MW: Did Bill Clinton Really Endorse Tax Cuts for the Rich?
Posted by: madamab on: December 13, 2010
- In: Class Warfare | Democratic Values | Economy | Feminism | Government | Hillary Clinton | Human Rights | Morning Widdershins | Obama | Open Thread | Women
- Comment!
The reports of Bill Clinton’s endorsement of Barack Obama’s deal to extend the Bush tax cuts for the rich have inflamed the Clinton-supporting blogosphere. I have been absolutely flummoxed by what he allegedly said, since Bill’s actions while in office were in complete opposition to his support for Obama’s deal. Taxing the wealthy and creating a budget surplus are a large part of his successful economic legacy; what could be gained by undermining it, I wondered? And, Goddess help me, I was thinking “this is going to kill Hillary’s chances in 2012.”
I suddenly realized, however, that I was relying on a press which has never, ever told the truth about Bill Clinton. Why not wait for the transcript and read his words for myself? Today, I read the transcript, and let’s just say that the reality was far different from what we have been led to believe.
Right off the bat, Bill Clinton said:
I have reviewed this agreement that the President reached with Republican leaders. And I want to make full disclosure I make quite a bit of money now, so the position that the Republicans have urged will personally benefit me. And on its own, I wouldn’t support it because I don’t think that my tax cut is the most economically efficient way to get the economy going again (emphasis mine). But I don’t want to be in the dark about the fact that I will receive the continuation of the tax rates.
This paragraph is fascinating. I don’t think it is an accident that Clinton mentioned that the current deal was made between the President and Republican leaders, not Democratic leaders. It makes Obama look like he is going behind Congressional Democrats’ backs and undermining them (which he is, of course – he has been doing that since the Health Whatever Bill). Bill also quite clearly states that if the deal was just to extend tax cuts for the rich, he wouldn’t support it, even though he himself will benefit from it. So, the answer is no: Bill Clinton did not suddenly turn into a Reagan-Bush-Obama-ite. He still does not support tax cuts for the rich.
Just in case that was not clear, he says it again later on:
And you know how I feel. I think the people that benefit most should pay most. That’s always been my position — not for class warfare reasons; for reasons of fairness in rebuilding the middle class in America (emphasis mine). But we have the distribution of authority we have now in the Congress and what we’re going to have in January, and I think this is a much, much better agreement than would be reached were we to wait until January. And I think it will have a much more positive impact on the economy.
Clinton also states what he likes about the bill: the unemployment benefits extension, of course, the one-year payroll tax cut, which he thinks will stimulate the economy and create jobs (I don’t know if that’s true or not, but he makes a convincing case for it), and the tax credits for energy manufacturers. He elaborates on all these later on, and also makes a push for the ratification of the START treaty. Other points he makes are that “principled compromise,” not triangulation, is what’s needed; that Republicans will have to “hear the call” to compromise too; and that he doesn’t want to overturn the Health Whatever bill, but he can think of “four or five things off the bat” that he would change about it. (I’ll BET he can!)
The big question is, why is Bill Clinton defending Obama’s policies in the first place, since he clearly doesn’t agree with many of them? It could be that he doesn’t want Obama to destroy the Democratic Party; it could be to put himself back in the spotlight and establish the precedent that the way forward is through the Clintons (i.e., Hillary 2012); it could be because he feels responsibility to the Democrats in Congress whom he knows and who supported Hillary in 2008; I don’t know, I’m as baffled as the rest of you.
One thing is certain: no one plays 11-dimensional chess like the Clintons. I am quite certain that soon enough, the reason behind Bill’s actions will become clear. In the meantime, enjoy this amazing story and video of Hillary, using her role as Secretary of State to highlight the vital importance of empowering women and girls. (Via John W. Smart.) Some great quotes:
“Let women work and they drive economic growth across all sectors. Send a girl to school even just for one year and her income dramatically increases for life, and her children are more likely to survive and her family more likely to be healthier for years to come. Give women equal rights and entire nations are more stable and secure. Deny women equal rights and the instability of nations is almost certain.”
Clinton said the goal of empowering women and girls is a “central tenet” of American foreign policy. “Women’s equality is not just a moral issue, it’s not just a humanitarian issue, it is not just a fairness issue,” she said, “It is a security issue, it is a prosperity issue, and it is a peace issue.
“Therefore when I talk about why we need to integrate women’s issues into discussions at the highest levels everywhere in the world, I’m not doing it just because I have a personal commitment or because President Obama cares about it. I’m doing it because it’s in the vital interests of the United States of America.”
Amen, sister!
This is an open thread.
Like this:
118 Responses to "MW: Did Bill Clinton Really Endorse Tax Cuts for the Rich?"
December 13, 2010 at 7:59 AM
Like you, I have no idea what to make of Clinton’s appearance with Obama. Most of the time politicians think in terms of political strategy rather than what is good for the country so I have difficulty ascertaining what that joint appearance actually meant.
The nation is hurting. People need the government to intervene on their behalf. The holidays are looming and the GOP has this admimistration by the short hairs so what exactly is the solution?
If the unemployment extension was not tied to this ploy there may have been room for an ideological fight but having said that, where does this leave the millions on unemployment who are just unable to find jobs and feed their families?
What a sorry excuse we have become as a democratic nation when something as egregious is playing out and the GOP is holding the reins.
We are being held hostage by a band of thieves who have wrestled the power back into their grubby little hands.
Disgusting.
December 13, 2010 at 8:52 AM
I’ve never said Bill Clinton “endorsed” the tax cuts. I said that it will be viewed as such, especially since most people will not watch the entire presser nor will they read the transcript. And his argument that it’s the best we can do under the circumstances is the same one Obama is spinning too. Why am I expected to reject it when the argument comes out of Obama’s mouth and embrace it when it comes out of the Big Dawg’s?
