Mountain Views News     Logo: MVNews     Saturday, February 27, 2016

MVNews this week:  Page 15



 Mountain Views News Saturday, February 27, 2016 

WILL Durst



TINA Dupuy




Susan Henderson


Dean Lee 


Joan Schmidt


LaQuetta Shamblee


Richard Garcia


Patricia Colonello




John Aveny 


Chris Leclerc

Bob Eklund

Howard Hays

Paul Carpenter

Kim Clymer-Kelley

Christopher Nyerges

Peter Dills 

Dr. Tina Paul

Rich Johnson

Merri Jill Finstrom

Lori Koop

Rev. James Snyder

Tina Paul

Mary Carney

Katie Hopkins

Deanne Davis

Despina Arouzman

Greg Welborn

Renee Quenell

Ben Show

Sean Kayden

Marc Garlett

Pat Birdsall (retired)

In 1992, Hillary 
Clinton was derided 
as an extreme feminazi 
vying for all 
the power the White 
House could offer 
her as First Lady. A 
reporter from Columbus, 
Ohio famously 
asked her, 
“You know, some 
people think of you as an inspiring female 
attorney mother, and other people 
think of you as the overbearing yuppie 
wife from hell. How would you describe 

I was an angsty tween at the time and Hillary 
was a baddass. “I suppose I could have 
stayed home and baked cookies and had 
teas, but what I decided to do was to fulfill 
my profession which I entered before 
my husband was in public life,” she defiantly 
popped off to reporters on the campaign 
trail. The press had to punish her 
for such insolence. So of course, the election 
became about cookies. There was this 
“shrill,” “ambitious” woman who dared 
insult other women who chose a life of 
baking cookies. It gave the entire county 
the vapors.

“Never mind that Clinton went on to 
say feminism means the right to choose 
work, or home, or both; the damage had 
been done,” Jackie Judd at ABC News 
mused. “She’d been tagged an elitist and 
an ultra-feminist.”

The newspapers soon published Hillary’s 
recipe for chocolate chip cookies along 
with Barbara Bush’s. I was taken to a fundraiser 
where there were both Republican 
and Democratic cookies made available. 
Bush’s cookies were exquisite—soft, 
buttery pillows gently caressing chips of 
chocolate. And Clinton’s cookies tasted 
like burnt pretzels with artificial carob 
chunks. A thumbtack has more culinary 
appeal than Clinton cookies.

This was the beginning of the impossibility 
of Hillary: The Hillary Paradox (also 
the subtitle of a collection of essays that 
came out last year). In 1992 it was: You 
should have been home baking cookies, 
but instead you insulted women who bake 
cookies AND by the way, your cookies insult 
the idea of cookies.

Basically, damed if she does, damed if she 

In 2008, I wrote about what I called the 
Hillary Standard. Yes, we have a double 
standard for women and other minorities. 
Men, for example, get to not know things 
(see: Donald Trump’s “we’ll just hire great 
people who know.”), but Sarah Palin got 
marginalized for being (and continuing 
to be) ignorant. As Hillary said herself at 
CNN’s Democratic Town Hall this week, 
“Why is there one standard for me and 
not for everybody else?”

Yes, good question.

The Hillary Standard has evolved into 
her own special Catch-22. Over the last 
20 years I’ve watched Hillary learn from 
her mistakes, then get criticized for adapting 
to the times. I witnessed her husband 
appoint more black people to his Cabinet 
than any president before him, his 
struggles with the white power structure 
even inspiring Toni Morrison to lament 
that Bill was our first black president; now 
Hillary gets accused and heckled for being 
that white power structure. I’ve seen 
her win a seat in the Senate even though 
she was outspent by her opponent by over 
$11 million, and then her husband cheating 
on her get credited for her victory.

I’ve also seen her lose a bid for the presidency 
and rack up a million miles as Secretary 
of State. I watched her get grilled 
for eight hours about Benghazi sans any 
fatigue or gaffes. I’ve watched her stay in 
public life and shrug off the “vast right 
wing conspiracy” that has never considered 
pulling punches. I’ve seen her not 

Every time we grumble what Citizens 
United has done to our elections, that 
was a suit brought by a group wanting to 
spend unlimited cash to take down Hillary 
Clinton. It was literally a group of 
citizens united AGAINST Hillary. You’d 
think Hillary would be the first person 
we’d celebrate benefitting from that decision 
as a candidate. For any other human 
being on the planet, we’d see it as poetic 
justice—a hilarious irony. Instead it’s the 
Hillary Paradox: Have your rabid rival get 
to spend unlimited amounts of cash to 
take you out but when you take advantage 
of the same law—you’re then a despicable 
corporate shill representing “big moneyed 

It’s enough to make me want to stab myself 
in the eye with my vintage Hillary 

She’s smart, educated, accomplished and 
experienced. She’d be touted as a steady 
hand at the wheel if it were anyone else. 
But this is Hillary Clinton we’re talking 
about so she might not be the next President 
of the United States. Why? She’s not 
exciting enough!

