Why Wouldn’t Hillary Win in 2016?

By Lloyd the Idiot

A recent article,  using some iffy polling data, names Hillary Clinton  the odds-on favorite to win the presidential election in 2016.  But why wouldn’t she win?  In fact, I’d say she’s the Republicans’ worst nightmare.

First of all, next to Obama, she’ll look moderate.  Heck, she’ll look like the model of moderation – which, of course, will draw the moderate/independent vote which the Republicans likely still will be ignoring in 2016.  Second, if Republicans continue to clutch the abortion issue like the political anchor it is, she’ll do so much better with women, and especially young women, that it will crush any Republican nominee.  Third, she has the creds – domestic experience as a senator and international experience and Obama’s secretary of state.  That’s something no Republican candidate will be able to beat.  Finally, this isn’t her first time to the Big Dance, and she’ll have plenty of time to dust off machine, oil it and get it running again.   In other words, she’s inherently tough to beat.

Republicans, on the other hand, need to a new prayer book.  Just like you don’t see people debating Free Silver anymore, it’s time to rethink the party’s position on some core issues – like abortion and immigration.  It’s also time to engage more with folks who aren’t white and Protestant.  Campaign in their language and in their neighborhoods, and embrace (not just tolerate) religious and cultural differences.  In other words, build a bigger, more welcoming tent.

Look, it’s already looking poor for Republicans in 2016 and we’re six days into that race.  They have a few years to recover, but unless Republicans achieve some fundamental changes, we’re looking not at just four more years, but a solid 16 year run of Democrats in the White House.

At least.


  • Yeah, Loudon, until it rains, snows or you need to bring home a sheet of plywood, then those bike trails are about as useful as a wind turbine on the Moon. But I am all for converting old railway beds and bridges and such, and the local communities that choose to do it and benefit from it can pay for it, too.

  • LoudouninNC says:

    Yes. You’re right. We do need more choices in transportation modes for when the market makes gas too expensive to justify single occupant vehicles or weather makes bicycling infeasible.

  • Dan says:

    Hawaii has a fraction of the ethnic diversity of the rest of the country? Which Hawaii is that? Because the Hawaii that RichmondDem was referring to is quite ethnically diverse.

    Or are we talking about the Hawaii in Right Wingnut Bizarro World where the president wasn’t born but they have time machines so they could conspire to make it appear as if he was? And where they use Republican math aka “the kind you use to make yourself feel better if you are a Republican” where 2 + 2 = 5 so it is easy to just dismiss the evidence of the economic benefit and cost containment of Hawaii’s health care system without addressing the obvious truth (which as we know has a liberal bias)?

    The latter Hawaii may not be ethnically diverse. But the one in the real world sure is.

    Don’t let me discourage you though. Wild unsupported assertions and bogus arguments that deny facts and evidence have been working great for Republicans of late. Please, continue to march.

    One has to go back to the old Soviet Union to find ideologues who denied facts and data and evidence that conflicted with their ideology as thoroughly as 21st century Republicans do. It is truly breathtaking.

  • RichmondDem says:

    “Hawaii… a statistical spec in the ocean with a fraction of the economic and ethnic diversity we have here.”

    LOL WUT? It’s the most racially mixed and diverse state in the union by far.

  • RichmondDem says:

    Also: Richard Nixon–SOCIALIST.

    Are you a parody?

  • edmundburkenator says:

    These are the times when parody and reality on the right overlap.

  • RichmondDem says:

    As to undocumented immigrants, when will it finally dawn on y’all that refusing to insure them–thus sending them to the emergency room–is being penny wise and pound foolish? The fastest way to drive up costs is to send as many people as possible to the emergency room for things like sore throats because you denied them primary healthcare.

    I’m not one to use all caps but this has never gotten through to conservatives before it seems–WE ALREADY PROVIDE HEALTHCARE FOR ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS. I repeat, we ALREADY GIVE THEM HEALTHCARE. We’re just doing it in the most expensive and worst way possible–the ER.

