Hillary posits platitudes and vague objectives — most of which are already failures

Hillary Clinton’s campaign restart speech on Roosevelt Island today was one of those vision things — long on vague imagines of a better tomorrow, but short on specifics and most of those are proven failures.

She was at times self-contradictory. She blasted Republicans for cutting taxes but later promised: “We will unleash a new generation of entrepreneurs and small business owners by providing tax relief, cutting red tape, and making it easier to get a small business loan.”

She promised to shred the First Amendment by supporting a constitutional amendment to reverse the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling that allows people to spend their own money to express their political views. She did not mention that the ruling overturned a law that had prevented the airing of a film called “Hillary: The Movie,” which was highly critical of her during her previous presidential bid.

“We have to stop the endless flow of secret, unaccountable money that is distorting our elections, corrupting our political process, and drowning out the voices of our people,” Clinton declared. “We need Justices on the Supreme Court who will protect every citizen’s right to vote, rather than every corporation’s right to buy elections.”

This from the woman who sold State Department favors to the highest foreign bidders who provided donations to her secretive foundation that gave next to nothing to charity.

She criticized Republicans for borrowing money to pay for two wars without a hint of acknowledgment that Obama’s borrowing far outstripped that.

Clinton also promised to “make preschool and quality childcare available to every child in America,” without saying where the money would come from.

“And I want you to remember this, because to me, this is absolutely the most-compelling argument why we should do this. Research tells us how much early learning in the first five years of life can impact lifelong success,” she declared with a straight face, even though federal studies have found that to be untrue.
In fact a 2012 study reports: “In summary, there were initial positive impacts from having access to Head Start, but by the end of 3rd grade there were very few impacts found for either cohort in any of the four domains of cognitive, social-emotional, health and parenting practices. The few impacts that were found did not show a clear pattern of favorable or unfavorable impacts for children.”
Clinton talked about foreign policy without mentioning a single thing she had accomplished as secretary of state.
“No other country on Earth is better positioned to thrive in the 21st century. No other country is better equipped to meet traditional threats from countries like Russia, North Korea, and Iran – and to deal with the rise of new powers like China,” neglecting to mention the Chinese hackers who gathered data on federal workers. Maybe they found some of Benghazi emails, while adding, “No other country is better prepared to meet emerging threats from cyber attacks, transnational terror networks like ISIS, and diseases that spread across oceans and continents.”
Prepared? Obama has no strategy and she offered none.
“As your President, I’ll do whatever it takes to keep Americans safe,” she said, which made me think about the safety of those Libyan diplomats.
Clinton also proposed rewriting the tax code so it rewards hard work and investments here at home and giving new incentives to companies that give their employees a fair share of the profits. Again, no specifics.
Renewable power? She plans more and more of it without saying where the money will come from, since it doesn’t pencil out without tax breaks and subsidies.
She also wants universal voter registration, which would to her support base of those too lazy or ignorant to actually take the time to register.
Then there was the rousing conclusion that surely sold her base on her candidacy and explained her qualification for office:

“All our Presidents come into office looking so vigorous. And then we watch their hair grow grayer and grayer.

“Well, I may not be the youngest candidate in this race. But I will be the youngest woman President in the history of the United States!
“And the first grandmother as well.
“And one additional advantage: You’re won’t see my hair turn white in the White House. I’ve been coloring it for years!”

Clinton speaks to her cheering base. (Photo from The Hill)

Advertisements

61 comments on “Hillary posits platitudes and vague objectives — most of which are already failures

  1. Nyp says:

    When you call the Clinton Foundation “secretive ” and claim that it gave virtually nothing to charity, you are simply bullshiting, Mr. Mitchell.

  2. Dan Geary says:

    The photo caption referring to the crowd at today’s Clinton rally as “numskulls” is beneath you. Given today’s political environment, I think it’s terrific to see anyone, of any age or ideology, participating in the political process. You’re a talented, articulate columnist with an outstanding command of the written word. Personal insults to one side or the other is simply dropping a poop in your punch bowl. My .02

  3. OK, Dan, I concede. That was an unnecessary gut reaction to all the cheering for all her endless redistributionism.

  4. “The campaign kept the press segregated from the rest of the crowds, caged behind a metal fence. Staffers ensured that anyone with a press pass didn’t cross into the crowds or go near the stage unless they had special permission and were escorted by a Hillary staff member.”
    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/hillary-at-rally-ive-made-my-share-of-mistakes-as-campaign-staff-bars-press/article/2566210

    No questions for the audience about what Hillary has accomplished.

