The Stonecipher Report

Stonecipher's Top Ten Worst Democrats - The Grudge List

Posted by: Tyler Rippeteau a.k.a. Stonecipher

Dec. 22, 2009

Since some of the traffic for this post is likely to come from conservatives and Republicans who are searching for lists of rotten liberals or Democrats, let me begin this post by stating, clearly, that I am a liberal and a Democrat.  The site's political director, and other prolific writer, Michael Sweeney, is also a liberal and a Democrat.  In fact, the site as a whole has a decidedly liberal bent, and that is the perspective from which I present to you: The List.

Special Transcript From Last Week’s Radio Show – “Ask Billy Jeff"

Posted By: Michael Sweeney

June 22, 2009

In case you may have missed this last week, we had a special "guest" on The Stonecipher Report radio show…(BTW, we’ll be back on today, available over the air or via the Internet...on Monday, June 22, from 3:00 - 4:00 PM Chicago time on WHPK-FM, 88.5 FM…and, of course, you can also hear us online at WHPK.org, streaming live from 1:00 - 2:00 PM on the West Coast, 4:00-5:00 PM on the East Coast (just click the "Listen" tab or the "We are STREAMING" window on the station's website)).

...So, here’s a very special transcript of the fascinating interview I did on Tuesday with "Billy Jeff," a very famous political man of the ‘90s (and beyond) whose voice you would all find familiar (as long as the impression didn’t fail TOO much)…Enjoy!

I’m a Politician…Get Me IN There!

Posted By: Michael Sweeney

June 12, 2009

Note: This piece is cross-posted at Eyes on Obama

So – in case you forgot how we got here – Federal Judge James B. Zagel ruled that disgraced (and removed-from-office) Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich was NOT allowed to leave the country to participate in NBC’s jungle-survivor reality show "I’m a Celebrity…Get Me Out of Here!" in Costa Rica. Oh, man – were we disappointed…if nothing else, we at least wanted to see what a few styling-product-less days in a steamy jungle would do to the famous Blago helmet-o’-hair.

Instead, of course, B-Rod’s wife Patti apparently managed to barely qualify as some sort of a "celebrity" (along with "The Hills’" Spencer and Heidi, washed-up original "supermodel" Janice Dickinson, Stephen and Daniel Baldwin, and others)…and so SHE headed off to represent the family on the show instead – AND to work to pull in some appearance dough for them.

Taking Out the Trash of Friday Political News…

Posted By: Michael Sweeney

May 29, 2009

Note: This piece is cross-posted at Eyes on Obama

Hey, and I always thought Friday was supposed to be a sort of political "take out the trash" day, with potential news items getting buried by the impending arrival of the much-waited-for weekend, especially now, during the hot-movie, time-off-of-work-and-school, baseball-games-PLUS-basketball-and-hockey-playoffs, pleasant-weather weeks…But I’ve been busy surfing online today, and turned up a number of interesting recent political news stories that I thought you all might appreciate.

…So let’s take a peeky-boo at what’s going on in the halls of US politics this late-May Friday, shall we?

Post-Souter, Could it Be Time For a Different Sort of US Supreme Court Justice? (And I Mean REALLY Different…)

Posted By: Michael Sweeney

May 5, 2009

Note: This piece is cross-posted at Eyes on Obama

So, George H. W. Bush’s sole real, lasting gift to the American people – David Souter as a Supreme Court Justice – is ending after a fine 18-1/2-year run. Fair enough – I always thought of Souter as both an excellent Justice…AND as a bit of a jerky prank on right-winger John Sununu, who helped push for Judge Souter’s elevation (they were both from New Hampshire) – and who then sulked about the Justice’s drift (once on the Supreme Court bench) to the considerable left.

Now comes word that not only will President Obama get to pick his first Supreme Court Justice relatively early in his term (potentially also coming soon – the retirement of the other Republican-appointed court liberal, Justice John Paul Stevens)…but it seems that several different voices are making the same points about this opportunity: That Obama should perhaps consider picking the next Supreme Court Justice from someplace other than this country’s lower courts.

…Or, Did Hillary Just Smack the Solid Base Hit Her President Wanted?

Posted By: Michael Sweeney

Feb. 23, 2009

Stonecipher and I realized we had perhaps slightly different takes on Secretary of State Clinton’s trip to China and her comments on (among other things) economics, climate change, and human rights…

In his piece, Stonecipher takes Sec’y Clinton to task for her perhaps-slippery verbiage…and he makes a good car salesman / dealership manager / eager customer analogy to demonstrate what he objected to in her approach.

…And, yes, I thought that all made sense...but I actually had another-drill-down-layer of a response to HRC's actions and words in her first major diplomatic trip.

Hillary Clinton 0-for-1 as Secretary of State

Posted by: Stonecipher

Feb. 21, 2009

It only took one trip for Hillary Clinton to spark controversy and put the new Obama Administration in an awkward position.

