More Clinton Hypocrisy

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
Great article by Linda Chavez guaranteed to bring out the Clinton defenders


Hypocrisy catching up
By Linda Chavez
March 4, 2007


The Clintons have always behaved like the rules that governed everyone else didn't apply to them. And they've largely gotten away with it -- but perhaps Hillary Clinton's quest for the White House will finally bring this to an end.
Two stories in recent days suggest the mainstream media are uncomfortable with ignoring the Clintons' hypocrisy, especially about money.
Until Bill and Hillary left the White House in January 2001, they were hardly what you would call rich. They had never owned a home until they purchased one in late 1999 so Hillary could have a permanent address in the state she hoped to represent in the U.S. Senate. Their friends' and political allies' efforts to enhance their financial status when the two occupied the Arkansas governor's mansion had ended badly in investigations into land deals and mysterious commodities windfalls.
These investigations, along with those into Bill's infamous peccadilloes and the Republicans' impeachment efforts, left the Clintons with huge legal bills. But they quickly made up for it by amassing a small fortune over the next six years. And that has provoked some concern among the media.
Over the last several days, The Washington Post has put two stories on its front page that reflect this uneasiness. The first focused on Bill Clinton's lucrative speaking engagements, which The Post noted in its headline garnered nearly $40 million since 2001. The second story revealed that, despite Senate ethics rules requiring her to do so, Hillary Clinton failed to disclose the amount of money she and Bill had sheltered from taxes through a family charity they set up when they left the White House (though she amended her disclosures after the story appeared).
The Post did important investigative reporting on both these stories, which should quell some conservatives' fears that the mainstream media is somehow in cahoots with the Clintons in their efforts to move back to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
The revelations about her failure to report the tax shelter caused Mrs. Clinton some embarrassment at a time when her presidential campaign surely did not need that kind of attention. More importantly, the story about Bill's speaking engagements hinted at some unsavory links between the former president's hefty fees and his wife's own presidential aspirations.
"Many of Bill Clinton's six-figure speeches have been made to companies whose employees and political action committees have been among Hillary Clinton's top backers in her Senate campaigns," note John Solomon and Matthew Mosk. For example, The Post's reporters discovered Goldman Sachs paid Bill $650,000 for four speeches in the last few years, while its employees and political action committee (PAC) have given Hillary $270,000 since 2000.
Citigroup also made large contributions to the Clintons' efforts by paying Bill $250,000 for a speech in France in 2004 and committing $5.5 million toward his Global Initiative aimed at helping the poor in other countries start their own small businesses, while its employees and PAC gave more than $320,000 to Hillary's campaigns. If this isn't buying influence, what is?
Bill Clinton may give one heck of a speech and his charitable efforts may be commendable, but does anyone really believe his benefactors aren't prompted to give largely because they want to buy access and influence with Hillary? And what better way than to fatten the couple's bank account, boost the ever-insecure former president's ego and help the missus reach the pinnacle of American politics?
Maybe Bill and Hillary thought no one would notice this influence-buying. More likely, they believed they would be given a pass, since it was being done in the noble cause of furthering their liberal policy agenda.
Like some 16th-century Antinomians who believed they were anointed by God and could ignore the moral laws that applied to the rest of mankind, the Clintons seem to think they can do whatever they want in pursuit of some greater good. But the more ambitious and greedy they become, the less likely they'll get away with it.
Linda Chavez is a nationally syndicated columnist and author of "An Unlikely Conservative: The Transformation of an Ex-Liberal."



http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/lchavez.htm
 

boedicca

Uppity Water Nymph
Joined
Feb 12, 2007
Messages
55,649
Reaction score
17,720
Points
2,250
Location
The Land of Funk
I really love how the Extreme Left shriek about the Bush Family's relationship with the Saudi Royal Family - but are ignoring how Clinton accepted $600,000 from them for a speaking engagement.

In fact, the majority of Clinton's speaking fees are from foreigners - which I suppose fits in with his plans to become Secretary General of the U.N. He and Hilary really do believe in World Government. The U.S. Presidency is just a stepping stone for that.
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
I really love how the Extreme Left shriek about the Bush Family's relationship with the Saudi Royal Family - but are ignoring how Clinton accepted $600,000 from them for a speaking engagement.

