Biden out unless Hillary falls

Biden decided not to run. The die was cast when Bernie Sanders acknowledged his capitulation to Hillary by ostentatiously taking her email scandal off his playlist. Hillary is too entrenched and Biden knows that he could not hope to beat her unless he beat her up in ways that would hurt them both.

Biden's announcement was interesting, however. He did not endorse Hillary or even mention her. He did rebuke Hillary's divisive statement about Republicans by saying "I don't think we should look at Republicans as our enemies. They're our opposition, not our enemies."

Biden would have been a better president than Hillary. I do not understand Hillary's appeal. Her defenders tend to argue that she is not bad. She herself lists being a grandmother as among her leading qualifications. It is great to be a grandmother, but there are lots of them out there who will not be president.

Anyway, Biden has left the door open. He did not say that he didn't want the job; he just said that it was too late to run. Should Hillary fall over her own feet, Biden will be there to jump over. Let's hope she does.

Posted by Christine & John at October 21, 2015 7:53 PM
Comments
Comment #399868

Several times I’ve pointed out Biden was unlikely to run. You’re welcome. FOX and CNN did everything they could to pump the horse race aspect. They must have spent about 1/3 of their political coverage thusly:

Biden will run! Warren will run! Kerry will run! Gore will run! Hillary is weak! Hillary is vulnerable! Hillary is doomed, doomed, doomed!!!

Of course, none of that happened. Hillary played this PERFECTLY. That gives you a good idea of just how good she can be as a president.

First, she stayed out of the spotlight and let the GOP candidates take center stage. They made a spectacle of themselves, culminating in Trump at the top of the polls for the past 100 days, and second place going to Carson, who says something bizarre almost every day.

Next, Hillary launched a campaign against the Benghazi Committee. She and fellow Democrats released a full transcript that the GOP had been trying to hide, and revealed Gowdy had played with the classification of a name on an e-mail, released it, and then falsely claimed Hillary had committed a security breach. Some luck came Hillary’s way, as Majority Leader McCarthy stated- twice!- on talk shows that the Committee was basically a partisan vehicle for attacking Hillary, which was then confirmed by two GOP Congressmen. The credibility of the Committee was destroyed before she ever took the stand.

And then she killed it in the debate.

Tomorrow she testifies in public and on tv. The wind is at her back. Most of Biden’s support will go to her rather than to Sanders. Meanwhile, the GOP is absolute disaster. They upended Boehner and his intended successor, McCarthy, and now the crazies want to rule the asylum. Conservative voters give the majority of their votes in polls to people who have NO political experience. The so-called strong bench of the GOP has been so weak, none of the Republican
Senators and Governors have managed to challenge Donald Freakin’ Trump and whack job Dr. Ben Carson.

Thanks for the timing of the announcement, Joe. Job well done.

Posted by: phx8 at October 21, 2015 11:09 PM
Comment #399869

phx8

Hillary is clearly very good at positioning herself and at excluding rivals. Governing requires a different set of skills.

What in Hillary’s background makes you think she would be good at actually running things. Her tenure at State, BTW, was unremarkable. She probably did a better job than Warren Christopher, but that is a low bar. Nobody can really think of anything she did besides travel and talk.

Posted by: C&J at October 21, 2015 11:15 PM
Comment #399870

She knows how to build and staff an organizations with good people in the right positions, and do it on a national basis. She knows how to lead that organization effectively and keep everyone on the same page. By the time this is over she may win one of the biggest landslides any of us have seen in our lifetimes. She knows when to step back and when to take center stage, as we have seen in the past three months. It took incredible discipline to restrain herself and stay out of the spotlight and watch her polls drop, but it was the right strategy, and that may have won her the White House right there. It let Trump dominate and suck the life out of dozen competitors. And She knows how to be an effective and persuasive communicator, as we just saw in the debate. She is highly intelligent with a solid grasp of issues, a grasp reinforced by her experience as head of State, and as First Lady- first of Arkansas, and then of the US. She has a solid grasp of the legislative process derived from her time as a US Senator, and an understanding of law thanks to her education and early job experience.

Her stands on issues are generally in line with the American people. I’m looking forward to her time in office. It will continue the good years we have already seen.

Posted by: phx8 at October 22, 2015 12:09 AM
Comment #399876

We disagree.

I saw here at State and was less impressed with her. Kerry is better.

Posted by: C&J at October 22, 2015 10:25 AM
Comment #399877

Sorry C&J, but unfortunately for the US, you guys are now outnumbered. Hillary has it in the bag and the liberals will continue with their destruction of the US until you change.
The next ‘Republican’ President will be a mirror image of Obama and will still be considered way ‘far-right.’ The anti-American unconstitutional Sanders types will be the norm.

A fun thing to think about though, is if by some grace of whatever God Hillary does lose? Can you imagine the whining and crying and conspiracy theories? LOL.

