Krauthammer: Let’s face it, Bill Clinton’s a double agent for the GOP

posted at 6:01 pm on June 6, 2012 by Allahpundit

Via the Daily Caller, is he right? Before you say no, be advised that it sounds like Team Hopenchange is also starting to wonder:

A day earlier, Bill Clinton suggested that Congress should temporarily extend the tax cuts, but later in the evening a spokesman for the former president walked back his comments.

Mr. Clinton “doesn’t believe the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans should be extended again,” a spokesman said. Mr. Clinton’s comments on tax policy, in an interview on CNBC, left the Obama re-election campaign “upset,” and the campaign quickly asked Mr. Clinton to “correct” his remarks, a person familiar with events said.

How many times has he kneecapped The One in the past week? First he said that Romney had a “sterling” business record and was qualified to be president — watch Krauthammer for more on that — then he politely noted at a fundraiser with O that he’s the only president in recent times to balance the budget, then he came out yesterday and endorsed a temporary extension of the Bush tax cuts. I thought that would end up helping O long-term but his campaign evidently doesn’t agree. And then there’s this. Show of hands: How many people think Bill Clinton, the consummate political animal, had no idea that praising Romney for his business career might prove unhelpful to Obama’s messaging?

I didn’t have any idea, when I was giving that answer, that I was wading into some controversy in the campaign, because I haven’t seen the ads, and I’m not following it, and I’m not really part of it. But you’d have to know about a specific [private equity] case to know whether it was a good or a bad thing. But there are a lot of good people in that business doing good things. That’s the point I was making.

There’s no one in American political life who’s more fun to write about than Clinton for the simple reason that it’s impossible to give him the benefit of the doubt on anything. He’s famously highly intelligent, famously devious, and, per his mastery of “triangulation,” famously willing to cross other Democrats to protect his own interests. When in doubt, you always, always assume he’s working an angle. What’s his angle here? Is it as simple as protecting his own legacy as the only Democrat in modern times to be reelected? Or, as I think many righties believe, are we seeing “Operation: Elect Hillary” in effect? If the latter, how would an Obama loss advance Hillary’s chances in 2016? Granted, it’s unusual for Americans to grant one party 12 years in the White House, but if Romney wins in November and the economy comes roaring back, it’ll be next to impossible to defeat him as an incumbent in four years. What’s Slick’s game? Remember, no theory is too nefarious.

Update: Greenroomer Howard Portnoy speculates.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Show of hands: How many people think Bill Clinton, the consummate political animal, had no idea that praising Romney for his business career might prove unhelpful to Obama’s messaging?

Jon Lovitz should sue for infringement of his “Pathological Liar” bit.

landlines on June 6, 2012 at 7:12 PM

Let’s not forget: Bill is still as evil as he was before Obama made him look better by comparison.

If Bill were to help turn Obama from The One into The One-Termer, then that would definitively relegate Obama to Carter status. Meanwhile, this older and more frail Bill has his eye on getting a funeral turnout to compare to that of Reagan, and he’s getting Republicans to sing his praises.

86 on June 6, 2012 at 7:17 PM

Ya just gotta love MadCon…no one is good enough for him/her…no Obama, no Romney…No Johnson…must be tough being such a pure Conservative. Gonna write-in someone…Write in me, why doancha?

You aren’t going to vote GOP in 2016 either I bet…no one gonna be good enough then either.

JFKY on June 6, 2012 at 7:17 PM

Hmmmm. Romney/Clinton 2012? Ewe, I know.

But can Bill do that? Serve as veep?

Key West Reader on June 6, 2012 at 7:19 PM

…BJ wants to assure that he is so far the first and only “Black President” to serve two terms.

KOOLAID2 on June 6, 2012 at 7:22 PM

Nefarious theory: Back in 2004 Bill was thinking ahead about Hillary’s VP candidate in 2008, and talked Kerry into giving Obama the keynote speech at the Convention. Bill expected Obama to make a perfunctory presidential run in 2008 and then join the ticket as Hill’s VP. Obama in turn screwed Clinton, first by beating Hillary like a drum and then insinuating Bill was racist-ish. Hillary then shut off Bill’s 8 year and running ex-president sexual liberation tour by taking the Sec State job(well, let’s say slowed it down considerably).
Bottom line: It’s pay-back for 4 years of c***-blocking.

motionview on June 6, 2012 at 7:22 PM

For some inexplicable reason, the more reformist Democrats seemed to have gravitated towards the Clintons. A 2012 defeat will strengthen the reformists’ hands, and Billy Jeff wants a piece of that action

Sekhmet on June 6, 2012 at 7:23 PM

Go Bill!

AshleyTKing on June 6, 2012 at 7:25 PM

I wonder if Clinton thinks Obama will destroy the country, if given the time and power of another term. Or maybe that’s just me.

Maybe he’s scorching the earth so that BO puts aside any thoughts of rescuing his campaign by putting Hill on as Veep in place of Sheriff Joe. If the Obama hangover is going to be ugly, in Bills estimation, he won’t want Hillary’s legacy to be polluted. So, he’s making the idea of putting Hill on the Obama ticket anathema.

Clearly Clinton and Obama have no love lost, since there have been accusations of perfidy, double-cross and racism going back years. It’s no accident Klein got that great punchline out of Clinton, calling Obama “the amateur”, even though Clinton tried to deny saying it after the fact. It’s also clear Hillary still thinks she’s a better man than the President. So maybe, Operation Elect Hillary (a term I love already) is in effect but it’s so Machiavellian a plan that mere mortals can’t see it unfolding.

Hell, maybe Bill thinks Romney can be motivated to put together a national unity, “we’re in deep shit, so we are putting aside our differences”, ticket. Vice President Hillary Clinton?

