portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article announcements united states

economic justice | government

2008 Wall Street Bailout Treasury Sec. Paulson: "I'm Voting For Hillary Clinton"

so (among other former Bu$hCo enablers — see below) Hank Paulson, best buddy of the 1% calls it.

notify every "liberal" you know, who plans to vote for the 'first woman president'.

Former Bush Treasury secretary: 'I'll be voting for Hillary Clinton'

By Nolan D. McCaskill

06/24/16 06:07 PM EDT

There goes another one.

Hank Paulson, chairman of the Paulson Institute and a former Treasury secretary in George W. Bush's administration, will neither vote for Donald Trump in November nor abstain, he wrote in an op-ed published Friday in The Washington Post.

"I'll be voting for Hillary Clinton with the hope that she can bring Americans together to do the things necessary to strengthen our economy, our environment and our place in the world," Paulson wrote. "To my Republican friends: I know I'm not alone."

Paulson is the latest George W. Bush administration official to not only reject the Republican Party's presumptive presidential nominee, but to declare support for Clinton. Former Bush Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage told POLITICO last week he would vote for Clinton.

What part of "lesser evil" voting don't you understand? 25.Jun.2016 13:57

Mike Novack

This is NOT a suggestion that you should do likewise. Make up your own mind. But please don;t misinterpret the meaning of other people casting a "lesser evil" vote.

But while there are many good reasons not to vote for Hillary, given the situation where his party's presumptive nominee will be Trump, for a moderate Republican to decide to cast a vote for Hillary does NOT mean she is as bad as a moderate Republican. He simply really doesn't want the alternative.

Paulson is saying he will choose to cast a vote to defeat Trump (as opposed from simply refusing to cast a vote for him).

This time around an awful lot of us will be holding their noses as we cast our votes. Lucky me, I live in a place where I don't have to do that. Hillary will win Massachusetts even if most of the Bernie supporters stay home, vote Green, or whatever. In some of our hill towns in 2000 Bush came in THIRD.

Mike Novack DOESN'T UNDERSTAND (no-one mentioned LE 'till you did) 25.Jun.2016 14:25


Mike Novack wrote:
"misinterpret the meaning"

This was _not_ a post about "lesser evil" voting strategies, Mike. We're all more than informed about that, and your Romper Room comment is not only repetitive but also irrelevant.

in addition you missed this article from Portland Indy Newswire in February, Mike :

Jill Stein: "Lesser Evilism Gives You Nothing To Vote For."

February 12, 2016

When Plan A Meets Plan B: Talking Politics and Revolution with the Green Party's Jill Stein

by Paul Street

We are in a state of emergency and it requires a new way of thinking and political independence

 link to www.counterpunch.org

Mike Novack wrote:
"as opposed from simply refusing to cast a vote for him"

Basic Math For Mike Novack :

here is what happens when I choose not to cast a vote for either Trump or Hillary in November —

Trump = 0 votes
Hillary = 0 votes

i.e. neither of them gain a single vote.

Mike Novack wrote:
"Lucky me, I live in a place where I don't have to do that"

Ever heard of the Electoral College? oh yes you did. That of course is part of the reason we're all in this situation!

'swing states' etc. Yes there will be states that of course your vote DOESN'T EVEN MATTER IN THE Coke vs. Pepsi SEGMENT OF THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.

no news to us, Mike. In fact there is more than one way to look at it (than what you purport/advocate above):

Simply —
our votes (in swing states) don't matter AT ALL.

to the outcome of the Coke v. Pepsi presidential race, that is.


the message [quote: "notify every "liberal" you know, who plans to vote for the 'first woman president'"] in summary part of ^^above post,

including "nose holders" such as yourself (and purported Republican Hank Paulson, AS WELL AS Republicans WHO WILL VOTE FOR TRUMP WHILE "holding their nose"),

is that you all will be in great company with each other.

i.e. you all (Hillary _and_ Trump nose-holding voters alike) get to stew in each other's juice all while holding your noses.

Good luck!

Correction (to above comment) 25.Jun.2016 14:29


Should say,

our votes (in non-swing states)

NOT what I was talking about 26.Jun.2016 05:25

Mike Novack

You apparently did not notice that I was NOT suggesting you or anybody else cast a "lesser evil" vote.

