|
Hillary Clinton; I don't get it
|
|
Topic Started: Feb 6 2008, 04:15 PM (1,523 Views)
|
|
8247
|
Feb 7 2008, 03:11 AM
Post #46
|
Apparently we look like this now
- Posts:
- 16,246
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #75
- Joined:
- October 14, 2003
|
- Minuet
- Feb 6 2008, 07:28 PM
- 8247
- Feb 6 2008, 06:37 PM
- Quote:
-
May I ask how this equates to holding the military in contempt? I don't quite get it. When she lived in the Whitehouse her husband was Commander-in-chief. Was he the first President ever to have military people serve drinks? Or is this a long standing tradition. I mean come on, serving drinks as proof for holding people in contempt? Surely you can come up with something stronger then that, can't you?
Marines are not bartenders. That incident was a disgrace, and showed what she thought of them. Not to mention the fact that the military was reduced significantly under Bill's presidency.
You didn't respond to my direct questions. Has this been a standard thing that has been done for other presidents or not? Please respond with a yes or a no. - Quote:
-
- Quote:
-
First of all that is a company - not "people". Second, could you provide a transcript of her entire speech rather then just a sentence that could quite possibly be being taken out of context. Thank you.
Still, stockholders are people. And, it isn't up to the government to decide what a company does with its profit. I posted it a while back. The title of the thread was Hillary Admits She's a Socialist.
I am not going to go search for an old thread. You made the accusation, you do the search and provide the link. As I recall that thread I believe it was a tempest in a teapot. - Quote:
-
- Quote:
-
And this comment does not answer the question. You made a direct accusation of her having contempt for the American family structure. You have not yet defined exactly what you mean by "American family structure" nor have you shown that she holds your definition, or any other in contempt. Define your terms so that we can A) determine if you are using an accurate definition. And
B) whether or not she holds it in contempt.
Welfare harms families, and she wants to broaden it.
Boy you really are avoiding answering this question, aren't you? I would say nice try - but this weak response doesn't qualify. It's answers like this that prompt my accusations that you are giving me nothing but Conservative/Republican talking points. This question had nothing to do with welfare and it is only your opinion that it harms families. I don't agree with that. I think that properly done welfare can strengthen families. By giving a hand up. But to refocus on the original comment I ask once again - How do you define "American family structure"? And how EXACTLY does Hillary show contempt for it? - Quote:
-
Do you read your own sources??? - Quote:
-
Hill also mocked a portion of Clinton's speech, in which Clinton quoted Rev. James Cleveland's hymn, "I don't feel noways tired." After airing that excerpt of Clinton's speech, Hill stated: "Well, I don't feel noways tired, neither" and asserted that "it did seem sort of strange to hear a Yankee affecting a Southern drawl." Hill did not mention that Clinton was quoting a hymn.
I really don't think quoting a hymn qualifies as mocking people. Try again. - Quote:
-
- Quote:
-
Besides which you stated "positions" as well as routine. You have not provided an example of a position that she has changed her mind on. And her political position is supposedly far more important then her personality.
Well, her vote on the war, for one. Oh...And, here's the story on that hideous cackle http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Etk_O-nhlA4
Gee, you don't like her laugh. That's a good reason to reject a candidate :rolleyes: As to her vote on the war - did she change it in response to her constituency? Or because further facts were brought to the fore that she did not have previously? Or maybe a combination of both. A lot of people changed thier stance as new information became available. It is a politician's job to be in touch with what the people who voted for them want.
I really don't have to respond to your questions, or provide links. IE wanted to know why people don't like Hillary. I listed many reasons why, and I'm not going to let you pick apart my opinion in an attempt to make me look foolish. IE asked a question, I answered it. My opinion is just as valid as anyone elses...even yours. And, I really don't care what your opinion of my opinion is. My answers do not have to "qualify" to be considered on this board, nor do I have to provide links to articles (other people's opinions) to back up my own opinions.
Please provide a link to an article to qualify your opinion of my opinion, and why your opinion is better than my opinion.
Thank you.
|
|
|
| |
|
Wichita
|
Feb 7 2008, 06:30 AM
Post #47
|
The Adminstrator wRench
- Posts:
- 9,878
- Group:
- Admin
- Member
- #1
- Joined:
- May 1, 2003
|
- Minuet
-
May I ask how this equates to holding the military in contempt? I don't quite get it. When she lived in the Whitehouse her husband was Commander-in-chief. Was he the first President ever to have military people serve drinks? Or is this a long standing tradition. I mean come on, serving drinks as proof for holding people in contempt? Surely you can come up with something stronger then that, can't you?
Let me try an explanation for this .....
There most probably have been military personel assigned to the White House for tasks such as catering in the history of the White House sometime in its history.
That's not what anyone is talking about here.
It was NOT the job assignment of the military personnel who were told to do such things (serve drinks, carry luggage, etc.). In some cases, they were had other, specific assigments that they were told to ignore to do such things. In some circumstances, they refused - and got their career damaging responses. In other circumstances, they did as told by - not by their boss, but his wife - and were made to feel inferior in doing so.
Imagine that you are a highly trained and highly educated pilot invited to attend a meeting at the White House on the issue of plane safety. When you get there, the boss's wife tells you to pick up a tray of appetizers and get busy serving the other people attending this meeting.
She's not asking you to just take the tray and put it on the table - which would simply be courteous to comply - she's telling you that walking around with the tray and offering your peers appetizers is YOUR entire JOB for the entire meeting.
Wouldn't your response be "WTF?"?