Posted by: kctim at October 22, 2015 10:36 AM
Comment #399878

In some respects Kerry might be a better Secretary of State, although it is hard to know just how much was actually the result of her earlier work. However, Hillary is definitely a better presidential candidate. Although I think Kerry could have been a decent president, I never wanted him to be the nominee, and sure enough, he lost. It happened. I got over it, because the Democrats got it right with Obama. Twice. And now they’ll do it again with HRC.

kctim,
The standard conservative excuse for the failures of Bush and the GOP Congress of 2000 - 2006 was that they were not conservative enough. The idea of an even more conservative bunch is distressing. Now we are looking at the likes of Trump and Carson. The GOP primaries are winner take all, so Trump could actually win the nomination. Distressing doesn’t begin to describe it. Meanwhile, the current bunch in the House seem to be willing to accept Ryan as Speaker (?), but the talk of default on the US debt (the debt ceiling) and a government shutdown continues.

Posted by: phx8 at October 22, 2015 11:35 AM
Comment #399879

Phx8

Yes, and the standard liberal excuse for the failures of Obama and the dems has been that they were not liberal enough. SOP.

The difference though, is that this “even more conservative bunch” that you find distressing are fighting for the same limited government and individual rights they have always fought for, while this new democratic bunch is fighting for liberal ideas to replace the ideas of the Democratic party.

The fact is, people on the right haven’t become more conservative, they just haven’t moved as far left as you want them to.

Posted by: kctim at October 22, 2015 12:06 PM
Comment #399881

kctim,
“This… “even more conservative bunch”… are fighting for the same limited government and individual rights they have always fought for, while this new democratic bunch is fighting for liberal ideas to replace the ideas of the Democratic party.

The fact is, people on the right haven’t become more conservative, they just haven’t moved as far left as you want them to.”

Simply not true, and there is actually a statistical analysis that produces an easily understood chart, a DW Nominate. Look it up. To summarize, from 1967 to today, the Democrats have moved slightly to the left. There is substantial overlap on the issues between the Democrats of 1967 and the Democrats of today- in others words, they have changed very little. The Republicans, on the other hand, have moved substantially to the right, and there is almost no overlap between the GOP of the past and the present.

Here is one recent example. There are DW Nominates for just about anything you care to measure.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/10/12/1430848/-Watch-the-Republican-Party-gallop-to-the-right-over-the-last-40-years-in-this-amazing-chart

Posted by: phx8 at October 22, 2015 4:37 PM
Comment #399882

C&J, from my perspective Biden didn’t ever really make a run for the 2016 Presidential nomination. I don’t recall him ever making a point that this country needed him to be President in the last 7 years. Hillary will make that point. That this country needs her to be President. That is what we want, people who want the job and will work to get it. I believe that is why Trump is captivating the Republican field, he tells them that they need him to be President. After the Special Committee To Take Down Hillary completes their interview with her today I believe we will see the Clinton machine gear up and expect her to also start making the point that we need her to be President. We’ll see how that is received.

I am familiar with your dislike of Hillary and realized that you favored Biden over her for a nominee. I respect that opinion. I am not trying to change the gist of this post but would be appreciative if you could just touch a little bit on Trump’s successes. Do you believe that he is dominating the Republican field because he has been the most effective candidate in telling people that they need him, as I said above. The other candidates don’t seem to project that as well and to some extent not at all. I would ask that you use your best Bidenesque ability to convey the answer. We already know that you have been accused as a RINO for your opposition to Trump, unfairly I would say. But if you were Joe Biden how would you discuss Trump’s ability to dominate the campaign in these early stages? I understand completely if you’d rather not address my question in this post as it is entirely off topic but perhaps in a different one? Of course, given the reception your views on Trump have already elicited, I wouldn’t blame you if you said “not with a 10 foot pole”. And thanks for being one of the very few authors here who still responds to comments on your postings.

Posted by: Speak4all at October 22, 2015 4:44 PM
Comment #399884

Phx8, I chose the words I did because I am familiar with the DW Nonsense. That so-called ‘statistical analysis’ doesn’t show that conservative views have changed, it shows that those on the right are saying enough.

If it were ‘simply not true,’ you would be able to point out what actual positions differ from those of the past, under the same circumstances, and without biased assumptions. Can you do that?

Posted by: kctim at October 22, 2015 5:53 PM
Comment #399887

Speaks

I am not a Trump fan. If we have Trump v Clinton, we have a choice between the wind bag and the spider. I would be tempted not to vote at all in such an election.

I think the success of both shows the power of celebrity. Trump is a reality show star. Hillary is an artificial creation. Trump wants to be president because he thinks he is smarter than everybody else. Hillary wants to be president because she thinks it is her turn.

Trump emphasizes shallow analysis. His answer to everything is that he would just kick ass. Hillary is interested in specialized issues. As Secretary of State she traveled a lot and pushed LGBT issues. The traditional war and peace were way behind. They are both bad.

Actually South Park called it. What a Trump-Clinton race would be a contest between a Giant Douche vs. Turd Sandwich.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UthMHjoNyjA

Posted by: C&J at October 22, 2015 7:53 PM
Comment #399888

kctim,

you would be able to point out what actual positions differ from those of the past

OK, here are a few:

How many Republicans endorsed John Chaffee’s plan for universal health care?

