They Don't Like Her... They Really Don't Like Her

Looking for video of Hillary getting spanked?  I can't help, but I have five Hillary bashers today, two from the NY Times and three from the WaPo.

The NY Times editors blame the recent racial meltdown in the Dem Party on her:

Race And Politics

...The last thing Americans need is a loony debate over whether it is more important to choose the first woman or the first African-American nominee for president. That threatens to alienate voters more than they are already and obscures the fact that an American party actually managed to create that choice.

...By the time the campaigns got to New Hampshire, the Clinton team was panicking. Mrs. Clinton had to win or risk being out of the primaries entirely.

It was clearly her side that first stoked the race and gender issue.

Timesman Patrick Healy tries to sort out the multiple Hillary Personas for us in a piece not titled "What Fresh Hil Is This":

Clinton Seeks Blend of Policy and Persona

RENO, Nev. — There has been Commander in Chief Hillary Rodham Clinton, the steely leader who, voters were assured, would “destroy” terrorists and be Thatcher-like tough.

There has been Strong-and-Experienced Hillary Clinton, but that proved to be so uninspiring that Change-Agent Hillary and Likable-Since-I-Was-a-Kid Hillary were rolled out.

And Teary-Eyed Hillary, of course, won the New Hampshire primary last week, after the candidate choked up describing the rigors of the race.

But as her advisers said after New Hampshire, Mrs. Clinton cannot cry her way to the Democratic nomination. So she and her team have been searching for the right personality to help her connect emotionally with voters — an intuitive talent of her chief competitor for the Democratic presidential nomination, Senator Barack Obama — while also emphasizing her competence and experience.

Hillary has been bracing herself for this campaign for thirty-five years but still isn't sure how to present herself?  Maybe Naomi Wolf is available to guide this process of self-reinvention.

Mr. Healy gets a bit ahistorical here:

In response to one reporter’s question on Wednesday, for instance, Mrs. Clinton said that she had the experience to try to head off a national recession and that she “saw what it took to push through the Congress in 1993 the economic stimulus package.” (Only one problem: That package relied on Democratic votes, not the sort of bipartisanship that Mr. Obama is promising, and contributed to Democrats losing control of the House of Representatives in 1994.)

Can we say, "Only two problems"?  Mr. Healy is correct that Bill Clinton's original budget, including his tax hikes, passed with Democratic votes.  However his separate stimulus package was ground down to a fine powder by Bob Dole in the Senate.  Mr. Healy could benefit from a quick trip to the Times archives - here is Adam Clymer, who later went big time:

G.O.P. Senators Prevail, Sinking Clinton's Economic Stimulus Bill

Senate Republicans killed President Clinton's economic stimulus program today, maintaining their filibuster until Democrats surrendered and agreed to limit the bill to $4 billion for extended unemployment benefits.

Mr. Clinton's first serious legislative defeat was marked by complaints from Democrats in the Senate and the White House. But Bob Dole, the Senate minority leader, was satisfied that the Republicans had shown that they deserved to be taken seriously. He avoided gloating, and promised occasional cooperation with the President.

Hard to believe that Ms. Clinton wants to cite that on her resume, or that Mr. Healy would let her.

Meanwhile over at the WaPo, George Will and Robert Novak target Hillary and David Broder smites all the Democratic candidates.

George Will:

Endorsements of politicians by politicians may matter little to voters, but they are indicators of the endorsers' estimates of strengths and dangers. So what do Sens. Kent Conrad of North Dakota, Tim Johnson of South Dakota, Claire McCaskill of Missouri and Ben Nelson of Nebraska; former senator

Posted by Tom Maguire on January 18, 2008 | Permalink

Comments

[maryrose]

hIL IS A DEFINITE LOSER FOR ALL OTHER CANDIDATES ON THE BALLOT WITH HER. tHESE RED STATE POLS ARE JUSTIFIED IN BEING CONCERNED ABOUT THE CONSEQUENCES. tHE cLINTONS DON'T CARE ABOUT ANYONE EXCEPT THEMSELVES.

[Jane]

It's all quite delicious!

[BumperStickerist]

Hillary has more grist than there are mills to grind it.

On a lark, I decided to see what role Hillary played in the White House Redecoration, I figured there'd be a "Hillary, the only executive decisions she made in the White House were about the drapes" line in there somewhere.

Per a NYT puff piece written in 1993 - Oh Noes!!!!

A Redecorated White House, the Way the Clintons Like It PATRICIA LEIGH BROWN, Published: November 24, 1993

It was farewell to the free trade agreement and the Pacific Rim conference. At the White House today, it was time to concentrate on domestic issues -- like whether the country is ready for blood-red fabrics and neo-Victorian decor ornamented with gold Napoleonic laurel wreaths ...

...

But the inevitable discussion of cloth and cash took a distressing turn earlier this year when it was associated with the suicide of Vincent W. Foster Jr., a close friend and aide to President Clinton. In a note found in his briefcase after his death, Mr. Foster alluded to cost overruns and schemes associated with the redecorating, which he did not describe but feared would embarrass the President and Mrs. Clinton.

Day-um.

Not the suicide of Vince Foster, that's wingnut territory, but the fact that Hillary couldn't manage a redecoration project without schemes and cost overruns.

.

[Other Tom]

I think Bubba is gradually but inexorably coming unglued before our very eyes, and it is an exquisitely deightful sight to behold. The story of his red-faced tirade against the San Fran reporter who dared to ask about the Nevada "disenfranchise" lawsuit is all over the web, and is a wonderful read. As usual, Bubba was fundamentally dishonest about the facts in the course of his outburst.

I suppose the court will be ruling almost any moment now, and I'm fervently hoping that the plaintiffs are summarily tossed. One way or another, they have created as shitstorm of resentment against these trashy Machiavellians.

[clarice]

And the decorations were atrocious--rather along the line of her first inaugural outfit. Do you really trust a woman who has No Taste?

[Rick Ballard]

"Looking for video of Hillary getting spanked?"

Why, no, thanks.

My gag reflex functions well and when I wish to test it I need only glance at any 'normal' picture of her.

I'm not sure what "So she and her team have been searching for the right personality to help her connect emotionally with voters", means exactly.