Frankly, Bill should have left Obama to twist in the wind. But I’m mean that way.
We are screwed every which way to Tuesday if this bill passes. Social Security is next on the chopping block, and the Rs and Obama will use this massive deficit they’ve allowed to expand to kill it.
Tying the tax bill to UI extension was the Republicans holding guns to our collective heads. Obama blinked. And so did Bill.
December 13, 2010 at 9:03 AM
I don’t know what dimension Bill Clinton is playing chess on, but the more I think about his appearance with Obama the less I like it. In politics everything is about appearances. Subtleties don’t belong, not for a long time. I don’t think it matters that Clinton said somewhere during his appearance that he has reservations about some aspects of the legislation. The only thing that matters is that even as Bernie Sanders was forcefully speaking out against those points Clinton has reservations about, and many others in Congress were ready to fight against the bill, Clinton was standing next to Obama telling his party to pass it, no matter what reservations they have. That’s what his appearance was meant to do. And it’s going to give a lot of people in Congress cover to vote for this bill. Why Clinton doesn’t see and articulate the dangers of giving Social Security tax cuts (even posters at DU – per NotYourSweetie’s post – see it) is beyond me. Clinton even argues that this tax cut is a good thing. I don’t know what he’s playing. If it’s about some deal having to do with Hillary against running for President – well, that’s playing with a lot of other people’s lives for personal gain.
December 13, 2010 at 9:11 AM
@1 – Green – yes, Hillary has done quite a bit as SOS to improve the lives of women. Yes, she has implemented policies and programs to do so. I can provide links later on, but Google is not that difficult to use.
@3 – If I had been talking about you, BL, I would have said so. I was wondering if Bill did endorse the tax cuts for the rich. I read the transcripts, and clearly, he did not.
As for Bill blinking, he didn’t – he is not the President. He defended Obama’s blinking and said he’d do the same, but frankly, I don’t believe him. He didn’t blink in 1995. He is not a blinker.
I do agree 1000% that Obama should have been left to twist in the wind. Why Clinton would go out of his way to support Obama is a mystery to me.
I also don’t think this is the best we could have gotten. Obama made a deal with the Republicans on the unemployment benefits and didn’t let Congress in on it. Now, they are stuck with it. If they don’t pass this bill in some form before the holidays, then the unemployment benefits will not be passed until the new Congress comes in, and the bill that emerges from that new Congress is likely to be quite heinous.
And, I still think that the money we are going to be losing through all these tax cuts should be spent on creating jobs through a new WPA. People who are jobless need jobs, not tax cuts. That is what I told people on the street yesterday.
December 13, 2010 at 9:14 AM
It is probably that most of us here want to believe that Bill had our best interests at heart by urging a vote on a bill that even he had originally opposed.
As you said, there was Bernie Sanders, talking himself hoarse and offering a history lesson on the dirty deeds of the GOP while Bill and Obama stood there requesting just the opposite.
This bill will pass. No question about it. And having to once again genuflect to the Chinese and Saudis plays little part in the outcome. The dependency on congress to elicite donations from the wealthy plays a huge role in this debacle.
But Bernie Sanders and those who stood by him must be commended for at least taking a stab and speaking on behalf of the nation when the president chooses not to.
“For the first time in a long time I was proud to call myself an American” when the floor of the Senate came alive for a change and made a case on behalf of those of us who are being strangled in the interim.
The fact that so many had tuned into this presentation speaks volumes.
December 13, 2010 at 9:23 AM
@5- THANK YOU for responding to @1! My thoughts were along the same line but none so polite!
Re: reading the transcript-Often I find it helpful to go to the printed words- takes the emotion out (I never ever listen to the occupant of 1600- drives me nuts with the uhms and ahs- so rely on transcripts there) Your analysis is very very good (as usual.)
December 13, 2010 at 9:23 AM
Interestingly, just by following some links to John’s site and on to the TED site (and watching the vid), I came across a State Dept program to get cell phones in the hands of women in developing nations. This is for many purposes, but the program in the Congo is especially compelling:
For example, we are in the early stages of developing an idea that we are calling mobile justice to help women in the Democratic Republic of Congo where sexual violence against women occurs at a horrific rate. In many parts of that country, the police and court systems have disintegrated. The women who are attacked have no way to get justice. They can’t even really realistically travel to the urban centers where courts have been re-established. But these cell phones give women the ability to collect evidence and record and transmit their testimonies. So women in rural areas may be able to bring justice to them.
The video also has some interesting parts, discusses some of the State Dept., initiatives, and is esp. interesting in which parts the CNN article leaves out. (eg, diminishing “military diplomacy” in favor of economic and developmental diplomacy by professionals).
The information is out there, and not too hard to find. Since becoming SoS, Clinton has brought the security and economic development of women and girls into the mainstream of foreign policy objectives. Of course, that’s information which is impossibly difficult to find if you refuse to look.
Funny, I was just engaged in a discussion over at Corrente about the “Educate Me!” method of marginalization and discussion derailment discussed at Feminism 101.
December 13, 2010 at 9:24 AM
halp! I’m in moderation, is it bc I used multiple html links?
December 13, 2010 at 9:25 AM
Bill Clinton has made mistakes in the past, and he’s just made another one. If he thought he was helping to keep the Party from falling apart, he couldn’t have been more wrong. The tide has turned against Obama and passing this POS tax bill will drive more of us away. (Where to go next is a separate issue).
Bernie Sanders at least made a stab at speaking up for the working class of this country. And while he may cave in the end, at least he
spoke the truth.
Bill Clinton was just playing politics, and I say shame on him.