How would you respond if the response to your "WTF?" was, do it or it's your career?
Minuet, I tend to think if something similar happened to you, you would not be happy with the boss' wife either.
In some other cases, people with OTHER military assignments (such as security) were told to abandon those assingment to do other tasks, such as carrying luggage. They were damned if they did and damned if they didn't.
Do I have "A" link to prove it? No, but I have read enough first person narratives to believe that it happened far more than once even if not as often as alleged. The attitude was one of just general contempt.
Now, do I believe that still exists with Hillary?
Actually, I don't. Coincidentally around the time she decided to run for Senate, things improved. Apparently she recognized her previous behavior may have been a problem for her future plans so she began to immerse herself in learning something about the military.
Some generals have said that she is probably the most educated of all the liberal senators about the military and that is because she has worked hard to actually learn something about it as a senator.
Ironically, the effort that earned her that respect also has earned her a somewhat "hawkish" reputation. There are a lot of people who don't think she would react very differently than Bush did to a "9-11"- like event.
|
|
|
| |
|
Wichita
|
Feb 7 2008, 06:55 AM
Post #48
|
The Adminstrator wRench
- Posts:
- 9,878
- Group:
- Admin
- Member
- #1
- Joined:
- May 1, 2003
|
In answer to IE's question ....
I don't fear a strong independent woman in a position of power. I know a lot of women who that describes and have enjoyed working with and for them.
I just don't happen to think of Hillary as a strong independent woman..
Why don't I like her as a candidate? For some of the same reasons that I didn't like Bill as President.
Early in Bill's first term, she and Bill talked about a co-presidency. She was given unprecendented power.
She was unelected and unaccountable. I blame Bill and her equally for that. She was not elected as a co-president. They didn't have the right to impose her on the American people in that role.
As a woman who is roughly Hillary's age, I don't see her as a feminist in the way that the term was originally seen. If she was a nearly intelligent or courageous as people try to make her appear, she could have carved out a political career on her own. Many others did.
Shirley Chishom and Barbara Jordan are two who come quickly to mind. They walked the talk. Elizabeth Dole had a long successful career in politics before Bob became part of her life. Many woman were able to do it.
Hillary fronted the man in her life instead - neither an original or a courageous choice.
I don't give a rat's ass if she - as a wife - keeps Bill or sends him packing. However, I dislike and distrust her because of her very active participation in the campaign of personal destruction the Clinton administration waged against Paula Jones, and the various other women in Bill's history.
She knows that he has an on-going problem with fidelity. If she chooses to overlook it, that's her business. If she wants to be seen on the forefront of woman's rights in the area of workplace protections, however, she is going to damage her reputation greatly by claiming that every allegation of workplace harrassment should be taken seriously - but act very differently when Bill is the one accused.
As a wife, she has the right. As a senator or president, I expect her to be consistent to whatever position she takes ont he issue. I don't see as being consistent.
Also, I really don't think she can control Bill like she claims. Virtually everyone has a weak spot and Bill's does seem to be hers.
Then, there is Norman Hsu and the various and serious campaign financing problems/questions that never seem to get investigated throughly when Hillary is involved.
How does the former First Lady/Senator - who has Secret Service protection - meet multiple times with a wanted felon and no one raises an eyebrow ....
Too many unanswered questions.
|
|
|
| |
|
Minuet
|
Feb 7 2008, 08:00 AM
Post #49
|
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
- Posts:
- 36,559
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #2
- Joined:
- May 19, 2003
|
- 8247
- Feb 7 2008, 03:11 AM
I really don't have to respond to your questions, or provide links. IE wanted to know why people don't like Hillary. I listed many reasons why, and I'm not going to let you pick apart my opinion in an attempt to make me look foolish. IE asked a question, I answered it. My opinion is just as valid as anyone elses...even yours. And, I really don't care what your opinion of my opinion is. My answers do not have to "qualify" to be considered on this board, nor do I have to provide links to articles (other people's opinions) to back up my own opinions.
Please provide a link to an article to qualify your opinion of my opinion, and why your opinion is better than my opinion.
Thank you.
No, you don't have to respond to anything.
But your comments don't stand up to much scrutiny. The opinions are not based on facts. I am not trying to ridicule you. I only laughed at the one particular response because what I quoted is from YOUR OWN LINK. For the responses I asked quite serious questions.
When you make a list such as you did and try to pass it off as a list of facts you are subject to be asked for proof. If you cannot be bothered that's fine. But don't expect me to have much respect for your opinion.
|
|
|
| |
|
Minuet
|
Feb 7 2008, 08:10 AM
Post #50
|
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
- Posts:
- 36,559
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #2
- Joined:
- May 19, 2003
|
- Wichita
- Feb 7 2008, 06:30 AM
- Minuet
-
May I ask how this equates to holding the military in contempt? I don't quite get it. When she lived in the Whitehouse her husband was Commander-in-chief. Was he the first President ever to have military people serve drinks? Or is this a long standing tradition. I mean come on, serving drinks as proof for holding people in contempt? Surely you can come up with something stronger then that, can't you?