There’s four ideas, all equally outlandish. I have no idea what he’s thinking, but I probably won’t like it.

MTF on June 6, 2012 at 7:30 PM


I foresee two outcomes:

1. Obama wins re-election. By 2015, if he hasn’t already been indicted on criminal charges, the ramifications of Walker’s victory will have the country begging for a conservative Republican candidate and the DNC will be out of the White House for quite a while.

2. Romney wins. By 2015, there is unlikely to be rapid growth or recovery, and what little improvement occurs will surely be buried or spun by the media into nothing. Take into account that Romney is an anti-gun, pro-choice, self-identified “progressive” and imagine the harm he might do under the GOP banner, and we’re looking at a Democrat in the Oval Office again come 2016.

I’m thinking long-term. The most important election of the year finished last night. I neither fear Obama enough nor think the White House is important enough this year to support the man who signed into law the very system that served as a blueprint for ObamaCare.

MadisonConservative on June 6, 2012 at 6:36 PM

I couldn’t agree with you more.

texasmagnolia on June 6, 2012 at 7:31 PM

It’s ’08 revenge, but not for Hillary or race-card.

Krauthammer 2008

IIR, their was another reference, when he said Reagan and W were President’s of consequence, even though he disagreed with them, and that Clinton’s was a lost opportunity.

budfox on June 6, 2012 at 7:34 PM

MadisonConservative on June 6, 2012 at 6:36 PM

Jumping catfish, as much as I disagree with and/or don’t like you sometimes, I’m not too proud to say you hit the nail on the head.

IMHO there’s one more possibility – by 2015, everything is so screwed up that the nation falls into chaos and/or martial law when it comes time for election and the stress finally ignites things. Lord knows there’s already enough proverbial dry tinder to light a signal fire you could see from Pluto.

But that’s just my 2 cents, I could be wrong, and there could be other options neither of us can think of or forsee.

MelonCollie on June 6, 2012 at 7:41 PM

If I can vote for Romney…….ANY TRUE Conservative can vote for him.

Besides after decades of voting I’m used to voting for the lesser of two evils.

Romney……..the lesser of the two evils (I hope).

PappyD61 on June 6, 2012 at 6:35 PM

Sorry, Pappy, but that’s not going to work. I am a “TRUE” conservative and I can’t vote for Romney. I am done with voting for the lesser of two evils. Unless Romney can prove he is conservative, he doesn’t get my vote. And, no, I’m not pulling the lever for Obama either. I will go to the polls and vote for every conservative on the ballot.

And, no, if I don’t vote for Romney it’s not a vote for Obama. I’m so sick of that stupid “logic.” My plan is to not vote for Obama. By my not voting for Obama, it’s as if I’m voting for Romney, right? Geesh. (sorry for the rant, Pappy. This wasn’t aimed at you unless you’ve said it before!)

texasmagnolia on June 6, 2012 at 7:43 PM

always assume he’s working an angle

Hillary! 2012!

GarandFan on June 6, 2012 at 7:45 PM

Could Bubba be just a bit more obvious that he’s throwing Obama under the bus and positioning for Hilary 2016?

Probably not.

If Romney wins, we’d better get a lot done, because he will likely be a one-termer. Not what I want, just what I expect.

ConservativeLA on June 6, 2012 at 7:46 PM

Obama, Howard Dean, Clinton, Ed “Talk is Cheap” Rendell. Geez, HA right now is like a reunion of the usual suspects. Hard to look at actually. Slick Wilbur a double-agent? Actually he’s probably a triple agent. I don’t think he really wants Hillary to be president either. He’s that slick.

curved space on June 6, 2012 at 7:49 PM

Sorry, Pappy, but that’s not going to work. I am a “TRUE” conservative and I can’t vote for Romney. I am done with voting for the lesser of two evils.

And, no, if I don’t vote for Romney it’s not a vote for Obama. I’m so sick of that stupid “logic.”

texasmagnolia on June 6, 2012 at 7:43 PM

Props to you for sticking to your guns. (pun intended) A true conservative is worth 100 whiny “vote for my guy or you’re a N@zi” RINO’s.

If the right would quit voting for the lesser evil and libertarians would kick out the potheads, we’d have a force to make the libtards shake in their shoes.

MelonCollie on June 6, 2012 at 7:50 PM

Everyone is simply overthinking this, this is payback in spades for the 08 race, plain and simple.

Mark

mailmars on June 6, 2012 at 7:54 PM

“Or, as I think many righties believe, are we seeing “Operation: Elect Hillary” in effect? If the latter, how would an Obama loss advance Hillary’s chances in 2016?”

Look at the job market, look at Europe, look at the general trends right now and you’ll see that an Obama win in 2012 makes it MORE DIFFICULT for Hillary ’16. A president Romney is going to have a difficult time turning things around in four years, especially if the PIIGS of Europe need bailouts every 6 months. Clinton has calculated wisely that Obama will only further damage Democrats with 4 more years at the helm, simply because his policies are not working. Let Republicans wrestle with the beast, wear themselves out trying to defeat it, and then Hillary can come in unscathed in 2016 – that is the angle, and look for more Democrats to begin jumping ship soon. Five more months of Obamanomics means landslide in November and there’s nothing either Clinton can do about it now. Might as well start laying the ground work now for Clinton ’16.

stout77 on June 6, 2012 at 7:55 PM

We all seem to agree we are far better off with Romney losing.

I will also venture that after 2014 there would be an excellent chance we could impeach Obama and Biden. The entire Administration is corrupt from top to bottom. At some point the few remaining Democrats will have to see the light and go along. After all after 2014 it will be clear either go along or join the increasing number of unemployed.

Steveangell on June 6, 2012 at 7:03 PM

WRT being better off with Romney losing, speak for yourself. I do not believe the country could survive four more years of Barack Obama.

Yes, the entire administration is corrupt. So is much of Congress. If Barry-O gets four more years, don’t look for the likes of Boehner to rein him in. One more term for Obama and there will be nothing left of the country we knew.

creeper on June 6, 2012 at 7:58 PM

And, no, if I don’t vote for Romney it’s not a vote for Obama. I’m so sick of that stupid “logic.” My plan is to not vote for Obama. By my not voting for Obama, it’s as if I’m voting for Romney, right? Geesh. (sorry for the rant, Pappy. This wasn’t aimed at you unless you’ve said it before!)

texasmagnolia on June 6, 2012 at 7:43 PM

Well, actually, yes it is. There are only two possibilities. Either Obama or Romney will win the election. Obama knows he’s never going to get your vote. He just doesn’t want you to vote for Romney. If you vote for anybody but Romney, you’ll make Obama very happy.

And not voting for Romney in order to send a message to the Republican Party that they need to nominate more conservative candidates by not voting for the Republican nominee will not succeed. You won’t get a more conservative candidate by not voting for a less conservative candidate. It doesn’t work that way.

It’s the same game I play on a liberal site. Some of the commenters there are so fed up with Obama for various reasons that they are considering not voting. I agree with them and tell them that Mitt Romney supports their principled decision to stay home on election day.

aunursa on June 6, 2012 at 7:58 PM

And don’t forget, four more years of Obama is four more years of Holder? Is that what you want?

creeper on June 6, 2012 at 7:59 PM

As a staunch conservative I have remained extremely impressed with the interviews I’ve seen with former President Clinton over the past few years: he still has an unbelievable command of the issues, he ducks no questions, and gives credit where credit is due.

I can visualize where former Presidents Clinton and Bush(es) could be actual friends.

That being said, President Clinton does not turn off his brain. Ever. I would bet my house that Mr. Clinton has infinitely more respect for Bush 43 than he does for Barry.

Barry is toast.

And 42 is going to make sure of that.

pain train on June 6, 2012 at 8:03 PM

And, no, if I don’t vote for Romney it’s not a vote for Obama. I’m so sick of that stupid “logic.” My plan is to not vote for Obama. By my not voting for Obama, it’s as if I’m voting for Romney, right? Geesh. (sorry for the rant, Pappy. This wasn’t aimed at you unless you’ve said it before!)

texasmagnolia on June 6, 2012 at 7:43 PM

If you live in Texas it’s not a vote for Obama, but if you live Florida it might make the difference between President Romney and President Obama. I feel your pain but we have to deal with the cards we are dealt in the best way possible.

stout77 on June 6, 2012 at 8:05 PM

Ya just gotta love MadCon…no one is good enough for him/her…no Obama, no Romney…

JFKY on June 6, 2012 at 7:17 PM

Who the f**k are you? The only thing I know about you is that I once saw you argue with paleocons during a discussion about interventionism, and you did a piss-poor job of it.

Plenty of people are good enough for me. But if you ask me to choose between the guy who created ObamaCare and the guy who created the system upon which ObamaCare was based, then yeah, neither is good enough for me. Others, like Cain and Bachmann(and Sarah Palin, had she run), were good enough for me, and I made that known.

Not that you care, apparently. You don’t know anything about me other than I have explained reasons why I do not plan to vote for Romney. For you, it seems, that’s all that is necessary to be derided and lied about.

Enjoy yourself, shill. It won’t help your crappy candidate get elected.

It will help you look like an Obamabot, though. Wait, that’s not fair. Obamabots were actually enthusiastic about their candidate.

MadisonConservative on June 6, 2012 at 8:26 PM

BILL CLINTON HAS GONE ROGUE!!!

Mutnodjmet on June 6, 2012 at 8:28 PM

IMHO there’s one more possibility – by 2015, everything is so screwed up that the nation falls into chaos and/or martial law when it comes time for election and the stress finally ignites things. Lord knows there’s already enough proverbial dry tinder to light a signal fire you could see from Pluto.

But that’s just my 2 cents, I could be wrong, and there could be other options neither of us can think of or forsee.

MelonCollie on June 6, 2012 at 7:41 PM

That’s when I step back and remind you of the liberals who insisted that Bush was going to declare martial law, nuke Iran into ashes, and replace the Bill of Rights with the Bible. Don’t take that the wrong way. I’m not saying you’re the same as the libs. I’m saying we both can suffer from fear, and that fear can lead us to ponder irrational notions.

That’s by no means a suggestion that we back off of Obama. I’d prefer he be in jail by 2016. However, let’s not treat him like the Antichrist. He isn’t. He’s a dumb leftist schmuck from Chicago who got through life on his looks and his ability to bulls**t. Even if he WANTED America to fall apart, he isn’t smart enough to figure out how to do it. One way or another, this guy’s time is up. He’d be a lame duck in his second term, and without anything to campaign for, I guarantee you that he spirals into depression(if he hasn’t already). He’ll be too busy drinking under his desk to do anything to really hurt us.

MadisonConservative on June 6, 2012 at 8:32 PM

He’ll be too busy drinking under his desk to do anything to really hurt us.

MadisonConservative on June 6, 2012 at 8:32 PM

Even if you’re right about that, his EPA Administrator, Atty General, and other cabinet officials (and new SC justices) will do plenty of damage on their own.

I’ve seen you on HA for a long time and I respect you as a conservative, but I think you are wrong on this issue. I think Romney will be an infinitely better president than Obama and I think think a second Obama term would be ruinously disasterous. I don’t know that we’d be able to recover from the effects of that.

