<p>From last post: “Generally it is considered bad taste for the first lady to speak out in opposition to her husband’s administration’s policies.”</p>
<p>But yet, Hillary said VERY PUBLICLY in 1992, regarding Gennifer Flowers, “I’m not some Tammy Wynette standing by my man.” :)</p>
<p>"But yet, Hillary said VERY PUBLICLY in 1992, regarding Gennifer Flowers, “I’m not some Tammy Wynette standing by my man.” </p>
<p>That was scarcely in response to <em>policy</em> unlike the NAFTA thing you mentioned earlier. </p>
<p>Tommybill – When I heard that Andy Card quote re: GWB “Sometimes he’d ask me a probing question. And I’d think, Hmm, I don’t think that question came from him.” I wondered if it was because the president never asks probing questions on his own.</p>
<p>Post 141…But yet, Hillary said VERY PUBLICLY in 1992, regarding Gennifer Flowers, “I’m not some Tammy Wynette standing by my man.”</p>
<p>That is not administration policy…you may not have liked it but don’t confuse the issue…just say I don’t like her I don’t care what her policies are…I just don’t like her…be honest about it…</p>
<p>You may or may not like this or that policy but it makes no difference because you just don’t like her….that’s OK it’s your privilege, and it’s your right as an American to vote and speak against Sen. Clinton…</p>
<p>However, I would suggest it is a bad idea, and rather shallow, to form opinions on ideas, and policies, based solely on who is espousing them.</p>
<p>From Post 142… Tommybill – When I heard that Andy Card quote re: GWB “Sometimes he’d ask me a probing question. And I’d think, Hmm, I don’t think that question came from him.” I wondered if it was because the president never asks probing questions on his own</p>
<p>Very good question …What do others think?</p>
<p>Regarding Bill Clinton’s administration, a previous post stated that he was the one responsible for the “No ask, No Tell” policy regarding gays in the military. Hillary is now opposed to that. </p>
<p>It is possible that Mr. Clinton’s administration did have an overall philosophical umbrella “policy” regarding the “No ask, No Tell” philosophy. It is possible that this did carry over to his personal affairs.</p>
<p>It seems that we really do not know what any administration’s policy is regarding such personal matters. It doesn’t matter which party they belong to. ;)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, duh. That’s exactly why he told the story, isn’t it? No big revelation there.</p>
<p>^ Tommybill stated: “However, I would suggest it is a bad idea, and rather shallow, to form opinions on ideas, and policies, based solely on who is espousing them.”</p>
<p>Yet he/ she is soliciting opinions from cc readers on an arbitrary comment made by Andy Card. (Andy Card resigned from the White House because of obvious political differences with President Bush!!)</p>
<p>Personally, my opinions are formed on what the candidates espouse (or do not espouse). I have been very clear on that. This applies to a variety of policy issues, both big and small.</p>
<p>From mini: “There are much bigger “fish to fry” than Jennifer Flowers, NAFTA, or “don’t ask, don’t tell”.” No kidding. But enough contradictions with the so called small fish items leads to a pattern of deception, whether you give a rats <em>arse</em> about any individual small fish item or not. An issue that you personally see as small fish may not be so small. I am sure yesterday’s debate about gay marriage wasn’t so small to a lot of people. If the gay military issue is so small, why is Hillary using this in her campaign stump speeches as such a priority? :rolleyes:</p>
<p>"Regarding Bill Clinton’s administration, a previous post stated that he was the one responsible for the “No ask, No Tell” policy regarding gays in the military. Hillary is now opposed to that. "</p>
<p>There are much bigger “fish to fry” than Jennifer Flowers, NAFTA, or “don’t ask, don’t tell”. Start with the Clinton genocide, and then the Clinton/Tenet Big Lie of 1998 that is the immediate precursor of Democratic support of the occupation.</p>
<p>If I give her credit for the Children’s Health Insurance Program (and I really do), then I have to decide whether she is complicit in crimes against humanity, and I could give a rats-patooey about Tammy Wynette.</p>
<p>At the time “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was instituted, it was a <em>protection</em> of gay rights, albeit a watered down version of what Clinton had envisioned. In the intervening years, as public attitudes have shifted, the policy has become a burden, not a protection. </p>
<p>Attitudes will continue to shift and a look at the generational numbers makes it clear: the homophobes have lost, they just don’t know it yet. In 20 years, today’s arguments about gay marriage are going to look quaint.</p>
