Stand with Hillary

[sean miguel]

Please do and please win the nomination.

George McGovern redux.

 

[Johan]

Please do and please win the nomination.

George McGovern redux.

Actually, these last years, Democrats won when they ran as progressives. When they ran as republican wannabees, they loose

 

[laidoff2]

Just did an image search looking for a picture of Hillary from any point in her life that might give me half a chubby, so I could say I wouldn't stand with her but I might get balls deep in her.

Nope.

However get me a three way with Palin and Wendy Davis and that'll be long and dirty.

 

[Rey C.]

As much as I can't stand identity politics there's no getting around that it's in play. Jeb Bush is married to a latina. He's pro something or other about amnesty.
Didn't W get the highest % of latino votes of any GOP candidate since forever?

That was then. This is now. Don't look for that to happen again anytime soon. A majority of Asians also voted for Reagan back in the day. But by 2012, almost three-quarters of them voted for Obama. Though by differing margins, the same thing is true of Hispanics and Jews. This new look GOP has somehow, some way managed to shrink Reagan's big tent party into a regional party that can't do much outside the deep South and the Midwest. A lot of people voted for Obama (myself included) not so much because they/we were in love with him, but because they/we were disgusted by the rabble that has taken over the GOP in the last 15 years or so. Where is the next Jack Kemp? And what happened to John McCain? His brain used to function fairly well... before he got tangled up with that trailer dweller, Caribou Barbie, from Alaska. Paul Ryan is not a moron. If you can find some of his earlier unfiltered writings, he actually has some rather intriguing fiscal policy ideas. But in order for him to be able to present his economic ideas, he has to play along with the raw-meat eating knuckle-draggers. Gotta feed them bears.

I think Jeb Bush would be the front runner if he decides to throw his hat in.

To be honest, the only thing I have against Jeb is his last name. Well, his first name doesn't do much for me either. But I'd make myself vote for a Jeb (especially over a Hillary). But I don't know about putting another Bush in the White House - and no more Clintons either! The first Bush was a wet dish rag obsessed with foreign policy and the second one came THIS close to destroying the Republic. OK, maybe Barbara. She seems like a nice enough grandmotherly type. She's almost 90, but she surely has better sense than her boy, Duhbya.

 

[Rey C.]

Actually, these last years, Democrats won when they ran as progressives. When they ran as republican wannabees, they loose

Democrats have won the Presidency (there's only been Clinton and Obama since the 1970's) when they've presented themselves as moderates or centrists. I think "progressive" is just the new word for liberal, right? Yeah, I don't look for that to work so well. Why do I think that? Well, since his last win, Obama has run to the left faster than a fat kid eats cake. And now, about the only things more unpopular than him is Congress... and Onion Gum.

America is still a center-right country. Both socially and economically, we have moved substantially to the left in my lifetime. But as a country, we don't have much desire for extremists on the left or the right. But hopefully the Democrats will make the same mistake the Republicans have made (find every loopy-headed wingnut that has a head full of flakey ideas) and run them for national office at every opportunity. The only hope that people like me have is that the two main gangs... I mean, parties, will self-destruct and implode. Then maybe some third party will form, supported by the kinds of people I met when I was involved in United We Stand. I know it will never happen. But a man has to have a dream to keep him going.

 

[mikexmoran]

Democrats have won the Presidency (there's only been Clinton and Obama since the 1970's) when they've presented themselves as moderates or centrists. I think "progressive" is just the new word for liberal, right? Yeah, I don't look for that to work so well. Why do I think that? Well, since his last win, Obama has run to the left faster than a fat kid eats cake. And now, about the only things more unpopular than him is Congress... and Onion Gum.

America is still a center-right country. Both socially and economically, we have moved substantially to the left in my lifetime. But as a country, we don't have much desire for extremists on the left or the right. But hopefully the Democrats will make the same mistake the Republicans have made (find every loopy-headed wingnut that has a head full of flakey ideas) and run them for national office at every opportunity. The only hope that people like me have is that the two main gangs... I mean, parties, will self-destruct and implode. Then maybe some third party will form, supported by the kinds of people I met when I was involved in United We Stand. I know it will never happen. But a man has to have a dream to keep him going.

Thoughtful post. Nice job.