  5. Nyp says:

    Gee, I wonder how much money the Red Cross donated to “charity”? I guess that’s a big scam as well– right, Mr. Mitchell?

  6. Nyp says:

    Hey – can someone link to the donor list of the Nevada Policy Research Institute?
    Or are they too “secretive”?

  7. Nyp says:

    Where is that Red Cross donor list? I don’t see it

  8. Patrick says:

    “Organizations described in section 501(c)(3) are commonly referred to as charitable organizations. ”

    http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/Charitable-Organizations/Exemption-Requirements-Section-501(c)(3)-Organizations

    “NPRI is a 501(c)(3) organization as defined by the Internal Revenue Code”

    https://www.npri.org/about/

  9. Steve says:

    “commonly” does not mean “always”.

  10. Steve says:

    Where is the rating for the Clinton Foundation?

    “pass through” organization means the money could go anywhere.

  11. Nyp says:

    So contributions to the Nevada Policy Research Institute aren’t eligible for the charitable contribution tax deduction?
    Wow

  12. Steve says:

    I said WHAT?
    I don’t see those words anywhere in my comments…..

    Nyp has created “inventive” reading….!!

  13. Steve says:

    Exempt Purposes – Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c)(3)
    The exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3) are charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and preventing cruelty to children or animals. The term charitable is used in its generally accepted legal sense and includes relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged; advancement of religion; advancement of education or science; erecting or maintaining public buildings, monuments, or works; lessening the burdens of government; lessening neighborhood tensions; eliminating prejudice and discrimination; defending human and civil rights secured by law; and combating community deterioration and juvenile delinquency.

  14. Nyp says:

    Guys, I’m still waiting to see how much money those scam artists at the Red Cross donated to charity last year.

    Or are they as bad as the Clinton Foundation?

  15. Barbara says:

    nyp – The Clinton’s and their foundation did not report millions in donations and had to refile several years of tax forms, they received donations from countries that had pending business with our gonvernment, Bill Clinton received his largest speaking fees from countries seeking concessions from the State Department on pending requests. Combine this with Hillary’s secretative email account, and there is ample reason a special prosecutor should be appointed to investigate this secretive and suspicious activity. On the face of it, Hillary appears to have sold her office to the highest bidder.

  16. Platitudes…is putting it mildly! “The nation we want to be and in a place with no ceilings.” You’re parade is bound to to get rained on in that scenario Mrs. Clinton…(the female Brian Williams in a Mao pantsuit). Surely we can do better than this! (BSing is spelled with two t’s)

  17. Patrick says:

    “NPRI doesn’t claim to be a charity.”

    “The term charitable is used in its generally accepted legal sense and includes relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged; advancement of religion; advancement of education or science; erecting or maintaining public buildings, monuments, or works; lessening the burdens of government; lessening neighborhood tensions; eliminating prejudice and discrimination; defending human and civil rights secured by law; and combating community deterioration and juvenile delinquency.”

    “I direct my personal representative to make the following charitable contribution from my property.

    The sum of __________________ to the Nevada Policy Research Institute (IRS Tax ID #88-0276314), provided that this charity is still in existence at my death, qualifies for a charitable tax deduction, and is following its original mission as an independent, non-profit, non-partisan think tank that promotes sound public policy based on free-market solutions.”

    -charitable donation to NPRI “suggestion” from NPRI

    http://www.npri.org/donate/page/legacy-society

    Sounds like NPRI does indeed label itself a charity, which brings us full circle back to the question nyp asked:

    “Hey – can someone link to the donor list of the Nevada Policy Research Institute?
    Or are they too “secretive”?”

  18. Nyp says:

    I will be very happy if we spend the 2916 campaign discussing whether donations by wealthy corporations have a corrupting influence on American politics.
    Really. Let’s have that debate.

  19. Barbara says:

    We’re not discussing wealthy corporations. You never will take the topic head on. Always deflecting…Sounds like you know their actions are indefensible and warrant a serious criminal investigation.

  20. Nyp says:

    Really? So all that crap about the uranium mines had nothing to do with corporations?

  21. Nyp says:

    BTW, I see we had a Second Amendment moment in Dallas today.