Let me try an explanation for this ..... There most probably have been military personel assigned to the White House for tasks such as catering in the history of the White House sometime in its history. That's not what anyone is talking about here. It was NOT the job assignment of the military personnel who were told to do such things (serve drinks, carry luggage, etc.). In some cases, they were had other, specific assigments that they were told to ignore to do such things. In some circumstances, they refused - and got their career damaging responses. In other circumstances, they did as told by - not by their boss, but his wife - and were made to feel inferior in doing so. Imagine that you are a highly trained and highly educated pilot invited to attend a meeting at the White House on the issue of plane safety. When you get there, the boss's wife tells you to pick up a tray of appetizers and get busy serving the other people attending this meeting. She's not asking you to just take the tray and put it on the table - which would simply be courteous to comply - she's telling you that walking around with the tray and offering your peers appetizers is YOUR entire JOB for the entire meeting. Wouldn't your response be "WTF?"? How would you respond if the response to your "WTF?" was, do it or it's your career? Minuet, I tend to think if something similar happened to you, you would not be happy with the boss' wife either. In some other cases, people with OTHER military assignments (such as security) were told to abandon those assingment to do other tasks, such as carrying luggage. They were damned if they did and damned if they didn't. Do I have "A" link to prove it? No, but I have read enough first person narratives to believe that it happened far more than once even if not as often as alleged. The attitude was one of just general contempt. Now, do I believe that still exists with Hillary? Actually, I don't. Coincidentally around the time she decided to run for Senate, things improved. Apparently she recognized her previous behavior may have been a problem for her future plans so she began to immerse herself in learning something about the military. Some generals have said that she is probably the most educated of all the liberal senators about the military and that is because she has worked hard to actually learn something about it as a senator. Ironically, the effort that earned her that respect also has earned her a somewhat "hawkish" reputation. There are a lot of people who don't think she would react very differently than Bush did to a "9-11"- like event.
Thank you for directly responding to my questions.
At least I understand the point being made now. Your method is far more effective then that of those who are unwilling to answer questions and who chose instead to get upset that I dared ask about something I don't know about.
Thank you also for being balanced enough to give her credit for growing and changing. She does strike me as an intelligent woman and it's good she takes the time to educate herself on matters that she needs to know to take on the job of President, should she be elected.
|
|
|
| |
|
Intrepid2002
|
Feb 7 2008, 09:26 AM
Post #51
|
UNGH!
- Posts:
- 16,001
- Group:
- Cadet
- Member
- #155
- Joined:
- March 30, 2004
|
I'm going to make one general commentary about these Marines who were supposedly asked to act as wait staff (I read they were Air Force on other blogs, sources etc. but who knows. I can't find a link to the story) and the military in general.
No matter how high your rank, what branch of the service you join, there will always be someone telling you what to do. A lot of times you absolutely loathe what you're told to do but when you sign on the dotted line, you make that oath to obey (key word) the orders of the President and those appointed over you. No choice. There will always be times when you are made to feel inferior and superior. Rank is a great motivator.
I'm not saying what she did was right(if she did it) but Military life is not civillian life. It's a different mindset. Not everyone's cup of tea. Yes, you can think WTF but it's a lot harder to say it. Especially to a general's wife or maybe even the First Lady herself. You cannot just up and quit without repercussion. In a perfect world, we wouldn't have to take orders from your boss' wife, or anyone's wife for that matter.
If what they said regarding Hillary was true, that was an abuse of priviledge and I find it disgusting but what I'd really like to know is more details about the story.
|
|
|
| |
|
Fesarius
|
Feb 7 2008, 10:18 AM
Post #52
|
Admiral
- Posts:
- 11,617
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #38
- Joined:
- September 2, 2003
|
- Quote:
-
If what they said regarding Hillary was true, that was an abuse of priviledge and I find it disgusting but what I'd really like to know is more details about the story.
Trep ($$),
I agree with this. I haven't responded in this thread until now, mostly because I too would need to corroborate what I've heard about her.
I lost all respect for her about six or seven years ago. It was when I read what her husband's bodyguards said she said both to them and to other people within her inner circle when they didn't comply with one of her requests. It was vulgar and unprofessional, and would violate the Terms of Service if I were to write it here. It left me with the impression that she is without integrity and undignified. My perceptions (which are for me my reality) of her haven't changed one iota to this day. Let me reiterate that I have at best second-hand information on this, so it would not hold up in court.
That being said, I stand by my remarks of about two years ago, when I wrote that I would not vote for her if I were paid one million dollars. There are several other reasons for this (some of which have been stated in this thread); I don't really see the point of going into them here, as it will not change anyone's mind regarding whether to vote or not to vote for her.
|
|
|
| |
|
Dandandat
|
Feb 7 2008, 10:40 AM
Post #53
|
Time to put something here
- Posts:
- 17,948
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #34
- Joined:
- August 30, 2003
|
- Minuet
- Feb 6 2008, 07:36 PM
- Dandandat
- Feb 6 2008, 05:17 PM
- Minuet
- Feb 6 2008, 05:03 PM
Could she not like both teams? I really don't see this as mocking. Especially since the Cubs are National League and the Yankees are American League.
One more thing on that picture. We get lots of celebrities up here in Toronto taking in ball games, hockey games, etc. They are usually pictured wearing the local team's hat or shirt. That doesn't mean that they have suddenly become a major Blue Jays fan and have forgotten thier own home town. Using a picture like that as "proof" is just manipulation on the part of the book's author.
Yes I added the picture for humor, the argument can and does stand alone. I dont like the Yankees - yet I am a New Yorker - Quote:
-
Now her professing her admiration for New York might be politically expedient. But mocking? Not the same thing. She might very well love New York. And no one has proven otherwise.
