We have been discussing the rather fascinating role of wealth in American politics rather Hillary Clinton’s repeated flubs in claiming to be “dead broke” after leaving the White House and struggling like other Americans to cover tuition and mortgage costs (here and here and here). Despite the fact that most of our leading candidates are fantastically rich, they still feel the need to show voters that they feel their pain. With the Clintons, the new pitch feel flat with even usually favorable media outlets mocking Hillary over her statements. Now Bill Clinton has tried his hand at reviving the new narrative of a working couple done good. Bill Clinton has insisted that the claim of being broke is “factually true” since they had legal debts. However, everyone in Washington knows that these debts to Democratic law firms is funny money and that these firms would have closed shop rather than pursue the Clintons for payment. The debts, as is always the case, was quickly paid off by Clinton supporters, lobbyists, and others interested in helping the powerful couple. It was debt on paper alone and both Clintons were looking at massive windfalls after leaving the White House. It comes down to the meaning of “debt” to paraphrase a certain president. In the meantime, Joe Biden has tried his hand at the “poorer than thou” pitch.
Bill Clinton insisted that Hillary is “not out of touch” when she claimed that they were “dead broke” and later told the Guardian that voters “don’t see me as part of the problem” with income inequality in the United States “because we pay ordinary income tax, unlike a lot of people who are truly well off, not to name names; and we’ve done it through the dint of hard work.”
Bill Clinton returned to the claim that it is “factually true” that his family was several million dollars in debt. However, he did not claim that any of these law firms had taken any action to force payment of the debt or address the obvious intention for supporters to pay off the debt. CNN documented that Clinton earned $106 million by making speeches from the end of his presidency through January 2013. Hillary Clinton has pulled in $200,000 a speech and was criticized for receiving $500,000 in one week from Goldman Sachs .
Bill Clinton dug the hole deeper with this rather dubious comment: “Everybody now assumes that what happened in the intervening years was automatic. I’m shocked that it’s happened. I’m shocked that people still want me to come give talks. And so I’m grateful.” The “shocked, shocked” claim was even less convincing than when uttered by Claude Rains. Everybody predicted Clinton would pull in massive bucks on the speaking trail and it was widely discussed before he left the White House. Moreover, he had already started to arrange for such work given the almost immediate speaking engagements.
It is becoming a snowballing disaster for the Clintons as they struggle to portray the image of “country done good.” I am not sure why wealth is so polarizing in American politics to the extent that these super rich candidates have to engage in such desperate re-invention. I do not believe that most people hold great animosity for the super rich while they harbor anger over any special deals or tax shelters. The Clintons have been famous for their army of speechwriters and political advisers shaping every word and gesture — as did candidates like Mitt Romney. However, the rollout of this new narrative has been a disaster. When Hillary later insisted that taking a quarter of a million dollars a speech was commendable thing as opposed to “getting connected with any one group or company,” it triggered analysis on recipts of half a million dollars from companies like Goldman Sachs and revived the scandal of over how a Tysons Food executive arranged for Hillary to invest $1000 to make $100,000 in roughly ten months. While most of us are cringing at the spin, the Clintons appear to see no alternative but to plow ahead on the narrative.
The new claim that Clinton was surprised that people would pay him so much for speeches entirely undermined the credibility of his defense. It played into the view of many voters that our leaders can no longer distinction spin from the truth or at least have little respect for voters to see the difference.
What I thought was equally fascinating was how, as Hillary was struggling with the “dead broke” narrative, Joe Biden (who also wants to be the next nominee), just coincidentally revealed that he does not even have a savings account and will have to live off his government pension. That claim was reviewed by the Pulitzer prize winning organization Politifact. Earlier, the nonpartisan Politifact found Hillary’s comments to be largely false and implausible. Biden fairly only slightly better with a finding that it is “half true” which may be a high for American politicians. The group noted that “Biden also holds four checking accounts, two of which he shares with his wife. In addition, he holds six life insurance policies with Mass Mutual. The Bidens reported an adjusted gross income of $407,099 last year, including his vice presidential salary of $230,700.” He will also receive a $5 million “transition budget” for moving expenses, security, and other incidentals upon leaving office.
