NY Times comes to the defense of Hillary Clinton

Times Tells Ralph Nader: Don’t Dare Hurt the Democrats Again
The Times’ mesasge to Ralph Nader: Stick to your "consumer advocacy" and don’t hurt the Democratic presidential prospects like you did with Gore in 2000.

Posted by: Clay Waters
6/22/2007 1:25:36 PM

The Times loves Ralph Nader’s "pro-consumer" activism, but when the left-wing populist has the temerity to try to put his causes into action by running for president (and possibly draining votes from the Democratic candidate, as Nader did with Gore in 2000), the Times can get surprisingly hostile.

Reporter Michael Janofsky’s October 26, 2004 profile included this unusually harsh examination of Nader’s motives: "To his followers, he is the embodiment of political principle, the counterweight to a dishonest two-party system that sneers at minor-party candidates. To his critics, he is an anachronistic, dangerous buttinsky, motivated more by ego than civic good."

Read it all here

Hillary’s Gas Station

Can you imagine IF a Republican running for the President of the United States had made a comment like this?
Would the media EVER stop the relentless hounding of this candidates cruelty and prejudice?

Full Hillary ’smoking gun’ video released

Filed as evidence in case against New York senator, husband

The full, five-minute videotape touted as "smoking gun evidence" of two felonies committed by Sen. Hillary Clinton has been released to WND.

As WND reported, the tape was submitted as evidence to a California appeals court yesterday in a civil fraud suit against the New York Democrat and her husband, former President Bill Clinton.

WND reported in April the tape indicates Clinton – despite denials throughout six years of investigation – was directly involved with business mogul Peter Franklin Paul in producing a lavish Hollywood fundraiser in August 2000 that eventually cost Paul nearly $2 million.

The Election Crystal Ball and Hillary Clinton

Post by Vince Foster

From NewMax

Yet, he warns Hillary "has her own unique set of difficulties, and neither her party nor the general electorate has focused on them in a comprehensive way.?

Among them Sabato writes:

  •  "There is something about Hillary - the person, not the politician - that upsets and repels tens of millions of Americans. Fairly or not, she is seen as cold, calculating, and ruthless, an off-putting combination of characteristics … Almost every voter now has heard something about her leading role in covering up for her husband’s serial infidelities over the decades. This is an unusual role for a spouse, even in the twisted world of politics. Most normal people cannot fathom it, except in the context of a supposed ‘corrupt bargain’ between two power-hungry individuals.?
  •  "In many surveys, Clinton runs 3-5 percentage points worse than the other widely known Democratic candidates, Obama and Gore, when matched up against the best-known Republican presidential candidates for November 2008 … Close to half of adult Americans already say they have an "unfavorable" opinion of her, and 43-46 percent of Americans say that they would not even consider voting for her.?  
  • Moreover "Independents, moderates and swing voters are concentrated in this anti-Clinton group, not just Republicans.?
  • "The final several percent of swing voters needed to get Hillary Clinton over the top in the general election will vote for her only with the greatest reluctance, more as a way to stop a Republican than as an endorsement of her. That is a shaky way to start a Presidency.?

Noting that "Democrats (and some Independents) have fallen back in love with Bill Clinton, and this has caused a case of mass amnesia about his (and her) many scandals from the 1990s,? Sabato says the "muted reactions to the two new books on Hillary Clinton by Carl Bernstein, Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta Jr. Suggests that voters have already absorbed the embarrassing fundamentals and factored the scandals into their fixed perceptions of the Clintons.?

He asks, "Do leopards change their spots? Suppose the news media choose to break more recent (post-January 20, 2001) information about the former President? How much additional tolerance for a continuation of the tired Clinton soap opera is there in the American public?

"If this happens, Democrats will suffer - whether the revelations come before the nomination is decided or after the nominee (if Mrs. Clinton) is chosen. As First Gentleman, Bill Clinton will also be reasonably subject to the highest level of scrutiny for four or eight more years.

"Would the public ignore additional indiscretions as more of the same, or recoil anew and punish Democrats at the polls in future elections?

"One can argue this either way, though we think the latter outcome is much more likely.?

Read it all at NewsMax

Breaking the Hillary Code

Posted by Vince Foster
Go Read Human Events - Daily!

By Joseph Farah

Because I learned this code as a youngster, I thought it would be a public service for me to translate for Americans who may not understand exactly what she is saying and exactly what she means.

The presidential candidate says it’s time to replace our "ownership society," which she calls an "on your own society" with one based on shared responsibility and prosperity. I prefer a ‘we’re all in it together’ society," she said. "I believe our government can once again work for all Americans. It can promote the great American tradition of opportunity for all and special privileges for none."

