Hillary lies. That’s what she does. She can’t help herself; she does it by reflex, even when there is no reason to. Even when one includes Richard M. Nixon, whose reputation as a liar was think well before he became President, Hillary Clinton’s record is remarkable. She lies about little things (Claiming to be a Yankee fan), big things (conservatives made up the Monica story); she lies without caring who the lies hurt (the White House travel office debacle), and lies to make herself look heroic (her Brian Williams-like tale about being under fire). She lies to try to duck responsibility for her own actions (saying that her use of a private e-mail server was compliant with government rules), and she lies when it is obvious that what she is saying is ridiculous (she and Bill left the White House in penury.) Unlike her charismatic husband, she’s not even good at lying, and apparently practice doesn’t help, in her case.
Yet she keeps doing it. She is not being well served by her supporters, who have given Clinton no reason to reform, improve, or respect the them or the public they are part of. The message Clinton has received is that it doesn’t matter what she does or says. She’s a woman, and she’s a Democrat, and that’s all that matters. Have any voters adopted such an indefensible, irresponsible and civicly disgraceful approach to self-government? Well, yes, come to think or it: the 95% of black citizens who supported Barack Obama for a second term based on race and little more. That’s not mitigation.
Barely out of the gate, Hillary is at it again. Speaking in Iowa Wednesday, she told an audience that all her grandparents had immigrated to the United States, a story that public census data and other records related to her maternal and paternal grandparents show is fabrication. “Her grandparents always spoke about the immigrant experience and, as a result she has always thought of them as immigrants,” a Clinton spokesman lamely explained to BuzzFeed News, which first broke the story. How embarrassing to make a spokesperson try to cover something so obviously indefensible. She always “thought” of her grandparents as immigrants, so now she tells people they were immigrants? What sense does that make?I thought my dad was very funny, but I didn’t tell people that I was Jerry Lewis’s son.
Naturally, we can expect the same defense from the corrupted that we are used to hearing: this is trivial, it’s just the Clinton-haters, it’s Fox News, who cares about whether her grandparents were really immigrants, what does that have to do with what a wonderful leader she is…and on, and on, until someone’s head explodes, usually mine. The media is already cynical:
The usually fair and astute Cokie Roberts told Morning Joe this week that Clinton’s e-mail deceptions would cost her the votes of “about three people.” To which I reply:
1. And what are you doing to remedy that, Cokie, unless you think that’s appropriate conduct for a high official?
2, Does that mean that you aren’t troubled by a Secretary of State avoiding security measures and transparency policies to cover up her own activities, lying about it, and destroying evidence she knew was going to be subpoenaed? OK, you come from a political family and have well-founded contempt for thge intelligence of viewers, but how does that excuse you from caring about these things?
3. Or are you saying that any misconduct that doesn’t cost votes is acceptable?
Everyone knew that Richard Nixon was a liar in 1968, but they elected him anyway because he was competent. How much trouble could his absolute lack of concern about right and wrong get the country into? We sure found out, didn’t we? Bill Clinton was called “Slick Willy” long before being elected, and we knew, or should have known, that he was a sexual predator, but how could that disrupt his administration? We found the answer to that one, too.
Ann Althouse asks why Hillary is lying about checkable facts. It’s obvious, isn’t it? I repeat: Hillary Clinton lies. That’s what she does. Clinton’s status as woman, progressive, and Democrat notwithstanding, if her supporters can’t believe what she says, if they know—and how could they not?—that she has no regard for the truth and no respect for her own supporters when she speaks to them, the determination to allow such a malign creature gain the power of the U.S. Presidency is no less than madness.
Cokie Roberts has a very low opinion of members own gender and party if she thinks they will tolerate this indefinitely. We have a proven, incurable liar seeking power, and one way or another, the quest is not going to end well. It never does. The only question is how much damage there will be.
97 thoughts on “Already, Clinton’s Compulsive, Clumsy Lies Are Flowing: Are Her Supporters Really Going To Pretend Ethics Don’t Matter To The Bitter End?”
All very true, Jack. People will vote for her because they expect some personal gain from government out of it, character and the Constitution be damned. Oh, BTW, did we all REALLY know that Dicky was tricky back in 1868? I must be losing by time sense!
