PDA

View Full Version : Clintons have made $109 million since leaving WH


noa
04-04-2008, 02:10 PM
On Drudge right now. I personally see nothing wrong with making as much money as possible, and think it would be unwise for Obama and co. to attack her over this. I just wonder why she was so reluctant to release it, and why she waited until a Friday (notorious day for releasing unwanted news) to do so. She has no reason to feel guilty about anything IMO, but she sure has acted guilty.

There's no link to a story yet, just the headline and these details. When it is updated, I'll post a link.

Edit: Here's a link http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080404/clinton_taxes.html?.v=1

<tt><tt>
World Exclusive: 4/4/08 15:43:06 ET
2000-2007 Returns
Feds Taxes Paid: $33.7 million
Charity: $10.2 million
Her Senate Salary: $1,051,606
His Presidential Pension: $1,217,250
Her Book Income: $10,457,083
His Book Income: $29,580,525
His Speech Income: $51,855,599

</tt></tt>

Donger
04-04-2008, 02:16 PM
Good for them.

noa
04-04-2008, 02:17 PM
Also, the $10.2 million to charity is pretty impressive.

jiveturkey
04-04-2008, 02:20 PM
I don't get it either. The way they were acting lead me to believe that there was a dead hooker burial account listed somewhere.

Donger
04-04-2008, 02:22 PM
CPAs? What's their effective tax rate?

tiptap
04-04-2008, 02:23 PM
They wanted a chance to complete THIS income tax statement and didn't want to pay their taxes before April 15th. They have enough of an income that timing is important.

jAZ
04-04-2008, 02:36 PM
Unless there is something in there that is harmful (ie, source of funding, etc.) it's really about trying to keep from harming the "I feel your pain" rhetoric from looking ridiculous.

Carlota69
04-04-2008, 02:48 PM
They wanted a chance to complete THIS income tax statement and didn't want to pay their taxes before April 15th. They have enough of an income that timing is important.

This is probably the case. In fact her campaign has said this. Just like anyone, especially with lots of $$$, they were just doing their taxes and trying to get everything done by 4/15. People just want to think evil of the Clintons. It couldnt' possibly be that they have lots of tax shit to get thru. It has to be more sinister than that.

My taxes aren't easy and take time. I couldnt imagine what the job would be if I made that kind of coin.

beer bacon
04-04-2008, 02:50 PM
From what I have been reading, this doesn't include anything about their 2007 tax returns, other then an "estimate." Apparently, they have filed for an extension.

Sully
04-04-2008, 02:54 PM
At least she doesn't smoke.

jAZ
04-04-2008, 03:00 PM
They wanted a chance to complete THIS income tax statement and didn't want to pay their taxes before April 15th. They have enough of an income that timing is important.

This is probably the case. In fact her campaign has said this. Just like anyone, especially with lots of $$$, they were just doing their taxes and trying to get everything done by 4/15. People just want to think evil of the Clintons. It couldnt' possibly be that they have lots of tax shit to get thru. It has to be more sinister than that.

My taxes aren't easy and take time. I couldnt imagine what the job would be if I made that kind of coin.
Payments aren't due at the moment of return submission. They could have prepared and released this and held payment until the 15th (presumably for interest reasons).

beer bacon
04-04-2008, 03:06 PM
Eh, the total gross income listed on the release is $109,175,175, but I only get $94,162,063 when I add up all the different sources of income listed.

penchief
04-04-2008, 03:09 PM
**** em'. If they aren't part of the solution, they're part of the problem. Life is so simple. It's plain to see. Why anybody wants to complicate things is way beyond me.

Why can't we all get along? Is it because of greedy mutherfuchers? Is that the reason why? Or is it because of self-righteous types who want us to cry? I don't know the reason, but I do know one thing. When it comes goodness, it has nothing to do with bling.

Chief Henry
04-04-2008, 05:21 PM
Where's the interest income listed ?
Where's the Dividend income listed?
DId they have any Capital Gains ?

Just wondering about these three items...

Do we still have a list of donors to Bills library in Arkansas ?
I would love to see that donor list. it would tell us ALOT, imo.

penchief
04-04-2008, 05:30 PM
Where's the interest income listed ?
Where's the Dividend income listed?
DId they have any Capital Gains ?

Just wondering about these three items...

Do we still have a list of donors to Bills library in Arkansas ?
I would love to see that donor list. it would tell us ALOT, imo.

What the **** does any of that have to do with our current state of affairs? We are experiencing the worst ****ing presidency of our generation and you are focused on the past. That just proves that you're a clit.

SNR
04-04-2008, 05:41 PM
Unless there is something in there that is harmful (ie, source of funding, etc.) it's really about trying to keep from harming the "I feel your pain" rhetoric from looking ridiculous.What're they supposed to do? Not be successful?

chiefforlife
04-04-2008, 08:04 PM
What're they supposed to do? Not be successful?

