Where The Clintons Stand On Gay Marriage

All three of them.

Though Ms. (Chelsea) Clinton is undeniably close to her father and seems to share his love of public debate, she has also forged her own way on some crucial issues, particularly same-sex marriage.

In May, Ms. Clinton was at the Manhattan nightclub Lavo to attend a benefit for Friendfactor, a gay rights group. There she greeted Andy Cohen, the Bravo executive behind the “Real Housewives” franchise, and the actress Kristen Bell before hugging Brian Elliot, the founder and executive director of the organization.

“I certainly believe that all of my friends, as Marc and I did, should have the right to marry their best friends,” Ms. Clinton later told the crowd. “I certainly believe that those of us who are straight cannot expect our gay friends to do this on their own.”

Mr. Elliot said he first met Ms. Clinton a year ago when a mutual friend suggested that she become involved in the organization. “She made it clear marriage equality isn’t a political issue,” he said in an interview. “It’s about your friends.”

When her father was president, he signed into law the Defense of Marriage Act, saying that while he “strenuously opposed discrimination of any kind, including discrimination against gay and lesbian Americans,” he had also “long opposed governmental recognition of same-gender marriages.”

But recently (and with an acknowledgment that he’d been influenced by his daughter’s views), he shifted, announcing in May that he supported passage of a same-sex-marriage bill then being debated by the New York Legislature. “For more than a century, our Statue of Liberty has welcomed all kinds of people from all over the world yearning to be free,” Mr. Clinton said before it passed. “In the 21st century, I believe New York’s welcome must include marriage equality.”

One member of the family remains a holdout, however. Mrs. Clinton, who opposed same-sex marriage during her presidential campaign, recently said her position had not changed.

Troubling Secrets About Lack Of Honesty From Large Banks During Bailout

The fact many do not want to accept is that the assistance to banks in 2008-09 was required so to not spin even deeper into a crisis.  But having stated what I think is an obvious point comes disturbing news about the way large banks dealt with investors, and the general public during the crisis.

A fresh account emerged last week about the magnitude of financial aid that the Federal Reserve bestowed on big banks during the 2008-09 credit crisis. The report came from Bloomberg News, which had to mount a lengthy legal fight to wrest documents from the Fed that detailed its rescue efforts.

But the information is revealing nonetheless. The fact is, investors didn’t know how dire the situation was at these institutions. At the same time that these banks were privately thronging the teller windows at the Fed, some of their executives were publicly espousing their firms’ financial solidity.

During the first three months of 2009, for example, when Citigroup’s Fed borrowing apparently peaked, Vikram Pandit, its chief executive, hailed the company’s performance. Calling that first quarter the best over all since 2007, Mr. Pandit said the results showed “the strength of Citi’s franchise.”

Citi’s earnings release didn’t detail its large Fed borrowings; neither did its filing for the first quarter of 2009 with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Other banks kept silent on these activities or mentioned them in passing with few specifics.

These disclosure lapses are disturbing to Lynn E. Turner, a former chief accountant at the S.E.C. Since 1989, he said, commission rules have required public companies to disclose details about material federal assistance they receive. The rules grew out of the savings and loan crisis, during which hundreds of banks failed and others received government help.

George Will Spoke For Everyone About “Charlatans, Entrepreneurs And Entrepreneurial Charlatans”

I have complained on this blog about the way some candidates for president now use the political process to make money for their personal bank accounts.  Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, and Herman Cain have bastardized the process to make untold amounts of cash, all the time knowing they were either not going to be actual candidates, or had no realistic way to win the party nomination.  Each of them used the theatrics of ‘running’ merely to make money from the process. 

That is shameful.

This morning George Will came out swinging on “This Week”.  Will, needless to say, is correct!

AMANPOUR: George, Rick Santorum hoping to get a boost from Herman Cain’s supporters. Is that viable for him? Will he, do you think?

GEORGE WILL, COLUMNIST: Sure, he’s playing the Iowa game by the traditional rules. And I think there’s an interesting contrast between Santorum’s fate and Cain’s fate. We want a process that allows a dark horse like Santorum, someone who has been seriously engaged in national politics to gain traction if he has time, hence a small state like Iowa should lead this process.

I think, however, and I wonder if Donna agrees, that between now and 2016, both parties have to do some serious thought as to whether they can develop some filter to prevent this process, particularly with made proliferation of debates from being hijacked by charlatans, entrepreneurs and entrepreneurial charlatans.

AMANPOUR: Who would you label as one of those?

WILL: Well, the one who dropped out, Mr. Cain, who used this as a book tour in a fundamentally disrespectful approach to the selection of presidents. Now, we have a December 27th debate proposed that would be moderated by Donald Trump. Surely it is time for these candidates to do something presidential, stand up and say we’re not going to be hijacked and participate in this.

Little Sugar To Start The Morning With Wisconsin State Journal

Every Sunday morning newspaper should come with a Ghirardelli sample.

My newspaper carrier, like all of them I suspect, never lets any moisture get to the printed page.  With all the rain overnight, and the dark skies this morning,  I was not worried about the Wisconsin State Journal getting wet.  But since I was up for some unknown reason at 6:00 A.M. on a Sunday I headed out on the stoop for the papers just to be sure.

It was there that a promotional wrap around the WSJ alerted me to the fact that it was going to be a good day.  There was no way it could be anything but good when the paper comes with a Ghirardelli  Squrare of Peppermint Bark inside the plastic wrap!

It was a small thing to be sure, and yet for some reason that find early this morning has made me aware (again)  that there is always a reason to get up and think positive about the day ahead.

Next week I think the raspberry filled Ghiradelli might be an appropriate sample to include……