My favorite Clintonism was her meeting Sir Edmund Hillary and immediately making up a story that she had been named after him. That’s practically just lying by reflex.
I actually Googled that because I thought it might have been political urban legend. But no, she actually said that. Never mind Sir Ed didn’t reach the summit until six years after she’d been born.
There was a funny fake news bit on SNL about it. Hillary was asked where the misunderstanding came from and she replied, “I like to lie a lot.”
If you want to read a wonderful short story about the simple joy of lying, try “The Fibricators,” by Patrick McManus (who wrote for Outdoor Life, Field and Stream, and others, and is a very funny guy)
I always thought he was responsible for Reconstruction!
And, there are actually people commenting on this blog who would prefer her, as president, to a social conservative. That should tell you something. I will stipulate that in order to get to the position of running for president you have probably told quite a few lies, and cut some corners, but the Clinton’s and Obama’s have taken it to pathological levels with social progressives blessings, cooperation and excuses.
It’s pretty difficult to take a person seriously when they state they would vote for Hillary over the current Republican candidates. I wouldn’t vote for them either, but I’d spend time in jail before I’d vote for her.
It tells me that it’s more important to certain women that they be able to have recreational sex and avoid the consequences and their gay brothers/uncles/bffs be able to get married and force whoever to serve them than the US have a strong economy and foreign policy.
Maybe her running mate will be Sandra Fluke!
Now if only those things weren’t mutually exclusive.
They aren’t. They’re both symptomatic of the sickness of the soul that is inherent in the leftist movement.
Now now Stevie, if you can’t join the adult discussion, you have to go back to the kid table.
When I find adult remarks from you, I might bear that in mind.
They aren’t, necessarily (although I’m more inclined to say equal protection of the law is more important than protecting people from the consequences of their own uncontrolled actions), but those who profit from playing politics with the first two things typically are not that good at the second two since those actually require work.
I agree, actually. But I also think it cuts both ways, there is a percentage of people on both sides that make social issues a more pressing issue than financial ones, and I personally would never make that decision.
Which I think is the majority opinion, by the way: “I have nothing against gay marriage, but the economy first.” You look at the last mid term election… Overwhelmingly, people voted Republican, and overwhelmingly, ballot measures in support of gay marriage were approved. That means the average republican is probably gay-marriage neutral.
Regardless, it’s framed like a left right issue, and that’s driving people left.
“Driving people left”?? Gay marriage?! Okayyyy…
Look Steve, I know you hate this, but gay marriage has actually been the majority opinion in America for several years now, and conservatism is a majority opinion in America. In order for both those things to be true, there has to be overlap. Gay marriage is not a conservative issue, it is a religious issue, and religion only makes up a slice of the pie that is the conservative base.
Your vitriol drives moderate republicans away from the party, they are ashamed to socialize with you. You are the reason conservative has become a slur. And you’re proud of it.
If you want to believe that, go ahead. I’d tell you that most Americans haven’t given it the thought it deserves with the numerous other threats presenting themselves in our times, some of which threaten our national survival. If you don’t think that faith is a key ingredient in the GOP platform, I suggest you look it up. And it’s increasingly becoming a point of attention as leftist groups and politicians continue their assaults.
There’s a term for the difference between what people say, and the way they actually vote…. Although I can’t think of it at the moment. I don’t need you to believe me, I just need you to look at the politico archives. [b]Republican voters approved ballot measures contrary to the stated republican position. That means that the stated republican positions do not accurately represent the will of the electorate.[/b] Right now, the republican party’s saving grace is that the democratic party is so shallow. If moderates didn’t think that the left was so incompetent, they would absolutely migrate. Their incompetence is being weighed against your bigotry, and the only reason republicans are in the lead is because people will always pick their pocketbook over their neighbor’s rights.
Wrong. The “shallowness” of the Democrat lineup is a direct result of their having no principles at all, being uncaring of what damage they do to America in their drive for enduring political power. Patriotic citizens want elected officials who will stand up for America and its values as a nation. The two factors are inseparable.