On Friday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton traveled to China making an effort to rebuild US relations with the world's most populous nation.

Strike One

Posted By: Stonecipher

Dec. 1, 2008

When George W. Bush became President on January 20, 2001 I knew it was going to be bad.  I knew that Bush was going to make a strong effort to push his right-wing agenda through as quickly as possible, but I also believed that with only a slim majority for his party in Congress that the newly elected president would be willing to compromise on certain issues.

Of course, I was quickly proved wrong when Bush surrounded himself with some of the most extreme right-wingers he could find.  Yes there were exceptions like Colin Powell, Paul O'Neil and Christie Todd Whitman, but they were the exception, not the rule - and not only did none of their policies or philosophies prevail, but of those three, only Powell lasted through the entire first term.

With people like Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz in place, the radical right-wing of the GOP was solidly in control during the early Bush years. 

By no means did I believe that Barack Obama would go to Washington and govern the same way as George W. Bush, giving the radical left-wing of the party free reign.  Instead, I expected (and still do expect) a moderate, pragmatic cabinet and administration filled with intelligent, thinking and reasonable people who are capable of making decisions based on more than just ideology or self-promotion.  With that in mind, there were bound to be issues that came between the left-wing that helped Obama get elected and the Obama Administration/Transition Team, but the decision to make Hillary Clinton Barack Obama's Secretary of State is a big one and a troubling one for those of us on the Left.

My opposition to Clinton is not simply bitterness left over from the Primaries (although, admittedly, some still lingers), it isn't an opposition to opposing viewpoints (I strongly support the inclusion of conservatives and Republicans like Chuck Hagel, Dick Lugar and even Robert Gates) and it isn't even a general opposition to including Hillary Clinton in an Obama Administration.  In fact, I believe Clinton should be a part of the Obama Administration, but not as Secretary of State.

Hillary Clinton is the wrong person for the job. 

There's no need to rehash all of the reasons why here.  I've done that several times before, but if you would like to read more about why I believe this is a mistake, you can read my Nov. 19 piece here.

The point is that after all of the drama surrounding the Clinton selection, after all the nonsense Hillary has shown she is capable of, after all of the leaking from the Clinton camp, after all of the anti-diplomacy rhetoric from Clinton herself, Obama's selection of the junior Senator from New York signals a willingness on his part to accept some of the worst aspects of politics as usual.

If we're playing by the three strikes and you're out (or at least out of favor) rule, one strike against you can be a big deal, but in my mind, this is Obama's first.  Maybe, six months from now we can look at the instant replay of this and call it a ball instead, but it certainly isn't a hit.  And for right now, it appears to be a swing and a miss.

To paraphrase Christopher Hitchens on "Hardball"  Monday afternoon, in Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama will have a Secretary of State who is always thinking about her job and about something else. 

That "something else" for Clinton is herself, and Hitchens went on to say that Hillary Clinton will always look out for herself first and her husband second - and that is the crux of the problem with making Sen. Clinton the new Secretary of State.

Of course, we have yet to see how Hillary Clinton will actually conduct herself during her tenure as the nation's top diplomat, and I am a big proponent of the concept of innocence until proven guilty, but that doesn't mean that I have to trust Clinton before that verdict comes down.

So Mr. President-Elect, I'm glad you trust her, cause I sure don't.

Consider this Strike One from the Left.

A Quick Note from the Ozarks (And do Europeans Hate Hillary?)

Posted By: Stonecipher

Nov. 28, 2008

Due to the heightened security concerns of the holidays, both Michael Sweeney and I have been forced to go into hiding in two separate locations deep in the Ozarks.  All I can say is that Michael is somewhere in Missouri and I'm in Oklahoma...ok, so I'm near Tahlequeh...and ok, I'm real close to the Iguana Cafee...the tortilla soup is phenomenal.  You should check it out if you're ever in Tahlequeh.  And wash that tortilla soup down with a bottle of Boulevard Wheat, delicious.

Anyhow, I hope everyone enjoyed their holiday, or, for those of you outside the U.S., I hope you enjoyed your Thursday.

Hillary Clinton is the Wrong Choice for Secretary of State

Posted By: Stonecipher

 

Nov. 19, 2008

 

Late last week I was somewhat surprised to find a piece that I wrote several months ago resurface on the social media sites.  The piece was a response to one of my fellow bloggers over at Eyes on Obama regarding the possibility of making Hillary Clinton the Secretary of State. 

 

Jwilkes, a blogger that you can now find at The Real Right, argued that if Barack Obama were to become the President-Elect, that he should offer the top diplomacy job to his, at the time, arch rival Hillary Clinton.  You can read that post here and the response I wrote here.

 

That was months ago, however, and today we stand on the brink of the Obama Administration and we're watching closely as it takes shape.  But sure enough, the argument jwilkes and I had back in March is relevant today.