Sure, I have my concerns about Romney’s past but I take him at his word that he’ll sign a full repeal of Obamacare and I trust a more conservative Congress not to replace it with more of the same. So my conscience rests easy supporting Romney even though he wasn’t in my top tier of preferred nominees.

Again, I respect you and I do not demean or denigrate or question your conservative commitment. I just think you’re dead wrong on the importance of replacing Barack Obama.

dczombie on June 6, 2012 at 8:50 PM

There’s no one in American political life who’s more fun to write about than Clinton for the simple reason that it’s impossible to give him the benefit of the doubt on anything.

*giggle*

Tim_CA on June 6, 2012 at 8:52 PM

JFKY on June 6, 2012 at 7:17 PM

I know! Principles. Who needs ‘em? Like, so fifteen minutes ago, amirite?

Dunedainn on June 6, 2012 at 8:52 PM

Just got in and I’m sure that this has been said but if team O thinks he is that’s probably good enough.

Cindy Munford on June 6, 2012 at 8:59 PM

He wants it ALL.

He is an opportunist.

This is a game to him. He loves the game. And, he loves to win.

so-notbuyingit on June 6, 2012 at 9:00 PM

I think Clinton is just having fun messing with Obama. I admit, I enjoy pretty much anyone getting under Obama’s skin.

bitsy on June 6, 2012 at 9:02 PM

Again, I respect you and I do not demean or denigrate or question your conservative commitment. I just think you’re dead wrong on the importance of replacing Barack Obama.

dczombie on June 6, 2012 at 8:50 PM

And I’m perfectly fine with that, because I may very well be wrong about Romney. I’ve also made it clear that should Romney win and excel in his presidency, I’ll regularly remind people that I didn’t vote for him, mea culpa. I’ll own my decision, because I’m very certain that I’m right on this one.

However, I would like to say that I wish more Romney supporters on HA responded as you do. I think we can come to reasonable disagreement on predictions for Romney, as well as our actions based on those predictions, without undermining each other’s conservative identification.

MadisonConservative on June 6, 2012 at 9:07 PM

The Senate and House today had a little fun with it. Had a presser saying “We agree Bill”. Thought that was clever.

I think Bill is looking out for the Clinton Brand, With a little bitterness and legacy protection mixed in, but bottom line no matter who wins Nov 4. He will come out of it smelling like a Rose.

boogaleesnots on June 6, 2012 at 9:12 PM

Romney certainly wasn’t my pick, but I’ll vote for him. To me it’s not the ‘lesser of twoweevils’ , it’s something more basic.

An America hating communist versus a progressive republican.

I’m not being forced to choose. I choose to remove the motherf#$%#@@ commie from office before he gets to finish us off. 4 years is more than enough time for him to do it, he’s already laid a lot of ground work.

Romney might suck. Romney might actually fix things, but we’ll have to stay very engaged and make SURE he does the right thing. If he screws up it will at least have bought 4 more years. In that time we better have a better plan for this country or it’s over with.

Wolfmoon on June 6, 2012 at 9:22 PM

What’s Slick’s game?

He’s still pi$$ed off from 2008 and payback’s a bitch.

lynncgb on June 6, 2012 at 9:36 PM

I think Bill is pressuring Obama to fire Biden… and Obama’s resisting, because he doesn’t want to hire a food taster for the next four years to make sure the arugula and Wagu aren’t poisoned. If Obama dumps Biden and replaces him with Hillary, he wins reelection in a walk, and I think Hillary stands a good chance of winning in 2016… certainly a far better chance than she’d have running for the nomination against an open field and then running in the general against a President Romney.

Fabozz on June 6, 2012 at 6:29 PM

Logical, therefore likely.

Who is John Galt on June 6, 2012 at 9:47 PM

For all his flaws, I have never questioned Bill Clinton’s love of country. I think his comments about Barack Obama stem from the fact that he realizes Obama has been a disaster for AmericaIS A COMMUNIST. Any doubts he may have had on that score have likely been laid to rest by Hillary. Quite frankly, I think he would rather see Romney in the White House.

creeper on June 6, 2012 at 7:10 PM

FIFY, BJ is a dem scumbag and I’m sure he inhaled, but he isn’t an anti-american COMMIE.

Who is John Galt on June 6, 2012 at 9:51 PM

MadCon

Zomcon JEM on June 6, 2012 at 10:09 PM

If Bill Clinton’s a double agent for the GOP, then Krauthammer is double agent for the DNC

Just saying…

Mcguyver on June 6, 2012 at 10:15 PM

oops

Madcon, I also think you are worng but for a slightly different reason.

I am not convinced that Romney can really be trusted, because I think he feels at his core that govt should actively try and fix things instead of getting the *uck out of the way – although I will concede that in Mass he did a decent job of doing just that.

Still, I think he feels he must act – and it is a concern. We need to elect a more conservative congress to hold his feet to the fire.

If Obama is re-elected he will get four more years of judges including probably two for SCOTUS. As he has already shown, he will legislate through his cabinet posts as he has already done. He will kill the coal industry and use the EPA to enact cap and trade and destroy American industry. He has shown he can continue to spend without a budget. I like to think a completely GOP controlled congress could overcome that – but could they overcome his veto? Nope.

The world economy needs us. Maybe it would be better to have the entire thing come down, but I think we still have a prayer – I think four years frmo now our fate will be sealed.

Zomcon JEM on June 6, 2012 at 10:20 PM

I think it goes back to being humiliated by the Kennedy’s, specifically Teddy, when he famously said of Obama to Ted that “A few weeks ago this guy would have been bringing us coffee.” The comment was immediately cast as racist and Clinton was roundly humiliated.