I dunno about the majority being in favor, BUT, when you put those in favor of together with those who are ok with it or neutral, you have a majority. It’s a moral issue for folks like SMP, who are religious right people who have very strict beliefs about how people should behave both in public and in private. In my case it wasn’t so much a religious issue as a hate and disgust issue. I will still defend people’s rights to believe or not as they choose, or to decide what they will or won’t say or participate in, if you can be exempted from military service for belief you should be exempted from less important things. However, I can’t in good conscience believe that hate and revulsion are bases for a legal or constitutional decision.
Spewing hate and poison does just drive others away. It’s one thing to hang around the bar with like-minded friends telling alcohol-fueled stories of how you did this or that to someone you didn’t agree with. It’s quite another to base a law or public policy on the idea that someone is by nature disgusting or contemptible. That’s called a status offense, and that’s un-American, because it’s too close to a bill of attainder that essentially declares someone bad because he’s bad. It’s fundamentally unfair and the majority just ain’t buying it.
It’s not that I hate these people, Steve. If anything, on an individual basis, I pity them for what they’ve become. What I take fervent exception too is their political alliance with the Left in enforcing an agenda on the entire country that is not only in defiance of God’s word, but of the basic precepts of the Constitution. Thereby, they have made themselves a threat to America’s existence as a free nation. There are other factors, to be sure, but that’s the major one.
You might have something with the latter – coercion is wrong and if coercion becomes a regular practice we’re ALL in the soup. I also think that once the left has ridden this horse as far as it can go they are likely to look for political capital elsewhere, and that’s exploitative and unethical, same as they used people like Cindy Sheehan until Obama was elected and discarded them. That said, pushing two or ten percent of the population into permanent disenfranchisement just isn’t selling with anyone with a sense of fundamental fairness.
Increasingly, coercion seems to be the method.
I don’t remember there being anything on the ballot last time out, BUT I wasn’t following it that closely, since it’s going to be resolved by the Courts anyway. I do remember measures passing in 2012, which was a very liberal year. Neoconservatives, of which I am one, tend to be more into the economy and a strong foreign policy. Libertarians don’t want personal behavior regulated if it doesn’t have to be. The religious right are the real gay-marriage fighters. Most other neoconservatives are not that strong on social issues, or if they are, it’s abortion, not so much gay marriage. I think it IS framed like a left-right issue because the religious right was so opposed, and the left in turn has exploited that. The thing is, once it IS legal then they have ridden that horse as far as it will go and can get no farther with it. The next step, with coercion of participation, isn’t going to take them any farther and may turn out to be counterproductive.
Either way, social issues, in the face of ISIS, a still sluggish economy, and any number of other real threats are the equivalent of rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Yet the left moves them front and center to stay in power, and the religious right think it’s more important to stop gays from getting married than to try to get this nation going somewhere again.
Complete agreement, great victory! And there weren’t any gay marriage ballot measures in 2014…. God time flies, I was actually thinking of 2012, when 5 states passed ballot measures. 2012 wasn’t as big a windfall for the right as 2014 was, but it was still a very good turnout for the republicans.
Wyo, it’s possible you’ll spend some time in jail if you DO vote for her. Your personal freedom is NOT one of her goals.
“She’s a woman, and she’s a Democrat, and that’s all that matters.”
Bang on the nose, Jack, and that’s what’s going to get us the longest stretch of one party in power since Grover Cleveland broke the GOP post-Civil War stranglehold on the Presidency. Once Hilary’s in, she’s in, she will not be voted out because she will not hesitate to use all the government’s power to silence any challenger, all the while telling us that it’s no big deal. After 16 years of increasingly autocratic Democratic rule and the press telling the people it’s no big deal, unless there is a war (unlikely) or a major economic collapse (possible), the party will be so entrenched at the top that it will be a cakewalk for Cuomo or Warren or whoever the Dems put up in 2024.
“She’s a woman, and she’s a Democrat, and that’s all that matters.”
No. No. No. If that were the case, she would have been elected the first time around.
I foresee endless posts about this — and if that is true, I will have to check out for awhile out of pure boredom. The truth is that Democrats are more cynical about politics that your average Republican. We think the candidates are all deeply flawed. But, at the end of the day, we won’t let Paul, Rubio, or Cruz get elected. If the alternative is Jack’s dog, well, then we’re voting for Jack’s dog.
Demographics show that it is extremely unlikely that a Republican will win the Presidency. So this all comes down to the primaries. Whichever Dem wins the nomination will become our next President. Right now, Hillary has the money, so it most likely will be her.
