive construction practices. For example, Yan’s company, in coordination with the Chinese government, literally flattened 700 mountains to make way for a $3.5 billion development project, despite warnings from environmental groups. In 2011, while Hillary was serving as secretary of state, Yan hosted a CEO forum in Shanghai that paid his “good friend” Bill Clinton $550,000 to speak.
“Lots of people say she’s not as friendly as her husband on China policies,” Yan told Bloomberg. “But I believe she won’t hold up her tough stance on China once elected.”
Has Bernie Sanders even met a Chinese billionaire? Didn’t think so.
Bill Clinton and Yan Jiehe in 2014. (AP)
This entry was posted in Politics and tagged 2016 Election, Bill Clinton, China, Clinton Foundation, Hillary Clinton. Bookmark the permalink.
[h=2]Graham Blasts Hillary’s ‘Sleazy’ Associates, State Department Management[/h]South Carolina senator slams ‘sleazy’ Sidney Blumenthal
SHARE
TWEET
EMAIL
BY: Alana Goodman
June 25, 2015 6:15 pm
South Carolina senator and presidential candidate Lindsey Graham slammed Hillary Clinton’s management of the State Department on Wednesday, saying that other Americans could be sent to jail for running organizations in a similar fashion.
“I don’t know how in the world she can avoid being held accountable for the way she ran the State Department,” said Graham, during a meeting with Washington Free Beaconreporters on Wednesday morning. “The sleazy nature of these relationships, and her AWOL when it came to taking care of the people under her charge—being AWOL regarding Benghazi.”
Graham said he had concerns about Clinton’s continued relationship with long-time confidante Sidney Blumenthal, who passed on faulty intelligence from his private intelligence network to the Secretary of State.
“I have zero respect for the man,” said Graham, noting that Blumenthal was accused of spreading false rumors to discredit Monica Lewinsky in the 1990s. “There’s a reason the State Department wouldn’t hire him. For her to continue to associate with this guy says a lot about her.”
Graham said he also found it troubling that Clinton’s chief of staff Cheryl Mills was simultaneously serving on the board of New York University’s UAE-funded Abu Dhabi campus, earning $198,000 as NYU’s general counsel and working for Clinton at the State Department. The Free Beacon firstreported on Mills’ overlapping positions on Wednesday.
“What kind of vetting system do you have over there?” said Graham. “Somebody had to sign off on this. Either [Clinton’s] okay with this, or completely in the dark.”
The Republican candidate also blasted Clinton for her use of a private email server, saying that if she had been in the Bush administration there would be much more serious consequences.
“If Dick Cheney had done any of this. If Dick Cheney had set up a server in his house,” said Graham. “If Dick Cheney’s lawyers had gone through the process and said ‘No, we cleansed the thing, trust us, we did it right,’ there’d be all hell to pay.”
The senator said Clinton’s handling of the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi was the biggest black mark on her State Department record.
He criticized the former secretary of state for failing to address security concerns at the Benghazi compound in the months leading up to the attack, despite requests from staff and the late Ambassador Chris Stevens.
“What do you have to do as an ambassador in her State Department to get help? Do you have to take an ad out in the Washington Post?” said Graham. “They did everything they could do to request additional help, and every request, for the most part, was denied.”
“I think she’s carrying more bags than anybody should be able to carry for President of the United States,” he added.
In addition to Clinton, Graham said he also thought fellow Republican senator and presidential candidate Rand Paul would have significant baggage on national security issues going into the race.
He said Paul’s recent filibuster to protest NSA surveillance hurt his standing with senate colleagues, and described it as an “unseemly” fundraising ploy.
“The worst thing that can happen to you in the Senate is people think you don’t know what you’re doing,” said Graham. “Rand, I think, exhibited a detachment from the reality that exists in terms of the [national security] threats.”
“People thought he did it for political reasons,” Graham added. “He’s out there on the floor doing a filibuster and raising money. And I think that was unseemly. I think he tremendously hurt himself in terms of being seen as a colleague who is serious and knowledgeable.”
SHARE
TWEET
Lindsey Graham / AP
BY: Alana Goodman
June 25, 2015 6:15 pm
South Carolina senator and presidential candidate Lindsey Graham slammed Hillary Clinton’s management of the State Department on Wednesday, saying that other Americans could be sent to jail for running organizations in a similar fashion.