  22. Barbara says:

    So you agree the Clintons and the Clinton Crime Foundation should be #1 on the Justice Department’s target list?

  23. Steve says:

    “Boulware, 35, was arrested by authorities in Paris, Texas on multiple assault charges in May 2013, according to Lamar County jail records. Records show Boulware was charged with one count of impeding a family member’s breath or circulation and another count of causing bodily injury to a family member.”

    In 2013 there was no indication this might have been in his future…no indication at all.
    Not so sure he could have obtained the guns legally,,,never mind the bombs.

  24. Steve says:

    “The American Red Cross raised nearly $500 million after Haiti’s devastating 2010 earthquake, but what happened to the money? According to an NPR and Pro Publica report, the organization’s plan to build permanent homes for tens of thousands never came to fruition. In fact, the Red Cross built only six. The Red Cross says land-rights issues hindered its efforts, but reporters found other problems, like lengthy bureaucratic delays, changes in staffing, and a full year in which nothing happened. “They never had a real plan for what they wanted to do in housing,” says Lee Malany, who was in charge of the organization’s Haiti shelter program. He says Red Cross leadership, including CEO Gail McGovern, seemed more concerned with publicity than project details.”

    For its part, the Red Cross sent NPR and Pro Publica an email accusing them of “creating ill will in the community, which may give rise to a security incident. We will hold you and your news organizations fully responsible.”

    Where does the money come from? I say where does it go!

  25. nyp says:

    And what about Vince Foster? and Whitewater?

    Where’s the outrage?

  26. Steve says:

    Oh looky there…deflection.

    Discussion is over.

  27. nyp says:

    One can’t deflect unless there is someting to deflect from.

  28. Patrick says:

    The above are not the first, nor likely the last, ill-informed (or worse) aspersions regarding the Clinton foundation.

    “Which brings us to Ron Fournier. The news of the donation policy shift at the foundation this week infuriated the National Journal columnist who slammed the move as “sleazy and stupid.” But again, I’m not sure he understands the Foundation’s purpose, because in his column Fournier argued that the acceptance of foreign donations “is stupid because it plays into a decades-old knock on the Clintons: They’ll cut any corner for campaign cash.” Huh? Obviously, charitable donations to the Clinton Foundation aren’t synonymous with “campaign cash” for Hillary. (If they are and Fournier has proof, he’s sitting on a Pulitzer-winning scoop.)

    Fournier also stressed that the foundation had “secretly lifted” its ban on accepting money from foreign governments. But it turns out the maneuver was so “secret” that Wall Street Journal reporters uncovered the foreign donations in plain sight on the Clinton Foundation’s online database, where they had been posted for anyone to see. (“In posting its donor data, the foundation goes beyond legal requirements, and experts say its transparency level exceeds that of most philanthropies,” the Washington Post reported.)

    Still, the skewed view persists. Note that in a Fox News report yesterday regarding the foundation’s “fundraising misstep,” John Roberts never once explained that the foundation is, in fact, a charity. It’s easier to cast aspersions on the organization if you leave out the fact it helps AIDS/HIV suffers around the world get cheaper, better medicine. Or that the foundation battles global health, economic inequality, childhood obesity, climate change, or health and wellness. All of that gets flushed down the memory hole.”

    http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/02/20/the-clinton-foundation-is-a-global-charity-why/202587

  29. Barbara says:

    Reminds me of the Mafia Don that would contribute money to political, law enforcement, and religious organizations while profiting from drug trafficking, prostitution, loan shark, murder, etc.

  30. Patrick says:

    Reminds me of modern day corporations, or “persons” as the founding fathers “clearly” (if not expressly) intended. Raping, stealing, and killing, with no consequence and no guilt.

    Or, as Barbara points out; like Mafia Dons.

  31. Rincon says:

    I’m not sure why Conservatives are all worked up about the Clintons. Aren’t they the ones saying that it’s perfectly fine for the rich and powerful to grub for all of the power and money they can amass? Oh wait, I think I’ve got it. It’s fine to bribe, errr….lobby and contribute in exchange for the largess of politicians, but it’s not OK to BE one of the politicians doling out the largess. Sort of like arresting the hooker and letting the john go.

  32. Barbara says:

    Rincon you completely misunderstand conservatives. Conservatives are not for crony capitalism. They are for limited government that stays within the confines of the constitution. As such, there would be no lobbying as government would have very little control over free enterprise.