I dont think he means, dont be successful, its just hard to sympathize with the working class while making that kind of money.
I personally commend them on their finances. I was expecting something bad with the way she was acting, but I see nothing to be ashamed of.

Logical
04-04-2008, 08:17 PM
This is probably the case. In fact her campaign has said this. Just like anyone, especially with lots of $$$, they were just doing their taxes and trying to get everything done by 4/15. People just want to think evil of the Clintons. It couldnt' possibly be that they have lots of tax shit to get thru. It has to be more sinister than that.

My taxes aren't easy and take time. I couldnt imagine what the job would be if I made that kind of coin.It would be great to find out, besides if you earn that kind of coin your tax accountant does your taxes for you.

WoodDraw
04-04-2008, 09:20 PM
All of the hype, and nearly everyone responds with a resounding "who cares?".

Talk about a nonissue.

jAZ
04-04-2008, 09:46 PM
What're they supposed to do? Not be successful?
The more I watched this on the cable news shows a bit this afternoon, and it it seems to be more about sources than perception.

But in any case, it's not a question of "not be successful" it's a question of managing how your success comes across to voters. Particularly, if your campaign is largely about "I feel your pain" and "I'm like Rocky" or "I'm the blue color candidate, my opponent is elitist" all the while your income says otherwise.

One choice they might make (were it needed) would be to not run an "everyman" campaign.

Mr. Kotter
04-05-2008, 01:08 AM
Rrrrooooccckkkkk Ccccchhhhaallllllllkkkkkk, Jjjjjjjaaaayyyyyhhhhhawwwwkkkk....
KKKKKKKKKKKkkkkkkkkkkUUUUUUUUUuuuuuuuuuuu

RRrooocckk Ccchhaalllllkkk, Jjjaayhhhawkkk....
KKKKKkkkkkkkUUUUuuuuuuuuu.....

RRrockk Ccchhlllkkk, Jjayhawkk....
KKKkkk-UUuuuuuuu.....

RockChalk Jayhawk, KU!
RockChalk Jayhawk, KU!

ROCKCHALK JAYHAWK, KKK-UUUU!!!



Go Jayhawks!

:KU:

mlyonsd
04-05-2008, 07:16 AM
I wonder if the Clinton Defense fund numbers are part of the $109M.

In any case it makes those that contributed to it even bigger saps.

jAZ
04-05-2008, 08:10 AM
Rrrrooooccckkkkk Ccccchhhhaallllllllkkkkkk, Jjjjjjjaaaayyyyyhhhhhawwwwkkkk....
KKKKKKKKKKKkkkkkkkkkkUUUUUUUUUuuuuuuuuuuu

RRrooocckk Ccchhaalllllkkk, Jjjaayhhhawkkk....
KKKKKkkkkkkkUUUUuuuuuuuuu.....

RRrockk Ccchhlllkkk, Jjayhawkk....
KKKkkk-UUuuuuuuu.....

RockChalk Jayhawk, KU!
RockChalk Jayhawk, KU!

ROCKCHALK JAYHAWK, KKK-UUUU!!!



Go Jayhawks!

:KU:
Shall I report this as spam... or drinking induced spam?

:p

(Goooo KU-U!)

Frankie
04-05-2008, 08:23 PM
Unless there is something in there that is harmful (ie, source of funding, etc.) it's really about trying to keep from harming the "I feel your pain" rhetoric from looking ridiculous.

The rich genuinely understanding poverty is nothing new. The Kennedys, with all their warts, are known to generally raise their kids to transcend their rich-ness and choose careers in helping out the plight of the poor. That was evidently Joe's directive to his clan. I also believe John Edwards is genuine about his passion about poverty. So why is it you are casting doubt on the Clintons feelings for the poor?

I just don't understand the Obama crowd. Even though they are Dems they treat Hillary and Bill like they are hardcore NeoCon Repubs? Generally Hillary backers are courteous and gracious about Obama.:shake:

Chief Henry
04-06-2008, 03:14 PM
What the **** does any of that have to do with our current state of affairs? We are experiencing the worst ****ing presidency of our generation and you are focused on the past. That just proves that you're a clit.

Thats your opinion PC. its not accurate, but its still your opinion.
I'm guessing you've forgotten Jimmy Carter.

W has not been the best president. But he's far from the worst. The history books on this war on terrorism have not yet been written. The chapter on Iraq in this war on Terrorism has yet to be completed.

penchief
04-06-2008, 04:09 PM
Thats your opinion PC. its not accurate, but its still your opinion.
I'm guessing you've forgotten Jimmy Carter.