December 13, 2010 at 9:26 AM
@4 – I don’t like it either. It makes me sick that Bill endorsed the payroll tax cut, but at least he explained why. Maybe it will help in the short run, but it sure could be used as an excuse to devastate SS and Medicare down the road. I don’t see any way that either faux-Dem Obama, or a Repub President wouldn’t do so. The only person who wouldn’t is Hillary. Hmmmmmmm….
As for Bernie Sanders, he was amazing on Friday! He certainly has made the case for putting more non-D lefties in Congress. The Greens, Socialists, Independents, etc. should seize their moment. Even on the street in Union Square yesterday, people were coming up to me and saying they watched Bernie. It was encouraging for L 2012.
December 13, 2010 at 9:34 AM
This may sound naive or utterly stupid, but the only reason I cling to the Dem Party is because of people like Bernie, Sherrod Brown, Al Franken, Anthony Weiner, Alan Grayson, and a handful of others who at least attempt to “fight the good fight”.
It sure as hell isn’t for Obama and the enablers in the party who just stand by and let the GOP crap all over them and offer a “thank you” for the privilege.
December 13, 2010 at 9:39 AM
@8 – Valhalla – that will do it. Chat or I will get you out.
@9 – Bluelady – from my point of view, I totally agree. From Bill’s point of view, though, he probably figures most of his supporters aren’t liberals anyway, and besides which, he’s just tepidly supporting something the other guy has done. That couldn’t possibly hurt him.
He is probably right on both counts. However, it does leave us liberal Clinton supporters infuriated and disappointed. At least, I am feeling that way.
The only bright spot is that he clearly stood by his own policy of raising on taxes the wealthy, which is why I wrote what I did today. Thank Jeebus that has not changed.
December 13, 2010 at 9:39 AM
I think Bill came up with idea of the joint appearance on the spur of the moment to take the attention of the press off of Bernie Sanders. Obama was wrong to leave and leave Bill there to continue the presser. Obama said before he left that Gibbs would call “last question”, but Gibbs never did, Bill did. I think Bill wanted to save the bill because he knew, come January, the Republicans were going to start running the show, and the working class would be left behind again.
Good post, MB. Some clarity was needed about what Bill really said.
December 13, 2010 at 9:48 AM
@4: Excellents points, DYB. While our little groups of bloggers are busy trying to figure out Clinton’s masterful plan, most people will simply view his appearance as a clear endorsement of the Obama tax deal whether it was or not. Talking privately with Obama is one thing but I wish Clinton had remained out of the spotlight on this. ( Sometimes he reminds me of Nora Desmond – he never met a spotlight he didn’t love. )
As for Bernie, I love the guy! Too bad more senators didn’t join him in the fight on Friday. I wonder what will happen in the Senate today?
December 13, 2010 at 9:48 AM
We’ve been out in the wilderness since 2008. There are still some of us who share the principles of FDR, more so now when it appears that the middle and lower classes continue to be shafted and knowing what worked then can be vigorously applied now.
Job creation in an economy where we have watched most manufacturing go overseas leaving MBAs to compete with blue collar workers is a disgrace. All brought about by failed policies that promised much and delivered little.
A few “alphabet programs” along the lines of FDR is what is needed if we are ever to climb out of this morass. Yet we know in our hearts that Obama is never going to institute these corrections and they will never take place with the GOP in charge.
Sad but true.
December 13, 2010 at 9:50 AM
Well, fool that I am, and possibly naive optimist- I just emailed my rep and senators again to urge defeat of the tax bill. Signs seem to say it will pass so I just had to put my 2 cents in before the end.
I wasn’t very successful in getting any of my co-workers this weekend to protest it either; ah, if only I had a bully pulpit.
December 13, 2010 at 9:56 AM
bluelady: I was gung ho in 2008, e-mailing and making calls to the members of congress with regard to Hillary Clinton and the attempts by the leadership and the superdelegates to undermine her candidacy and all to no avail.
The supers came out even before the last primary was held and the leadership continued to pour out the love of Obama even with 18 million of us pleading otherwise.
Since that time I have decided that although it may sound like a good idea, those phone calls, faxes, and e-mails are ignored because deals are being made, arms being twisted, and primary threats are laid out as a means of control.
What we as citizens want and desire is ignored.
December 13, 2010 at 10:00 AM
@16: Good for you, bluelady! I emailed mine, too. Fat chance it will help. Two Blue Dogs on their way out ( Bayh and Hill ) and a Repug who cares only about foreign policy ( Lugar ).
Never deride yourself for making your voice heard and remaining optimistic. That is what our democracy depends on.
December 13, 2010 at 10:05 AM
@15: Correction – I meant Norma Desmond. Nora was Carol Burnett’s parody of her. LOL.
Need more coffee…
December 13, 2010 at 10:07 AM
@19 – Amen, Beata! Bluelady, good for you.
What’s even more interesting is, I was out in Union Square yesterday and not one person mentioned Bill’s endorsement of the bill. In our little world, it is a huge thing, but out in the real world, Bernie Sanders seems to have been much more impactful. Perhaps Bill knew that too.
December 13, 2010 at 10:09 AM
Well, I think Bill may really believe that this is the best deal this president and this set of alleged Democrats will manage, and that Jan. would only be worse. Heck, I believe that much is true.
That is not to say it couldn’t not have been vastly different if we had Democrats (or anyone, these days I wouldn’t care what a group called itself if it would act on the part of the rest of us) who were willing to stand up and fight. That is not what we have, and it’s not just Obama. This is the same group that passed the Wall St bailout and the Health Whatever insuance company bailout. I remember some Progressive Caucus threats to torpedo HCR too (weren’t there a bunch of signatories to some letter or something?) but they all went along with Obama in the end.
That’s not to say I think Bill did the right thing here; he may have thought that but there’s no reason to make a point of shouting it.