I was talking about the implication that SOMEBODY ELSE choosing to do so (and who that person was) should influence OUR judgement of the candidate favored by that vote. In other words, I was criticizing the implication that PAULSON deciding to cast a "lesser evil" vote for Clinton made her any worse a choice for ME (or you, or anybody else). Or a better choice for that matter.

In other words, the news that Paulson intends to do so (and made it public) should have NO EFFECT on what anybody else chooses and so reporting that "news" as meaning anything (for us) was problematical. For each of us, there are complicated judgements to be made, whether to cast a "lesser evil" vote and WHY to do so (not just in terms of the outcome of the election but if we are supporters of a party, what it means for that party).

OK, it might have relevance for other REPUBLICANS. They after all, might be concerned about what would be good in the long run for their party. So if they thought it very important that Trump be defeated (for the long term good of their party) they have to consider whether they could stomach a Clinton victory and whether in that case they should work for that (or just abstain, etc.)

My reference to my personal situation (living in a state where the outcome of who will come in first not in doubt) was just to be saying that while I will not have to make a "lesser evil" choice I have understanding for people who do feel themselves in that awful position.

PS: The merits of the case for voting Green in this situation is an entirely separate topic. Clearly not relevant for Paulson. To discuss THAT would involve us in the opening a can of worms about how the Greens are or are not considering what is going on within the Democratic Party << less about any decision they make than that the need to CONSIDER options being done >> For the Greens it isn't (or shouldn't be) about Trump vs Clinton but whether they can (and if so, should they) take advantage of the internal fight.

YOU MISSED IT AGAIN, MIKE 26.Jun.2016 12:40


no one CARES what you think, about the purported significance/relevance of Paulson's statement.

no one CARES whether Trump or Clinton are 'better' or 'worse' than each other —

EXCEPT for the people,


"hold my nose"

by definition, are voting for a candidate that would not have been their 'acceptable' choice.

as explained repeatedly in the previous post, this applies _both_ to people voting for either of the 2 major candidates in the November election.

( and even you grudginly admit "OK, it might have relevance for other REPUBLICANS" in your drivel-response above... )

YOU, Mike Novack are by definition (given that you apparently 'care' enough about the 2016 presidential election and have also implied your status as a 'never Trump' voter)

a "hold my nose" voter.

And you share that label with not only millions of other Clinton voters, but also GOP-registered Trump voters, in the election.

( just because this topic happened to be about a former GOP Treasury Secretary's opinion piece about the DNC candidate, doesn't mean that it is a soapbox-forum for Mike Novack to foam on and on about "party choices" among voters in the presidential election ..... "For each of us, there are complicated judgements [sic] to be made, " Lol.

NOBODY CARES what you think. Get in line, vote against Trump, and STFU. )

Mike Novack wrote:
"made her any worse a choice for ME (or you, or anybody else)"

^ This statement Mike, directly implies that ONE of these TWO candidates is perceived by an individual voter as 'better' or 'worse' than the other!

Do you not comprehend that?

Automatically, "hold my nose" means that, well this is the 'lesser' of two evils.

Any voter with the common sense to see that the two 2016 major party presidential candidates, are equally bad won't care about "one being worse than the other".

^This applies to many millions of _registered_ Democrats and Republicans, alike this year not to mention all the independent/unaffiliated citizens and voters.

What about that don't your understand? YOU are the one who automatically imposes the gradation/better-or-worse distinction between the 2 candidates with "hold my nose" framing.

Mike Novack wrote:
"I have understanding for people who do feel themselves in that awful position"

And ^there it is.

Mike Novack has "understanding" for former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, who is also in "that awful position".

p.s. fwiw, whatever .... longtime Reagan era pundit George Will has recently canceled his GOP voter registration:

Forget Paulson and "Lesser Evil". Vote To Continue Living On The Earth! 26.Jun.2016 20:53


{Quote} Clinton responded with both another seeming criticism of Obama—and by suggesting regime change in Syria.

"Yes, when I was secretary of state, I did urge along with the Department of Defense and the CIA that we seek out, vet, and train, and arm Syrian opposition figures so that they could defend themselves against [President Bashar al] Assad. The president said no."