In fact, the majority of Clinton's speaking fees are from foreigners - which I suppose fits in with his plans to become Secretary General of the U.N. He and Hilary really do believe in World Government. The U.S. Presidency is just a stepping stone for that.
Remember one the rules liberals live by

"Do not do as I do - do as I say"

Liberals usually accuse Republicans of doing what the libs themselfs are doing
 

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
Remember one the rules liberals live by

"Do not do as I do - do as I say"

Liberals usually accuse Republicans of doing what the libs themselfs are doing
Not too mention all the money Carter has picked up for speaking engagements and donations to his library and 'center.' Gag.
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
Not too mention all the money Carter has picked up for speaking engagements and donations to his library and 'center.' Gag.
Also all his Jew bashing and coddling of terrorists?

I remember very well the four years of President Peanut. The economy was in shambles, terrorists laughing at us, Peanut sitting in the Oval Office unable to make a decision, and while people watch their heating bils double overnight - Pres peanut wears a sweater on TV and tell the folks to tunr down the heat and conserve energy
 

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
Also all his Jew bashing and coddling of terrorists?

I remember very well the four years of President Peanut. The economy was in shambles, terrorists laughing at us, Peanut sitting in the Oval Office unable to make a decision, and while people watch their heating bils double overnight - Pres peanut wears a sweater on TV and tell the folks to tunr down the heat and conserve energy
The Jew baiting/blaming is the result of the payouts or just his own Redneck/religious background, for which he's been amply rewarded financially.
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
The Jew baiting/blaming is the result of the payouts or just his own Redneck/religious background, for which he's been amply rewarded financially.
kathy, I was not around 70 years ago, but all the Jew bashing and racism does remind me of what I have read about Berlin in the 1930's

It is disgusting a former US President is part of the racism toward the Jews these days
 

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
kathy, I was not around 70 years ago, but all the Jew bashing and racism does remind me of what I have read about Berlin in the 1930's

It is disgusting a former US President is part of the racism toward the Jews these days
I wasn't around in the 30's either. :clubbing your head: However, while you are certainly correct on the rise of anti-semitism globally, I don't think that it's necessarily related to the Clinton/Carter discussion.
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
I wasn't around in the 30's either. :clubbing your head: However, while you are certainly correct on the rise of anti-semitism globally, I don't think that it's necessarily related to the Clinton/Carter discussion.
They are sure adding to it Kathy. You had most of the board of the Carter Center walk away form their jobs, and Pres Peanut dismissing the Jewish leaders response as an attempt to raise money
 

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
They are sure adding to it Kathy. You had most of the board of the Carter Center walk away form their jobs, and Pres Peanut dismissing the Jewish leaders response as an attempt to raise money
And that's what I'm addressing, while Carter might be bought and paid for, the Center wasn't in lockstep. I'm convinced there are bad winds blowing. Unfortunately mistakes are being used as reasons to ignore the obvious by too many.
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
And that's what I'm addressing, while Carter might be bought and paid for, the Center wasn't in lockstep. I'm convinced there are bad winds blowing. Unfortunately mistakes are being used as reasons to ignore the obvious by too many.
Should we be surprised that most libs are silent on Carter's racism? Here the party that bellows they are for equal treatment for all - seems to have more racists in their party and are the most racist party in the political landscape
 

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
Should we be surprised that most libs are silent on Carter's racism? Here the party that bellows they are for equal treatment for all - seems to have more racists in their party and are the most racist party in the political landscape
It certainly isn't 'all liberals', but like the analogy with the Muslims, one must wonder why they maintain the 'silence.'
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
It certainly isn't 'all liberals', but like the analogy with the Muslims, one must wonder why they maintain the 'silence.'
I did say most libs

Look at the libs bashing Jews, as well as conservative blacks

I guess libs want equal rights and treatment for you as long as you agree with them
 

boedicca

Uppity Water Nymph
Joined
Feb 12, 2007
Messages
55,649
Reaction score
17,720
Points
2,250
Location
The Land of Funk
When party leaders such as Pelosi declare "The Debate Is Over" on topics such as global warming, it's a strong indicator that they brook no dissent. At bottom both parties serve as campaign cash machines. Tick off the leadership and "no cash for you". The Dem Leadership in particular are the ultimate Soup Nazis.
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
When party leaders such as Pelosi declare "The Debate Is Over" on topics such as global warming, it's a strong indicator that they brook no dissent. At bottom both parties serve as campaign cash machines. Tick off the leadership and "no cash for you". The Dem Leadership in particular are the ultimate Soup Nazis.
I have always know the party of love, tolerance, and free speech was really the party of hate, intolerance, and liberal free speech

You want to be on the receiving end of liberal tolerance tell a lib the surge is working, the US economy is strong, and Democrats need to let Pres Bush do his job as Commander In Cheif - and watch the eruption begin
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top