Biden is still more credible on this subject as one of the least wealthiest members of the Senate when he represented Delaware. However, it is a narrative that will sit poorly with many citizens regardless of the party. Ironically, conservative figures like Clarence Thomas has a real and compelling story of growing up in poverty. In the end however there is a difference between powerful Americans claiming to be sympathetic with the poor and going even further to having been one of the working stiffs. Ironically, both Clintons have an admirable commitment to the poor and a demonstrated history of working on their behalf. They have street cred on the issue. That is what is so bizarre because this continued effort to claiming to have been dead broke has only alienated voters in an area where the Clintons should rightfully be given great credit.
And the campaign season has not even officially begun . . .
Source: USA Today
Dead broke… sums it up, well.
Eye of the needle, I say.
Addendum to my comment at June 27, 2014 at 1:15 am:
Bob,Esq: “Saddam’s failure to comply with UNSC resolutions could not and did not thrust the country into war.”
Contra “did not”, the Bush, Clinton, and Bush presidential statements plainly state the US policy of military enforcement of Iraq’s obligations under the UNSC resolutions.
We’ve covered the legal bases of the Iraq enforcement before, but I’ll add it here for the record.
Contra “could not”, the baseline law of the 1991-2003 Iraq enforcement – PL 102-1 and PL 107-243 – plainly state the specific statutory authorization for the President to use US Armed Forces to achieve implementation of and enforce Iraq’s obligations under the UNSC resolutions.
PL 102-1:
“SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
“(a) AUTHORIZATION.—The President is authorized, subject to
subsection (b) to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to
United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to
achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661,
662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677.”
UNSCR 678:
“2. Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the above-mentioned resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;”
PL 107-243:
“SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION.—The President is authorized to use the
Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary
and appropriate in order to—
(1) defend the national security of the United States against
the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq.”
Given the long record of plain statements of US policy and US law for military enforcement of Iraq’s compliance with the UNSC resolutions, and the equally long record of the material fact of Saddam’s noncompliance with the UNSC resolutions, I expect a fraud claim would not survive long.
NS,
“Too bad Dems have no guts, honor or conscience.”
For the liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats or whatever is their nom du jour,
“the ends justify the means.”
They are communists-in-waiting. They are “progressive” to communism, increment by increment.
If you put the frog in boiling water, he will jump out.
If you put the frog in cold water, he won’t know he is being cooked.
He will stay until he is done.
“Witness” by Whittaker Chambers will give the correct perspective on the communist’s flaws and insidious ideology and unnatural and self-destructive economic system.
Whereas the Founders limited government to security and infrastructure, leaving all industry to the private sector, the American frog has been slowly cooked to the current status of the government running every industry and unconstitutional redistribution of wealth permeating and prevailing.
Oh yeah! The “Progressives” have progressed America from freedom and self-reliance to full blown communism.
And we frogs didn’t even notice.
Bob,Esq: “Funny, for someone who went to law school you sure are clueless as to what constitutes fraud in the inducement.”
I admit my memories from Torts aren’t crystal clear (nor were they, regrettably, as a 1L), but as far as I recall, the elements of fraud that I copy and pasted at June 26, 2014 at 6:42 pm are accurate.
In addition to Secretary Cohen’s statement, which goes to “(2) knowledge on the part of the defendant that the statement is untrue” and “(3) intent on the part of the defendant to deceive the alleged victim”, recall President Clinton’s statement, July 22, 2003:
“Let me tell you what I know. When I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for. … So I thought it was prudent for the president to go to the U.N. and for the U.N. to say you got to let these inspectors in, and this time if you don’t cooperate the penalty could be regime change, not just continued sanctions. I mean, we’re all more sensitive to any possible stocks of chemical and biological weapons. … it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons.”
Recall that the burden of proof was entirely on Saddam to account for Iraq’s proscribed weapons among Iraq’s host of ceasefire weapons and non-weapons obligations, and the material fact that Saddam failed to prove compliance.
bill mcwilliams: “He … provides no evidence or reasoning :..”
On 2nd reading, it looks as though you might be asking for the primary sources that have informed my position generally, not limited to the specific quote regarding Saddam’s belief we would only bomb.