I'm a liberal conservative. Nobody has asked me (especially not my wife), but I would not like to see the U.S. go down the same path as Europe. We outperform Europe. (Argue the EU to me, but its a foot race, right - I hope they make it, but time will tell. I think we need to let go of the social issues (restrictions and in some case the idea that we need to be so apologetic about everything) address Wall St seriously, hit corporate welfare in an intelligent way, and make cuts in military spending.

Show me the candidate that will do that and they have my vote. They will probably not be elected, but they'll have my vote.

Warren is far from perfect, but probably the smartest of the bozos I'm hearing about.

I may be wrong, but I think GWB was a bit of a bumpkin with his cowboy heart in the right place. Bad things happened.
How about a smart asshole with their heart in the right place? I don't see that person yet. Teddy Roosevelt is still dead, right? I think he still has a term coming to him.

...or Jimmy Buffett. What about Jimmy Buffett for President??

 

[Johan]

Obama has run to the left faster than a fat kid eats cake. And now, about the only things more unpopular than him is Congress... and Onion Gum.

Obama has run to the left ?! Seriously ?
Apart from Obama-care (which, basically is what Romney did in Massachusetts), what did he did that makes you think he has run to the left. And I mean what did he did, not what did he said . Because during both campaigns he made a lot of liberal promises andsaid he was in favor of a lot of liberal stuff but as a president, he never actually did anything. He did not raised the federal minimum wage, he did not change the gun legislation, he did not legalize marriage or any form of civil union to gay people, he choosed an anti-death penalty Generalm Attorney but Holder or Obama did not change the law on this issue.
What Obama actually did is bailing-out the automotive industry and the banks. And that is certainly not what anyone could call "running to the left".

America is still a center-right country. Both socially and economically, we have moved substantially to the left in my lifetime. But as a country, we don't have much desire for extremists on the left or the right.

If you consider Warren to be extrem-left, you have no idea about what is the Left (and then I can understand why yo usay Obama runs to the left). Warren is center-left
The medias want you to think she's extrem-left because they are sold-out to the banks and the banks think Warren is the Devil.

 

[Rey C.]

Obama has run to the left ?! Seriously ?
Apart from Obama-care (which, basically is what Romney did in Massachusetts), what did he did that makes you think he has run to the left. And I mean what did he did, not what did he said . Because during both campaigns he made a lot of liberal promises andsaid he was in favor of a lot of liberal stuff but as a president, he never actually did anything. He did not raised the federal minimum wage, he did not change the gun legislation, he did not legalize marriage or any form of civil union to gay people, he choosed an anti-death penalty Generalm Attorney but Holder or Obama did not change the law on this issue.
What Obama actually did is bailing-out the automotive industry and the banks. And that is certainly not what anyone could call "running to the left".

What you forget is that these things you say he didn't do, he did want to do... but he simply did not have the Constitutional power to do (on his own). And the automotive (and banking) bailout was actually started under Bush, not Obama. He did go above and beyond by facilitating a fast-track bankruptcy for GM (and Chrysler) and I'm very thankful that he did. The people who opposed that have no idea how much damage would have been done to our economy if our automotive industry had collapsed. They say Ford would have been OK. Problem is, Ford released a statement just recently that without a supplier base, they would have had to declare bankruptcy too. And I'm not talking about Obamacare in his first term. My perception that he has run to the left is based on his speeches, memorandums and executive orders since his re-election. This is not the same guy who was debating Romney, trying to portray himself as a centrist. It most certainly *seems* (to me and certain others) that he has focused too much on appeasing the far left over middle America since his re-election. Do most middle-of-the-road, middle class Americans agree or disagree with him on his (second term) positions on immigration, amnesty for illegal immigrants, forcing private businesses to hire people who cannot speak the language of the land, etc.?