  • Does Hawaii have large urban centers crammed with poor and hopelessly dependent? What percentage of Hawaiians are on food stamps? What industries are in Hawaii other than tourism, the military and fruit? What are the annual costs of energy for Hawaiians compared to here? What are the transportation costs within those island cities? To suggest that Hawaii is a statistical model of the lower 48 and that what works there will work for everybody here is absurd.

    But what really peaks my curiosity, RD, is whether you personally have been voluntarily paying the Clinton tax rates over the past ten years instead of taking advantage of the evil Bush tax cuts, and if not, why not?

    You see, your conscience allegedly dictates that the government is too small and it needs more money, whereas mine is that it is too big, spends too much and is already extracting more than enough from the productive sector, the difference being that you and yours have always been free to practice as you preach and pay more but choose not to, whereas I am prevented by law from paying less.

  • RichmondDem says:

    ” What are the annual costs of energy for Hawaiians compared to here? What are the transportation costs within those island cities?”

    Astronomically high. Off the charts. Honolulu consistently has the highest gasoline prices in the nation. Did you really think an island chain with no fossil fuel reserves entirely dependent on imports from the mainland* was going to have cheap energy and transportation costs?

    Food prices are also ridiculous. Spam isn’t called “The Hawaiian Steak” for nothing. A box of generic cereal runs you $6 or $7, I’m not kidding.

    Yet, their healthcare costs are some of the lowest around, with some of the best outcomes. They have not had the rapid rise in healthcare costs the rest of the country has since the 1970s, thanks to getting essentially universal healthcare passed in 1975.

    I haven’t the foggiest idea what the Clinton tax rates have to do with healthcare.

    As to the third part of your post, if your ideology tells you that providing guaranteed healthcare to working people and their families is a bad idea, and perhaps even immoral, you might want to reexamine it.

  • RD, the assumption that emergency rooms are the most expensive form of care is flawed because the proponents of that myth never take into account the dynamic model. Right now, waiting in a public emergency room in itself prioritizes care and extracts a “price” if you will, from those who are not paying… if it is too much hassle and the problem not severe enough, they don’t go. Further. hospitals already have a large infrastructure for dealing with insurance processing and revenue collection that benefits from economies of scale. Finally, the medical staff actually providing the direct care for the most part are entry level and resident physicians working for comparative coolie wages.

    On the other hand the bulk of primary care physicians are in their fifties and most of them already can demonstrate that half or more of their overhead is in back office operations (compliance, insurance qualification and collections) just dealing with the Medicare and more well-heeled payors and patients they have in their customer base now.

    It has already been tough enough for them to stay in business against the rising costs of compliance and reductions in reimbursement, and with an influx of hordes of new indigent patients who do not even have to advance a co-pay and a reimbursement process that will become even more labyrinthine, their limited economy of scale will result in per unit costs that go up at the same time their receivables age further.

    Many of these practices will not survive under this new business model, more well healed patients will choose not to go to them and instead seek “boutique” care, and they will cease to exist, which will drive availability downward costs even further skyward.

    Even if you tried, by the time you raise the reimbursement levels to that required to retain this valuable source of production the overall costs to the system will be far north of what they are at present because, if nothing else, these doctors are used to earning a higher standard of living after all these years, will decide they don’t want to go back to the days they were toiling away during their residency and simply quit while they are ahead. I can’t tell you how many doctors I know who have been urging their children to go into law instead of medicine, and that pace will accelerate.

    No, just like with transportation where the liberals lecture about driving SUV’s as they burn thousands of gallons of kerosene winging down to Rio for a climate confab, the masses will end up crammed in clinics run by unaccountable and unmotivated government workers and the elite will be paying cash for the finest care in the world wherever it is.

  • Liz says:

    TDP, I don’t know if you consider yourself a Christian or not (I am a Jewish Friend of Unitarian Universalism, myself) but if you do, you might want to reread what He says about taking care of the sick, the homeless, and the hungry.

  • Liz Miller says:

    One cannot get cancer treatment at the ER. One cannot get vaccinations at the ER, unless seething is going wrong with a pregnancy one cannot get prenatal care at the ER. They don’t do dialysis there, or treatment for chronic asthma, or any of the many and myriad non emergent illnesses people experience. They are not an adequate substitute for a family doctor.