I don’t believe that Clinton meant it in a racist way at all. I think he’d have made the same observation regardless of race. I think that the comment was a reflection that Obama was a back bencher who had almost no experience, hadn’t written or introduce a single piece of substantive legislation, and had voted ‘present’ most of the time. In effect, Clinton was simply remarking on the fact that Obama was little more experienced than any congressional intern and had been in politics in general about 10 minutes compared to his own long career and that of Kennedy.

That’s why I think it stung so much. Clinton knew that a comparatively innocent comment had been turned on him and used against him in a nefarious way, just as it would have been had he been a REPUBLICAN. I think he was furious at himself for underestimating the determination of the Kennedy’s to elect Obama and their willingness to smear him, and thus by extension to smear Hillary, in order to facilitate that victory. Put simply, Clinton missed a step in the intricate dance of politics.

I also think it stung him deeply that they would readily use a calculated ploy to besmirch his record, branding him as a racist, when he was a former president who’d served two terms and had managed to remain popular among liberals and even garnering a modicum of grudging respect for his cleverness with the right, despite his OTHER political and personal missteps that resulted in his impeachment. Ambitious people have huge ego’s and once that ego is bruised these people aren’t inclined to be very forgiving. I’d say its clear that Clinton has a massive ego.. all politicians do or they couldn’t relentlessly promote themselves.. he’s just better at keeping it leashed than Obama is and Clinton manages to be more likeable through long practice and that restraint.

At least that’s my take on a partial reason for Clinton’s recent statements that have given Team Obama so much cause for concern. His wife’s career is another reason, to be sure, and its even been pointed out that nothing prevents Bill Clinton from being VICE PRESIDENT, although I doubt that he’d take it that far, particularly given his health issues and the baggage that he carries. However, when he was president, to paraphrase him, he said that with him as president the nation actually got a twofer, since he and Hillary were a team. I believe he actually used the term co-presidents at some point. Perhaps he is bored with retirement. Perhaps he misses the competition of campaigning and being in the power of being in the White House and believes that he can relive that intoxication with and through Hillary.

IT is, of course, my own sincere hope that he enjoys a long and pleasant retirement… and Hillary enjoys it with him.

thatsafactjack on June 6, 2012 at 10:28 PM

I disliked Romney enough to consider that we might be best served with Obama re-elected but totally blocked by a republican house and senate. Romney has held most of the opinions I dislike Obama for at one time or another – health care, immigration reform, size and role of government, etc. I figured to keep the guy I knew was an enemy of the state in place rather than someone I didn’t trust.

Then I thought of two things – rampant executive orders with no fear of consequences, and Supreme Court nominations.

I now think of possibly donating money to Romney, and cannot wait to vote for him. There’s purity, and then there’s consequences. Don’t lose sight of the second for paying too much attention to the first.

Parabellum on June 6, 2012 at 10:35 PM

Could it be that ol’ William “BJ” Clinton has just recently realized that Republican women are much prettier?

Archivarix on June 6, 2012 at 10:42 PM

Billy Goat? He’s not a double agent.

He is Nemesis

mojo on June 6, 2012 at 10:47 PM

What about the possibility that Clinton just thinks Obama is bad for the country?

Marsili.us on June 7, 2012 at 12:10 AM

dczombie on June 6, 2012 at 8:50 PM

…reading through the stuff I missed today…Ditto!
I think if we get the Senate…and more ‘new’ conservatives…Romney will lean to the right.

KOOLAID2 on June 7, 2012 at 12:10 AM

However, I would like to say that I wish more Romney supporters on HA responded as you do. I think we can come to reasonable disagreement on predictions for Romney, as well as our actions based on those predictions, without undermining each other’s conservative identification.

MadisonConservative on June 6, 2012 at 9:07 PM

I have held my peace with regard to your comments about Romney (nope, not a Mitt-bot – professional Agnostic), Obama and what you see as the trade offs between the two.

I do not question your conservative identification. I have in previous posts compared conservatism to wearing a three piece suit. The coat is the financial aspects, the vest the social beliefs, and the pants the Constitutional aspects. You seem to wear all three parts on a regular basis.

I have pointed out someone can not wear the vest and still be judged a conservative. When they take of the coat, they come across as less serious overall and are likely to be treated as such. If they don’t wear the pants … well, even if they have the other two vestments in place, people will talk.

My analogy misses one item that cannot be worn though it makes or breaks the overall perception – demeanor.

It is an intangible but one everyone we meet can perceive fairly quickly. In your case, for whatever reason, your demeanor over the last few months comes across as what I have traditionally characterized as a “tantrum voter”. These are the people who hold their own standard as the sine qua non that EVERY candidate is to be judged by.

In political campaigns, even extremely close ones, you don’t spend a single second worrying about them. If they show up to volunteer, you stick them with like minded people and have a junior player be the “adult supervision” for the group.

The disconnect I am having with applying that classification to you is the scope and intelligence of your posts when you are not discussing Romney. You have good insights and judgement overall but when your “hot button” gets pressed what comes through is anger verging on derangement.

To be fair, perhaps the same applies to me on the topic of the TBTF. In my case, my anger on that topic is the result of having spent three years learning what happened in 2008 and my uncontained disgust for thieves & corrupt politicians.

That is my feedback. Make of it what you will. You are, as I used to coach people, standing in your own way of being more effective. I think you can do better and be happier if you can find some moderation.

PolAgnostic on June 7, 2012 at 12:18 AM

and its even been pointed out that nothing prevents Bill Clinton from being VICE PRESIDENT

I don’t think Ammendment XII has been superseded

… But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

Though much of what you say otherwise makes sense to me.