What he *could* have done, that he has NOT done, is use the Presidential bully-pulpit to shame Congress into passing tax legislation that would benefit small business owners... like maintaining accelerated depreciation on machinery and equipment. While it may be nice that he wants people making minimum wage to make more, he doesn't seem to realize that businesses will simply react by reducing the employment level of low/unskilled labor. How about approaching a minimum wage increase with a proposal for apprenticeship and training programs, with attached tax breaks for participating businesses? And while it's nice that he thinks that the wage gap between men and women is based solely on misogyny (I'll commit suicide if I have to hear that over-hyped, over-used word many more times!!!) and sexism, he was incapable of explaining a similar gap in the ranks of federal workers. The truth is, much of the gap has to do with women who leave the workplace for a period of time to have children. A man who gets sick and has to be away from work also does not come back making the same as his peers are currently making. If you're not at work, why should a business keep giving you raises??? But Obama (and the feminist crowd) wants to keep beating the drums for this make believe "war on women". Yep, all these things feed my perception that he has run to the left. Accurate or not, that is my perception and my opinion.

That he hasn't accomplished that much certainly has a lot to do with the Taliban right-wingers in Congress - no doubt about that. But Obama must also put some of the blame on himself, because he's done a bad job (IMO) in not selecting solid populist issues to jump on and get the American people behind him. He could have done that and let the American people beat the worthless Congress about the head with our sticks and clubs... while he sat back and watched. But am I going to write letters to Congress so that some 20-something girl, who dropped out of high school and has three kids out of wedlock, can make more money at Walmart, get free birth control on Medicaid, have a nicer (free) Section 8 apartment and her illegal immigrant boyfriend can stay in this country? Now, what do you think? My belief is that you show, train and help her to become a productive member of society. I am and will always be opposed to coddling people and having a Nanny State government. You can help people to death.

The economy (IMO) has expanded in spite of Obama and the critters in Congress, not because of them. A lot of people hate the Fed, but thank the Lord for Ben Bernanke. Yanet Yellen appears to be a complete & total goof. But as long as she follows the roadmap laid out by Helicopter Ben, I think we're going to be OK for awhile to come.

If you consider Warren to be extrem-left, you have no idea about what is the Left (and then I can understand why yo usay Obama runs to the left). Warren is center-left
The medias want you to think she's extrem-left because they are sold-out to the banks and the banks think Warren is the Devil.

Uhhh... what??? Please point out where I even mentioned Warren. At this point I'm neither for or against her, as I have very little information to go on.

 

[Johan]

What you forget is that these things you say he didn't do, he did want to do... but he simply did not have the Constitutional power to do (on his own).

I'm pretty sure that, if he really wanted to, he could have done much more than what he did on these issues. But Obama (and the Democrats) are ALWAYS looking for common ground with Republicans, they are always looking for a consensus, they always bargain with republicans. And boy they are bad at bargaining 'cause they usually set-up for 30% of what they wanted and 70% of what republicans wanted.

And the automotive (and banking) bailout was actually started under Bush, not Obama. He did go above and beyond by facilitating a fast-track bankruptcy for GM (and Chrysler) and I'm very thankful that he did. The people who opposed that have no idea how much damage would have been done to our economy if our automotive industry had collapsed. They say Ford would have been OK. Problem is, Ford released a statement just recently that without a supplier base, they would have had to declare bankruptcy too.

I agree but this is not what I call "running to the left"

And I'm not talking about Obamacare in his first term. My perception that he has run to the left is based on his speeches, memorandums and executive orders since his re-election. This is not the same guy who was debating Romney, trying to portray himself as a centrist. It most certainly *seems* (to me and certain others) that he has focused too much on appeasing the far left over middle America since his re-election. Do most middle-of-the-road, middle class Americans agree or disagree with him on his (second term) positions on immigration, amnesty for illegal immigrants, forcing private businesses to hire people who cannot speak the language of the land, etc.?

Ok but what did he got done, what did he achieved that qualifies as "running to the left" ? Nothing

Obama is Center at most. He might even qualify for Center-Right but he's certainly not Left.

 

[Rey C.]

I'm pretty sure that, if he really wanted to, he could have done much more than what he did on these issues. But Obama (and the Democrats) are ALWAYS looking for common ground with Republicans, they are always looking for a consensus, they always bargain with republicans. And boy they are bad at bargaining 'cause they usually set-up for 30% of what they wanted and 70% of what republicans wanted.

When the Democrats had the numbers to pass legislation, I don't recall much bargaining going on. Admittedly, the GOP was VERY hard to work with at that time (and now). But no, I can't name one piece of legislation where Obama and the Democrats struck a bargain, unless they had to to get the necessary votes. And what exactly could Obama have done (independent of Congress) that he hasn't done by way of Executive Order? He wanted gun control. Couldn't do it on his own. Wasted his breath by sending Jargon Joe Biden out to tell people to fire their guns in the air if they saw somebody on their property (which is illegal in every jurisdiction that I'm aware of).