How many Republicans voted for the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act?

Who supported Reagan’s amnesty for illegal immigrants?

Who supported George HW Bush’s tax increase?

How many state governments in the 1980s put onerous restrictions on abortion access?

How many times was the debt ceiling raised uncontroversially in the 2000s?

Before the late 1980s, how many times did the GOP push for “shall issue” CCW licences?

Posted by: Warren Porter at October 22, 2015 8:08 PM
Comment #399889

Benghazi hearing finally ends. Nothing new. Just the spectacle of Republicans badgering the former Secretary of State for eleven hours. Another epic fail for the Republicans. Hillary professional and cool. Republicans reduced to asking the same mundane questions over and over. No smoking gun. In fact, not even a whisper of smoke.



Posted by: Rich at October 22, 2015 9:20 PM
Comment #399890

Rich,
HRC knocked it out of the park. She stayed cool, professional, and demonstrated a command of the issues that was truly remarkable. The GOP could not have done more to make her look presidential if they tried. The GOP congressmen badgered her, interrupted her, and were consistently rude and sometimes wildly off point. Hillary did not respond in kind. An amazing performance.

The whole optics of the thing was disastrous for Republicans. While they attacked her with repetitious lines of questioning and she calmly fended them off, the Democrats on the Committee ALSO defended HRC while attacking the Republicans and discrediting them. That was about as bad a day for Republicans as we are likely to see for a long time.

It is incredible that Hillary could stand up to 11 hours of grilling and badgering and not even look like she was breaking a sweat. The sweat was poring off a couple of the Republican congressmen. They looked terrible on tv.

Whose idea was this? Who thought it was a good idea to give HRC a publicly televised opportunity to blow apart the GOP? What is wrong with these people in the GOP?

Posted by: phx8 at October 22, 2015 9:40 PM
Comment #399891

Trump deals with subjects that the American people are interested in, Trump is not an establishment Republican who works to please the Democratic Party rather than their constituents, Trump is not politically correct. These are just a few things that cause conservatives to like Trump. I find it disturbing that C&J would make the comment that they would rather stay home as to have to choose between Hillary and Trump. Take a look at Trumps talking points and then check the polls and see what Americans are concerned about…it’s not difficult.

Regarding Rich’s comments:

“Just the spectacle of Republicans badgering the former Secretary of State for eleven hours. Another epic fail for the Republicans. Hillary professional and cool. Republicans reduced to asking the same mundane questions over and over.”

These are the liberal media’s and Democrat Parties talking points. It was embarrassing to watch Elijah Cummings and the rest of the Democrats spend all their time defending Hillary, rather than doing their job. Hey Rich, have you ever seen a prosecuting attorney question a witness…they ask the same “mundane questions” over and over, until they get the truth. Hillary wanted to be cool and professional, but I guarantee there were times when she would liked to shoot her questioners. You could see it in her face. We will see how the American people read her in the next few weeks.

Why didn’t Biden endorse Hillary? Rich and ph want everyone to think this is over, but don’t think for a minute that key leaders in the Democrat Party aren’t watching this one, and don’t think they aren’t panicking.

Posted by: Blaine at October 22, 2015 9:50 PM
Comment #399892

Hillary’s defense was that it wasn’t her fault because she was not the one making decisions. That is an explanation I am willing to accept, but I am not sure it is a compliment.

She also did admit that Obama and Rice lied about the idea that a video caused the riot. She emailed Chelsea telling her that it was a terror attack. IMO, that is why they sent Susan Rice on the talk shows instead of Hillary or a professional from State. Hillary was indeed too smart to be caught in that lie, the lie that cost Susan Rice her shot at Secretary of State.

Anyway, no minds were changed by the testimony. Those who dislike Hillary think she did a poor job. Those who like her think she did great. Most people don’t care.

Posted by: C&J at October 22, 2015 10:15 PM
Comment #399894

She lied and was caught in it by an E-Mail and a phone call. She blamed the laps of security on the security experts. She knew there was trouble brewing but didn’t act. Granted she was cool and collected but what do you expect from a pathological lier.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at October 22, 2015 11:27 PM
Comment #399896

Rich KAP

I have come to understand that some people can lie better than an honest person can tell the truth. This is because they are accustomed to being doubted. If I ask an honest man if he stole something - and he did not - he will still look guilty, since he he is unused to being accused and feels bad. The true crook will boldly go on the attack and call into question the motives of others.

My opinion of Hillary is that she is a horrible person. She calculated, correctly, that Bill would be successful. She tolerated all his abuse of women and philandering waiting for the payoff and now feels she is entitled.

