What the Foreign Donations Tell Us about the Clintons’ Self-Perception

Today on NRO

KEVIN D. WILLIAMSON: Barack Obama doesn't even like America. Rudy Is Right.

JONAH GOLDBERG: Silly denials of Islamic terror have a silver lining. Nothing to See Here, Nothing at All.

JOHN FUND: Why would the Sunshine State's GOP governor open the door to non-citizen voting? Not-Great Scott of Florida.

IAN TUTTLE: Once again, the hate-crime narrative outpaces the facts—and the president leads the way. The Muslim Ferguson.

PHOTO ESSAY: The Birth of a Nation.

Morning Jolt
. . . with Jim Geraghty

February 20, 2015

What the Foreign Donations Tell Us about the Clintons' Self-Perception

The New York Times editorial board tells the Clintons something they don't want to hear:

Since its inception in 2001, [The Clinton Foundation] has raised nearly $2 billion in cash and pledges with millions more flowing in from an impressive array of donors, including foreign governments, financial chieftains and domestic donors, many of the latter political heavyweights.

All of which underlines the need for Hillary Rodham Clinton, in her all but certified role as a Democratic presidential candidate, to reinstate the foundation's ban against foreign contributors, who might have matters of concern to bring before a future Clinton administration. This was a restriction Mrs. Clinton worked out with the Obama administration to allay concerns of potential conflict of interest when she became secretary of state in 2009.

According to a report this week in The Wall Street Journal, the ban was dropped after Mrs. Clinton left the administration in 2013, leading to a resumption of donations from foreign governments and agencies to the foundation's Clinton Global Initiative, which sponsors conferences of world leaders from government, industry and philanthropy. Donors have included the United Arab Emirates, Germany, Saudi Arabia, Australia, Oman and a Canadian government agency reported to be involved in promoting the Keystone XL pipeline.

Ron Fournier, who many of us were arguing with earlier in the week: "This is sleazy and stupid."

This is sleazy because her foundation takes money from countries that fund terrorism. A Wikileaks cable quoted then-Secretary of State Clinton saying, "Donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide." The United Arab Emirates also was implicated in the memo.

This is stupid because it plays into a decades-old knock on the Clintons: They'll cut any corner for campaign cash. In the 1990s, Bill Clinton and his top aides used the White House as a tool to court and reward big donors. It was the second-biggest scandal of his presidency.

Yes, but let's go one more step: At the heart of every corruption scandal in American politics is the perpetrator's certainty that they can do this, and that they're entitled to these sorts of arrangements, because they're one of the good guys. I am sure former Oregon governor Kitzhaber thought his fiancée's consulting arrangements were no big deal because he was fighting for a clean environment, and she was just trying to help some green-energy companies.

I am sure that former Virginia governor Bob McDonnell thought his friendship with the supplement company CEO was on the up-and-up, the gifts weren't anything important enough to disclose, and that all of them were good people who wanted to make Virginia a better place to live. Former New Jersey senator Bob Torricelli was furious that the public didn't find his apology enough to resolve the scandal of him accepting lavish gifts from donors, and his resignation speech detailed all he had done for the state -- suggesting he was the real victim here.

There are already serious claims that the Clinton Foundation is really a favor factory for the rich and powerful, spending millions on travel and luxuries like flying Natalie Portman and her dog first-class to an event. Hey, the organization helps people, right? Who can complain about an organization with such noble motives? Fly the dog first-class, it's all about helping people!

Politicians and elected officials always see themselves as the protagonists in a personal heroic narrative, and always believe that all of their actions -- no matter how self-serving they appear to others -- are taken in the name of the greater good. Decisions like this one suggest that the Clintons are getting less self-aware with time.

MSNBC Recognizes that Liberal, Shrill, and Boring Is a Losing Combination

It's the Thursday Afternoon of the Long Knives at MSNBC:

In addition to canceling Joy Reid's daytime show The Reid Report, which MSNBC sources confirmed to Mediaite earlier today, the network is also canceling Ronan Farrow's show and moving Way Too Early's Thomas Roberts back to a dayside role, anchoring a straight news show from 1-3 p.m. ET daily.

Neither Reid nor Farrow have been fired by the network. Reid will become MSNBC's national correspondent, producing original reporting for on air and online programming. Farrow is expected to host a new series of primetime specials for MSNBC and will be featured as a special correspondent across the network's schedule.

The change in daytime programming represents a conscious shift by the network away from more opinionated hosts and towards a more news-focused lineup.

A lot of MSNBC's lineup consists of outspoken liberals who are not particularly interesting or fun to watch on television. I recall a fascinating discussion among my colleagues, asking which liberal columnists/writers/pundits they felt gave them the best understanding of what high-level Democrats were actually thinking -- i.e., you may disagree with everything they were saying, but you felt like you were getting useful information. Paul Krugman was atop the list, with E.J. Dionne a bit below. Of course, those are print columnists first who dip their toes into the water of the television world. Mickey Kaus is terrific, but we on the right love him as the liberal who calls out other liberals on their BS.

The problem for MSNBC is that Fox News and CNN signed up most of the best lefties on television already. You may not be able to stand Van Jones's views, but would anyone doubt he's among the most concise, smooth-speaking, and quick-on-his-feet presences on television? Fox News has Kirsten Powers.

For a long time CNN featured John Aravosis as my debating partner, and I found his substance-to-cheap-shot ratio refreshing.

Mika Brzezinski seems like the left-of-center presence at MSNBC most prepared to jump to her own program.

Which liberals, if any, do you find most tolerable to watch, listen to, or read?

Ready or Not, Here Comes CPAC!