W has not been the best president. But he's far from the worst. The history books on this war on terrorism have not yet been written. The chapter on Iraq in this war on Terrorism has yet to be completed.

Too bad the War in Iraq is about commercial interests instead of terrorism.

As far as Carter goes, his problem was that he wasn't a lackey (ala Bush) for those very same commercial interests. It's tough to be a president for all the people when those interests are doing everything they can to undermine you at every turn.

Bush is worst because he had a free ride and still made all the wrong decisions.

jAZ
04-06-2008, 05:07 PM
The rich genuinely understanding poverty is nothing new. The Kennedys, with all their warts, are known to generally raise their kids to transcend their rich-ness and choose careers in helping out the plight of the poor. That was evidently Joe's directive to his clan. I also believe John Edwards is genuine about his passion about poverty. So why is it you are casting doubt on the Clintons feelings for the poor?
What I pointed out applies to anyone in their position. It's not casting doubt on anyone, it's accepting a political reality. Not every rich person runs on a "I feel your pain" platform, like the Clinton's (or as you point out, Edwards) do. Those that do chose that political campaign approach have a hurdle to clear. To lesser extent (driven by his lesser income) Obama has the same issue to overcome. He has an easier time over coming it because he spent his life working on the issue of poverty as a community organizer in the inner city.

Chiefmanwillcatch
04-06-2008, 05:25 PM
All that money makes her out to be one of the bad guys in their circle.

Thats why.

jAZ
04-06-2008, 05:27 PM
Thats your opinion PC. its not accurate, but its still your opinion.
I'm guessing you've forgotten Jimmy Carter.

W has not been the best president. But he's far from the worst. The history books on this war on terrorism have not yet been written. The chapter on Iraq in this war on Terrorism has yet to be completed.

It's far from merely HIS opinion. And what constitutes "not accurate" on a matter of opinion, anyway? Here is a sampling of opinions of Historians and a very fair treatment of the matter overall.

http://hnn.us/articles/48916.html

4-01-08

HNN Poll: 61% of Historians Rate the Bush Presidency Worst
By Robert S. McElvaine

“As far as history goes and all of these quotes about people trying to guess what the history of the Bush administration is going to be, you know, I take great comfort in knowing that they don’t know what they are talking about, because history takes a long time for us to reach.”— George W. Bush, Fox News Sunday, Feb10, 2008

A Pew Research Center poll released last week found that the share of the American public that approves of President George W. Bush has dropped to a new low of 28 percent.

An unscientific poll of professional historians completed the same week produced results far worse for a president clinging to the hope that history will someday take a kinder view of his presidency than does contemporary public opinion.

http://hnn.us/Pics2008/mcelvainepoll4-1-08-a.gif

In an informal survey of 109 professional historians conducted over a three-week period through the History News Network, 98.2 percent assessed the presidency of Mr. Bush to be a failure while 1.8 percent classified it as a success.

http://hnn.us/Pics2008/mcelvainepoll4-1-08-b.gif

Asked to rank the presidency of George W. Bush in comparison to those of the other 41 American presidents, more than 61 percent of the historians concluded that the current presidency is the worst in the nation’s history. Another 35 percent of the historians surveyed rated the Bush presidency in the 31st to 41st category, while only four of the 109 respondents ranked the current presidency as even among the top two-thirds of American administrations.

http://hnn.us/Pics2008/mcelvainepoll4-1-08-c.gif

At least two of those who ranked the current president in the 31-41 ranking made it clear that they placed him next-to-last, with only James Buchanan, in their view, being worse. “He is easily one of the 10-worst of all time and—if the magnitude of the challenges and opportunities matter—then probably in the bottom five, alongside Buchanan, Johnson, Fillmore, and Pierce,” wrote another historian.

The reason for the hesitancy some historians had in categorizing the Bush presidency as the worst ever, which led them to place it instead in the “nearly the worst” group, was well expressed by another historian who said, “It is a bit too early to judge whether Bush's presidency is the worst ever, though it certainly has a shot to take the title. Without a doubt, it is among the worst.”

In a similar survey of historians I conducted for HNN four years ago, Mr. Bush had fared somewhat better, with 19 percent rating his presidency a success and 81 percent classifying it as a failure. More striking is the dramatic increase in the percentage of historians who rate the Bush presidency the worst ever. In 2004, only 11.6 percent of the respondents rated Bush’s presidency last. That conclusion is now reached by nearly six times as large a fraction of historians.

There are at least two obvious criticisms of such a survey. It is in no sense a scientific sample of historians. The participants are self-selected, although participation was open to all historians. Among those who responded are several of the nation’s most respected historians, including Pulitzer and Bancroft Prize winners.