I agree but this is not what I call "running to the left"

I didn't say it was. My point was (as you offered that example), other than the GM/Chrysler fast-track bankruptcy portion, that horse was already running when Obama jumped on his back.

Ok but what did he got done, what did he achieved that qualifies as "running to the left" ? Nothing

Well, we could easily point to his expansion of Medicaid (a 100% program that largely supports non-working and/or under-employed Americans who have various issues... some real, some make-believe) at the expense of Medicare (an 80% program that largely assists elderly, middle class Americans who HAVE worked and are now retired) and more recently, his policy (or lack of policy) on illegal immigration. IMO, his support of gender based (biased) affirmative action pay schemes and/or quotas puts him on the left, as a way to satisfy the rad feminists in the Democrat party. Sending out the EEOC and DoJ to harass and/or sue small business employers who do not/cannot hire non-English speakers, qualifies as pandering to the left, IMO. If he feels so damn strongly about that, let him hire some Secret Service agents who can't speak English. And when someone screams "gun!!", they'll look at each other and go :dunno: while he belly-crawls to safety on his own. The way I see it, if it's good for us, it should be good for him too. There's certainly more things. But those are high on my mind right now.

Obama is Center at most. He might even qualify for Center-Right but he's certainly not Left.

Well, that's your perception. But as I live here in the U.S., it's not mine. As I said, I think he *was* mostly centrist in the beginning. But it does seem to me that he has sprinted to the left. The only areas that I can think of where he would qualify as center-right would be his Middle East policies and his support of domestic spying. He's damn near a neo-con in those areas - damn near, not totally.

Again, even with the Taliban faction of the GOP to deal with, I feel that he *could* have done SO MUCH more with respect to fiscal policy. Neither he nor the dumbass Republicans have helped this economy. I continue to give Ben Bernanke and the Fed the overwhelming majority of the credit for getting us back on track. All I can hope is that Obama's affirmative action/token appointment, Janet "Yanet" Yellen, doesn't screw up what Ben put in place. And Obama could have struck a deal that would have balanced his desire for a higher minimum wage with tax incentives for small businesses (since that's who would be most affected by a higher minimum wage). Has he done that? No! And with some thought, I believe there would be a way to construct a tax holiday, so that the massive piles of cash overseas could be repatriated. Money that's re-invested or used to expand domestic operations would be taxed at a very low tax rate. That would explode this economy - and it would not add to the deficit. In fact, the dramatic growth expansion would decrease the deficit. Money that's returned to shareholders, or passed out as bonuses to the C-suite crowd, would be taxed at a rate just below what they'd have to pay now. Still a deal, but not nearly as good as they'd have if they re-invested the money. The CEO's who wouldn't take that deal, he could shame from the bully-pulpit. I think that's been one of his greatest failings: the things that really would have received broad populist support, he has not brought forth and gotten the support of (non-extremist) American voters. I really think the tax holiday (properly constructed) would do it. But the "all corporations and rich people are evil" faction of the party won't go for it. So I don't expect Obama to try to push that through. I hope he does. But I no longer expect it.

 

[Jack Davenport]

When the Democrats had the numbers to pass legislation, I don't recall much bargaining going on. Admittedly, the GOP was VERY hard to work with at that time (and now). But no, I can't name one piece of legislation where Obama and the Democrats struck a bargain, unless they had to to get the necessary votes. And what exactly could Obama have done (independent of Congress) that he hasn't done by way of Executive Order? He wanted gun control. Couldn't do it on his own. Wasted his breath by sending Jargon Joe Biden out to tell people to fire their guns in the air if they saw somebody on their property (which is illegal in every jurisdiction that I'm aware of).




I didn't say it was. My point was (as you offered that example), other than the GM/Chrysler fast-track bankruptcy portion, that horse was already running when Obama jumped on his back.




