Hillary Loves To Spend Other Peoples Money

[red states rule]

Hillary sure knows how to spend money - not how to earn it - but how to spend it

Can you picture the White House budget if she ever became President?

Thank God the Electoral College will never allow her to sit in the Oval Office

Unless she is visiting President Giuliani



Hillary Spent $13,000 on Flowers

Some Hillary Clinton supporters are outraged that she spent $36 million on a shoo-in re-election campaign – more than any other candidate for the Senate this year.


The Democratic Daily, a liberal Web site, said Clinton was guilty of "blowing a shameful $36 million” on a campaign she was never in doubt of winning.


Among the Clinton campaign’s outlays reported by the New York Times:


$17 million for advertising and fund-raising mailings.

At least $1.1 million for Mark Penn, Clinton’s pollster and adviser, and more than $930,000 for Mandy Grunwald, her communications strategist.

Around $160,000 for private jet travel.

At least $745,000 for catering and entertaining, including $124,155 for an affair at the New York Hilton.


More than $50,000 for professional photographers.

$13,000 for flowers, mostly for fund-raising events and thank-yous to donors.

$27,000 for valet parking.

According to the Times, "The campaign’s financial record has fueled some criticism among Democratic activists and prompted concern among Mrs. Clinton’s supporters.”


Clinton has spent at least $36 million on her re-election since 2001, when she took office, and in mid-October had only $14 million on hand.


That’s barely more than potential presidential rival Sen. John Kerry, who had $13.8 million at the end of September, while another rival, Sen. Evan Bayh, had $10.6 million.

Clinton did receive 67 percent of the vote to win re-election to the Senate. But her fellow New York Sen. Charles Schumer received 71 percent of the vote in 2004 while spending only $15.5 million.

"The wasting of money – it drives everybody crazy,” one Clinton fund-raiser, who was granted anonymity, told the Times. "She’d better get a handle on this if she is going to run for president.”

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/11/21/125505.shtml?s=al&promo_code=2990-1

 

[Annie]

Hillary sure knows how to spend money - not how to earn it - but how to spend it

Can you picture the White House budget if she ever became President?

Thank God the Electoral College will never allow her to sit in the Oval Office

Unless she is visiting President Giuliani



Hillary Spent $13,000 on Flowers

Some Hillary Clinton supporters are outraged that she spent $36 million on a shoo-in re-election campaign – more than any other candidate for the Senate this year.


The Democratic Daily, a liberal Web site, said Clinton was guilty of "blowing a shameful $36 million” on a campaign she was never in doubt of winning.


Among the Clinton campaign’s outlays reported by the New York Times:


$17 million for advertising and fund-raising mailings.

At least $1.1 million for Mark Penn, Clinton’s pollster and adviser, and more than $930,000 for Mandy Grunwald, her communications strategist.

Around $160,000 for private jet travel.

At least $745,000 for catering and entertaining, including $124,155 for an affair at the New York Hilton.


More than $50,000 for professional photographers.

$13,000 for flowers, mostly for fund-raising events and thank-yous to donors.

$27,000 for valet parking.

According to the Times, "The campaign’s financial record has fueled some criticism among Democratic activists and prompted concern among Mrs. Clinton’s supporters.”


Clinton has spent at least $36 million on her re-election since 2001, when she took office, and in mid-October had only $14 million on hand.


That’s barely more than potential presidential rival Sen. John Kerry, who had $13.8 million at the end of September, while another rival, Sen. Evan Bayh, had $10.6 million.

Clinton did receive 67 percent of the vote to win re-election to the Senate. But her fellow New York Sen. Charles Schumer received 71 percent of the vote in 2004 while spending only $15.5 million.

"The wasting of money – it drives everybody crazy,” one Clinton fund-raiser, who was granted anonymity, told the Times. "She’d better get a handle on this if she is going to run for president.”

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/11/21/125505.shtml?s=al&promo_code=2990-1

Getting 'em ready for the 'big time.'

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Some Hillary Clinton supporters are outraged that she spent $36 million on a shoo-in re-election campaign – more than any other candidate for the Senate this year.

Do I sense a lack of confidence in herself?

Unless she is visiting President Giuliani

Dream on.

 

[Bonnie]

Getting 'em ready for the 'big time.'

Whitehouse make-over? Heaven forbid

 

[Annie]

Whitehouse make-over? Heaven forbid

I don't 'see' Hillary winning. But who saw GW winning so large in 2004? Hold onto the hat!

 

[Bonnie]

I don't 'see' Hillary winning. But who saw GW winning so large in 2004? Hold onto the hat!

Maybe there is a silver lining to this past election afterall??

 

[Annie]

Maybe there is a silver lining to this past election afterall??

Lieberman and the fact that the polls show the people don't want pull out. At the same time, they elected those that ran on such.

 

[Bonnie]

Lieberman and the fact that the polls show the people don't want pull out. At the same time, they elected those that ran on such.

Now that will remain a mystery to me......

 

[Gunny]

Now that will remain a mystery to me......

Teaching them a lesson.

 

[red states rule]

I don't 'see' Hillary winning. But who saw GW winning so large in 2004? Hold onto the hat!