My prediction? It’s going to be Bush v. Clinton with the hope that Jeb can take Florida and possibly Ohio to swing the election. It may be close, but it will be hard for any Republican to do it — and virtually impossible for a far right Republican to get even close.
In your dreams, Beth.
I don’t want it to be Bush v. Clinton, but that is my prediction.
Jeb Bush will not be the nominee. Trust me. The GOP base would bolt the party first and the leadership knows it.
I don’t know. If Jeb’s last name was Smith instead of Bush, would you feel the same way? And he will absolutely out-fundraise the competition. It’ll be interesting.
It would help him. But it’s not his name, in particular, but his stances of key issues. We don’t need another “moderate” candidate.
You absolutely do. This is why people like you never win in the long run. You don’t need the support of your echo chambers, you have that. You need to convince a majority. A hard line extremist will never be electable. So you need to make a choice, what is more important: Losing while taking a hardline on every issue, or winning with a milquetoast republican who might make positive incremental change?
That’s another myth I hope you go on believing. I can assure you that the Democrat leadership doesn’t. Nor do their media allies. They’re fawning over Bush as much as they are Hillary. There’s a deathly fear that a principled and well spoken conservative candidate will get the nod and proceed to victory. They remember Reagan.
Reagan was not as far right as you might believe. He actually said he didn’t care what consenting adults did as long as they didn’t do it in the street and scare the horses. He was a man of faith, yes, and a neoconservative, but not a shrill religious right person. That said, same-sex-marriage wasn’t even contemplated in his time, so I don’t know what he would have done had Tip O’Neill sent him a bill.
Reagan was principled and able to communicate those principles in terms that people could readily understand. From what I recall, I think that he would have been firmly opposed to the Gay Agenda in all its forms. Certainly, the activists at the time thought so. I still remember driving through the Galleria area of Houston and seeing some gay guy’s car plastered with anti-Reagan stickers. Among them; “SubhumanS”, referring to an alleged comment of his in regard to homos- the SS inference being obvious. Another proclaimed “Who hates ya, baby? REAGAN hates me!!” Apparently, they had little liking or belief in any support from the Great Communicator!
Yes, he produced some great quotes, some of which are still relevant now, like wars starting when governments think aggression is cheap, but the subhumans quote is untrue. Listen to yourself, though, “homos?” Do you really think you’re going to win the other side over by hurling insults at them? We’re not in high school anymore, where that was immediately a knock back onto one’s heels.
Is “homo” an incorrect term, Steve? I rarely use it. But then again, I rarely use the term “gay”, either. The former is only short for “homosexual” and the latter is a politically contrived term to make “homos” seem more normal in a “happy” sort of way!
Reagan was a Hollywood actor — there’s a good chance he probably was more gay-friendly than any other Republican during his time.
The Hollywood of the Pre-Valenti Era and what it’s become since are two different places, Beth. Sure, there was a lot of immorality and the “arts” have traditionally been a haven for the “happy people”… but it wasn’t celebrated and displayed like it is today. The studios and the National Board of Review kept the lid on. I’m sure Reagan knew some of them and was probably friends with some. But then again, they at least had the decency in those days not to throw their affliction in your face and demand you support them in overthrowing a free society.
And you thought nobody believed you were funny.
I just have to conclude from your dog vote that you are terminally stupid.
Well, we don’t really need to worry about it as Jack’s dog isn’t qualified to run.
Birther! Jack’s dog was absolutely a natural born citizen!
Well, some Democrats have proposed giving apes “personhood”. Why not dogs?
Neither is Hillary if by qualified you mean skilled enough do the job.
You been taking lessons from Harry “they’re all losers” Reid?
I think he’s a loser too.
Like I said, Rand and Cruz are early in, early out. Rubio MIGHT wind up as someone’s VP candidate, but I don’t see him as the president this time out. Does your list of must-not-wins only go that far, or does it also include the more serious candidates Jindal, Christie, and Walker? If so, why not just say you are going to fight tooth and nail against anyone the GOP puts up? It’s disingenuous otherwise, but that’s par for the course for Democrats. The voting for Jack’s dog line was just dumb and takes away from your very limited credibility.