"I think it's only fair to look at where we are in Syria today and yes, I do still support a no-fly zone because I think we need to put in safe havens for those poor Syrians who are fleeing both Assad and ISIS and so they have some place they can be safe," she said. "Nobody stood up to Assad and removed him, and we have a far greater disaster in Syria than we are currently dealing with right now in Libya." {Unquote} -- Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders debate, from Common Dreams, April 15, 2016. Webpage:
 link to www.commondreams.org

{Quote} How well the candidate from either party satisfies 7 questions from a particular group of people will determine who the President of the United States will be after this election. The winner will be the one that proves they are the most willing to go to war with Russia and China after they are elected. Will you do your part and vote for them?


The following 7 questions are what the combined Eastern and Central European emigres are demanding for votes and electoral votes in 2016. Following that, the proofs of how much weight their gerrymandering has gained in American politics since the early 1950s is supplied. Each emigre population listed had fathers and grandfathers that were Waffen SS or supported them in some fashion. Their families emigrated to the United States only understanding Nationalist/Nazi political views. Their politics never changed. They raise their children to be more committed than they were.

They even advertise their pride in their own Waffen SS soldiers that when combined took part in the murder of more than 2 million people. When each of their respective countries was freed, these same governments in exile and ethnic groups delivered the same ultra-nationalist government models their grandparents had in WWII as Axis countries or pre-WWII as Prometheans Group members. And no one ever had to answer for this.

(0) From the CEEC [Central and East European Coalition]- As President, what would your strategy be to deal with Russian aggression in Ukraine and threats in Central and Eastern Europe? What options would you employ to achieve Russia?s withdrawal from lands it unlawfully controls, such as Crimea, eastern Ukraine, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and Transnistria?
(1) What is your position on the current sanctions against Russia?
(2) How do you view NATO?s role in countering Russian aggression? What is your position on maintaining U.S. /NATO equipment and troops permanently in the CEE region? Please provide specifics.
(3) Do you favor NATO enlargement to include countries such as Georgia and Ukraine?
(4) What is your position on the Visa Waiver Program?s possible expansion to include other CEE countries, such as Poland?
(5) What is your position on U.S. assistance to ensure energy security in the CEE region?
(6) What is your position on the proposed Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP)?"

Ultimately this is about one thing, starting war with Russia and China. For the last 50 years, the one demand all the emigre populations have is the destruction of Russia. {Unquote} -- by GH Eliason, from The Saker, June 15, 2016. Webpage:
 link to thesaker.is

And I simply disagree with that 27.Jun.2016 06:56

Mike Novack

"Any voter with the common sense to see that the two 2016 major party presidential candidates, are equally bad won't care about "one being worse than the other"."

Yes, any voter, who from his or her personal political position finds them EQUALLY bad wouldn't care about one being worse than the other.

But I disagree that would be "any voter with common sense". Look, I do NOT presume that others who do not share MY politics lack common sense. And in any case, not really a matter of which candidate worse in some absolute sense but the election of which would be worse for one's politics << and that is NOT necessarily the same thing >>

Nor does my political disagreement with somebody necessarily mean I hate them as people. It is not pleasant to feel one is forced into a "lesser evil" choice. I can sympathize even with my enemies about that << it doesn't make me any less their enemy >>

"it doesn't make me any less their enemy" — No, makes U their FRIEND. 27.Jun.2016 07:19


You are going to be a comrade of the former Bush Administration Treasury Secretary who bailed out the Wall Street big banks and insurance corporations to the tune of (not millions but) billions of American dollars,

in casting your November 2016 vote for the Clinton ticket.

within the Coke v. Pepsi presidential-electoral system with which we're all provided, and you (Mike Novack, Hank Paulson et al.) are indeed friends.

On the same side. Chosen the identical option. "No less each other's enemy."

Basic Math (Again) For Mike Novack :

here is what happens when a person chooses not to cast a vote for either Trump or Hillary in November —

Trump = 0 votes
Hillary = 0 votes

i.e. neither of them gain a single vote.

there is no way to logically or rhetorically extricate yourself from this self-imposed fate, Mike. now, STFU and vote.

Might I suggest something? 29.Jun.2016 06:12

Mike Novack

Your way of thinking, assuming that just because two are working against a common foe that they must be "friends" will prevent you from understanding some of the biggest events of 20th Century history. Besides making you a lousy "Risk" player.

The reason you are giving for claiming I should be considered friends with Paulson means you would have to claim that the Soviet Union was "friends" with the US and Britain.

And of course you are totally mistaken in thinking that I might PERSONALLY feel forced to be in a "lesser evil" situation. That could only come from your failing to notice I had pointed out that because of where I live I am not.