She didn’t just profess to admire New York she passed her self off as a New Yorker. Her campaign was built around trying to make it look as if she fit in when she was a clear outsider. She didn’t go to that Yankee game because she wanted to watch bass ball. She wanted a photo op of her doing a typical New York thing so that people would associate her with the state. She was being manipulative and that does mock the intelligence of the people of New York. If she was the right person for the job all she had to do was say "I’m not from here, I don’t know what its like to be a New Yorker, but I have a lot of political power, my hand is on the pulse of Washington and so I have the potential to be the best dam senator you’d ever had. Tell me your wishes and I will make them come true" and New Yorkers might have even bought that. But that’s not what she did, what she did was try to pass her self off as someone who knew what it was like to live in New York, that she understood our issues intrinsically and was the best person to act on them because she cared so deeply for those issues.
All I can say Dante is that this is your opinion only. Obviously a lot of people believed she was sincere. How else to explain that she actually won the election? It is certainly not a proven fact that she has mocked anyone.
Well du, of course it’s my opinion who’s opinion would I be giving you? It is however an opinion shared by many New Yorkers and many other people which is why she has the reputation that she has (ie the one IE is asking about in this thread).
Also lets get our history strait, Clinton’s win in New York wasn't a great accomplishment and so it can not be used as proof that people didn’t feel mocked or that Clinton was misrepresenting her self. She won her election against a relative no one (and that is being kind to the man, Rick Lazio) who came into the election 10 days late and 10 dollars short when Rudy Giuliani decided to stop running for health and personal reasons. She won because compared to Rick Lazio, Clinton with the full force of the Democratic political machine behind her and a constituency prone to vote democrat can be said to have run unopposed.
Also even under those circumstances Lazio made a good showing … Clinton had the money, the power, the notoriety and the constituency all in her “over whelming” favor and still the race was decide by only 10% of the vote. This to me only proves what I have been telling you.
"Go Home Hillary!" was a bumper sticker adorned on ever other car here and I live in the New York Metro area the citadel of democratic power in New York State.
Hell, Clinton had to hold a press conference and promise to the New York people that she would not run for president in 2004, because to many people believed that she would skip town as soon as she could and it was hurting her.
I don’t know how much proof you need, but this is enough for me to know that a lot of people felt mocked by her campaign.
|
|
|
| |
|
Dandandat
|
Feb 7 2008, 11:16 AM
Post #54
|
Time to put something here
- Posts:
- 17,948
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #34
- Joined:
- August 30, 2003
|
- ImpulseEngine
- Feb 6 2008, 05:47 PM
How is she more manipulative than any other politician? (The "crying", if you can really call it that - more like a little choked up, was a one-time occurrence which happened long after the animosity began.)
"Any other politician" that’s a big pool to compare to. There are many politician that are less and some that are more manipulative then she is. It is my contention that those politicians that are equally or more manipulative face the same backlash that she does, whether they are men or woman. The only difference that I can see is that she is a national figure rather then a state figure and there are very few national figures to compare her to. And as a national figure she gets it from all over the country adding to a larger ball of wax then lesser know but more or equally manipulative politicians. The argument can be made that she is the most manipulative national figure at this time, this might not be 100% correct but because the argument can be legitimately made it only adds to the issue you asked about in the first thread.
People have already given examples of her manipulation in clouding my self so I will not take the time to reiterate them.
- Quote:
-
How does she "force her views" on others?
Clinton has a long history of being an activist, it is the way she gets things done. She is forceful which is why many describe her as being a “strong woman” and in many arrears this is a good trait to have. Like when she was an attorney – I’m sure she made a really good one. However when dealing with peoples lives and their way of life its not always best tact to have. Its not a deciding factor, if you have other things going for you, people may over look this flaw, but with the other detractions Clinton possess it becomes a liability. This would be true regardless of her gender.
- Quote:
-
What did she do to overstep her bounds as First Lady?
She took on more then feel good polices. She took on polices that really effected peoples lives and required commitment and sacrifice. She did it all from an unelected position and people felt that this was wrong, that she did not have a right to work in this manner because they did not have a voice in her actions. Perhaps if Bill Clinton had made her a cabinet member things might have been different as then her positions would have help more legitimacy.
You have to remember your question isn’t about facts, “did she brake the law can you prove she worked out side her position” it’s about feelings and perceptions. You asked why some people don’t like her, and this is why – whether you like it or not. As first lady she acted out side what was excepted and accept as a first lady and it has hurt her reputation.
- Quote:
-
I don't agree that it's hard for me to see simply because my views align in large part with hers. That's true of a lot of people who don't get nearly the same negative attention.
You misunderstood what I have said. I don’t think it’s hard for you to agree with those who dislike her, as to why they dislike her, because you agree with her “views”. I think it’s hard for you to understand why people don’t like her, because the things that they don’t like about her aren’t things that cause you to dislike her.
For example. I can’t see why anyone would dislike vanilla Ice-cream, I love vanilla ice-cream. Prove to me why these people don’t like vanilla ice-cream.
- Quote:
-
honestly wasn't aware that anyone else besides me was blaming it on her being a strong woman. The main reason I'm doing so is I can't identify any other reason that hold truth for me.
And thats where my point lies. Why are you trying to find a reason that holds ture for you? When it is you who likes her and you are trying to find out why other people dont?
- Quote:
-
You do make a valid point, however, about other strong women, although Hillary has been in an unusual number of higher positions comparatively - attorney, First Lady, Senator.
I dont see the relivence, and I question the idea that she has been in an unusual number of higher positions comparatively.
|
|
|
| |
|
Minuet
|
Feb 7 2008, 11:21 AM
Post #55
|
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
- Posts:
- 36,559
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #2
- Joined:
- May 19, 2003
|
- Quote:
-
when Rudy Giuliani decided to stop running for health and personal reasons.