  • RD, what is the average commuting cost for somebody on the Big Island verses, say, a single mom in Kansas driving her old clunker eighty miles a day to hold down two jobs and heating her trailer home? I am talking about the annualised cost per capita, not the price for fuel or food. What are their heating bills in the winter? Like most European socialist economies Hawaii does indeed have high prices for everything, but they also benefit from high population density and obviously have correspondingly high incomes to pay those prices otherwise everybody would be poor, and they are not.

    Another reason prices are high but affordable is as like Bermuda or Greenwich, CT… they are all beautiful places to live and attract the well-heeled at the same time making it less affordable for the takers who would be driving up the costs of care. How much inducement does it take to get a physician to take a job in Maui verses Beckley, WV or Detroit, for example?

    Hawaii is not a valid model… please tell me about Massachusetts.

  • Liz, you are correct, but unfortunately you are going to have even less of those family doctors than you do now because it is a business model that has not been working for some time now and it will be even less viable within two years. You’ll be seeing a nurse practitioner who is supervised by some physician you never met, communicating with her via the internet.

  • AFF says:

    I don’t know why you guys are bothering. This cat’s wordburgers make Barbara Munskey sound literate

  • Liz says:

    Aff, you’re right. This one seems to belong to the ranks of the chronically befuddled. Fortunately, under ObamaCare, he can get treated for that, since they’ve eliminated withholding coverage for pre-existing conditions.

  • Dan says:

    “the assumption that emergency rooms are the most expensive form of care is flawed”

    You might want to ask Mitt Romney about that. Not the Mitt Romney who had to turn himself into a pretzel running for the nomination of and then as the nominee of a Republican Party that has gone completely bat shit crazy. Ask the Mitt Romney circa 2007 who was still boasting (rightfully so) about the rather impressive achievement that was the Massachusetts health care reform law that he signed as governor.

    I recall listening to a very extensive and lengthy interview/discussion of that law and the research and what you might call beta testing of certain methods of providing coverage that went into crafting what became that state’s quite sensible and effective law. Romney talked about a program they tested at Massachusetts General Hospital where they took a population that regularly posted at the Emergency Department when they were seriously ill as they had no access to primary care (and btw, RD is correct that the ER is by far the most expensive way to treat these people and the rest of us do pay for it).

    Romney explained that they gave these people a card that functioned just like the insurance card that most of us have for our private insurance so that they could obtain primary care rather than wait until they were so sick that they required emergency treatment. I don’t have the exact figures at my fingertips, but Romney gave them during that interview and the cost of treating this population dropped dramatically. Simply giving away primary care saved great gobs of money in the long run over ignoring people until they become profoundly ill and require much more expensive care. Now if you collect some part of the premium for this type of coverage from them (and subsidize the rest) you save other premium payers and the taxpayers (the rest of us) even more dough.

    I realize this solution may not comport with your ideology, but forgive me if I say I don’t give a good goddamn about your ideology. One of America’s great strengths, in my humble opinion, is that we have been a nation of problem solvers and have consistently turned away from ideologues of both the left and right (notwithstanding all the far right nitwits who in recent years have been foaming at the mouth about socialism and Marxism when discussing proposals that rational people would describe as moderate and even conservative in some cases). Most Americans want sensible solutions to problems. We are not a highly ideological people. We are a practical people.

    Romney’s Massachusetts law is a good one. It has served that state well. As I heard him talk about it back in 2007 I remember thinking that it might prove to be a good model for the entire nation and that the guy would be a formidable presidential candidate running on the strength of such an achievement. Well, it did prove to be the model for a national plan and I still think Romney would have been a much more formidable candidate if he had run on his accomplishment rather than pander to the current nutty state of the Republican Party and run away from his greatest achievement. Had he been true to himself he might have won. We’ll never know.

