Tag: Bill Clinton

Member Post


Hillary Clinton’s suspicious activities with regard to the FBI files and Watergate documents should have been enough – by themselves – to make it impossible for her to ever be considered of good enough character to work in government. If Newt Gingrich had done things like this, and had it looked to be part of […]

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

Member Post


Don’t laugh! Michelle even entertained the idea recently on the Letterman show. Besides, who else do Democrats have? Sanders? O’Malley? Biden? None of whom can generate the 95% African-American turnout that Democrats will need to overcome an energized GOP base. (Though the 9 million or so soon-to-be naturalized, amnestied Democrats will certainly help in that […]

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

Hillary’s Day of Wrath


Hillary-Clinton-angry3Today was a very bad day for Hillary Clinton. This time it wasn’t about logos or burritos, but rather uranium, foreign affairs, and serious corruption. The New York Times published an exposé on ties between the Clintons and a sketchy deal that left Vladimir Putin in control of a significant portion of America’s uranium; uranium it can now sell to Iran and other bad actors in the world.

You can read the 4,500-word Times article or watch the nine-minute-long summary produced by Fox News, but here’s a simplified tick-tock of the deal:

  • In September 2005, Bill Clinton traveled to Kazakhstan and met his friend Frank Giustra (pronounced joo-strah), who wanted to buy uranium mines there.
  • Clinton gave a press conference with Kazakhstan President Nursultan Nazarbayev, in which he endorsed the leader’s human rights record and democratic progress, even though he had just received 91% of the vote in an allegedly rigged election. The event was a public relations coup for Nazarbayev.
  • A couple of days later, Kazakhstan gave Giustra the uranium concessions he requested.
  • Giustra then donated $31 million to the Clinton Foundation with a promise of $100 million more to follow.

The Westinghouse Deal

If Hillary Is Your Champion, You Don’t Need An Adversary


mao_suitIn a normal world, the very thought of the person who sat idly by while four Americans were besieged and murdered at one of our embassies now wanting to be our “champion” would cause every heart in the country to go into immediate arrest. Unhappily, the world is no longer normal, leaving a small and regrettable percentage of the American electorate who will now invite the Inspector Clouseau of American politics to minister to their whims and desires. But, to be sure, they won’t be the same people who learned from experience the pitfalls of placing their hopes and trust in Hillary Clinton.

“Everyday Americans need a champion, and I want to be that champion,” announced the person who looked upon the wreckage and misery that accompanied her husband’s serial sexual abuse of “everyday Americans” and decided to attack his victims. According to the Daily Mail, Bill Clinton’s infamous wagging finger and the “I did not have sexual relations with that woman” whopper was orchestrated at the direction of Hillary, who took the wrong side in the real War on Women. Remarking — when she returned to the White House following her “vast Right wing conspiracy” television interview — that “I guess that will teach them to [expletive] with us.” Except that it wasn’t “them [expletive-ing] with,” the Clintons, but rather the Clintons [expletive-ing] with them!

But the War on Women can be fickle after all, as Kathleen Willey — another of Bill’s Fondle U. alumna — observed when she said of Hillary “The point is what this woman is capable of doing to other women while she’s running a campaign basically on women’s issues.” Then again, what difference at this point does it make?

Member Post


After reading the articles that several of my Facebook friends posted concerning Indiana’s recent passage of a state-level Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) law and my friends’ and other Facebook users’ comments regarding those articles, it was clear that no one — not the journalists writing the articles, nor my friends reading them — had […]

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

We Love the ’90s! Why Doesn’t the Left?


Bill-ClintonHey, the X-Files is coming back. Just another sign that we are in full “I love the ’90s!” mode. It’s not just Mulder and Scully. Monica Lewinsky just gave a TED speech. Republicans are again talking about the flat tax. (In the ’90s, even the Dems were talking up the flat tax.) Hollywood is finally making an Independence Day sequel. And there’s a Clinton running for president. I wrote about that last bit of nostalgia in my The Week column. I would say most Americans remember that decade with some fondness thanks to the booming economy. But as I note in the column, those on the left have a more nuanced view of Clintonomics:

In the progressive mind, Bill Clinton quickly ejected his “putting people first” spending agenda in favor of the Alan Greenspan-approved “bond market strategy” that focused on boosting growth by cutting the deficit. (During the Obama era, Republicans adopted the strategy and renamed it “cut to grow.”) “I hope you’re all aware we’re all Eisenhower Republicans,” Clinton fumed, as recounted in Bob Woodward’s The Agenda: Inside the Clinton White House. Not long after, Clinton’s economic council was praising the much-hated — well, at least by progressives — Reagan tax cuts: “It is undeniable that the sharp reduction in taxes in the early 1980s was a strong impetus to economic growth.” Eventually, Clinton declared that the “era of big government is over.” Not a red-letter day in Liberal Land.

