Patterico's Pontifications


Hillary Clinton’s Problem With Women Voters

Filed under: General — Dana @ 7:46 pm

[guest post by Dana]

Poor Hillary Clinton. Not only did she get clobbered in New Hampshire by the Sexist Socialist, she also lost every demographic group other than the 65+ crowd and those making over $200,000.

Perhaps her landslide loss this week speaks to voters being weary of her never-ending presence on the national stage and being tired of her yelling at them. Certainly their increasing distrust of her greatly factored into the outcome. Considering everything from Benghazi, to her email scandal, to an FBI investigation, well, any of these would cause a rational person to harbor grave doubts and misgivings about her judgement and trustworthiness.

And then there is her hypocrisy. Consider her close ties to Wall Street. She earned big Wall Street money giving big speeches. Speeches, by the way, whose content she would rather you didn’t know. And no wonder. Pandering is always fraught with danger. You pander to a special interest group one day, the next day you are excoriating them before voters for their mere existence. It’s quite a juggling act, and one that will cost dearly if you are exposed.

Clearly there are a number of reasons why she lost so badly.

I’m guessing that most shocking, and frankly, embarrassing to her is that the iconic feminist of all feminists lost the vote of women.

If you’re the self-proclaimed savior of women who claims to have spent an entire lifetime championing women’s rights and are running on a campaign platform of the same, to lose the vote of your people has to be the biggest blow of all.

But when one considers Hillary’s inability on the campaign trail to successfully address accusations about smearing women who accused her husband of sexual abuse and rape, and enabling his bad behavior toward women, one is not convinced that she has ever been a friend to women.

Further, it’s not wise to try to guilt women into voting for you. While women may like to play the guilt trip on their kids, and even their husbands, they don’t like it being played on them. So trotting out Madeline Albright to threaten women with going to hell if they didn’t vote for Hillary was bound to backfire.

To make matters worse, when Gloria Steinem steps in and makes a profoundly sexist accusation and blames young women’s hormones for not supporting Hillary, it shouldn’t be surprising that those young women get righteously pissed off about being treated in such a condescending manner.

Simply put, Hillary Clinton cannot win by simultaneously campaigning on a platform of feminism and women’s rights, and at the same time, insult the intelligence of the very women she hopes to convince.

With that, Carly Fiorina, who ended her campaign for the presidency yesterday, keeps it simple, because it is:

To young girls and women across the country, I say: do not let others define you. Do not listen to anyone who says you have to vote a certain way or for a certain candidate because you’re a woman. That is not feminism. Feminism doesn’t shut down conversations or threaten women. It is not about ideology. It is not a weapon to wield against your political opponent. A feminist is a woman who lives the life she chooses and uses all her God-given gifts. And always remember that a leader is not born, but made. Choose leadership.

This is a woman I can respect.


Political News: Buying Loyalty; Ted Cruz Best “If Conservatism Is Your Bag”

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:46 am

Jeb Bush yesterday explained that he rooted for the Broncos because Peyton Manning gave him a check:

Presidential candidate Jeb Bush said he supported the Denver Broncos over the Carolina Panthers in Sunday’s Super Bowl because he got a campaign contribution from Broncos quarterback Peyton Manning.

Bush, the former governor of Florida, explained his pick Wednesday during a campaign stop in Mount Pleasant, S.C.

“I know that y’all probably maybe had some leanings toward Carolina,” Bush told the crowd. “I was for Denver, not because of the Broncos, but because Peyton Manning wrote me a check.”

. . . .

Federal campaign finance records show Bush received a $2,700 contribution from Manning last August.


Everything is for sale: big, huge, small, or even petty.

In other political news, Rush Limbaugh said yesterday that Ted Cruz is the clear choice . . . “[i]f conservatism is your bag.” If your “bag” is someone who is proud to speak in public in a manner you wouldn’t want your children to hear, and pledges to throw out or keep out all the dark-skinned people . . . then you might be a Donald Trump fan. But don’t worry:

Hey, by the way, someone found the audio of Mark Levin citing this Web site for the proposition that Ted Cruz was talking about a wall years before Trump announced his candidacy. I figured I’d embed it for posterity:

Patter-ICK-o. Um, Pat-TERR-ico.

