Tag: Hillary Clinton

Obscene Amounts

George Clooney, Campaign finance, money, big money, election, Hillary Clinton

Actor George Clooney, star of the current Coen brothers picture, Hail Caesar!, is a major fundraiser for Hillary Clinton. When asked on NBC’s Meet the Press if the $353,000 per couple dinner he organized last Friday constituted an “obscene amount of money,” he answered, simply, “yes.”

Clooney went on to explain, “It’s ridiculous that we should have this amount of money in politics.”

He’s an advocate for campaign finance reform. He is, specifically, “against” Citizens United, though he doesn’t know that it isn’t a law but a Supreme Court case that overturned previously passed legislation that regulated what people and corporations could do to support or oppose (or mention) candidates in elections. The government, authorized by the campaign finance legislation, had suppressed a movie.

Interestingly, that movie was a polemical documentary against . . . Hillary Clinton.

Campaign finance regulation has been shown to help incumbents. Not unexpectedly, since the regulations are written by sitting legislators against their competitors.

But “getting money out of politics” would advantage other groups, too. For example, one consequence of limiting political donations would be to nudge challengers to (a) be rich and mostly self-funding (like Trump is said to be), and (b) be more demagogic, leveraging the “free” publicity from major media.

More demagogues aren’t needed.

But then, the whole issue is demagogic, appealing to the knee-jerk reaction of everyday people who are, indeed, often nonplused by how others spend their money.

As for Clooney, he’d like not to have to spend money for his candidate.

We’d all like the important things in life to just happen. But it turns out we have to work for what we want.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Common Sense Needs Your Help!

Also, please consider showing your appreciation by dropping something in our tip jar (this link will take you to the Citizens in Charge donation page… and your contribution will go to the support of the Common Sense website). Maintaining this site takes time and money.

Your help in spreading the message of common sense and liberty is very much appreciated!

Tags campaign finance reform, campaign finance regulation, George Clooney, Hillary Clinton

Accountability folly government transparency ideological culture moral hazard national politics & policies

Money Means Nothing to Her

Post author By CS Admin
Post date April 18, 2016
2 Comments on Money Means Nothing to Her

Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, campaign finance reform, big money, illustration, angel, Saint Hillary

Campaign finance reform is surely dead . . . if Hillary Clinton is elected president.

Which would be good.

Not Clinton being elected, mind you. What would be good is the death of so-called campaign finance reform — the kind supported by Democrats, including Sen. Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. They insist on a constitutional amendment to partially repeal the First Amendment’s freedom of speech protection and give Congress awesome new powers to regulate their own and their opponents’ campaigns.

But wait — if Mrs. Clinton supports campaign finance reform, why would her election kill this seriously bad proposal?

Well, Hillary Clinton made it abundantly clear at last week’s Democratic presidential debate, as I explained this weekend at Townhall: large campaign contributions do not influence her in any way. Even a fat $15 million from Wall Street interests to her super PAC — or $225,000 a pop speeches paid by Goldman Sachs and their ilk — registers no corrupting effect whatsoever.

And those millions deposited in Clinton Foundation accounts from foreign governments?

They couldn’t possibly sway the steady former Secretary of State. Not even the smallest smidgen.

Just like there has never been corruption at the IRS.

Don’t believe Hillary? Then trust President Obama, who also gobbled up major Wall Street funding when he ran in 2008 and 2012. But again, according to her, “President Obama was not at all influenced when he made the decision to pass and sign Dodd-Frank, the toughest regulations on Wall Street in many a year.”

Not. At. All.

So the solution to government corruption is simply to elect trustworthy, incorruptible candidates . . . like Hillary Clinton.

Well, call her half right.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Common Sense Needs Your Help!

Your help in spreading the message of common sense and liberty is very much appreciated!

Tags 2016 Presidential race, Bernie Sanders, campaign finance reform, Hillary Clinton, Presidential campaign 2016

Accountability free trade & free markets general freedom government transparency moral hazard national politics & policies

Banking on Clinton

Hillary Clinton, Wall Street, Bernie Sanders, corruption, crony, presidential race, two-faced, 2 faced, illustration, Common Sense

I’ve been tough on Bernie Sanders, the socialist Vermont Senator and Democratic Party presidential candidate. Why? Because socialism is — to quote a current GOP candidate — “a disaster.”