Kathianne, with all do respect, Pres Bush did win big in 04

He got 12 million more votes then he did in 2000

He gained both House and Senate seats in 2004

Republicans need to get back what brought them to the dance, and Hillary may be the answer.

 

[red states rule]

Do I sense a lack of confidence in herself?



Dream on.

This is how Rudy will will the nomination and the White House


THE BEST ENEMIES
By JOHN PODHORETZ

November 21, 2006 -- THE negative line on Rudy Giuliani's presidential bid is that he's too liberal for Republicans. When GOP voters find out he has a record of being pro-choice and has supported domestic-partnership rights for homosexuals, the line goes, their favorable opinion of Giuliani will take a nosedive.

But there are other things most Republicans don't know about Giuliani - and when they find out some of those, chance are their fondness for him will grow. And for that boost, it appears, Rudy will have only his enemies to thank.

The Post's David Seifman reported yesterday that some New York lefties are seriously considering an effort to attack Rudy in the manner that the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth attacked John Kerry in 2004 - to reveal the "unvarnished truth" about his mayoralty and deflate his status as an American hero.

Among those Seifman cites is Norman Siegel, the Rudy-era head of the New York Civil Liberties Union. Siegel said he "represents some families of 9/11 victims who he says 'have lots of questions in regard to what Giuliani did' and are prepared to express their concerns." And he wants America to know about Rudy's run-ins with New York City's "civil rights" community, which sued him and City Hall on a constant basis during his time as mayor.

I won't go into the specifics; this paper, this columnist and everybody else in New York covered them exhaustively for years. But Siegel did say his group won 23 out of 27 lawsuits brought against the Giuliani administration for First Amendment violations. What he didn't bring up is the 30 attempts to use the courts to dismantle Rudy's efforts to use zoning laws to rid family neighborhoods of porn shops - every one of which failed.

That was the most substantial and sustained legislative effort taken against the Giuliani administration, and its intent was to undo a key move to make the city a habitable and friendly environment for families.

That's one example of how Rudy, the supposed social liberal, used effective governing tactics to bring about something that America's social conservatives would cheer.

Rudy's efforts in this regard won him no favor in Manhattan salons - where, only a few years after the salvation of Times Square, people were heard idiotically bemoaning the loss of the oh-so-colorful hookers, pimps, addicts and drug dealers who did nothing but suck the life out of the city and leave it looking diseased.

That sentiment wasn't shared by the vast majority of New York's populace, which knew full well how remarkable the Giuliani transformation was and how little there was to be nostalgic about - unless violent crime, abandoned buildings, disgusting subways and playgrounds littered with glass fill you full of nostalgia.

On issue after issue of concern to America's conservatives - the misuse of the welfare system, the destructive effects of bilingual education, the disastrous misuse of public monies by municipal unions, the need for tax cuts, the essential requirement of supporting the city's police against unjust attack as they risked their lives to secure civil peace - Rudy fought.

He fought The New York Times and the liberal establishment - and gave them no quarter. They despised him - and the relentlessness of their expressed displeasure only seemed to push him to greater action.

Conservatives nationwide don't know any of this. But thanks to Norm Siegel and others, they may hear about it from exactly the sorts of people whose loathing of Rudy will enhance his stature and burnish his credentials.

Rudy's appeal to GOP primary voters can and will go beyond his peerless handling of 9/11 and his brilliant record on crime. Voters will learn that he was a liberal-slayer.

Norm Siegel doesn't dislike Rudy because he's pro-abortion and pro-gay rights. He dislikes Rudy because he thinks Rudy is an evil right-winger; that's why the Times hated him too.

By his enemies shall ye know him. One of the reasons conservatives like Rudy is that they believe he is one of them. Liberal attacks on him may convince many of them that this is even truer than they thought.

One reason they mistrust John McCain, despite his mostly sterling conservative voting record, is that they sense he isn't one of them at all. Certainly, the more he campaigned for the presidency in 2000, the less he did seem like one of them.

So here's the conundrum for 2008: Do social conservatives vote for the conservative they just don't feel is truly a conservative, or the moderate whom they correctly sense is actually a dyed-in-the-wool right-winger?




http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly...est_enemies_opedcolumnists_john_podhoretz.htm

 

[Annie]

Kathianne, with all do respect, Pres Bush did win big in 04

He got 12 million more votes then he did in 2000

He gained both House and Senate seats in 2004

Republicans need to get back what brought them to the dance, and Hillary may be the answer.

Um, that is what I was saying.

 

[red states rule]

My mistake. Please accept my apology. I am overdue for my eye exam

 

[ScreamingEagle]

This is how Rudy will will the nomination and the White House


THE BEST ENEMIES
By JOHN PODHORETZ

November 21, 2006 -- THE negative line on Rudy Giuliani's presidential bid is that he's too liberal for Republicans. When GOP voters find out he has a record of being pro-choice and has supported domestic-partnership rights for homosexuals, the line goes, their favorable opinion of Giuliani will take a nosedive.

But there are other things most Republicans don't know about Giuliani - and when they find out some of those, chance are their fondness for him will grow. And for that boost, it appears, Rudy will have only his enemies to thank.