The second criticism that is often raised of historians making such assessments of a current president is that it is far too early. We do not yet know how the things that Mr. Bush has done will work out in the future. As the only respondent who classified the current presidency among the ten best noted, “Any judgment of his ‘success’ or lack thereof is premature in that the ultimate effects of his policies are not yet known.” True enough. But this historian went on to make his current evaluation, giving Bush “high marks for courage in his willingness to attack intractable problems in the Near East and to touch the Social Security ‘Third Rail.’ ”

Historians are in a better position than others to make judgments about how a current president’s policies and actions compare with those of his predecessors. Those judgments are always subject to change in light of future developments. But that is no reason not to make them now.

The comments that many of the respondents included with their evaluations provide a clear sense of the reasons behind the overwhelming consensus that George W. Bush’s presidency is among the worst in American history.

“No individual president can compare to the second Bush,” wrote one. “Glib, contemptuous, ignorant, incurious, a dupe of anyone who humors his deluded belief in his heroic self, he has bankrupted the country with his disastrous war and his tax breaks for the rich, trampled on the Bill of Rights, appointed foxes in every henhouse, compounded the terrorist threat, turned a blind eye to torture and corruption and a looming ecological disaster, and squandered the rest of the world’s goodwill. In short, no other president’s faults have had so deleterious an effect on not only the country but the world at large.”

“With his unprovoked and disastrous war of aggression in Iraq and his monstrous deficits, Bush has set this country on a course that will take decades to correct,” said another historian. “When future historians look back to identify the moment at which the United States began to lose its position of world leadership, they will point—rightly—to the Bush presidency. Thanks to his policies, it is now easy to see America losing out to its competitors in any number of area: China is rapidly becoming the manufacturing powerhouse of the next century, India the high tech and services leader, and Europe the region with the best quality of life.”

One historian indicated that his reason for rating Bush as worst is that the current president combines traits of some of his failed predecessors: “the paranoia of Nixon, the ethics of Harding and the good sense of Herbert Hoover. . . . . God willing, this will go down as the nadir of American politics.” Another classified Bush as “an ideologue who got the nation into a totally unnecessary war, and has broken the Constitution more often than even Nixon. He is not a conservative, nor a Christian, just an immoral man . . . .” Still another remarked that Bush’s “denial of any personal responsibility can only be described as silly.”

“It would be difficult to identify a President who, facing major international and domestic crises, has failed in both as clearly as President Bush,” concluded one respondent. “His domestic policies,” another noted, “have had the cumulative effect of shoring up a semi-permanent aristocracy of capital that dwarfs the aristocracy of land against which the founding fathers rebelled; of encouraging a mindless retreat from science and rationalism; and of crippling the nation’s economic base.”

“George Bush has combined mediocrity with malevolent policies and has thus seriously damaged the welfare and standing of the United States,” wrote one of the historians, echoing the assessments of many of his professional colleagues. “Bush does only two things well,” said one of the most distinguished historians. “He knows how to make the very rich very much richer, and he has an amazing talent for f**king up everything else he even approaches. His administration has been the most reckless, dangerous, irresponsible, mendacious, arrogant, self-righteous, incompetent, and deeply corrupt one in all of American history.”

Four years ago I rated George W. Bush’s presidency as the second worst, a bit above that of James Buchanan. Now, however, like so many other professional historians, I see the administration of the second Bush as clearly the worst in our history. My reasons are similar to those cited by other historians: In the wake of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, the United States enjoyed enormous support around the world. President Bush squandered that goodwill by taking the country into an unnecessary war of choice and misleading the American people to gain support for that war. And he failed utterly to have a plan to deal with Iraq after the invasion. He further undermined the international reputation of the United States by justifying torture.

Mr. Bush inherited a sizable budget surplus and a thriving economy. By pushing through huge tax cuts for the rich while increasing federal spending at a rapid rate, Bush transformed the surplus into a massive deficit. The tax cuts and other policies accelerated the concentration of wealth and income among the very richest Americans. These policies combined with unwavering opposition to necessary government regulations have produced the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. Then there is the incredible shrinking dollar, the appointment of incompetent cronies, the totally inexcusable failure to react properly to the disaster of Hurricane Katrina, the blatant disregard for the Constitution—and on and on.

Like a majority of other historians who participated in this poll, my conclusion is that the preponderance of the evidence now indicates that, while this nation has had at least its share of failed presidencies, no previous presidency was as large a failure in so many areas as the current one.

Frankie
04-07-2008, 10:53 AM
Thats your opinion PC. its not accurate, but its still your opinion.
I'm guessing you've forgotten Jimmy Carter.

W has not been the best president. But he's far from the worst. The history books on this war on terrorism have not yet been written. The chapter on Iraq in this war on Terrorism has yet to be completed.

