Category Archives: Lame Campaign Tactics

Appeasing the Restive Moonbats

What’s a Democratic House Speaker, eager to appease her lefty, BDS addled base to do when news stories come out that look like this –
Democrats Bow to Bush’s Demands in House Spending Bill
Dems cave on spending
Deal would give Bush victory on war funding

While at the same time some of the biggest mouths in reality based community are putting up posts like this:
Time For New Leadership in Congress
I’ll vote against my liberal Democratic Congressmen
“There is No Democratic Party in Congress”

Now keep in mind this is just over the last couple of days and doesn’t include all the waterboarding stuff from earlier.

Well, here’s one way to deal with it. Pelosi: Republicans `like’ Iraq War

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi lashed out at Republicans on Thursday, saying they want the Iraq war to drag on and are ignoring the public’s priorities.

“They like this war. They want this war to continue,” Pelosi, D- Calif., told reporters. She expressed frustration over Republicans’ ability to force majority Democrats to yield ground on taxes, spending, energy, war spending and other matters.

“We thought that they shared the view of so many people in our country that we needed a new direction in Iraq,” Pelosi said at her weekly news conference in the Capitol. “But the Republicans have made it very clear that this is not just George Bush’s war. This is the war of the Republicans in Congress.”

That ought to keep them happy for a couple of hours anyway.



Filed under Lame Campaign Tactics, Lemmings and Tools, Moonbats

Why Does She Do That?

From Captain’s Quarters, where Ed Morrissey obviously paid closer attention to the Democratic debate today than I did, comes this bit of Hillary:

HC: We’ve got to enlist the American people the way we did in a previous generation for the Apollo program. As a little girl, I remember being thrilled about that, and feeling there was something I could do. [Shrugs] My fifth-grade teacher said it was to study math and science, but it gave me an idea of actually contributing to my country.

What a nice and inspirational anecdote. There’s only one problem with it, as Morrissey points out:

Hillary Clinton was born in 1947. Assuming she started the first grade as a six-year-old as most kids do, she would have been in the fifth grade in 1957-1958. The Mercury program didn’t start until 1961, and Apollo started in 1966. John Kennedy didn’t even make his speech about going to the moon until she was a teenager, not a “little girl”.

Why spew out a BS story like that when it’s so obviously a fib? Does she think nobody knows how old she is or when the Apollo program was going? Good grief. Maybe she thinks her audience consists of the people in this video. Keep in mind she’s done the same thing before when she claimed she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary, famous for climbing Mount Everest in 1953 when Hillary was 5 years old. You’d think she’d learn her lesson and stop doing that!

This reminds me of something Maureen Dowd did in her column the other day. There was a discussion of the piece at Ann Althouse’s place when I decided to look around to see what other people were saying about it. I found this over at Instapundit:

CAUGHT YOUTHENING: Maureen Dowd’s latest column begins:

When I was a kid, we used to drive on the Beltway past the big Mormon temple outside Washington. The spires rose up like a white Oz, and some wag had spray-painted the message on a bridge beneath: “Surrender Dorothy!”

But if you’re imagining Dowd as a pigtailed six-year-old in the back of the family station wagon, think again. The temple was finished in 1974. Maureen Dowd was born in 1952. So she was a “kid” who was old enough to vote and drink. (According to this source, the graffiti first appeared in 1973, when Dowd would have been 21.)

Granted, Maureen Dowd isn’t a politician running for office and some people might write it off as just a woman lying about her age, but come on – does she not realize people know how old she is?

Leave a comment

Filed under debates, Elections, Lame Campaign Tactics

Another Piece of the Puzzle

Remember all the drama during the Mukasey hearings last month and how there was so much wailing and gnashing of teeth over the fact he wouldn’t come out and declare waterboarding to be torture? Well, today there’s some information from 2002 that might help to explain why the top Democrats didn’t filibuster and why it appeared to many they had caved. From the Washington Post this morning:

In September 2002, four members of Congress met in secret for a first look at a unique CIA program designed to wring vital information from reticent terrorism suspects in U.S. custody. For more than an hour, the bipartisan group, which included current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), was given a virtual tour of the CIA’s overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk.

Among the techniques described, said two officials present, was waterboarding, a practice that years later would be condemned as torture by Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill. But on that day, no objections were raised. Instead, at least two lawmakers in the room asked the CIA to push harder, two U.S. officials said.

“The briefer was specifically asked if the methods were tough enough,” said a U.S. official who witnessed the exchange.

Congressional leaders from both parties would later seize on waterboarding as a symbol of the worst excesses of the Bush administration’s counterterrorism effort. The CIA last week admitted that videotape of an interrogation of one of the waterboarded detainees was destroyed in 2005 against the advice of Justice Department and White House officials, provoking allegations that its actions were illegal and the destruction was a coverup.

Yet long before “waterboarding” entered the public discourse, the CIA gave key legislative overseers about 30 private briefings, some of which included descriptions of that technique and other harsh interrogation methods, according to interviews with multiple U.S. officials with firsthand knowledge.

With one known exception, no formal objections were raised by the lawmakers briefed about the harsh methods during the two years in which waterboarding was employed, from 2002 to 2003, said Democrats and Republicans with direct knowledge of the matter. The lawmakers who held oversight roles during the period included Pelosi and Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) and Sens. Bob Graham (D-Fla.) and John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), as well as Rep. Porter J. Goss (R-Fla.) and Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan).


Only after information about the practice began to leak in news accounts in 2005 — by which time the CIA had already abandoned waterboarding — did doubts about its legality among individual lawmakers evolve into more widespread dissent. The opposition reached a boiling point this past October, when Democratic lawmakers condemned the practice during Michael B. Mukasey’s confirmation hearings for attorney general.

So Pelosi, Harman, and other Democrats were fully aware of what techniques were to be used, and yet only Harman officially objected:

Harman, who replaced Pelosi as the committee’s top Democrat in January 2003, disclosed Friday that she filed a classified letter to the CIA in February of that year as an official protest about the interrogation program.

The wails from the moonbat community are already rising. Some examples: From Lambert at Corrente:

Well, I guess now I know why impeachment was “off the table.” Anybody for Barney Frank as the new speaker?

Glenn Greenwald: Democratic complicity in Bush’s torture regimen

You get the idea. There’s much more at memeorandum.

As I said during the Mukasey fracas, it appears that Democratic leaders really don’t agree with the moonbats on what constitutes torture and didn’t believe a vote for Mukasey was a vote for it. Oh, just one more reaction that’s just precious from John Avarosis at Americablog:
Did Bush approve CIA leak to embarrass Pelosi?



Filed under GWOT, human rights, Lame Campaign Tactics, Moonbats

Hillary’s Conversation With America

Ann Althouse has a post about Hillary Clinton’s campaign planting questions in her audiences. The title is very clever: “I’m beginning a conversation with you, with America, because we all need to be part of the discussion.” The quote is from the included Youtube video of Clinton announcing her candidacy. I guess her staff decided we don’t all need to be part of the conversation; just her and the sock puppets ostensibly representing America.

What makes it worse is that her staff is apparently lying about the latest incident. The news today is that a second person, a minister, has come forward saying he was approached by a Clinton staffer to ask a specific question:

In a telephone interview Saturday, Geoffrey Mitchell, 32, said he was approached by Clinton campaign worker Chris Hayler to ask a question about how she was standing up to President Bush on the question on funding the Iraq war and a troop withdrawal timeline.


Mo Elliethee, spokesman for Clinton’s campaign in Iowa, told Fox that Hayler and Mitchell “had a previous relationship” and that a discussion about Clinton arose out of a normal conversation between two people who knew each other well.


Mitchell, however, said that he and Hayler did not know each other personally before the event.

“I had no previous relationship with him,” said Mitchell. “I knew his name and by name only as some who worked for Sen. Evan Bayh. But we didn’t know each other and I had never met him before this event.”

Here we go again. Recall the hoopla the other day about the waitress who claimed the Clinton campaign didn’t leave a tip:

The campaign claims it shelled out $100 in cash for a tip to go around the house after paying for lunch at the Maid-Rite in Toledo, Iowa, famous for its “loose-meat” sandwich. And the campaign has produced photocopies of receipts showing $157.46 was paid for the meal on a VISA card on Oct. 8.