The Post's David Seifman reported yesterday that some New York lefties are seriously considering an effort to attack Rudy in the manner that the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth attacked John Kerry in 2004 - to reveal the "unvarnished truth" about his mayoralty and deflate his status as an American hero.

Among those Seifman cites is Norman Siegel, the Rudy-era head of the New York Civil Liberties Union. Siegel said he "represents some families of 9/11 victims who he says 'have lots of questions in regard to what Giuliani did' and are prepared to express their concerns." And he wants America to know about Rudy's run-ins with New York City's "civil rights" community, which sued him and City Hall on a constant basis during his time as mayor.

I won't go into the specifics; this paper, this columnist and everybody else in New York covered them exhaustively for years. But Siegel did say his group won 23 out of 27 lawsuits brought against the Giuliani administration for First Amendment violations. What he didn't bring up is the 30 attempts to use the courts to dismantle Rudy's efforts to use zoning laws to rid family neighborhoods of porn shops - every one of which failed.

That was the most substantial and sustained legislative effort taken against the Giuliani administration, and its intent was to undo a key move to make the city a habitable and friendly environment for families.

That's one example of how Rudy, the supposed social liberal, used effective governing tactics to bring about something that America's social conservatives would cheer.

Rudy's efforts in this regard won him no favor in Manhattan salons - where, only a few years after the salvation of Times Square, people were heard idiotically bemoaning the loss of the oh-so-colorful hookers, pimps, addicts and drug dealers who did nothing but suck the life out of the city and leave it looking diseased.

That sentiment wasn't shared by the vast majority of New York's populace, which knew full well how remarkable the Giuliani transformation was and how little there was to be nostalgic about - unless violent crime, abandoned buildings, disgusting subways and playgrounds littered with glass fill you full of nostalgia.

On issue after issue of concern to America's conservatives - the misuse of the welfare system, the destructive effects of bilingual education, the disastrous misuse of public monies by municipal unions, the need for tax cuts, the essential requirement of supporting the city's police against unjust attack as they risked their lives to secure civil peace - Rudy fought.

He fought The New York Times and the liberal establishment - and gave them no quarter. They despised him - and the relentlessness of their expressed displeasure only seemed to push him to greater action.

Conservatives nationwide don't know any of this. But thanks to Norm Siegel and others, they may hear about it from exactly the sorts of people whose loathing of Rudy will enhance his stature and burnish his credentials.

Rudy's appeal to GOP primary voters can and will go beyond his peerless handling of 9/11 and his brilliant record on crime. Voters will learn that he was a liberal-slayer.

Norm Siegel doesn't dislike Rudy because he's pro-abortion and pro-gay rights. He dislikes Rudy because he thinks Rudy is an evil right-winger; that's why the Times hated him too.

By his enemies shall ye know him. One of the reasons conservatives like Rudy is that they believe he is one of them. Liberal attacks on him may convince many of them that this is even truer than they thought.

One reason they mistrust John McCain, despite his mostly sterling conservative voting record, is that they sense he isn't one of them at all. Certainly, the more he campaigned for the presidency in 2000, the less he did seem like one of them.

So here's the conundrum for 2008: Do social conservatives vote for the conservative they just don't feel is truly a conservative, or the moderate whom they correctly sense is actually a dyed-in-the-wool right-winger?




http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly...est_enemies_opedcolumnists_john_podhoretz.htm

Rudy is famous for cleaning up NY (in more ways than one). Maybe he could clean up the rest of the country...that'd be a real feat. However, going from city mayor to White House? I have my doubts. And why would any conservative voter want to support a candidate who's for both abortion and gay marriage? Pretty much deal breakers...however, if it boils down to Rudy or McPain....I could see where Rudy might have a chance.

 

[Hobbit]

Rudy is famous for cleaning up NY (in more ways than one). Maybe he could clean up the rest of the country...that'd be a real feat. However, going from city mayor to White House? I have my doubts. And why would any conservative voter want to support a candidate who's for both abortion and gay marriage? Pretty much deal breakers...

They're both definitely strikes against, but I don't see Guliani using the White House to try to push those on everybody. I do, however, see him yanking out the welcome mat for illegal invaders.

 

[Nienna]

Do I sense a lack of confidence in herself?

I sense complete and utter disdain for the "common masses." I sense a feeling of entitlement, as if she DESERVES to be treated like royalty, like the "little people" couldn't possibly understand how to "do these things 'right,'" I mean, honestly, she must be re-elected in a "style" befitting a senator, regardless of if the expenditures were really necessary to win.

 

[Nienna]

Rudy is famous for cleaning up NY (in more ways than one). Maybe he could clean up the rest of the country...that'd be a real feat. However, going from city mayor to White House? I have my doubts. And why would any conservative voter want to support a candidate who's for both abortion and gay marriage? Pretty much deal breakers...however, if it boils down to Rudy or McPain....I could see where Rudy might have a chance.

I'd vote Rudy over McCain. I'd vote some Democrats over McCain. The Feingold Partnership to Stifle Free Speech makes me distrust that man for any issue. He is an elitist. He has things he doesn't think we can "handle" knowing.