Benghazi hearing marks new low for brain-dead partisan bloodsport

REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst
The mainstream reaction was that Hillary Clinton made no damaging admissions.

I’ve already had a fairly long and very fortunate life, so when my time comes to shuffle off this mortal coil I will have few regrets or at least few valid complaints. But on that day, don’t be surprised if I rise up near the end and say: “Could I just have back those 13 hours I spent in October of 2015 watching the House Select Committee question Hillary Clinton about the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, so I can put that time to better use?”

I did it for you, dear readers, so I could write this stupid piece for those among you who did indeed find better use to make of those hours but who are mildly curious about what they missed Thursday. I’ll keep it brief.

You missed a new low in the descent of Congress into the brain-dead politics of red and blue. Some will surely see it otherwise, and surely someone will find a bad Clinton moment in the videotape that they can use against her in an ad if, as seems increasingly likely, she becomes the Democratic presidential nominee.

I heard former Judge Andrew Napolitano over on Fox (where he holds the title of “senior judicial analyst”) suggest that Clinton could be indicted for perjury for what she said under oath. I doubt it. But the descent into partisan bloodsport is so extreme that I can’t rule it out.

The mainstream reaction was that Clinton made no damaging admissions, but that only proves that the mainstream is liberal-biased.

Speaking of biased, the questions by majority Republican members of the committee could not have been any more biased in favor of believing that Clinton is morally, if not criminally, responsible for the deaths of four U.S. officials under an Al-Qaida-linked assault on Benghazi that day, 9/11/12.

When Clinton declined to confess to any crimes, they unveiled highly selective half-truths, and then acted outraged that Clinton seemed unwilling to confess to criminality (although she did say, in her opening statement, that she takes “responsibility” for the deaths).

The Democratic members of the select committee followed an equally partisan strategy. They clearly decided not to even pretend, for the most part, that they were interested in asking her about the Benghazi events. So they used their time to directly accuse their Republican colleagues of dishonest partisan motives and to apologize to Clinton for what she has suffered.

I don’t mean to resort to false equivalence here. The day was driven by the Obama/Clinton Derangement Syndrome afflicting the Republicans on the committee. But, as my own expectations were shaped by select committees from the old days, it hadn’t occurred to me that the Dems would basically use their time to console Clinton and denounce the Republicans.

Speaking of olden days, my mind kept going back to the greatest select committee ever, the one that investigated the Watergate affair. While there were Democrats on that committee who were out for President Richard Nixon’s head and Republicans who used their time to defend him, there were several major figures, back in the days when there were such things as conservative Democrats and moderate Republicans, who seemed interested in getting to the truth and following the evidence where it led. That committee actually brought a lot of new facts into the picture. (It was the committee’s staff who discovered that Nixon had been taping his Oval Office and the tapes led to many major breaks in the case.)

I am not recommending you do this, but if you would like to read the transcript of the Thursday’s hearing, the Washington Post produced one astonishingly quickly after adjournment.

You can also learn about all our free newsletter options.

Comments (40)

  1. Submitted by Paul Brandon on 10/23/2015 - 11:20 am.

    In other words

    13 hours of preaching to the choir
    (and mostly off-tune).

    I’m surprised that no one has raised the issue of who voted to cut the State Department’s funding (directly or as part of broader cuts), resulting in under-staffing in many areas.

  2. Submitted by Ron Gotzman on 10/23/2015 - 11:24 am.

    remeber the good old days….

    I liked the “younger Hilary” that stated “what difference does it now make?” At least then she had some energy that I think the Donald would have appreciated.

    However this “older, rehearsed, programed, monotone” Hilary probably had some saying – “could I listen to this woman for 4 years?” However, she almost broke out in her preciously rehearsed southern accent when talking to the representative from Georgia.

    Some of the greatest hearings of all were the Democrat controlled judiciary hearings involving Clarence Thomas and Bork. Now that was CLASSIC PARTISAN BADGERING that the GOP never achieved with H.C.