December 13, 2010 at 10:16 AM
@22 – Heh, I was just saying that yesterday – this IS the best deal we can get with this craptastic President and Congress! I think Bill was saying that too.
But I agree, I would have vastly preferred for him to keep his opinions to himself!
December 13, 2010 at 10:36 AM
I answered PMM at Uppity and don’t want to divert by repeating it here — I have been looking for two years so I was thinking snarkly that you would not be finding any links for me. I had given up looking. But to my surprise, since Oct of this year Hillary has set up a fund which may develop or fund programs for women globally. Mom pointed this out at Uppity. This is NEW. I have been angry that it wasn’t happening before. But I will quickly get over that anger if programs actually start producing results for women. Thanks To PMM.
December 13, 2010 at 10:47 AM
@24 – thank you, and thanks to PMM too!
I have to admit that the first thing that came to my mind was Hillary’s immediate adoption of domestic partner rights at the State Department. That most certainly impacted women here at home. That seemed like an obvious answer. Perhaps it was not what you were looking for.
Also, see Valhalla’s comment earlier about cell phones for women in the Congo.
I can’t do a search right now, but I would be very surprised if it took Hillary this long to do something concrete.
December 13, 2010 at 10:53 AM
@5 – Just checking in. I didn’t say you were talking to me or about me. However, I am one of the people who have expressed displeasure at Bill’s presser. Just want to clear that up.
December 13, 2010 at 10:58 AM
@8 Valhalla if you are saying I am not a feminists or that I am a educate me feminist you are just wrong – the program you describe has not been implemented nor have any funds been assigned to it — still it is a good idea and i hope it becomes a reality.
December 13, 2010 at 11:09 AM
@25 madamab
Believe me I was very involved in C Rice’s efforts for women in Iraq and Afghanistan which were brilliant – when Hillary came in she gutted the programs – even the battered women shelters and the regional woman’s centers — i thought and was told by the old staff that was because a new grander, more comprehensive program for global women was going to be implemented. I thought here comes the IVAWA. I checked almost every day for 2 years – nothing – then we got the Cairo “the veil is a choice” speech and all the subservience to BO and no programs; only appointments and speeches . I gave up and was very bitter.
All this new effort seems to have started in October and believe me I could not support anything more – as I said on Uppity, Echidne of the snakes has a video of a woman being whipped for wearing pants and stuff like that makes me very impatient. I will never make another complaint if the programs start and are effective.
December 13, 2010 at 11:28 AM
@26 – no problem, BL. As you know, I am also in “displeasure” mode about it. I am just thankful that he was clear about his belief in taxing the wealthy, for moral as well as economic reasons.
December 13, 2010 at 11:32 AM
green — I think one problem (which I was too snarky about) is that the stuff the State Dept is doing is not well reported in the media or political blogs, so finding out about actual programs, or details about funding, is not so easy. I mean the things the State Dept is doing with regard to women and children, because you know, that’s so boring — not exciting like how Clinton called some foreign diplomat a doofus in a wikileak cable.
December 13, 2010 at 11:43 AM
Try No Limits, GC, if you haven’t already. I think you can still get on their email list. They might have some of the best progress reports as to what funds or programs Hillary has squeezed out of Congress for the State Department budgets or which specific women’s groups she mets with when she goes to specific places. If I recall, seems her meetings in India provided some good results in the textile industry in support of programs that women there have been working on for a few years now.
December 13, 2010 at 11:47 AM
@30
No there is a special place you go to and i had a link to it on my blog under the picture of the Afghan women being killed in the stadium but when the Hill came in the link went dead after a few months and the newsletter was discontinued. The big deal that PMM did was to tell me the site was up again with programs being discussed. Here
http://www.state.gov/s/gwi/index.htm
December 13, 2010 at 11:51 AM
Understand the women of courage awards and the 16 days against violence are all Condi’s programs without the teeth — you can look on the left column – they seem to have archives = maybe the old programs are there but if you write that office tell them we want the newsletter again with reports on the program development and implementation and how we can help besides giving money.
December 13, 2010 at 11:54 AM
Just one last thing — if the hill does get going with the programs — we really – all of us –must pass the IVAWA. It is so hot — just try to find it and read a little — if you can’t find it I will try to get my link and bring it back here. It will give hill a lot of power.
December 13, 2010 at 12:00 PM
Here is the IVAWA – Biden speaking:
The International Violence Against Women Act has three main components.
First, the bill reorganizes and rejuvenates the gender-related efforts of the State Department by creating one central office – the “Office for Women’s Global Initiatives”, directed by a Senate-confirmed Ambassador who reports directly to the Secretary.
The Coordinator of the Office or Women’s Global Initiatives (the “Coordinator”) will be charged with monitoring, coordinating, and organizing all U.S. resources, programs and aid abroad that deals with women’s issues, including gender-based violence.
Additionally, my bill creates a new Office of Women’s Global Development at USAID, also to be directed by a Senate-confirmed nominee. The Director will be responsible for addressing gender-based violence and integrating gender into U.S.government assistance programs.
The Director will work closely with the Coordinator and the Secretary of State to implement the provisions of the IVAWA legislation.
Under the current organizational scheme, projects addressing violence against women, either primarily or tangentially, are spread throughout the State Department and United States Agency for International Development (USAID) without a central inventory, game plan or leader.
My bill will raise the profile of women’s issues generally at the State Department, and ensure that gender-based violence programs are building on past successes, leveraging core competencies and working in conjunction with other initiatives.
Second, the International Violence Against Women Act mandates creation of a 5-year, comprehensive strategy, with coordinated programming, to prevent and respond to violence against women in 10 to 20 targeted countries.