Bill Clinton did raise top labor income tax rates, but he also cut them for investment taxes. And while median wages rose, so did inequality. From 1993 through 2000, the share of market income going to the top 1 percent rose to 16.5 percent from 12.8 percent, continuing a trend begun in the Reagan years. Perhaps the biggest black mark from a progressive perspective was Clinton’s signing of the bill that deregulated Wall Street. Some critics, such as Elizabeth Warren, blame that law for at least contributing to the financial crisis and subsequent recession.

President Obama Keeps Forgetting About the Reagan-Clinton Boom


bill-clinton-ronald-reaganPresident Obama pushed his “middle class economics” message hard during a Cleveland speech earlier this week. And, in the process, offered his take on recent US economic history:

For the first eight years of this century, before I came into office, we tried trickle-down economics.  We slashed taxes for folks at the top, stripped out regulations, didn’t make investments in the things we know we need to grow.  At the end of those eight years, we had soaring deficits, record job losses, an economy in crippling recession. In the years since then we’ve tried middle-class economics. Today we’ve got dramatically lower deficits, a record streak of job creation, an economy that’s steadily growing.

The president modified his usual argument just a bit to frame the economic battle as middle-out Obamanomics vs. trickle-down Bushonomics, But in the past, he has subtlety lumped Bushonomics in with Clintonomics and Reaganomics. All part of the same tax-cutting, regulation-slashing, neoliberal wave from 1981 through 2008 that overall benefited the 1% at the expense of everyone else.

Hillary, the Unlovable Rogue


Conservatives are feeling pretty good as the drip-drip-drip of Hillary Clinton’s missing emails takes over the news cycle. For six years we’ve wanted one of this administration’s scandals to catch the eye of the mainstream press and tarnish Obama’s reputation along with it. Those with more miles on the odometer have waited since the early ’90s for HRC to get her just desserts.

This latest Clinton mess is still in its early days and disturbing insights are popping up on the hour. In a Friday night truth-dump, Spokeswoman/Tri-Delt Rush Chair Marie Harf reversed her pose that the State Department was seeking Hillary’s emails out of their deep love for transparency. Harf now reluctantly admits that the Benghazi committee was a big reason for the panicked search all along.

Member Post


Some people among my Facebook followers have asked me privately, why I so detest Hillary Clinton? It’s pretty simple, and this ignores all her past history (Whitewater, dubious campaign financing both in Arkansas and on the national level, the White House travel scandal, her politics of personal destruction, foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation and […]

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

Member Post


Nelson Shanks, American Hero and Painter, admitted in a Politico article that he put a reference to Monica Lewinsky in his characterization of Bill Clinton that hangs in the National Portrait. “If you look at the left-hand side of it,” there’s a mantel in the Oval Office and “I put a shadow coming into the painting […]

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

Bill Clinton Trolled in Own Official Portrait


clintonportraitOver the weekend, the Philadelphia Inquirer published an interview with a renowned local artist named Nelson Shanks, whose portfolio includes the official painting of Bill Clinton hanging in the National Portrait Gallery. (Sidenote: during my time as a speechwriter for George W. Bush, I learned that 43 loved to open any set of remarks where he was having his portrait unveiled with “Welcome to my hanging.” For some reason, I always found that endearing). Anyway, Shanks, who we can only presume has figured out that publicly slighting a Democratic president is basically the royal road to a Fox News contributor gig and a possible presidential candidacy (looking at you, Ben Carson), let slip that there’s an easter egg for Clinton-haters right there in the Smithsonian:

If you look at the left-hand side of it there’s a mantle in the Oval Office and I put a shadow coming into the painting and it does two things. It actually literally represents a shadow from a blue dress that I had on a mannequin, that I had there while I was painting it, but not when he was there. It is also a bit of a metaphor in that it represents a shadow on the office he held, or on him.

Maybe it’s just me, but isn’t the weirdest part of this that no one in the Oval Office antechamber thought it was strange that the artist had a mannequin with a blue dress on it? Then again, this was the Clinton White House. You probably could’ve brought in the Rubber Man suit from American Horror Story and not had anyone bat an eyelid. Apparently, the inside joke didn’t go down too well. Shanks continued:

Explaining the 1990s Economic Boom — Before Hillary Does


Were the 1990s really the best decade ever? Kurt Andersen makes the case in the New York Times, citing everything from economic stats to political cooperation in Washington to better TV shows to the emergence of the consumer digital age. If Hillary Clinton does run for president, we’ll probably hear a lot more about the prosperous ’90s. And if Americans think of a Hillary presidency as a continuation of hubby Bill’s, that would probably be OK with her campaign team. Andersen, for one, disagrees with Jeb Bush’s statement that “if someone wants to run a campaign about ’90s nostalgia, it’s not going to be very successful.” Well, that doesn’t have to be the whole of her message, of course. It does set a good foundation, yes? Better than 2000s nostalgia at least.