<p>Howard Dean - Homophobe:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>From post 145………Regarding Bill Clinton’s administration, a previous post stated that he was the one responsible for the “No ask, No Tell” policy regarding gays in the military. Hillary is now opposed to that.</p>
<p>A. She is no longer the first lady
B. She is a US Senator and Candidate for President of the United States of America </p>
<p>Because of the above she now has the responsibility to form her own policies on any and all politic policy questions. It would be an abrogation of her duties and responsiblys to simply agree with a pervious administration, regardless of who headed that administration. </p>
<p>It seems that President George W. Bush has many policy disagreements with President George H. W. Bush; no one seems to think there is any thing wrong with that. </p>
<p>PS… It is improper to refer to President Clinton as Mr. Clinton. The presidents all retain the title, just as President George H. W. Bush and President Nixon have and did.</p>
<p>From Post 147… (Andy Card resigned from the White House because of obvious political differences with President Bush!!)</p>
<p>That statement if factually incorrect.</p>
<p>^ Please do tell us the facts, please…</p>
<p>tommybill comment: “…just say I don’t like her I don’t care what her policies are…I just don’t like her…be honest about it…”</p>
<p>My response: Just say you don’t care what her policies are, whether she is consistent, or whether she tells the truth. Be honest about it. You are deeply in love with her fabricated persona. Ah, isn’t Love grand ? ;)</p>
<p>For your information, the term “Mr” Clinton was used to distinguish him from the term “Mrs.” Clinton. It was a sign of no disrespect for Bill at all. Heck, I voted for him. Twice! “Mr” is a lot more respectful than "GWB’ or just “w”, or even “dubya”… :o</p>
<p>Andy Card was on the White House Staff of President G. H. W. Bush later he served in President G.H. W. Bush’s cabinet. When G. W. Bush was elected president, Card became his CoS. </p>
<p>Card left the CoS job for several reasons, the primary reason was he had pushed hard for the firing of Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and felt that since he, Card, to had also been a early advocate of the war in Iraq that it was disingenuous for him to stay on while advocating firing Rumsfeld. He also knew it was the best time to leave with regard to his own financial interests. </p>
<p>Facts matter.</p>
<p>Now Card is the one quoted as saying ““It was relatively easy for me to read the sitting president’s body language after he had talked to his mother or father,” Mr. Card said. “Sometimes he’d ask me a probing question. And I’d think, Hmm, I don’t think that question came from him.” not me.</p>
<p>^ Paragraph 2 appears to be your opinion. </p>
<p>You are entitled to explain the reasons that you “think” led to Card’s resignation. I see no facts to back up your opinion. Is your paragraph a re-write of a speech or quote directly from him, or is it based on your interpretation of the party line?</p>
<p>If you can show me where he said this himself, I will concede. Facts do matter.</p>
<p>I have known Sen. Clinton since 1972 when I worked with her on a daily basis for 2 1/2 months, in addition I dealt with her and her staff several times while she was the first lady, and I am not a big fan.</p>
<p>I will however, tell you she is one of the most capable people I have ever met, and that I support her general political philosophy. Those two factors are more important to me than how I feel about her as a person. I liked President Reagan and admired his skills as a leader but would never have voted for him. Nor have I decided who I will vote for in the Democratic primary this spring. </p>
<p>You appear to share some my feelings about the person; I just don’t let those feelings get in the way of making good decisions about who should lead the nation and how it should be governed. I will admit however that my feelings are not as strong as yours appear to be</p>
<p>From post 155…….“Paragraph 2 appears to be your opinion.”</p>
<p>It is information not opinion. </p>
<p>While I have not spoken to Card for more than 7 years, there was a 8 year period when I had a regular lunch with him and about 12 others once every 2 months. During that time there were several periods that our work required we see each other every day.</p>
<p>I read newspapers and am in regular contact with people who are mutual friends and acquaintances of both mine and Mr. Card.</p>
<p>“PS… It is improper to refer to President Clinton as Mr. Clinton.”</p>
<p>Probably should have the same title one would give to Idi or Milosevic. Perhaps, the “Honorable”.</p>
<p>OMG. I thought tommybill and I-dad were siamese twins. Now we find out that tommybill is actually a Washington Insider. Who knew? :D</p>
<p>He / she wins! :eek:</p>
<p>It is more correct to say former insider…and then it is a bit of a stretch to say insider…more like hanger on…</p>
<p>Even so… all of this was reported when Card left the WH……</p>