• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Cronyism?

Texan

Well-known member
If cronyism is bad when Bush does it, how about this? It seems to me that this is beyond stupid for anybody running for President to do. There's got to be more to this...maybe a payoff is in the works for past favors/burglaries?

====================================


Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign has added former Bill Clinton National Security Adviser Sandy Berger to the team.

Berger stole highly classified terrorism documents from the national archives prior to the 9/11 Commission hearings — stuffing them into his pants and socks and eventually destroying them. Berger also lied to investigators. He was fined $50,000 and placed on two years probation.

The Washington Examiner reports some Hillary Clinton supporters are questioning the decision to use Berger. Case Western Reserve University law professor Jonathan Adler calls it "simply incomprehensible."

The Clinton campaign says Berger is an unpaid informal adviser — and that he provides valuable and welcome input.


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,300280,00.html
 

jigs

Well-known member
this bitch will be the ruin of our country. she needs to stop running for President. if she really wants what is best for America, then slit her wrists.....
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
"It's been hard sitting out electoral politics. I miss preparing candidates for debates and sparring with undecided voters over who's most qualified and electable.
On the other hand, ever since former Vice President Al Gore cured my lifelong habit of jumping on a presidential bandwagon, I must say that I greatly enjoy the freedom of calling it like I see it.
It's still too early to make predictions, but it still looks promising that the Democratic presidential nominee will take the White House in 2008. What the public wants, though dares not expect, is a candidate who will be honest, compelling, wise and strong. Who best fits the bill?
Democratic voters who will be heading to the polls in a few months are now navigating uncharted waters. Unless Illinois Sen. Barack Obama convinces them he has enough experience to lead the country or unless former senator John Edwards breaks through in the polls, New York Sen. Hillary Clinton is looking like a shoo-in for the nomination. But don't quote me.
While Clinton has proven herself in nearly every debate and forum, raised sufficient cash to run a credible campaign and assembled an A-list of supporters that would fill a Manhattan telephone book, some of her rivals and many in the media are still wondering whether she is electable. It's an odd phenomenon to question the electability of a front-running candidate with a double-digit lead over her closest competitor. But, the media has a propensity to make its own news.
Sometimes they can cite fiction frequently enough that it becomes an accepted truth through sheer force of repetition. Say something loud enough and long enough, and people start to believe it. From the moment Clinton tossed her long-ago discarded headband into the ring, the question has been: Can she win?
As this contest continues and the public adjusts to the idea of a female president, we see more of Clinton's character and less of her caricature. Hence, her polling numbers continue to rise. That doesn't happen with unelectable candidates.
An ABC/Washington Post poll conducted earlier this month asked Democrats whether they were satisfied with their field of candidates. A resounding 78 percent of voters said they were. When the field is narrowed to just the two front-runners, and people are asked whom they would prefer to secure the nomination, 63 percent chose Clinton over 32 percent for Obama, according to a USA Today/Gallup poll also conducted earlier this month.
Clinton is electable, and regardless of how many times she has to answer questions about her vote on the war in Iraq, she still comes across as measured, honest, trustworthy and tough enough to stand up to any dictator. Democratic voters are now betting on Clinton, not under duress or for lack of better options, but because she is the most appealing on a slate of attractive options.
Let's put the "Is Hillary electable?" question to bed. Polls, money and endorsements have already answered the question. Let's move on to the real question: Is the race for the Democratic nomination over?
Back in Iowa, the first state to hold a legitimate primary or caucus with a full slate of delegates at stake, it is still a three-person race, with Gov. Bill Richardson also in the hunt. The three top-tier candidates are within five or six points of one another. To win those caucuses and the delegates that come with it, you need more than personality and charm. You need a superior organization and leaders in all 99 counties who can connect with the caucus-goers.
While the Clinton machine is very good at the inevitable spin game, can they influence the good folks of Waterloo and Council Bluffs? And if Clinton doesn't persuade those voters, will it stall her campaign at a time when it needs to sail away? This is why we hold elections and not coronations in the United States.
At this point in the contest, it is unrealistic to think that Obama or Edwards could browbeat Clinton out of her front-runner status by just showing up at debates. Anyone who thinks that has zero understanding of presidential campaigns, which, at their core, are about building a compelling narrative, laying the foundation in the early states or contests and preparing for the final grueling weeks of the season. This season, while it appears long, has just started. We won't know the winner until the nomination has been won.
I am not ready to write off the so-called underdogs. And there are plenty of them still sniffing around for money and voters to back them. Democrats love to root for an underdog, particularly if they believe the person is one of their own: someone who will stand up for Democratic principles and values of fairness, security, opportunity and shared prosperity for all. And you can quote me on that.

