It is an alleged truth universally embraced on the left that only conservatives care about money. Little can be done to dissuade liberals from this core belief, not even the accumulation of vast wealth by liberals.
In the wake of damning revelations about the money-laundering scheme known as the Clinton Foundation, left-wing comic Bill Maher is adamantly unwilling to acknowledge that Bill and Hillary Clinton, and Democrats in general, are motivated by anything but belief in government.
Maher's naivete and/or cynicism on this count made for amusing cable television on his HBO show Friday, though perhaps not in a way he intended. Discussing the Clinton-run currency printing press with Maher were Wonkette founder and Daily Beast contributor Ana Marie Cox, GOP political consultant Liz Mair, and Weekly Standard senior editor Christopher Caldwell --
MAHER: OK, so let's play a little game tonight since we have two liberals and two conservatives ...
Kudos to Maher for this -- he's shown more balance with guests on the show, and it's resulted in a better show.
MAHER: ... of who's worse. And tonight's topic is, who's worse when it comes to being a bad American for selling out to foreign interests. Now, we can talk about two things. We can talk about the Clinton cash, you know, maybe they're selling their access to foreign interests, that's what the allegation is. And then let's talk about, you know, Citizens United and Sheldon Adelson and why Republicans suddenly want to love Israel so much like they should marry it, I think. Is that all just coming from someplace other than the fact that they get a lot of their money from a guy who also loves Israel that much? But let's start with the Clinton situation -- is there a there there?
COX: Um, with the Clintons there's always at least a hair there, you know, I think there's at least half of a there there. The thing about the Clintons that's so amazing to me is that, you know, you've heard that ... it's better to apologize than to ask permission. They seem to not to want to ask permission or apologize. I mean, they want to just do what they do and if it looks shady they raise their hands and can't believe that you're accusing them of anything. I mean, this looks bad. There's a part of me that feels that it looks so bad that it can't possibly be true, like, they're not that stupid. But then again, they're pretty stupid ...
And that was from one of the two liberals. Perhaps Cox's recent religious awakening has something to do with her seeing the light when it comes to the Clintons.
MAIR: I mean, I hope to God it's not true, that's my general attitude towards this. But with that being said, I agree with you. I mean, it's bad optics and there are some ethical problems here regardless of whether, you know, anybody was buying access or Hillary did anything based on what donations were made to the Clinton Foundation. .... They were doing something they weren't supposed to, they didn't disclose it, and then when it came out they basically threw their hands up, handled it absolutely ...
MAHER: But wait a second, given that he (Clinton) runs this giant, and it is a charity, let's not forget that. It does a lot of good work, the Clinton Foundation. It's not there to make money.
A "charity" -- much as the Corleones were a "family" and an exceedingly close one at that. (Sorry -- make that "Family"). Turns out the vast money-laundering scheme dignified as the Clinton Foundation spent a slim 10 percent of its budget on charitable grants in 2013. Meanwhile, 33 percent went to "salaries and benefits" and 34 percent fell under the amorphous heading of "other expenses," the better to hide all manner of malfeasance.
Whereupon Maher launched into his defense of the indefensible --
MAHER: Democrats generally don't get their jollies from making money. They are (Cox laughs), do they, really?
MAIR: That depends on your Democrat.
MAHER: Do you think the Democrats are in it, and the Clintons specifically, to make money? I think they're policy wonks who get their jollies from the government.
More accurately, Democrats prefer taking money, specifically from wealthy conservatives, rather than making it, which skirts too closely to that ordeal known as gainful employment. Democrats do indeed "get their jollies" from government, as Maher claims -- and the bigger, the better. Which requires, awkwardly enough, vast sums of money, preferably from wealthy conservatives.
COX: I think Bill Clinton just wants to be loved.
MAHER: Yes! More than money, I agree, more than money.
CALDWELL: They like government and they like power would be the less charitable way of putting it, that if you wanted money, you'd go to work in Wall Street, if you wanted power you'd go to work in politics. And in this case I think that whether or not anything can be proved wrong, whether or not it can be proved that the Clintons were offering anything, the people who gave the money in these foreign companies thought they were getting something.
How is it possible for the Clintons to go from "dead broke" when they left the White House in 2001 to an estimated worth of $150 million in a dozen years, with her working in two government positions and him giving speeches? No one who genuinely eschews wealth accumulates that much of it -- and only the truly shameless do so while purportedly engaged in "charity."