 

I can't speak for jwilkes, but my stance on the issue has not changed, and I imagine his has not either.  The basic crux of our disagreement can be summed up with this excerpt from my March 30 piece at Eyes on Obama:

 

Jwilkes begins the article with a point I agree with, "If there’s one thing every single American voter should have learned about Hillary Clinton in this election process, it’s that she concedes nothing." 

This is specifically the reason we should not make Hillary Clinton the Secretary of State, particularly after eights years of the hard-headed lack of negotiating skills possessed by the Bush Administration.  The last thing this country needs is a Secretary of State perceived by the rest of the world as cold, rigid and unwilling to bend on anything.

 

Those may seem like harsh words for Hillary Clinton, but if anyone knows a thing or two about harsh words it is Hillary Clinton, at least she sure knows how to dish them out.  And this brings us to an excellent point to begin understanding just why Hillary Clinton is exactly the wrong choice for Secretary of State.

 

Karl Inderfurth, a former assistant Secretary of State and teacher of a course on Secretaries of State at George Washington University has said that "The most important factor in assuring a secretary's success is his or her relationship with the president."

 

What kind of relationship do Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have?  Rocky at best.

 

Differences of opinion are one thing, but a lack of trust is another, and so far Hillary Clinton has not given President-Elect Obama any reason to believe he should trust her.

 

What evidence is there that Senator Clinton won't decide to make up another story about sniper fire in Bosnia and embarrass The Administration? 

 

What evidence is there that Bill Clinton's recent business dealings aren't going to be exposed in an unfavorable and embarrassing light and discredit The Administration's chief diplomat? 

 

What evidence is there that Senator Clinton has changed her tune on refusing to sit down and talk with certain heads of state like Hugo Chavez, Raul Castro or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, blowing the nation's newfound credibility around the world?

 

None. 

 

Hillary Clinton has her own agenda that will always come before that of the future President Barack Obama and before the good of The Nation.

 

Back in the early 1980s Reagan had his own Secretary of State problem - one that Barack Obama would be wise to avoid.  Alexander Haig was Reagan's Secretary of State and it has been said that he didn't last very long in that position because he was more concerned with furthering his own agenda than with that of the president.

 

Haig's most famous comment as Secretary of State came shortly after the assassination attempt on President Reagan when the Secretary told reporters "I am in control here."

 

Secretary Haig went on to tell the reporters "Constitutionally, gentlemen, you have the President, the Vice President and the Secretary of State in that order, and should the President decide he wants to transfer the helm to the Vice President, he will do so."

 

Of course, Haig was wrong about the order of who is in line for the presidency (Speaker of the House is 3rd and Senate President pro tempore is 4th) and he appeared to be ignoring his own constitutional analysis by jumping ahead of the number two at the time, George H.W. Bush.

 

Is Hillary Clinton capable of this Haig-like nonsense?  Absolutely.

 

We're talking about the same woman who, during Primary season, often made the delusional claim that she held a lead in the popular vote after Obama went on an 11-state winning streak and held an almost insurmountable lead in both popular vote and delegate vote-count.

 

The same woman who claimed that somehow she, along with John McCain, had passed some kind of "Commander-in-Chief threshold" that Obama had not.

 

It is also the same woman who carried on campaigning long after the race was mathematically over, openly and publicly pondering the possibility that Obama would get shot and killed sometime in June - that, after all, is when Robert Kennedy was shot.

 

The point is, Hillary Clinton, like Alexander Haig is power hungry.  She is exceedingly ambitious as well - and that's fine.  But it's not the type of temperament you look for in your chief foreign diplomat. 

 

The Secretary of State should be level-headed, reasonable and someone capable of negotiation and compromise, or at the very least, be seen by outsiders as capable of negotiation and compromise.

 

Was Hillary Clinton level-headed when she employed her "kitchen sink" strategy, when she frantically reached into that dirty water and wildly and indiscriminately hurled anything she could get her hands on right at Barack Obama?

 

Was she reasonable when she agreed to the DNC's campaign rules before the Primary season began, only to claim they were an outrage and unfair the moment they ceased to benefit her?  Foreign leaders watched this happen, how can they trust a woman like this?

 

Is she capable of negotiation and compromise?  No.  It all comes back to Jwilkes' statement, Hillary Clinton "concedes nothing."

 

It may be healing for the Democratic Party to bring Hillary Clinton into the Obama Administration, but the health of the Democratic Party should not come before what's good for America or for Barack Obama's Presidency.

 

There's still time President-Elect Obama.  The notion, put forth by the mainstream media, that you're boxed in to making this pick now that the story has been leaked is absurd.  And you and your media savvy team should know that.

 

As a side note, who do you think made those leaks?  Did your air-tight organization suddenly fail you?  No.  Hillary Clinton's people wanted to box you in and they leaked it.  Don't let them succeed.

 

There are so many qualified candidates available to become the nation's next chief diplomat, don't waste this key position in your cabinet on someone who simply doesn't belong there.