Policy-background essentials – Clinton, Bush, Congress, UN – plus more are linked here:
http://learning-curve.blogspot.com/2004/10/perspective-on-operation-iraqi-freedom.html
Endnotes from a term paper I wrote on the subject:
http://learning-curve.blogspot.com/2012/05/Regime-Change-in-Iraq-from-Clinton-to-Bush.html#endnotes
The 2 tabulations have a lot of overlap with a few differences.
Here’s a guide to the legal foundation of the Iraq enforcement and post-war peace operations:
The foundational legal documents for the 1991-2003 Iraq enforcement mission are P.L. 102-1 (1991), P.L. 107-243 (2002), UNSC Res 678 (1990), UNSC Res 687 (1991), UNSC Res 688 (1991), and UNSC Res 1441 (2002). The greater body of UNSC resolutions informing and US statutes enforcing Saddam’s ceasefire obligations operated on that platform. P.L. 102-1 and P.L. 107-243 satisfied the “specific statutory authorization” standard of the War Powers Act.
In addition, foundational legal documents for the 2003-2011 post-war peace operations in Iraq include UNSC resolutions 1511 (2003), 1546 (2004), 1637 (2005), 1723 (2006), 1790 (2007), and the 17NOV08 status of forces agreement between the US and Iraq.
Since 2011, the US and Iraq have shared a strategic framework agreement.
Jim22: “Epiphone is Owned by Gibson”
As reluctant as I am to say it, it seems the quality difference is due less to the nationality of the factory worker, bottom-up, but rather the top-down quality control of the factory. Our quality standards are higher, but our quality standards can also migrate. The American consumer benefits, but the American consumer is a worker dependent on the local economy, too. That’s a conundrum.
Nick and Paul, You guys seem to be more optimistic about how this IRS scandal will turn out. I just don’t believe our system is equipped to do anything about it. They will hide/destroy evidence and with the press helping the President out, the lemmings just won’t care.
Saucy, I’m not sure people in my area refer to me as that, but I will ask.
I did see the fawning. But, you could tell the Dems in close races. They did some perfunctory Dem talking points and then asked some real questions. The members in safe districts, like that battle ax from SF, just pontificated for her allotted time.
Paul, In baseball parlance, Goldwater was the closer, the Mariano Rivera.
@Jim22
When people in your area refer to you as being “on the lamb,” they’re not implying that you are running from something, are they?
Karen S, “yes, things made in America (or Germany) are usually of much better quality.”
I thought about this statement over the night and I think I have to disagree. Now, I’m not suggesting that all things made from anywhere are better than made from another place but let me give you an example of China quality.
I recently bought an Epiphone hollow body electric guitar. Epiphone is Owned by Gibson and caters to the “cheaper” guitars market. The guitar I got was made in China and I can’t believe how good the quality of finish, hardware and setup is on it for the ~$350. If I was to take that $350 and buy an all American made guitar, one, I would be hard pressed to find one and two, due to labor costs/regs/taxes and God knows what else, I would be left with quite a lower quality guitar. Now, I also have a true Gibson Les Paul and Custom PRS guitar both made in the USA and they are amazing instruments. But they are also in the $3,000 dollar range. So I guess my point is, if you have only “X” amount to spend, you might end up with better quality from Asia.
This story is going to work for Clinton. It’s been market-tested and focus-grouped inside and out. It’s a story line they can manage.
It’s also the one they want us to focus on, cynicism, criticism, and all.
I suspect it’s all sleight of hand, the three card monty trick; we’re so focused on this issue we’re missing something more. I worry about what it is we’re not talking about. And sorry, Jimmy22, it’s not the Clinton’s string of serial killings.
Jim22: “You forgot the part about having the great idea, realizing all of the red tape you have to go through due to being over regulated, looking at the over paid union wages, Obamacare, SS, etc.. to make the product, realizing it is cheaper to send the product somewhere else so it can be made for a cost that people will be willing to pay, all so you can pay one of the highest tax rates to Washington where they use your money better than you could.”
Here in the real world, that red tape is called environmental regulation and labor law; not all factory workers were unionized or making a fair, living wage; SS didn’t hurt this nation when it saw that fastest rise in living standards through the late forties fifties; and jobs started shifting to China before Obamacare had ever been possible; and America has one the lowest tax rates of all industrialized nations.
