« Favorite Opinion Columnist List | Main | The Nutroots: learning the wrong lessons »

Jay Tea Vs. Hillary: This Time It's Personal

Well, there she goes again. Senator Hillary Clinton (D-IL AR NY) has trotted out her classic whine about the "vast right-wing conspiracy" again. Normally, I'd just shrug (or giggle) and MoveOn, but this time she decided to cite as evidence a particularly nasty black mark in our history here in New Hampshire: the 2002 phone jamming scandal.

Let me recap that sordid incident for you: in 2002, the race to succeed Bob Smith in the United States Senate was a particularly close one. Republican Congressman John E. Sununu (who bumped Smith off in a primary race) was going up against Democratic former governor Jeanne Shaheen, and it was a real nail-biter. A high-ranking Republican official got the clever idea of screwing with the Democrats' "get out the vote" move by hiring a telemarketing agency to repeatedly call into the Democrats' offices, blocking calls from voters needing rides and keeping them from calling out to voters to remind them to get to the polls. Sununu won a narrow victory.

Senator Clinton told a New Hampshire audience that ""To the New Hampshire Democratic Party's credit, they sued and the trail led all the way to the Republican National Committee." That's not quite how it happened.

Before the Democrats' lawsuit was heard, there was a criminal investigation. And as a result of that, three people -- two Republican officials and the head of the telemarketing agency -- went to prison. THEN the Democrats sued the state Republican party, and eventually settled out of court.

Personally, I was glad that these guys went to the slammer. One thing we can NOT afford to tolerate is anyone -- ANYONE -- for ANY reason assing around with elections. In fact, I was actually disappointed in the settlement. The Republicans will end up paying a little over $100,000; I ran the numbers a couple of ways, and thought they should have had to fork over about $2,000,000.

OK, Senator, you've brought up the mote in our eye. I don't particularly appreciate it, but it's a fair cop. It happened, it's documented history, It's a black mark that us New Hampshirites -- Republicans, Democrats, and Independents -- will have to bear. But would you mind if I took a look at a few beams in your eyes?

1) I know you've made your husband's impeachment a verboten topic, but it seems germane in light of the Scooter Libby trial. Under your administration, what would your Justice Department's position be on lying under oath in federal proceedings -- just when would it be acceptable, or at least not worthy of prosecution?

2) In the 1970's, you made a singular foray into the cattle futures market. Thanks to a skilled and knowledgeable "friend" who managed your trades (as in absorbed all your losses), you parlayed $1,000 into $100,000. Could you use that same keen financial acumen to perhaps bring down the federal deficit?

3) All throughout your husband's administration, you stood by him while he repeatedly affirmed that Saddam Hussein was a threat, even to the point of launching military strikes. You persisted in that belief to the point of voting for the Authorization of Military Force in 2003, which led to the invasion of Iraq and deposing of Saddam, in accordance with the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. At what point did Saddam suddenly stop being a threat, and just when did you realize it?

4) When Congress subpoenaed your billing records from your tenure at the Rose Law Firm, you were "unable" to produce them for over two years. Then, they "turned up" in your private quarters in the White House. Did the maid misplace them? Did Chelsea play a prank on you?

5) In 1996, you were allegedly involved in the improper acquisition of literally hundreds of FBI files of some of your husband's political enemies. Was there any good dirt in there?

6) In the last days of his administration, your husband did as several other presidents have done, and issued some rather controversial pardons -- including some Puerto Rican terrorists and some Hasidic rabbis who had been caught in a tax evasion scheme. Both groups had significant support in New York City, among your then-would-be constituents. Did you have any foreknowledge of these pardons? Were you involved in any way in these pardons being issued?

7) In the early 1970's, you served as a counsel for the House Committee that prepared impeachment procedings against President Nixon. In the 1990's, you stood by your husband when he became only the second president in history to be impeached. Given your unique perspective on the matter, could you offer your opinions on the practicality of the calls for President Bush's impeachment?

I'm so glad you announced you wanted to have a "dialogue" with America, Senator. I'll be looking for you during your future trips to my home state of New Hampshire, and hope we'll be able to discuss these matters.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Jay Tea Vs. Hillary: This Time It's Personal:

» The LLama Butchers linked with Now she's done it

Comments (41)

When I read about the "re-e... (Below threshold)
Waffle King:

When I read about the "re-emergence" of the VRWC, my first thought was, "She's getting desperate." One can almost hear the pucker in her voice. She is shrill and whiny enough when things go her way, but when the worm turns she is almost unbearable.

Don't swallow your false te... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Don't swallow your false teeth her Jay. I love what you wrote (well most of it). I can't abide by her. I have this dream where she and McCain and Kerry and and all the other "which way is the wind blowing" old old politicians from the 90s just go away....far far far away.

