Can Sanders Campaign Recover From Corruption Charges?

Systemic Change Needed After Faulty Times Article -- The Public Editor's Journal - Margaret Sullivan, New York Times, 12/18/2015 
For a brief moment after seeing this headline we thought - naively it turns out - that the New York Times was finally going to come clean. Like, you know, restore its editorial integrity, cease slanting the news to Liberal positions, stop pushing micro - marginal issues like transgender rights, things like that. Alas, the change that Public Editor Sullivan calls for is in response to an article written that said Jihadi Judy, one of the San Bernadino killers, had made public postings on social media about her terrorist sympathies that authorities should have picked up on. Apparently this was not the case. 

See, we thought Sullivan was referencing the following:

An article in the New York Times had originally written, “Mr. Obama indicated that he did not see enough cable television to fully appreciate the anxiety after the attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, and made clear that he plans to step up his public arguments.” (Breitbart.com, 12/19/2015)

The Times excised this minor bombshell from later reporting. Oh, and there was no pressure from the White House. Yes, systemic change is needed. 


Framed
Mrs. Clinton, the former secretary of state, sought to frame next year’s election as a choice between her cleareyed approach to national security and the recklessness of Republicans who have demonized Muslims since the recent attacks on Paris and San Bernardino, Calif. (New York Times, 12/20/2015)

Readers with long memories will remember that it was Hillary's "cleareyed approach to national security" which gave us the Russian Reset (Putin takes Crimea) and Benghazi (dead Americans). 


Inside the Liberal Mind
Voted by RedStateVT as best New York Times reader comment about last night's Democrat debate: 

'The lack of climate change discussion troubles me beyond words.' 


High
Mayor Bill de Blasio was facing one pointed question after another from those who work with homeless people. Why, more than a year into the new administration, was homelessness still so high? (New York Times, 12/19/2015)

Uh, Liberal policies?

Get Ready to Blame the Gun

Ding-a-Ling
Other emails suggest the secretary of state’s lack of technological prowess. In one, Mrs. Clinton tells Ms. Abedin that she cannot turn on her phone’s ringer. (New York Times, 9/30/2015)

One of the Bush presidents - we don't remember which one - once expressed surprise at the technology of a grocery store price scanner. To Liberals this was proof that he was unfit to be president. They now say what?


Assigned
In oral history interviews released on Wednesday, Senator Edward M. Kennedy talked about how Scotch helped him get subcommittee assignments in 1963. (New York Times, 9/30/2015)

Why does the New York Times continue to report news that every American already knows?


Below Norm
Ms. Richards does make a lot of money relative to the rest of the American work force. Her pay puts her in the top 1 percent of all earners in the United States. But her salary is actually on the low side when it is compared with executive pay at other large nonprofits. When compared with the pay for hospital executives running nonprofit health care organizations of similar budgets, it is actually well below the norm. (New York Times, 10/1/2015)

So the head of Planned Parenthood is a 1 percenter! Where are Liz Warren and Bernie Sanders railing about outrageous executive pay? Are Liberals outraged that the head of a non-profit healthcare company is making all that money? You know the answer. 


Recovery
About two months of emails from the start of Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state are missing, and federal officials haven’t been able to recover them. (Wall Street Journal, 9/30/2015)

Honest mistake, probably.


Scrutiny
For starters, it’s implausible that a majority of Democrats would ever investigate Hillary Clinton on their own, no matter what she’d done or hidden or lied about, because of the dominant incentive to defend their partisan interests. Republicans will scrutinize Hillary whenever they can because they have different incentives. Both postures are comparably partisan. Neither precludes the committee from finding out the truth—a goal both parties once claimed. (David Harsanyi, thefederalist.com, 10/1/2015)

Is the Benghazi investigation political? Of course it is. Harsanyi explains why that is not an issue. Well done!

RedStateVT: Cloud-Based Solutions to Fight Liberals

Scalia
“The court’s decision reflects the philosophy that judges should endure whatever interpretive distortions it takes in order to correct a supposed flaw in the statutory machinery.” 