And it turns out that Anita Esterday, the waitress, got another visit from a Clinton campaign rep after the story aired on NPR yesterday– with the rep delivering a $20 bill for that server who still maintains that she never saw any of the tip money spread around the place last month.

“I explained to her that our credit card machine, you know, doesn’t add on the tip,” Esterday told NPR, recounting the followup visit of the Clinton campaign rep. “And she said, ‘Well, then, they left a $100 bill there.’ And I said, ‘Well, it didn’t get divided up amongst us, because I had gotten nothing.’

“She just said, ‘Well, there was one left,'” Esterday said. “She just kept repeating, ‘There was one left.’


“Why would I lie about not getting a tip?” she told NPR. She also maintained that her co-workers at the restaurant had not received tips.

Let’s digest what’s presented here: The waitress said they weren’t tipped so the campaign produced a photocopy of the receipt that only shows they paid for a meal, but doesn’t show that the tip was left. What kind of BS is that? Nobody disputes they ate there. Then another staffer went back to the restaurant, gave the waitress $20 and kept repeating “there was one left”. Now that just seems a bit creepy. “There was a tip left, you see, and here’s $20 for you to shut up about it.”

The pattern I see emerging here is that Hillary’s staff consists of a bunch of dishonest hacks. They go around trying to hook members of the public into their narrative and when it falls apart they insinuate the people are lying. Oh, this quote from Mo Elliethee, spokesman for Clinton’s campaign in Iowa in regard to the minister approached to ask a canned question is just precious:

“I’m not going to comment on what he said,” Elleithee said, referring to Mitchell. “I’m going to discuss what our interpretation is. They had a previous relationship, the subject came up and there’s nothing more to it than that. It’s not newsworthy. It’s innocent. It’s not yesterday.”

Got that? Mo doesn’t care if the minister has a different story of what happened; they have their interpretation! That’s their story and they’re sticking to it! The yesterday he’s talking about is the previous incident involving planting questions.

The phrase “It’s not newsworthy” is the talking point the Clinton sycophants online are picking up and running with regarding the tip incident as well as the planted questions.

Leave a comment

Filed under Lame Campaign Tactics

Bill Clinton: Stop Swiftboating Hillary!

Oh, for crying out loud. The Hillary campaign just keeps getting weirder. As you’ll recall from last week, during the Democratic debate Hillary was asked about Eliot Spitzer’s idea for giving driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants. Her non-answer was such a monumental flip-flop that the other candidates were well within their rights to press her on it, as was Tim Russert, one of the moderators.

Well, today we have this story from AP:

LAS VEGAS (AP) — Former President Clinton on Monday compared Republican criticism of his wife’s position on driver’s license for illegal immigrants to the ads that helped sink John Kerry’s White House hopes in 2004.

“I had the feeling that at the end of that last debate we were about to get into cutesy land again,” Clinton told some 3,000 members of the American Postal Worker’s Union at a convention.

At the end of a televised Democratic presidential debate last week, Hillary Rodham Clinton hedged on whether she supported a plan by her home state governor, New York’s Eliot Spitzer, to issue licenses to illegal immigrants.

Republicans — and her rivals for the Democratic nomination — quickly criticized her answer, accusing her of trying to have it both ways.

But Bill Clinton said the issue is too complicated for sound bites.

“It’s fine for Hillary and all the other Democrats to discuss Governor Spitzer’s plan. But not in 30 seconds — yes, no, raise your hand,” he said.

The former president told the union members not to let the Republican attacks distract them from the important issues of health care and education reform.

He compared the driver’s license dustup to television ads during the 2004 presidential campaign that questioned Kerry’s patriotism, and campaign commercials in 2002 suggesting that former Sen. Max Cleland, D-Ga., who lost three limbs in Vietnam, was soft on terrorism.

Oh, brother. Now it’s “swiftboating” when Hillary is asked direct questions to which she can’t give direct answers. I suppose it’s time for Karen Tumulty to write an article for Time describing how Hillary is being mistreated.

Leave a comment

Filed under Lame Campaign Tactics