Hilary Rotten Clinton is ... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

Hilary Rotten Clinton is a modern day Medusa. She makes old Medusa look like a Barby in comparison.

I strongly advise against y... (Below threshold)
epador:

I strongly advise against you taking up jogging in Rock Creek Park, JT.

epador: Good advice.... (Below threshold)
Old Coot:

epador: Good advice.

Waiting on old "pucker puss... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

Waiting on old "pucker puss" to chime in-tick tick tick----

No offense Jay, but my mone... (Below threshold)
Baron Von Ottomatic:

No offense Jay, but my money's on the thick-ankled shrew since she's packing an experienced, talented, and well-paid smear machine. Oh, plus the media - which to a woman (and man, for that matter) would personally play Monica to Bubba.

"I strongly advise against ... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

"I strongly advise against you taking up jogging in Rock Creek Park, JT."

I believe they have signs posted, skull and cross bones, peligroso etc.

I don't think she will be a... (Below threshold)

I don't think she will be able to answer these, remember the "I don't bake cookies" fiasco.

What amazes me is that Hillary Clinton is still in the public forum considering she is every single joke that Jeff Foxworthy says.

I'll see Sen. Clinton's evi... (Below threshold)
Gizmo:

I'll see Sen. Clinton's evidence as to the existence of a "VRWC" and raise her all of the Democratic shannigans in 2004 (GTOV van tire slashing, voter registration fraud, vandalized GOP offices, etc.).

I don't think she ... (Below threshold)
I don't think she will be able to answer these, remember the "I don't bake cookies" fiasco.

Sure she will. I have yet to hear one tough question asked of her by any representative of the MSM since she first came to national attention in 1992. Also, she's very adroit at picking venues where she doesn't have to. During her first Senate run, the supposedy "tough" NY press gave her a free ride. I doubt that's going to change now.

I've respected Hillary for ... (Below threshold)
John Irving:

I've respected Hillary for quite some time, and even considered her a viable choice in 2008, particularly if the Republicans put up some absolute shmuck.

She's making it more and more difficult to take her seriously.

Considering that the left i... (Below threshold)
Eric:

Considering that the left is trying to make hay out of the administration firing 8 U.S. Attorneys what is HRC's opinion of her husband's administration's unprecedented action of firing ALL U.S. Attorneys when he took office.

Trackbacked by The Thunder ... (Below threshold)

Trackbacked by The Thunder Run - Web Reconnaissance for 03/14/2007
A short recon of what's out there that might draw your attention.

Eric,More than that:... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

Eric,
More than that: Hillary herself has called for the AGs head, depiste Pres. Clinton's firing of every single US Att. and her own firing of the entire White House travel staff.

"...what is HRC's opinio... (Below threshold)
Lee:

"...what is HRC's opinion of her husband's administration's unprecedented action of firing ALL U.S. Attorneys when he took office."

Your ignorance is showing. Firing them all is SOP.

It's when you only fire select attorneys does the question of "Why those and not the others?" pops up. It was a bonehead move, and it should cost the AG his job.

...and why did Meirs resign?

Lee, care to address the su... (Below threshold)
JimK:

Lee, care to address the substance of Jay's post, or are you going to capitalize on the chance to change the subject again?

Leftwingloon: Hey, why do ... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

Leftwingloon: Hey, why do you keep harping on the Clintons, Party of Halliburton!

Oh, "they're" running again. Oops.

JimK - I addressed Eric's c... (Below threshold)
Lee:

JimK - I addressed Eric's comment above instead of Jay's post -- and then you addressed my comment instead of Jay's post.

Get a life, troll.

That's untrue Lee. ... (Below threshold)
Eric:

That's untrue Lee.
Traditionally Presidents replace some U.S. Attorneys.

Clinton was the first President to fire ALL of the U.S. Attorneys.

Your ignorance is showing.

<a href="http://tinyurl.com... (Below threshold)
Lee, whose ingorance is showing:

Heh.

The e-mails released Tuesday revealed that the firings were considered and discussed for two years by Justice Department and White House officials. The issue first arose in a February 2005 discussion between Sampson and Miers, officials said. At the time, Miers suggested the possibility of firing all 93 U.S. attorneys. Such purges of the political appointees often come at the beginning of a new president's administration, not midway through.

"some" or "all" is rather irrelvant, wouldn't you say, Eric?

Lee, Clinton was the *first... (Below threshold)
Gmac:

Lee, Clinton was the *first* to fire all 93 U.S. AG's. His wife's pal, Webb Hubble is believed to be the hand that was controlling Janet Reno's decision.

It was the same thing in the White House Travel Officee too. The people there had served 3 different administrations till the Clintons decided to put a relative in charge.

Hillery is a ruthless opponent, don't ever forget that or the possibility exists that you might be found in a park.