The Act creates a dedicated funding stream of $175 million a year to support programs dealing with violence against women in five areas:
1 The criminal and civil justice system (everything from drafting laws on domestic violence, to enhancing women’s access to property and inheritance rights, to reforming police practices),
2 Health care,
3 Girls’ access to education and
school safety,
4 Women’s access to employment and
financial resources, and
5 Public awareness campaigns that change social norms.
I know from my experience in Delaware that coordinating community responses in towns and cities has made all the difference in fighting domestic violence and rape.
I applied those same principles of coordination and joint programming to the International Violence Against WomenAct.
International experts agree on the necessity of a multi-disciplinary approach that brings governments and non governmental organizations to the table to create sustainable infrastructure. To be clear, the International Violence Against Women Act is not asking countries to reinvent the wheel. At every step our strategy will lead to coordination of efforts to have the greatest possible impact.
This type of effective, cost-efficient, gender-based violence programming already exists and is taking place in pockets all around the globe. We have the blueprints; my Act would provide the momentum and support for a full-scale international priority.
Finally, as the recent reports from the Congo make tragically clear, in situations of humanitariancrises, conflict and post-conflict operations, women and girls are vulnerable to horrific acts of violence. Reports of refugee women being raped while collecting firewood, soldiers sexually abusing girls in exchange for token food items, or women subjected to unimaginable brutality and torture as a tactic of war are shocking in number and inhumanity.
The Act requires training, reporting mechanisms and other measures for those who are working directly with or protecting refugees and other vulnerable populations.
The Act also requires that the State Department identify “critical outbreaks” in which violence against women and girls is being used as a weapon of intimidation and abuse in armed conflict or war, or is escalating in an environment of impunity, and to take emergency measures to respond to the outbreaks.
December 13, 2010 at 12:04 PM
@34 – I have read about the IVAWA. I think NOW has been promoting it. It would indeed be an amazing achievement to get it to the attention of this President and Congress.
December 13, 2010 at 12:11 PM
BTW, Condi wanted that Office or Women’s Global Initiatives and Bush just made it for her with a funded co-ordinator which she used for women’s programs all the time she was SoS. Now you tell me why BO can’t just get a lot done by executive order?
December 13, 2010 at 12:16 PM
IVAWA — Dec 14, 2010: Committee on Foreign Relations. Date of scheduled consideration. 2:15 p.m.
December 13, 2010 at 12:20 PM
@38 I’m pretty sure they will be airing it on C-span. SFRC is advertising it on their website. It is the first agenda item in the hearing.
December 13, 2010 at 12:29 PM
One should view the video of the press conference as well, to get the full impact of Bill’s inflections, as well as the contrast between his clarity & presidentialness, and obie’s meek, altar boy stance.
And yes, the general public will receive none of this, and will only hear that “Bill Clinton endorsed obama’s compromise.” But the messages (with which I find the press conf. was chock-full of) weren’t for the public, they were for the Dem congressmen and Dem leadership.
This bill is gonna pass, regardless of Sanders or Clinton, so no real damage done. And there was a quid pro quo involved — we just don’t know what.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by JohnWSmart, JohnWSmart. JohnWSmart said: did clinton really endorse tax cuts for the rich? http://ow.ly/3ohjR [...]
December 13, 2010 at 12:50 PM
@40 Maybe we should live blog it, MB. We can get a feel for where it is going to go or not in the next congress. An amendment is going to be offered “as a nature of a substitute”. That could spell bad but at least we will know who the culprits are. You know me. I am a google nerd. Glad it came up today so we can watch it.
December 13, 2010 at 1:01 PM
Totally OT: I was thinking of getting this ( very creepy ) Christmas present for some of my worst enemies. Too bad it is out-of-stock:
http://store.heliotropehome.com/benadictaphone.html
December 13, 2010 at 1:01 PM
You all are welcome. Next it goes to Armed Services Committee though. It could be dead in the water there in the next Congress. It is a horrid committee for women and State Department. The Republicans will be trying to get money back to the Military out of the State Dept budget that Hillary has been building. Collins is on ARC though. She is a co-sponsor of the original Senate version. It should be quite a fight.
December 13, 2010 at 1:07 PM
@44 Watch it on C-Span together and blog together in the moment. It collects and co-ordinates info of where and with whom fights should be taken in keeping bills alive and get that out there into the public domain. It is like Valhalla said, often the press will never report on things like this.
December 13, 2010 at 1:20 PM
@ 48 Kerry and Boxer I think as lead sponsors. They are both on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. It is on the those conservative-feminist radar though. They will be watching for sure. Check out the couple articles back from August at the bottom of this page. S.B. Anthony list is on it. Yup, let’s see where Sarah Palin really stands on protecting women from those evil Muslims.
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h4594/show
December 13, 2010 at 1:27 PM
@50 OMG, read this piece from the website I linked to above by Phyllis Schlafly.
http://www.creators.com/opinion/phyllis-schlafly/the-feminist-left-goes-global-on-our-money.html
December 13, 2010 at 1:31 PM
Oct 2007, Biden wrote the bill and introduced it as follows:
So today, during this final week of Domestic Awareness Month, I am introducing with my good friend from Indiana, Senator Lugar, the International Violence Against Women Act (“IVAWA”). This groundbreaking, bipartisan legislation would integrate efforts to end gender-based violence into all existing, appropriate U.S. foreign assistance programs.
December 13, 2010 at 1:38 PM
@ 51 So Boxer and Kerry have kept the bill alive in the 110th Congress. That is good to know. That baby-killing Boxer who now intends to take it global with her baby-killing friend Hillary Clinton and whatever “CZAR” of baby-killing they might appoint. (Snarly interpretation of Schlafly’s piece.)
December 13, 2010 at 2:05 PM
LTD – live-blogging sounds like a great idea. If I am around tomorrow afternoon, I will definitely do it! If Chat doesn’t mind, of course.