Fenris on June 7, 2012 at 12:33 AM

Oops, that was in response to

thatsafactjack on June 6, 2012 at 10:28 PM

Fenris on June 7, 2012 at 12:34 AM

The answer is staring us all in the face.

Hint: what is the one thing Clinton does not have and does want to have?

His legacy.

And for the hisory books to look good at him, he has to build some bridges with the conservatives.

huntingmoose on June 7, 2012 at 1:13 AM

…reading through the stuff I missed today…Ditto!
I think if we get the Senate…and more ‘new’ conservatives…Romney will lean to the right.

KOOLAID2 on June 7, 2012 at 12:10 AM

.
Romney strikes me as having the quintessentail CEO outlook.

He seeks to build a consensus and then broaden it to include as many as possible.

This may be the key stumbling block for some conservatives. CEO’s in this day and age are NOT absolutists in how they approach ANYTHING.

This is easily mistaken for a “lack of core values”. In fact, they are poker players. They have learned to take others ideas and advance them. The reputable ones give credit where credit is due. The disreputable ones claim successes came from their DNA and pass of failures as someone else’s stepchild.

For conservatives to be happy with Romney as President, the answer is to fill the Congress with as many conservatives as possible. Romney will tack to to the direction the wind.

PolAgnostic on June 7, 2012 at 1:41 AM

And, no, if I don’t vote for Romney it’s not a vote for Obama. I’m so sick of that stupid “logic.”

texasmagnolia

You’re sick of it because it’s true, and you hate that it is.

xblade on June 7, 2012 at 4:07 AM

I don’t think Clinton is working an angle to elect Hillary in 2016. I think this is personal animosity toward the inept & incompetent Obama and revenge for the 2008 primary campaign.

Let’s face it: if anyone is in a position to know how flawed Obama’s campaign strategy really is, it’s Clinton. He’s kneecapping The One with glee.

DRayRaven on June 7, 2012 at 5:00 AM

And, no, if I don’t vote for Romney it’s not a vote for Obama. I’m so sick of that stupid “logic.”

texasmagnolia

You’re sick of it because it’s true, and you hate that it is.

xblade on June 7, 2012 at 4:07 AM

Some of us no longer care if there are people here who take us for Obamabots even if we hate the idea of voting for Obama even more than we hate the idea of voting for Romney.

There’s no stance we can take that doesn’t help one candidate or the other, but some of us want to help both candidates as little as possible, since we regard both candidates as progressive, so much so that even mentioning Supreme Court justices won’t sway us (given Romney’s sterling record of nominating one hardcore progressive after another for a judicial post when he was governor).

So the only thing we can do is vote for neither one, which, I guess, is really a vote for both candidates at once. <eyeroll>

Aitch748 on June 7, 2012 at 6:22 AM

huntingmoose on June 7, 2012 at 1:13 AM

Agreed!

A couple of years ago, back during the 2008 primaries, someone pointed out that to the Clintons there are only two parties: the Clintons and everybody else.

President Obama is being back-stabbed by Bill, and by Hillary as she is inventing lots of reasons to stay overseas and not campaign for him. Add in the post-Truman ‘only Democratic President to get elected to two terms’ and you have a bit of Bill’s narcissism going on. Throw in how the Chi-town operators turned on Hillary (who has connections there… or had at any rate) to go with Obama, and now you have that potent combination of knowing EXACTLY who the enemies are and preparing for the post-Obama Democratic Party purge.

If you see a major re-writing of the rules the Democratic Party runs by, plus some grey haired old Democrats showing up to ‘help’ Bill and/or Hillary, then you know that there will be a nice night of the long knives out as the Clintons now know the process inside and out along with the players. Why, in a couple of decades they just might be able to reform the Democratic Party by using Alinsky on the deep Alinskyites… until the entire radicalization burns itself to a crispy toast.

That might even start this year.

At the convention.

No one says you MUST show up to form a quorum on the floor, and if you have those nasty OWS types on the outside, why, getting a quorum might be a ‘brokered’ deal in which delegates are cut loose from their elected positions. Boy having a number of super-delegates and those ABO delegates on the floor just might turn that little trick now that everyone has seen the disaster that Obama is to the Nation and the party. And who could arrange that? Who knows where the skeletons are in the closets of Jarret, Axelrod, and even the Obamas? Hmmmmmm…. just who is it that is doing the knifing in the back these days? Might want to take a look at those D’s coming out to defend Bain… there might be something going on there, you know?

ajacksonian on June 7, 2012 at 7:05 AM

A double agent? Hahaha… I love it.

Teh Amateur should think twice before he plays the race card against Slick Willie.

petefrt on June 7, 2012 at 7:12 AM

ajacksonian on June 7, 2012 at 7:05 AM

That would be fun to watch. :)

Aitch748 on June 7, 2012 at 7:14 AM

That would be fun to watch. :)

Aitch748 on June 7, 2012 at 7:14 AM

I’m just going full-bore nefarious!

I love that starship… USS Nefarious.

ajacksonian on June 7, 2012 at 7:34 AM

ajacksonian on June 7, 2012 at 7:05 AM

I think you’re on the right track. I expect something along these lines too. In a way, it’s a continuation of the old fight between the Kennedy and Clinton factions for control of the party.

Remember 4-5 years ago when some of us were saying that Øbama would enable the Clintons to pass themselves off as moderate by comparison? Sadly, it has happened.

petefrt on June 7, 2012 at 7:51 AM

Remember 4-5 years ago when some of us were saying that Øbama would enable the Clintons to pass themselves off as moderate by comparison? Sadly, it has happened.

petefrt on June 7, 2012 at 7:51 AM

Yes, indeed, I do remember that!

All the Clintons have to do is continually bolster Obama’s decision to go Left at every turn. He already wants to do that and all that is needed is a good word, here and there, and soon he is in Iowahawk territory.