Donna Brazile is a political commentator on CNN, ABC and NPR, contributing columnist to Roll Call, the newspaper of Capitol Hill, and former campaign manager for Al Gore."
 

Cal

Well-known member
washingtonpost.com OutlookHEIR APPARENT
Who Made Hillary Queen?

By Geoffrey Wheatcroft
Sunday, October 7, 2007; Page B01

Among so much about American politics that can impress or depress a friendly transatlantic observer, there's nothing more astonishing than this: Why on Earth should Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton be the front-runner for the presidency?

She has now pulled well ahead of Sen. Barack Obama, both in polls and in fundraising. If the Democrats can't win next year, they should give up for good, so she must be considered the clear favorite for the White House. But in all seriousness: What has she ever done to deserve this eminence? How could a country that prides itself on its spirit of equality and opportunity possibly be led by someone whose ascent owes more to her marriage than to her merits?

We all, nations as well as individuals, have difficulty seeing ourselves as others see us. In this case, I doubt that Americans realize how extraordinary their country appears from the outside. In Europe, the supposed home of class privilege and heritable status, we have abandoned the hereditary principle (apart from the rather useful institution of constitutional monarchy), and the days are gone when Pitt the Elder was prime minister and then Pitt the Younger. But Americans find nothing untoward in Bush the Elder being followed by Bush the Younger.

At a time when Americans seem to contemplate with equanimity up to 28 solid years of uninterrupted Bush-Clinton rule, please note that there are almost no political dynasties left in British politics, at least on the Tory side. Admittedly, Hilary Benn, the environmental secretary, is the fourth generation of his family to sit in Parliament and the third to serve in a Labor Party cabinet. But England otherwise has nothing now to match the noble houses of Kennedy, Gore and Bush.

And in no other advanced democracy today could someone with Clinton's r¿sum¿ even be considered a candidate for national leadership. It's true that wives do sometimes inherit political reins from their husbands, but usually in recovering dictatorships in Latin America such as Argentina, where Sen. Cristina Fern¿ndez de Kirchner may succeed President N¿stor Kirchner, or Third World countries such as Sri Lanka or the Philippines -- and in those cases often when the husbands have been assassinated. Such things also happened (apart from the assassination) in the early days of women's entry into British politics. The first woman to take her seat in the House of Commons was Lady Astor, by birth Nancy Langhorne of Danville, Va., who inherited her husband's seat in 1919 when he inherited his peerage, but we haven't seen a case like that for many years.


In one democracy after another, women have been enfranchised, entered politics and risen to the top. The United States lags far behind in every way. A record number of women now serve in Congress, which only makes the figures -- 71 of 435 House members and 16 of 100 senators -- all the more unimpressive. Compare those statistics with Norway's, where 37 percent of lawmakers are women. In Sweden, it's 45 percent.

More to the point, women who make political careers in other democracies do it their way, which usually means the hard way. Not many people had fewer advantages in life -- by birth or marriage or anything else -- than Golda Meir, born in poverty in Russia and taken to the United States as a girl before she settled in Palestine. She was one of only two women among the 24 people who signed Israel's declaration of independence in 1948. After serving under David Ben-Gurion as foreign minister, she became prime minister in 1969 -- stepping into a man's shoes, it's true, but those of her predecessor, Levi Eshkol, who died unexpectedly in office.

Four years later, Meir showed that a woman could lead her country in war as well as peace, an example that Margaret Thatcher would follow. Thatcher made her way from a lower-middle-class home to Oxford at a time when there were few women there from any background. She then had not one but two careers, as a barrister and as an industrial chemist. (One of the gravest charges against her is that she helped invent a noxious concoction called "Mr. Whippy" squirtable ice cream.) After the traditional blooding of British politics -- fighting and losing a parliamentary election -- she entered Parliament in 1959 and served there for more than 30 years, working her way up as a Conservative backbencher, junior minister and then cabinet minister, speaking, debating, listening (yes, even Thatcher sometimes listened), pounding the streets at election time and attending dreary meetings in her constituency.

She not only had no advantages, but she was at a disadvantage in what was still very much a chaps' party -- dominated by men who had attended the same schools, served in the same regiments and belonged to the same clubs. But she ignored all that. In 1975, she was the only Tory with the guts to challenge Edward Heath for the party leadership, and in 1979 she led her party to victory in the first of three general elections.