Aren't fear and loathing sufficient, especially when her propensity to use the IRS as a political weapon is so well known? If fear and loathing aren't sufficient, doesn't her 'Disenfranchisement and Suppression Spell' cover the debased base?

Of all the Red State Dem endorsements of Obama, I find McCaskill's fascinating. She's not up for reelection until 2012, whereas Johnson is up this year in a redder state. I can't quite decipher the meaning of McKaskill's move. If she's not careful she's going to wind up hopping down the corridors of power, hoping no one steps on her.

[vnjagvet]

The "New Dick" came to mind when I read this post describing Hillary!s quest for a likeable, electable personality.

Nixon was always trying to comb over his wierd persona between elections to be politically more attractive to the average joe.

Inevitably, one of his crack PR staff would come up with another, more attractive new Nixon and wow the press corps with a poetic rendering of this likeable character.

The press response equally inevitabally came up with the label that this was the "New Dick".

Laughter abounded at the expense of the haplessly square and nerdy Nixon.

Unfortunately there isn't an equally scatological label to attach to Hillary!.

At least I can't come up with any.

I need help here.

[vnjagvet]

OT, H&R, Rick, Rich......anyone???

[clarice]

Anyone. Reporting for duty.

[maryrose]

This situation of disenfranchising voters in Nevada just because Hil didn't get the endorsement shows the true Clinton colors for all to see. Bill's outburst...another example of how he is a dead albatross on her campaign. It was another "Chris Wallace" moment.. both demeaning and revealing. These two are to be avoided at all costs. I just hope voters are smart enough to see through them. If Ohio matters on March 4th, you can rest assured I will be voting against Hil.

[Ann]

"New Hell"

[Ann]

By the way, thanks to everyone for your computer advice and patience last night. Oh, and for helping Soylent with the email thing.

[PeterUK]

Hillary,a "touchy feely Ma Barker.A tear in her eye and a gun in her knickers.

[Ann]

PUK,

If Ladies for Mitt are called "Mittens"

What should Ladies for Fred be called? Any ideas?

[PeterUK]

Ladies.

[MayBee]

What should Ladies for Fred be called?

Smart.

[Rick Ballard]

"Unfortunately there isn't an equally scatological label to attach to Hillary!."

I haven't found one and it's not for lack of looking or thinking about it. I like Maleficent Molly but it's not instantly understood.

[Ann]

"Ladies"

Somehow, I knew you would come up with the right answer,PUK :)

[anduril]

Margaret Carlson has a commentary in which she tries to claim that the fact that Sharpton is coming out on Obama's side solves Hillary's race problems. I don't think it'll be that easy. Much as she (Carlson) is "highly regarded" by some.

[Other Tom]

Hell, I'll volunteer to spank her. Skirt up, pants down, bottom beet-red. Don't get me started...

[glasater]

On last night's O'Reilly--he came up with the notion that the D's ticket will be Shrill and Hussein.
Am just wondering with all the bad blood going on between the two campaigns if this could be overcome for Bill's hypothesis.

[Jane]

The Clintons lost in Court. Tee hee.

What should Ladies for Fred be called?

Smart.

Love it!

[clarice]

YIPPEE! So she lost in court and in public opinion. Great.

[Other Tom]

From what I was able to read about the case, it never stood a chance. You have to wonder why these two lawyers failed to repudiate it and distance themselves from it for that reason alone.

[MayBee]

Do you want casino workers to have 5 times the vote, OT? DO YOU NOT BELIEVE IN DEMOCRACY???

[bio mom]

How can decent Democrats seriously think of voting for a replay of the Clintons in the White House? Just how can they be so incredibly naive and ....stupid!

There is no way there will be a Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama ticket. Never will happen. Doesn't help them in any way.

[Topsecretk9]

Rush says the Clinton's disenfranchise lawsuit lost

[Topsecretk9]

Oh...Jane's too fast

[PeterUK]

"Do you want casino workers to have 5 times the vote?"

Of course,the house always wins.

[Other Tom]

Judge Dismisses Nevada Caucus Challenge

Jan 17 02:43 PM US/Eastern
By KEN RITTER
Associated Press Writer Write a Comment


LAS VEGAS (AP) - Democrats with ties to Hillary Rodham Clinton failed in court Thursday to prevent casino workers from caucusing at special precincts in Nevada.
The ruling by U.S. District Court Judge James Mahan was presumed to be a boost for Clinton rival Barack Obama in the Democratic presidential caucuses Saturday because he has been endorsed by the union representing many of the shift workers who will be able to use the precincts on the Las Vegas strip.

"State Democrats have a First Amendment right to association, to assemble and to set their own rules," Mahan said.

Nevada's Democratic Party approved creation of the precincts to make it easier for housekeepers, waitresses and bellhops to caucus during the day near work rather than have to do so in their neighborhoods.

The state teachers union, which has ties to Clinton, brought the suit against the special precincts shortly after local 226 of the Culinary Workers Union endorsed Obama for the Democratic nomination. The union is the largest in Nevada, with 60,000 members. The Clinton campaign said it was not involved in the suit.

The suit contended party rules allowing the precincts gave too much power to the casino workers and violated federal equal protection guarantees.

But the judge said, "We aren't voting here, we're caucusing. That's something that parties decide."

He said it is "up to the national party and the state party to promulgate these rules and enforce them."

The Democratic National Committee ratified the state party's rules in August.

Opinion polls show Clinton, Obama and John Edwards in a statistical dead heat in the Nevada race. Each has made a vigorous bid for union support.

Opponents of the strip precincts said they could be more valuable in the delegate count than some sparsely populated counties, giving them too much clout. The Culinary Union said the suit was an attempt to disenfranchise its members. "Backers of Hillary Clinton are suing in court to take away our right to vote in the caucuses," a union flier said.

[Jane]

Gee, that should with Hillary's support - not.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

What should Ladies for Fred be called?

Fredheads. But, Romney's should be Mitt'n Kittens. McCain's; John Girls. Giuliani's; Rudyettes.

And, Huckababes.

[RichatUF]

vnjagvet-

I'm partial to the HellRasier formulation-it works on so many levels.