I think Levin remembers me, since he launched a series of Facebook tirades against me a few years ago after I called him out on something or another. But hey. He’s fighting the good fight now, and it’s good to get the message out, whether it be through Mark LEV-in or whatever his name is, or anyone else. Joking aside, bygones are bygones. Levin is fighting the good fight.

That is, if conservatism — and people who don’t sell favors and their very loyalty — is your bag.


New Ads From Trump And Cruz

Filed under: General — Dana @ 7:46 pm

[guest post by Dana]

Donald Trump, during a speech in South Carolina, said this:

“Common Core we’re gonna keep.”

Which is confusing, because last night while giving his victory speech in New Hampshire, he said this:

We’re getting rid of Common Core. We’re going to educate our children…

(at the 10:15 mark)

Trump defenders are saying that he just misspoke and that there was more to the speech than just the sound bite. I tend to agree with Amanda Carpenter:


Trump will say whatever the moment calls for. Which leads me to Ted Cruz’s new campaign ad which is aimed at Trump, the action figure who pretends to be a Republican:

I don’t think it’s as good as his previous ads, but it clearly makes the point that Trump is the Great Pretender who speaks out of both sides of his mouth. Which is funny because that is essentially the gist of Trump’s new ad aimed at Cruz in “What Kind of Man”. In this ad, Cruz is portrayed as the “worst kind of Washington insider”:

Of course it matters not a whit to loyal Trump supporters that the accusations brought forth in this ad have been handily debunked or explained.


FURTHER THOUGHTS BY PATTERICO: Trump very likely had a brain fart there, enabled by the fact that he doesn’t even know what Common Core is. But here’s the real problem: Trump tried to cover it up by claiming he was talking about Jeb Bush’s policy:

That is a lie and Trump is a liar. The Right Scoop has the full context of his remarks and he was in no way, shape or form talking about Jeb Bush at that moment.

I had at least one person I usually like getting upset with me and calling me a “horse’s ass” on Twitter for pointing this out.

(It’s OK, I’m a big boy, I can take it.) But when Trump lies, we have to call him on it. We can’t keep holding him to a different standard than others because we think he’s a buffoon. I plan to flesh this argument out in the future, but I’m sticking a flag in the ground here for now.

Last Night

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:51 am

As Allahpundit noted on Twitter, nationalism and socialism won last night.

What could possibly go wrong?

When Government Writes the Copy of “Journalists”

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:50 am

J.K. Trotter at Gawker (I know) continues to show how flacks to Hillary Clinton were able to dictate to big-name journalists exactly how they would write their stories.

The latest reveal deals with Marc Ambinder, then of The Atlantic, who wrote Clinton spokeshole Phillippe Reines to ask for a copy of Hillary Clinton’s upcoming speech. Reines told Ambinder he could provide a copy on two conditions, to which Ambinder replied “ok.” Reines then wrote:

From: [Philippe Reines]
Sent: Wednesday, July 15 2009 10:06 AM
To: Ambinder, Marc
Subject: Re: Do you have a copy of HRC’s speech to share?

3 [conditions] actually

1) You in your own voice describe them as “muscular”

2) You note that a look at the CFR seating plan shows that all the envoys — from Holbrooke to Mitchell to Ross — will be arrayed in front of her, which in your own clever way you can say certainly not a coincidence and meant to convey something

3) You don’t say you were blackmailed!

Ambinder replied: “got it” — and like a dutiful little scribe, he complied with every request:

When you think of President Obama’s foreign policy, think of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. That’s the message behind a muscular speech that Clinton is set to deliver today to the Council on Foreign Relations. The staging gives a clue to its purpose: seated in front of Clinton, subordinate to Clinton, in the first row, will be three potentially rival power centers: envoys Richard Holbrooke and George Mitchell, and National Security Council senior director Dennis Ross.

Ambinder has taken a lot of criticism for this, and deservedly so. But lost in the shuffle has been Mike Allen of Politico. There are no emails showing a similar demand being made of Allen. But check out the opening of Allen’s piece about the same speech:

In a muscular first major address as secretary of state, Hillary Clinton warns adversaries on Wednesday that they “should never see America’s willingness to talk as a sign of weakness to be exploited.”

The seating! Don’t forget the seating, Mike!