Carter was not an effective president to be sure. But his was a problem of being a nice guy in a cut-throat political world. Whether it was incompetence or not is moot because the effect was the same. But today we are dealing with a presidency not only of incompetence, but also abject corruption. That's what makes Bush's presidency worst than Carter's.

Frankie
04-07-2008, 11:00 AM
All that money makes her out to be one of the bad guys in their circle.

Thats why.

Everybody who runs for presidency is comfortable financially. Having wealth is not a sin unto itself. It's not like the Clinton's got it being in bed with ENRON and Haliburton.

StcChief
04-07-2008, 11:31 AM
At least she doesn't smoke.no pole smokin in years.

oldandslow
04-07-2008, 03:30 PM
For a bit of perspective...

Some former presidents have been more loathe than others to cash in on the unique fame and honor that accompanies the highest office in the land.

Harry Truman wrote in his memoirs, "I could never lend myself to any transaction, however respectable, that would commercialize on the prestige and dignity of the office of the presidency." Impressive sentiments from a man whose only source of government support after leaving office in 1953 was, according to historian David McCullough, an Army pension of $112.56 a month.

oldandslow
04-07-2008, 03:31 PM
Everybody who runs for presidency is comfortable financially. Having wealth is not a sin unto itself. It's not like the Clinton's got it being in bed with ENRON and Haliburton.

Tyson and Walmart don't count.

Chief Henry
04-08-2008, 07:16 AM
I would love to see who's been backing the Clintons. Names, address's and amounts.
It would shed the light on who's been in the ears of Billary.

banyon
04-08-2008, 07:29 AM
I would love to see who's been backing the Clintons. Names, address's and amounts.
It would shed the light on who's been in the ears of Billary.

Four minutes, three great posts. I guess your work is done today. Brilliant!:rolleyes:

stevieray
04-08-2008, 07:47 AM
Four minutes, three great posts. I guess your work is done today. Brilliant!:rolleyes:

this is a pretty good example of "liberalism".

banyon
04-08-2008, 07:53 AM
this is a pretty good example of liberalism.

That's about all "conservatism" is about these days. Not policies that would make anything better, or even acting on long held beliefs (e.g., abortion or gay marriage). Just whining about getting picked or how other people undeservingly look down on them. I guess it's built in from not doing as well in school or something.

Chief Henry
04-08-2008, 07:53 AM
this is a pretty good example of "liberalism".

No doubt about that.

banyon
04-08-2008, 07:57 AM
Who Are They Calling Elitist?
Eric Alterman

This article is adapted from Eric Alterman's new book, Why We're Liberals: A Political Handbook for Post-Bush America (Viking).

The contemporary conservative obsession with the "liberal elite" has its origin in the campaign of 1964, when Ronald Reagan crisscrossed the country in support of Barry Goldwater's presidential aspirations, accusing liberals of believing that "an intellectual elite in a far-distant capital can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves." Richard Nixon took up the cudgel in his second State of the Union speech, complaining that "a bureaucratic elite in Washington knows best what is best for people everywhere." But it was Nixon's Vice President, Spiro Agnew, who, aided by speechwriters Pat Buchanan and William Safire, showed right-wingers what political potential lay in this line of attack, with his orgies of alliteration regarding the evildoings of various "pusillanimous pussyfooters," "hopeless hysterical hypochondriacs of history," "nattering nabobs of negativism" and "effete corps of impudent snobs," to pick just a few of his favorite epithets for liberal opponents in the media and academia.

Since then, no right-wing campaign has been complete without some form of repudiation of what former Vice President Dan Quayle named the liberal "cultural elite," whose avowed purpose is to undermine all that is admirable and virtuous in Middle America, or as Quayle termed it, "the rest of us." (Asked to define the evildoers, Quayle responded, "They know who they are.") Quayle's addition of the word "cultural" to "elite," coupled with his attack on a popular television character, single mom/anchorwoman Murphy Brown, was a stroke of genuine genius, as it allowed conservatives to continue to feel themselves oppressed even as they gained control of virtually all of the levers of political power in the United States and much of the news media. Liberals' power, conservatives continue to insist, trumps political power because we allegedly control the "culture." Today it is all but impossible to hear the word "liberal" without the word "elite" attached.