Staring The Red Witch a/k/a "The Dark Prince of Pain"-Pinhead. She can be Happy Pinhead, Sad Pinhead, Angry Pinhead. She is trying to bring out Clinton III: Hell on Earth. She even calls her fundraisers "HillRaisers" [because calling her supporters cenobites would give up the game too early I suppose]. So much to photoshop so little time.

[PeterUK]

By the same token,what do you call women for Hillary,Hillerybians?

[maryrose]

Sanity returns with a smart decision by the Judge to allow the caucas sites on the Strip. Don't Hil and Bill believe in "count every vote?"

[Other Tom]

Women for Hillary=Harridaniacs.

[Porchlight]

Why don't we let the French inspire us?

Hillariennes
Clintonettes

or my favorite,

Rodhamoiselles

[PeterUK]

"Hell, I'll volunteer to spank her. Skirt up, pants down, bottom beet-red. Don't get me started..."

That would be Swiftbeating?

[Jor]

Bill Clinton's outburst includes making up numbers to justify voter dis-enfranchisement in Nevada Link is to video of his outburst. (from drudge).

[MayBee]

Oh Hillary-ous. Now there are complaints about Union intimidation of culinary workers that want to vote for Clinton.

WHAT??? Union intimidation? That's just crazy talk.
I've not heard if there is any intimidation of members that want to vote Republican.

[kim]

Don't cry for me, O Nevada.
================

[Sue]

I received an email today. It seems Chelsea was speaking to a soldier and asked him if, as an American fighting man, anything scared him. He told her there were only 3 things he feared...Osama...Obama...and Yo Mama.

The jokes just get dumber and funnier! ::grin::

[Ralph L]

The favorite movie of the once-Yuppie Friends of Bill:
"The Big Chillary."

[vnjagvet]

I guess we must be ready for a few "The new Hillaraiser!" stories, Rich. That is as good as we can do, I think.

I sure hope she finds a voice and keeps it. If she has a new voice for each state, she will eclipse Hydra.

First Harpy, now Hydra.

BTW, that lawsuit seems to have been ill advised on so many levels as to be almost inept. That quality is one that the Clintons have not exhibited much in the past. What gives there? Desperation?

[Rick Ballard]

"I've not heard if there is any intimidation of members that want to vote Republican."

You won't, either. When they stuffed 'em in the dumpsters behind the casinos they tossed old mattresses on top of them before they welded the lids shut.

[Rick Ballard]

Vnjagvet,

FOHs lack the political subtlety of FOBs. They work from the Nurse Ratchet/Frau Blucher/NEA no-tolerance, Ritalin model.

Single jack to the forehead rather than stiletto under the ribs.

[centralcal]

The complaint about intimidation of voters was also voiced very loudly during the Frank Luntz focus group the night of the debate, iirc from a hispanic male.

[SteveMG]

Slate TV ran this very funny clip from the Reese Witherspoon movie "Election". Hillary as Tracy Flick.

It's very good.

[vnjagvet]

Yeah, Rick. The mule gets that upside the head from time to time with great effect.

[kim]

Hey folks, immigration has yet to be demagogued; by that I mean it's only getting worse.
========================

[hit and run]

OK, not sure which thread is the hip happening place for such things, but a couple notes on Republicans...

1) SC is going to have nasty weather on Saturday. Highs in the low 40s and rain in most of the state and snow in some parts. Turnout will be a factor.

1a) Mitt left town for NV -- of the candidates he is susceptible to less motivated voters staying home, perhaps (though, late-breaking news, he's upped his ad buys).

1ai) Rasmussen says of SC:

Sixty-four percent (64%) of Huckabee’s supporters are “certain” they will vote for him while 63% of McCain voters say they won’t change their mind. Sixty-three percent (63%) Thompson supporters are that “certain” along with 55% of Romney backers. Seventeen percent (17%) of Romney voters say there’s a good chance they might change their mind. That’s a far higher total than for other leading candidates

(exit question, why are Huck's and Fred's numbers spelled out, but not

2) The Huck robo-calls are embarrassing for the governor -- and he should come out more forcefully and denounce them -- unambiguously. To not do so will end up costing him points eventually, especially since you can't hide the content, the audio is out on these here intertubes and will be spreading.

2a) OK, so, how's this for forcefully...quoth Huck:

I personally wish that all of this was outlawed. I think that every candidates should speak for themselves, and that every thing that involves the candidate's name or another candidate's name should be authorized and approved by that candidate, otherwise it shouldn't be spoken...

McCain-Feingold on Stilts.

[Ann]

On Hills new remake, "The Big cHill" works- thanks Ralph L

Did anyone see the new bumpersticker at Michelle Malkins?

Noting that it’s the ten-year anniversary of Monica Lewinsky scandal, someone came up with:

"Monica Lewinskys X Boyfriend's Wife for President"

I actually prefer: Bill's X Girlfriend Monica Lewinshky for President

I know..... HEH

[maryrose]

Hil as Tracy Flick from the movie "Election"
That captures her exactly. We used to call a kid like her a brown-nose. She has a compulsive need to control everything. Fatal flaw...she is impatient that people have not embraced the idea of her as President. My biggest fear is that she and Bill will cheat and steal the election.

[maryrose]

Chris Matthews was forced to apologize to Hil Clinton on Hardball today because he dared to say something that was true..that the only reason she got her Senate seat was because she played the victim card after Bill's affair with Lewinsky.What a wuss... Bill must have pressured someone.. Media Matters anyone?

[clarice]

I suspect it will soon occur to MSNBC that Chria is regarded as a nutcase throughout the political pectrum.

[clarice]

**spectrum** (damn.I am sorry for all these typos.)

[Ann]

Maryrose,

I saw that and I immediately thought that Chris got a message from the Clinton machine reminding him of Vince Foster.

It is very sad that the two crooks in the room have made this great country cynical. I truly believe the Democrats want to get rid of them but they just don't know how too. They want to vote for Obama, but are really scared of loosing the election. Everyone knows who the Clintons are, but how do you get rid of them without the fear of loosing your job.

[anduril]

**spectrum** (damn.I am sorry for all these typos.)

Posted by: clarice | January 17, 2008 at 09:10 PM

I hope you didn't give up wine AND cigarettes?