Well, we could easily point to his expansion of Medicaid (a 100% program that largely supports non-working and/or under-employed Americans who have various issues... some real, some make-believe) at the expense of Medicare (an 80% program that largely assists elderly, middle class Americans who HAVE worked and are now retired) and more recently, his policy (or lack of policy) on illegal immigration. IMO, his support of gender based (biased) affirmative action pay schemes and/or quotas puts him on the left, as a way to satisfy the rad feminists in the Democrat party. Sending out the EEOC and DoJ to harass and/or sue small business employers who do not/cannot hire non-English speakers, qualifies as pandering to the left, IMO. If he feels so damn strongly about that, let him hire some Secret Service agents who can't speak English. And when someone screams "gun!!", they'll look at each other and go :dunno: while he belly-crawls to safety on his own. The way I see it, if it's good for us, it should be good for him too. There's certainly more things. But those are high on my mind right now.




Well, that's your perception. But as I live here in the U.S., it's not mine. As I said, I think he *was* mostly centrist in the beginning. But it does seem to me that he has sprinted to the left. The only areas that I can think of where he would qualify as center-right would be his Middle East policies and his support of domestic spying. He's damn near a neo-con in those areas - damn near, not totally.

Again, even with the Taliban faction of the GOP to deal with, I feel that he *could* have done SO MUCH more with respect to fiscal policy. Neither he nor the dumbass Republicans have helped this economy. I continue to give Ben Bernanke and the Fed the overwhelming majority of the credit for getting us back on track. All I can hope is that Obama's affirmative action/token appointment, Janet "Yanet" Yellen, doesn't screw up what Ben put in place. And Obama could have struck a deal that would have balanced his desire for a higher minimum wage with tax incentives for small businesses (since that's who would be most affected by a higher minimum wage). Has he done that? No! And with some thought, I believe there would be a way to construct a tax holiday, so that the massive piles of cash overseas could be repatriated. Money that's re-invested or used to expand domestic operations would be taxed at a very low tax rate. That would explode this economy - and it would not add to the deficit. In fact, the dramatic growth expansion would decrease the deficit. Money that's returned to shareholders, or passed out as bonuses to the C-suite crowd, would be taxed at a rate just below what they'd have to pay now. Still a deal, but not nearly as good as they'd have if they re-invested the money. The CEO's who wouldn't take that deal, he could shame from the bully-pulpit. I think that's been one of his greatest failings: the things that really would have received broad populist support, he has not brought forth and gotten the support of (non-extremist) American voters. I really think the tax holiday (properly constructed) would do it. But the "all corporations and rich people are evil" faction of the party won't go for it. So I don't expect Obama to try to push that through. I hope he does. But I no longer expect it.

Well fuck! I agree almost completely with this entire post. Either you are suffering a bit of Obama fatigue or my perception of you was a bit clouded before I was given the time out.

Anyway, that was a nice read.

 

[Rey C.]

Well fuck! I agree almost completely with this entire post. Either you are suffering a bit of Obama fatigue or my perception of you was a bit clouded before I was given the time out.

Anyway, that was a nice read.

Could be a bit of both. *lol*

But I suspect that it's more that Obama's policies have shifted somewhat, while my political beliefs haven't really changed all that much over the past 20 years or so. But I don't agree with anyone (even myself?) 100% of the time.

Glad you enjoyed it. :hatsoff:

 

[meesterperfect]

Hillary Clinton is one of the most evil people to ever hold a position of power.
Going back to even before hubby was Governor she has been up to her head, no buried in corruption and abuse of power.
I could list all the things in order but why bother, it is all FACTS that can be easily found if you haven't been paying attention for the last 25 years.
She also has a political record of complete failure.
But if the Dems think she has the best chance they will go with her even though they treated her like a plague rat as soon as Barry showed up in 2007.
To that party its about power and control , destroying everything that took 400 years to create.......just so a very few mega rich folks can control all of us.

And of course the media will continue to tell us how great and popular she is even though probably 3/4 of the US people can't stand even looking at her.

So yes they will go with her and if elected and she will cause even more irreversible damage to the country just like her predecessor has been doing for the past 6+ years.

 

[meesterperfect]

Yeah...I might stand ON hillary, but I would vote for just about anybody else before her. If the Republicans could field a decent candidate, that didn't start every speech with how evil abortion is, and what a waste of money birth control is....maybe there would be a chance to get one back in office. Although, I kind of think the people are getting tired of the bullshit the democrats are pulling, and starting to see, there really isn't much difference between the 2 parties.