Anyway, here is his rundown of the 1990s economy:

Flat-Earth Economics


flat-earthAny politician who said the Earth is flat would get booed — and probably laughed — off the podium. Everyone in the audience would know the Earth is round, and would realize that any politician who doesn’t grasp this basic fact of how our universe works is too stupid to entrust with their future.

But what would happen if a politician said something about how our economy works that is equally wrongheaded? Would he get booed and laughed off the podium? Or would he get a standing ovation? Obviously, it would depend on whether the audience understands how our economy actually works, and would realize what they’d just heard was nonsense.

Last week, while campaigning in Kentucky for Senate candidate Alison Lundergan Grimes, Bill Clinton said:

Monica Lewinsky Is (Half) Right


shutterstock_99375410Monica Lewinsky has reemerged to claim the spotlight. She gave a speech the other day about being the “patient zero” of Internet-driven attacks on one’s reputation. In describing her experience, she began:

Sixteen years ago, fresh out of college, a 22-year-old intern in the White House — and more than averagely romantic – I fell in love with my boss in a 22-year-old sort of a way. It happens. But my boss was the President of the United States. That probably happens less often.

Hearing the audio clips and reading the transcript, I think she’s correct, but doesn’t go far enough. In any organization outside government, when a 22-year-old intern falls in love with her boss, the boss knows he cannot have a romantic or sexual relationship with her. The relationship would not be coequal. In any organization outside government, the power differential would be assumed to be exploitative. In any organization outside government, the boss would know that revelation of such a relationship would cost him his job.

The Clintons of 2016 Will Not Be The Clintons of 1992


In 1992, Bill Clinton ran as a “new kind of Democrat,” one who would “end welfare as we know it” and craft a society that would reward those who “work hard and play by the rules.” Clinton knew that he could not win as a traditional liberal, so he crafted the now-famous “Third Way” approach, and campaigned and governed under a Third Way banner.

Of course, the Third Way was reinforced by the disastrous (from the Democrats’ perspective) 1994 Midterm Elections. Clinton accepted a Republican welfare reform bill (after two vetoes), balanced the budget (after much Republican prodding) and expanded free trade. At the same time, he proposed a bevy of micro-reforms that won bipartisan approval, in part because they were cleverly crafted so that Republicans could not vote against them. Through a combination of circumstance, accident, and design, Clinton became the Third Way president he had promised.

Not a Good Week for Hillary Clinton


HillFirst, there was this. Then, there was the fact that Diane Sawyer of all people laid into Clinton over Benghazi (which, lest you forget, is not a scandal, so don’t worry your pretty little heads about it, darlings). And then, there is the fact that her book . . . well . . . isn’t so good:

Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton’s new memoir “Hard Choices” officially launches Tuesday morning, but it’s already being savaged by critics for being overly cautious and, as a result, uninteresting.

“TRUTH BOMB 1: ‘Hard Choices’ is a newsless snore,” Politico’s Mike Allen wrote in his Monday-morning newsletter. He went on to describe the book “written so carefully not to offend that it will fuel the notion that politics infuses every part of her life.”

The “47%” Comment of 2014



Hillary Rodham Clinton says her family was “dead broke” after her husband Bill’s presidency.

In an interview with ABC News airing Monday, the former secretary of state and possible presidential contender said the couple emerged from the White House saddled with legal fees and debt. Clinton said they struggled to finance “mortgages, for houses” and daughter Chelsea’s education.

How Impeachment Has Changed


ClintonLet me add one more note to my discussion with Peter about the legality of how President Obama has handled the Bowe Bergdahl situation. Peter wrote in response to yesterday’s post:

What I find staggering, though–and I suppose this is really something I should have known, but then Obama has never been president before, has he?–what I find staggering is that when the President of the United States engages in genuine lawlessness, no one can take him to court. Obama enforces ObamaCare selectively, ignores the requirement to report to Congress before releasing prisoners, and permits the IRS to engage in political vendettas…and all Congress can do is hold hearings and sputter.  Either that or resort to the very blunt instruments of withholding appropriations or–dare one breathe the word?–introducing resolutions of impeachment.

Can this be so, Professor Yoo?

Member Post


Jim Geraghty, whose “Morning Jolt” is something I find myself reading every day now, put a piece out this morning on a “Truth Squad” being placed outside of Trey Gowdy’s Benghazi hearings (never mind that the Truth Squad hasn’t asked for the truth from Hillary Clinton herself), headed by Lanny Davis. The kicker:  Said Squad […]

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.