:-)

[Porchlight]

I actually prefer: Bill's X Girlfriend Monica Lewinshky for President

I always liked Monica. So sue me.

A commenter at Hot Air came up with a fun bumpersticker a couple of months ago:

Same sh*t, different Klinton.

Change the K to a C and I'd put it on my car. Especially if done up in the black sticker-white lettering that's so popular with the anti-Bush crowd. That'll confuse 'em.

[anduril]

Is it to late to draft

STEVE FORBES FOR PRESIDENT?

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2008/0107/015_print.html

The upcoming presidential election will be the most critical one since 1980. Back then Ronald Reagan decidedly defeated incumbent Jimmy Carter, ushering in radical new policies that would successfully set the course of this country for the next quarter-century. Unlike previous administrations, Reagan's dramatically cut taxes (the top income tax rate dropped from 70% to 28%). Reagan pushed government deregulation and reined in nondefense, nonentitlement spending. And, most important, he won the Cold War, an extraordinary victory that few experts had thought possible. We have been living off Reagan's dividends ever since.

What course will the country take now? Will we significantly simplify the tax code and cut tax rates, as Rudy Giuliani and some other GOP contenders advocate? Or will we raise taxes to stagnant, old-Europe levels, as all the Democratic presidential wannabes favor doing? Will we push for consumer control of health care or will we have a de facto socialized system, such as that Hillary Clinton is pushing? Will we turn Social Security from a liability into an asset by allowing people under the age of 50 to have personal accounts that are owned by them, not by Washington politicians--a system that will yield far greater returns than the current Social Security system could possibly do? Or will we go the Democratic way of heavier payroll taxes and reduced benefits?

Regarding foreign policy, will we take a broader, more vigorous approach to combating terrorism, deploying not only our military (which must be beefed up) but also a Reagan-like type of "soft diplomacy," such as far more effective use of radio and Internet broadcasts to troubled parts of the world? Will we push pro-growth economic policies that emphasize sound money, low taxes and property rights for developing countries or the detrimental high-tax, cheap-money policies of the current Treasury Department and the IMF?

...

The Bush administration says it was doing only what bankers would have done anyway in corralling the biggies in the home mortgage field and having them agree to provide relief to a million or so subprime borrowers in one of three ways: refinance an existing loan into a new private mortgage, move them into an FHASecure loan or freeze teaser rates for five years. If that were the case, who needed Uncle Sam's arm-twisting?

A critical, oft-underappreciated principle of free markets is property rights and the sanctity of contracts. It's one thing if both parties sit down and renegotiate terms, quite another when the government comes in and says (in this case) to the bankers: "Do it or we'll break your arms." Argentina and other perpetually underperforming countries routinely abrogate agreements when it's politically convenient to do so. During the 20th century Argentina tumbled from being one of the richest economies in the world to the chronically troubled, submediocre state it is today.

Treasury Chief Henry Paulson's decision follows bad precedents made during the Great Depression. Both the Hoover and Roosevelt administrations took high-handed actions that pre-cipitated and then deepened and prolonged the economic crisis that was battering both the U.S. and the rest of the world and made possible the rise of Nazism and the advent of World War II.

In particular, Paulson's powwow in December was reminiscent of one of President Herbert Hoover's moves in the fall of 1929, following the stock market crash. Hoover convened a meeting of the leaders of many large companies and had them promise not to cut wages or lay off workers. Amazingly these corporate chieftains largely stuck to the agreement for more than a year, until sickening economic conditions forced them to slash payrolls and salaries in order to stay afloat.

Amity Shlaes' The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression reveals that Hoover's seemingly humane actions perversely worsened the crisis. As sales plummeted, these companies had to tighten expenses, which forced suppliers to slash prices. In turn, suppliers had no choice but to engage in massive layoffs of their own workforces. The large companies, by keeping all their workers on their payrolls and salaries artificially high, ended up creating far more joblessness in the rest of the economy.

Today the real problem is that we still don't know where all the bad paper is. As with tainted spinach or lettuce--and even though, as a proportion of the whole, only a minuscule amount may be bad--no one will buy any of it until it's known where the bad produce is.

[Ann]

Clarice,

I think this whole election will uncover that the NYTimes and MSNBC "Iraq is in a civil war" are frauds. The more the new media (we) discuss the fraud the better. The truth will be when we pick our candidate not them!! Hopefully, it is this year. They have already got the polling wrong because of their bias.

[anduril]

Best of the Web discusses The Lewinsky Decade.

[vnjagvet]

Steve's got some good ideas, but he needs a personality transplant.

[Topsecretk9]

Captain Ed is linking to Judicial Matters who got their hands on some Hillary Care Task force memo's -- they look pretty damning, especially this bit of Smear campaign prep and Media coordination via Rockefeller

The other two excerpts paint the effort in an entirely new and darker light. First, Senator Jay Rockefeller proposed that the federal government conduct smear campaigns against the opponents of the plan:

A “Confidential” May 26, 1993 Memorandum from Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) to Hillary Clinton entitled, “Health Care Reform Communications,” which criticizes the Task Force as a “secret cabal of Washington policy ‘wonks’” that has engaged in “choking off information” from the public regarding health care reform. The memorandum suggests that Hillary Clinton “use classic opposition research” to attack those who were excluded by the Clinton Administration from Task Force deliberations and to “expose lifestyles, tactics and motives of lobbyists” in order to deflect criticism.

Rockefeller had allies in mind for this effort:

Senator Rockefeller also suggested news organizations “are anxious and willing to receive guidance [from the Clinton Administration] on how to time and shape their [news] coverage.”

More at captain's link with a memo detialing their enemey datamine project - is this what the FBI files were for?

[Rick Ballard]

"no one will buy any of it until it's known where the bad produce is."

Anduril,

Steve's being just a tad disingenuous. CITI knew by the end of the first quarter of 2005 that relaxed underwriting practices had tainted the mortgage pools because of the increase of immediately apparent fraud. That didn't stop CITI from peddling the pools to suckers around the world .