    • Submitted by Bill Willy on 10/23/2015 - 07:34 pm.


      That Bork guy was a lost treasure, to be sure.

      And it’s a good thing none of the boys on the panel believed a single disgusting word that lying law professor lady said about the nasty weird things she said Clarence (the Mummy) Thomas said to her when she was alone with him in his office when he was her boss.

      If they had we probably would have been deprived of his complete silence during Supreme Court arguments and his rock-solid conservative opinions and votes on things like Hobby Lobby not having to pay for contraceptives for so many other (probably) lying, wannabe free-loading ladies cost-to-coast because the Constitution is very clear on contraception (because its part of religious freedom and we all know the Christian church and the Bible is crystal clear on the sin of contraception except for the part where nobody can point to where the Bible says anything about it, but never mind that and there you go), and Clarence Thomas knows it which is what makes him a treasure too.

      Good thing he’ll be sitting on that supreme bench, never saying a word, for the rest of his life instead of having gone the way of the Bork

    • Submitted by Neal Rovick on 10/24/2015 - 12:50 pm.

      Bork–the guy Nixon got to fire the special prosecutor (Cox) after the Attorney General resigned rather than do the firing ?

      Thomas–the guy with a long, on and off, history of salacious behavior? (Read “Strange Justice” or even a summary of it)

      30 hours of examination of Bork.

      25 hours of examining Thomas.

      OH, the persecution, oh, the inhumanity.

      3 to 4 days of testimony for permanent appointment to the highest court…

      • Submitted by RB Holbrook on 10/26/2015 - 04:09 pm.

        Borking Away

        Remember that the merciless inquisition to which Mr. Bork was subjected consisted mostly of questioning him about his views on the law, as set out in his published writings and speeches.

        Truly, a shameful episode.

    • Submitted by Neal Rovick on 10/24/2015 - 01:31 pm.

      Another Bork fun fact….

      …..In his posthumously published memoirs, Bork stated that following the firings [the Saturday Night Massacre, ultimately found to be illegal], Nixon promised him the next seat on the Supreme Court. Nixon was unable to carry out the promise after resigning in the wake of the Watergate scandal, but eventually, in 1987, Ronald Reagan nominated Bork for the Supreme Court.[18….]

      It’s so nice to know the Reagan felt honor-bound to uphold the promises of Nixon in his attempt to escape prosecution.

      Ain’t history fun.

  3. Submitted by Ray Schoch on 10/23/2015 - 11:25 am.

    I’m one of those

    …who found better uses for my time on Thursday, so I thank Eric for his public service. From what I’ve read, here and elsewhere, the headline for this piece seems spot-on. Republicans on the committee wanted Clinton to admit to something approaching murder, then commit public hara-kiri in apology. Democrats wanted their Republican colleagues on the committee to spontaneously combust, with their descent into the appropriate nether regions fully documented on video. Neither was satisfied.

    I, however, am quite satisfied with Eric’s pointing out the degree to which GOP members of the committee (and of the House in general) have succumbed to the siren call of Obama/Clinton Derangement Syndrome – a brain disease that has been evident among some Republicans since… hmmm… 1992 or thereabouts.

  4. Submitted by Hal Davis on 10/23/2015 - 11:37 am.


    Re this:

    “(It was the committee’s staff who discovered that Nixon had been taping his Oval Office and the tapes led to many major breaks in the case.)”

    To add to the bipartisan aura of the Watergate committee, it was the Republican staff that uncovered Alexander Butterfield’s revelation.

    “Butterfield’s confirmation came in response to a question from Fred Thompson, the committee’s minority counsel.”

    More at

  5. Submitted by Connie Sullivan on 10/23/2015 - 12:04 pm.

    Also back in the day–as with Watergate hearings–you would never have as new a Congressman as Gowdy chairing such an erstwhile important committee. He’s only been in Congress for a short five years, and it speaks to the shallowness or lack of depth of the GOP bench that such a wet-behind-the-ears guy be in charge of this charade.