    At any rate, Romney would dispute the asinine assertion that treating people primarily at the emergency department is not the most expensive way to treat them. Romney probably knows and understands the subject of healthcare as well as anyone in America. Despite his silly statements and pandering during the last campaign I am quite sure he would tell you the ER is absolutely the most expensive way to provide primary care and that to continue to do so is terrible public policy.

  • Liz, I find that the suggestion that advocacy of market based solutions to the problems of cost, availability and quality as a better alternative to government directed disbursement of care to somehow be sacrilegious or ill-willed to be rather insulting.

    There are many aspects of health care that function without such politically and emotionally directed controls such as cosmetic surgery, nutraceuticals, health foods, personal trainers and health clubs wherein the price and offerings have been steadily improving, and though there is indeed a big difference between elective and uninvited (primary) demand for care I fail to see how encouraging more market forces rather than discouraging them can do anything but improve the situation for everybody, which has always been my goal.

    Until now, the generosity of Americans implemented through Medicare and Medicaid has benefited from what few market forces remain in the delivery of health care, primarily in the form of entrepreneurial pioneers advancing new technologies for the diagnosis and treatment of our ails, and my concern is that additional regulation, control and punishment of success will stifle such investment and effort.

    For example, I am a founder and investor in a company that developed a remarkable new way to manage medical records where the widespread deployment would be funded not by tax breaks or subsidies as presently promulgated with disappointing results, but rather by creating a new market for information that, like the internet itself, would pay for itself. Because the ACA has confusing language that suggests to me that the government may end up either consolidating all such data itself or otherwise regulating this opportunity out of existence, we have put that venture and my patents into cold storage until a future time, if ever, when such entrepreneurial initiative might be rewarded instead of being vilified or punished. It’s not that we don’t want to do it, it just does not make sense to do it right now and it very well may never from this point forward. You will be seeing more of these types of decisions in the coming years relating to technology and medicines, not less, and it is not because people are heartless or lack faith. A business that is driven out of business or an entrepreneur who depletes all his personal and financial capital on an ill advised venture doesn’t have the capacity to do any good for anybody.

  • FedUp says:

    I thought Hillary was already president for 8 years. One of my favorite bumper stickers from the Clinton Presidency was “Impeach President Clinton (and her husband!)”.

  • Dan, since your data from 2007 is dated and in the words of the architect of that program, I suggest you see what the situation looks like up there now. Romney was never even my third choice for a candidate because of it, so if you think you can get to me by attacking Romney you are very much mistaken… you might as well attack Dole and McCain while you’re at it.

  • Here’s some fresh data for you, Danny Boy:


    An excerpt:

    Sure enough, 79% of the newly insured are on public programs. Health costs—Medicaid, RomneyCare’s subsidies, public-employee compensation—will consume some 54% of the state budget in 2012, up from about 24% in 2001. Over the same period state health spending in real terms has jumped by 59%, while education has fallen 15%, police and firemen by 11% and roads and bridges by 23%.

    Meanwhile, Massachusetts spends more per capita on health care than any other state and therefore more than anywhere else in the industrialized world. Costs are 27% higher than the U.S. average, 15% higher when adjusted for the state’s higher wages and its concentration of academic medical centers and specialists.

  • Ellie Lockwood says:

    I’m tempted to ask, “Hillary, who?” Since the eruption of a large mess in Benghazi , Hillary has been hiding in plain sight in Peru and now, wine tasting in Australia. It may result in a dead issue of no concern or it may blow up in multiple faces connected with this Administration.

  • As the president said today, it is under an internal investigation that apparently will be under way for the next several years as multiple contempts of congress are cited and impeachment proceedings begin. Why the man apparently does not know enough about his own knowledge of what he knew, when he knew it and what he did about it without may at first appear mystifying until you remember that he is unable to state anything until it has been vetted by focus groups, prepared by lawyers and properly fed to him on a teleprompter.

    For a technical description of how this process works, I refer you to a promotional video by GM Aerospace early on in the Obama administration:


  • Elder Berry says:

    Alert on Benghazi: the number of US foreign service and other diplomats killed during the two George W. Bush administrations = 43.

    Number of huge news flaps/Congressional investigations about that?