Lee what part of this state... (Below threshold)
Eric:

Lee what part of this statement don't you understand?

Clinton was the first President to fire all 93 U.S. Attorneys.

The AG is the boss...he get... (Below threshold)
moseby:

The AG is the boss...he gets to fire any liberal pussies he wants--he doesn't answer to cumstain liberal dimocrats in congress. Shut up lee--yer a dick

Eric - Meirs wanted to fire... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Eric - Meirs wanted to fire them all, but Bush didn't have the balls.

What difference does it make? What's your point? That Bush is an idiot and can be counted on to do the wrong thing? I knew that already...

Are you suggesting that by Bush selectively singling out targeted attorneys he was being smart? Check the headlines, dude.... not smart.

No Lee, President Bush h... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

No Lee, President Bush has been too fricken kind to your scumbag masters who should have been swinging long before Sadam. Also , dozens of levers should have been constructed so losers like yourself could take part in destroying that which you have help to create. Damn! there is just one problem with this senario , President Bush isn't a DICTO-CRAT.

Lee,The difference i... (Below threshold)
Eric:

Lee,
The difference is that

1) you were wrong when you said lot's of other Presidents fired all of the U.S. Attorneys. President Clinton was the first and only President to fire all 93 U.S. Attorneys

2) If it is a scandal for Bush to fire 8 U.S. Attorneys where is the outrage for Clinton having fired all of the U.S. Attorneys? Why the disparity in coverage by both the media and the Democrats?

8 vs. 93! Come on, don't be stupid. Explain how it was okay for Clinton to fire 93, and a bad thing for Bush to fire 8.

Eric - What I said was "... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Eric - What I said was " Firing them all is SOP." Not that lots of Presidents had done it. The fact that Clinton did, and Meiers wanted to, suggests that it is indeed the current SOP. Bush didn't, and again -- I question whether that is too his credit.

"If it is a scandal for Bush to fire 8 U.S. Attorneys where is the outrage for Clinton having fired all of the U.S. Attorneys? Why the disparity in coverage by both the media and the Democrats?"

Clinton didn't single out individuals who had apparently good performance reviews as did Bush - which clearly suggests that the Republicans were "punishing" those for not doing the bidding of the pissed-off Republicans.

To me, it suggests and creates an oppressive air - a heavy-handedness -- "sit up and bark when a Republican congressman calls on you, or you'll get the axe". It shows that motives other than justice were a factor.

It isn't "what" happened that is the nut of the issue - it's the "why?"....

What I said was " ... (Below threshold)
JimK:
What I said was " Firing them all is SOP." Not that lots of Presidents had done it. The fact that Clinton did, and Meiers wanted to, suggests that it is indeed the current SOP.

That is utter crap. ONE president doing it ONCE does not make it SOP. Not by any definition. Evey you aren't that stupid.

Also, when do you plan to address the substance of Jay's post, or are you unable to refute anything he wrote, so you gladly jumped on a chance to change the topic?

"What I said was " Firin... (Below threshold)
Eric:

"What I said was " Firing them all is SOP." Not that lots of Presidents had done it. The fact that Clinton did, and Meiers wanted to, suggests that it is indeed the current SOP. Bush didn't, and again -- I question whether that is too his credit."

Are you saying you would have been okay with Bush firing all 93? I think you are being dishonest. Can you honestly say that you would have been okay with Bush firing 93 attorneys when you are here complaining about him firing 8? That makes no sense Lee.

I keep repeating Lee, Clinton was the first and only President to fire all 93 U.S. Attorneys. That is not a standard practice.

"Clinton didn't single out individuals who had apparently good performance reviews as did Bush - which clearly suggests that the Republicans were "punishing" those for not doing the bidding of the pissed-off Republicans."

Don't you suppose that some of the 93 attorneys fired by Clinton had good performance reviews too?
Are you are saying that it was political for Bush to fire 8, but not political for Clinton to fire 93?

Keep in mind that after Clinton fired the 93, he also got to replace them. Objectively, are you really okay with that? Would you be okay with Bush firing all 93 U.S. Attorneys and replacing all of them?

"To me, it suggests and creates an oppressive air - a heavy-handedness "

8 vs. 93 Lee, 8 vs. 93. What are you saying about heavy handedness?

JimK - With Clinton and Mei... (Below threshold)
Lee:

JimK - With Clinton and Meirs both favoring this approach, that makes it SOP for the last 17 years, you jackass.

Oh I forgot - you neanderthal conservatives are still stuck back in the 1900s, my bad...

"Are you saying you woul... (Below threshold)
Lee:

"Are you saying you would have been okay with Bush firing all 93? "

Of course! If Bill Clinton did it must be a great idea. Bush didn't and now his tit is in a wringer. Ooops!

"I keep repeating Lee, Clinton was the first and only President to fire all 93 U.S. Attorneys. That is not a standard practice."