It’s all about "fairness," says Hillary. And "fairness doesn’t just happen. It requires the right government policies."

What does this mean? It means more socialism, less freedom. It means more government in your lives, less freedom. It means more command-and-control bureaucracies run by smart people like Hillary’s friends and less freedom.

Not only does it mean less economic freedom, it also means less prosperity and less upward mobility. What Hillary seeks is a society of dependence on government, a society of subsistence for poor people with little hope of overcoming poverty through hard work.

Hillary is hardly alone as a politician in wanting to replace the last vestiges of freedom and economic opportunity in America with socialism. Most of her party shares that goal — and too many Republicans, including the current occupant of the White House, agree.

Here’s the problem: Socialism doesn’t work the way people dream it will work. It has always sounded good — especially to those on the bottom of the economic rung. But it is a system that does exactly the opposite of what it promises.

As proof, examine the socialist economies in the world today. Look at Mexico. Look at China. Look at North Korea. These are three countries in an advanced state of socialism.

Are people happy? Are people content? Or do they want to escape?

If America is such an unjust and unfair society, as Hillary suggests, why do so many people want to come here? Are they trying to escape from America?

Don’t get me wrong. I don’t think America is perfect — far from it. I want to change America, too. But I want to move it in the direction of expanding freedom and expanding prosperity.

That means getting government out of our lives and off our backs. I just wish there was a viable alternative to the two major parties — both of which seem determined to expand the role of government, break our national covenant with the Constitution and make us more like the other nations of the world.

Let’s talk specifics. Hillary loves massive government programs like Social Security and the failed government takeover of the health-care system she sought in the 1990s.

But Social Security does not benefit poor people, as most think. It victimizes them. It keeps them in bondage and dependence. It gives them illusions of safety and security by stealing their money, using it to benefit government and big bankers and then returning a pittance much later.

More than a decade ago, I had the opportunity to edit a book by Sam Beard titled "Restoring Hope in America: The Social Security Solution." The author showed that if Americans had the opportunity and the freedom to save only the money confiscated from them forcibly for Social Security for 45 years — the average work life — they could retire as millionaires!

This is what freedom is about.

Would everyone make the right choices? Of course not. But should we as Americans have the right to make those choices? Absolutely.

Hillary would disagree. She doesn’t want Americans to be millionaires when they retire. She wants them dependent on her and her friends in government.

She can’t say that, of course. So that’s why she speaks in platitudes that sound nice. That’s why she talks in code.

Read more here

Inhofe tells about Hillary and Boxer wanting to “influence” talk radio

Appearing on John Ziegler’s evening show on KFI 640 AM in LA, U.S. Senator James Inhofe says he overheard Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) and Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) saying they want a "legislative fix" for talk radio.

[audio:http://www.nohillaryclinton.com/blog/audio/talkradio_hillary.mp3]

Group behind Hillary Clinton sets sights on Talk Radio!

Posted by Vince Foster

Folks… this is getting scary how bold the liberals are getting to shut conservative voices down!

From NewsBusters

The supposedly “free speech” left are out in force trying to silence all voices in the media with views different than their own just in time for the 2008 presidential campaign.

Potentially more worrisome, one liberal advocate in the middle of this debate has close ties to the Clintons, although it is quite unlikely the press will convey such when its recommendations are disseminated with their predictable stamp of approval.

*****Update: Michelle Malkin is all over this.

With that in mind, the left-leaning Center for American Progress published a report Thursday detailing how conservatives dominate the talk radio dial, and exactly what needs to be done legislatively for liberals to wrest control over this medium (emphasis added throughout):

  • Restore local and national caps on the ownership of commercial radio stations.
  • Ensure greater local accountability over radio licensing.
  • Require commercial owners who fail to abide by enforceable public interest obligations to pay a fee to support public broadcasting.

Imagine that.

For those unfamiliar with the Center, its President and CEO is none other than John Podesta, the former Chief of Staff for President Bill Clinton. And:

In reality, the staff and Senior Fellows listing of this Center reads like a Clinton administration Who’s Who.

Read the rest of this entry »

Chapter 2: The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy

See chapter 1

Let’s chat.

Hillary… Here comes Ralph Nader!

Posted by Vince Foster

From Captains Quarters

He still has fangs, too, which he unleashed on Hillary:

"She is a political coward," Nader said. "She goes around pandering to powerful interest groups on the one hand and flattering general audiences on the other. She doesn’t even have the minimal political fortitude of her husband."

Just when Democrats and the media have started to salivate at the thought of an independent run from Michael Bloomberg, their bete noir returns.

Read it all here