But I appreciate his campaign for showing former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for what she is, the ultimate establishment insider.

Even while, as SNL parodied, she seeks to co-opt Sanders’s progressivism.

Nowhere is Hillary’s have-it-both-ways mode of operation more obvious than in regard to Big Finance. She attacks the big banks, promoting her “very aggressive plan to rein in Wall Street.” Yet, she is supported politically and has been enriched personally by Wall Street firms. In 2014 and 2015 alone, Mrs. Clinton was paid $11 million dollars for speeches to various groups, including these financial interests.

On the campaign trail, Bernie has been calling on Mrs. Clinton to release transcripts of her speeches to Wall Street firms:

She gets paid $225,000 for a speech. Now you know that is a lot of money for an hour speech. . . . It must be mind-blowing speech, it must be a Shakespearean speech, it must be a speech that could educate and enlighten the entire world.

An anonymous attendee of Mrs. Clinton’s speeches to Goldman Sachs has characterized her remarks as “far from what she sounds like as a candidate now. She sounded more like a Goldman Sachs managing director.” Another said making the transcript public “would bury her against Sanders.”

Understandably, Hillary refuses . . . until every other living person who has ever spoken a word to anyone on Wall Street does so first.

At his rallies, Bernie now throws his empty hands up into the air to release his non-existent speech transcripts.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Common Sense Needs Your Help!

Tags 2016 Presidential race, banks, Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, Presidential campaign 2016, Wall Street

Accountability general freedom ideological culture insider corruption media and media people national politics & policies political challengers porkbarrel politics responsibility

The Age of Clinton

Hillary Clinton, email, scandal, investigation, teflon

We could call our time The Age of Teflon, but that conjures up memory of Ronald Reagan — “the Teflon President” is what Rep. Patricia Schroeder (D-Colo.) called the 40th Commander in Chief — and, please recall, Reagan had nothing on Bill Clinton.

Nicknamed “Slick Willie,” Clinton was the politician who really demonstrated what slipperiness is all about. Prez 42 had what it takes to get out of any scandal whatsoever, even criminal:

Bluster (never admit anything);
Lexical tomfoolery (convolve the epistemics with feints to metaphysics, say, about the meaning of “is”);
Distraction (bomb a foreign country to deflect attention):
Ad hominem (deny the charges because of the nefarious conspiracy of opponents); and
Relying upon followers, especially in the media, to deny all substance outright.

We have lived in the Age of Clinton ever since. Even the grossest enormities fail to fall heavily upon a politician who is, somehow (usually because of partisanship, but not always), impervious to the blemish of a crime. The accusations (even charges) don’t stick.

Now that American voters have the chance to anoint another Clinton to office, making a dynasty out of a done deal, we sort of just assume — by political inertia — that the Age of Clinton will continue, with invulnerability the only thing adhering to the most corrupt politician of our time, the Mrs. of the Age.

Yet, the FBI is investigating former Secretary of State Hillary “Smart Power” Clinton’s email server scandal. One of her subordinates, a tech guy, has been given immunity after extensive pleadings of the Fifth Amendment.

Could the Age of Clinton end with her prosecution?

Unlikely, given how partisanship now routinely trumps the rule of law.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

A healthy democracy depends on the spreading of good ideas. If you found this article useful, please share it with friends by clicking on any of the social media icons below.

Common Sense Needs Your Help!

Tags 2016 Presidential race, Hillary Clinton, Presidential campaign 2016, teflon

folly general freedom ideological culture meme moral hazard nannyism national politics & policies

You Asked For It America!

And now you’re going to get it!

Click below for a high resolution version of the image:

A healthy democracy depends on the spreading of good ideas. If you found this article useful, please share it with friends by clicking on any of the social media icons below.

Common Sense Needs Your Help!

Tags 2016 Presidential race, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, meme, Presidential campaign 2016

ideological culture national politics & policies

War on Young Women

Madeleine Albright, Gloria Steinem, HIllary Clinton, girls, women, voters, Common Sense, illustration

According to a weekend CNN-WMUR poll in New Hampshire, Sen. Bernie Sanders leads former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton by eight percentage points.

Among women.

“Hillary Clinton’s quest to become the country’s first female president has encountered an unexpected problem,” begins a Washington Post report on Hillary’s “trouble persuading women, young and old, to rally behind her cause.”