If one examines the personal political contributions of the CITI board members who had a fiduciary responsibility to provide oversight to management practice a 7/1 disparity of Dems over Reps kind of sticks out like a very sore thumb. The names Weill, Rubin and Prince are not entirely unknown in Democratic circles.

Mr. Andrea Mitchell had more than a little to do with the situation and President Bush's failure to renew his contract at the Fed stopped the merry-go-round enabled by very lax Fed oversight. The Fed's actions since Bernanke's ascension have properly brought the thieves at CITI to their knees and further pressure may even rid the board of the Dem dead weight that has cost shareholders more than $20 billion (including dilution).

Iraq and Afghanistan aren't the only places where war is being fought.

[anduril]

Rick, I'll bite, since you don't spell it out (or I don't know enough about this situation to spot it): Wherein does Forbes' disingenuousness lie?

[Topsecretk9]

here is more from the Rockefeller memo to Hillary

To Undermine Opponents, they must be:
• Shown as perpetrators and beneficiaries of the problem
• Exposed as divorced from interest of average Americans
• Exposed as promoting delay to subvert reform
• Isolated from each other to prevent increased credibility through combination
**LOSE by allowing them even one day without scrutiny

---

The Press:
• Have not been made part of the crafted information flow
• Have been antagonized with purpose
• Are being forced to negatively review and translate the reform plan

---

The strength of the Secret cabal of policy wonks has been turned into a liability

---

Pre- Unveiling

...A tremendous opportunity will have been lost if the following steps are not taken before the plan is unveiled. This period must be used to:

2. Build trust in the reformers

• Continue to HRC and WJC opportunities to empathize with real-life struggle of average American...

• Focus attention on the real-life motivations of members of the task force and working groups

• Aggressively market their personal stories

• Guide them in what information to move...

Build trust in the Reform process

• demonstrate independence by publicly challenging ideologues and characterizing those excluded from the working groups as "professional lobbyists"

4. Impeach the credibility of opponents:

• Avoid partisan targeting. Demonstrate that opponents are advocates of delay or inaction, regardless of party affiliation. Moderate republicans must be broken from conservative ranks.

• Expose opponents as "professional lobbyists" with values and interests divorced from average Americans (document salaries, perks, ideological extremism, and provide all to the media)

• Use classic opposition research to expose their selfish and short-sighted motivations, and obstructionist tactics (collect mailings, track ad campaigns, investigate expenditures, and provide to the media)

• Document how much opponents will gain by delaying or halting reform

----

[Rick Ballard]

Sorry, Anduril - the lenders know the precise extent of the default/foreclosure situation within each of their pools. To assert that lending companies which carry out upwards of 100 million credit transactions every day do not have a grip on the status of fifty million mortgages is very disingenuous.

[narciso]

CitiCorp, isn't that where they stashed Clinton pardonee John Deutsch and his no talent assistant, Nora Slatkin, back in the
late 90s. Of course, the Board of CitiCorp had to know that subprime was ultimately a mug's game as most financial institutions probably also figured out However, at the beginning, they didn't really think that Greenspan would end up raising rates, month after month for nearly a two year period. They were also a delusion that they would easily get bailed out; out of there predicament. The examples of WorldCom, Enron
& Global Crossings never entered their calculations.

On another note, in the 'can you be more clueless even if you tried' category. Tim
Rutten's obituary for Phillip Agee, really takes the cake. He does mention 3/4 of the
way through it; that Agee had started collaborating with the Soviets since the late 60s; as the Mitrokhin files point out. However, his excuse is the ever effective,
'the US was either training/or abetting torture in Brazil, Uruguay, et al. This is
a good reason to sign up with the successors
to the Cheka. What Rutten gleans from this, is the fallacy of 'not choosing sides'. I would think not embarking on a course of action, most would see as treason; is a better lesson, but what do I know. Does anyone edit the LA Times_____.. .

[vnjagvet]

1975-1980 - REITS actively solicited apartment builders all over the country to build apartments and sell them as condominiums. Result: Pools of purchase money mortgages many of which were in projects which had major construction deficiencies or were in projects which were half built when the market became overbuilt.

1987-1995 - Savings and Loans became joint venturers with developers in a plethora of commercial and multi-family projects heretofore financed by Commercial Banks and REITS. S&L's chased developers as was the situation with the REITs above. Result: Mortgage pools in bad projects which went south. Failure of S&L industry. Multi-billion dollar bailout by FDIC, FSLIC and RPC (funded by you and me).

1996-2008 - Residential Mortgage pooling era results in construction boom, unlimited financing and low interest rates for mortgages. Result: Multi-billion dollar fiasco which is just popping.

Guess what:

If you really go back through all this, you will see many of the same characters involved. For a taste of the types of assholes involved, see, Barbarians At the Gate, and A Man In Full.

[kim]

An effort is being made to rehabilitate Agee on the corpse of the CIA.

Oh, boy, pooch, a twofer.
===================

[Soylent Red]

the Reform process

Yikes. If that doesn't echo with the sounds of statist jackboots I don't know what does.

Reform Process...Re-education...Cultural Revolution...enemy of The People...

I've got to leave now to go buy ammunition.

[Rick Ballard]

Vnjagvet,

It's almost as much fun as tracing the Gore/Armand Hammer connection while looking at AGW.

Those condo association suits were legal riots. I sat in a "be there or die" meeting called by a special master that had 150 attorneys in attendance. Three hours of meeting (plus travel and expenses, of course). A veritable bonanza.

[kim]

Hah hah. Jay Cost is great, but he calls it a problem for Romney that he is weak among supporters of Huckabee and McCain.
======================

[Rick Ballard]

Es imperdonable!

La Bruja Roja is having some minor difficulties in whipping the Hispanics into line.

[Elliott]

I've finally come up with a bumper sticker for Jane: "I snark Huckabee."

[Jane]

"I snark Huckabee."

Love it!

[anduril]

Sorry, Anduril - the lenders know the precise extent of the default/foreclosure situation within each of their pools. To assert that lending companies which carry out upwards of 100 million credit transactions every day do not have a grip on the status of fifty million mortgages is very disingenuous.

