The New York Times takes down the Clinton Foundation. This could be devastating for Bill and Hillary
By Tim Stanley US politics Last updated: August 14th, 2013
Is the New York Times being guest edited by Rush Limbaugh? Today it runs with a fascinating takedown of the Clinton Foundation – that vast vanity project that conservatives are wary of criticising for being seen to attack a body that tries to do good. But the liberal NYT has no such scruples. The killer quote is this:
For all of its successes, the Clinton Foundation had become a sprawling concern, supervised by a rotating board of old Clinton hands, vulnerable to distraction and threatened by conflicts of interest. It ran multimillion-dollar deficits for several years, despite vast amounts of money flowing in.
Over a year ago Bill Clinton met with some aides and lawyers to review the Foundation’s progress and concluded that it was a mess. Well, many political start-ups can be, especially when their sole selling point is the big name of their founder (the queues are short at the Dan Quayle Vice Presidential Learning Center). But what complicated this review – what made its findings more politically devastating – is that the Clinton Foundation has become about more than just Bill. Now both daughter Chelsea and wife, and likely presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton have taken on major roles and, in the words of the NYT “efforts to insulate the foundation from potential conflicts have highlighted just how difficult it can be to disentangle the Clintons’ charity work from Mr Clinton’s moneymaking ventures and Mrs Clinton’s political future.” Oh, they’re entangled alright.
The NYT runs the scoop in its usual balanced, inoffensive way – but the problem jumps right off the page. The Clintons have never been able to separate the impulses to help others and to help themselves, turning noble philanthropic ventures into glitzy, costly promos for some future campaign (can you remember a time in human history when a Clinton wasn’t running for office?). And their “Ain’t I Great?!” ethos attracts the rich and powerful with such naked abandon that it ends up compromising whatever moral crusade they happen to have endorsed that month. That the Clinton Global Initiative is alleged to have bought Natalie Portman a first-class ticket for her and her dog to attend an event in 2009 is the tip of the iceberg. More troubling is that businessmen have been able to expand the profile of their companies by working generously alongside the Clinton Foundation. From the NYT:
https://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100231113/the-new-york-times-takes-down-the-clinton-foundation-this-could-be-devastating-for-bill-and-hillary/
Wait, I thought the NY Times was part of the biased “lamestream media”?
Exactly. That is why it is newsworthy.
Please try to keep up.
Amazing news that a foundation is allowed to run a deficit. Just they way democrats ruin cities, states, and the federal govt by spending MORE than they take in!
Perhaps we should make new rules requiring those serving in government to have made a living in the ‘real world’ before becoming eligeable to run for office.
“Exactly. That is why it is newsworthy.”
But if they are printing anti-Clinton articles, then — by definition — they’re not biased.
Please try to keep up.
“But if they are printing anti-Clinton articles, then — by definition — they’re not biased”
Even if the NYT occassionally (and I mean once in every 50 blue moons) says something negative about a Democrat, it does not prove that it is not a liberal-biased newspaper. Why can’t you admit that the NYT treats conservatives with a different set of rules and with more venom? The fact that you cannot admit what is glaringly obvious taints any legitimate thoughts you may have on the subject.
“But if they are printing anti-Clinton articles, then — by definition — they’re not biased.
Please try to keep up.
The exception proves the rule.
Besides, they printed anti-Clinton articles to promote Obama in 2008… this only reaffirmed their bias.
Please try to keep up.
Lowest common denominators.