Discussion:

Discussion for article #230632

Consistency does not matter to GOP. After his terms in office, Reagan pulled down 2 MILLION dollars for a speaking gig. Here is how one grumpy cat conservative responded to liberal criticism of the magnitude of the fee, as published in the LA Times.

Ronald Reagan's $2-Million Speaking Fee November 04, 1989

I find it highly amusing that the few quaint liberals remaining in the United States are suffering acute dyspepsia over Ronald Reagan’s $2-million fee from a Japanese corporation.

I believe that either liberals are revealing the socialist underpinnings of their ossified philosophy, or they are just straight out envious and covetous (please see: Ten Commendments).

How much compensation Reagan, or Lee Iacocca or the San Diego Chicken pull down is really none of the business of our currently frustrated social engineering cadre. We are not only worth what someone will pay for our services, but required morally to seek that sum for our well-being.

DAVID CARL KOLPACOFF

Do they really want to go down this road of glass houses?

TPM has taken (concern) trolling to a new level. Private donors have “sometimes” paid the fee? When have they not for a speech at a public university? As for Mrs. Clinton’s “highly specific” demands for water, snacks, back support, and appropriate AV equipment – is this really worth a reprint?

The more interesting question is what is the Clinton Foundation doing with the money. Does it do good deeds, life the Gates, Rockefeller, and Ford Foundations, and what are they? Or, like charitable foundations that have proven to be fronts for other politicians and frauds like Al Sharpton, does it pay selected favorites high salaries or rent space or purchase goods and services from them at multiples of market rates. These foundation have been used for all sorts of fraud. Time will tell, and truth will out. You can be sure that the NYTimes, among others is checking this out right now. Who knows— maybe TPM will get out of National Enquirer mode and do some real journalism on this too, rather than simply echoing the more outrageous and speculative claims of the nut job right win.

In my opinion, President Hillary Clinton would have us knee deep in a winless war in Iran before the first week of her presidency was finished. She is a neocon queen.

Long tradition of politicians taking speakers’ fees. Here’s a story about Winston Churchill appearing with Mark Twain back in 1900.

I don’t believe that Hillary is demanding to speak to any of these groups. They’re inviting her to speak, all the while knowing her conditions and requirements.

Meanwhile, no republican has ever asked for money or other accommodations for speeches they made.

Right.

Look at how different she is from normal people! She’s an elitist. Electing her would be like crowning a queen.

Don’t do that.

Elect another from the Bush Dynasty blue bloods instead.

There’s a message that will win in 2016.

The speaking fees she’s taken from Goldman trouble me quite a bit. I don’t believe someone who has that kind of relationship with the financial industry will do a good job of regulating them.

Maybe that makes me a troll, or a wingnut, or whatever.

But her relationship with the financial industry and her hawkish foreign policy create real problems for me. If she wins the primary, I’ll almost certainly end up voting for her in the general, because I expect the alternative will be worse. And because of the Supreme Court, which is balanced on a knife-edge now.

I don’t think she’s on the same page as I am on most issues, though. It will definitely be a lesser of two evils vote for me.

Annnnnd the GOP’s job is done.

And this opinion has what to do with the subject at hand?

So wait Republicans are complaining about a perfect example of market capitalism? Interesting.

Too bad the media is incapable of discussing where Hillary Clinton stands on the issues.

Okay, isn’t she engaging in free-market capitalism, as a seller offering something to willing buyers? Since when do Republicans oppose capitalism?

Better to be paid to speak than be paid not to speak.
That way you can hide in your cave and paint pics of dogs or your favorite bail me out cash cow daddy. Still waiting for the presidential pic of cheney though. But hey Hillary can travel the world and speak intelligently on many subjects while pres cheney and nitwit got arrest warrants waiting in most countries for them because???
Just say cheney/ bush and the gop cringes. The rest is just normal gop low road gutter soup. always is and always will be.

No that won’t be since Jeb Bush will not be the GOP nominee.

I believe Mitt Romney actually pays people to listen to him speak. But it’s OK, they’re into that kind of play.

The safe word is Romneycare.

Charitable fraud is usually practiced by people who can’t command high speaking fees and book advances without a public-spirited front. People are only too happy to pay the Clintons for their work. At this point, every minute they spend fundraising for the Clinton Foundation is taking money out of their pockets. As for what the Foundation does with its money: you can go to the website and look at their audits. You’ll note that their fundraising and administrative costs are quite low.

hey, what happened to the love affair by the GOP with free market principals?