I love how you whitewashed that one Dante. "Personal reasons"
Would those personal reasons have anything to do with him cheating on his wife, and dumping her unceremoniously?
I never heard about problems with his health. That didn't stop him from running for the Republican nomination for President.
Usually winning by 10% is considered a landslide. I don't doubt that there are people who feel as you do. But I don't think it is as widespread as the picture you paint.
She also won the New York primary on Tuesday.
|
|
|
| |
|
Minuet
|
Feb 7 2008, 11:32 AM
Post #56
|
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
- Posts:
- 36,559
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #2
- Joined:
- May 19, 2003
|
Back to the discussion of the military. I was attempting to get more information on the allegations posted here. I really wanted to see what it was all about.
I found out that a lot could be traced back to a particular book by a gentleman by the name of Gary Aldrich. While trying to get more information I came accross the following article from 2002. I am not agreeing or disagreeing with the article, but I thought I would post it here in the interest of balance.
I do find it interesting that I had a lot of trouble coming up with information on the allegations. The few I found came from very conservative sources - but even they were few and far between. Anyways, here is the article I found. Food for thought anyways. And it may help answer IE's original question.
Source
- Quote:
-
Hillary Was Right Nicholas Confessore | November 30, 2002 When Hillary Clinton went on the Today show in early 1998 to defend her husband against the malefactions of a "vast right-wing conspiracy," she was pitied and disparaged in roughly equal measure. Rightly so: Her husband, it turned out, was dallying with an intern less than half his age. And while the president has garnered more than his share of conservative vitriol, the notion that he was the victim of a conspiracy--a "vast" one, no less--seemed paranoid, the stuff of an especially bad Oliver Stone movie.
But perhaps Hillary's main mistake was her choice of words. Rupert Murdoch's varied holdings, for example, are vast and right wing, but far more concerned with profit as an ultimate end than with ideology. And though the fortune of Richard Mellon Scaife has helped underwrite such enduring conservative institutions as the Heritage Foundation and Kenneth Starr's Whitewater investigation, those relationships are either not very secret (Heritage's funding is a matter of public record) or not very vast (only a half-dozen or so of the lawyers associated with the Paula Jones lawsuit were involved in dishing Linda Tripp's Lewinsky gossip to the Office of Independent Counsel).
A real right-wing conspiracy would have to be more densely networked, more full service. It would need both a fundraising arm and a propaganda arm--and it would have to be below the radar screen, beneath mainstream notice. Such a conspiracy would have to link together not just Murdoch and Scaife, but also the veterans of conservatism (say, William F. Buckley, Jr.) with its youth corps (Ann Coulter, for one), its political operatives (Haley Barbour) with its intellectuals (Dinesh D'Souza), its incumbents (Dick Armey) with its aspirants (Steve Forbes), its eminences (Russell Kirk) with its cranks (David Horowitz), its godfathers (Barry Goldwater) with its wayward sons (Pat Buchanan).
With the publication of Buchanan's A Republic, Not an Empire, the wayward son has joined the godfather. Having dropped Little, Brown, Buchanan issued his latest book through a small, Washington, D.C.-based publishing company named Regnery--a development far more significant than Buchanan's latest update on Jewish bankers. Regnery's fold, which has been swelling impressively in recent years, now includes Horowitz, Coulter, Armey, Barbour, Roberts, D'Souza, and even Forbes, whose election-year tome A New Birth of Freedom was released by Regnery in October.
Welcome to the world of Regnery Publishing--lifestyle press for conservatives, preferred printer of presidential hopefuls, and venerable publisher of books for the culture wars. Call it--gracelessly but more accurately--a medium-sized, loosely linked network of conservative types, with few degrees of separation and similar political aims. Just don't call it a conspiracy.
Regnery Publishing's right-leaning corporate philosophy actually goes back to 1947, when the late Henry Regnery, Sr., set out to publish "good books," as he wrote in the company's first catalogue, "wherever we find them." Works by Regnery's friends among the nascent conservative intelligentsia soon followed, including Russell Kirk's The Conservative Mind, William F. Buckley, Jr.'s God and Man at Yale, Whittaker Chambers's Witness, and Barry Goldwater's Conscience of a Conservative. Henry Regnery's son, Alfred Regnery, who took over in 1986 and moved the company to Washington, D.C., has likewise been both a friend to and publisher of conservative authors. After stints in law school (where he roomed with American Conservative Union Chairman David Keene) and as college director of Young Americans for Freedom, Alfred Regnery was appointed head of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention by Ronald Reagan in 1983. While there, as reported by Murray Waas in The New Republic, he helped run Edwin Meese's ill-fated President's Commission on Pornography; disbursed generous grants to Jerry Falwell's Liberty College, Meese pal George Nicholson, and professional antifeminist Phyllis Schlafly; authored, with then-Assistant Secretary of Education Gary Bauer, a much-ridiculed report called "Chaos in the Public Schools"; and in general cultivated an updated version of his father's network of friends.
But by the time Alfred Regnery took over the family business, the firm had slipped into semi-dormancy. Regnery Publishing's 1993 purchase by newsletter magnate Tom Phillips woke it up. Phillips, one of the Republican National Committee's "Team 100" and a board member of the Claremont Institute, lavished both money and attention on his new acquisition. Leaving Alfred Regnery at the helm, Phillips folded the company into his Eagle Publishing division, an overtly political enterprise with a distinguished stable of conservative media: Human Events, a 56-year-old,ultra-right weekly newspaper; the Evans-Novak Political Report; the 75,000-member Conservative Book Club (founded in 1964 as "America was walking down Lyndon Johnson's path to a socialist 'Great Society'"); and a similar operation called the Christian Family Book Club. But perhaps most significant--given the central role direct mail has played in the conservative resurgence of recent decades--is Eagle's list brokerage operation, which rents out Eagle's own customer lists and those of organizations like Newt Gingrich's GOPAC, Empower America, the Western Journalism Center, and the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation, not to mention Pat Buchanan's American Cause and the Steve Forbes for President campaign.