Younger women seem to pose the biggest “problem.” The latest Wall Street Journal/NBC/Marist College poll of New Hampshire Democrats found Mrs. Clinton nine points ahead of Sen. Sanders among women 45 and over. But Sanders bests Clinton by a remarkable 29 percentage points with women under 45 years of age.

Not to worry, the faces of establishment feminism have been mobilized. Madeleine Albright, appointed to be the first woman Secretary of State in 1997 by then-Pres. Bill Clinton, stood at a Granite State rally with Hillary to shout, “There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other.”

Persuasive?

On his HBO show, comedian Bill Maher asked feminist icon Gloria Steinem to explain why younger women “really don’t like Hillary.” Ms. Steinem postulated, “When you’re young, you’re thinking: ‘Where are the boys? The boys are with Bernie,’”

In her subsequent Facebook “apology,” Steinem claimed she “misspoke” and had “been misinterpreted as implying young women aren’t serious in their politics.”

Imagine that.

Dana Edell, the leader of an “anti-racist gender justice advocacy group,” offers a less controversial explanation. “While the historic aspect of the first woman president is hugely powerful and important,” she told the Old Gray Lady, Hillary Clinton “might not be the right first woman.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Tags 2016 Presidential race, Bernie Sanders, Gloria Steinem, Hillary Clinton, Madeleine Albright, Presidential campaign 2016

Accountability folly national politics & policies

Hillary Clinton, Double-Agent?

Post author By CS Admin
Post date February 8, 2016
5 Comments on Hillary Clinton, Double-Agent?

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton rails against a “political system hijacked by billionaires and special interests.” Billionaire George Soros just wrote a $6 million check to a pro-Hillary SuperPAC.

“Our democracy should work for everyone,” states HillaryClinton.com, “not just the wealthy and well-connected.” Last week, we discovered Mrs. Clinton was paid a whopping $675,000 by Goldman Sachs, the politically-connected Wall Street investment firm, for three speeches after she left the State Department.

Nice work if you can get it.

“Her top donors read like a Who’s Who of Wall Street,” editorialized Investor’s Business Daily. “But sure, she’s going to clean up campaign finance.”

Not only that, Hillary also claims she’ll take on and harshly regulate those same powerful Wall Street interests.

In last Thursday’s debate, Mrs. Clinton took umbrage at the idea that rival Senator Bernie Sanders “would characterize me, a woman running to be the first woman president, as exemplifying the establishment.”

This led columnist Danielle Allen, also a woman, to opine: “Clinton does not merely exemplify the establishment. She and her husband, former president Bill Clinton, are the Democratic Party establishment. . . . That candidate Clinton could deliver her line with a straight face goes to the heart of her trustworthiness problem.”

Responding to Bernie Sanders’s questions about her significant financial support from powerful interests, Hillary told the debate audience, “I know this game. I’m going to stop this game.”

Mrs. Clinton is very believable as to the first claim. The second? Not so much.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Tags 2016 Presidential race, Hillary Clinton, Presidential campaign 2016

folly ideological culture national politics & policies

No Red Flag?

Primary, Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, red flag, Common Sense

The Iowa caucuses were pretty much a dead-heat for the Democrats, with Hillary Clinton winning a number of precincts by the flip of a coin and barely edging out Sanders.

Leaving aside conspiratorial notions like trick coins, the Democratic results are most interesting in one obvious way: half of the Democratic activists in this Midwestern state proved themselves just fine with voting for a self-proclaimed “socialist”; the other half were apparently hunky-dory to cast their ballots for an ethically-challenged political insider most often described by voters in an ABC News survey with the word “liar.”

No red flags, Dems?

Though Fox News’s Bill O’Reilly keeps talking about Mrs. Clinton’s possible indictment, partisanship being what it is, how is that going to happen? Despite a rising swell of support for Sanders, Clinton’s juggernaut seems fated to roll over the land.

But really, which is more disappointing:

Lack of revulsion or censure for Clinton’s haughty incompetence and disregard for the law? or
Lack of incredulity at someone identifying his Big Gov redistributionism as “socialist”?

Monday wasn’t a red letter day, it was a red flag day.