Posted by: C&J at October 22, 2015 11:53 PM
Comment #399897

Jack, She is still IMO a bold faced LIER and she knows how to make the lie look like the truth.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at October 23, 2015 12:51 AM
Comment #399898

The narcissistic attitude of Hillary Clinton causes her to want to claim credit for events in Libya and she testified to that effect; but when the Sh hit the fan, she claims those decisions were made by subordinates and that she knew nothing about it. She is trying to have the cake and eat it too. This is what came out in today’s hearing. Conservative news will run with it, but the liberal media as on NBC news tonight, they devoted 3 minutes to the hearing and spent the 3 minutes defending Clinton, and of course like ph and speaks said in their talking points, NBC reporters said he held her ground and looked cool and presidential. She is a pathological liar with the morals of a pig.

She will be the Democrat nominee, barring no investigation on her, but what a pathetic nominee she will be. I make the prediction she will continue to go down in public opinion and continue to be a liar and untrusted in the eyes of the American people.

Posted by: Blaine at October 23, 2015 12:59 AM
Comment #399900
Hillary wanted to be cool and professional, but I guarantee there were times when she would liked to shoot her questioners. You could see it in her face. We will see how the American people read her in the next few weeks.

Hell Blaine I wanted to shoot them (figuratively of course) and I watched just a bit of the witch hunt on CSPAN today. The repubs are a disgrace to those they represent, one would think that at this point the lack of character prevalent in the repubs on the committee would cause their heads to explode without the aid of a bullet. They have accused and leaked tidbits of their lies for years now and when it came their turn to shine the bulb went off and they looked like nitwits, complete amateurs.Comparing them to prosecutors is an insult to prosecuting attorneys IMHO.

I have come to understand that some people can lie better than an honest person can tell the truth. This is because they are accustomed to being doubted.

Are you sure C&J? Because it seems to me you have misread so much concerning Hilary that I have come to suspect your ability to discern much of anything when her name is mentioned. Take your comment about “She calculated, correctly, that Bill would be successful. She tolerated all his abuse of women and philandering waiting for the payoff and now feels she is entitled.” as an example. It seems to me she has worked hard, serving in the senate and as SoS over the years,instead of setting back and riding on her husbands coattails as you would have us believe. Even now she is working hard campaigning to gain the votes of the American people yet you mistakenly tell us she feels “entitled”! Are you sure you know the difference?

I mean this first inanity you spew about the lies you insinuate she is telling causes one to wonder why these prosecuting attorneys failed to find any lies in her statements. Failed to do anything but repeat their own repub lies. Sorry C&J but it seems to me your judgement is more a derangement syndrome that anything thoughtful or well…..truthful for that matter.

Posted by: j2t2 at October 23, 2015 1:37 AM
Comment #399903

j2t2

I do not like Hillary. There is something about her style and attitude that I dislike beyond the usual partisan differences. Indeed it may be possible that I do not give her the benefit of the doubt. You can adjust for my bias, as I am sure you already do.

With my bias acknowledged, I have always had a problem understanding her attraction. Even her supporters have problems listing her achievements as Secretary of State. She tried hard to get credit for Libyan policy or our relationship with Russia. Now I doubt she would want to be associated with either. Her biggest “success” was that she advocated a tougher stand in Syria, but in this case she was overruled by President Obama.

She is very good at positioning herself and excluding others. These things make her a good campaigners in the zero sum and increasingly acrimonious political system, but it is no way to govern.

I think Democrats might ask themselves this question. If Hillary had not been promised the nomination, would she be your choice? She is not charismatic. Her job history consists of being a lawyer, one term in elected office and four years as a cabinet official. These are all good things, but not remarkable among politicians or potential leaders. It is also true that in these high-level jobs, her performance was mediocre.

So I understand the argument that she is not so bad and that she can evidently rhetorically defend herself. I give her high points for physical endurance. But I think there are no significant positive arguments for her. She is pretty much run-of-the-mill for the Washington establishment.

Posted by: C&J at October 23, 2015 8:24 AM
Comment #399904

Re liking Hillary - or not. I do not like Hillary and I would have trouble with her even if we agreed on politics. I like Joe Biden and my differences would be only political, not personal. WSJ had a good paragraph about Biden that says it better than I can.

“Joe Biden’s decision not to run for president left me sad. He would have enlivened things. He has always reminded me of what Democrats were like when I was a kid—kind of normal and earthy and fun. They did not spend their time endlessly accusing people of being sexist-racist-homophobic-gender-biased persons of unchecked privilege. They would have thought that impolite.”

Posted by: C&J at October 23, 2015 8:32 AM
Comment #399907

C&J, your comments and links are written to the very section of the Democratic Party who are “racist-sexist-homophobic-gender based “. I’m old enough to remember the Democratic Party of the past. My father was a blue collar union worker, who would never voted for anyone other than a democrat. But the very things he believed in were also the the things the Democratic Party supported. He’s passed away almost 40 years ago, but I can say, he would not recognize the Democratic Party of today.

Posted by: Blaine at October 23, 2015 10:22 AM
Comment #399908

Warren

“How many Republicans endorsed John Chaffee’s plan for universal health care?”

At that time, Republicans and Democrats were trying to work together to reform healthcare. Some Republicans were toying around with the idea of an individual mandate and 23 of them, almost half, endorsed the Chaffee plan that failed.
An endorsement from the minority, or ideas from right-wing think tanks, do not make disagreeing with universal health care a more Conservative position.