Posted by: Rick Ballard | January 17, 2008 at 11:40 PM

Rick, to say that Forbes is being "disingenuous" suggests that for some reason he's trying to put something over on us--I still don't see what he's trying to put over on us, nor do I see the reason. So far you're simply saying that his statement is inaccurate.

I'm no expert in high finance, but I wonder whether he's trying to make some larger point about the financial markets in general. Your wording suggests that you're focusing on the individual lending institutions, whereas Forbes is saying that the financial markets don't know the extent to which all institutions have plunged into this mess (I've probably got the terminology wrong).

But to say that Forbes is being "disingenuous" suggests that he has something to gain from his alleged dishonesty or sleight of hand. I don't see that right now. It's not like he's defending CITI or any of the bankers. His main point is to criticize the Bush administration's reaction to this very serious problem--which happened on Bush's watch. The WSJ today is making a similar point in their editorial We're All Keynsians Now. Their comparison is to the 1970's, which doesn't seem so very flattering. The WSJ has not been among the conspicuous Bush bashers, yet they also specifically name Bush:

...after yesterday, we're not sure what decade we're in. With Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and President Bush both endorsing temporary tax cuts and more federal spending as "fiscal stimulus," an inflation-adjusted version of Jimmy Carter's $50 rebate can't be far behind.

Sounds like the WSJ, like Forbes, think Bush is making a major boo-boo.

[bio mom]

Here is a way to get rid of the Clintons. Republicans unite to convince the Democrats that they will support Obama if they nominate him. Since the idea that no R candidate can win is the norm of the day, they would believe it. Obama then becomes the guaranteed electable candidate. Pragmatic Democrats nominate him. That way we win either way. The R still could win or not but we do not have to suffer through a Clinton presidency.

[anduril]

Correction: Sounds like the WSJ, like Forbes, thinks Bush is making a major boo-boo.

[Appalled Moderate]

Um. Tom, I know you want to provide your commenters ample opportunity to express their dismay over the Clinton phenomenon, but bumping this thread up forced me to confront, again, the alarming possibility that there might be a video of Hilary getting "spanked".

I am going to have to dig out some Playboys to get that unfortunate image expunged from my record....

[sbw]

Hmm. Why bump a thread on a subject not worth a Hil of beans?

[RichatUF]

anduril-

The WSJ editorial is more a matter of objecting on the principle of the matter than the effects. A Keynesian stimulus package of 75 billion would be a blip in a 14 trillion dollar economy and since it is paid for from the other pocket it really is just a wash. Think of it more as constituency service than economic policy. The real problems are the money center banks lieing to themselves and not firing the political cronies that put together these deals and the [related] political risk associated with the election and the expiring Bush tax cuts.

I doubt anything will get done anyway. The R's can beat their chests on the profligate Dem spending, Bush still has a veto pen, and the Dem's couldn't help themselves as they pile more and more pork into any bill that might work its way through Congress. They wouldn't dare make the tax cuts permanent and any sort of "stimulus" package would eventaully come in on the heavy side of 120 billion.

The media will love the show however as they reprise the Bush II as Hoover II 1990 depression. A mortgage crisis that is worse than the 20's Florida Bubble and a "health care system that is putting us on the brink of bankruptcy". Drudge might even break out 3 red sirens to announce that the DJIA has tumbled about 500+ points to herald in the new Bush Depression and radio announcers tell us that "Bush is fiddling while America is burning".

Wake me up after Armageddon is over.

[richard mcenroe]

Hillary will remember you all.

[Bill in AZ]

Wonder what ol' Mr Soros is up to lately. You know that some folks had to see this mortgage issue coming from 100 miles away, and the timing is uncanny to make the NYTimes faux depression more of a reality just in time for the real campaign season.

One particular person in this world has the knowledge, the wherewithal, and the motivation in this case to trash the economies of entire countries - it's how he made his billions. A capitalist, he is not. Wonder what Soros was doing while Mr Andrea Mitchell relentlessly cranked on the interest rate handle, knowing what must eventually happen.

[anduril]

The WSJ editorial is more a matter of objecting on the principle of the matter than the effects.

Posted by: RichatUF | January 18, 2008 at 11:01 AM

The same thing could be said of Forbes' objections--he's not predicting Armageddon. As I read Forbes, he's objecting that Bush is employing discredited palliatives from previous eras. In addition, I see the final paragraph as a plea to let the markets work at least to the extent of revealing the full degree of the mess and where responsibility lies. I find that reasonable. It's OK to disagree with Forbes about that, but I don't see that he's being "disingenuous," which is what I was objecting to. If you can point me to his disingenuousness, I'd be obliged. I'm not a Forbes booster, but his points make sense to me.

The other points he makes about the proper economic policy we should follow also make sense to me--call me an unreconstructed Reaganaut if you will.

Finally, somewhere or other I linked to another Forbes commentary, Bush's Big Boo-Boo. His comments about a strong dollar make good sense to me, too. He's clearly not excusing the banks, so please show me where he's being disingenuous:

The dumbest, most destructive economic policy of the Bush Administration has been its weak-dollar position--letting the dollar slide in value against the euro, the yen, the pound and gold. The repeatedly disproved theory in operation here is that cheapening your currency will improve your trade balance and that an improved trade balance makes your economy stronger and wealthier. Put aside the meaninglessness of the trade balance as a measure of economic health or sickness--the U.S., after all, has had a trade deficit with the rest of the world for 350 years out of the last 400. A weak-currency policy has disastrous economic and political consequences--most immediately, our tumultuous equity markets.

Look at what's happened since the Federal Reserve began creating excess money in 2004. The already booming housing market was, in effect, shot up with steroids as lending standards were lowered to put all the excess liquidity to work. We are still feeling the effects of the subprime mortgage crisis, as banks tighten up on lending (they don't even want to lend to each other, which tells you something), which in turn has sharply slowed the economy.

Banks themselves engaged in a binge of creating off-balance-sheet structures, most notably with so-called SIVs (structured investment vehicles). The idea was that you could generate juicy fees packaging subprime mortgages and could finance them with commercial paper and not have to set capital aside. Voilà! Returns on capital blossomed! Now many of these institutions are scrambling for infusions of capital from Asia and the Middle East, as circumstances force them to put these bizarre, loss-laden vehicles back on their balance sheets. The banks' behavior is inexcusable. But, as with bartenders who continue to ply drunken patrons with drinks, the Federal Reserve bears a heavy responsibility for creating loads of excess capital in the first place and the Bush White House for winking and nodding while the dollar was being debased.