    • Submitted by Bill Kahn on 10/25/2015 - 12:34 am.

      Gowdy was wet, not just behind the ears, but everywhere by the time he adjourned that committee following Clinton’s testimony. I can’t remember ever seeing him in that much of a lather.

  6. Submitted by Kevin Bradley on 10/23/2015 - 12:05 pm.

    Speaking of liberal bias


    Giving you the benefit of the doubt, perhaps you were trying to be somewhat objective, since you did, after all, include two whole paragraphs that did not blatantly attack Republicans and actually give the impression that you would like to hold Democrats somewhat accountable for their part in the Benghazi cover-up fiasco. Your attempt at unbiased journalism falls a bit short, however, when you resort to accusations about Republican that mock legitimate mental illnesses (Obama/Clinton Derangement Syndrome — really??). Your own admission that you did not expect the Dems to use their time to console Clinton implies that you are unaware of just how deep the Clinton rabbit hole of corruption goes. Does Rose Law Firm ring a bell? How about the “suicides” of Vince Foster, Charles Ruff, James McDougal, etc?

    • Submitted by Greg Kapphahn on 10/23/2015 - 02:06 pm.

      Some of Us Insist on Proving Over and Over Again

      that to those who consider themselves “conservatives,” today,…

      actual factual truth runs so counter to their alternate reality,…

      that it does, indeed, seem to have a bias,…

      In favor of the liberal perspective on things.

      Empathy and compassion also have a liberal bias.

      Accurate mathematics have a liberal bias.

      Honesty has a liberal bias.

      In the end, reality also has a liberal bias.

      Which is why Eric was justified in saying that the Republicans on the get Hillary Clinton committee,…

      suffer from Obama/Clinton derangement syndrome.

      That syndrome is a symptom of how deeply they’re enmeshed in their alternate reality,…

      and ELEVEN hours of questioning just proves how, when the truth of circumstances calls into question that alternate reality,…

      they will go far beyond reasonable lengths in the vain attempt to find SOMETHING they can point to in order to push away and ignore all the mounting evidence which shows,…

      that their alternate reality is deeply, irretrievably flawed.

      Sadly, our “conservative” friends learned nothing from this exercise,…

      certainly not what’s glaringly obvious to the rest of us,…

      that their alternate reality leaves them deaf and blind when it comes to recognizing the truth and incorporating it into their perspectives,…

      and completely unable to SPEAK the truth that was made so clear in this hearing:

      that they were and are wrong about former Secretary of State Clinton’s role in the Benghazi tragedy.

      If, after, those eleven hours of trying to get Sec. Clinton to alter her testimony so that she could, somehow be ramrodded into compliance with their alternate reality,…

      and utterly failing to accomplish that end,…

      our “conservative” friends can’t realize and admit that they are wrong,…

      I don’t know what else you can honestly and accurately call them but deranged.

      • Submitted by Neal Rovick on 10/23/2015 - 09:13 pm.

        Have you forgotten?

        An alternate reality was always the goal…..

        The aide [Rove] said that guys like me were “in what we call the reality-based community,” which he defined as people who “believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.” I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. “That’s not the way the world really works anymore.” He continued “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors … and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”

        It continues on, the hearing just being the latest efflorescence of the new “reality” that they are still trying to make and get us to buy.

    • Submitted by RB Holbrook on 10/23/2015 - 02:44 pm.


      The hearing was a fiasco of its own. This is the eighth or ninth “investigation” into Benghazi, and, just like the others, nothing was revealed. The preening and posturing of the Republican members of the committee was too much even for Fox News.

      It’s time to face the facts: there is nothing there. Nothing. The only people who want to continue pursuing this grotesque waste of time are the people who hold on to delusional memories of the Clinton “scandals” of the 90s. These people need to move on. They have accomplished nothing but making noise and legitimizing a level of antagonism that is going to make the country ungovernable.