“I don’t know how in the world she can avoid being held accountable for the way she ran the State Department,” said Graham, during a meeting with Washington Free Beaconreporters on Wednesday morning. “The sleazy nature of these relationships, and her AWOL when it came to taking care of the people under her charge—being AWOL regarding Benghazi.”
Graham said he had concerns about Clinton’s continued relationship with long-time confidante Sidney Blumenthal, who passed on faulty intelligence from his private intelligence network to the Secretary of State.
“I have zero respect for the man,” said Graham, noting that Blumenthal was accused of spreading false rumors to discredit Monica Lewinsky in the 1990s. “There’s a reason the State Department wouldn’t hire him. For her to continue to associate with this guy says a lot about her.”
Graham said he also found it troubling that Clinton’s chief of staff Cheryl Mills was simultaneously serving on the board of New York University’s UAE-funded Abu Dhabi campus, earning $198,000 as NYU’s general counsel and working for Clinton at the State Department. The Free Beacon firstreported on Mills’ overlapping positions on Wednesday.
“What kind of vetting system do you have over there?” said Graham. “Somebody had to sign off on this. Either [Clinton’s] okay with this, or completely in the dark.”
The Republican candidate also blasted Clinton for her use of a private email server, saying that if she had been in the Bush administration there would be much more serious consequences.
“If Dick Cheney had done any of this. If Dick Cheney had set up a server in his house,” said Graham. “If Dick Cheney’s lawyers had gone through the process and said ‘No, we cleansed the thing, trust us, we did it right,’ there’d be all hell to pay.”
The senator said Clinton’s handling of the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi was the biggest black mark on her State Department record.
He criticized the former secretary of state for failing to address security concerns at the Benghazi compound in the months leading up to the attack, despite requests from staff and the late Ambassador Chris Stevens.
“What do you have to do as an ambassador in her State Department to get help? Do you have to take an ad out in the Washington Post?” said Graham. “They did everything they could do to request additional help, and every request, for the most part, was denied.”
“I think she’s carrying more bags than anybody should be able to carry for President of the United States,” he added.
In addition to Clinton, Graham said he also thought fellow Republican senator and presidential candidate Rand Paul would have significant baggage on national security issues going into the race.
He said Paul’s recent filibuster to protest NSA surveillance hurt his standing with senate colleagues, and described it as an “unseemly” fundraising ploy.
“The worst thing that can happen to you in the Senate is people think you don’t know what you’re doing,” said Graham. “Rand, I think, exhibited a detachment from the reality that exists in terms of the [national security] threats.”
“People thought he did it for political reasons,” Graham added. “He’s out there on the floor doing a filibuster and raising money. And I think that was unseemly. I think he tremendously hurt himself in terms of being seen as a colleague who is serious and knowledgeable.”
[h=2]Karma Chameleon in Chief[/h]Column: Hillary Clinton and the politics of expediency
SHARE
TWEET
EMAIL
BY: Matthew Continetti
June 26, 2015 5:00 am
I’m a man without conviction
I’m a man who doesn’t know
How to sell a contradiction
You come and go, you come and go
—Culture Club
Hillary Clinton is a woman without conviction, a woman who doesn’t know. She was first lady of a southern state, she sat on the board of directors of Wal-Mart from 1986 to 1992—but is there any record of her voicing opposition to Wal-Mart’s labor practices, of her opposing the sale of the Confederate battle flag? Until recently, has there been any moment in the decades following her appointment to that board, in the many years in which she has been egregiously prominent in public life, when she led on, was prominently identified with, the issue of the flag or racial matters in general?
They say Obama’s audacious. What’s truly remarkable, though, is his potential successor’s blatant contempt for the politics of principle and conviction—her unique ability to adopt, quickly and seamlessly, the most expedient position at any moment, to flaunt her temporary stance with the righteousness and self-regard of a longtime committed activist.
Her husband campaigned in the ’90s as a tough-on-crime neoliberal who would lock up criminals, even put them to death, who challenged the racism of Sister Souljah, promised to “mend” affirmative action, worked hard to recover the Democratic position in white working class precincts. Hillary was his active partner. Nor did she denounce her husband’s policies when she ran for Senate in 2000 and 2006 and for president in 2008, when the chances of her nomination rested on her ability to win “beer track” white and Hispanic Democrats.
It is only today, when the Democratic Party of Barack Obama has veered left, written off the white working class, and been seized by a practically religious enthusiasm for cultural reformation and purgation, that Clinton has called for an “end to the era of mass incarceration,” said America has “to face hard truths about race and justice,” and launched a campaign, in the words of the New York Times, “focused more on mobilizing supporters in the Great Lakes states and in parts of the West and South than on persuading undecided voters.”