So Hillary might not get to be a revolutionary 
first female president because 
she’s not threatening revolution?!

Taking nutcracker off the shelf…

Not only does Hillary never (ever) get 
to make any mistakes, have a bad day or 
tell her haters she wants to go back to the 
time when they’d be taken out on stretchers. 
She has to be super well versed in 
all things, but not remind people of the 
past. Be an automaton but not robotic. Be 
warm but not emotional. Be a woman but 
not play the gender card. Be completely 
qualified, but not at all arrogant. 

Basically, embrace the Hillary Paradox.

Tina Dupuy is a nationally syndicated columnist 
and can be reached at tinadupuy@yahoo.


Q. Has the issue of Justice Antonin Scalia’s replacement 
on the Supreme Court turned a mite political? 

A. You could say that. You could also say that flight simulation 
wind-tunnels are tough on comb-overs.

Q. How long after the first Italian U.S. Supreme Court 
Justice’s death did it take to get ugly?

A. Within minutes of the discovery of the body, Senate Majority Leader Mitch 
McConnell vowed to keep the seat vacant until after the November presidential 
election. It probably took longer for a family of five to order dessert at 

Q. Is he alone?

A. No, every Republican in North America echoed his sentiments, especially the 
six remaining GOP presidential candidates who see this as a big red flag to wave 
at supporters. And since unemployment is below 5% percent and gas around $2 
a gallon, they can use all the issues they can get.

Q. What about the Democrats?

A. Same thing, only different. Both Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton want 
President Obama to immediately nominate someone they can use to rally the 
base, preferably a single-mother lesbian Hispanic with a limp and agoraphobia.

Q. So we’re playing hardball here.

A. We sidled way past hardball in 2009. This is 9-inch steel ball-bearing ball.

Q. What is the make-up of the remaining court?

A. One justice appointed by Reagan, one by George H. Walker Bush, two by 
George W. Bush, two by Clinton and two by Obama. Four Republicans and 
four Democrats. Five are Roman Catholics and three are Jewish. Although most 
decisions will depend on which side of the bed Anthony Kennedy wakes up.

Q. What was McConnell’s rationale?

A. To let the people decide which way the court swings with their choice of 

Q. Didn’t the people already decide when they voted for Obama the last two 

A. When Democrats speak, Mitch McConnell doesn’t hear well.

Q. Does this mean a presidential term lasts only three years?

A. Not only that, once this precedent is set, the next Senate could embargo midterm 
years as well. Then the months of May through August could be off limits, 
since Congress is in recess. Eventually, a commander-in-chief might only allowed 
to nominate a Supreme Court replacement on a Wednesday in the third 
week of September of odd numbered years.

Q. Can the court function with only eight members? 

A. Yes. They’ve done it before. In 1790 they started out with six and each decision 
required a two-thirds majority, which today would make agreeing on a 
lunch schedule difficult. 

Q. Isn’t Scalia the guy who said, “The only good Constitution is a dead 

A. You nailed it. The irony is this strict originalist would be appalled at his death 
being used for political purposes. Ain’t life odd?

Q. I’ll ask the questions. If Republicans stymie another Obama nominee, will it 
be viewed as more obstructionism?

A. Hasn’t hurt them so far. Of course a series of 4-4 ties would focus attention 
on the vacancy like blood on snow.

Q. Could Obama nominate himself?

A. Yeah. That’s what Republicans want. HIM shaping law in a lifetime appointment. 
That and scorpions duct-taped to their underwear.

Q. Might this lead to a further breakdown in bipartisan relations?

A. As my daddy used to say, “Can’t kill what’s already dead.” 

Will Durst is an award- winning, nationally acclaimed columnist, comedian and 
margarine smuggler. 

Mountain Views News 
has been adjudicated as 
a newspaper of General 
Circulation for the County 
of Los Angeles in Court 
Case number GS004724: 
for the City of Sierra 
Madre; in Court Case 
GS005940 and for the 
City of Monrovia in Court 
Case No. GS006989 and 
is published every Saturday 
at 80 W. Sierra Madre 
Blvd., No. 327, Sierra 
Madre, California, 91024. 
All contents are copyrighted 
and may not be 
reproduced without the 
express written consent of 
the publisher. All rights 
reserved. All submissions 
to this newspaper become 
the property of the Mountain 
Views News and may 
be published in part or 

Opinions and views 
expressed by the writers 
printed in this paper do 
not necessarily express 
the views and opinions 
of the publisher or staff 
of the Mountain Views 

Mountain Views News is 
wholly owned by Grace 
Lorraine Publications, 
Inc. and reserves the right 
to refuse publication of 
advertisements and other 
materials submitted for 

Letters to the editor and 
correspondence should 
be sent to: 

Mountain Views News

80 W. Sierra Madre Bl. 

Sierra Madre, Ca. 