By the time Phillips Publishing spun off Eagle last July, an entirely new entity had emerged: a company that treats publishing less as a media enterprise than as a form of political activism. With a new, almost Gingrichian sensibility, Regnery's titles have begun to reflect the particular ideological and policy concerns of foundation-funded, third-wave conservative thinkers. Believe that the American family is in its death throes? Read Maggie Gallagher's The Abolition of Marriage: How We Destroy Lasting Love. Worried that American higher education is overrun by radical feminists and licentious left-wingers? Pick up the late George Roche's The Fall of the Ivory Tower: Government Funding, Corruption, and the Bankrupting of American Higher Education, or David Horowitz's The Heterodoxy Handbook: How to Survive the PC Campus. Believe that corrupt teachers' unions are the bane of the American education system? Read G. Gregory Moo's Power Grab: How the National Education Association is Betraying Our Children. If you suspect that the Walt Disney Corporation is out to lead children astray with Miramax films and "Gay Day" at Disney World, have a look at Disney: The Mouse Betrayed, by Peter and Rochelle Schweizer. And if you wonder whether more assault rifles equals less crime, imbibe the pithy wisdom of Wayne LaPierre's Guns, Crime, and Freedom.
Most of these authors hail from the tight-knit world of conservative think tanks and advocacy groups--the ideological heirs of Kirk, Buckley, and Goldwater. LaPierre, for instance, is vice president of the National Rifle Association, and Peter Schweizer is a media fellow at the Hoover Institution. Horowitz, whose career lately consists of writing one book every two years about his personal transformation from left-wing radical to right-wing reactionary, runs the Center for the Study of Popular Culture.
But the Phillips publishing family does not shy away from more direct forms of political engagement: According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Phillips International (then called Phillips Publishing International) gave $125,150 in soft money to the Republican National Committee (RNC) in 1997-1998, while Eagle Publishing gave the RNC another $19,500. (The RNC, notincidentally, was chaired by Regnery author Haley Barbour until January 1997.) The Phillips Publishing PAC has contributed $64,450 to various Republican officeholders and seekers during the same period, while Phillips himself gave $1,000 in contributions to 15 different Republican candidates in 1998. Eagle/Regnery, in other words, is more than just a conservative press--it is a partisan press, with close personal, organizational, and even fundraising ties to the Republican Party. It should thus come as no surprise that a frequent topic in the Regnery catalogue is one William Jefferson Clinton.
Since 1996, Regnery has published no less than eight presidential exposés: Roger Morris's Partners in Power: The Clintons and Their America, Bill Gertz's Betrayal: How the Clinton Administration Undermined American Security, Edward Timperlake and William C. Triplett's Year of the Rat: How Bill Clinton Compromised U.S. Security for Chinese Cash, Ann Coulter's High Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Case Against Bill Clinton, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard's The Secret Life of Bill Clinton: The Unreported Stories, Gary Aldrich's Unlimited Access: An FBI Agent Inside the Clinton White House, and R. Emmett Tyrrell's The Impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton: A Political Docu-Drama and Boy Clinton: The Political Biography. To date, five of these books have made various best-seller lists.
For all intents and purposes, the eight are interchangeable--with each other and, stylistically, with most of the other political books in Regnery's catalogue. Each posits a nebulous conspiracy centered around the Clinton White House, a murky stew that typically blends one or more of the following ingredients: shady banking and land deals loosely grouped under the "Whitewater" rubric; the murder--or induced suicide--of Vince Foster; Filegate and Travelgate; dalliances with prostitutes and nymphets; rampant drug use; treason via Chinese spies; and an Arkansas-based, Clinton-masterminded drug-smuggling outfit.
Thus constructed, Regnery's Clinton books run from the racy to the absurd. Tyrrell's Boy Clinton follows the future president from alleged cocaine benders with Little Rock entrepreneur Dan Lasater to his sojourn with communists in Prague during the late 1960s. ("Inquiries I had made about his trip to Moscow turned up little that was new," Tyrrell writes breathlessly. "People were still wondering where he had gotten sufficient funding for such a trip. Some still suspected a KGB front. Others suggested the CIA.") Coulter, although her tone is even more vicious than Evans-Pritchard's ("We have a national debate about whether he 'did it,' even though all sentient people know he did," she writes. "[O]therwise there would only be debates about whether to impeach or assassinate."), relies mostly on the standard litany: Whitewater, Foster's "mysterious" death, Filegate, and Clinton's Paula Jones deposition. It is Evans-Pritchard who proposes what is easily the most tangled web of Clintonian malfeasance, touching not only on the usual stuff--booze, women, land deals--but also on the Oklahoma City bombing, which he argues was actually an FBI sting gone wrong and one of many Justice Department operations by which Bill Clinton has sought to turn America into a police state.