It's hard to know exactly what conservatives mean by the accusation of elitism, as it appears to fit almost any occasion. If you examine the definitions offered by elitism's accusers, the crime is apparently one of mind, akin to such offenses as "bourgeois sentimentality" or "rootless cosmopolitanism" in the Stalinist Soviet Union. Rush Limbaugh posited his success as an example of what he termed "middle America's growing rejection of the elites," which he defines as "professionals" and "experts," including "the medical elites, the sociological elites, the education elites, the legal elites, the science elites...and the ideas this bunch promotes through the media." Conservative pundit Peggy Noonan identifies "America's elite" as "the politicians, wise men, think-tank experts, academics, magazine and editorial-page editors, big-city columnists, TV commentators" who had the temerity to oppose Bush's ruinous war in Iraq. The qualities of the "big and real America," from which George W. Bush (of Harvard, Yale and Andover) hails, are those that liberal elites would recognize as native to "another America, and boy has it endured. It just won a war. [Noonan was writing in early 2003, before the catastrophe that Iraq has become was apparent to all.] Its newest generation is rising, and its members are impressive. They came from a bigger America and a realer one--a healthy and vibrant place full of religious feeling and cultural energy and Bible study and garage bands and sports-love and mom-love and sophistication and normality."

Conservatives did not, of course, wish to do away with "elites." They merely wanted to replace them with their own. As John Judis pointed out in his book-length study The Paradox of American Democracy, "Instead of creating a new elite, they undermined what it meant for a country to have one. The new groups, in contrast to the old, did not seek to be above class, party and ideology. On the contrary, they were openly probusiness and conservative.... They did not seek to mediate conflicts but to take one side. They had no ties to labor unions or to the environmental, consumer or civil rights movements that had emerged in the sixties, but only to the business counteroffensive against them.... They did not seek to produce objective results by means of social science. On the contrary, they were willing to use social science to achieve partisan results."

In observing the members of the conservative elite denouncing "elitists," it can be difficult to tell your players without the proverbial scorecard. For instance, radio talk-show host and former conservative cable host Laura Ingraham has written an entire book about the dangers posed by liberal elites, Shut Up and Sing: How Elites From Hollywood, Politics, and the Media Are Subverting America. In it, this daughter of a Connecticut lawyer, a graduate of Dartmouth and the University of Virginia Law School who now lives in an expensive home in Washington, DC, distinguishes between liberal elitists and those she terms "true Americans." She begins her treatise by explaining who these "elite Americans" are and what they think: "They think we're stupid. They think our patriotism is stupid. They think our churchgoing is stupid. They think our flag-flying is stupid. They think having big families is stupid. They think where we live--anywhere but near or in a few major cities--is stupid. They think our SUVs are stupid. They think owning a gun is stupid. They think our abiding belief in the goodness of America and its founding principles is stupid."

Ingraham is joined in her crusade by another ex-MSNBC pundette, the second-generation Connecticut lawyer and Cornell University alumna Ann Coulter, who rhapsodizes about red-state denizens, as Geoffrey Nunberg notes in his book Talking Right, "with the effusiveness of a fifth-grader reporting on a zoo visit": "I loved Kansas City! It's like my favorite place in the world.... It's the opposite of this town. They're Americans, they're so great, they're rooting for America!" "I love Texas Republicans!... Americans are so cool!" "Queens, baseball games--those are my people. American people." Like Ingraham, Coulter distinguishes between "us" and "them" on the basis of attitude rather than income, though the multimillionaire does allow that "the whole point of being a liberal [is] to feel superior to people with less money."

John Podhoretz, the son of neoconservatism's second couple, Norman Podhoretz and Midge Decter, who attended elite private schools and the University of Chicago before his father's connections helped him secure jobs in the media empires of Sun Myung Moon and Rupert Murdoch, also professes to see America through rose-hued glasses. "Bush Red is a simpler place," he explains, on the basis of a visit to Las Vegas. It's a land "where people mourn the death of NASCAR champion Dale Earnhardt, root lustily for their teams, go to church, and find comfort in old-fashioned verities." His comrade in anti-intellectual arms, former CBS News reporter Bernard Goldberg, who has spent a career working within what conservatives would call the "liberal media elite" and who wrote a book comparing his former friend Dan Rather to a "prison bitch," has sworn off all association with liberals even when he agrees with them, he says, "because of their elitism. They look down their snobby noses at ordinary Americans who eat at Red Lobster or because they like to bowl or they go to church on a regular basis or because they fly the flag on the Fourth of July."

In red-state America, explains the slumming blue stater David Brooks, "the self is small"; whereas in blue-state America, "the self is more commonly large." Unlike the citizens of the states that voted for Al Gore, according to Andrew Sullivan, they can even be trusted not to betray their country on behalf of Islamic terrorists. Yet while unelite America is wonderful in every way, it's just not a place where Laura Ingraham or Rush Limbaugh or Bernard Goldberg or Ann Coulter or John Podhoretz or Newt Gingrich or Peggy Noonan or Andrew Sullivan or David Brooks would ever choose to live.