Phone: 626-355-2737

Fax: 626-609-3285






Everyone talks about “The Anger.”

The reason Donald Trump is getting so much support 
from primary voters, the pundits tell us, is because of “The 
Anger.” It’s true that many voters are hopping mad that 
nothing ever gets done in Washington.

Voters, especially the most conservative ones, are sick and 
tired of people who promise them the stars, the moon and 
the repeal of Obamacare to get elected, then go to D.C. and 
do nothing but make excuses about “divided government.”

I feel their pain and frustration, believe me.

But it’s time for angry Trump voters, especially the most conservative ones, to 
stop waving their “Make America Great” signs for a few days and face the political 
facts of life. We have a divided government in Washington. We’ve had one 
for years and it looks like we’re going to have one for four more. It’s nothing 
new. It’s the norm. It’s how Washington works.

It’s frustrating for those of us who want a smaller, weaker, cheaper federal government. 
But divided government doesn’t necessarily mean that nothing a conservative 
wants ever gets done in D.C. My father had to deal with a Congress 
controlled by Democrats. But he still was able to get enough things done to be 
considered the greatest president of our lifetime. It’s time for the conservatives 
who support Trump to grow up. No party ever gets everything it wants. No voter 
will, either, especially from Trump.

He promises to kick out 11 millions illegal immigrants.

He promises to build the Great Wall of Trump at the border and make Mexico 
pay for it. 

He promises he’ll temporarily keep Muslims out of America.

He promises he’ll put a 35 percent tariff on Fords imported from Mexico, repeal 
Obamacare, rebuild the military, defeat Isis, make better trade bills and 
make America great again.

Sure he will.

In the era of divided government, unless he magically makes the House and Senate 
disappear, Trump’s vague promises aren’t worth the hot air they were written 
on. My question to the angry Republican voters who support Trump is this 
– How are you going to feel when The Donald is not able to follow through on 
his promises?

It’s inevitable, even if he beats Hillary. What will you do when your Republican 
hero goes to D.C. and fails to deliver? Take to the streets? Electing a president 
named Trump or a qualified candidate like John Kasich this fall won’t be enough 
to get things done in D.C. if the GOP doesn’t increase its hold on the Senate. 

No matter who he is, a Republican in the White House is going to need 60 votes 
in the Senate or everything important he proposes to pass or repeal will be filibustered 
to death.

All remaining Republican primary voters – especially conservative ones who excuse 
Trump’s wide liberal streak or are too blinded by his celebrity bluster to see 
it – need to ask themselves something important before it’s too late.

Do you know in your heart that the nominee you’ve picked — even if he wins — 
has a chance of changing anything in D.C.? Or are you just hoping? 

Hoping for change isn’t going to work. Ask Obama. If you really want to start getting 
things done in Washington, you can’t just be angry, you need to be realistic.


Michael Reagan is the son of President Ronald Reagan, a political consultant, and 
the author of “The New Reagan Revolution” (St. Martin’s Press). He is the founder 
of the email service and president of The Reagan Legacy Foundation. 
Visit his websites at and Send comments 
to Follow @reaganworld on Twitter. 



HOWARD Hays As I See It

“The Republican Party 
of Abraham Lincoln and 
Theodore Roosevelt is . . 
. surrendering its moral 
compass to Donald 
Trump and Ted Cruz”

- Senate Minority Leader 
Harry Reid (D-NV)

Sen. Reid in his floor 
speech was responding 
to the insistence of 
Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) 
that no nominee for the Supreme Court be 
considered, voted on or even met with over the 
next year – no matter who that nominee might 
be. But now even Trump and Sen. Cruz (R-
TX) are vying with each other over who’s more 
determined to toss whatever “moral compass” 
might have remained.

 On the subject of immigration, for instance, 
Cruz couldn’t abide Trump’s being considered 
the more fanatical on the issue. In the past, 
conversation would inevitably note that “You 
can’t just deport eleven million people”. Last 
week on Fox News, though, Cruz surprised even 
Bill O’Reilly by insisting that’s exactly what he 
intends to do (while upping the figure to twelve 
million). O’Reilly offered the hypothetical of 
a parent who years ago maybe overstayed a 
visa, and since has made a home here raising 
U.S.-born kids – asking whether Cruz would 
simply send in the feds to nab him and put him 
on a plane. “You better believe it”, was Cruz’ 

And how about this: a candidate who believes 
rape, incest or other exceptions to abortion 
restrictions violate a fetus’ “rights” under 
the 14th Amendment - but when it comes 
to equal protection for gay people, that same 
Constitution must be superseded by “God’s 