What we have, on issue after issue, is a presidential frontrunner uninterested in leadership, who holds an ambivalent attitude toward notions of political courage and intellectual independence, who is devoted exclusively and mechanically to the capture of high office. She has latched on to the president’s ad hoc and failing Iraq policies because her party’s base supports them; gone from opposing same-sex marriage as recently as a few years ago to marching at the vanguard of America’s latest Cultural Revolution and saying that “deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs, and structural biases have to be changed”; pledged to “go further” than Barack Obama’s constitutionally dubious executive amnesty despite being silent when her husband signed tough immigration bills in the ’90s, and despite having voted for an amendment that helped kill a pro-immigration bill in 2007; waffled on a trade agreement that she backed while secretary of state; somehow avoided committing to an intelligible and consistent position on the Keystone Pipeline despite taking money from the anti-Keystone billionaire Tom Steyer. Is there any doubt that this supposed pro-Israel Democrat will back whatever nuclear agreement President Obama is able to reach with Iran, no matter how much he capitulates to the ayatollah’s demands?
Hillary Clinton’s approach to politics is cynical, uninspiring, robotic. She’s a chef who follows the recipe without exception, who’s too afraid of failure to challenge the authority of either her superiors or her customers. She’ll be a president suitable for the age of intelligent machines. Like a Terminator she is fixated on her mission—though the Terminator has more personality, greater charm. There’s an assumption behind all her latest moves, a programming code that determines the automaton’s behavior: that the country’s demographics and culture have changed to such an extent that a winning campaign needn’t do more than identify and mobilize core supporters by assuming the various poses most likely to drive them to the polls. There’s the chance the code could be garbage.
Clinton isn’t the first politician who’s inconsistent—far from it. What she and her husband have pioneered is a mode of inconsistency, an entire lifestyle of ideological flexibility the goal of which isn’t public-minded but wholly self-interested. “The only way a man can remain consistent amid changing circumstances is to change with them while preserving the same dominating purpose,” Churchill wrote in “Consistency in Politics” (1932). But the dominating purpose Churchill had in mind was a public one: the common good. And the pursuit of the common good often requires the statesman to disagree with public opinion—to challenge his base, or indeed the majority.
Earlier this year Bill Clinton identified the dominant purpose behind his family’s inconsistency: “I gotta pay our bills.” Blessed with loquacity, smarts, and personal charisma, the man from Hope, Ark., used political office as a means to acquire fame and fortune. Unable to go into business, or perhaps uninterested, convinced that his good and the public good are synonymous, he derived riches from his political talent: lucrative friendships, generous supporters, speaking audiences ready to pay.
The maintenance of what Mickey Kaus calls the “Clinton mode of production” requires at least one member of the family to hold office, so that powerful and wealthy people might obtain a frisson of access and influence through financial gift-giving. What the Clintons understand is that the easiest way to hold office, and thereby keep up the mansions and private jets and villas and beach vacations, is to flatter and cater to the ever-changing morality and self-conception of the liberal ruling caste, to understand what troubles their guilty consciences, to put yourself forward as the representative of their fluctuating and malleable concerns.
Such an approach requires a canny operator able to obscure changes in policy behind a smooth veneer of likability and guile—and if we have learned anything so far in this campaign it is that Hillary Clinton is not such an operator. She is clumsy, stilted, tentative, suspicious, rehearsed, monotonous. She might satisfy, but does she inspire? Do any of the voters nodding their heads at her latest declaration of the conventional wisdom consider themselves “Hillary Clinton Democrats”? What does she stand for besides her own ambition?
It would take someone like Bill Clinton to overcome another obstacle: The differences between the primary electorate and the general one. The social issues on which the left is proclaiming victory may become insignificant next year when voters compare them to a moribund economy and a collapsing international order. The combination of an uninspiring and untrustworthy candidate and a political environment hostile to the incumbent party might overwhelm Hillary Clinton’s meager skills. Like Boy George, Hillary doesn’t quite know how to finesse the contradiction between her past and her present, between what she’s selling and what the general electorate might want. Voters are fickle, after all. They come and go.