    Perspective, anyone?

  • Wolverine says:

    Source? How many of them killed in Iraq and Afghanistan war zones? How many killed in terrorist incidents on the street as opposed to attacks on US diplomatic installations?? How many incidents in which a US diplomatic installation was overrun and/or abandoned under terrorist attack?

  • Smith says:

    The fact that Lloyd still thinks Obama is some leftist radical is proof the right (and him) still dont get it.

    If you think Obama is left (and he is center). Thats makes its pretty freaking hard for the right to come to the center.

    The fever is already breaking but Lloyd hasnt caught on yet. The right is gonna work with Obama (something weeks ago would be seen as negotiating with terrorists). But as we will see in 4 years, Obama will be regarded as a moderate who crossed party lines to get deals done and the NEXT Democratic President nominee will be the most partisan candidate ever. You’ll all eat it up. Who would have thought in 1996 that Newt would be praising Clinton in 2012 for working with him. Its all a charade that you all eat up.

    Politicians can change their minds about each other quickly, because they never believed it in the first place (like them labeling Obama an extremist). The people who believe their fire and brimstone like Lloyd have a hard time coming to grips with this.

    And on Benghazi…

    If John McCain and Lindsay Graham (war mongers) are saying Obama is in some massive coverup- dont you think thats a bit of a tell that maybe just maybe the military and CIA fucked this up (not obama or Clinton).

    Reports are already out that CIA and Defense basically played phone tag while the whole thing went down, nobody willing to make the move to get in there. Who wants to defend the military and tarnish Obama? John McCain and Lindsay Graham.

    And this whole Susan Rice thing. John McCain created a lie and nobody will call him out. Susan Rice didnt say the video was the reason for the attack, she said the terrorists used the riots as an opprotunity to attack.

  • Hillsboro says:

    Susan Rice on Meet the Press, Sept. 16:

    “What happened in Benghazi was, in fact, initially, a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before in Cairo”

  • edmundburkenator says:

    Let’s go to the transcript for Meet the Press just after Hillsboro’s cherry-picking:

    GREGORY: Well, let’s talk– talk about– well, you talked about this as spontaneous. Can you say definitively that the attacks on– on our consulate in Libya that killed ambassador Stevens and others there security personnel, that was spontaneous, was it a planned attack? Was there a terrorist element to it?

    MS. RICE: Well, let us– let me tell you the– the best information we have at present. First of all, there’s an FBI investigation which is ongoing. And we look to that investigation to give us the definitive word as to what transpired. But putting together the best information that we have available to us today our current assessment is that what happened in Benghazi was in fact initially a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before in Cairo, almost a copycat of– of the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo, which were prompted, of course, by the video. What we think then transpired in Benghazi is that opportunistic extremist elements came to the consulate as this was unfolding. They came with heavy weapons which unfortunately are readily available in post revolutionary Libya. And it escalated into a much more violent episode. Obviously, that’s– that’s our best judgment now. We’ll await the results of the investigation. And the president has been very clear–we’ll work with the Libyan authorities to bring those responsible to justice.

  • Hillsboro says:

    I don’t think I cherry picked at all, but thank for providing the full transcript of that exchange.

    So, eb, do you think she was being truthful? That her statement was truly “the best information we have at present” or are we playing word games in the rose garden again?

  • edmundburkenator says:

    I do think she was being truthful. It’s too easy to check her. In fact, Graham and McCain probably got the same briefing — if they read it.

    I think she was providing what the intelligence briefing provided.

    The intelligence briefing — just like intelligence briefings of the past and in this case so close to the event — was likely going to change, but Meet the Press happens on Sunday and on that Sunday, that’s what the intelligence was saying.

    She did hedge — like everyone does:

    “that’s our best judgment now. We’ll await the results of the investigation.”

    I do see a potential cluster-f with the security leading up to the events, and maybe McCain and Graham see this Rice pissing contest as a doorway into that screwed up situation.

    There should not be dead diplomats.

    But this ire against Rice seems a bit odd to me right now. I want to understand Graham and McCain’s argument more because right now, it doesn’t add up.