The most infamous of the Regnery titles is undoubtedly Gary Aldrich's Unlimited Access, which included such "revelations" as lesbian encounters in the White House's basement showers, Hillary Clinton ordering miniature crack pipes to hang on the White House Christmas tree, and the claim--backed by anonymous sources--that Clinton made frequent trips to the nearby Marriott to shack up with a mistress "who may be a celebrity." That last bit helped catapult Unlimited Access to the top of The New York Times's best-seller list, though Aldrich soon revealed to The New Yorker's Jane Mayer that the Marriott story was "not quite solid" and, indeed, was "hypothetical." But according to Aldrich, it was Regnery editor Richard Vigilante who had moved the Marriott bit out of the epilogue (where it had been presented as a "mock investigation") and into the middle of the book (where it was presented as an actual occurrence). Vigilante, Aldrich told Mayer, threatened not to publish the book if Aldrich didn't agree to the changes.
In fact, the defects of Unlimited Access--a reliance on loose or anonymous sourcing; the blending of fact, fiction, and fantasy; the influence of Regnery's anti-Clinton esprit de corps--can be found, to varying degrees, in nearly all of Regnery's Clinton books. The drug-smuggling charges in Tyrrell's and Evans-Pritchard's books, for instance, were first aired in the pages of the Scaife-funded American Spectator, the hysterically conservative magazine of which Tyrrell is editor, founder, and chief polemicist. "The Arkansas Drug Shuttle," published in the Spectator in 1995, was a fanciful tale of cocaine smuggling, the CIA, and black cargo jets told to Tyrrell by former Arkansas state trooper L.D. Brown--who happened to be on the Spectator's payroll at the time. Indeed, Tyrrell's dispatches stirred considerable controversy among the magazine's own staff. "Even within the Spectator, people had problems with the [drug-smuggling] stories," says David Brock, the Spectator's star investigative reporter at the time. "People didn't feel that they met the standards of the Spectator." Senior editor Christopher Caldwell jumped ship for The Weekly Standard, and when longtime Spectator publisher Ronald Burr tried to order an independent audit, Tyrrell fired him. "I can't really comment on the Spectator," says Alfred Regnery, who stands by all his company's Clinton books. "But a book publisher doesn't have the same obligations as a magazine. We cross-examine the authors to some extent, but publishers do not have the wherewithal to check every single fact."
Yet Regnery Publishing seems not just to encourage conspiracy theorizing from its authors, but to demand it. In 1997 Alfred Regnery approached veteran crime reporter Dan Moldea about writing a book on the Vince Foster case. Regnery, says Moldea, hoped that his contacts within the law-enforcement community would shed new light on the case. But Moldea came to the same conclusions as all the official inquiries did. "There were some mistakes, some omissions," says Moldea. "But this was a dead-bang, bona fide suicide." When Moldea turned in A Washington Tragedy: How the Death of Vincent Foster Ignited a Political Firestorm, the editors at Regnery "were less than thrilled. There were some real battles that went on between us, between me and the staff," he says. "Things were being cut out of the book that I was really upset about, like this section on Scaife. It got so bad that I was almost hoping that they would reject the book, because I knew that they were just going to seal it and it would never see the light of day."
That, according to Moldea, was roughly the fate of Linda Tripp's own account of the Lewinsky scandal. In January, Alfred Regnery told The Washington Post that Vigilante had turned down Tripp's book in 1996 because her asking price of a half-million dollars was too high. "I came away with the impression of a woman who valued her privacy and her professional career," Vigilante said at the time, "and who was distinctly uninterested in writing a book." That wasn't quite the case, says Moldea. Regnery told him that Tripp "had come to Regnery wanting to write a book about Vince Foster and her experiences in the White House." But, says Moldea, she believed that if she ticked off her superiors, "she would have trouble with her job as a federal employee. So she was pulling her punches, and Richard Vigilante decided to reject her book."
It's not clear whether such decisions result from a top-down editorial policy or simply from a sort of reverse vetting process conducted by overeager staff editors. Alfred Regnery himself is no fire-breathing demagogue; Phillips, the more enthusiastically ideological of the two, may be more directly responsible for the direction Regnery's books began to take in 1993. "I always liked Al Regnery, even though we had nothing in common," says Moldea, who credits Regnery with standing by his version of the Foster book in the face of heavy intra-company criticism. Similarly, David Brock says that after criticizing the Aldrich book in Esquire, "I got a weird call from Alfred Regnery. He said he agreed with what I had said, and he conceded that there were problems with the book. Then I wanted details, but he didn't want to talk about it anymore." It is Vigilante's name, moreover, that comes up most frequently regarding editorial heavy-handedness.
What is clear, however, is that Regnery's conspiracy theorizing has benefited greatly from Eagle Publishing's web of media enterprises. Sometimes the synergies are transparent, as when Human Events published a list of the "10 Best Conservative Books of 1998," five of which were Regnery titles. Sometimes they're more subtle--not to say conspiratorial. Human Events editor Terrence Jeffrey had ample time, for instance, to convince Buchanan to switch to Regnery during the 1996 presidential race, when he served as Buchanan's campaign manager. (Jeffrey also failed to disclose his relationship with Buchanan when he penned a lengthy, front-page defense of A Republic, Not An Empire in the September 17 issue of Human Events). When Human Events excerpted the "Cox Report" in its June 4 issue, the weekly's lead feature was none other than Caspar Weinberger's introduction to Regnery's edition of the "Cox Report." Regnery's "Cox Report", in turn, was published the same month that Bill Gertz's Betrayal hit the stands (and just a few months before Regnery put out a second Timperlake and Triplett book, Red Dragon Rising: Communist China's Military Threat to America). Similarly, after Aldrich's Unlimited Access was published in June 1996, Human Events ran a five-page excerpt of the book in its July 5 issue--followed, in subsequent issues, by eight more articles defending or discussing the book. Tyrrell's Boy Clinton was also excerpted that year, while the Schweizers' Disney: The Mouse Betrayed was excerpted last spring. Like all Regnery titles, each was heavily hyped by the Conservative Book Club.