But supposing I were, that I greatly dislike Trump and that I greatly dislike Clinton does not mean that I dislike them for the same reason. And that would be true for everybody who feels a "lesser evil" pinch. Sticking to the Paulson example, suppose he felt that he could not stomach voting for Clinton. He might stay home, he might vote Libertarian, he might write somebody in. No lets say that I lived in a state where the issue was in doubt but could not stomach voting for Clinton. I might stay home, I might vote Green, I might write somebody in (not the same sort of person Paulson might -- and BTW, although you can't effectively do a write in for a presidential election (need a slate of electors) where I live they DO report such votes.

Still think we would be "friends"?

"dislike them for the same reason" 29.Jun.2016 20:47



(apart from the fact I find it rather curious and troll-ish your repeatedly 'concern'-commenting on this frankly pointless / worthless topic..... wonder why that is? .......... )

no one needs your belabored rationalization/explanation of why you are on exactly the same side, and in 100% league with, former Treasury Secretary and 2008-Wall-Street-bank-bailer-out-in-Chief Hank Paulson in November 2016

we all know that each of us might 'dislike' (FOR EXAMPLE) broccoli for different reasons.

Some of those "reasons" might perhaps be minor gradations or variations-spinoffs of "the same reason".

Just because one, or two of us refused to eat broccoli served to us on a plate, doesn't mean it's the exact same "distaste" we share.

The fact is, though you are using precisely the same rationale when you say :

"Well since the choice this November is between Trump and Hillary, by not doing ______ you are automatically doing _____ ."

We don't need a re-hash of the 'swing state' garbage, yes of course someone who only sees the U.S. president vote ever in anything except Pepsi-vs-Coke glasses, will WANT to "hold their nose" and vote for one to stop "the other" (somehow worse) from happening.

But Paulson's rationale, as is ANYONE's that advocates "We must vote for the bad in order to prevent the worse"


and yet again, a person / U.S. citizen can in fact choose not to provide votes for either Pepsi or Coke.
(Not that it affects the final outcome of the race.... but it does deprive __BOTH__ Pepsi and Coke of an actual U.S. citizen's personal vote.)

I'll spell the math out again for you —
(and btw this has nothing at all to do with what anyone happens to "do" with their vote i.e. even if they don't actually cast a ballot vote for anything/anyone in the U.S. President box, or even cast ZERO votes for _anything_ on the November ballot... never mind write-ins, third party etc.)

here is what happens when a person chooses not to cast a vote for either Trump or Hillary in November —

When a person decides not to actually cast a vote for _either_ of the major candidates in a '2-party' USA presidential election, the result is as follows (in Nov 2016) :

Trump = 0 votes
Hillary = 0 votes

i.e. neither of them gain a single vote.

The rest of you? (Hank Paulson, Mike Novack et al.)

If you vote for one of the 2 (two) provided candidates, i.e. if your vote is for that same candidate's name, you are BY DEFINITION on the same side.

no matter how much you chortle/puke up
"Well, I'm normally a registered Republican but this year since things are so bad/unusual I'm __________" .......

bla bla blah.

or whatever other Mike Novack B.S. explanation / rationale you come up with.

You're still on the same Pepsi-vs-Coke side (depending on name of candidate with which your fealty lies) because you've chosen not only to play the illusory 'Just One of the Two Shall Be Winner' game but also voluntarily surrender your own 'precious' vote for a particular candidate.

You cast the vote (for that candidate), thusly share the victory — or defeat as case may be — with each and every citizen who chose to vote likewise.

(voted for the same 1-of-2-and-only-1-shall-be-victor candidates)

rationales, blurted explanations, excuses "Well it doesn't really mean I support... I'm not really on his/their side" etc. are nothing but verbal-mental diarrhea.

Own it. and stfu

joining Mike Novack et al. — List of GOP / former Bu$h HRC 2016 Endorsers 01.Jul.2016 16:11


Here's the growing list of big-name Republicans supporting Hillary Clinton

By Aaron Blake June 30

This combination of file photos shows Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton (L) on June 15, 2016, and presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump on June 13, 2016. (AFP/Getty Images)

Richard Armitage, Henry Paulson, Brent Scowcroft. Three big-name former George W. Bush administration officials in the past two weeks have announced that they are supporting Hillary Clinton in 2016 — all because Donald Trump is simply a bridge too far for them.