  • Hillsboro says:

    The fact that she was trotted out to all of the Sunday shows as this administration’s point person to present a fabricated tale should give anyone pause. Either she was lying or she was being used by the White House.

    So, back to Smith’s assertion:

    “And this whole Susan Rice thing. John McCain created a lie and nobody will call him out. Susan Rice didnt say the video was the reason for the attack, she said the terrorists used the riots as an opprotunity to attack.”

    Maybe no one is calling McCain out because he’s not saying what you claim he’s saying. I’d like to see an actual quote. When you combine this with Susan Rice not saying what you claim she said, you’re hitting about as well as the batless Fetch.

  • edmundburkenator says:

    Hillsboro, what is the “fabricated tale” she presented?

  • edmundburkenator says:

    Are you calling the intelligence report a “fabricated tale”?

  • Cato the Elder says:

    See also: WMD

  • Hillsboro says:

    See my cherry picked quote above, or if you want the full story, read the transcript you posted.

    Of course, please feel use her hedge as an escape.

  • The batting average on administrative “internal investigations” is about fifty when it comes to the American people learning the truth about what happened, from Watergate onward with administrations of both parties. The fox can not be trusted to tell us what is really going on in the hen house.

    Only by having open hearings with testimony under oath will we find out what really happened, and even there, as with Fast & Furious, administrative stonewalling may easily prevent it. For example, after a year of internal investigations and suppressed testimony before Congress that includes an attorney general who lied to congress on multiple occasions and was even permitted to amend his lies and Nixonian abuse of executive privilege, basically claiming that the entire Justice Department need no longer answer to Congress or the People, we still do not know who authorized the disbursement of thousands of automatic weapons to Mexican criminals or what if anything was done about him or her.

    The fact is that our President is either so stupid that he cannot recall what he knew, when he knew it and what he did or did not do about it unless the FBI interviews him and provides a report for his teleprompter, or he is up to this thing in his eyeballs and desperately trying to find a way out.

    Nixon was actually winning his battle to suppress the truth at the time a little known, minor league functionary named Alexander Butterfield happened to mention that he had done the daily reloading of the tape machines… tape machines that nobody had previously known about and which contained “the rest of the story”, as the late Paul Harvey would say.

    Without congressional hearings and administrative cooperation we will never know any more about who was responsible for the abandonment to their deaths of four fellow Americans in Libya than we do about our administration sponsored gun running program, which is nothing other than that it resulted in the deaths of at least one American and hundreds of Mexicans.

    But there again, if you are a Democrat I suppose you don’t really care because you cannot find a Republican to blame.

  • edmundburkenator says:

    So, you have gone directly to “fabricated tale”. Before a congressional hearing, before the results of an investigation?

    Ok. It happens all the time.

    I think people should be able to make public their positions on this. If you want to predict something (as you have), fine. Your predictions of late are, well, not so predictive.

    McCain and Graham are already starting to back off of their statements and turning to the security before the attack rather than what the IR said and what Rice said the IR said.

    I think this is mostly about Graham’s bona fides as he moves into a 2013 primary with a Tea Partier. And we all know McCain has his back (well, figuratively).

  • Cato the Elder says:

    I didn’t predict anything, I merely pointed out that it wouldn’t be the first time we’ve seen fabricated intelligence.

    And someone fucked up big on the Benghazi thing. Frankly it smells more like a blown CIA op than anything else, but time will tell. Or not.

  • edmundburkenator says:

    Hillsboro predicts “fabricated tale”.

    Cato, the WMD thing may relate to this story, but not in the way you would first think.

    The IRs are probably now so full of “it looks like this, but we can’t be sure” or ” high probability of this, but can not discount that”, that they may be useless until the dust settles. Why? Because everyone got it so wrong on WMD that you might get more CYA than CIA.

  • Hillsboro says:

    eb, I think you’re constructed a very small perch to stand upon if you’re making the assertion that she has no responsibility for the truth (or lack of) in her comments in the Benghazi fiasco because she was merely parroting the CIA talking points memo.