SHARE
TWEET
AP
BY: Matthew Continetti
June 26, 2015 5:00 am
I’m a man without conviction
I’m a man who doesn’t know
How to sell a contradiction
You come and go, you come and go
—Culture Club
Hillary Clinton is a woman without conviction, a woman who doesn’t know. She was first lady of a southern state, she sat on the board of directors of Wal-Mart from 1986 to 1992—but is there any record of her voicing opposition to Wal-Mart’s labor practices, of her opposing the sale of the Confederate battle flag? Until recently, has there been any moment in the decades following her appointment to that board, in the many years in which she has been egregiously prominent in public life, when she led on, was prominently identified with, the issue of the flag or racial matters in general?
They say Obama’s audacious. What’s truly remarkable, though, is his potential successor’s blatant contempt for the politics of principle and conviction—her unique ability to adopt, quickly and seamlessly, the most expedient position at any moment, to flaunt her temporary stance with the righteousness and self-regard of a longtime committed activist.
Her husband campaigned in the ’90s as a tough-on-crime neoliberal who would lock up criminals, even put them to death, who challenged the racism of Sister Souljah, promised to “mend” affirmative action, worked hard to recover the Democratic position in white working class precincts. Hillary was his active partner. Nor did she denounce her husband’s policies when she ran for Senate in 2000 and 2006 and for president in 2008, when the chances of her nomination rested on her ability to win “beer track” white and Hispanic Democrats.
It is only today, when the Democratic Party of Barack Obama has veered left, written off the white working class, and been seized by a practically religious enthusiasm for cultural reformation and purgation, that Clinton has called for an “end to the era of mass incarceration,” said America has “to face hard truths about race and justice,” and launched a campaign, in the words of the New York Times, “focused more on mobilizing supporters in the Great Lakes states and in parts of the West and South than on persuading undecided voters.”
What we have, on issue after issue, is a presidential frontrunner uninterested in leadership, who holds an ambivalent attitude toward notions of political courage and intellectual independence, who is devoted exclusively and mechanically to the capture of high office. She has latched on to the president’s ad hoc and failing Iraq policies because her party’s base supports them; gone from opposing same-sex marriage as recently as a few years ago to marching at the vanguard of America’s latest Cultural Revolution and saying that “deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs, and structural biases have to be changed”; pledged to “go further” than Barack Obama’s constitutionally dubious executive amnesty despite being silent when her husband signed tough immigration bills in the ’90s, and despite having voted for an amendment that helped kill a pro-immigration bill in 2007; waffled on a trade agreement that she backed while secretary of state; somehow avoided committing to an intelligible and consistent position on the Keystone Pipeline despite taking money from the anti-Keystone billionaire Tom Steyer. Is there any doubt that this supposed pro-Israel Democrat will back whatever nuclear agreement President Obama is able to reach with Iran, no matter how much he capitulates to the ayatollah’s demands?
Hillary Clinton’s approach to politics is cynical, uninspiring, robotic. She’s a chef who follows the recipe without exception, who’s too afraid of failure to challenge the authority of either her superiors or her customers. She’ll be a president suitable for the age of intelligent machines. Like a Terminator she is fixated on her mission—though the Terminator has more personality, greater charm. There’s an assumption behind all her latest moves, a programming code that determines the automaton’s behavior: that the country’s demographics and culture have changed to such an extent that a winning campaign needn’t do more than identify and mobilize core supporters by assuming the various poses most likely to drive them to the polls. There’s the chance the code could be garbage.
Clinton isn’t the first politician who’s inconsistent—far from it. What she and her husband have pioneered is a mode of inconsistency, an entire lifestyle of ideological flexibility the goal of which isn’t public-minded but wholly self-interested. “The only way a man can remain consistent amid changing circumstances is to change with them while preserving the same dominating purpose,” Churchill wrote in “Consistency in Politics” (1932). But the dominating purpose Churchill had in mind was a public one: the common good. And the pursuit of the common good often requires the statesman to disagree with public opinion—to challenge his base, or indeed the majority.
Earlier this year Bill Clinton identified the dominant purpose behind his family’s inconsistency: “I gotta pay our bills.” Blessed with loquacity, smarts, and personal charisma, the man from Hope, Ark., used political office as a means to acquire fame and fortune. Unable to go into business, or perhaps uninterested, convinced that his good and the public good are synonymous, he derived riches from his political talent: lucrative friendships, generous supporters, speaking audiences ready to pay.
The maintenance of what Mickey Kaus calls the “Clinton mode of production” requires at least one member of the family to hold office, so that powerful and wealthy people might obtain a frisson of access and influence through financial gift-giving. What the Clintons understand is that the easiest way to hold office, and thereby keep up the mansions and private jets and villas and beach vacations, is to flatter and cater to the ever-changing morality and self-conception of the liberal ruling caste, to understand what troubles their guilty consciences, to put yourself forward as the representative of their fluctuating and malleable concerns.