      What is particularly sad is that they are exploiting the senseless deaths of four American diplomats to do it. That’s bad enough. Now, I see that the corpse of poor Vince Foster will be invoked yet again. Sad? I mean, ghoulish.

    • Submitted by david hanners on 10/23/2015 - 03:29 pm.

      Citing the Rose Law Firm and Vince Foster et al proves that Clinton Derangement Syndrome is still alive and well.

      On the plus side, at least you didn’t throw in Whitewater.

  7. Submitted by Brian Simon on 10/23/2015 - 12:50 pm.


    What a waste of time & money. Funny how the people who claim they’re the fiscally responsible proponents of small government waste so many resources for no purpose.

  8. Submitted by Peter Stark on 10/23/2015 - 12:56 pm.


    Hillary Clinton is a juggernaut. I’m exhausted after a 2 hour presentation at work, and Hillary looks like she could have gone for another 5. I guess she should say “Thanks!” to the GOP for basically giving her 13 hours of debate prep on Benghazi etc., for the general election.

    Also, this effectively neutralizes Benghazi as a usable issue in the general, beyond its obvious use as a right-wing shibboleth. Anyone not tuned in to the right wing conspiracy crowd will hear Hillary say “I gave 13 hours of testimony on this subject before a partisan committee in 2015, and nothing came of it. If you need to know more, you can look at the public record,” and will immediately disregard the entire affair as pointless partisan nonsense.

    And, in the end, all the GOP accomplished was putting the most prominent non-Obama Democratic politician in the country on national television for 13 hours and making her look incredibly presidential. Well done!

  9. Submitted by Neal Rovick on 10/23/2015 - 01:19 pm.

    The really stupid part of all of this Benghazi hearing BS is that State department role in Benghazi was subsidiary to the CIA effort to recover weapons stolen from Kaddafi’s warehouses, and then ship those weapons to Syrian rebels.

    It wasn’t an embassy. It wasn’t a consulate. It was a “mission”.

    How else to explain all of the Americans in Benghazi? 2/3 of the 35 Americans in Benghazi that night were CIA. But hey, they were all there to set up the coming “consulate”. So Ambassador Stevens had to show up now and then, to maintain the cover.

    But you never hear the CIA being asked about their security preparations.

    And you never hear about the regional parties who had reason to be unhappy about the weapons recovery and transfer.

    But you hear all about Clinton and her emails. Not about the CIA and the “cover” role the State department played.

    It’s a dangerous part of the world–in a particularly contested country, working in arms trafficking, competing with some very dangerous international terrorist organizations, in a country with a historic hatred for the west.

    Whatever could go wrong, when you wanted to operate as a ghost in that country?

  10. Submitted by beryl john-knudson on 10/23/2015 - 05:21 pm.

    …not much more to add. but …

    I would say this is one of Eric’s finest critiques – although one could say, one of many lately – and all summed up so well in the accompanying headline… ” brain-dead partisan blood sport” Yes indeed. Thanks

  11. Submitted by DENNIS SCHMINKE on 10/23/2015 - 06:57 pm.

    This hearing

    All I can say is…Good Ol’ Eric. Never met a Democrat he couldn’t defend. Never met a Republican he could like.

    If the shoe were on the other foot…say, a Bush appointee in the crosshairs, how would the story read? Partisanship on display??

    • Submitted by John Appelen on 10/24/2015 - 09:01 am.


      I am not sure if there is a smoking gun. (ie lying to protect a Presidential bid) And I do think the GOP has taken this too far, since the citizens on both sides already have their opinion of what happened. But we can always count on a good opinion piece from Eric.

  12. Submitted by Bill Willy on 10/23/2015 - 06:57 pm.

    Oh… By the way…

    “Anyone seen my Default Clock?”