I’m beginning to suspect that the Clintons don’t particularly like the Chi-town machine after it turned on them. Boy, wouldn’t it be funny if they started trying to field candidates in IL that would attempt to reform the party and the governments there to hold elected officials accountable? That would be real sweet revenge, and start busting up the Daley Syndicate that gave us all Obama.

Nefarious is such a cool ship to cruise around in with the Clintons!

ajacksonian on June 7, 2012 at 7:57 AM

What’s his angle here? Is it as simple as protecting his own legacy as the only Democrat in modern times to be reelected? Or, as I think many righties believe, are we seeing “Operation: Elect Hillary” in effect? If the latter, how would an Obama loss advance Hillary’s chances in 2016? Granted, it’s unusual for Americans to grant one party 12 years in the White House, but if Romney wins in November and the economy comes roaring back, it’ll be next to impossible to defeat him as an incumbent in four years. What’s Slick’s game? Remember, no theory is too nefarious.

I’m late to this particular thread, but I actually gave my answer to that question back in March.

Not Hillary 2016, Hillary 2012.

Team Romney better be preparing a contingency plan for the possibility of Hillary being the Democratic nominee this year.

The Clintons hate Obama. Barry was supposed to have been Hillary’s VP. The Clinton started grooming him for the VP spot when they got him a prime speaking spot at the 2004 DNC and helped him win his Senate race. He was supposed to have been Hillary’s VP in 2008, and instead he and his handlers pulled off a coup. The Clintons have never forgotten nor forgiven. There is no way that they want Obama to win a second term. They would settle for Romney over Obama, but their preference would be Hillary over Romney.

ITguy on June 7, 2012 at 8:37 AM

I say no anyway. Not because of the GOP, but because Bill Clinton is a single, double and triple agent for himself.

It’s a different brand of neurosis than Obama suffers. Obama is a narcissist, hopelessly in love with himself and his presumed greatness. What Clinton wants is for everybody else to love him and think he’s great. The consummate attention whore.

The Schaef on June 7, 2012 at 8:38 AM

I am not a big Clinton fan. But here is what I posit, somewhat begrudgingly I might add.

I don’t believe Clinton ultimately likes the polices, actions and language of Mr. Obama. Somehow, I actually believe he finds them antithetical to the entire American experience. I am leaning, gasp, that his motives may somehow on one level be…wait for it…pure.

If Mr. Clinton learned anything in gaining a second term it was that rampant, partisan, ideological battles are not popular with the American people. Nor are they a way to move this country forward through adversity. Mr. Clinton did indeed benefit from the policies of predecessors such as Mr. Reagan- and that is no small matter. But he did not attack them whole cloth or focus on an ideology so strongly it trumped common sense fiscal matters or breached fundamental structural maxims of American society. This is where Mr. Clinton parts with Mr. Obama. Indeed Mr. Clinton is a partisan- but not in the sense where he let those views transgress common sense beyond what was actually achievable- or more importantly, desirable by a majority of the American voters. That is simply self destructive- as we are seeing with Mr. Obama.

There is a part of me that realizes there is also a level of politics in this. No, I don’t believe it has anything to do with Hillary. Period. I honestly believe her time has passed and another four years puts the presidency way beyond her time. Mr. Clinton may well indeed be trying to nudge the Obama campaign in the correct direction to poise themselves for a win. But I don’t believe the Obama campaign is smart enough and their ideology is too rigid to take that advice.

Either way, Mr. Clinton wins.

Marcus Traianus on June 7, 2012 at 8:53 AM

Bill Clinton is DEEP THROAT!!

askwhatif on June 7, 2012 at 9:13 AM

It’s revenge for 2008, plain and simple. And he’s having a great time with it.

CorporatePiggy on June 7, 2012 at 9:39 AM

It’s revenge for 2008, plain and simple. And he’s having a great time with it.

CorporatePiggy on June 7, 2012 at 9:39 AM

I’m guessing the charming sociopath in Clinton is enjoying this very much.

Fallon on June 7, 2012 at 9:47 AM

In your case, for whatever reason, your demeanor over the last few months comes across as what I have traditionally characterized as a “tantrum voter”. These are the people who hold their own standard as the sine qua non that EVERY candidate is to be judged by.

PolAgnostic on June 7, 2012 at 12:18 AM

Not really. While I certainly will check a person’s gun views at the door(key issue for me), the real sticking point for me with Romney is something that no other candidate can lay claim to – providing the system that served as the model for ObamaCare.

As I have asked others, how is it that in the first American election where we have needed a candidate to dismantle socialized medicine constructed by a Democrat, we choose the ONE Republican ON THE PLANET that actually is partly responsible for its creation?

MadisonConservative on June 7, 2012 at 9:49 AM

Clinton is too smart to have misspoke. He knows full well what he is doing. His hatred of barack is as deep or deeper than the reddest of Republicans.

DuctTapeMyBrain on June 6, 2012 at 6:11 PM

Despite his many faults (indeed, his faults are legion) you have to give Bill Clinton credit for one thing: He is a highly intelligent politician. And right now, every liberal who has an IQ greater than that of a radish (and is not in total denial) realizes that an electoral catastrophe is approaching for the Democratic party. (Granted, this pretty much excludes most liberals, but there are a couple with a sufficient number of properly functioning neurons that they are aware of the gravity of their situation.)

So, the question is: Is WJC undercutting the president because: (1) he wants to advance his wife’s chances in 2016 or (2) he wants revenge for the 2008 campaign or (3) legacy issues – he wants to be remembered as a statesman, rather than a politician or (4) he is laying the groundwork for salvaging a remnant of the Democratic party from the upcoming wipeout, or (5) he genuinely believes that the current policies of BHO are destructive, and he is acting in what he believes to be the best interest of the nation?