Such an approach requires a canny operator able to obscure changes in policy behind a smooth veneer of likability and guile—and if we have learned anything so far in this campaign it is that Hillary Clinton is not such an operator. She is clumsy, stilted, tentative, suspicious, rehearsed, monotonous. She might satisfy, but does she inspire? Do any of the voters nodding their heads at her latest declaration of the conventional wisdom consider themselves “Hillary Clinton Democrats”? What does she stand for besides her own ambition?
It would take someone like Bill Clinton to overcome another obstacle: The differences between the primary electorate and the general one. The social issues on which the left is proclaiming victory may become insignificant next year when voters compare them to a moribund economy and a collapsing international order. The combination of an uninspiring and untrustworthy candidate and a political environment hostile to the incumbent party might overwhelm Hillary Clinton’s meager skills. Like Boy George, Hillary doesn’t quite know how to finesse the contradiction between her past and her present, between what she’s selling and what the general electorate might want. Voters are fickle, after all. They come and go.
[h=2]Clinton Lawyer, Soros Back Anti-Voter ID Lawsuits[/h]George Soros and Clinton lawyer Marc Elias engaging in multi-state effort to overturn ID laws
SHARE
TWEET
EMAIL
BY: Joe Schoffstall
June 26, 2015 5:00 am
Hillary Clinton’s top campaign lawyer is behind a multi-state push challenging voter identification laws implemented in recent years, efforts that are expected to reach numerous other states ahead of the 2016 elections.
Marc Elias, a top campaign lawyer for Hillary Clinton and a partner at the Washington, D.C., law firm Perkins Coie, has filed lawsuits in three states thus far. The nationwide campaign is being fueled with money from the liberal billionaire George Soros.
Elias first began exploring the possible challenges back in January 2014. Soros then became involved, vowing to throw his weight behind the effort in collaboration with Elias.
“We hope to see these unfair laws, which often disproportionately affect the most vulnerable in our society, repealed,” Soros told the New York Times.
“It is disingenuous to suggest that these laws are meant to protect against voter fraud, which is nearly nonexistent,” Soros political adviser Michael Vachon added. “Clearly they are meant to give Republicans a political advantage on Election Day.”
Soros has pledged $5 million to propel the campaign. Elias did not return a request for comment concerning his dealings with Soros or the total number of lawsuits they plan on bringing forward. A request for comment from George Soros’s press office was also not returned by press time.
Democrats ramped up their efforts last month to challenge voter ID laws implemented by Republican legislatures and governors, claiming that the laws disenfranchise minority voters.
The first in the series of lawsuits was filed in Ohio on May 8. Three weeks later, on June 1, a second suit was filed in Wisconsin. On June 11, a third lawsuit was filed in Virginia. Further suits are expected to follow in other states.
Elias is working independently on behalf of his firm, Perkins Coie, though the Clinton camp supports the effort. Perkins Coie has pulled in more than $40 million from Democratic clients since 2000.
The suits came as Hillary Clinton made comments about voting in a number of public speeches.
During a speech in Houston on June 4 at historically black Texas Southern University, Hillary Clinton called for a universal, automatic voter registration for 18-year-olds along with early voting up to 20 days before an election.
“I call on Republicans at all levels of government with all manner of ambition to stop fear-mongering about a phantom epidemic of election fraud and start explaining why they’re so scared of letting citizens have their say,” Clinton said during the speech.
True the Vote, a right-leaning vote-monitoring organization, sees the campaign as a political stunt to rile up apathetic voters who may not have the same excitement for Clinton as they did for Obama.
“Mrs. Clinton’s decision to shuffle voting reforms to the top of her policy platform has now been viewed as a purely political move to rally the potentially apathetic Obama coalition prior to 2016,” True the Vote said in a statement.
“The political calculus is simple: the potential benefits of victory outweigh the lasting efficacy of debates over real election reform. It is a very rare thing to see election experts on both the left and right agree that Clinton-sanctioned demagoguery and litigation are not based in objective facts and promising any success in the courts.”
While Soros and other Voter ID opponents say the laws disenfranchise minority voters, one state showed the opposite outcome: minority turnout in Georgia skyrocketed after the law went into effect.
According to a review conducted by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, turnout among African Americans and Hispanics drastically increased from 2006 to 2010.