The geopolitical fallout from the weak dollar is all around us: Terrorist Iran gets massive windfalls for its oil; ditto Venezuela under its wounded but still reigning lunatic, Hugo Chávez; Russia becomes more truculently anti-American with each uptick in the price of oil; so-called sovereign funds buy up U.S. corporate assets at fire-sale prices; China, which outsourced its monetary policy to the Fed in the mid-1990s when it tied the yuan to the greenback, now faces increasingly destabilizing inflation; and oil-lacking developing countries, many of them fledgling democracies, are being hit with potentially destabilizing economic squeezes.

The prices of oil and other commodities are surging primarily because of the weak dollar. Between mid-2003 and the beginning of 2008 oil has zoomed from $25 a barrel to almost $100. Real demand in oil didn't suddenly massively increase to justify a nearly fourfold rise in price. The best indicator of inflation is gold. In this same time period the yellow metal has zoomed from around $350 an ounce to more than $800 an ounce. More than $50 of the per-barrel price of oil today comes from inflation and the speculation that inflation induces.

President Bush should promptly reverse the government's destructive course by boldly declaring that the U.S. will now actively support the integrity of its currency (see Current Events). Bush aides might say that the President is no economist and must therefore rely on advice from the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve, even if it is manifestly misguided.

John Kennedy was no economist either, yet he didn't hesitate to declare that the dollar should be as good as gold. Bill Clinton was no economist, but he understood that a weak dollar and the ensuing inflation it begets destroyed Jimmy Carter's presidency. Ronald Reagan actually did study economics, and he was willing to pay a severe but, thankfully, short-term political price to break the inflation fever gripping the country in the early 1980s.

If President Bush is too befuddled or fearful to act now to shore up the dollar, the markets will force him to do so fairly soon. It would be better to act ahead of events than to be seen responding to them defensively and belatedly.

[Rick Ballard]

Anduril,

The problem with the analysis is its detachment from reality. Has the Treasury been forced to pay more on debt issued due to the markets fear of inflation? If not, then the arguments presented regarding inflation are specious (or disingenuous). Forbes and the WSJ are both in the same club with the thieves at CITI - where's the call to replace incompetent boards and sic the SEC on the banks for peddling junk that they knew was bad?

AFAIK the Fed is still independent - where's the statute which permits the President to fire Mr. Andrea Mitchell for screwing up?

The President did what he could when he could and his proposed bandaid is symbolic, as Rich noted. Suggesting that government interfer in markets in order to assure the "right" outcome shows very little faith in market capitalism.

I'm pleased with the beating that CITI is taking and the fact that Countrywide has been absorbed. WaMu is next and with a little luck S & P, Fitch and Moodys may actually get some competition. Given the state of their reputations they sure provide nice big fat targets for a few decent competitors. If someone can figure out how to take out the trash at Pimco and T. Rowe Price, the US would be much cleaner as a result.

[glasater]

Here is an article on someone who made a ton of money on shorting the subprime mess.

[anduril]

Has the Treasury been forced to pay more on debt issued due to the markets fear of inflation? If not, then the arguments presented regarding inflation are specious (or disingenuous).

OK, so what's the answer--or do we know? Will the answer be still to develop? When will we know the final answer? IMO, there's a reason why the price of gold is soaring--somebody out there is afraid of inflation. For all I know, Forbes may be wrong, but again your choice of words suggests that he's trying to put something over on us, yet you don't say what that is that he's trying to do. If he's wrong, he's wrong. Fine. But what's he trying to pull off?

Forbes and the WSJ are both in the same club with the thieves at CITI - where's the call to replace incompetent boards and sic the SEC on the banks for peddling junk that they knew was bad?

Are you saying that Forbes and the WSJ are thieves? If not, what? My understanding is that both Forbes and the WSJ want the markets to help work this thing out--and I would be all in favor of criminal investigations to help that process along.

The President did what he could when he could and his proposed bandaid is symbolic, as Rich noted. Suggesting that government interfer in markets in order to assure the "right" outcome shows very little faith in market capitalism.

It's not clear to me that Forbes or the WSJ are demanding government interference--rather, they seem to be objecting to that. I believe the WSJ has done so in the past, as well. It's Bush who is interfering--that's why Forbes talks about government arm twisting.

[RichatUF]

anduril-

It's OK to disagree with Forbes about that, but I don't see that he's being "disingenuous," which is what I was objecting to.

I went and re-read what I wrote and my apologies for interupting and the snarky tone. I should have gotten my second cup of coffee before I hit post. I am in broad agreement with what you are saying and Forbes in his piece is generally right.

However, I was looking at it within the context of the election [specifically the Guiliani campaign here in Fl]. It is a message that appeals to the economic conservative faction of the Reagan coalition and an interesting bit of strategy [the Guiliani campaign appealing to the national security and economic wings of the Reagan coalition and believing that will get him over the top]. I do think that the media is going to hit the gas on the worse recession ever and that instead of substantive policy we are going to get preening for the carmea. Also, on the credit crunch, it is not so much that the individual banks don't know where the bad paper is, it is the banks aren't being transparent with one another as to the risk.

This is what ticks me off-politicials leaned on their cronies in the finance industry to create debt instruments to expand consumer spending and home ownership, the finance industry leaned on their cronies in the rating and insurance industry to rate this stuff well beyond what the actuaries were saying. When it all blew up, the guys who signed off on it all are either bailing with golden parachutes or are leaning on their cronies in DC to write up a big bailout package.

Now I find out Bush has just proposed a 145 billion "stimulus" package. Its only 1-far to early for a drink.

[anduril]

Followup:

If supporting the dollar is interference, that's up for discussion. But the initial charge is that Bush winked and nodded while the Fed weakened the dollar and made the current situation possible--made it possible for the "thieves at CITI" to prosper. Thus, the call for "interference" sounds to me more like a call for sound money.