All republicans are anti abortion?
All start off their speeches talking about what a waste of money birth control is?
I did not know this Rev.

Aint no one trying to take away the right for a women to get laid, get pregnant ,go to an abortion doctor and have the babies brains scrambled and vacuumed out .
They'll they even pay for it with tax money.

The abortion issue as well as homosexual rights and the "war on women" that is all the rage these days are just used as distractions by used the Dems to evade real problems that need solutions now.
They've been doing it for years, please don't buy what they are selling.

 

[Mayhem]

Hillary Clinton is one of the most evil people to ever hold a position of power.
Going back to even before hubby was Governor she has been up to her head, no buried in corruption and abuse of power.
I could list all the things in order but why bother, it is all FACTS that can be easily found if you haven't been paying attention for the last 25 years.
She also has a political record of complete failure.
But if the Dems think she has the best chance they will go with her even though they treated her like a plague rat as soon as Barry showed up in 2007.
To that party its about power and control , destroying everything that took 400 years to create.......just so a very few mega rich folks can control all of us.

And of course the media will continue to tell us how great and popular she is even though probably 3/4 of the US people can't stand even looking at her.

So yes they will go with her and if elected and she will cause even more irreversible damage to the country just like her predecessor has been doing for the past 6+ years.

So, in other words, you didn't get one bit smarter during your hiatus. I mean, nice to see you back but this...this is ridiculous even for you.

All republicans are anti abortion?
All start off their speeches talking about what a waste of money birth control is?
I did not know this Rev.

Aint no one trying to take away the right for a women to get laid, get pregnant ,go to an abortion doctor and have the babies brains scrambled and vacuumed out .
They'll they even pay for it with tax money.

The abortion issue as well as homosexual rights and the "war on women" that is all the rage these days are just used as distractions by used the Dems to evade real problems that need solutions now.
They've been doing it for years, please don't buy what they are selling.

Well, as soon as the GOP shuts up about homosexual (civil) rights and the War on Women, we'll be happy to take the win and move on to your real problems. Because who really cares about Civil Rights anyway?

 

[meesterperfect]

So, in other words, you didn't get one bit smarter during your hiatus. I mean, nice to see you back but this...this is ridiculous even for you.

Yep, it's ridiculous.
Nice to see you too.
My hiatus from here was because the board turned too much into an insult-fest. Too little conversation or debate and too much lazy cheap shot insults.
Sad to see looks like that hasn't changed much.


Well, as soon as the GOP shuts up about homosexual (civil) rights and the War on Women, we'll be happy to take the win and move on to your real problems. Because who really cares about Civil Rights anyway?

I don't know. Lets ask the Christians who lived at Mount Carmel about civil rights. Oh that's right we can't , the Clintons killed them.
Or all the people , mostly innocent people who the clintons have destroyed over the years.........or the scores of women Bill has assaulted and harassed.

But really there is nothing to win because all those issues are fake. They don't exist.

Clintons are pure evil. They have no good intentions for anybody but themselves and their bank account.
Don't believe it, vote for her..........unless someone with just the right shade of skin color comes along in the meantime like last time.

 

[Mayhem]

I don't know. Lets ask the Christians who lived at Mount Carmel about civil rights. Oh that's right we can't , the Clintons killed them.
Or all the people , mostly innocent people who the clintons have destroyed over the years.........or the scores of women Bill has assaulted and harassed.

But really there is nothing to win because all those issues are fake. They don't exist.

Clintons are pure evil. They have no good intentions for anybody but themselves and their bank account.
Don't believe it, vote for her..........unless someone with just the right shade of skin color comes along in the meantime like last time.

Y'know, you share a very common trait with every other Conservative in here. You're so intent on spewing judgemental negativity that you truly do not read a single word posted by anyone else. At last count, there is absolutely no one here that wants Hillary to be President. Hell, I even said I'd consider voting for Romney if it came down to that choice. You didn't fuckin' see a word of it, did you? You and georgy should move into the same padded condo together.

The only event that will see another Clinton White House is how bad whichever Paleo-Nitwit the GOP nominates pisses of the centrists. Again, it's all here in black and white if you want to calm down long enough to read it.