“Georgia first adopted a voter ID law in 2005 and won court approval to implement it in 2007. The law has now been in place for two major statewide general elections: 2008, when the presidential race was on the ballot, and 2010, when voters selected a new governor,” AJC writes. “Prior to the new law, voters had been able to present one of 17 forms of identification, including a utility bill.”
“Elections data reviewed by the AJC show that participation among black voters rose by 44 percent from 2006—before the law was implemented—to 2010. For Hispanics, the increase for the same period was 67 percent. Turnout among whites rose 12 percent.”
- See more at: http://freebeacon.com/politics/clin...-anti-voter-id-lawsuits/#sthash.FwhPmlNW.dpuf
SHARE
TWEET
Marc Elias / AP
BY: Joe Schoffstall
June 26, 2015 5:00 am
Hillary Clinton’s top campaign lawyer is behind a multi-state push challenging voter identification laws implemented in recent years, efforts that are expected to reach numerous other states ahead of the 2016 elections.
Marc Elias, a top campaign lawyer for Hillary Clinton and a partner at the Washington, D.C., law firm Perkins Coie, has filed lawsuits in three states thus far. The nationwide campaign is being fueled with money from the liberal billionaire George Soros.
Elias first began exploring the possible challenges back in January 2014. Soros then became involved, vowing to throw his weight behind the effort in collaboration with Elias.
“We hope to see these unfair laws, which often disproportionately affect the most vulnerable in our society, repealed,” Soros told the New York Times.
“It is disingenuous to suggest that these laws are meant to protect against voter fraud, which is nearly nonexistent,” Soros political adviser Michael Vachon added. “Clearly they are meant to give Republicans a political advantage on Election Day.”
Soros has pledged $5 million to propel the campaign. Elias did not return a request for comment concerning his dealings with Soros or the total number of lawsuits they plan on bringing forward. A request for comment from George Soros’s press office was also not returned by press time.
Democrats ramped up their efforts last month to challenge voter ID laws implemented by Republican legislatures and governors, claiming that the laws disenfranchise minority voters.
The first in the series of lawsuits was filed in Ohio on May 8. Three weeks later, on June 1, a second suit was filed in Wisconsin. On June 11, a third lawsuit was filed in Virginia. Further suits are expected to follow in other states.
Elias is working independently on behalf of his firm, Perkins Coie, though the Clinton camp supports the effort. Perkins Coie has pulled in more than $40 million from Democratic clients since 2000.
The suits came as Hillary Clinton made comments about voting in a number of public speeches.
During a speech in Houston on June 4 at historically black Texas Southern University, Hillary Clinton called for a universal, automatic voter registration for 18-year-olds along with early voting up to 20 days before an election.
“I call on Republicans at all levels of government with all manner of ambition to stop fear-mongering about a phantom epidemic of election fraud and start explaining why they’re so scared of letting citizens have their say,” Clinton said during the speech.
True the Vote, a right-leaning vote-monitoring organization, sees the campaign as a political stunt to rile up apathetic voters who may not have the same excitement for Clinton as they did for Obama.
“Mrs. Clinton’s decision to shuffle voting reforms to the top of her policy platform has now been viewed as a purely political move to rally the potentially apathetic Obama coalition prior to 2016,” True the Vote said in a statement.
“The political calculus is simple: the potential benefits of victory outweigh the lasting efficacy of debates over real election reform. It is a very rare thing to see election experts on both the left and right agree that Clinton-sanctioned demagoguery and litigation are not based in objective facts and promising any success in the courts.”
While Soros and other Voter ID opponents say the laws disenfranchise minority voters, one state showed the opposite outcome: minority turnout in Georgia skyrocketed after the law went into effect.
According to a review conducted by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, turnout among African Americans and Hispanics drastically increased from 2006 to 2010.
“Georgia first adopted a voter ID law in 2005 and won court approval to implement it in 2007. The law has now been in place for two major statewide general elections: 2008, when the presidential race was on the ballot, and 2010, when voters selected a new governor,” AJC writes. “Prior to the new law, voters had been able to present one of 17 forms of identification, including a utility bill.”
“Elections data reviewed by the AJC show that participation among black voters rose by 44 percent from 2006—before the law was implemented—to 2010. For Hispanics, the increase for the same period was 67 percent. Turnout among whites rose 12 percent.”
- See more at: http://freebeacon.com/politics/clin...-anti-voter-id-lawsuits/#sthash.FwhPmlNW.dpuf