“How many Republicans voted for the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act?”

The NYTs says 16. Did the bill call for UBCs, magazine bans, or scary looking rifle bans? No.
So how is fighting against those things more conservative?

“Who supported Reagan’s amnesty for illegal immigrants?”

Republicans dealing with 3 million illegal aliens rather than 12 million. Republicans not dealing with 18 trillion in debt. Republicans foolish enough to think democrats would work with them in the future for reform.

“Who supported George HW Bush’s tax increase?”

Would that be the George HW Bush who Republicans did n ot vote for a second term because he lied when he said ‘no new taxes?’

“How many state governments in the 1980s put onerous restrictions on abortion access?”

I have no idea, nor do I really care. Conservatives are usually against abortion and Republicans are usually against tax-payer dollars being used for it. IMO, what we are seeing is a response to changes that special interest groups are calling for, and court rulings.

“How many times was the debt ceiling raised uncontroversially in the 2000s?”

How many times was it raised in the 90s and who resisted it?

“Before the late 1980s, how many times did the GOP push for “shall issue” CCW licences?”

Where did people have to worry about a CCW licence back in those days, Warren? It wasn’t where those of us being targeted today were.
If you look at the sequence of events with the gun issue, things were pretty ok up until liberals started forcing their ‘cure’ onto those who didn’t need or want it.

Posted by: kctim at October 23, 2015 10:49 AM
Comment #399909

The sad thing is that the leftist democrats of today are proud of the fact the party is no longer the same party. They believe they have evolved, but their representation of the working middle class American people has also evolved to no longer be there. This is why the Democratic Party is losing blue collar workers.

Posted by: Blaine at October 23, 2015 11:03 AM
Comment #399911

WP has a real issue with guns for some reason. He’s obsessed with disarming the American people. I posted a recent poll showing support for gun control has dropped and support for gun rights has gone up, just since the Oregon school shootings. The left wants to attack the police for doing their job, and at the same time tell Americans it is the job of police to protect them. Police work after the fact, they cannot prevent crime, it is American’s responsibility to protect themselves. It always has been.

Posted by: Blaine at October 23, 2015 11:17 AM
Comment #399912

I might also add, CCW permit holders have want a national reciprocity law for years. The democrat controlled states have created havoc for the millions of CCW holders, by requiring a plethora of laws when traveling. A national CCW reciprocity law would correct this problem. CCW is her to stay. In fact, many states are passing open carry laws.

Posted by: Blaine at October 23, 2015 11:26 AM
Comment #399913

C&J, thanks. It seems that you were more in favor of a Biden Presidential bid then Biden was. I get your sense of loss but perhaps it wasn’t based on what was evident as much as it was on what you wanted. That’s politics.

I have been a Democrat for over 50 years. I have always believed that there was racial inequality and saw evidence of that then and still do today. I have always believed in a woman’s choice whether it was birth control or abortion, it was and is her decision then and today. I have always believed in a strong middle class and never understood the demise of the labor unions except for understanding the excesses that brought about their demise were inevitable but not insurmountable then and today. I have always believed it was prudent to keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn’t have them except today’s weaponry has advanced to the point of needing to be even more ardent in attempts to curtail sale, possession and responsible ownership more so today than then due to the technology advancement. I have always supported social programs that seek to help those most in need except the growing group of less than fortunate has caused me to understand that more needs to be done. I have no idea why anyone would think that I have changed or that the Democratic Party has changed other then to attempt to derail the objectives, as it has always seemed to me.

Trump will need to impress Americans to understand that he needs to be President. Hillary will need to impress Americans to understand that she needs to be President. The next year will be spent trying to determine which one has the most to offer after the veil of hyperbole can be lifted. Or maybe there is a chance for another candidate but that just doesn’t seem to be in the cards, there is a whole year to go.

Voting is a privilege that can be used or not used. Not voting is as much a statement as voting for someone you support.

Posted by: Speak4all at October 23, 2015 11:38 AM
Comment #399917

C&J writes; “My opinion of Hillary is that she is a horrible person.”

She has mastered the art of lying, passing the buck, and refining a memory of convenience. These are three necessary traits to be a leading democrat nominee for president in the age of liberalism.

I suggest she refined and honed these talents listening to Bill talking in his sleep.

We just witnessed another great asset for Hillary; The art of saying nothing with great passion.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 23, 2015 1:03 PM
Comment #399920

she did cough well, IMO.

Posted by: roy ellis at October 23, 2015 1:39 PM
Comment #399921

Speaks

The Democrats definitions of all those things have changed over time.
Racial inequality used to be about equal opportunity. Now it is about equal outcome.
Birth control and abortion used to be about access, now it is about them being unconditional and having them provided.
Gun control used to be about safety, now it is about control.
Social programs used to be a tiny contribution to help those who needed it most, now it is a huge expense to promote and maintain a way of life.