  33. Patrick says:

    Rincon seems to me that most conservatives, who pledge fealty to “limited government” just refuse to understand that Mafia Dons flourish best when government governs least.

  34. Barbara says:

    Not so and the Clinton Crime Foundation is a perfect example.

  35. Rincon says:

    Unlimited campaign contributions mean unlimited influence. Not quite crony capitalism, but a close substitute.

  36. Nyp says:

    Wasn’t a lot of government up in those Sicilian hill towns.

  37. If Washington had less power there’d be nothing worth buying. Nobody said anything about unlimited “contributions.”

  38. Patrick says:

    Nyp I think you’re mistaken, or maybe you just misspoke: there was indeed “government” in those Sicilan hill towns. It just wasn’t any kind of government where “the people” had any kind of say.

    “Government” or “power” will always fill the vacuum, unfortunately what most “limited government” types fail to understand, or even mostly acknowledge, is that the “government” that will fill any vacuum left if they manage to “drown (our) government in the bathtub” is a government where they have absolutely no say.

    Kind of like the say a non-customer of any corporation has in that corporations “governance”.

  39. How fitting that Hillary laid out her laundry list of progressive leftist talking points & identity politics on Welfare Island…

  40. Winston Smith says:

    “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” – John Adams

    Our limited form of government was not designed to “make sure” everyone behaves and acts nice to everyone else. Once corporations and governments get in bed together, the resulting corrupt fascism is nearly impossible to reverse.

  41. Rincon says:

    “Nobody said anything about unlimited “contributions.” OK, I’ll bite. How should campaign contributions be limited?

  42. Steve says:

    Selective reading or does Rincon deliberately miss the point?

  43. Patrick says:

    Thomas Mitchell says:
    June 15, 2015 at 8:18 am
    “If Washington had less power there’d be nothing worth buying. Nobody said anything about unlimited “contributions.”

  44. Steve says:

    Yes that is what he wrote…comprehension is key.

  45. Patrick says:

    Rincon says:

    June 15, 2015 at 8:17 pm

    “Nobody said anything about unlimited “contributions.” OK, I’ll bite. How should campaign contributions be limited?

    Steve says:

    June 15, 2015 at 8:50 pm

    Selective reading or does Rincon deliberately miss the point?

  46. Steve says:

    Yep that is how I replied.

    Again,,,,comprehension is key.

  47. Rincon says:

    I’m not as well informed as I would like to be. Can someone explain how these statements and the chart in Thomas’ link go together? I’m finding it to be confusing.

    “Indeed, a single donor can now give more than $5 million in individually limited contributions to every House candidate, every Senate candidate, every state party committee, every national party committee and every leadership PAC connected to one political party.

    For the 2013-2014 election cycle, Federal Election Commission rules state that a donor can give no more than $123,200 to all political committees, with two sub-limits of $48,600 to candidates and $74,600 to political parties and political action committees. Those limits are no more.”

    And then, “Roberts makes clear in his opinion that the ruling and the case brought before the court in no way challenges the base contribution limits, which currently limit individual contributions to $2,600 per candidate, per election; to $32,400 to political party committees per year; and to $5,000 per PAC, per year.” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/02/supreme-court-mccutcheon_n_5076732.html

    Does this mean no more than $2,600 per candidate, but that if one was to donate to all candidates and committees in one party, then the aggregate could be as high as $5 million? And as I understand it, independent ads are unlimited as long as no one can prove coordination by any candidates. Is this also the case?

  48. Steve says:

    Still missing the message, Rincon.

  49. Rincon says:

    Thanks for such a cogent explanation. I feel smarter already.

  50. Steve says:

    no “explanation” needed the original message was as clear and concise as it could possibly be.

  51. Rincon says:

    Talking to the smartest person in the world is worthless if he provides no information; therefore, this conversation is worthless. I’m spotting a pattern here.

  52. Steve says:

    You have described your activity in this regard very well.
    You are simply ignoring the forest and letting the tree get in the way.

    Since you refuse to see it, I cannot show it to you.

  53. Rincon says:

    You can’t explain it because you don’t know either.

  54. Steve says:

    The last gasp of the desperate liberal is to try and denigrate the opposing person.

    Nice try. I accept your concession.

  55. Rincon says:

    Certainly easier, but less satisfying, than proving me wrong.

  56. Steve says:

    You still try?
    The answer is so obvious, once you discover it, you will shocked at the simplicity.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s