    Graham has a very valid concern: “… the reason I don’t trust her is because I think she knew better, and if she didn’t know better she shouldn’t be the voice of America.”

    While we’re critiquing predictive skills, you might revisit your 67% wrong predictions a bit over one year ago. (yes I can be that obsessive).

  • edmundburkenator says:

    So, you think Rice should have run an internal investigation of those running an investigation of what happened in a country that just changed hands just to make sure she would be telling the truth in the event that the intelligence community was lying or just mistaken?

    Whose perch would you rather be standing on? Mine or yours?

    On what basis — and I would love to see this, really — are you saying she was untruthful?

    “Parroting CIA talking points” is how you can characterize it, or you can characterize it as telling Meet the Press what she knew, based on what she was told Sunday morning by the CIA and others.

    As far as predictive skills: Are you talking county BOS predictions? My Final Four predictions? Or perhaps my BCS predictions? National League East predictions?

    If you say all of them, you are obsessive my friend.

  • Barbara Munsey says:

    Liz, are you sure you want to use religious reasons to support your position on universal healthcare?

    Or is that just talking to the “befuddled” in a way you think they might understand (even if the subject is economics)?

    No answer required, it just looks a bit odd when your usual position seems to be against any religious consideration in government. (i.e. it kind of reminds me of the atheist who wrote a letter from Jesus for the courthouse lawn, perhaps as a way of getting the simpleminded to agree with her position since “God” was talking?)

  • Hillsboro says:

    Please, you’re better than that eb.

    She may have been 100% truthful: she may have said exactly what she knew. Or not. Until that is determined, she probably shouldn’t get a promotion to being brand ambassador for the US.

    (May I remind you of your 2011 all star lineup: Wexford, Merrick, Kondratick, Kierce, Burk, Baldwin, Ohneiser and Write-In?)

  • Hillsboro, yesterday the President confirmed that Rice got her talking points from the White House, meaning him. You cannot blame her when in fact it is he who is talking out both ends of his alimentary canal, he and his moderator falsely claiming in the second debate that he told us on 9/12 in the Rose Garden that it was in fact a terrorist attack yet the following weekend winding her up and sending her out to tell us a completely contrary and false story.

    Though there are many issues to be resolved, the two most important to me are:

    1. What did the President know, when did he know it, what options was he presented with and what did he do or not do about it? For some reason he is not able to recall any of his own first hand knowledge without an investigation into himself.

    2. Who asked or told Rice to appear on those programs and who gave her, Hillary and Max Headroom Carney the false and misleading story line to purvey over the following weeks?

    I’ve been around long enough to have seen this all before… from Nixon letting his cabinet and all his supporters down when we finally heard the tape of him instructing his Capos to “cover it up” the day after the break-in, to Slick Willy having his entire cabinet go out and fall on their swords promulgating his lies shortly before we and they learned that the infamous blue dress still existed… and had not been dry cleaned.

    Thus there is no question in my mind what we will learn if and when the full story is finally and truthfully told:

    1. That due to the sensitive nature of the US mission in Libya it was decided that a heavy military or armed presence for the purposes of security would somehow be offensive to the Libyan people and radicals within them and would suggest they were not trusted at a time we were trying to win them over. On this I depart from most of my conservative brethren in that even if risky, ill advised or dangerous, especially as earlier attacks on us and others were known, it would at least be a strategy that can be argued rather than simply a case of incompetence. When Sadat and Begin, both at great risk of assassination and the former later successfully so, exchanged visits for the first time in history they did not do so behind a shield of tanks and air cover. Obviously our four compatriots knew they were at great risk, perhaps greater than they signed up for and certainly greater than the administration expected, but until we know all the facts about what their mission was and whether the lack of security was due to deliberation or incompetence I reserve judgement.

    2. That there were multiple options for rescue action by extraction teams available, all which would have required a Presidential go-ahead just like the raid on Bin Laden, and the President froze… voted “present” instead of exercising that steely nerve Joe Biden was so fond of talking about.