To be sure, some women in politics have been less successful than others. France's first female prime minister was ¿dith Cresson, who lasted less than a year in office, and the first Canadian was poor Kim Campbell, who held the job for less than six months before leading her party to catastrophic electoral defeat. But Helen Clark in New Zealand and Angela Merkel in Germany have fought the political fight on equal terms, neither expecting nor receiving any favors because of their sex.

What a contrast Hillary Clinton presents! Everyone recognizes the nepotism or favoritism she has enjoyed: New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd has written that without her marriage, Clinton might be a candidate for president of Vassar, but not of the United States. And yet the truly astonishing nature of her career still doesn't seem to have impinged on Americans.

Seven years ago, she turned up in New York, a state with which she had a somewhat tenuous connection, expecting to be made senator by acclamation (particularly once Rudy Giuliani decided not to run against her). Until that point, she had never won or even sought any elective office, not in the House or in a state legislature. Nor had she held any executive-branch position. The only political task with which she had ever been entrusted was her husband's health-care reforms, and she made a complete hash of that.
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
Texan said:
If cronyism is bad when Bush does it, how about this? It seems to me that this is beyond stupid for anybody running for President to do. There's got to be more to this...maybe a payoff is in the works for past favors/burglaries?

====================================


Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign has added former Bill Clinton National Security Adviser Sandy Berger to the team.

Berger stole highly classified terrorism documents from the national archives prior to the 9/11 Commission hearings — stuffing them into his pants and socks and eventually destroying them. Berger also lied to investigators. He was fined $50,000 and placed on two years probation.

The Washington Examiner reports some Hillary Clinton supporters are questioning the decision to use Berger. Case Western Reserve University law professor Jonathan Adler calls it "simply incomprehensible."

The Clinton campaign says Berger is an unpaid informal adviser — and that he provides valuable and welcome input.


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,300280,00.html

Wouldn't that be a violation of his probation? Being around a known criminal :lol:
 

Texan

Well-known member
Hey, ff - since you like Donna Brazile so much, what about this one? This was one of my favorites from her:



As I sat by my window and staring out at the wonderful Washington, D.C., landscape, my office announced a phone call from Air Force One.

Hmm. Been a while since someone called me from Air Force One or Two. But I knew it could be only one person: Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove. Despite our many political and policy differences, I have gotten to know and respect Mr. Rove's political skills. And I have the scars to prove it.

My first thought on hearing of the Rove resignation was that this is too good to be true. Mr. Rove is actually leaving a town where he's on everybody's A-list? No way. Mr. Rove packing his bags before January 2009? I didn't believe it, so Mr. Rove put the president on the phone.

President Bush, always cordial and down to earth, told me it was time for Mr. Rove to go and make some real money. Mr. Bush said Mr. Rove deserved to earn a good living and to take his wife, Darby, out once in awhile. I told the president Mr. Rove would also be able to afford to take me out for something better than the White House mess. Laughs aside, I am afraid this is not a good sign for Democrats. Mr. Rove's departure should be a wake-up call.

It's too early to be popping champagne or measuring drapes over in the West Wing. My gut tells me the departure of the so-called "architect" of Mr. Bush's political victories should serve as a warning sign to Democrats to be careful what you wish for.

At the Bush-Cheney White House, Mr. Rove was inside the system. He was constrained (theoretically) by the rules and strictures governing members of the executive branch. Certainly, Mr. Rove found, created and exploited many loopholes to get around the restrictions. Exactly how many e-mails did he send (and delete) from his Republican National Committee e-mail address to avoid the congressional scrutiny such communications would have received if they were sent from a White House address? We may never know.

Mr. Rove managed and oversaw a huge piece of real estate in the West Wing — from the political shop to the policy wheel. Ultimately, he had a hand in shaping the Bush presidency. With low approval ratings, divisions in the ranks and a Republican brand out of sync with its base, Mr. Rove has plenty to do in retirement. He is a master strategist who knows how to work the system. He always has, and he will continue to do so from outside it. Message to Democrats: Mr. Rove is more dangerous in the shadows than he ever was in the spotlight.