A telling aspect of the conservatives' attack on liberal elitism is their intense attachment to the very same elite liberal academic institutions they profess to detest. When George Bush tried to nominate his personal lawyer, Harriet Miers, a graduate of Southern Methodist University Law School, to the Supreme Court, conservatives had a collective conniption fit over her meager credentials. National Review's Ramesh Ponnuru called her "an inspiring testament to the diversity of the president's cronies." Former Bush speechwriter David Frum complained that for his old boss "to take a hazard on anything other than a known quantity of the highest intellectual and personal excellence" was "simply reckless." It was "an unserious nomination," whined John Podhoretz. "I'm beginning to think that this appointment was an expression of the president's contempt for the conservative intelligentsia," Andrew Sullivan complained. To top it all off, Robert Bork, the Yale man whose extremist views kept him off the Court in 1987, called the nomination "a slap in the face to the conservatives who've been building a conservative legal movement for twenty years."

No complaint was heard from these same fire breathers, however, when Bush caved in to their demands and dumped Miers for Princeton and Yale Law alum Samuel Alito. (This was the same President, you'll recall, who chose John Roberts of Harvard College and Harvard Law School to be Chief Justice of the United States and later nominated Ben Bernanke, a Princeton economist, to be chairman of the Federal Reserve.) Other commentators have noticed that in the anti-elitist Bush Administration, the plum positions are dominated by graduates of Swarthmore, Stanford, Harvard, Yale and Andover. One can see exactly the same dynamic at work on Bush's national security team. When Bush finally admitted the catastrophic direction his war plans had taken in Iraq, he kept Condoleezza Rice (provost, Stanford University), fired Donald Rumsfeld (BA, Princeton) and put Robert Gates (PhD, Georgetown University) in his place, and named Gen. David Petraeus (PhD, Princeton) head of US forces there. Petraeus was joined by Col. Michael Meese (ditto) and what Carter Malkasian, who has advised Marine Corps commanders in Iraq on counterinsurgency and who holds an Oxford doctorate (with a degree in the history of war), noted was the most "highly educated" set of advisers a US commander had ever assembled--at least in Malkasian's recollection. According to conservative anti-elitist prejudices, such educational contamination should disqualify a man from service, rather than recommend him.

Given the transparent hypocrisy of the "liberal elitist" charge, coupled with its shifting but always not quite definable content, one cannot help but be awed by the effectiveness with which it is wielded. The simplest explanation is that "elitism" has come to be perceived as a legitimate attack word by the right, without anyone really being able to define why. Remember: it's not about where you live, how much money you have, how many security guards you regularly employ, where you summer, what you drive, what you drive when you're driving whatever else you drive when you're not driving that, where you went to school or where you think people should have gone to school. Conservatives are as one with the people they so disdain on all of those scores. Rather, "elitism" has simply become a contentless cudgel with which to beat back one's opponents without the trouble of engaging their arguments. Nunberg notes that right-wingers have had remarkable success in pigeonholing liberalism as a "white upper-middle-class affectation."

"Just look, for example, at the way liberals are referred to in the media, even in the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times," says Nunberg. "Wherever you look, the liberal label is almost exclusively reserved for middle-class whites. Phrases like 'working-class liberals,' 'Hispanic liberals' and 'black liberals' are virtually nonexistent, though 'conservative' is frequently used to describe members of all those groups. When the media are referring to members of the working class or minority groups who vote left-of-center, they invariably describe them as Democrats, with the implication that their political choices are shaped by economic self-interest or traditional party loyalty rather than by any deep commitment to liberal ideals. It's as if you can't count as a liberal unless you can afford the lifestyle. Liberalism is treated less as a political credo than as the outward expression of a particular social identity, like a predilection for granite countertops and bottled water."

It's quite a trick these right-wingers have pulled off, one that might even impress George Orwell. When they dislike a position, they deride it as "elitist," irrespective of the fact that it is supported by a majority of Americans. Personally, they enjoy exactly the same advantages as liberal elitists, but they insist that this does not matter, because they think about those advantages differently. When asked to define just what is so awful about the way liberals think, they fall back on a series of unproven--and ultimately unprovable--accusations of the kind made by totalitarian regimes against their dissidents. Somehow they've managed to persuade the so-called liberal media to repeat these same accusations, despite the rather inconvenient fact that they make no sense. In the meantime, they've managed to discredit virtually all of the people to whom they can successfully attach their wholly meaningless tag. It may not make much sense, but as the folks at American Express have taught us, success is its own reward.

stevieray
04-08-2008, 07:57 AM
That's about all "conservatism" is about these days. Not policies that would make anything better, or even acting on long held beliefs (e.g., abortion or gay marriage). Just whining about getting picked or how other people undeservingly look down on them. I guess it's built in from not doing as well in school or something.

..and yet another example...

btw, are we are on the taxpayer's dime?

banyon
04-08-2008, 08:00 AM
..and yet another example...

btw, are we are on the taxpayer's dime?

I don't know have you painted anything yet today? Sometimes I read the board before I get started with my day. i'm a terrible person. Is that what you're trying to say?

Chief Henry
04-08-2008, 08:46 AM
Banyon,

Eltism is a word to discribe liberals imo. But hey, I'm not going to fret and stew over
something someone post on a message board. It waist alot of time.

banyon
04-08-2008, 09:52 AM
Banyon,

Eltism is a word to discribe liberals imo. But hey, I'm not going to fret and stew over
something someone post on a message board. It waist alot of time.

Fair enough.

penchief
04-08-2008, 01:44 PM
this is a pretty good example of "liberalism".

No it's not. But your response is a perfect example of what "conservatism" is all about these days. Absolutely nothing. Conservatives rarely even address the issues or confront the debate anymore. All they do is take cheap shots. Conservatives close their eyes, plug their ears, and go "la la la la la la!"

I'll give you credit for learning well the ways of your masters. Smugness and arrogant ignorance exemplifies modern day conservatism in this country (the republican party). Conservatives are the masters of disaster because they suppress their own common sense in favor of imposing their will and the need to be right all the time.

stevieray
04-08-2008, 04:38 PM
No it's not. But my response is a perfect example of what "liberalism" is all about these days. Absolutely everything. Liberals rarely even address the issues or confront the debate anymore. All they do is take cheap shots. Liberals close their eyes, plug their ears, and go "la la la la la la!"

I'll give you credit for learning well the ways of your masters. Smugness and arrogant ignorance exemplifies modern day liberalism in this country (the democratic party). Liberals are the masters of disaster because they suppress their own common sense in favor of imposing their will and the need to be right all the time.


ROFL..it's so easy to expose you.

your post is really no different than banyons, other than being completely over the top...how many times did you have to say conservative to talk about liberlaism?

four? five?

penchief
04-08-2008, 09:01 PM
ROFL..it's so easy to expose you.

your post is really no different than banyons, other than being completely over the top...how many times did you have to say conservative to talk about liberlaism?

four? five?

Typical of you to ignore my claims in favor of changing my words. How immature do you have to be before even you can recognize that you've got no footing? You keep playing word games instead of addressing the real issues. You try to cut people down instead of recognizing the folly of defending business crooks and war profiteers who have usurped our government.

Instead, you try to be clever by attacking those who can see through the bullshit that you are more than willing to buy and sell.

BucEyedPea
04-08-2008, 09:11 PM
His Presidential Pension: $1,217,250

Well we could cut the budget here and on previous modern presidents because they make enough afterwards. I don't think our earlier presidents got one.

BucEyedPea
04-08-2008, 09:13 PM
Her Senate Salary: $1,051,606

That's her Senate Salary? That's got to be a mistake.

banyon
04-09-2008, 07:12 AM
ROFL..it's so easy to expose you.

your post is really no different than banyons, other than being completely over the top...how many times did you have to say conservative to talk about liberlaism?

four? five?

Do you ever post anything on here any more other than out of pure spite?

stevieray
04-09-2008, 01:08 PM
Do you ever post anything on here any more other than out of pure spite?

man, you need to sharpen your skills counselor..seems a good lawyer could make your emotions work against you.

noa
04-09-2008, 01:25 PM
Her Senate Salary: $1,051,606

That's her Senate Salary? That's got to be a mistake.

Agreed.

banyon
04-09-2008, 01:35 PM
man, you need to sharpen your skills counselor..seems a good lawyer could make your emotions work against you.

I get worked up over politics sometimes. It never comes up in the courtroom, so I doubt it. I'm pretty methodical and calculating in the real world, if I'm allowed to judge myself.

Has your bitterness toward others impacted the quality of your artwork?

stevieray
04-09-2008, 02:18 PM
I get worked up over politics sometimes. It never comes up in the courtroom, so I doubt it. I'm pretty methodical and calculating in the real world, if I'm allowed to judge myself.

Has your bitterness toward others impacted the quality of your artwork?



so, are saying your previous reply was based on bitterness towards others??

most of us here aren't immune to being spiteful(your description), so stop pretending you are above the fray... TCash?


p.s. if you get worked up over politics sometimes, would it be safe to say your politcal viewpoint could possibly overspill into the courtroom with bias? at least something to be aware of?


You(we) are only human...

penchief
04-09-2008, 02:43 PM
man, you need to sharpen your skills counselor..seems a good lawyer could make your emotions work against you.

His skills seem just fine to me. On the other hand, your skills are in need of some serious tutoring. I don't know why you even get involved. It's so obvious that you've given up trying to defend your own positions. So instead, you've decided to resort to demeaning the motives of those who are actually trying to defend their own positions.

The problem with your approach is that you think you are being very clever with your attempts to attack the messenger. When in actuality, you are being completely transparent. Your approach is amateurish.