Demographics are what it all comes down to? I think we need some data on this, vague allegations that this is a younger, browner, blacker and therefore bluer electorate don’t mean anything. Even so, saying that is saying this nation is now all about identity politics and those who can exploit them.
Feel free to check out due to boredom, since obviously we can’t match your delightful level of sophistication.
1. The line about Jack’s dog was funny because … you see, Jack had a post about voting for his dog a few months ago. That’s humor …. well, never mind.
2. I limited my comments to those 3. There is a lot to like about Christie. I’m not impressed with Jindal and I dislike Walker.
3. “Even so, saying that is saying this nation is now all about identity politics and those who can exploit them.” Very true. But that applies to whites too — note the overwhelming diversity in the Tea Party. (In case you missed it, that was humor again.)
I think I know what humor is, Beth. The line about Jack’s dog is very weak humor at best. Implying I don’t get humor is not helping your case, but then again I’ve already expressed my opinion of you.
Fair enough on #2,although CC is the least likely guy to run of that pack, maybe tied with Jindal.
If you are ok with this nation being all about those who can exploit identity politics, and who see a color or a gender before they see an individual, well, then you get who you deserve. Only problem is, so do the rest of us.
I implied nothing of the sort — what I WAS implying is that no one here thinks I’m funny.
I think there’s been a lot of humor lost here. I’m guilty too. Maybe it has to do with the coming election cycle.
I think it has to do with the candidates. Like it or not, Hilary does not inspire geniality or good humor the way her husband did. The recent dispute over religious freedom was anything but pleasant, with both sides shrill and doctrinaire. There simply isn’t a presumption of good faith.
Steve-O: You mean, there isn’t a presumption of good WILL. Right?
I think whatever “good faith” (as in trust) there might have been, died out a few election cycles ago.
I think there isn’t EITHER.
In case you missed it… the Tea Party doesn’t discriminate. At the last rally I attended, even I was surprised by the number of well spoken young people of all backgrounds who attended. Patriotism is not inclusive of Caucasians.
She’s made up her mind, don’t try to confuse her with facts.
It’s just us old, angry white guys stuck on our guns and our God!
No – you’re stuck on State’s Rights. Every party agrees that you get to keep your guns and your God.
No, the Dems agree we get to keep only the guns they think aren’t too scary and only in our homes if that and we keep our God only as long as His teachings don’t offend anyone who’s not white, male or hetero.
Including the party that boos the name of God at their national conventions? The same one that’s done everything it can to effectively abolish the 2nd Amendment? What we still have has been preserved in spite of them. Hardly because of them.
Dragin, I have thought long and hard about the Electoral College. It is not democratic, either, but it is not a pure democracy I want, anyway. Even The People must suffer a check and balance, such that by their voting, The People of a few states are not empowered to render the voting of The People of most other states irrelevant. You’re satisfied with five or six states’ electoral votes controlling the outcome of presidential elections?
My April 17 at 9:05 pm was intended to reply to dragin_dragon’s April 17 at 10:43 am.
Okay, I found ’em both. Yes, I am, but not in a winner-take-all type of election. Many states are going to an apportioned system in which the electoral votes are distributed as equivalent percentages of the popular vote. That I would go for. Bye-the-by, are you aware that there is no law, regulation or ethics code that requires that an elector vote the way the popular vote dictated? I think that probably needs to be fixed.
Speaking of states’ rights, I really would like for the Electoral College to be replaced with a system that gives more power to the less populous states so that presidential election results are not dictated by only a few of the most populous states. Abolishing the Electoral College and going to direct popular vote would only disempower the less populous states even more. Anything to disempower the federal Executive Branch away from the virtual dictatorship it has become would be wise and beneficial.
Lucky, think about what you’re asking for. The idea of a Democracy is that the guy with the most votes wins. What you’re asking for is a system in which the guy with the least votes wins…or, at least has a better chance of winning.
It should be one person = one vote regardless of the state in which you reside.
What is wrong with being stuck on states rights?
Because it’s in the Constitution- written by dead, white slaveholding males who may have been deists!
I don’t mind it on economic issues — each state should feel free to drive business re what makes sense for its geographic location, populace, natural resources, etc. But — my basic rights as a citizen (e.g., right to marry) should be the same from state to state.
1. I have never said that it was enough—that’s why I knew she would lose in 2008. It is still all she has.
2. She has less now. She is older, looks older yet, lacks energy, and I don’t think she’s really too sharp any more. It’s irresponsible of her to run.
3. That demographic argument is hooey. It’s whistling past the graveyard. Demograohics, to the contrary, show that the young, poor and minorities are less likely to vote. Women are the big hopechest for Democrats, and their edge there is declining. The assumption that the Obama coalition can be activated for Hillary is fanciful. After the biggest wipeout in 70 years, to argue that Democrats have a demographic edge is pretty audacious. Also, young people get older, and older people are more conservative. “Extremely unlikely”? I’d say historically likely. You know how many times a two term Democrat has been succeeded by an elected Democrat? The answer is never in this Century or the last. Van Buren. There’s a reason for that.
Obviously if nobody runs against Hillary she’ll get the nomination, but I could still see her falling to a virtual unknown…again. I could also see her crashing and burning and pulling out under pressure.
It won’t be Bush. If I had to bet, my money would be on Walker, and Walker would beat Hillary.
1. It IS all she has, but maybe it’s all she needs.
2. All true except the last point. If she really is her party’s best hope, or only hope, then it’s irresponsible of her NOT to run.
3. Mostly true. Young and single women are the Democrats’ biggest bloc, their numbers are off the charts with them. And I think you are forgetting FDR’s 4 terms, unless you are excluding him because it was the same candidate all the way through.
Lincoln Chafee has already sort of announced, but I don’t think he is a serious contender. I think Walker could pull it off IF he gets Rubio or Jindal as VP, to bring in some melanin, IF he gets the blessing of both Bush and Romney to bring in the cash, and IF no one on the GOP side says anything dumb the media can turn into a crisis.
And before, Hillary didn’t have her record as Secretary of State to deal with.
“But what does it matter?”
Those words will; haunt her the rest of her life!
That is because most of them think that most politicians suck. President Obama was of course a significant exception in 2008 and 2012, but not so much in 2014.
In addition, many elected officials are tone-deaf. We had Mark Udall campaigning about contraception and reproductive rights, while so many young, poor, minorities are concerned about how they will find a job or keep a job or afford to go to college or pay off their student loans. Why would these young poor minorities want to vote for Udall? Most of them did not.
Not for nothing did they call him “Mark Uterus.”
I agree with you re No. 1 and No. 2. We obviously disagree on No. 3.
You know my answer to that. “Nope.” Hillary can’t win.
A Yankee fan? If I remember she claimed to be a Mets fan and there was a video that surfaced of her allegiance to the Cubs.
She wore a Yankees cap while campaigning, upsetting Mets fans. It was the Yankees she lied about.
Okay, I’ll paraphrase the slogan I’m sure T. Regina means and thinks, but will never use: She can get away with ANYTHING. Watch her.
And as her health craps out after being elected, as I am increasingly sure will happen, Bill will run the show again, Mrs. (Woodrow) Wilson-style – just wait and see what HE will get away with, this time around.
Oh, I wish you hadn’t said that. I’m battling nausea at the thought.
Wouldn’t this make the best/most horrifying TV soap opera? If it wasn’t true it would be a darn good story.
Reality trumps fiction every time. When I think of those “Twilight Zone” episodes I once laughed at as too improbable…!
I watched a Twilight Zone marathon this past summer. It was revealing to compare it’s horrifying visions of the future with what has happened since it was made.
Ugh. She can’t get away with anything, Lucky, because unlike her husband—people don’t like her. That’s the problem…it was Nixon’s problem too. People don’t like Hillary…they like the abstract of Hillary (just like libertarians like Rand Paul in the abstract, if they only could get past the fact that he’s a boob), and even that’s not right: she’s not a feminist, she’s not a victim, she’s just a cold-eyed opportunist, declining fast.
Don’t buy the myths.
Lack of likability was part of what sank Howard Dean. It can certainly sink her too.
I’ve been waiting for the first big election pinata to bust open and all the hard opinions come bouncing down. Times like this I wonder what tgt’s doing.
“Richard Nixon was a liar in 1868”
Goodness! Nixon even lied about what century he was elected! 😉
He was amazing.