And if you still can't tell the difference between Bill Clinton and Janet Reno then maybe it's time for another vacation.

 

[Ace Boobtoucher]

screen capture


upload pictures online

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/925684/posts

Jerry Zeifman, a lifelong Democrat, supervised the work of 27-year-old Hillary Rodham on the committee. Hillary got a job working on the investigation at the behest of her former law professor, Burke Marshall, who was also Sen. Ted Kennedy’s chief counsel in the Chappaquiddick affair. When the investigation was over, Zeifman fired Hillary from the committee staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation – one of only three people who earned that dubious distinction in Zeifman’s 17-year career.

Why?

“Because she was a liar,” Zeifman said in an interview last week. “She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.”

http://www.eohistory.info/2013/hillaryHistory.htm

Zeifman says that Hillary, along with Marshall, Nussbaum and Doar, was determined to gain enough votes on the Judiciary Committee to change House rules and deny counsel to Nixon. And in order to pull this off, Zeifman says Hillary wrote a fraudulent legal brief, and confiscated public documents to hide her deception.

After President Nixon’s resignation a young lawyer, who shared an office with Hillary, confided in me that he was dismayed by her erroneous legal opinions and efforts to deny Nixon representation by counsel-as well as an unwillingness to investigate Nixon. In my diary of August 12, 1974 I noted the following:

John Labovitz apologized to me for the fact that months ago he and Hillary had lied to me [to conceal rules changes and dilatory tactics.] Labovitz said, “That came from Yale.” I said, “You mean Burke Marshall [Senator Ted Kennedy's chief political strategist, with whom Hillary regularly consulted in violation of House rules.] Labovitz said, “Yes.” His apology was significant to me, not because it was a revelation but because of his contrition.

At that time Hillary Rodham was 27 years old. She had obtained a position on our committee staff through the political patronage of her former Yale law school professor Burke Marshall and Senator Ted Kennedy. Eventually, because of a number of her unethical practices I decided that I could not recommend her for any subsequent position of public or private trust.

He continued with a statement that Hildebeast would have been disbarred if he had submitted any of her memos for review and that he regretted not doing that.

This last quote speaks volumes about this disingenuous, traitorous, evil twat and his wife.

Two decades later Bill Clinton became President. As was later to be described in the Wall Street Journal by Henry Ruth, the lead Watergate courtroom prosecutor, “The Clintons corrupted the soul of the Democratic Party.”

 

[Mayhem]

Fact Check: Was Hillary Clinton fired from Watergate investigation?

http://jacksonville.com/reason/fact...hillary-clinton-fired-watergate-investigation

An email says that Hillary Clinton — then Hillary Rodham — was fired for lying and being unethical when she was a 27-year-old working on the Watergate investigation. Is this true?

The viral email is mainly derived from a column published on March 31, 2008, by Dan Calabrese, founder of North Star Writers Group, according to fact-finder TruthOrFiction.com. North Star was a newspaper syndicate that provided services until early 2012.

Calabrese’s information came from Democrat Jerry Zeifman, a counsel and chief of staff of the House Judiciary Committee, who supervised Clinton on the Watergate investigation. Zeifman’s 2006 book, “Hillary’s Pursuit of Power,” states that she “… engaged in a variety of self-serving unethical practices in violation of House rules.”

On his now-shuttered website, Zeifman said, “Hillary Clinton is ethically unfit to be either a senator or president — and if she were to become president, the last vestiges of the traditional moral authority of the party of Roosevelt, Truman and Johnson will be destroyed.”

Specifically, Zeifman contends that Rodham and others wanted Richard Nixon to remain in office to bolster the chances of Sen. Ted Kennedy or another Democrat being elected president.

Zeifman said that in 1974 a young lawyer who shared an office with Clinton came to him to apologize that he and Clinton had lied to him. The lawyer, John Labovitz, is quoted as saying that he was dismayed with “… her erroneous legal opinions and efforts to deny Nixon representation by counsel — as well as an unwillingness to investigate Nixon.”

Zeifman charges that Rodham regularly consulted with Ted Kennedy’s chief political strategist, a violation of House rules.

Hillary Rodham’s conduct, according to Zeifman, also was the result of not wanting Nixon to face an impeachment trial because Democrats worried that Nixon might bring up abuses of office by President John Kennedy.