"...this Court’s two decisions on the Act will surely be remembered through the years. The somersaults of statutory interpretation they have performed (“penalty” means tax, “further [Medicaid] payments to the State” means only incremental Medicaid payments to the State, “established by the State” means not established by the State) will be cited by litigants endlessly, to the confusion of honest jurisprudence. And the cases will publish forever the discouraging truth that the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws over others, and is prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites."


More Scalia
“These justices know that limiting marriage to one man and one woman is contrary to reason; they know that an institution as old as government itself, and accepted by every nation in history until 15 years ago, cannot possibly be supported by anything other than ignorance or bigotry.” 


Pseudo-Conservative Roberts
“The court invalidates the marriage laws of more than half the states and orders the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millennia, for the Kalahari Bushmen and the Han Chinese, the Carthaginians and the Aztecs. Just who do we think we are?”


More Pseudo-Conservative Roberts
“Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be.” 


Some Alito
“It will be used to vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy. In the course of its opinion, the majority compares traditional marriage laws to laws that denied equal treatment for African-Americans and women. The implications of this analogy will be exploited by those who are determined to stamp out every vestige of dissent.”

The conservatives on the Supreme Court argue positions based on logic. Liberals argue based on emotion.

Among the next cases to come before the Court:

- A man wants to marry his cat.
- Gay couple sues priest for refusing to perform church wedding.

Not if, when. 


Meanwhile Back in Corruptland
The State Department said on Thursday that 15 emails sent or received by Hillary Rodham Clinton were missing from records that she has turned over, raising new questions about whether she deleted work-related emails from the private account she used exclusively while in office. (New York Times, 6/27/2015)

OK, here's the thing. We don't think Hillary Clinton should be president for the following reason:

She is always losing things. We cannot have a president who is so careless. First it was the Rose Law firm billing records. Now it is the Benghazi e-mails. 

Presidents should be more organized.

What We Learned From Our Liberal Friends

Yes, we at RedStateVT have dear friends who are Liberals. In a recent free-wheeling conversation we learned the following:

--The problem with politics is money in politics. The Koch brothers' money.

--Ted Cruz is evil. He wants to do away with government.

--Business is under-regulated.

--The 170 bikers in Texas who were recently arrested after a shoot-out were treated more leniently than black suspects.

--There is no substance to the (various) Hillary Clinton scandals.

--Republicans were responsible for the financial meltdown.

--There was civility in politics until the Tea Party came along.

--Our friends were actually Republicans until the party became too extreme.

Meanwhile, all we can say to our Liberal friends is: you are winning. The worst president in American history is not held accountable. Hillary Clinton will survive the corruption that surrounds her and become the next president. George Stephanopolous keeps his job. The Boy Scouts are going gay and now so is Ireland. And on and on. 


Gram-ma-ma
This week, as she campaigned in Iowa, in Chicago and, starting Friday, in New Hampshire — a relative flurry of activity — she generally filled each day with one event open to the news media, a smaller one with a pool reporter, and then some unexpected stops where she ordered coffee or bought toys for her grandchild. Always the grandchild. (New York Times, 5/22/2015)

And make no mistake about it, Hillary's granddaughter will be the secret weapon in the campaign. When times get tough, when the e-mail scandal heats up again, when new facts emerge about Benghazi, when more sordid details are learned about the Clinton Crime Family Foundation, the granddaughter will make her appearance. The narrative will then become: how can those heartless Republicans attack....a kindly grandmother. 

You read it here first.


The Circulator
The emails also show that Mrs. Clinton was circulating information about the attacks in Benghazi that contradicted the Obama administration’s initial narrative of what occurred, and that she was concerned about how Republicans could use the incidents to undermine President Obama. (New York Times, 5/21/2015)

Good thing we read down to paragraph 9 in this article, otherwise we would not have learned this 'factoid.' We might have thought that this little bombshell would have been in the headline, or maybe the first paragraph. But we would have been wrong....