"Divide and conquer" is an ancient strategy, but in the last decade, Mr. Rove has taken it to new heights, or, more accurately, depths. His win-at-all-costs mentality has delivered many victories, but not without cost. While Mr. Rove solidified the gains made by Republicans in the 1990s and helped the GOP maintain its electoral edge through all but the last midterm election, he failed in his ultimate goal of securing a permanent majority. But that doesn't mean he'll stop trying. I don't believe Mr. Rove will simply walk away and go back to hunting quail. I know him, and I'm sure part of his focus is to help reshape the Bush presidency and secure a legacy for his good friend and enabler.


http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070820/COMMENTARY/108200021



Here's another little quote from Donna Brazile that I like:

"Karl outside the White House is more dangerous to Democrats than Karl inside the White House"

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-08-13-rove-legacy_N.htm



Yep, you libs got what you wanted - Rove's a goner. :lol:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
"cro·ny·ism (krn-zm)
n.
Favoritism shown to old friends without regard for their qualifications, as in political appointments to office."

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Croneyism

I don't think Senator Clinton is able to appoint anyone to political office yet. So, no, this isn't cronyism. Maybe later.

When/if she's elected President of the United States she can pardon him and then appoint him to whatever job she wants him to fill. :D
 

Texan

Well-known member
More on Sandy Burglar - from the Editors at National Review.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++



Criminal Behavior

By The Editors


There are two kinds of crooks. The first cuts a deal. He tells the government what he knows and forever after is ostracized and hunted by his old partners in crime. The second is “stand-up.” He keeps his mouth shut. After serving his time, he is welcomed back into the fold. He might even get a “bump up” in rank from his grateful bosses.

No, we’re not talking about The Sopranos. What we have in mind is a new episode of a tawdry soap opera that began in the 1990s. Welcome to the case of disgraced former national security adviser Sandy Berger — and what it portends about a potential President Hillary.

Now Berger is back in business at Camp Clinton, advising New York’s junior senator in her bid for the White House. This warrants a review of Berger’s recent history. After his stint as national security adviser, he became Bill Clinton’s liaison to the 9/11 Commission as it investigated intelligence failures (many of which happened on Berger’s watch). Berger was accordingly given access to the national archives, both to prepare his own testimony and to get the former president ready for an interview with the commission.

Berger used his privileged access to steal top-secret national-defense documents. On at least two occasions he stuffed them into his clothing and briefcase, smuggling them out of the archives. He secreted some of these stolen papers under the wheel of a truck at a nearby construction site so that he could return for them later. Other documents he intentionally destroyed. These actions were serious felonies.

Berger’s behavior was so strange that the government noticed and investigated. Berger then lied to the authorities, denying what he had done and absurdly claiming he had taken the documents in an honest mistake. Only later did he fess up to his theft.

Because the archives lacked filing controls, it is impossible to know exactly how much Berger stole. Yet — as our Byron York has reported — among the highly classified haul were various drafts of an “after-action report” prepared by top Clinton counterterrorism officials after the Customs Service, in a stroke of luck, foiled the millennium plot to bomb Los Angeles International Airport. That report has been widely described as a scathing internal assessment of the Clinton administration’s performance and state of preparedness for domestic terrorist attack. It was highly relevant to the 9/11 Commission’s investigation, as was the manner in which it was finalized and the question whether the Clinton administration acted on its recommendations.

Yet the commission was not told about Berger’s unlawful actions. He was not questioned about them, and the public has never been permitted to see copies of what he took (such copies are said to exist). President Clinton and the Clinton Library are conveniently immune to Freedom of Information Act disclosure requests for 12 years. And the Bush Justice Department shamefully tucked this whole affair under the rug by permitting Berger to plead guilty to a misdemeanor, effectively shielding him from public disclosure of the evidence.

What kind of advice is Berger giving Mrs. Clinton, anyway? It can’t be legal advice: Berger forfeited his law license. It’s unlikely he’d be much help on Iran: The Clinton administration didn’t respond to the Khobar Towers bombing (in which19 U.S. Air Force personnel were killed) because Berger and others were convinced that then–Iranian president Mohammed Khatami was going to “reform” the hard-line mullahs. Berger failed on al Qaeda, too: Clinton declined to respond to the terror network’s bombing of the U.S.S. Cole (17 U.S. Navy personnel killed) because, according to Clinton, Berger’s intelligence services couldn’t tell him who did it.

Sandy Berger was a failure as national-security adviser. Then he became a criminal. As Americans contemplate making Hillary their president, they would be wise to consider the company she keeps.


http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjRmNDNhZjYzYjRkYTg0NmI2NWU5ZTc0MjUxNTBlMmM=
 

Latest posts

Top