    3. The fact that there was no mob, spontaneous or otherwise, was known at the time and known at the highest levels, that they knew almost immediately as their people on the ground did, that it was some type of coordinated paramilitary attack and that terrorists were likely involved. Since the truth that it was indeed a terrorist and likely Al Qaeda supported attack on the anniversary of 9/11 interfered with the story line throughout the campaign, that Dirty Harry Obama walked right down the middle of that Pakistani street under withering cross fire, into the compound and blasted Bin Laden with his 44 Magnum and that ever since that heroic act Al Qaeda was running for their lives, they had to craft some kind of story that both hid the truth about the resurgence and success of Al Qaeda AND put the blame on somebody else because, as we should know by now, this President and his administration, like the probe “Nomad” from Star Trek, are perfect and incapable of error. Thus plucking some short video that had been on the web for months and obviously widely viewed throughout the mountains of Afghanistan on tribal iPads and then compounding its effect by drawing the attention of the entire Muslim world to it was the perfect distraction needed to hide the truth about their utterly failed Middle East policies.

    I think the most telling thing Obama said to his fawning seals lobbing cupcakes at him in the press conference was that “now that the election is over” we could get to the bottom of it. I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting.

  • liz says:

    I’m not using it as an argument for universal health care, I’m using it as an argument against the amazing and bitter anger TBP is exhibiting when asked to consider that any impoverished might want to see a doctor sometimes.

    One can be against universal health care and not feel hatred for the people who want to be able to see a doctor when they are sick.

  • Smith says:

    “So I wonder why we are starting this new Congress with a protracted debate about a foregone conclusion,” he said, adding that Rice is qualified for the job. “I can only conclude that we are doing this for no other reason than because of lingering bitterness over the outcome of the election.”

    John McCain in 2006 when Democrats questioned Condelezza Rice about becoming Sec. of State bc she missed something big as national security advisor. That thing was 9/11

    Lets not pretend this whole Benghazi coverup BS isnt just politics. Politics from an increasingly bitter old loser McCain.

    Susan Rice will be confirmed. The Dems need 5 votes.

    I have enjoyed watching Hillsboro run circles around his own words. Called out on cherry picking a quote, he acknowledges quote then says its all a coverup.

    This is the same as every grand coverup the GOP has alleged in the Obama administration. Nothing. Obama has the longest streak of any recent President without a full blown scandal.

    This is politics. McCain and Graham, the defenders of the miltary, politicizing the deaths of foriegn workers.

    When did the President know? This isnt watergate. The CIA and Miliary fucked up. Blame the President, but drop the coverup BS.

    Its politics. This will all fade away and you all will move on to the next Solyndra, next Benghazi, next Tony Rezco, next birth certificate, next musilm rumor. Your lemmings of FOX news.

  • Liz, when you start going down the character assassination route that is where fruitful debate ends. I challenge you to find anything in my writing where by even the most imaginative and perverted misunderstanding or interpretation I state that I “feel hatred for the people who want to be able to see a doctor when they are sick” or exhibit “bitter anger” when “asked to consider that any impoverished might want to see a doctor sometimes.”

    You already tried using religion against me, now you’ve shifted into disingenuous lying mode, and the only thing left is for you to claim I am a racist because I disagree with the policies of a black man, so you might as well go knock yourself out, I really don’t care and it will not achieve your goal, which is to stifle opinions at odds with your most Righteous and morally immaculate views.

    I’m going to hang up on you now, it’s been fun, pray for my salvation. Goodbye.

  • edmundburkenator says:

    “She may have been 100% truthful: she may have said exactly what she knew. Or not. Until that is determined, she probably shouldn’t get a promotion to being brand ambassador for the US.”

    Well, that’s a little different subject. And more than a little bit of light exists between that position and:

    “The fact that she was trotted out to all of the Sunday shows as this administration’s point person to present a fabricated tale should give anyone pause.”

    I agree with your latter position. Let’s get some testimony and investigations done and we’ll see who has a problem, Rice or McCain and Butters.

    “Please, you’re better than that eb.”

    If I get better than this, you’ll be running to Capitol Hill to testify as a character reference for Susan Rice.

Leave Comment