I come from a family of farmers who were all Democrats. They did and still do support what the Dem party used to be about, but they now vote Republican.

Your posts on here do make it seem as if you VERY pleased with the sharp left direction the country is taking. Like it is something you have been waiting to happen for a long time now.

Perhaps you have been a liberal Democrat for over 50 years?

Posted by: kctim at October 23, 2015 2:02 PM
Comment #399922

I was a liberal progressive before I reached the age of 10. The Democrat Party began to fit more of my perspectives at that time all though at that young age political parties didn’t impress me much if at all. Equality and purpose in life did. I’d like to think I had something to do with what you term as the “sharp left direction”. You see to me it was a natural progression from what I believed at that very young age. The advancements made in the 50’s and 60’s gave me hope that perhaps the Democrat party could help me see the future that I wanted. I am still working on that.

That you do not agree with me causes me no consternation. I have fought adversity in many different forms for most of my life and will continue to do so. You are welcome to do the same. The difference being I encourage you and yours and you wish to deride and belittle mine. I can give you one bit of advice that I learned a long time ago, “To thine ownself be true” (Shakespeare). It will help you in your life’s journey to understand that. Good luck.

Posted by: Speak4all at October 23, 2015 2:22 PM
Comment #399926

Speaks,

Don’t sell yourself short man. You and people like you are the only reason our country has made such a sharp left turn in the last few decades. Credit where credit is due.

Posted by: kctim at October 23, 2015 2:53 PM
Comment #399927

People like me don’t sell ourselves short but we do realize our limitations in life. We just try not to let those deter us from our goals. There are many, many more people like me that strive for a lot more than I can detail on this blog. In particular I have always, always been struck and hold in high regard individuals that overcome physical and mental disabilities. Their existence is proof of the human ability to become more than what we are.

Posted by: Speak4all at October 23, 2015 2:59 PM
Comment #399928

speaks comment:

I have been a Democrat for over 50 years. I have always believed that there was racial inequality and saw evidence of that then and still do today. I have always believed in a woman’s choice whether it was birth control or abortion, it was and is her decision then and today. I have always believed in a strong middle class and never understood the demise of the labor unions except for understanding the excesses that brought about their demise were inevitable but not insurmountable then and today. I have always believed it was prudent to keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn’t have them except today’s weaponry has advanced to the point of needing to be even more ardent in attempts to curtail sale, possession and responsible ownership more so today than then due to the technology advancement. I have always supported social programs that seek to help those most in need except the growing group of less than fortunate has caused me to understand that more needs to be done. I have no idea why anyone would think that I have changed or that the Democratic Party has changed other then to attempt to derail the objectives, as it has always seemed to me.

Trump will need to impress Americans to understand that he needs to be President. Hillary will need to impress Americans to understand that she needs to be President.

So then speaks was a Democrat when they supported the KKK, he was a Democrat when they voted against civil rights, he was a Democrat when they supported school prayer and the belief that America was founded upon Judeo/Christian beliefs, he was a Democrat when they searched out and prosecuted communism (President Harry S. Truman signed United States Executive Order 9835), he was a Democrat when they believed in a hand up and not a hand out, he was a Democrat when the ideal of SS was to invest in an actual “locked box” retirement fund, and he was a Democrat when they supported lower taxes to grow the economy.

Then speaks makes this comment:

“I was a liberal progressive before I reached the age of 10. The Democrat Party began to fit more of my perspectives at that time all though at that young age political parties didn’t impress me much if at all.”

So, speaks was never a Democrat, he was always a liberal progressive, and by his comments he has admitted the Democrat Party of today is not the Democrat Party of 50 years ago.

Posted by: Blaine at October 23, 2015 3:02 PM
Comment #399929

Call me what you will. I find solace in knowing that you have difficulty in determining how to fit my square or round existence into your round or square position you think I should have in life. Nothing today is what it was 50 years ago, to believe otherwise is to live in a fantasy of the past.

Posted by: Speak4all at October 23, 2015 3:06 PM
Comment #399934

I have no difficulty understanding what you are speaks. You claim to be a democrat for 50 years, then you claim the Democratic Party finally caught up to the liberal progressive ideas you held since before you were 10 years old. This comment is bs because what 9 year old thinks of politics? By your own statement, you have never claimed the Democratic Party until it became left wing. It’s only been in the last 15 years that the Democratic Party has become left wing. It’s only been since republicans began to take control of the house or senate that socialist have hijacked the party.

You are a full blown socialist, you have never stood for the American platform of republican or democrats. You love and protect anyone on your side, no matter how unamerican they are and no matter how much their policies hurt the country. It’s a twisted sick mind that promotes socialism.

But you at correct, nothing today is as it was 50 years ago, and the country is worse off for it. How many years have polls shown the American people believe we are headed the wrong direction? Tell me speaks, what percent of Americans do you believe agree with all the you spew? I would say very few, if they truly knew what you believed.

Posted by: Blaine at October 23, 2015 4:17 PM
Comment #399936

Blaine…you did a marvelous job of squelching poor Speaks contentions of his youth.