A look at the CFR’s guest seating chart shows that arrayed in the front row will be top members of her team — the envoys she has called her “force multipliers”: Richard Holbrooke, George Mitchell, Dennis Ross, Philip Goldberg and Stephen Bosworth.

We told you to say “a look at the CFR’s guest seating plan,” Mike, not “chart.” It’s a minor quibble. Otherwise, we’re pleased. Holbrooke, Mitchell, Ross. You even got the order right, Mike! Well done!

On Friday, Trotter explained how Reines had once secretly ghostwritten an item on Allen’s blog. In November, Trotter showed that Allen promised positive coverage to Chelsea Clinton and promised to provide his interview questions in advance. “No one besides me would ask her a question, and you and I would agree on them precisely in advance.” The “no surprises” promise he made to Chelsea was common practice for Allen in dealing with Democrats, emails obtained by Trotter have revealed. So the chances that Reines dictated Allen’s coverage of Clinton’s speech are approximately yes it happened . . . give or take.

The fact that these guys still work and don’t get disciplined in any way tells you all you need to know.

Excellent work by Trotter.


New Hampshire Open Thread

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 5:15 pm

Bernie and Trump win. Battle for second among Republicans, with Kasich and Bush currently outpacing Cruz and Rubio.

What a stupid state.

Triumph the Insult Comic Dog Skewers PC

Filed under: General — JVW @ 11:56 am

[guest post by JVW]

I am ridiculously tired of everything to do with the New Hampshire, which, if history is any indication, will do very little to help us move any further towards a GOP nominee beyond convincing some of the also-rans to give up the ghost and end their campaigns. That said, I saw this video in a post on Powerline in which Triumph the Insult Comic Dog speaks to a group of freshmen — uh, “first year students” — at the University of New Hampshire. Not to lapse into silly cliché, but this really did have tears rolling from my eyes. Warning: video contains copious profanities in case you are at work.

I find it interesting that this video is produced in conjunction with Funny or Die, which mostly produces comedy ideologically aligned with the beliefs of its left-wing co-founder Will Farrell. Funny or Die has in the past shilled for ObamaCare and they are generally relentlessly hostile towards conservative public figures while largely delivering sloppy wet kisses to their allies on the left. So for that particular collection of smug progressives who still laugh at Farrell’s scenery-chewing and continuing buffoonery to be willing to lampoon the lunacy of one of the key pillars of modern leftism should give great pause to crybullies everywhere.


Profile of a Trump Supporter

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:30 am

Alternate title: How’s That Whole Democracy Thing Working Out For You”?

A reporter found the woman who yelled at a Trump rally that Ted Cruz is a “pussy” and interviewed her for her further insights, which are as follows:

“I watched the debate, and [Ted Cruz] just comes across as a pussy,” she told Mic on the floor of the Verizon center. “He doesn’t have the balls to stand up to Putin. He doesn’t have the balls to stand up to other leaders of others countries.”

When asked whether she trusts Trump, she answered, “He’s got the balls the size of watermelons, whereas the other ones got the balls of little grapes.” She then specified the size of other candidates’ testicles. “The other one, Rubio, [has balls] like a raisin.” When asked about the other candidates, she answered, “They’re nobodies.”

If it makes you feel any better, her vote counts the same as yours.

P.S. The “Gimme Free Stuff or Die” state selects its preferred nanny today. I’ll open a thread this evening. If you can’t wait, use this.

Donald Trump on Ted Cruz: “She Said He’s a Pussy”

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 12:45 am

He would never say this about Ted Cruz. But an audience member said it — and he had no choice but to repeat it. To denounce it, you understand!

“The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” — Franklin Delano Roosevelt

“My fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.” — John F. Kennedy, Jr.

“Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” — Ronald Reagan

“She said he’s a pussy. That’s terrible. Terrible!” — Donald J. Trump


About Rubio’s Oft-Repeated Criticism Of President Obama

Filed under: General — Dana @ 7:39 pm

[guest post by Dana]

At the GOP debate Saturday night, there was a brutal exchange between Chris Christie and Marco Rubio. During it, Rubio made a repeated observation and criticism of President Obama. It is a statement he has practiced many times, using it not only on the debate stage but on the campaign trail. And it’s an observation I agree with:

“Let’s dispel once and for all with this fiction that Barack Obama doesn’t know what he’s doing. He knows exactly what he’s doing. Barack Obama is undertaking a systematic effort to change this country, to make America more like the rest of the world,”

Rubio repeated a variation of the same line at least four more times during the exchange.