    Not that it’s as big a deal, but the United States of America is scheduled to default on its worldwide debt obligations (that the House voted into law) in, let’s see…

    11 days.

    November 3rd, which, I think, is a week from next Tuesday. So, in Congressional Time, that means it’s really five or six days, (or maybe just four) depending on whether they work next Friday (and the following Monday).

    All they need to do between now and then is elect a new Speaker and take a vote on raising the debt ceiling.

    What could go wrong?

  13. Submitted by Colin Lee on 10/24/2015 - 04:14 am.

    Liberal bias?

    “The mainstream reaction was that Clinton made no damaging admissions, but that only proves that the mainstream is liberal-biased.”

    This immediately had me thinking of Stephen Colbert’s famous quote at the White House Correspondents Dinner. “Polls are just a collection of statistics that reflect what people are thinking in ‘reality.’ And reality has a well-known liberal bias.”

    Numerous right-wing bloggers spent crazy amounts of time “unskewing” polls in the last Presidential election to reflect the reality they chose to believe. In the end, the original polls were dead on. Similarly, the Benghazi issue doesn’t need any unskewing because it has gone on longer than the Watergate committee. One doesn’t need a poll to know much of America is tired of hearing dire nonsense about it from their loony relative at Thanksgiving each year.

    If there were admissions, they weren’t consequential. Want to know what is? The meat of the Libya issue was left untouched, which was that military intervention in the country destabilized it.

  14. Submitted by joe smith on 10/24/2015 - 10:20 am.

    Total waste of time. If you previously believed that a spontaneous riot broke out with RPG’s, 50 cal machine guns and organized cover fire over a an anti Muslim film, you probably still do. If you felt the film was cover for Obama’s claim “Bin Ladin is dead and GM is alive”, you probably still do.

    With both the Dems and GOP at each others throats daily this was just another circus. It has gotten to the point were folks will argue over this subject and ignore the fact that Americans are not employed- 95M work age folks not in workforce, 45M on welfare and our jobs flooding out of the USA. We have many real issues to deal with as Americans and should focus on them. I feel terrible for the families of the 4 Americans that were murdered in Benghazi and will never get answers to why their loved ones were not protected by their country. Imagine their frustration watching this circus!

    • Submitted by Bill Willy on 10/25/2015 - 12:41 am.

      Pretty well said Joe

      “a spontaneous riot broke out with RPG’s, 50 cal machine guns and organized cover fire”

      Wow… Regardless of “political persuasion,” imagine that! There you are, out in the yard at 10 pm of so, or watching something on tv, or stopping off at a gas station to fill up your tank, and, all of a sudden, something like THAT starts happening a few hundred feet from wherever you are.

      I don’t know about you, but if it was me, I wouldn’t give hoot one about whether it was caused by something on Youtube, or “terrorists” (who ISN’T a terrorist in a situation like that?), international talk radio, or Hillary Clinton herself… Figuring that out would NOT be my number one priority at that moment!

      And, oddly enough (and not to defender her) but when it comes to that scene in which Hillary Clinton was testifying previously, and she got “visibly upset,” and “waved her arms around” and said, “What does is MATTER!?,” I’m pretty sure that’s the most basic thing she was alluding to.

      Really. Think about it. She may be a terrible person that does nothing but lie all the time, so on so forth, but what DOES it matter (who’s behind it right then, right there, or the next day) when you’re in the vicinity when a Rocket Propelled Grenade, 50 caliber machine gun and organized cover fire riot breaks out, and four people you care about get killed by it?

      Anyway, to your larger point about all the stuff that isn’t getting done, and the huge waste of time, you’re exactly right. We can all argue all day and night about who’s to blame for nothing getting done, but it doesn’t change the fact that there are a LOT of “relatively simple” things that used to be “ordinary orders of business” that used to get done regularly, but, for some reason, are now like pulling whale’s teeth.

      Not good. I agree.

    • Submitted by Neal Rovick on 10/25/2015 - 07:11 pm.