Sometimes I think that Speaks invents a new world every day after testing the wind for the latest democrat fart.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 23, 2015 4:25 PM
Comment #399938

As I have said call me what you will. That is your prerogative and I would never deny you that. Your estimation of our country seems to suggest that you don’t hold very high esteem of yourself either. That’s too bad but I can’t say that it is any great loss given your ability to display your dislike of what it has become and may become in the future. Oh you have difficulty in understanding what I am but it is because you confuse me with your general mistrust and dislike of your fellow countrymen rather than anything I can attempt to communicate. Now I have a cold plate of fresh shucked oysters, a bloody Mary and a cold beer waiting for me. Those all seem much more inviting than the continuance of any discourse with you. I know, I know now you will accuse me of something else along with running away. I have more pleasurable things to participate in. Remember be nice and respectful to your fellow countrymen or else.

Posted by: Speak4all at October 23, 2015 4:36 PM
Comment #399939

Blaine, as one of my top three picks for the presidential nomination; Ted Cruz is fond of saying…

“It took Jimmy Carter to give us Ronald Reagan”

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 23, 2015 5:22 PM
Comment #399940

Atheists and socialists believe the future of the United States belongs to them as evidenced by their actions in attempting to remove religion from our traditions and capital from capitalism.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 23, 2015 5:28 PM
Comment #399944

Royal, I honestly believe Americans are becoming wise to this modern Democratic Party. The evidence is in the state elections. Republicans will continue to hold the Senate and House, and will probably gain more seats. A filibuster proof majority will be hard to get. The democrats have the ability to get a president elected only when independents vote for them. Obama made a lot of promises, which he failed to do, and many of his anti-constitutional stunts occurred after he was re-elected. Hillary will no be so lucky. She will lose, and as democrats love to connect house and senate elections to the presidential; when a republican is elected president, republicans will also pick up congressional seats.

Just take a look at the world events under Obama’s leadership this past year; can you imagine what the world will look like in another year. Obam is totally AOL and Kerry spends all his time trying to learn newer and bigger words. Arrogance is the best word to identify the complete Obama administration.

Posted by: Blaine at October 23, 2015 6:04 PM
Comment #399946

Meanwhile, Obama’s Approval remains in the high 40s. Apparently, many people still trust and support our President.

Posted by: Warren Porter at October 23, 2015 7:17 PM
Comment #399947

“Hey Rich, have you ever seen a prosecuting attorney question a witness…they ask the same “mundane questions” over and over, until they get the truth.”

Hey, Blaine, the answer is NO! If you can’t impeach the witness, you are a fool for continuing to pursue the same asked and answered sequences ad infinitum. In a court of law, a judge would normally sustain an objection and terminate the line of questioning. If not, a jury would begin to question the competence of the prosecuting attorney. If you ain’t got anything, you ain’t got anything. Why highlight the weaknesses of your case?

Why the Republicans continued to pursue this line of inquiry is a mystery to me. The only thing that comes to mind is the that the Republicans created a trap for themselves by continuing to allege a variety of fantastic and slanderous allegations against Obama and Clinton in the Benghazi matter despite a number of investigations exonerating the administration and Clinton of the most slanderous of allegations (e.g., stand down order). Bad idea. As any attorney understands, eventually you have to go to trial and prove the allegations. Then you begin to sweat as Trey Gowdy was during the hearing with Clinton.

Posted by: Rich at October 23, 2015 7:34 PM
Comment #399949

Rich, you need to watch some of the old Perry Mason shows on WE TV. They may not ask the same questions, but the question lead to the same answers. Hillary was doing a little sweating too. But it doesn’t really matter. The Clintons always do a good job covering their tracks.

Question, do we trust the Associated Press Fact Check?

A look at some of the claims in a House hearing where lawmakers quizzed Clinton, secretary of state during the Benghazi episode and now a 2016 Democratic presidential candidate:


CLINTON: “There was a good back and forth about security.” — On communications between U.S. personnel in Libya and the State Department in Washington, about security needs at the Benghazi compound before the attack that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans.

THE FACTS: The independent review Clinton convened after the attacks deeply faulted State Department officials in Washington for poor communication and cooperation as diplomats in Libya pressed for more security and Benghazi grew more dangerous.

The Accountability Review Board cited a “lack of transparency, responsiveness, and leadership at senior bureau levels” and “shortfalls in Washington coordination” contributing to a “woefully insufficient” security force at the compound.

The fewer than half-dozen armed diplomatic security personnel at the compound “were not well served by their leadership in Washington,” the board said.

Clinton furthermore asserted that personnel in Benghazi were granted many of their requests for security equipment upgrades.

The review board, however, said “Washington showed a tendency to overemphasize the positive impact of physical security upgrades” to a “profoundly weak” system.

At the same time, Washington officials were “generally failing to meet Benghazi’s repeated requests” to augment security personnel.


CLINTON: Asked about the dozens of emails she received from longtime political confidant Sidney Blumenthal, many with reports about developments in Libya, Clinton said his advice was “unsolicited.”