December 13, 2010 at 2:38 PM
@55 Yes.
http://foreign.senate.gov/hearings/hearing/?id=8b8ad5c3-5056-a032-5265-c6b4d1d78d6d
It is listed under the “Hearings” area but entitled “Business Meeting” so don’t know if it will be aired or not but it is worth keeping an eye on.
December 13, 2010 at 3:07 PM
LTD, I just read Schafly’s piece. She is still as big a liar as she was when she and her fellow conservatives stopped the ERA by having hysterics about “same-sex bathrooms.”
Here’s some of her bullshit.
Does anyone dare to think that the State Department report will call for stopping the violence against women committed by mandatory abortions to carry out a government’s one-child policy? Or report on sex-selective abortions to kill unborn girl babies because parents prefer a boy baby?
If our State Department wants to help women in other countries, how about reporting to the American people about the atrocities against women committed by Muslim countries that use Shariah law. That includes forced marriages, child marriages, so-called “honor” murders, polygamy, and death by stoning as punishment for women who commit adultery.
Golly gee whiz. You mean like this?
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/node/14382
Or this?
http://www.womensrightswithoutfrontiers.org/index.php?nav=hillary_clinton
There are very few women whom I would call “bitch.” Shafly is one of them.
December 13, 2010 at 3:20 PM
I almost said it earlier, MB. I wanted to say to “lily” from the other night “bring it on bitch” after I read this article today.
December 13, 2010 at 3:27 PM
That was my first time to use my I-touch. It took forever to type. I don’t think I will like this thing. 
December 13, 2010 at 3:38 PM
@58 – LOL! Well, who knows who Lily is. Don’t waste your “bitch” on some anonymous Internetter – save it for the ones who REALLY deserve it!
Meanwhile, Axelrod says Obama is not a centrist. Duh! He’s a rightwinger! He’d have to move a mile to the left to be a centrist!
December 13, 2010 at 3:38 PM
Where is Pat Johnson? Pat I got you a little sumpn sumpn.
December 13, 2010 at 3:49 PM
I know how we all feel about Rachel Maddow, but this is from a show when the Obama/Repub deal first came out. I have to admit that *she* knew what was happening even if Obama was clueless.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/40443938#40443938
December 13, 2010 at 4:00 PM
@62 – Trust me, Obama is not clueless. He is doing what he was put into office to do by his corporate masters.
I don’t care if you link to Rachel. I don’t trust her, but if she’s saying something good, I’ll listen.
December 13, 2010 at 4:10 PM
MB@63: I didn’t think you would mind. Rather I think we know how she and the others at MSNBC have followed the party line…completely until recently. I generally watch the replay at 11 to see what she’s got to say. If interesting I’ll watch it. If not and she’s just repeating the company line I don’t watch it.
And I need to correct my post to say that vid was about the 1st meeting with the Repubs, not when the deal came out.
December 13, 2010 at 4:41 PM
Ya know, I’m just about done with it all. I wish I could just turn off my brain and become one of the mindless masses. Then it couldn’t crush my spirit.
December 13, 2010 at 4:57 PM
@66 – BL, I hear ya. I wish I could too, sometimes. But being a dupe doesn’t suit either one of us, I don’t think.
December 13, 2010 at 5:19 PM
@66: I recommend HGTV when politics becomes too much. “House Hunters” and “Property Virgins” are my favorite escapes into mindlessness.
December 13, 2010 at 5:36 PM
Medicaid cuts. I knew they were coming. Hey, the elderly don’t really need teeth anyway. They can just gum down their cat food.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101213/ap_on_he_me/us_medicaid_cuts_states
December 13, 2010 at 5:41 PM
@68 – I like “Nature” shows, HGTV, “What Not To Wear” and “Law & Order.”
December 13, 2010 at 5:46 PM
beata@69: And this is what’s misleading also:
Medicaid costs are shared by the federal and state governments. It’s not just the poor and disabled who benefit. Wealthier people do, too, such as when middle-class families with elderly parents in nursing homes are relieved of financial pressure after Medicaid starts picking up the bills.
But that’s not quite true. Medicaid will do a three year back check on resources/funds. If the person has any money it has to be spent down on the n.h. first before medicaid kicks in. Also, if the elderly person has a house the state will take that for the medicaid costs. I had a great aunt in KY, only survivor left from husband and siblings, no kids. When she died, the state took the house and sold it for her medicaid costs. Now if middle class folks take care of taking everything out of mom and dad’s names beforehand and long enough beforehand then the state cant touch those things.
December 13, 2010 at 5:48 PM
Aw hell, didn’t close the italics. MB if you want to fix it, italics should have been closed after *after Medicaid starts picking up the bills.*
Beata@69: I recommend HGTV when politics becomes too much
I recommend good vodka.
December 13, 2010 at 5:50 PM
According to Beata’s link, the Medicaid cuts are happening because the federal government doesn’t pay the claims soon enough, or doesn’t reimburse them at a high enough level.
So, we have enough money to cut taxes for billionaires, but not enough to pay for Medicaid?
Utterly ridiculous. Our whole value system is upside down.
December 13, 2010 at 5:51 PM
@38
Latda
Can you give me a link to where you found that business meeting announcement? I have been looking all over C-Span and cannot find it. Or is it somewhere else? Where did you find it? It is not on that heart link that I can see.
December 13, 2010 at 5:57 PM
@38 I just found your link Latda – thank you – it was not on c-span -i am writing them to ask if it will be covered–
@69 i read the medicaid article – I guess we do have the death panels.
December 13, 2010 at 5:58 PM
MB@74: from the article: closed his pharmacy in rural southern Illinois this summer and is going through bankruptcy, largely because the state was chronically late making Medicaid payments to him. Most of his former customers are in the program.