Seeing an opening, Christie ignored the content of Rubio’s observation and criticism, and instead pounced on him as someone inexperienced, unprepared, and not able to do anything more than parrot himself, let alone handle the presidency:

“Look at this! There it is again! The guy, he doesn’t know what to say. He’s a robot. He’s got his 25-second speech. He’s got his canned answer followed by the 25-second campaign. There it is! There it is! You see it!”

Rubio looked like a chump, Christie looked like a bully. Because politics.

Anyway, when I watched the exchange, I wondered, instead of bulldozing Rubio, why didn’t Christie agree with his basic statement – that this president has indeed, willfully and with great intent sought to cut America down to size and transform our country into something unrecognizable? Certainly every presidential candidate would be able to acknowledge the truth of this, no? Given that I hadn’t heard or read anything about the exchange other than criticism of Rubio, it was a surprise to hear Rush talking about it today from a different perspective. One that echoed – and answered – my questions. While I don’t think it would have necessarily changed anything about the debate, it was good to hear something I had been thinking about delved into and fleshed out.

Rush first considered the few candidates who have been unafraid to voice their own similar criticisms of the president:

There are only two people that I’m aware of that are making a consistent point of this. Rubio, actually, is atop of this. Rubio and Cruz are the only two in the entire Republican field. Carly Fiorina may have said something like this occasionally. With Rubio, it’s a theme. With Cruz, it’s close to a theme. And the real question is: Why do the other Republicans in the field disagree?

Why do they not say it themselves, that Obama is doing what he’s doing on purpose and by design? That is a brilliantly conceived and flawlessly executed plan to transform America into something it was not founded to be. This is something crucially important to Republican voters. To people inside the Beltway, it’s kind of a chuckle. “There they go again, those right wingers!” To people inside the Beltway, to the elites, to the establishment, Obama’s just the latest Democrat to come along.

He’s no different than any other Democrat. “It’s just the Democrat Party, and they have a president.” They don’t see the country in crisis in any way. Not because of the economy, not because of immigration, not because of foreign policy. In no way are we in a crisis. And, as such, they don’t see what Obama’s doing as anything except maybe a young, inexperienced — this is Christie’s point — incompetent boob. Well, that’s not who Obama is. Rubio’s opponents are using it to disqualify him. “See! Obama doesn’t know what he’s doing, and Rubio’s the same kind of guy, just a few short years in the Senate running for president. We can’t afford it.

Then the governors on stage were put under the microscope:

“Meanwhile, the governors! We’re the guys. We’re the tough guys. We’ve had to make tough decisions,” blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. The governors will not admit who Obama is. The governors will not admit it, and Trump does not agree that Obama is purposely doing this.

And why wouldn’t they admit that this is indeed who Obama is, and has been since Day One? Why not jump at the opportunity before 13 million viewers to contrast their own vision for the country with Obama’s progressive transformation of America? Because it would have cost them. And they knew it:

They cannot agree that Obama’s doing it on purpose. They do not dare say that Obama’s doing it on purpose because they have all worked with Barack Obama, in one way or another, every one of these governors, many of them, and even a lot of Republicans in the House and Senate have worked with Obama to advance certain elements of the agenda.

We’ve worked with Obama on the spending bills. We have worked with Obama, or we want to, on amnesty and immigration. There are some on the Republican side who want to work with Obama when it comes to issues on the so-called War on Women. But when you have worked with Obama, when you have asked Obama to come to your state, and when you have embraced Obama and done everything you can to get assistance from Obama, well, you can’t turn around and then say Obama is purposefully trying to transform the country ’cause that makes you look like an idiot.

And worse, it would make them look like hypocrites who are guilty by association. (Of course, had the GOP Republicans not spent the entirety of Obama’s presidency betraying conservatives by consistently surrendering to the Democrats and compromising on the issues most important to the voters, there wouldn’t be any guilt by association.) But as it is, there is virtually no longer any daylight between GOP Republicans and Democrats. They’ve done it to themselves.


Next Page »

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1686 secs.