      ….If you felt the film was cover for Obama’s claim “Bin Ladin is dead and GM is alive”….

      What exactly does this phrase mean?

      The film was “cover”? Made to “help” Obama? Because the claims that “Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive” was false?

      Those are some deep waters you are swimming in.

    • Submitted by John Appelen on 10/26/2015 - 08:41 am.

      Does Character Matter

      Maybe it is all very pointless, we Americans seem to be less and less concerned by the Character of our Leaders. Bill got serviced in the White House … The Liberals say oh well… Conservatives seem to be supporting Donald even after multiple divorces and bankruptcies…

      Compared to these, maybe it does not matter if Hillary may have helped/ordered a staff member to mislead the American public so that the sitting President would look better going in an upcoming election?

      • Submitted by Neal Rovick on 10/26/2015 - 01:29 pm.

        You’ll have to try to keep up.

        The previous Republican investigations found no substance to the idea that the initial reports were intended to mislead:


        A House report on the 2012 terrorist attacks in Benghazi, Libya, concludes that the Central Intelligence Agency and U.S. military responded properly and that Obama administration “talking points” were flawed, but didn’t find that administration officials attempted to mislead the public.

        The two-year-long investigation by the Republican-led House intelligence committee is the latest congressional probe to examine the attacks, and its conclusions deflate allegations suggesting misconduct by the Obama administration.

        (end quote)

        That report is from Nov. 21, 2014.

        So please try to keep up–that dead horse that you keep beating won’t be getting up.

        This is the absurdity of the Republican talking points–they are zombies that never die regardless of how many stakes were driven through them.

        • Submitted by John Appelen on 10/26/2015 - 02:08 pm.

          New Evidence

          I did not say I support this investigation. I kind of figure it would take a smoking gun with Hillary’s prints all over it before her supporters may be interested in the results. However there was new evidence via her email server fiasco that may have generated some new guns since the 2014 result.

          If she had used the standard email system, this would have been much less painful. Why again didn’t she?

          • Submitted by Phil Dech on 10/26/2015 - 03:15 pm.

            Why didn’t

            Cheney and “Scooter” and their ilk use the standard email system? Conservatives sometimes have short memories.

          • Submitted by Neal Rovick on 10/26/2015 - 03:32 pm.

            Emails, really ???What is

            Emails, really ???

            What is this really about then–is this the “House Committee to investigate email procedures of Hillary Clinton”?

            What about all of the other departments and department heads who followed similar wmails procedures?

            What about security at Benghazi?

            Nope, emails, emails, emails.

            Keep beating dead horses–they can’t get away.

  15. Submitted by Jon Kingstad on 10/24/2015 - 01:06 pm.

    Indicting for perjury

    I also would like to thank Eric for suffering through these hearings and reporting on MinnPost about it, “liberal bias” or not. I’d also like to her more from the commenters who think Eric’s post was so”liberally biased” as to not present a fair picture of what actually happened. The transcript is freely available for any who wants to back up their claim that Eric has slanted the truth of the matter.

    Meanwhile, I wouldn’t be surprised at all if this Committee tries to get an indictment for perjury. Maybe they should ask for Kenneth Starr to be appointed special prosecutor. I’m sure he could keep this pot roiling right through the election.

    • Submitted by John Appelen on 10/24/2015 - 11:02 pm.

      Better than usual

      I thought it was actually better than usual. At least he commented on the questionable behaviors of the Democrats for a change. However this type of comment, “Obama/Clinton Derangement Syndrome afflicting the Republicans”, seems out of place when used by a reporter. I have just decided that he is more of a very Left columnist than a reporter.

      • Submitted by Paul Brandon on 10/25/2015 - 09:52 am.

        First of all

        I don’t believe that he pretends to be a reporter rather than a commentator. Most of his columns reference news that’s already been reported.
        And a commentator is allowed a sense of humour when making a point.

        • Submitted by John Appelen on 10/25/2015 - 07:55 pm.