Medicaid is a joint fed/state thing. I think the feds deliver their part to the state (at what point I don’t know) and then it’s the states that have to kick in their share and then send out the checks or whatever.
And remember, Medicaid plays a BIG role in obamacare. How in the hell are the states going to afford that when obamacare kicks in in 2014?
December 13, 2010 at 6:00 PM
Oh and when you go on medicaid in the n.h.s you get a big fat check of like $35/mo to take care of your personal needs. That really goes a long way. 
December 13, 2010 at 6:13 PM
@77 – I blame the federal government for cutting taxes and forcing unfunded mandates like No Child Left Behind on the states.
Unlike the federal government, states are not allowed to print their own money and most have balanced budget amendments; therefore, when they are starved of revenue, they have two choices – either raise taxes or cut spending. Sometimes they have to do both. Obviously a program like Medicaid, which accounts for a huge percentage of state expenditures, is going to have a big target on its back for spending cuts.
A responsible, humane President would have understood that Medicaid and Medicare and Social Security need to be supported in a time of sustained high unemployment. Yet Obama has dedicated very little stimulus money to Medicaid, and it is now running out, according to the article.
Lawmakers are bracing for more work when they reconvene in January. Some states face multibillion-dollar deficits. Federal stimulus money for Medicaid is soon to evaporate (emphasis mine). And Medicaid enrollment has never been higher because of job losses.
Thanks to Reagan-Bush-Obamanomics, the States are having more and more difficulty being able to afford to pay for Medicaid. Sadly, only $90 Billion of the $800 Billion “stimulus package” was dedicated to propping up Medicaid. Of course, about $250 billion was dedicated to tax cuts in the name of “bipartisanship.”
Yup….our values are upside down.
December 13, 2010 at 6:40 PM
MB: Oh I agree with your statement above. Louisiana is especially hard hit because when the budget is screwed (like it is right now) the only places they can cut are education ( lower and higher) and health care. Just about every other area is constitutionally protected. Now lil ole Bobby, instead of calling a special session to create an constitutional amendment to change this, is just cutting education (higher ed by 350 mill.) and health care. They are cutting beds for mental health care and everything else (see beata’s article about mental health issues).
Of course lil Bobby is real proud of the fact that Ga. Pacific is going to upgrade a toilet paper manufacturing plant in Port Allen so it can make a higher grade/quality of butt wipe. Real high tech jobs. Recently he announced a new plant is being built in Morehouse Parish (rural poor area). And it’s a chicken processing plant! YEA! Rippin’ guts out of dead birds. But he said it would bring “good paying jobs” to the area. The avg. hr./rate for chicken pluckers or whatever you want to call them is between $7-8/hr. Plus there are usually issues of water/ground water pollution from those plants.
Now the education cuts do not matter to lil Bobby because he never availed himself of Louisiana universities…he went to Brown and then Oxford. Of course education, health care and jobs/types of jobs don’t matter to the oligarchy so this just sits fine with Bobby. Putz!
December 13, 2010 at 7:39 PM
bluelyon:
http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2010/12/gov_bobby_jindal_tells_sarah_p.html
Is that a joke or what?
December 13, 2010 at 7:40 PM
@81 – How anyone can feel otherwise, after hearing what Fredster has to say, is completely beyond me. What kind of animals are these? They must be born without a conscience.
December 13, 2010 at 8:43 PM
Fredster, how bleeping sad. Mind you, one must remember that Bobby is an elite, and the elite don’t care about anything to do with the smelly masses, other than where they can get the best massage and pedicure. Geebus, this is all so depressing.
December 13, 2010 at 8:58 PM
MB and HT: The sad part is that the Dem. brand is so tarnished now in LA (BP/Obama) and the state is turning more and more red that it’s entirely possible he’ll get reelected again unless he gets primaried by another repub.
December 13, 2010 at 9:06 PM
Fredster, OMG. I don’t think the DNC had any idea of how their nefarious coronation of Obama would impact every political position in every state of the union. I hope they’re happy, and btw, Brazille needs to become irrelevant – no more happy times on the teevee, no more air time on the radio. She needs to be ignored, as do the rest of the pompous assess that brought about this disaster. Nuff said, cause as you know, it’s not my problem, but I do have relatives down there so I care.
December 13, 2010 at 9:07 PM
@85 – Maybe that’s why he’s kissing up to Palin – so that she won’t sic a Tea Partier on him in the primaries.
Arrrrrgggggh. I hate them all! Louisiana deserves so much better!
December 13, 2010 at 9:13 PM
MB@87 and HT: I think he’s trying to cover all of the conservative bases. He wrote his book (heh!) and then had to travel all over to promote it. Then he’s been traveling all over to fundraise for himself and other conservative politicians so he’s hardly been in the state-one of the gripes against him. He denies he’s looking for another job (nat’l level) but we’re all hoping he does.
December 13, 2010 at 9:13 PM
Just saw that Amb Holbrook has died from complications from the surgery he had. R.I.P.
December 13, 2010 at 9:18 PM
Oh if you’re wondering about Pat and Dominick-the-Donkey, there were some comments about bad Christmas songs on another blog and Pat mentioned that as being esp. horrible. She was right! 
December 13, 2010 at 10:05 PM
Fredster @88, correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t he the governor of Louisiana, or has he stepped aside? If he is still the governor, why is he not in Louisiana doing stuff like oh, I don’t know, governing. Geebus, we can joke forever, however when did it become acceptable for an elected incumbent to ignore their responsibilities and tottle around the continent selling themselves? I know, I’m naive. Punch me please, I’m in the midst of a really bad dream, but it appears I’m awake throughout. Where’s Pat? She could sum up my disdain in a sentence.
