Friday, March 22, 2013

Hillary Rodham Clinton and Her Sycophants Need to Get a Grip: Mitch McConnell's Joke was Just Fine.

Hillary Rodham Clinton and Her Sycophants Need to Get a Grip: Mitch McConnell's Joke was Just Fine.
Dear IDC Colleague:

I'm not sure who posted the DCCC drive to condemn Mitch McConnell for saying that Hillary Clinton is one of the Golden Girls of the Democratic Party but I do have a comment for Facebook and the blogosphere.   

The DCCC quote is: “He recently singled out Hillary Clinton as one of the "Golden Girls" of the Democratic Party…Hillary Clinton has had a long a distinguished life in the service of this country. It's reprehensible that Mitch McConnell would resort to these petty attacks…Denounce Mitch McConnell's sexist attack on Hilary (sic) Clinton.”

This is certainly “Much Ado About Nothing”.  This is not a sexist attack but a benign attempt at some light-hearted humor at a political event.  Given the fact that Rue McClanahan was 51 when she accepted a leading role on The Golden Girls, it hardly seems out of place to name Hillary Clinton a Golden Girl at 65 years of age. 

Indeed, to claim that “Hillary Clinton has had a long a distinguished life in the service of her country” is a stretch even among her DCCC sycophants.  In my opinion she has been a genuine phony so much so that it’s hard to even know how to address her.

After Wellesley and Yale Law School she moved to Arkansas to marry a certifiable shirt caser in 1975.  She insisted on maintaining her maiden name or more accurately her father’s surname, Hillary (Rodham), at least until her husband lost re-election for governor in 1980.  She then became the softer Hillary Clinton until 1993 after Bill Clinton was elected president.  She finally transformed into Hillary Rodham Clinton the feminists’ icon.  All three names must be said in order to be politically correct.

Yet what type of feminist icon looks the other way with a philandering husband?  It’s amazing that she didn’t trip over Bill and one of his many conquests in the governor’s mansion.  Mrs. Clinton then proceeded to lead the attacks on the “bimbo eruptions” like a seasoned mafia

So is Hillary Rodham Clinton truly a trail blazing feminist?  Let’s examine the facts:
  1. She is named a law partner in the Rose Law Firm while her husband is the current Attorney General of Arkansas in 1979 – coattails to the rescue.
  2. She was a member of the board of directors of Wal-Mart Stores in Arkansas while her husband was the Governor of Arkansas.  More coattails seal the deal.
  3. She proved to be a Second Rate First Lady of the United States – there was no style and little substance.
  4. She is nominated for U.S. Senator from New York.  It’s interesting to note that she did not live in New York at the time, had never held elected office in New York, and had no executive experience in the private sector.  Of course her husband was President of the United States – possibly that was a factor in her nomination and subsequent election to the senate.
  5. According to Carl Bernstein’s 2007 A Woman in Charge: The Life of Hillary Rodham Clinton, she had decided to run for president in 2003 after just two years of elected office experience.
  6. Bill and Hillary Clinton had amassed $100 million dollars by 2008 after starting their marriage without any real wealth.  There is nothing illegal in this fact just evidence that they were able to parlay their celebrity into a fortune.  It seems that Mrs. Clinton was a member of the 1% the DCCC hate.

In summary, Hillary Rodham Clinton is a bright, ambitious, hard working woman.  But she is not the feminist icon that the DCCC proposes.  She proved to be a Victorian woman, sullied by her husband’s feverish infidelities, but apt at feigning the martyr when in fact she was steely in her resolve and ruthless in her ways.  If young Democratic women are looking for true strong women they need look no further than Smith College alumnae Gloria Steinem, Founder and publisher of Ms. Magazine, and Betty Friedan, Author of the “1963 book The Feminine Mystique (which) is often credited with sparking the ‘second wave’ of American feminism in the 20th century. In 1966, Friedan founded and was elected the first president of the National Organization for Women…”

Mrs. Clinton is similar to Condoleezza Rice in that both were nurtured and promoted by powerful men – the difference being that Miss Rice does not pretend to be a feminist icon, rather she is a grateful and accomplished American.
Carl Bernstein grappled with the subject of his biography on Hillary: “Since her Arkansas years, Hillary Rodham Clinton has always had a difficult relationship with the truth... [J]udged against the facts, she has often chosen to obfuscate, omit, and avoid.  It is an understatement by now that she has been known to apprehend truths about herself and the events of her life that others do not exactly share… Hillary values context; she does see the big picture. Hers, in fact, is not the mind of a conventional politician…(b)ut when it comes to herself, she sees with something less than candor and lucidity. She sees, like so many others, what she wants to see.”