THE FACTS: Clinton was mischaracterizing some of those exchanges with Blumenthal.

Gowdy asked what she meant by saying his advice was unsolicited.

“I did not ask him to send me the information that he sent me,” Clinton said.

Noting that Blumenthal had no expertise about Libya, Gowdy read Clinton’s emailed responses to some of his reports: “Thanks and please keep them coming,” ”Anything else to convey?” and “What are you hearing now?”

At that, Clinton revised her description of how their email exchanges unfolded to “originally unsolicited,” saying, “They started out unsolicited, and as I said, some were of interest.”


CLINTON: “I did not email during the day and — except on rare occasions when I was able to.”

THE FACTS: Clinton’s use of her private email address and server during working hours was anything but “rare.”

Clinton sent about one-third of her emails during working hours — on weekdays between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. — according to an AP analysis of 2,754 emails she wrote from April 2009 through September 2010, based on time stamps on the messages.


CLINTON: In her opening statement, she painted her critics as arguing that it’s never reasonable to plant diplomats on dangerous ground: “Retreat from the world is not an option. America cannot shrink from our responsibility to lead. … If you ask our most experienced ambassadors, they’ll tell you they can’t do their jobs for us from bunkers.”

THE FACTS: Republican lawmakers are not arguing that diplomats should never venture into risky conditions to represent the U.S. They cite investigations after the Benghazi attacks that condemned the State Department’s decision to keep that post open with poor security despite a growing number of assaults on Western interests in the area.

The accountability board appointed by Clinton as secretary of state said the security in Benghazi was “grossly inadequate to deal with the attack.” A bipartisan Senate committee report called keeping the Benghazi mission open under those circumstances “a grievous mistake.”

The State Department pulled out of Benghazi immediately after the attack and left Libya altogether in 2014. The U.S. Embassy in Tripoli remains shuttered, the country still considered too unstable and dangerous for a return.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ap-fact-check-clinton-and-critics-on-benghazi-emails/ar-BBmlVS9

Posted by: Blaine at October 23, 2015 8:20 PM
Comment #399953

Blaine

Most of our parents were Democrats. In the 1960s, all my relatives were Democrats. We were told that the Democrats were the party of the working person. Democrats changed in the 1960s and 1970s, becoming too often the party of the non-working person. In the 1960s, working class Democrats clung to their guns and their religion. You recall how Obama disrespected such people. How the party changed.

Speaks
Please see above. Fifty years ago, my family was Democratic. I voted for Jimmy Carter the first time out. The older Democrats were okay. I even still liked Bill Clinton. But Democrats have fallen too much for that equality crap. I believe in equal rights but not equality beyond that. I don’t want to be equal. I want to be better than some and I expect I will be not as good as others. I hope and believe I am a better person today than I was 20 years ago and I hope to be better still in future. That implies that people are not equal and never will be.
Lately it is getting insane. The transgender and LGBT rights have gone way too far. We are now asked to affirm their choices. I have been in favor of same sex marriage for a long time. But I don’t think we have to demand that everyone participate. Hillary brags that during her time at State he championed LGBT rights abroad. I don’t think that was valid as a central goal.

The kind of rights I like are the ones that speak to toleration. People can do what they want and in most cases I don’t care. Democrats lately are asking for proactive rights. I oppose that.

So let me be plain. I favor equality under the law. I oppose imposing equality in any other way. That doesn’t mean that I just don’t want to work towards equality of outcomes; it means I work against it. I believe in inclusion and giving everyone a chance. But I believe in demanding excellence. That means that those who do not measure up should work harder or defer to those who do a better job. That doesn’t mean that I sometimes will neglect the less accomplished. It means that I will actually try to exclude them until they get better. I think this is good for all, to demand more. If I fail to excel that tasks I consider important, I feel bad. I don’t believe in pretending a shit job is a good one just because the person “did his best.” I want people to do better.

Democrats, IMO, are always telling us why people cannot do things instead of getting them to do more. I dislike victims. Let me explain. Anyone can be victimized. But if you are always down it is on you.

I admire people who have overcome obstacles. However, I think it more important what you have accomplished than what you have overcome. Winners of the special Olympics are admirable, but it is not the real Olympics.

Kctim
Please see both entries above.

Posted by: C&J at October 23, 2015 8:40 PM
Comment #400018

C&J, you dislike victims and yet you only speak about being victimized by Democrats. I’ll let you take that up with your therapist. You don’t like what Democrats have become, I do to a certain extent, but hope to see more changes. You are welcome to support who you wish but don’t tell me I shouldn’t. Your comparisons to overcoming obstacles to participants in Special Olympics is woefully inadequate. If your only experience with disabled people is Special Olympics I would invite you to get out into the world more. There are disabled professional people doing a lot more in this world than typing silly comments regarding politics on a blog. I am glad that Joe Biden got out of the Presidential campaign that he never really was in. He and his wife Jill have much to contribute and will do that in the not to distant future.

Posted by: Speak4all at October 26, 2015 10:08 AM
Post a comment