My answer is: All of the above. Smart people consider a lot of factors whenever they make a decision, and every rationale in his personal calculus leads to the same course of action.

SubmarineDoc on June 7, 2012 at 9:54 AM

As I have asked others, how is it that in the first American election where we have needed a candidate to dismantle socialized medicine constructed by a Democrat, we choose the ONE Republican ON THE PLANET that actually is partly responsible for its creation?

MadisonConservative on June 7, 2012 at 9:49 AM

Not to mention the fact that a number of influential people on the Right seemed to have settled on Romney very VERY early in the process and worked to make things easier for Romney and harder for all the other candidates. That’s part of what’s making it so hard to give credence to the “we have to kick Obama out before he destroys America” line — the GOP went out of their way to make sure that the guy who gets their nomination is the closest thing the GOP has to Obama. Either the GOP is too stupid to live without massive good luck, or they’re actually pretty happy with the way things are in DC and want to make sure things stay that way.

Aitch748 on June 7, 2012 at 10:26 AM

What’s Slick’s game? Remember, no theory is too nefarious.

Bill is just flirting with conservative women. That’s all.

LetsBfrank on June 7, 2012 at 10:45 AM

Charles K has it wrong. Bill Clinton is being an agent for Hillary and for “centrist” Democrats. Bill Clinton is a saavy political operator, and he knows that Obama’s left wing positions and policies will make trouble for the Democrats and who sees a “centrist” approach as the way for Democrats in the future to be in power when it will be Hillary’s turn.

Phil Byler on June 7, 2012 at 10:46 AM

HIROSHIMA & NAGASAKI COMBINED!

Obama & DNC raised $60 MILLION in May.

Romney & RNC raised $76.8 MILLION in May.

https://twitter.com/finnygo/statuses/210741520813391872

PLUS, (repeating for some), documents PROVE Obama joined the SOCIALIST “New Party” on 11 January 1996 despite his repeated denials.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/302031/obamas-third-party-history-stanley-kurtz

Resist We Much on June 7, 2012 at 10:53 AM

Clinton’s angle is simply that he holds grudges. He really, really didn’t like “losing” to Obama in 2008, and having the race card played on him. And Romney has actually said nice things about Clinton in the recent past – Bill likes being stroked (pardon the term). As for Hillary’s future, that’s up in the air whichever way things go, so Bubba figures he may as well follow his deepest inclinations (and hasn’t he always, after all?).

RWB on June 7, 2012 at 11:08 AM

He may be banking on Conservative / Tea Party fallout with Romney in four years, maybe a third party candidate mucking up the works for reelection.

True Romney turning the economy around would make things difficult but… I kinda think Obama getting four more years to make the economy even more dismal would make things even more difficult for Hilly ’16. Get the empty destructive suit out of office, give people some time to breath a sigh of relief, and then back to status quo. And of course there’s also the possibility that Romney will only staunch the bleeding and a real roaring recovery won’t be fully apparent until near the next election.

Ukiah on June 7, 2012 at 11:38 AM

Clinton is saving the Democratic brand from the far left views of Obama and his minions. Obama has been doing long term damage to the brand with his anti-business/ pro-spending policies and is presently catering more to his than the center of the electorate. Clinton is reminding voters (Hillary voters) that the party hasn’t completely adopted Obama’s positions….saying “Republicans aren’t the only fiscally responsible pro-business politicians”…Very shrewd of him imo.

FreeManOtis on June 7, 2012 at 12:19 PM

I like Krauthammer (K) but his analysis on this Clinton thing is so not even in the ball park. I question what K has been smoking as K is rarely if ever this far off.

aposematic on June 7, 2012 at 2:13 PM

eh, why can’t it be both options? Gives the Clinton name more heft as “democrats who know what they’re doing” when it comes time to run Hillary again. If, as Allah says, Romney wins and the economy comes roaring back, then no, she probably won’t have much chance come 2016, but in 2020, the odds might be better, as the swing voters will probably be starting to get a little tired of republicans, no matter how good the president is. (I hope not, mind you – I’d be trilled to have good 3, 4, whatever number of terms of Republican presidents, but from what I can see, that kind of streak hasn’t happened often or recently. Reagan’s 2 terms and H.W.’s one is the only example I can think of in recent history).

AndStatistics on June 7, 2012 at 3:29 PM

I think Clinton is just jealous of Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize. Clinton remains the only living democrat president without one. (Bill may have been nominated for the ’12 prize.)

AverageJoe on June 7, 2012 at 5:29 PM

Not really. While I certainly will check a person’s gun views at the door(key issue for me), the real sticking point for me with Romney is something that no other candidate can lay claim to – providing the system that served as the model for ObamaCare.

As I have asked others, how is it that in the first American election where we have needed a candidate to dismantle socialized medicine constructed by a Democrat, we choose the ONE Republican ON THE PLANET that actually is partly responsible for its creation?

MadisonConservative on June 7, 2012 at 9:49 AM


Gun view: Two words – Charlton Heston

With regard to how did Romney end up the guy on poin in a year when Obamacare is the Democrats’ weak point? Well … the perverse insider logic follows the old “Only Nixon could go to China” axiom.

If you want someone who can campaign AGAINST Obamacare, send in the guy who the independents (and some liberals now calling themselves independents) are willing to listen to “because he went down that road before Obama did”.

Is Romney the conservatives conservative? Nope, never has been.

Is he someone who will look to “cut costs and turn things around”? With enough ‘support’ from conservatives in Congress, I think he could be.

PolAgnostic on June 8, 2012 at 2:53 AM

Comment pages: 1 2