Certainly such coordination would not have required many phone calls; Human Events, Regnery, and the Conservative Book Club all share the same Washington, D.C., address. "There's no contract that exists that says we have to carry 'x' number of Regnery titles each year," says Brin Lewis, who doubles as vice president of Eagle Publishing and president of Eagle's book club division, which owns the Conservative Book Club. "But we carry a lot of them."
Normally, implausible exposés are relegated to remainder bins and the back pages of The National Enquirer. But partly thanks to Eagle's pipeline to the conservative elite, and partly thanks to a powerful direct mail operation that doubles as a de facto Eagle publicity machine, the likes of Aldrich's miniature crack pipes make it into broader forums like The Weekly Standard and The Wall Street Journal--and from there out into the political ether. Allegations of Clinton-related drug smuggling at Arkansas' Mena Intermountain Municipal Airport, for instance, filtered up from the Spectator and Regnery's Clinton books to The Washington Times and The Wall Street Journal--the latter running favorable reviews of the books as well as numerous editorials about the Mena "scandal"--which led to further recycling by The Washington Post and dozens of other newspapers in 1996 and 1997. Indeed, as recently as last March, a Wall Street Journal editorial writer used the Juanita Broadrick controversy as occasion to flog, yet again, the Mena connection. Such ludicrous charges might easily be dismissed as rant. Yet in the past three years, Republicans in Congress have opened not one, but two official inquiries into the matter--one under the auspices of the House Banking committee and one by the CIA Inspector General's office.
But if nothing else, attacking Bill Clinton has been a lucrative endeavor. "What's bad for the country is good for Eagle Publishing," gushed Tom Phillips to his audience at the annual right-wing convocation known as "the Weekend" last February. "Seven successful anti-Clinton books! We took six of them and put them in a shrink-wrapped six-pack for $99." When Clinton leaves office, there's always his presumptive heir; released in May, excerpted in Human Events--and offered free, via direct mail, to new Human Events subscribers--was former ABC analyst Bob Zelnick's Gore: A Political Life. And if Gore sells poorly, Eagle can always to go back to the Clinton well: Currently in bookstores, just in time for primary season, is Barbara Olson's Hell to Pay: The Unfolding Story of Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Nicholas Confessore is a reporter for The New York Times. Previously he was an American Prospect senior correspondent and an editor of The Washington Monthly
|
|
|
| |
|
Dandandat
|
Feb 7 2008, 11:37 AM
Post #57
|
Time to put something here
- Posts:
- 17,948
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #34
- Joined:
- August 30, 2003
|
- Intrepid
-
I can unequivocally say the same thing for John McCain, Barack Obama and John Edwards. Center-left, Center-right, I can take.
I would have to disagree with this? Barack Obama and John Edwards Center-left - I dont think so. joe lieberman is Center-left Edwards and Obama are just left.
|
|
|
| |
|
Minuet
|
Feb 7 2008, 11:47 AM
Post #58
|
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
- Posts:
- 36,559
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #2
- Joined:
- May 19, 2003
|
Ok, I have another article to share. This time from Snopes. I am finding more stuff like this then I am on the actual allegation of misuse of the military men.
I'll just provide the link on this. Apparently there has been an email floating about that purports to be a list of quotes from Hillary. According to Snopes some have been misquoted, others taken out of context, and still others are based on the claims of those around her but are not proven. Snopes is usually really good about not taking sides.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/hildabeast.asp
|
|
|
| |
|
RTW
|
Feb 7 2008, 11:49 AM
Post #59
|
Vice Admiral
- Posts:
- 7,678
- Group:
- Senior Officer
- Member
- #543
- Joined:
- February 12, 2006
|
- Wichita
- Feb 7 2008, 04:30 AM
Some generals have said that she is probably the most educated of all the liberal senators about the military and that is because she has worked hard to actually learn something about it as a senator.
Most educated senator about the military would be impressive.
Most educated liberal senator about the military - not so much.
|
|
|
| |
|
8247
|
Feb 7 2008, 11:50 AM
Post #60
|
Apparently we look like this now
- Posts:
- 16,246
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #75
- Joined:
- October 14, 2003
|
- Minuet
- Feb 7 2008, 08:00 AM
- 8247
- Feb 7 2008, 03:11 AM
I really don't have to respond to your questions, or provide links. IE wanted to know why people don't like Hillary. I listed many reasons why, and I'm not going to let you pick apart my opinion in an attempt to make me look foolish. IE asked a question, I answered it. My opinion is just as valid as anyone elses...even yours. And, I really don't care what your opinion of my opinion is. My answers do not have to "qualify" to be considered on this board, nor do I have to provide links to articles (other people's opinions) to back up my own opinions.
Please provide a link to an article to qualify your opinion of my opinion, and why your opinion is better than my opinion.
Thank you.
No, you don't have to respond to anything. But your comments don't stand up to much scrutiny. The opinions are not based on facts. I am not trying to ridicule you. I only laughed at the one particular response because what I quoted is from YOUR OWN LINK. For the responses I asked quite serious questions. When you make a list such as you did and try to pass it off as a list of facts you are subject to be asked for proof. If you cannot be bothered that's fine. But don't expect me to have much respect for your opinion.
You don't respect ANYONE's opinion.
|
|
|
| |