"When it comes to the presidency, I will not vote for Donald Trump," Paulson wrote in The Washington Post last week. "I will not cast a write-in vote. I'll be voting for Hillary Clinton, with the hope that she can bring Americans together to do the things necessary to strengthen our economy, our environment and our place in the world. To my Republican friends: I know I'm not alone."

He's not. And below are the big names that are with him — or, perhaps more accurately, with her.

(A note: While many, many Republicans have declined to embrace Trump's candidacy, a growing but significantly smaller group has gone so far as to express support for Clinton. This list focuses on the latter, and it will be updated in the weeks ahead.)

Bush administration officials

Henry Paulson, treasury secretary

Richard Armitage, deputy secretary of state and adviser to Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush — Trump "doesn't appear to be to be a Republican, he doesn't appear to want to learn about issues. So I'm going to vote for Mrs. Clinton."

Brent Scowcroft, chairman of the President's Intelligence Advisory Board and adviser to three previous GOP presidents — "The presidency requires the judgment and knowledge to make tough calls under pressure.... [Clinton] has the wisdom and experience to lead our country at this critical time."

Alan Steinberg, regional EPA administrator

Kori Schake, National Security Council and State Department aide

Advisers to previous GOP presidents

Doug Elmets, former Reagan spokesman — "I could live with four years of Hillary Clinton before I could ever live with one day of Donald Trump as president."

Jim Cicconi, former Reagan and George H.W. Bush aide — "Hillary Clinton is experienced, qualified and will make a fine president. The alternative, I fear, would set our nation on a very dark path."

Foreign policy leaders

Robert Kagan, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and a co-founder of the Project for the New American Century

Max Boot, senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and adviser to GOP presidential candidates — "I'm literally losing sleep over Donald Trump. She would be vastly preferable to Trump."

Peter Mansoor, retired Army colonel and former aide to David Petraeus — "It will be the first Democratic presidential candidate I've voted for in my adult life."

Business leaders/donors

Marc Andreessen, venture capitalist — "[Silicon] Valley wouldn't be here, we wouldn't be doing any of this if we didn't have the amazing flow of immigrants that we've had in the last 80 years. And the idea of choking that off just makes me sick to my stomach."

Dan Akerson, former chairman and chief executive of General Motors — "Serving as the leader of the free world requires effective leadership, sound judgment, a steady hand and, most importantly, the temperament to deal with crises large and small. Donald Trump lacks each of these characteristics."

Chuck Robbins, chief executive of Cisco

Hamid Moghadam, chairman and chief executive of Prologis — "Our country is about tolerance and inclusion and that's why, as a lifelong Republican supporter, I endorse Hillary Clinton for president in this election."

William Oberndorf, $3 million to GOP candidates since 2012 — "If it is Trump vs. Clinton, and there is no viable third-party candidate, I will be voting for Hillary Clinton."

Mike Fernandez, $4 million to GOP candidates in recent years — "If I have a choice — and you can put it in bold — if I have a choice between Trump and Hillary Clinton, I'm choosing Hillary. She's the lesser of two evils."

Former Republican elected officials

Larry Pressler, former three-term Republican senator from South Dakota who lost an independent campaign for his old seat in 2014 — "I can't believe I'm endorsing Hillary Clinton for president, but I am. If someone had told me 10 years ago I would do this, I wouldn't have believed them."

Arne Carlson, a former two-term Republican governor of Minnesota who supported President Obama

Robert Smith, former New York state Supreme Court justice — "This year, I'm going to vote for a Democrat for president&#8202; — &#8202;the first time I've done it in 36 years &#8202;— &#8202;and I think the decision is easy. Hillary Clinton is the only responsible choice, and I don't understand why so few of my fellow conservatives see it that way."

Political operatives

Mark Salter, former top adviser to John McCain — "Whatever Hillary Clinton's faults, she's not ignorant or hateful or a nut. She acts like an adult and understands the responsibilities of an American president. That might not be a ringing endorsement. But in 2016, the year of Trump's s campaign, it's more than enough."

Mike Treiser, former Mitt Romney aide — "In the face of bigotry, hatred, violence, and small-mindedness, this time, I'm with her."
Craig Snyder, former chief of staff to then-Republican former senator Arlen Specter (Pa.) and also an ex-colleague of former top Trump adviser Roger Stone and current top Trump adviser Paul Manafort.


Ben Howe, editor at RedState.com