December 13, 2010 at 10:24 PM
O/T: But this is one Christmas song I can tolerate just to hear her climb the octaves:
December 13, 2010 at 10:29 PM
And this is “Dominick” which played more than once can find me under the tree with a bottle of booze tucked under my chin.
In the history of Christmas music, this one is the worst!
December 13, 2010 at 10:42 PM
I think we have broken a Widdershins record…we have two recordings of “Dominick the Christmas Donkey” on the same thread!
December 13, 2010 at 10:53 PM
It is always best to hear this one twice because you may have missed the “subtlties” the first time around.
Do you love it or what? I had to hear it twice today myself. Once in Target and the other on my car radio. Triple awful!!
December 13, 2010 at 11:00 PM
@98 – And they say there is a war on Christmas. Yet the Christmas donkey lives! You’d think he would be one of the first casualties!
December 13, 2010 at 11:03 PM
Pat@96: I put *the other* version of Dominick further up. I thought the bad lip-syncing made it more poignant and special.
HT: Yes we all wonder why he can’t stay home and “governate”. People when writing about him are referring to him as Pyisuh instead of Bobby, the name he changed to. And they also write (derisively) about when he helped conduct an exorcism. (he’s converted Catholic). Google Bobby Jindal and exorcism and check the results.
At least it seems like the lege is finally growing a set. Bobby and his aides submitted a plan to cut more out of health care and the committee flatly rejected it.
There is something lil Bobby could do, which would be reintroduce the Stelly Plan. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stelly_Plan This plan nudged up the tax rates on middle and upper incomes and reduced and then stopped the state sales tax on food, electricity and natural gas. The upper income folks didn’t like the plan (we must always accommodate them you know) so it was repealed when lil Bobby got in. Coincidentally, the losses in state revenue just about equal what he has cut from education. I liked that Stelly reduced the sales tax on food because the sales tax is one of the most regressive taxes we have.
December 13, 2010 at 11:07 PM
As a former practicing Catholic, I can attest that the “converted” are the most insufferable.
Like reformed smokers, they brandish their new found faith under the noses of anyone within earshot usually driving most from the room.
Should be fun watching Jindahl and Palin comparing their experiences of exorcism when the time comes. Should be a hoot!
December 13, 2010 at 11:14 PM
Palin’s new reality show: “Sarah Palin’s Exorcisms”
Pitch: The former governor of Alaska uses her God-given powers to exorcise demons from unsuspecting sinners. First guest: Christine O’Donnell.
December 13, 2010 at 11:16 PM
I can almost hear the “debate” now between Palin and Jindahl.
“Sarah, your voodoo priest was wanted in his home country for acts against the government. What say you to that?”
“Well Bobby, at least he wasn’t a pedophile!”.
With that William Donahue grabs a mic and declares a “war on Christianity” just because of these two.
December 13, 2010 at 11:16 PM
Pat I can truthfully say I had never heard Dominick the Donkey before this, not even in Italian influenced N’awlins. I can say that shaddup you face was big there at one time.
December 13, 2010 at 11:21 PM
Pat and MB: If those two get together I hope they take their road act to Alaska. They will inflict upon fewer people per square mile. 
December 13, 2010 at 11:24 PM
Her second show, armed with a gun that can bring down a moose, will feature her laying on hands over John Boehner who just can’t stop crying.
Bristol will then sweep him to his feet where they will perform a waltz to the tune of “Tea For Two” as a coded “wink” to those Tea Partiers she hopes to enlist in her next show dedicated to all “freedom lovers” with an appearance by a real Mama Grizzly and Greta Van Susteren.
Sharron Angle will hand out glasses of lemonade at the finale while Glenn Beck “weeps” out another conspiracy. The voodoo priest will bless all as he whips out the stick and beats the whole sorry lot into submission.
December 13, 2010 at 11:27 PM
Pat said: The voodoo priest will bless all as he whips out the stick and beats the whole sorry lot into submission.
You sure he’s not gonna whip out his snake?
December 13, 2010 at 11:31 PM
I thought he was holding a stick or something in his hand when she was being “exorcised” on that video.
Not sure if this was supposed to be an exorcism or a purification but whatever it was it was weird.
But then, we are talking about You Know Who.
December 13, 2010 at 11:37 PM
OMG! We have a new scripture reading over at John Smart’s place:
A reading from The Book of Revealings of the Apocrypha of tamerlanius
December 13, 2010 at 11:42 PM
@103 –
You have to admit, it’s better to laugh than cry.
December 14, 2010 at 12:22 AM
Sorry I disappeared. The Texans/Ravens game got really interesting in the 4th qtr.
[...] Violence Against Women Act (I-VAWA) is scheduled for today at 2:15 pm today, EST. (Thanks to La-T-Da for the tip!) We will live-blog it if it’s being shown on [...]
Comments are closed.
L 2012 – Support Your Local Lefties!
Recent Comments
 | madamab on New Year’s Eve Widdershi… |
 | Eddie on New Year’s Eve Widdershi… |
 | HT on New Year’s Eve Widdershi… |
| madamab on New Year’s Eve Widdershi… |
| madamab on Happy New Year – We… |
December 13, 2010 at 7:32 AM
I think Bill Clinton is very clear in that press conference as to why he is supporting this particular compromise (not BO’s policies). I am convinced — that is why I said the things I did on the first thread about the press conference. I think you should believe Bill Clinton’s words in the transcript. You can see the thing on C-Span in its entirety.
But I do not feel the same way about Hillary. Understand, I believed in her before she became SoS. I am aware of all her speeches about women which she distributes by email and her friend’s speeches and their pictures with 3rd world women. Can you point me to any PROGRAMs in the state dept. implemented or expanded by Clinton that have improved the lives of those women or, dare I say it, contributed toward their liberation?