On the Republican side, the establishment took a drubbing. Former Gov. Jeb Bush, son and brother of former presidents, received less than three percent of the Republican vote — even though, including SuperPACs, he has raised the most money. By far — his campaign shelled out $2,884 for each Iowa vote.

Moreover, Ted Cruz, the GOP establishment’s worst nightmare, won. Let’s hope his success overcoming attacks from the governor and the crony corn lobby will help others find the political courage to oppose ethanol subsidies and mandates.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Tags 2016 Presidential race, Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, Presidential campaign 2016, primary elections

Accountability folly ideological culture media and media people national politics & policies

Hard Words, Soft Left

socialism, democrats, Hillary Clinton, Common Sense

“The word ‘socialist’ is a really hard word,” warned former Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm.

“Now, I love Bernie Sanders, really,” Granholm added, acknowledging she’s okay with his socialist policies — just not the term.

Not in mixed company.

The former governor of the Wolverine State was responding to a question — “How about the charges ‘he’s a socialist’?” — from Martha Raddatz, who was hosting ABC’s This Week that week.

“The socialist label is something that he applies to himself, right,” Granholm noted. “So the question is how does that play across America?”

Armed with a Gallup poll, Granholm answered that socialism doesn’t play very well at all. Voters are “even” less apt to vote for a “socialist” than for an “atheist.” In case you wondered.

So, what is the difference between a socialist and a Democrat?

“You’re the chairman of the Democratic Party, tell me the difference between you and a socialist,” Chris Matthews had implored Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz on MSNBC months ago.

“The relevant debate we’ll be having over the course of this campaign,” dodged the DNC chair, “is what’s the difference between a Democrat and a Republican.”

Chuck Todd, noting that Bernie Sanders “is an unabashed socialist” who is always praising European social democracies, echoed the question on Meet the Press: “what is the difference?”

“It’s always fun to be interviewed by Chris Matthews and I know that he enjoys that banter,” bobbed an answer-less Wasserman Schultz. “The important distinction we’ll be discussing in this campaign [blah, blah, blah] . . .”

Earlier this month, Matthews likewise asked Hillary Clinton to state the difference. Mrs. Clinton said she wasn’t a socialist but, instead, “a progressive Democrat.”

“Debbie Wasserman Schultz wouldn’t answer the question either,” Matthews replied.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Tags 2016 Presidential race, Hillary Clinton, Presidential campaign 2016, socialism

Accountability ballot access folly ideological culture nannyism national politics & policies

The Anti-Democratic Party Establishment

Post author By CS Admin
Post date January 25, 2016
5 Comments on The Anti-Democratic Party Establishment

superdelegates, democracy, democrats, Sanders, Clinton, voting,

Democrats aren’t very good at democracy.

Consider the party’s presidential contest, as I did yesterday at Townhall.

As an appetizer, I noted the Democratic National Committee policy of hiding their debates from viewers by placing them on weekend evenings pitted against major sporting events.

For meat and potatoes, ponder my warning of the very ugly scenario of Sen. Bernie Sanders capturing as much as 58 percent of the primary and caucus vote and resulting delegates, but still losing to Hillary Clinton.

How could that possibly happen?

Because of folks designated as “superdelegates” — those awarded voting delegate status for holding a party office or being an elected or former elected official.

Democrats brag that they’ve reduced these insiders’ impact. Democratically-unaccountable superdelegates once accounted for 30 percent of Democratic Party convention delegates; now it’s only 15 percent of the total. Still, Clinton leads Sanders 380 to eleven among superdelegates.

At that rate, she could lose the actual state elections and still win the party’s presidential nomination.

The Democrats’ dereliction of democratic duty doesn’t end there, either.

The process by which various powerful party “interests” endorsed either Sanders or Clinton is quite telling. Journalist Zaid Jilani reports in The Intercept that, “Every major union or progressive organization that let its members have a vote endorsed Bernie Sanders.”

“Meanwhile,” Jilani found, “all of Hillary Clinton’s major group endorsements come from organizations where the leaders decide. And several of those endorsements were accompanied by criticisms from members about the lack of a democratic process.”

Seems the insiders have decided Mrs. Clinton will be on the Democratic Party presidential menu, whether Democrats like it or not.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Tags 2016 Presidential race, anti-democracy, Bernie Sanders, democracy, Hillary Clinton, Presidential campaign 2016, voting