          Here is what it says when I picked his name.

          “Eric Black writes Eric Black Ink for MinnPost, analyzing politics and government of Minnesota and the United States, the historical background of topics and other issues. He is a former reporter for the Star Tribune and Twin Cities blogger.”

          I guess when I think of “analyzing”, I think of something that is done in a somewhat impartial manner. Maybe if MinnPost had a Conservative biased “analyzer” also, then we could balance the 2 out and compare their views. Until then it is important that readers understand that they may need to give Fox News equal time to gain a balanced perspective.

          The thing I often find amusing is that people usually pick news sources that align with their personal view of the world, thus reinforcing their view that they are “the norm”. And that the others are the biased / extreme ones. As long as you know the bias of the writer of the article / source, at least then one can take that into account. Along those lines, my beloved very Conservative Mother was sharing all kinds of info with me this weekend from her Rush / Fox News perspective. To which I promptly adjusted for perspective.

          • Submitted by Neal Rovick on 10/26/2015 - 09:23 am.

            The theoretical purpose of the Benghazi hearings is to find the reason for the security failings at the compound and provide guidance for preventing similar attacks in the future.

            So, the questioning of Clinton pursued:

            1) Sidney Blumenthal and his ties to the Clinton Foundation; 2) the use of a private email server by Clinton and how it was more suspicious than all of the other government people who had similar facility 3) number of emails from/to her with the words Libya in them; 4) what interaction Clinton had with the survivors of the attack after the attack; 5)the ins and out of a video made by some guy in Florida.

            Not sure how any of those really addressed the issue of security at the station in Benghazi.

            And that is why it is a farce.

          • Submitted by Dennis Wagner on 10/27/2015 - 07:56 pm.

            Interesting perspective?

            Curious where is the partiality from the writer? What additional analysis/perspective was missed?
            Or did we see an early agreement that the 8th time around was similar to the last 7? Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is akin to insanity. Should the arriving at the insanity part required additional analysis?

  16. Submitted by Dennis Carlson on 10/27/2015 - 04:21 pm.

    Admitted Liberal Bias

    I will admit to a liberal bias favoring the truth and living in reality. I was not particularly a Hillary fan and would have preferred Bernie as President. Then I watched a good part of the hearings.

    I thought Hillary did a remarkable job considering the 11 hour debacle she was forced to be a part of. Her strategy was certainly to look presidential and she did just that – stayed on script, kept her cool, and looked appropriately happy and dismayed at the appropriate times.

    When a Congresswoman visibly shook when asking a particularly venomous question, Hillary responded with – “I can see you have passion on this issue,” and then proceeded to answer her. I was amazed she kept her cool during the entire committee marathon. I can assure you I would have blasted somebody at some point – probably after being asked the same question a dozen times, or who did I call on what day, where were you, or what did THEY say, what did YOU say, did you use email, phone, speak to them, and so on, and on and on.

    I now regret not turning it off and just reading Eric’s column. Eric, I think you should announce publicly in advance when you are going to perform these kinds of public service. Knowing that – I could go on with my day without any social conscience guilt. Also, because your accusers say you have a liberal bias, I’d be fine with that since I admittedly have one too. You could become my Cliff Notes of these kinds of hearings and I could have a productive day.

    The thing I can’t get out of my mind is that the Republican wisdom was that they should do one more hearing (their eighth) and that would somehow result in Hillary’s demise. What were they thinking – she would look bad, stumble, misspeak, become furious and explode? Hardly. Her 11-hour campaign contribution initiated by the Republicans and funded by tax dollars (over $30 million) convinced me that she will make a good President. An opinion I was doubtful of before the marathon hearing. I really think the Republicans should spend more time getting a presidential candidate that would actually compete against Hillary. That would be time well spent.

    The money would be better used paying the Federal Special Education bill that is the biggest unfunded mandate that exists for public schools. Just a thought.

Leave a Reply