Yeah, you keep repeating pointless information. CLinton did it, and Meirs wanted to - that establishes 17 years of practice.

In addition, a purge has been SOP.

The e-mails released Tuesday revealed that the firings were considered and discussed for two years by Justice Department and White House officials. The issue first arose in a February 2005 discussion between Sampson and Miers, officials said. At the time, Miers suggested the possibility of firing all 93 U.S. Attorneys. Such purges of the political appointees often come at the beginning of a new president's administration, not midway through.

More "standard practice" - practice that Bush mistakenly didn't follow - now America wants to know "why?".

What America wants to know, Eric, is why - why were these guys fired - what did they do that was differnt than the others? What message was Bush trying to send to the remaining attorneys?

You don't get it... and that's why the headlines are against you, again.

But keep repeating the same pointless information over and over again and sooner or later --uhm -- well, sooner or later you'll realize it just doesn't matter.

"Keep in mind that after Clinton fired the 93, he also got to replace them. Objectively, are you really okay with that? Would you be okay with Bush firing all 93 U.S. Attorneys and replacing all of them?"

There you go with that repeating thing again....

"8 vs. 93 Lee, 8 vs. 93. What are you saying about heavy handedness?"

You repeated yourself again. I'm saying singling out specific attorneys for political reasons, rather than treating them all the same, was a mistake. Clearly you don't get it. Step up to the wringer and take your turn after Bush. Sooner or later the light bulb will come on.. or not.

My guess is... "not".

Lee: 1) ONE presid... (Below threshold)

Lee:

1) ONE president doing something ONE time, and an advisor to the next president wanting to do the same and NOT being listened to, does NOT make it "Standard Operating Procedure."

2) What the hell do the US attorneys have to do with anything with the topic at hand? I didn't mention them at all in the original posting! It wasn't until Eric added it to the list in a comment that you found your "talking point" that you could ride into your favorite tactic -- "let's change the subject!!!!"

You routinely call others "trolls," but you have no problem going along with them cheerfully when it suits your purpose -- which is "when I can't argue the point, I'll change the subject and hijack the whole thread." Ain't it nice when someone gives you that first little excuse to run like hell with?

J.

"What the hell do the US... (Below threshold)
Lee:

"What the hell do the US attorneys have to do with anything with the topic at hand? "

Why are you addressing this to me, and not to Eric?

"You routinely call others "trolls," but you have no problem going along with them cheerfully when it suits your purpose..."

Kettle, meet Jay - Jay - kettle. You routinely call me a troll, but routinely ignore when others like Eric do the same thing. Hijack the whole thread? As if it's my fault that you get trolls like Eric (your definition) who just keep repeating the same pointless point over and over again?

Now he's got you repeating it -- 16 years of White House administration have decided a wholesale purge of the US attorneys is a good idea, Jay --

-- but that's not the point - that's the troll's talking point which you've now adopted - the point is "why" were these particular attorney's axed?

And can I help it if people respond to my comments more often than they respond to your posts?

Well, I guess I can - but don't blame me for it, Jay - maybe you should be more provocative?

or interesting..

or something! Repeating the trolls' talking points -- that he's already repeated numerous times -- hasn't brought things back on topic, now has it?

The reason the Criminal C... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

The reason the Criminal Clintons Fired every single US Attorney is because they are criminals who must have complete control. They were in his pocket and explains why they got away with so much crime. It also explains how shocking the dozens of deaths that all gravitated to the most corrupt criminals that have disgraced the White House and our Country, THE CLINTONS.

For starters:<a hr... (Below threshold)
Publicus:
The reason the Cri... (Below threshold)
Publicus:
The reason the Criminal Clintons Fired every single US Attorney is because they are criminals who must have complete control.

Yes, control! And they abused that power to put Rep. Dan Rostenkowski (did Fox ever call him a Republican?) into jail.

I can't believe you put up ... (Below threshold)
JimK:

I can't believe you put up with a lying, trolling jerk like Lee, Jay. His ability to flip and flop and outright lie, as well as ignore any point that proves him wrong, is simply amazing.

Anyone but me notice that p... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

Anyone but me notice that poor old "pucker puss" (lee lee) (RTP) RM) just gave himself a big-o pat on the back. "more interesting then Jay" (LOL) Watch your head there it might explode. You only get answered because of your off topic BS that you have in each and every post. You know-the "ditto" thing. Read one -read them all even with your linkie linkies. Sorry p'p' but don't get too full of it.

JimK;We undeniable... (Below threshold)
epador:

JimK;

We undeniablee put up with lee because he so well demonstrates the leeberals have leetle brains and leeterally no ability to leed a consistentlee coherent dialeeg.

Jay...wondering your take o... (Below threshold)
nogo postal:



Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy