The Politics of Hypocrisy in the American Election - What happened to the Gatekeepers of Truth?

.
First Published May 8, 2009

The Politics of Hypocrisy in the American Election

Obamaville - April 23 - The Clinton Legacy - Public Service or Public Con Job - and who is being conned?

With Bill and Hillary Clinton continuing to soar in popularity in the minds of some Democrats, although not in the eyes of liberal and progressive Democratic institutions like The New York Times, Newsweek, and The Washington Post, the stunning article today in The New York Times raises more questions.

The newspaper disclosure about the manipulation of hundreds of millions of foreign dollars in the Clinton Foundation while she was Secretary of State probably explains better than any other explanation why Hillary erased tens of thousands of emails from her personal server covering that period.

Of course, Clinton apologists say it was just the Clintons being the Clinton's and they are just targets of a Right Wing conspiracy.  However, no one would label the Times or Post right wing radicals.

Bill Clinton is almost certainly the most popular person in American politics. A new NBC-Wall Street Journal poll showed that 56 percent of people have a positive view of the former president while just 26 percent hold a negative one.  It makes him more popular than his wife; 44 percent of Americans have a positive view of Hillary Clinton while 36 percent have a negative one.

Most Clinton fans point to the lead Hillary holds in the choice to be Democrat nominee for president, a number that wavers around 60%.  Running against Joe Biden who has not said he is in the race, nor campaigned, he sits at about 10% of the Democrat votes, Clinton has already lost 40% of the Democrats with no opposition.

People may be tired of the Clinton love of walking the tightrope when it comes to federal laws and regulations.  Bill Clinton spent over $7 million on legal fees to avoid impeachment and settlements for lawsuits against him by women.

Of course, he smoked pot but did not inhale and had oral sex with an intern but did not actually have sex, so one must adjust to the Clinton definitions.

We are yet to open the book on the changes Clinton made in the twilight of his presidency, which may have directly led to the collapse of our economy.

In addition, there is Goldman Sachs and their relationship with both Clintons in bailing out his legal expenses.  They also arranged for $500,000 speaker fees, and channeled tens of millions of foreign, and somewhat illegal dollars, into the Clinton Foundation of which she was a director, even while Secretary of State.

Did I mention their relationship to former Goldman Sachs executive Rahm Emanuel, Clinton's chief fundraiser, and Obama's Chief of Staff?

You get the idea, if Hillary runs unopposed as it now looks she may spend far more money defending herself against the acts of her husband, their family foundation, the $200 plus million dollars in their bank accounts, and their very strange relationship with the richest people throughout the world, some from countries whose money is banned.

Just what transpired to lift the Clinton couple from being broke according to Hillary in 2000 when Bill left office millions of dollars of debt from legal fees and lawsuit settlements, to being worth up to $200 million along with the assets of the Clinton Foundation 14 years later.

Most disappointing if I were a Democrat is how they continually sucker in the progressive wing of the party with promises of helping the little people, as they rocket up the ladder of former politicians who got rich manipulating the power of government.

Not only are they the classic politicians who have run Washington for far too long, but they show  no signs of stopping their efforts to convert public service to personal gain.

Ironically, Obama seemed to have been wary of the wily Clinton clan.  The White House said when he made Hillary Secretary of State she signed an agreement to publicly report all Clinton Foundation sources of money, and she was subject to preserving a permanent email record of all her dealings as Secretary.  Both promises seem to have been broken.

This might raise the question did the Clinton's tell Obama they would support him in the elections if she became secretary of State?  It could be the appointment was a bribe or a payoff but not being a right wing Republican I have no grounds to pursue such an abuse of power.

Hillary's biggest fear should be not having an opponent and having to spend the next 15 months before the general election explaining the Clinton actions over the past two decades.

.

Presidential Election -The Conventions are over - It is Time for the Main Event - Let the games Begin

.

Today it is August 1, the political primary season is over, and the race to the finish has finally begun.  Where do we stand and what are the prospects?

First of all we need to step back and assess all the strange twists and turns we have already seen but before we do that we need to decompress from what is a primary season like no other.

When this began a little over a year ago who would have guessed the outcome?

The GOP, with a wealth of seemingly qualified candidates, winds up with a sole survivor who has never served in any elective office from dogcatcher on up.  Apparently, Barack Obama has broken the glass ceiling of running for office without experience.

In the Democratic corner, the entire Democratic Party apparatus, built to insure Hillary Clinton would be heir apparent to Obama in order to protect his legacy, pre-selected her as the candidate.  Yet it took millions of dollars for her just to beat an upstart socialist called Bernie Sanders who refused to be a Democrat until he ran for office, then immediately gave up his registration when he lost.

During the campaign, Trump rode the wave of discontent plaguing the nation for decades and forgot he was just the messenger for the disgruntled masses, and not the Messiah.  Consistently he was his own worst enemy letting his rather enormous ego dominate good judgment.

Hillary tried to make it a case of Trump being evil when the public believed the entire political establishment was evil, both Democrats and Republicans.

Meanwhile, the rest of the establishment had no clue they were the target along with the politicians.  Big business, big government, the news media, Wall Street, the special interest industry, health care manipulators, and unions opposed to teacher accountability, all were part of the same smorgasbord of card-carrying defenders of the status quo, or the dreaded establishment.

Look at what they missed.  While the favorable rating of politicians and congress was reaching new lows, the news media was far worse.  None of the traditional establishment has favorable ratings today because none has earned the respect of the public.

Polarization was certainly encouraged, if not advocated, by the Obama Administration and it led to a president handcuffed for eight long years.  As a result, most of his major campaign promises failed and once again, the politicians had lied to the public.

Voter mistrust and discontent have dominated and will continue to dominate the election.  At the same time, the strategies of the campaigns and the actions of the news media have exasperated the polarization.

The highest unfavorable ratings ever recorded plague both major party candidates.  Where does that leave America with just 98 days left before we choose a new leader.

At the same time a wary world audience watches in astonishment, wonder, puzzlement, and amazement as the Republic of America plods through a painful and soul searching campaign to pick the next leader of the free world.

Here are the facts as near as they can be determined at this point.

Well over 50% of the public do not trust either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump.  Both have done nothing to dispel this feeling of mistrust, but actually have helped fuel it.  At the same time the news media bias has been so pronounced that virtually no one can be trusted to tell the truth.

The result is each candidate has about 40% of the vote, more or less a dead heat at this time.  Approximately half of each candidate's support comes from traditional Democrats or Republicans who toe the party line.  The other half come from people who hate or are terrified of the other candidate.

That is the tragedy of polarization.

The deciding vote for our next president will most likely be cast based on a "lesser of two evils," or "who is hated less" philosophy having nothing to do with party platforms, leadership ability, or who wants to serve all the people.

My predictions

Though it is far too early to prognosticate, I want to project what might happen if we can see through the fog bank to the conclusion of this most disturbing election campaign.

First, I do not believe the winner will come close to 50% of the vote.  Since almost half of the eligible voters are so disgusted with the system they will not even register to vote, that is not a good sign.

Voter turnout, however, is only measured by those who are registered to vote, thus ignoring the protest of half the voters.  This demonstrates that we live by a limited democracy at best, and indicates majority rule is not part of the American political process.

Of the registered voters, I believe the winner will win with 43-45% of the popular vote.  This is not as bad as you may think because Bill Clinton won election in 1992 with just 43% of the vote, while third party candidate Ross Perot received nearly 19%.

I expect a similar outcome for president.

As for the winner, so far Trump has not earned the respect of the public nor demonstrated characteristics of a calm and stabilizing force we need in a president.  Nor has he shown he has the ideas to fix the problems he has identified.

It seems as if he cannot accept the fact he is the messenger for the discontent of the people and not the messiah leading them.  The discontent has been growing for decades while Trump is new to the world of politics.  With his ego driven desire to comment on every reference to the name Trump in the media, he has shown no ability to govern with humility nor desire to help all the people with their problems/

Hillary shares a tendency to believe her own press at times projecting a feeling of entitlement to the position of president because of that is what the people owe her for a lifetime of public service.  However, her lifetime of service contains a lot of missteps, mistakes, and bad decisions.

I often wonder if she might be far ahead if she got off the woman's platform, abortion advocacy, and progressive sellout and just said I made mistakes but you know me, and we know nothing about what Donald would do as president.

For those of you too young or with a reality block on history, her husband Bill received 43% of the vote in 1992.  Then realized his only chance of being re-elected in 1996 was to run on the Republican principles and move to the center, which he did, winning with 49% of the vote in spite of many morality issues.

As of today, just one to three percent of the undecided voters will most likely select the winner.  They are about the only segment of the electorate more concerned with the good of the nation than punishing someone they have grown to hate.

It is a sad state of affairs when objective voters represent so few Americans.  Just ask yourself why you are really supporting the candidate of your choice.

If Hillary can just ignore her campaign advisors who keep trying to program her and lie low Trump will most likely defeat himself.  It will be far too close for comfort, but in the end, those who want change will not place it in the hands of someone they do not trust, and Trump has done little to earn the trust of the disenfranchised majority.

So I expect Hillary to win a nail biter  Do not be surprised, if the people do elect Hillary, that out of caution and prudence they also elect a Republican congress to make certain she has the same success with her progressive agenda as Barack Obama.  It is a check and balance the public has used often to keep the politicians in check.

.

The Politics of Hypocrisy in the American Election - Bill Clinton as character reference for wife Hillary Clinton

First Published May 8, 2009

Obamaville - April 23 - The Clinton Legacy - Public Service or Public Con Job - and who is being conned?

With Bill and Hillary Clinton continuing to soar in popularity in the minds of some Democrats, although not in the eyes of liberal and progressive Democratic institutions like The New York Times, Newsweek, and The Washington Post, the stunning article today in The New York Times raises more questions.

The newspaper disclosure about the manipulation of hundreds of millions of foreign dollars in the Clinton Foundation while she was Secretary of State probably explains better than any other explanation why Hillary erased tens of thousands of emails from her personal server covering that period.

Of course, Clinton apologists say it was just the Clintons being the Clinton's and they are just targets of a Right Wing conspiracy.  However, no one would label the Times or Post right wing radicals.

Bill Clinton is almost certainly the most popular person in American politics. A new NBC-Wall Street Journal poll showed that 56 percent of people have a positive view of the former president while just 26 percent hold a negative one.  It makes him more popular than his wife; 44 percent of Americans have a positive view of Hillary Clinton while 36 percent have a negative one.

Most Clinton fans point to the lead Hillary holds in the choice to be Democrat nominee for president, a number that wavers around 60%.  Running against Joe Biden who has not said he is in the race, nor campaigned, he sits at about 10% of the Democrat votes, Clinton has already lost 40% of the Democrats with no opposition.

People may be tired of the Clinton love of walking the tightrope when it comes to federal laws and regulations.  Bill Clinton spent over $7 million on legal fees to avoid impeachment and settlements for lawsuits against him by women.

Of course, he smoked pot but did not inhale and had oral sex with an intern but did not actually have sex, so one must adjust to the Clinton definitions.

We are yet to open the book on the changes Clinton made in the twilight of his presidency, which may have directly led to the collapse of our economy.

In addition, there is Goldman Sachs and their relationship with both Clintons in bailing out his legal expenses.  They also arranged for $500,000 speaker fees, and channeled tens of millions of foreign, and somewhat illegal dollars, into the Clinton Foundation of which she was a director, even while Secretary of State.

Did I mention their relationship to former Goldman Sachs executive Rahm Emanuel, Clinton's chief fundraiser, and Obama's Chief of Staff?

You get the idea, if Hillary runs unopposed as it now looks she may spend far more money defending herself against the acts of her husband, their family foundation, the $200 plus million dollars in their bank accounts, and their very strange relationship with the richest people throughout the world, some from countries whose money is banned.

Just what transpired to lift the Clinton couple from being broke according to Hillary in 2000 when Bill left office millions of dollars of debt from legal fees and lawsuit settlements, to being worth up to $200 million along with the assets of the Clinton Foundation 14 years later.

Most disappointing if I were a Democrat is how they continually sucker in the progressive wing of the party with promises of helping the little people, as they rocket up the ladder of former politicians who got rich manipulating the power of government.

Not only are they the classic politicians who have run Washington for far too long, but they show  no signs of stopping their efforts to convert public service to personal gain.

Ironically, Obama seemed to have been wary of the wily Clinton clan.  The White House said when he made Hillary Secretary of State she signed an agreement to publicly report all Clinton Foundation sources of money, and she was subject to preserving a permanent email record of all her dealings as Secretary.  Both promises seem to have been broken.

This might raise the question did the Clinton's tell Obama they would support him in the elections if she became secretary of State?  It could be the appointment was a bribe or a payoff but not being a right wing Republican I have no grounds to pursue such an abuse of power.

Hillary's biggest fear should be not having an opponent and having to spend the next 15 months before the general election explaining the Clinton actions over the past two decades.

.

American Elections 6 - Tips for International Followers - Who votes in America?

What the news media and political parties are not telling us about our $5 billion election this year?

Our media and politicians tend to portray the United States of America as the ultimate democracy in the world and have consistently presented us as the defenders of freedom and democracy.

Well I must be confused because nowhere is the word "democracy" mentioned in the Declaration of Independence or the U.S. Constitution. How could that be?  Come to think of it, no where are the words capitalism or political party mentioned either.

Our government is supposed to be a democracy!

What exactly is the definition of a democracy?

The Cambridge Dictionary - Definition of "democracy"

The belief in freedom and equality between people, or a system of government based on this belief, in which power is held by elected representatives or directly by the people themselves.

A country in which power is held by elected representatives.

The Cambridge Dictionary - Definition of "republic"

A country that is governed by elected representatives and an elected leader.

So in a pure democracy power is held by the people directly, while a republic elects representatives to look out for the public interest.  Well let us look at that in light of the current state of American participation in the election of our representatives and leader.

Pythagorean Analysis of Voter reality in America

Total USA Population Today           325,332,205

Total Population under 18                 78,000,000

Total Population 18 and over          247,322,000

Total Eligible Voters 18+                 247,322,000

Total Registered Voters                  142,200,000

Percent                                                            57%

Total Voter Turnout 2012                121,757,000

Percent of Registered Voters                       85.6%

Percent of Eligible Voters                             49.2%

Total Obama Votes 2012                   62,615,406

Percent of Registered Voters                       44%

Percent of Eligible Voters                             25.3%                                                                        

Total Romney Voters 2012               59,100,000

Percent of Registered Voters                      41.5%

Percent of Eligible Voters                            23.9%                                    

Total Eligible Voters not Voting      125,565,000

Percent of Eligible Voters                            50.8%
                                               

Total Leaning Independent                          43%

Total Leaning Democrat                              30%

Total Leaning Republican                            26%                           

Nothing can be more dramatic than the realization that not only do we not have a democracy we do not even have a functioning republic in this the citadel of world democracy.  For perhaps the first time in our history, more Americans refused to participate in the voting process by refusing to register to vote, a consequence of freedom or common sense I suspect.

Our political system has failed to support our constitutional requirements for a republic.  Yet I do not hear a single candidate for either party raise the issue of the disconnect between our political parties and our constitutional rights.

Wake up America!  Better yet, wake up news media and politicians who are ignorant of history and fail to understand the meaning of a republic.  As a last, gasp effort to steer them in the right direction, here is an explanation of the American system of government as envisioned by our founding fathers back before the concentration of power in our news media and political parties.

Is the United States a democracy?  Here is an explanation by ThisNation.com

The Pledge of Alliance includes the phrase: "and to the republic for which it stands." Is the United States of America a republic? I always thought it was a democracy? What's the difference between the two?

The United States is, indeed, a republic, not a democracy. Accurately defined, a democracy is a form of government in which the people decide policy matters directly--through town hall meetings or by voting on ballot initiatives and referendums. A republic, on the other hand, is a system in which the people choose representatives who, in turn, make policy decisions on their behalf. 

The Framers of the Constitution were altogether fearful of pure democracy. Everything they read and studied taught them that pure democracies "have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths" (Federalist No. 10).

By popular usage, however, the word "democracy" come to mean a form of government in which the government derives its power from the people and is accountable to them for the use of that power. In this sense the United States might accurately be called a democracy. However, there are examples of "pure democracy" at work in the United States today that would probably trouble the Framers of the Constitution if they were still alive to see them. Many states allow for policy questions to be decided directly by the people by voting on ballot initiatives or referendums.

(Initiatives originate with, or are initiated by, the people while referendums originate with, or are referred to the people by, a state's legislative body.) That the Constitution does not provide for national ballot initiatives or referendums is indicative of the Framers' opposition to such mechanisms. They were not confident that the people had the time, wisdom or level-headedness to make complex decisions, such as those that are often presented on ballots on election day.

Writing of the merits of a republican or representative form of government, James Madison observed that one of the most important differences between a democracy and a republic is "the delegation of the government [in a republic] to a small number of citizens elected by the rest."

The primary effect of such a scheme, Madison continued, was to:

. . . refine and enlarge the public views by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the same purpose (Federalist No. 10).

Later, Madison elaborated on the importance of "refining and enlarging the public views" through a scheme of representation:

There are particular moments in public affairs when the people, stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be most ready to lament and condemn. In these critical moments, how salutary will be the interference of some temperate and respectable body of citizens, in order to check the misguided career and to suspend the blow meditated by the people against themselves, until reason, justice and truth can regain their authority over the public mind (Federalist No. 63).

In the strictest sense of the word, the system of government established by the Constitution was never intended to be a "democracy." This is evident not only in the wording of the Pledge of Alliance but in the Constitution itself which declares that "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government" (Article IV, Section 4).  Moreover, the scheme of representation and the various mechanisms for selecting representatives established by the Constitution were clearly intended to produce a republic, not a democracy.

To the extent that the United States of America has moved away from its republican roots and become more "democratic," it has strayed from the intentions of the Constitution's authors. Whether or not the trend toward more direct democracy would be smiled upon by the Framers depends on the answer to another question. Are the American people today sufficiently better informed and otherwise equipped to be wise and prudent democratic citizens than were American citizens in the late 1700s? By all accounts, the answer to this second question is an emphatic "no."

Note Data Source for statistics: U.S. Bureau of the Census. "Projected Population by Single Year of Age (0-99, 100+), Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin for the United States: July 1, 2014 to July 1, 2060." Released December 2014. Web-based data files available at:

http://www.census.gov/population/projections/data/national/2014/downloadablefiles.html

.