This latest antic by the DCCC is nothing more than a stale attempt to again portray Mrs. Clinton as the proverbial Victorian female martyr.  As they say in Arkansas, Hogwash!  Word Total: 886

Geoffrey G. Fisher is a federally designated Highly Qualified state-certified history teacher working in southwest Florida as a guest teacher.  He holds a BA in History from the University of Connecticut and a MA in Public Policy from Trinity College in Hartford, CT.  In addition to teaching he is a former elected official and speechwriter.  Mr. Fisher now writes the political blog: THE THINKING CAP at  

Thursday, March 21, 2013

Letter to College Friend on Citizens United

Letter to College Friend on Citizens United

Dear David:

This case is a difficult read, but the court by a narrow 5-4 margin came down on the side of free speech, one of the great values of the American people.  You might remember that the United States Supreme “Court held that the First Amendment prohibited the government from restricting independent political expenditures by corporations and unions (that were indirect). The nonprofit group Citizens United wanted to air a film critical of Hillary Clinton and to advertise the film during television broadcasts in apparent violation of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (commonly known as the McCain–Feingold Act or "BCRA").”

The troubling part for me was the Court calling corporations or unions people.  I must disagree with your enthusiasm to amendment the constitution over this issue.  Just take the 27th amendment from 21 years ago: (Ratified May 5, 1992)

“No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.”

This was simply a grandstanding effort on behalf of ambitious congressman and in my opinion it has no place in the constitution.  Your proposal for a 28th amendment simply does not have the gravitas to muster inclusion in our venerable constitution.  I would recommend a new challenge that is more focused on the money in politics and not the free speech issue.  Remember that Citizens United “…did not involve the federal ban on direct contributions from corporations or unions to candidate campaigns or political parties, which REMAIN illegal in races for federal office.”  

Best, from your South Street friend, Geoff Fisher

Saturday, March 16, 2013

Goodbye to Ed Schultz as MSNBC pursues Bill O'Reilly: A letter to a Liberal Friend from College

Goodbye to Ed Schultz as MSNBC pursues
Bill O'Reilly:
A letter to a Liberal Friend from College

Dear Rommy:

I never cared for Ed Schultz because of his caustic rhetoric but I know he spoke for many liberals such as yourself.  I find it interesting that he was unceremoniously dumped for the younger Chris Hayes.  According to the New York Times, “Mr. Hayes, 34, will be the youngest host of a prime-time show on any of the country’s major cable news channels, all of which seek out youthful viewers but tend to have middle-aged hosts and a core audience made up of senior citizens (like us, Yikes!).” 

In many respects, the move is one more attempt to go after Bill O’Reilly.  Since the big O arrived on Fox News, 20 anchors from MSNBC AND CNN have tried and failed to top O’Reilly.  Again the NYT: “But taking over that hour is a difficult assignment for Mr. Hayes, given Bill O’Reilly’s commanding grip on the time slot. Mr. O’Reilly, the biggest star on the Fox News Channel, routinely doubled Mr. Schultz’s delivery of 25- to 54-year-old viewers last year, much to the chagrin of Mr. Schultz, who parodied his rival on a regular basis.”  Personally, I don’t think Mr. Hayes has a shot of touching O’Reilly – Hayes seems to be an androgynous interpretation of Rachel Maddow.  Even Ms. Maddow would lose and she is the best that MSNBC has.

In my opinion, MSNBC would be better served with Michael Moore or Connecticut’s own Alec Baldwin as the host.

Best, Geoff Fisher

Friday, March 8, 2013

The Voting Rights Act of 1965: A Letter to a Silly Democrat

Voting Rights Act of 1965: A Letter to a Silly Democrat

The author of this editorial has developed a case of selective amnesia.  Bashing the Republican Party as the Jim Crow party is both nasty and silly.  Remember that the Confederacy was chuck full of Democrats with no Republicans at all.  The Republicans after seeing victory during the Civil War pushed through the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the U.S. Constitution with little to no help from the Democratic Party.  Also remember that in the 1860s and 1870s, the Democrats founded the KKK with the explicit purpose of keeping white and black Republicans from voting. 
Both the Civil Rights act of 1964 and the voting rights act of 1965 only passed with the help of Republicans like Senator Everett Dirksen  Look at the voting tally for the 1965 Voting Rights Act – notice that the Republican positive % was higher in both chambers of Congress.

Senate: 77–19
·                                 Democrats: 47–17   (73%-27%)
·                                 Republicans: 30–2 (94%-6%)
House: 333–85
·                                 Democrats: 221–61     (78%-22%)
·                                 Republicans: 112–24 (82%-18%)
Finally it was Republican George W. Bush who reauthorized the Voting Rights in July of 2006.

Lyndon Johnson, when he was not misleading the American public about the War in Vietnam can take credit for pushing both the Civil Rights act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 through Congress but don’t deny the history of the Republican Party when it come to civil rights. 

As to revising section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, let a calm and deliberative debate ensure with a vitriolic assault on one party.