I realize you’re too young to remember, but Americans took a look around our country and were offended and upset over the utterly ruinous pollution caused by industry; it was on par with the degradation we see in China today. BTW, that air pollution is wafting across the ocean to affect parts of America. And the corporate overlords have determined that maintaining a safe workplace is an unnecessary expense.
The truth is that Americans are becoming increasingly unable to afford the output created by the multinational corptocracy now that all the jobs have shipped out, thanks to the tax incentives that were created to facilitate the shift. Thanks to the delusional thinking of that comes from quaffing Kool-Aid, America will remain a third world nation, and sink lower in status.
I couldn’t defend a child molester not for love nor money and then turn around and say I was a good old joe to help the women. I for one am sick of the double dealing Clinton’s. They are as bad as the Bushes economically speaking and if you can’t see the money trickling out of the country since the last four Presidencies all of you are willfully blind
bill mcwilliams: “He, like Bush, provides no evidence or reasoning for his claims/propaganda/conservative talking points?”
FBI agent George Piro, who debriefed Saddam.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/interrogator-shares-saddams-confessions/
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Poutrage
Bob,Esq: “Saddam’s failure to comply with UNSC resolutions could not and did not thrust the country into war.”
Huh? That’s the opposite of the truth. From 1990 to 2003, whether Saddam complied with the UNSC resolutions was the only thing that could trigger OIF, ODF, the sanctions, no-fly zone, Desert Storm, and our every other enforcement measure with Iraq, starting with the 1990 sanctions that preceded the Gulf War.
President Bush, March 8, 2003:
“The Chief United Nations Weapons Inspector reported yesterday to the Security Council on his efforts to verify Saddam Hussein’s compliance with Resolution 1441. This resolution requires Iraq to fully and unconditionally disarm itself of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons materials, as well as the prohibited missiles that could be used to deliver them. Unfortunately, it is clear that Saddam Hussein is still violating the demands of the United Nations by refusing to disarm. … We are doing everything we can to avoid war in Iraq. But if Saddam Hussein does not disarm peacefully, he will be disarmed by force.”
President Clinton, December 16, 1998:
“I made it very clear at that time what unconditional cooperation meant, based on existing UN resolutions and Iraq’s own commitments. … I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully, we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning. Now over the past three weeks, the UN weapons inspectors have carried out their plan for testing Iraq’s cooperation. … So Iraq has abused its final chance. … I gave Saddam a chance, not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed. We will not only have allowed Saddam to shatter the inspection system that controls his weapons of mass destruction program; we also will have fatally undercut the fear of force that stops Saddam from acting to gain domination in the region. ….That is why … I have ordered a strong, sustained series of air strikes against Iraq.”
President Bush, January 17, 1991:
“Tonight, the battle has been joined. This military action, taken in accord with United Nations resolutions and with the consent of the United States Congress, follows months of constant and virtually endless diplomatic activity on the part of the United Nations, the United States, and many, many other countries. … I had hoped that when the United States Congress, in historic debate, took its resolute action, Saddam would realize he could not prevail and would move out of Kuwait in accord with the United Nation resolutions. … Saddam was warned over and over again to comply with the will of the United Nations: Leave Kuwait, or be driven out. Saddam has arrogantly rejected all warnings. … Regrettably, we now believe that only force will make him leave.”
Here is some incredible irony. Two Watergate Republicans died today. BOTH OF THEM were honorable and stood up to Nixon. Howard Baker is the first one. He was superb along w/ fellow Republican Lowell Weicker on the Senate Watergate Committee, supporting the rule of law and not being lapdogs like Dems are being so far. Weicker was my Senator from Ct. And,
Now, this death today is Rod Serling like spooky. Johnnie Walters was the Republican IRS Commissioner who told Nixon to go shit in his hat when Nixon ordered him to audit enemies. Too bad Dems have no balls, honor or conscience. These 2 Republicans died w/ an honorable record. They held their own parties President accountable.
Nick – lets not forget that it was Barry Goldwater who told Nixon that it was all over.
Karen S.,
Redundancy resolves your dilemma.
In the event that it is impossible to establish a particular special prosecutor’s
objectivity and independence, appoint two.
That option exists if it is deemed necessary.