Oh, here we go again.

In the wake of increased inquiries as to whether or not Log Cabin Republicans would be participating at this year's Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) organized by the American Conservative Union (ACU), Log Cabin Republicans National Executive Director Gregory T. Angelo issued the following statement:

"The American Conservative Union has the right to invite or not invite whoever they want to the Conservative Political Action Conference, but they should be honest about the reasons why. The ACU is fond of hiding behind a fig leaf stating gay people are welcome as guests, but the ability to buy a ticket to CPAC was never what our debate was about; indeed, I will be attending CPAC, as will hundreds of other Log Cabin Republicans members and supporters. Make no mistake: LCR is actively being prohibited from sponsoring CPAC. For our organization, this has always been about contributing to CPAC as sponsors or in some recognized capacity. Time and again, when we showed the ACU that we met their criteria for sponsorship, the reasons for our exclusion changed. The only conclusion that can be made is that the organizers of CPAC do not feel gay people can be conservative—a position opposed by the thousands of Millennial CPAC attendees who have been asking Log Cabin Republicans for months if we would be participating at this year's event. We owed it to them to explain why we are not."

The group also contends, "One greatest ironies at CPAC 2015 is that Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson will be honored with a Freedom of Speech Award at this year's event, when Log Cabin Republicans was one of the only conservative organizations with the guts to defend him in the aftermath of his notorious comments to GQ Magazine in 2013."

Or, if ACU's account is correct, can you be excluded if you didn't apply?

ACU fired back in a statement to POLITICO on Thursday saying that the Log Cabin Republicans did not even apply to be co-sponsors for the 2015 event.

"Had they applied, they would have been subjected to the same review as every other application," ACU Chairman Matt Schlapp said. "All conservatives, including gay conservatives, are welcome to be at CPAC. In fact, we have invited main stage and break out panelists who are conservative and gay, and we thank them for their contribution to our movement and CPAC 2015."

By the way, Robertson is getting the "Andrew Breitbart Defender of the First Amendment Award." One of the ironies is that Breitbart had a high-profile disagreement with CPAC organizers about their decision to exclude another gay Republican group, GOProud.(Breitbart resigned from GOProud when one of its members allegedly outed a staffer of Governor Rick Perry.)

For quite a few years, I used to write preview pieces asking what CPAC was supposed to do. Was it a candidate forum, designed to give conservative activists a chance to hear aspiring Republican presidents? A series of presentations and panels and debates hashing out what defines conservatism? A chance for professional conservatives to schmooze and network? A showcase for Republican and anti-Obama tsotchkes and bumper stickers? An excuse for me to drink with friends from out of town?

It's increasingly clear that CPAC is a messy mishmash of all of the above, and will never get more focused. The event is simultaneously more and less than the coverage suggests. There's not a ton of actual news that occurs there; in fact, I'll tell you now that Rand Paul is going to win the straw poll. I say this because he won last year. And he won the year before that. And his dad won in 2010 and 2011. Paul fans don't cheat; they just attend in greater numbers.

Yet when you get 10,000 or so conservatives in one giant hotel and conference center at one time, significant things happen. You notice which potential candidate seems to have supporters in t-shirts around every corner. You notice which big speakers bring in the crowds, and which ones get ignored. (Most of you ignored a brilliant presentation on blogging in 2012, folks.)

This year the format is supposed to change, with potential presidential candidates agreeing to more question-and-answer from the audience.

This should shake up what has become a very predictable routine of standard-issue stump-speech applause lines:

"Under this president, America is losing the values that made us great!"

"We must fully repeal Obamacare!"

"Common Core must be stopped in its tracks!"

"We must ensure every parent has the right to choose their child's school!"

"We must tear up this tax code that punishes hard work and rewards the well-connected fat cats!"

"We will not let them take away our guns and Second Amendment rights!"

"We will crack down on the lawless bullies at the IRS!"

"We must secure our borders now!"

"We must never allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon!"

Mind you, I agree with all of the above goals. But those are goals, not plans, and they represent a sometimes way-too-easy way for a garden-variety Republican to get quick applause from the CPAC audience. As a result, most of the speeches sounded the same.

NR will be featuring podcast interviews with big-name movers and shakers at CPAC, so be sure to check back frequently Thursday and Friday.

ADDENDA: The latest edition of the pop-culture podcast features a discussion of why 50 Shades of Grey is an astonishingly bad movie entirely apart from its sexual content, why most Oscar-bait movies are so insufferably boring, whether Saturday Night Live will ever regain its cultural relevancy, and why late February is the worst time of year.

www.NationalReview.com

Sail with National Review

Join your favorite writers for National Review's 2015 cruise to Alaska — a once in a lifetime opportunity for you and your family. Learn more here.

What National Review is reading — order your copy today!

Withering Slights: The Bent Pin Collection, 2007 to 2012
By Florence King and from National Review

Love National Review online? Save 75% off the newsstand price and subscribe to National Review magazine — print or digital versions available!

Looking for the perfect gift for that special conservative in your life? Give the gift of National Review or shop the NR store!

To manage your National Review e-mail preferences or unsubscribe, click here, or to read our privacy policy, click here.

This e-mail was sent by:
National Review, Inc.
215 Lexington Avenue, 11th Floor
New York, NY 10016

Search This Blog

Diogenes-Light

What the Foreign Donations Tell Us about the Clintons’ Self-Perception

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Megyn Kelly -> Pete Hegseth responds to 2017 rape accusation. 🔥

FOLLOW THE MONEY - Billionaire tied to Epstein scandal funneled large donations to Ramaswamy & Democrats

Readworthy: This month’s best biographies & memoirs