Zeifman — ironically, a consultant to a member of the Judiciary Committee that impeached President Bill Clinton — said Democrats feared putting Watergate break-in mastermind E. Howard Hunt on the stand. Hunt, Zeifman said, might report on his knowledge of nefarious activities in the Kennedy administration “including Kennedy’s purported complicity in the attempted assassination of Fidel Castro.”

Zeifman also asserts that Rodham joined Burke Marshall, Ted Kennedy’s chief counsel in the Chappaquiddick affair and Rodham’s former law professor; special counsel John Doar; and senior associate special counsel (and future Clinton White House counsel) Bernard Nussbaum in trying to gain enough votes on the Judiciary Committee to change House rules and deny counsel to Nixon.

In order to pull this off, Zeifman said that Rodham wrote a fraudulent legal brief, and confiscated public documents.

After the Nixon impeachment investigation was finished, Zeifman fired Rodham and said he refused to give her a letter of recommendation.

According to the Calabrese column as reported by TruthOrFiction.com, Zeifman said he regrets not reporting Rodham to the appropriate bar association.

So what are we to make of all this? Calabrese’s interview with Zeifman has been published around the Internet and repeated by pundits such as Rush Limbaugh and Neil Boortz. But there is nothing to out-and-out confirm Zeifman’s rendition. That doesn’t mean it couldn’t be true, but it makes it difficult to arrive at the truth.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/zeifman.asp


Former First Lady Hillary Clinton is no stranger to political scandal and controversy, and
a specific accusation concerning her work as a young lawyer on the Watergate investigation has dogged her political career for more than a decade. The claim originated with Jerry Zeifman, under whom Clinton worked in 1974 as a member of the impeachment inquiry staff for the House Committee on the Judiciary during the course of the scandal.

The notion Hillary Clinton was fired by Jerry Zeifman for "lying" and "unethical behavior" has circulated across social media and in e-mails for years. The belief that Clinton's early career was marked by this buried scandal is widespread, but is there any merit to the claim?

By Zeifman's own admission there is not. Statements made by Zeifman himself contradict the claim he fired Hillary Clinton. During a 1998 interview with the Sacramento Bee in which he discussed his work with Clinton on Watergate, Zeifman not only stated he hadn't fired her, but he didn't even have the authority to fire her: If I had the power to fire her, I would have fired her.
Ten years later, Zeifman's story had shifted. When asked by radio host Neal Boortz in April 2008 if he had fired Hillary Clinton from the Watergate investigation, Zeifman hedged by stating Clinton had been let go, but only as part of a layoff of multiple personnel who were no longer needed: Well, let me put it this way. I terminated her, along with some other staff members who were — we no longer needed, and advised her that I would not — could not recommend her for any further positions.
Following Zeifman's 2008 interview with Boortz, a column by Dan Calabrese ("FLASHBACK: HILLARY CLINTON FIRED FROM WATERGATE INVESTIGATION FOR 'LYING, UNETHICAL BEHAVIOR'") cemented the belief that Hillary Clinton had been "fired" from the Watergate investigation in political lore: Jerry Zeifman, a lifelong Democrat, supervised the work of 27-year-old Hillary Rodham on the committee. Hillary got a job working on the investigation at the behest of her former law professor, Burke Marshall, who was also Sen. Ted Kennedy’s chief counsel in the Chappaquiddick affair. When the investigation was over, Zeifman fired Hillary from the committee staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation — one of only three people who earned that dubious distinction in Zeifman's 17-year career.
However, one need only go back to the source of the rumor and Zeifman's own statement that he did not have the power to fire Hillary Clinton to discount that now common version of political lore: the evidence indicates that, whatever Zeifman may have thought of Clinton's behavior, she was let go from the Watergate committee because she was one of a number of people who were no longer needed as the investigation wound down (and Nixon's resignation made the issue moot), not because she was "fired" over ethical issues.

 

[Supafly]

What troubles me is to find that especially self-proclaimed conservatives, whatever they think they are trying to conserve, are the exact copy of the FOX and KOCH BROS-media outlet fed marchers that seem to be completely brainwashed and blindely doing what their puppet masters like them to do

So, I don't waste time on you. Eventually, history will catch up with you. One day, you will look back and say, why did we let that happen?