[Rick Ballard]

I'm saying that Forbes and the WSJ are entirely too focused upon the government and that the focus is a distraction to keep the public from looking at the nests of thieves running certain companies. As Vnjagvet noted above, the same thieves show up time after time after time, they're politically connected, and neither Forbes nor the WSJ ever does clear, connect the dot pieces for their readers showing how these particular malefactors of great wealth pull off their schemes. Which is precisely why I stopped reading all business publications after the '87 crash. "Nobody knew" or "nobody knows" is pure bullshit wrt Mr. Andrea Mitchell's subprime mess and its precisely the type of bullshit that has created the level of uncertainty that has led the President to react politically (this isn't an economic reaction at all) in the same manner that he did when he took the action to provide "cheaper prescriptions" to geezers. It's his hallmark - get the issue off the table, out of sight, out of mind.

I don't agree with the decision any more than I agreed with buying off the geezers but it's his call.

Glasater's link is a very good read - perhaps the WSJ or Forbes might have done a similiar piece a little earlier? Say about the time the ABX showed up along with perhaps an explanation of why banks felt the ABX was necessary?

[Cecil Turner]

I went and re-read what I wrote and my apologies for interupting and the snarky tone.

Dunno, the tone seemed somewhat warranted to me. In both those articles, Forbes the economist gets overshadowed in places by Forbes the politician, especially where he's discussing the President. And while I tend to agree with most of his points (especially the weak/strong dollar), his gratuitous sniping recommends itself to some critical reading.

Particularly, he can't claim the "bad paper" is unknown to those suffering from "Uncle Sam's arm-twisting." Nor do cheap shots like this improve his case:

The idiocies emanating from congress have made its popularity ratings even worse than those of the current White House occupant.

And even though I think his criticism on that point (CFL legislation) is valid, his readily apparent bias makes one want to check each fact carefully.

[anduril]

Rich, I was glad for your "interruption" because it helped sharpen issues.

glasater, I actually read that when it was first published, and agree that it's an eye opener.

Rick, I think we have a couple of major areas of disagreement.

1. I don't think the WSJ and Forbes are running an interference operation. If they are, then Bush is too, because as President he should be pointing out who's responsible--so why isn't he?

2. I don't buy your idea that Bush did everything that was possible because, after all, AFAYK, the Fed is independent.

A president who is committed to sound money has ample opportunity to make his views known, and thereby to influence the Fed. Bush has not bothered to do so, over 8 years--he winked and nodded instead. There is most likely a reason for that. Bush is also the Chief Executive, which means he can tell the AG that he wants to get to the bottom of this. I find it non-credible that Bush didn't hear about the money being made by the politically connected through these flim-flam operations--so where does the buck stop? With Steve Forbes and the WSJ? With CITI and the thieves? With the Fed? I say with the Fed and with Bush--and Bush has the opportunity now to do the right thing by adopting sound money policies and pursuing the thieves.

Cecil, I'll leave it at: we agree on most of what he's saying. I have no brief for Forbes or the WSJ and am not invested in defending everything they say, but if they're mostly right on this I'm going to quote them. I don't have the interest in these matters to be able to say whether the WSJ or Forbes were sounding any warnings before the sh*t hit the fan. I do think the buck stops with Bush--pushing blame off on the Fed doesn't work for the Prez.

[boris]

the buck stops with Bush

Beware of hindsight blindness. Any party making the claim that "any fool could see what was going to happen" lacks perspective on human nature IMO. Was repackaging the housing boom into new forms of paper wealth a bad idea in hindsignt? Well duh.

Nerver underestimate the power of wishful thinking. Given the usual suspects in this FUBAR ISTM about the only preventitive that might have made a difference would have been taking them out of the game based on earlier cons.

[Cecil Turner]

I do think the buck stops with Bush--pushing blame off on the Fed doesn't work for the Prez.

I think that's right as well, but I think it's worth noting that the claim here is that the Fed created the conditions for the crisis (and yes, it shouldn't have been allowed to). But the bankers Forbes is defending are the ones who actually engineered the (fraudulent?) scheme to capitalize on it. Personally, I think the best way to discourage such things in the future is to throw a few of them in prison. If that's not practical (which it may well not be in this case), "arm-twisting" is warranted. If Forbes's point is that the miscreants are being bailed out by the innocent, that'd be valid . . . but the way I'm reading it, that's not what he's saying.

[Rick Ballard]

Anduril,

There is always the faint possibility that the President considers the "weak" dollar argument to be as risible as I do. If one wishes to examine the premise, data is readily available. If the dollar is so weak, why are traders willing to accept today's historically low interest rates in order to have it in their portfolio? Was the dollar actually 'strong' when the Treasury had to lay out 12% on ten year notes to attract money?

[Rick Ballard]

Boris,

I was careful in my statement concerning when the banks knew that the relaxed lending standards had resulted in an unexpected (in the sense that it wasn't properly priced) increase in fraudulent appllications and acceptances. It's going to be a lawyer's paradise when the mortgage insurers refuse to pay up on a significant number of defaults due to that very observable fact.

I concur with Cecil regarding a desire to see a number of the malefactors sent off to Stony Lonesome. Watching CITI's investors take a buzz cut isn't quite enough.

[glasater]

Jim Cramer--just on CNBC's Street Signs--suggests that the gov take over mortgage insurers ala an RTC type solution.

[anduril]

Cecil: "the bankers Forbes is defending"

Forbes: "The banks' behavior is inexcusable."

-----------------------------------------------

boris: the buck still stops with Bush. He was there for 8 years, he's supposed to know the macro picture and has advisors to let him know if he doesn't. The analogy, I suppose, might be to the S & L mess of years ago. He gets payed to do the right thing and gets his head handed to him if he doesn't--that's what the job is all about. It ain't necessarily fair but politics isn't beanbag, either.

-----------------------------------------------

Rick, the dollar remains the world's reserve currency (or whatever) for a number of reasons--not least because the US remains the 800 pound gorilla on the block. That's a separate issue from the question of whether Bush winked and nodded at the Fed's weak dollar policy, and whether that policy has had detrimental consequences. It's been done in the past and has always proved shortsighted. I'm not offering a total solution, just pointing to a problem.