 This is a candidate whose proposed “balanced 
budget” amendment would mandate cutting $9.4 
trillion in spending over a decade, on top of $12 
trillion already lost from proposed tax cuts (with 
a third of those cuts going to the top 1%). Politico 
figures the plan “would add at least $6.8 trillion to 
the deficit and as much as $8 trillion once interest 
payments are figured in, which would amount to 
almost doubling projected deficits over the next 

 This candidate argues Trump’s call for closing 
down mosques doesn’t go far enough and would 
bar Syrian immigrants altogether. He threatened 
to shut the government down unless the president 
agreed to strip health insurance from millions of 

 In foreign affairs, this candidate would 
replace the Iran nuclear deal with threats of 
military force, deploy American troops in 
Iraq and Syria, and send heavy weapons to 
Ukraine and Eastern Europe. On immigration, 
he’s adamantly opposed to anything like the 
bipartisan deal struck with compromisers like 
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL). The startling thing is 
not that this candidate is Sen. Rubio himself, but 
that he’s considered a “moderate” in the race. 

 Another candidate with that “moderate” 
label is Gov. John Kasich (R-OH). Hoping to 
impress primary voters in South Carolina, he 
signed legislation cutting $1.3 million in funding 
for Planned Parenthood in his state; money to 
support HIV testing, breast and cervical cancer 
screenings and domestic violence prevention. 
According to Forbes, the effect of the bill would 
be to deny health services to over 50,000 Ohio 
women. The Cleveland Plain Dealer editorialized 
that “only demagoguery can explain a purported 
anti-abortion bill that wouldn’t really limit 
abortion but really would limit health services 
that benefit women”.

 On her TBS show, Samantha Bee reminded 
that Obergefell v. Hodges, last year’s landmark 
Supreme Court case establishing marriage 
equality, was originally Obergefell v. Kasich. A 
couple who’d been married out-of-state was 
refused spousal rights upon returning home to 
Ohio – with one of the partners being terminally 
ill (with ALS) at the time. As Bee put it, the GOP 
should “take a closer look at John Kasich, because 
while these other chumps make empty promises 
to do awful stuff, this so-called moderate gets 
awful stuff done”.

 While that term “moderate” might be 
questionable, “establishment candidate” seems 
more accurate. It’s understandable that Rubio’s 
now considered the preferred candidate of the 
Wall Street “establishment”. He insists the Crash 
of ’08 was not the fault of reckless Wall Street 
speculation, but of government regulation. 
While maintaining the Dodd-Frank financial 
reform law should be repealed and replaced like 
the Affordable Care Act, for now he just wants 
it repealed – with ideas for replacement maybe 
to come later. He’s said it’s “not the Fed’s job to 
stimulate the economy”, although that’s what 
the Federal Reserve by law is supposed to do. He 
pushes the idea that cutting taxes on dividends 
and capital gains will spur investment but, at least 
since the early days of George W., it’s been made 
clear all that does is shift wealth to those who 
make their money off money from those who 
make their money off hard work.

 Perhaps Rubio is becoming the favorite 
“establishment” candidate because he is, as 
characterized by Kevin Drum in Mother Jones, 
a “moron”. He was described as such last May 
when he was unable to give a coherent answer 
on Fox News to an increasingly frustrated Chris 
Wallace as to whether, knowing then what we 
know now, he would’ve authorized our war on 
Iraq. Drum commented that “Most of the time he 
sounds like a ten-year-old trying to sound tough 
in front of the older kids”.

 But what attracts “establishment” money 
from Wall Street, Sheldon Adelson and the 
Koch Brothers is not intelligence but malleability 
– a willingness to abandon whatever “moral 
compass” one might have in order to secure the 
largesse of those benefactors.

 While a recent poll shows that 20% of Trump 
supporters feel President Lincoln might have 
been too hasty in freeing the slaves, other polling 
shows efforts to hold out for a Koch-approved 
successor to Antonin Scalia on the Supreme 
Court might cost Republicans their control of the 
Senate, let alone any hopes of regaining the White 
House. It shows that while the Republican Party 
might be all too willing in “surrendering its moral 
compass”, American voters aren’t about to let go 
of theirs. 

Mountain Views News

Mission Statement

The traditions of

community news-
papers and the 
concerns of our readers 
are this newspaper’s 
top priorities. We 
support a prosperous 
community of well-
informed citizens. 
We hold in high 
regard the values 
of the exceptional 
quality of life in our 
community, including 
the magnificence of 
our natural resources. 
Integrity will be our 

Mountain Views News 80 W Sierra Madre Blvd. No. 327 Sierra Madre, Ca. 91024 Office: 626.355.2737 Fax: 626.609.3285 Email: Website: