Tuesday, January 22, 2008
|
|
The Clinton Way
|
|
Posted by:
Hugh Hewitt at
11:45 PM
|
The Wall Street Journal (subscription required) opines on Senator Obama's education in "the Clinton way" of doing politics:
"You know the former President, who I think all of us have a lot of regard for, has taken his advocacy on behalf of his wife to a level that I think is pretty troubling," Mr. Obama told a TV interviewer. "He continues to make statements that are not supported by the facts -- whether it's about my record of opposition to the war in Iraq or our approach to organizing in Las Vegas."
Now he knows how the rest of us feel.
The Illinois Senator is still a young man, but not so young as to have missed the 1990s. He nonetheless seems to be awakening slowly to what everyone else already knows about the Clintons, which is that they will say and do whatever they "gotta" say or do to win. Listen closely to Mr. Obama, and you can almost hear the echoes of Bob Dole at the end of the 1996 campaign asking, "Where's the outrage?"
This has been the core of the conservative critique of the Clintons for years. So it is illuminating to hear the same critique coming from Mr. Obama and his supporters now that his candidacy poses a threat to the return of the Clinton dynasty. Even Democrats are now admitting the Clintons don't tell the truth -- at least until Mrs. Clinton wins the nomination....
"I understand him wanting to promote his wife's candidacy," Mr. Obama added on Sunday, referring to Bill Clinton. "She's got a record that she can run on. But I think it's important that we try to maintain some -- you know, level of honesty and candor during the course of the campaign. If we don't, then we feed the cynicism that has led so many Americans to be turned off to politics."
Welcome to the education of Barack Obama.
My arguments for a Giuliani or Romney candidacy are made with this relentless Clinton attack machine in mind. Not only do you have to be able to counterpunch and to match their money (and the money of Soros et al), the GOP's nominee will have to remain unflappable and capable of turning an attack with a joke or a look of bemusement --a "there they go again" attitude that continually displays a sunny optimism that will contrast well with the Clinton machine's endless machinations. Rarely if ever will anger or even testiness score given the MSM's blanket of protection around them, and every scowl will be categorized as sour grapes and a sign of failure.
Energy, ideas, smarts, blunt though not angry talk and supreme good humor can beat them.
|
|
"Energy, ideas, smarts, blunt though not angry talk and supreme good humor can beat them."
I agree the way to beat the Clinton machine is to avoid crawling in the mud with them.
But Mitt Romney will be beaten by the Clintons, and beaten very badly. You, Hugh, are a big part of it. Had Mitt run as he truly was, without all the pandering and shape-shifting, he might have made a very formidable candidate. But with his high negatives (higher than even Hillary which is saying a lot) and his flip flops, the Clintons will have their way with him like an old barn cat with a mouse.
John McCain is the strongest canidate against Hillary (or Obama). You are right, the dems will unify with Hillary and Obama (Bill knows he cannot risk the black vote going elsewhere)--it will be a tough team to beat. McCain can exploit weaknesses in the Billary machine that Mitt cannot. McCain is immune to many of their attacks, Mitt will not be.
I really want to win in 2008. It is important. |
|
Going snowmobiling for a weekend in the mountains is great. Having to live there for years during the national nightmare of Hillary in Charge would be very difficult.
You are all welcome at my fire. Even Hugh. I will share a cup of joe (or reconstituted juice as the case may be) and not even say "I told you so." The dutch oven will be on with whatever game we catch that day. |
|
I really want to win in 2008, too, and that's why McCain can't be the nominee. In 2004 the GOP had to turn out all of its base in order to barely win. McCain can't turn out the base like that. He's cultivated too much antipathy. And he has no Rove to engineer such a feat.
"But he gets the center and independents." Right now, during the primary, that is true. But not during the general. He's going to be branded as a miserly old tightwad just like Clinton and MSM did to Dole in 1996. It'll be over before September. Once the Dems crown a nominee, the MSM will turn on McCain like Old Yeller with rabies.
And McCain won't have the money Bush 2004 had.
The key to beating Hillary is to carve into her woman demographic in about 6 states, including Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin. McCain has no prayer of doing this. Romney does. |
|
|
|
McCain's wife, Cindy, introduces him and notes that their family has experienced big changes over the past year with their two sons' chosen paths. "One decided to join the Navy and the other decided to join the Marine Corps," she said, drawing cheers. "I want my sons back like everybody else but I want them back having done their duty, and with honor and in dignity and most of all in victory." This is how honorable men serve their country - When it comes to leading this country in military matters and holding the title commander in chief - The 6 Romney men do not hold a candle to these 3 McCain men, and NO running daddy's campaign is not serving your country.
|
|
|
be able to handle the Clinton machine. The guy could bearly keep up with George stephanopolis when his ads. came up. The Clintons will crash him and during debates Hillary will not be gentle with his "half statements" and exaggerated truths. She will also link him with LDS practices and ask him to denounce them in public - which we all know he can't because it is revelation knowledge - all this will happen during the last debate and one week to the presidential election. They will then find, all the deals he has closed with "questionalbe" clients and every little thing he has said about lobbysts while using them for free advise.....considering Mitt does not get more than 10% of evangelicals, minorities and people who earn less than 75K, Hillary wins with 43-45%. |
|
You all need to stop putting so much faith in these head-to-head polls for a general election that's 11 months away.
I think Romney fares very well against Hillary. He is a good family man with a spotless ethical record throughout his career; Hillary is an opportunist who couldn't even keep her family together in the White House and who has been at the forefront of most of the major Clinton ethical scandals (besides Lewinsky).
Romney has a plan to reduce taxes across the board, including a reduction for the lowest income bracket and an elimination of payroll taxes for citizens 65 or older; Clinton will inevitably have to unveil her tax raises "on the rich", which means across the board tax raises.
Romney totally and consistently has opposed amnesty for illegals, which sits well with independents; Hillary, who has spoken very equivocally about the subject, supports amnesty.
Romney is an entrepreneur who has a lifetime of executive leadership[ and accomplishment; Hillary has ridden Bill's coat-tail into the spotlight and her own abilities are largely unverified.
Romney has put Massachusetts on the path towards providing universal health coverage without raising taxes; Hillary talks about the issue a great deal, but her plan would require a tremendous increase in government funds and her 1993 attempt was a universal failure.
Overall, it's important to consider not the fluid polls which change daily and which will inevitable change dramatically over the next 11 months, but rather to think about the issues and the ability of the main candidates to compare favorably to Hillary.
Mitt Romney is the guy in '08! |
|
|
Don't hand the presidency to Hillary on a platter. Mitt is weak. I mean come on Dan, he spent millions and more than a year to win Iowa and New Hampshire. He owns a home in New Hampshire for goodness sake. He should have trounced Huck and McCain by 30 points in both states. |
|
I am amazed by all soothsayers and endorsements and Polls of 553 people that are vying for the title of "the One and Only One" capable of predicting who the next president of our country will be.
Has the self-esteem in this country fallen so low that our citizens have to depend on the endorsement of another person to tell them how to vote?
Has America fallen to the point that we depend on polls or horoscopes to predict our future? If you stay away from election day because a poll tells you your candidate can’t win – if you change your vote to a person because a poll tells you that that person is a better candidate than who you really want to vote for…then all those brave men and women who have fought and died for your freedom have died in vain.
And all those men and women putting their lives on the line in Iraq to insure free elections are foolish. And you are no better than a battered wife who listens to the sugary sweet talk of her batterer and refuses to see the truth in his actions. You are not free and we are wasting HUNDREDS of Millions of Dollars on elections. We should elect the person picked by those 500 people randomly called between coffee breaks because your actions have made that poll a self-fulfilling prophecy. |
|
.."angry talk" it was, angry talk it is, and angry talk it shall be. The only thing that trumps Republican anger, where the Clintons are concerned, is their enormous capacity for self-deception.
But, yeah, let's see you run a campaign against the Clintons in "supreme good humor." More like nasty bile masquerading as condescending prattle. |
|
Hugh,
Why is the Wyoming delegate count missing in your delegate total? |
|
|
it's his inability to explain his inconsistent record that makes him a phoney. Let me put it this way, given his investment in this campaign, his polls are still too weak because there is no way to explain his complete record and Mitt's multiple version for each state without begging the question - what does this guy really believe and what will he do as president? He panders too much and makes up reality i.e. NRA endorsements, seeing his parents marching with MLK etc and the Clintons will define him as a sociopath that can't be trusted just by using his past video clips on immigration, taxes, abortion, gun control, and the list is too long to list. |
|
The election of Mz. Rodham will unleash a wave of venom from the right unlike the first Clinton term.
The lying liars of the left will be ready with their lies to counter rabid attacks of the righteous right and all hell will break loose.
The best thing that could happen to our country would be for the Clintons to be sent packing.
Let's see if the Democrat ready give a crap about "bipartisanship".
Obama would be a refreshing change. Clinton would be a disaster. |
|
Patriotic Liberal wrote;
---------------
"...'angry talk' it was, angry talk it is, and angry talk it shall be. The only thing that trumps Republican anger, where the Clintons are concerned, is their enormous capacity for self-deception.
But, yeah, let's see you run a campaign against the Clintons in "supreme good humor." More like nasty bile masquerading as condescending prattle."
---------------
Yeah, we Republicans are all anger, all the time !
Ha, ha, ha.
Patriotic Liberal, despite your chain smoking and your cynical insults for everyone---including the time you shamelessly wrote that the 'real reason' that Dean Barnett was really angry at Michael Vick's inhumane dogfighting was because Vick is BLACK---despite all that, I'm certain you're really just a happy-go-lucky chap with a sunny disposition and a hop & skip in his walk.
Smile, buddy.
|
|
|
I know , lets have a McCain /Dole ticket . Maybe McCain / Huck . Pubbies , onward into the past. |
|
Ignore OHM's nonsense, my friend. You're correct, as you usually are. And oh yes, just when I'm getting totally fed up with the Clintons and thinking I might actually vote for McCain if he's the nominee against her, I read a reference to "her thighness" and remember what we're really up against.
But the next few weeks, I'll be working for Obama, that's for sure.
|
|
You all need to(re)read SHAKESPEARE. His portrait of the ruthless,lying,Will-to-POWER virago has never been surpassed.(Nor consequences which obtain after she has achieved her imagined self-apotheosis). Bill
Clinton is consummate MIRROR/MIRROR/on the wall
narcissist. Hillary is...on the other hand
...genuinely dangerous. "Hell has no fury,like a woman scorned" is averred of the mythological Medea: God help this country/World if this is ever subjected to (what Jung termed)the Black Anima unleashed. Folks,look to mythology...not BS, entertainment-driven, PM polls...to reveal what is lurching from the depths of our nation's collective
anti-Polity.
Arthur McVarish, Houston |
|
Obama is a liberal but he's not an idealogue like the Clintons.He wouldn't have a grand scheme socialist agenda like the Clintons would. This is the 60's liberals last chance and they know it.I don't think you can underestimate the Clinton hatred in this country but it might not be enough to stop her. The biggest problem Obama faces in the latino vote. Hillary saying no woman is illegal was a great signal to the latinos that she would induce amnesty and they are lapping it up.It's no coincidence that the Cal. Farm Workers Union endorsed her yesterday.There is below the radar racism of latinos towards blacks also. This is where the problem with McCain comes in. Those same latino voters would go with her over McCain because they have a clear shot at the endzone of amnesty. At the same time Mccain alienates the GOP base voter who despises this position. There's a sizable chunk of the latino vote that's for law and order and closing the border. They will have no where to go with McCain being the nom. People that are supporting Mccain are going to have wrist slitting buyers remorse because they are supporting him on electibility and not ideology.
McCain is more interested in buying the media's love than standing up for core conservative values.I don't believe in selling your soul to win an election. I'd even take the Huckster over McCain right now. At least the guy is willing to moderate his positions. I have this sinking feeling that Rudi,Romney and Huck are going to split the anti-MCain vote and hand him Florida.Most of the Fred Thompson establishment vote will go to Mccain.Rudi is peeling the moderate social values vote away from Romney.People need to wake up and realize the media has an agenda to keep pushing Mccain. |
|
Let's get straight. 2008 is going to be tough year for Republicans. We will be swimming upstream with an unpopular President in the White House.
Romney seems to be the favorite of the conservative blogasphere. He is certainly Rush's favorite. The problem is how he stitches together an electoral majority, let alone vote majority. It seems to me he can at most hope to hold together most of the Bush states. He will have problems with Arkansas, Iowa, New Mexico, and Ohio. Virginia and North Carolina could also be a problem. He will not have much of an ability to go beyond that. The local problems in Ohio make it very likely any Republican will have problems there. If Ohio goes Dem, it is over. Republican candidates in the Northeast and Midwest will again be left on there own with no help from the top of the ticket.
McCain and Giuliani have some chance to break out of this mold and make the Dems fight for other states. They could give top of the ticket support for those below.
A last point. Zeb Miller says the Democrat Party is a national party no more. Neither is the Republican Party in the northeast and midwest. We have only one House member in New England. We have very few in New York. From Minnesota and Iowa east we have only 9 senators out of 36. Seats in New Hampshire and Minnesota may be on the ropes this year. Of those 9, 3 are definitely RINOs. But they do help create a majority, I do not see how Romney helps with this situation. He has no appeal to independents. We lost the Pennsylvania seat by over a million votes on 2006. That was with a candidate very popular with the Repbublican base.
The base better realize it is not big enough this year to elect a President.
|
|
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney likes to tell Republican voters that he is the true conservative because, unlike Sen. John McCain, he has not been "part of the Washington scene for a quarter of a century."
Yes, McCain has been in Congress since first elected in 1982, but he never succumbed to the Beltway Culture of Spending, whereas Romney fell into Washington's big spending trap somewhere between Michigan and Florida.
As Romney courted the Michigan vote, he proposed a $20 billion energy research/auto industry bailout plan likely to appeal to the Motor City state. Later, touting himself as the turnaround guy for a flailing economy, Romney released his own $233 billion stimulus package -- a price tag that dwarfs President Bush's $145 billion proposal.
In the package, Romney cooked up a pricey way to court Florida's powerful senior vote: He proposed a permanent elimination of payroll taxes on seniors. And he opposed "any increase in Social Security taxes."
The man who says he is not a creature of Washington presented no spending cuts in the stimulus package. Romney spokesperson Sarah Pompei said that the price tag is big because it needs to be "large enough and immediate enough to have an impact to help turn around the economy." And while there are no specific spending cuts, in general Romney wants "to cut wasteful spending in Washington." Forget that without spending cuts, Plan Romney can only further expand the federal budget deficit.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/01/the_real_ conservative_republic.html |
|
LIE #4: John McCain supports higher taxes.
TRUTH: John McCain has never voted for an increase in tax rates in 25 years in Congress—never – and clearly and consistently supports cutting and simplifying taxes.
Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform has acknowledged that even though McCain refuses to take the “no new taxes” pledge he has kept that pledge with his voting record, throughout his service in the Senate and the House. Yes, he did vote against Bush tax cuts – but did so because no cuts in spending accompanied the cuts in taxes. Unlike some of his colleagues, he insists that tax cuts and increased revenues won’t be enough to close the deficit – there must be spending cuts as well. It’s increasingly obvious that he’s right: tax cuts without spending cuts won’t shrink the national debt or trim the size of government. He currently supports making all the Bush tax cuts permanent before their schedule expiration in 2010 to allow individuals and businesses to plan their futures without uncertainty. He also backs an immediate cut in the corporate tax rate from 35% (second highest rate in the world) to 20% (one of the lowest in the world) as a means of stimulating the economy and creating jobs. He also backs instituting new rules requiring a super majority – a three-fifths vote of both houses of Congress-- rather than simple majorities, to approve any tax increases. This would make it vastly more difficult for future Congresses (even under Democratic control) to take more money from hard-working Americans.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MichaelMedved/2008/01/23 /six_big_lies_about_john_mccain |
|
Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf, the heavily decorated Gulf War commander, will endorse Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) on Wednesday, a Republican source said.
McCain is stumping in Florida and Schwarzkopf is in Colorado. But the general is likely to appear on the campaign trail with McCain soon.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0108/8059.html
|
|
You could dig up Grant, Lee, Eisenhower, and 100 other old generals, get them to endorse McCain and I will not vote for him.
Amnesty IS Surrender
Any amnesty is surrender, not only to the demands of citizens of other countries illegally in our country, but also to those who have been encouraging them to break our laws. Corporations have been paying off our politicians to subvert enforcement of existing laws since they were passed in 1986. We won't be bamboozled again. The jig is up. We know this is not about immigration, it is about importing cheap labor. ENFORCE THE LAW NOW. SECURE THE BORDER NOW. Maybe after 20 years of action, to make up for the 20 years of inaction we've had, we can talk about immigration reform.
|
|
|
Trouble is you are voting for Hillary Clinton, not intentionally, but that is what you are doing. |
|
You do not like McCain the Man?
I do not like him, Joe-I-am.
Could you like him, with a goat?
I would not, could not, with a goat!
Could you like him, on a boat?
I could not, would not, on a boat.
I will not, will not, with a goat.
I will not like him in the rain.
I will not like him on a train.
Not in the dark! Not in a tree!
Not in a car! You let me be!
I will not like him in a box.
I will not like him with a fox.
I will not like him in a house.
I do not like them with a mouse.
I do not like him here or there.
I do not like him ANYWHERE!
I do not like McCain the Man!
I do not like him, Joe-I-am.
You do not like him.
So you say.
Consider the alternative.
And you may.
Consider Hillary and you may, I say.
Joe!
If you will let me be, I will consider him.
You will see.
[at which point in our story, the heretofore tormented conservative hero cautiously considers McCain as the GOP nominee]
Say!
I like McCain the Man!
I do! I like him, Joe-I-am!
And I would vote for him in a boat.
And I would vote for him with a goat...
And I will vote for him in the rain.
And in the dark. And on a train.
And in a car. And in a tree.
John is so good, so good, you see!
So I will vote for him in a box.
And I will vote for him with a fox.
And I will vote for him in a house.
And I will vote for him with a mouse.
And I will support him here and there.
Say! I will vote for him ANYWHERE!
I do so like
McCain the Man!
Thank you!
Thank you,
Joe-I-am!
|
|
|
Your arguments for a Giuliani candidacy, Hugh?? I must have missed those. |
|
|
|
|
Good post, and the argument that I have been making all along. This is going to be a TOUGH election for the GOP, which means we need a candidate who brings normally Democratic states into play come Nov. Which blue states does Romney bring into play? The answer is 'none'. And even more disturbing, can he win the "Solid South" for the GOP? With his showing in SC and a possible loss in FL, I'm starting to doubt this as well. To me, only McCain and Guiliani have a shot in November, while Mitt would be destroyed. In all honesty, those arguing that Mitt can be elected should respond and explain to me their argument, because I see no way he can be elected in Nov. |
|
Heaven help him when he learns the truth about McCain. We've got to do an intervention before it's too late.
How many posts today, Joe? 100? 200? I lost count. |
|
|
People who cross the Clintons seem to have bad things happen to them. Juanita Broaddrick. |
|
That's my creation for bumper stickers & posters this year. RightWingStuff.Com is gonna make me some x-tra spending $$ marketing the little piece of troot.
The more Bubba's out there expending wind and fire, the more the country is going to flash back to the unimaginable costs of a Hillary--WITH BILLY ABOARD--Presidency. This will be GooooooD. |
|
Female??????
I take whatcha'call umbrage to that. Der Sleazmeister and his Bride ain't worth your silly time defending, Briggsy. Promise. |
|
Is the kid glove treatment McCain is getting from the media. Could it be they are proping up the old guy, knowing that Ms. Clinton and the clinton machine will eat him for lunch. I'm voting for the guy who stands tall, and talks from experience regarding the economy. Put McCain as secdef, but not as Potus. He's too old, and too dottering.
Romney can and will beat any Democrate on the ticket. A poll so far in advance is just not accurate. |
|
|
i compete in Dutch Oven comptitions. Have won a few too! If Hillary becomes POTUS, can I come too? |
|
|
Clinton Fatigue - the reunion tour. |
|
Here's another..."Remember Clinton Fatigue? Do You Want CLINTON EXHASUSTION?"
It's important, more than mere English words can say, to ponder the costs to our country of those two Bottomless Appetites screeching around the White House again.
Queenmum: Welcome Aboard. You're a fine addition to us righties here at HH! |
|
|
I would be pulling for McCain. Other than the war, the result will be the same for us, regardless if it's Hillary or John. Gore-bull warming taxes, judges Teddy approves of, and amnesty. |
|
...and you know, how much that derails the incredible anger which all of us conservatives suffer from. Hahahahahahahahahhaahahahahahah (chokin', no jokin).
BTW, did you catch Mrs. Clinton in that debate exchange with Obama?---Oh yeah, one does not need conservatism for the REAL fur to fly, She had the words, "slum lord" outta her mouth (in debate tone-changing allegations) faster than her thought process could register.
And this whole falderal with Bill actively, aggressively campaigning for her was summed up beautifully by Obama, while responding to Shrillary's smug retort, "Bill's not in this debate!"
Obama: "Frankly, sometimes I don't know who it is I am campaigning against". Man, if verbal punches could land any better on the jaw----I have never seen it.
The Clintons will drag Obama into their gutter any chance they get. And we aint seen nothin' yet. The same gutter they wallowed in during the entire decade of the 90's.
Neo......sign me up for a bumper sticker. Now that my personal cars are no longer in southern California, I do not need to be concerned about the damage they sustained while sporting a McClintock sticker in the Gray Davis-recall-gubernatorial election just a few years ago. Someone scratched the paint while "X-ing" out his name with a sharp objects.
You know what they say about sharp objects and democrats? Only their tongues can do more damage. |
|
This place is starting to smell much sweeter with your presence.
I relish your idea of a sticker. |
|
Is this that time you were talking about a few weeks ago?----you know-----when the men in white coats come in and fit JOE with one of those jackets.
It would appear that you called that one pretty well. SO, who is going to win the Super Bowl? |
|
Laborlawyer wrote;
--------------
"And oh yes, just when I'm getting totally fed up with the Clintons and thinking I might actually vote for McCain if he's the nominee against her, I read a reference to "her thighness" and remember what we're really up against."
--------------
Laborlawyer,
Does the fact that a third party referred to Hillary as "her thighness" get under your skin so much that it would truly affect your vote in November ?
Brother, that's pretty hilarious. |
|
Your killin' me. You are only pointing out how petty Lib's can be when it serves their purpose.
I would love to laugh with you in more detail, about additional examples, however, I have already been identified as an angry conservative by another Liberal poster, and jovial commeraderie is simply not acceptable behavior within our ranks.
Unless, of course, you are being cunningly deceptive with your comments about thighs----geeesh, I can never truly tell with you "self-deceptive" types. LOL.
;( |
|
Clarityseeker,
We both know how Laborlawyer and Patriotic Liberal like to play that costume game where they dress up as the pot & the kettle and then ridicule everyone else for the way they dress.
If my comments elicit you to laugh, I'm merely trying to keep up with you, our pal Neo, and our new friend QueenMum.
Frankly, I'm guessing that Laborlawyer's visceral response to the comment 'bout Hillary's thighs is a poker tell that that particular remark struck a little too close to home for him.
Though, I wonder if Laborlawyer was likewise "bitterly offended" about a fat joke when Al Franken titled his book, "Rush Limbaugh is a Big, Fat, Idiot."
By the way, I think our boy Dean Barnett is going to be doin' some celebrating when his "Patriotic Liberals"---oops, I mean, when his Patriots win the Super Bowl. |
|
|
I agree 100% with your assessment of the Clinton's and their character, but I also wonder why you can't see that Bush is the exact same thing. They're too sides of the same coin: Both of them machine candidate dynasties led by smooth-talking liars who are fueled by nothing but their own self-regard and startling sense of entitlement. F*** them both. |
|
Oh, you mean, you did not hear anything from LaboriousLawyer (laughing hysterically) when some very "self-deceptive" types on the Left called our president, Bush-is-Hitler?
OHM, you heard, did you not, the deafening silence from LaboriousLawyer and Pathetic Liberal when the liberal college newspaper at Colorado State University, ran the erudite, pithy, not-too-angry headline, FU*K BUSH in text that would otherwise take up 250 words of editorial space?
Let's see, a remark such as, "Her Thighness" moves a pathetic lawyer from one party's candidate, McCain, to the competitive party's candidate, Obama. Earthquakes cannot affect that much of a tectonic shift.
And, FU*K BUSH gets a ho hum, Yaaaaaaaaaaawn.
|
|
|
I am with you 100% on this one. I honestly wasn't as invested in politics while Clinton was in office but I did think the vitriol directed at him and his wife was over-the-top and sometimes unfair. In the past month or so I've come to realize that while some of Clinton's detractors were/are deranged ... Bill and Hillary have proven them at least partially true. The Clintons are not good, decent or honest people. In their pursuit of power, they are willing to employ all the dirty tricks they used to decry when used against them. The Reagan/Republican line of attack is a perfect example. Bill and Hillary certainly know better, but there's no regard for the truth. They are deliberately and brazenly distorting what Obama said to drag him down to their own scummy level and force his campaign to respond. I'm also repulsed by their surrogates' (Penn and Johnson) repeatedly invoking his past drug use. What's really rich is that the Clintons don't even bother to defend themselves from the charges they lob at Obama. Hillary takes it for granted that everyone knows she's a cynical, lying, flip-flopping opportunist who'll do anything for a vote. The message from her campaign is "See? That Obama guy is just as bad as us!" The both of them are a disgrace. |
|
Yours seems to be a genuine statement,
"I honestly wasn't as invested in politics while Clinton was in office but I did think the vitriol directed at him and his wife was over-the-top and sometimes unfair."
Please consider what you would consider as "vitriol" directed at them?
In your opinion, what is it that was over-the-top?
Mike, riddle me this one. If you were not as "invested", by admission, way back then, how is it that you are able to honestly distinguish between something being "vitriol" vs. deserved criticism?
Just asking.
I know what I was saying back then. And I sure was not slinging vile language. I wondered how a woman could have come on 60 minutes in 1991 and vehemently defend her husband's defiant defensiveness of a 12 year sexual affair with some former Arkansas journalist, Jennifer Flowers-----only to learn of its TRUTH, 2 years later. Then to go through the same thing with Paula Jones, and others. That 60 minutes display was my first introduction to these otherwise little known politicians. I gave them every benefit of the doubt at the time. I thought it very strange, this introduction to the country via this widely viewed t.v. news magazine.
Is it not possible, that what you perceived, at the time as vitriol, was understandable anger? Bill and Hillary did their best to destroy Jennifer Flowers' credibility before Bill's admission of guilt with Flowers. My first question: You mean he now admits to 12 years of lurid affair in Arkansas with Jennifer Flowers and Hillary knew nothing of it? Yeah, right. And they both did their best to destroy this woman? Then he was back in court with some bimbo, Paula Jones? At the time, my head was spinning.
|
|
So, who was vitriolic? Jennifer Flowers for making allegations which Bill denied and then fessed up to?
Paula Jones, for making allegations (with very incriminating details about his Johnson) of impropriety, which Bill settled for in amt. of $850K?
Those FBI files found to be in their white house living room, which they denied any knowledge of in how it got there. Yeah, right.
Mike, I'm just curious. You claim, now, to see some of the true nature of the Clintons but you consider it to be absent in the 1980's and 1990's? You do not think these two came out of the gate of national recognition with fists and fur flying? |
|
are back here. Durn place has become way over-infested with Paulbot Nutters. Whew, I'd forgotten what a boost of lefty insanity could give us. Brob & LePeep are IN AGREEMENT that Clintons are sleazemeisters. Progress. Then, I grinned winningly when LePeep(or, was it Brobster?)sternly maintained that, of course, President Bush is the same as them. And, then said our Prez is a smooth talker!!!!!!! GAWD, somebody STOP ME, I'm gonna pee from laughing my neocon arse off. "Smooth" and our man 'W' in the same sentence!!!! Yep, his 'strategery' has been 'misunderestimated'
because of his amoral-sociopathic smoothiosity!!!
Little Lefty Squids, sometimes, after too many Paulbots, I almost wish them well. |
|
...wake up (as if out of a deep sleep) to what scum the Clintons are....
Some of us were waaaaaaay ahead of them..... |
|
got 'W' pegged as a grifter, too! Following that tried & true Lib-Left Rule: If it flies like a Duck, quacks like a Duck, looks like a Duck and has beady little concupisant eyes like a Damned Duck...IT MUST BE A PIG!
Paddy: Take a quick peek at Elderscapes.townhall.com to the comments on the thomas Sowell post of a couple-three days back. See what'cha think. |
|
Clarity:
For example, referring to a sitting President as a "scumbag" or implying that he sold state secrets to the Chinese or had Vince Foster murdered. There were a lot of legitimate reasons to criticize Bill Clinton but some of the criticism coming from the right was so spurious, over-the-top and deranged that it actually helped Bubba (successfully) play the victim.
Neoconscum:
I don't respond to your subliterate blatherings. |
|
I suppose we'll simply have to agree to disagree. I never called the guy those things, however, by the end of that decade, I had grown so weary of what they had put me through, I considered him toast. I called him a bald-faced liar.
Fortunately for you, you were not "invested". I wish I had been fortunate enough to live similarly.
You know, I could never understand why women defended him so much. All of the ladies I knew in so Cal, while living there, showed their claws to Jennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Juanita Broaddrick, Monica Lewinsky and the others. Apparently all of these females mentioned are "opportunists", according to the women I spoke with at the time.
Maybe Hillary looked at it the same way. Perhaps she considered that all of those women threw themselves at her husband. Frankly, I think Hillary did more damage to women in the way in which she dealt with it. Giving her man this perennial pass sent a pretty sad message to women around the country. And contributing to the character destruction of these women made it all seem, well, orchestrated. Pretty creepy altogether. It eventually led me to believe that what they had was an "understanding". |
|
Christopher Hitchens (just on radio with Hugh) was not as kind to Bill and Hillary as he has been to Christianity in his comments.
Gosh, Mr. Hitchens, tell us how you really feel? |
|
1.)LePeep doesn't--will NOT, I tell ya--respond to my subliterate blatherings. God luv'um, it's cute to have some Lefties back, ain't it?
2.)I caught only 5-minutes of Hugh's talk with Hitch, but heard the pesky Brit refer to Billy Bubba thusly: "The fellow is enormously slight." I just about blew a tooth on that one.
3.)I identify with your bumper sticker sabotage while living in the Peoples Republic of L.A. During the late days of the '04 campaign my car was keyed through the--OUTRAGE--"Support Our Troops" sticker. It was in my parking garage spot at the Mouse Studio in Burbank. So, I went to RightWingStuff.com & got a couple more stickers and dispayed them:"10 Out of 10 Terrorists say, ANYBODY BUT BUSH!" and another that showed a keyed Bush-Cheney sticker & said,"A Person of Tolerance & Diversity KEYED MY CAR!" Loved It.
4.)Ain't it FUN having Brobby & LePeep back in tow to eviscerate? I'm really bored by the Paulbot Infestation. Snicker...Giggle...Coool. |
|
The thing is, this place has been quite humid over the past few months. It's required that I place two layers of "Depends" under my armpits, opposed to the normal single-layer, to absorb the moisture from all of the hot air hanging thickly over the slightness of those pleading their candidate allegiances.
1.) Dude, it is exactly your subliterate blatherings which is most redemptive about you. If you lose that, all you'll have is your devotion to the Missus. I'm not sayin'there's anything wrong with that, I'm just sayin'.
2.) Looking forward to your deconstruction of the Billary pillory by Mr. Hitchens; can't understand him with all of those marbles in his mouth. I dare say, he's not lost a bit of hitch in his giddyup. His comments seem to fly square in the face of that smug post by pathetic liberal above.
3.) That bumper sticker caper was quite the kicker, and made my decision to depart so much sweeter. So much for "freedom of thought", and "freedom of speech", "freedom of expression", in the "Poppy State". The libs and leftists there are intolerant. I had actually made my own sticker,
"No Bush?, That' sKerry".
I figured it would take those Dims awhile to figure out what it meant---by the time they did, my vehicle would be long gone. Little did I know they would hunt me down, the scallawags. |
|
Anyone who pretends that it makes no difference whether Hillary or McCain is sitting at that desk is so blinded by self-righteous ire that he’d risk the survival of civilization to make some arcane political point.
If McCain wins the nomination (by no means a sure thing), all true Republicans and sane conservatives will support him. Those who do not are RINO’s—Republicans In Name Only—with no true commitment to our party and its principles.
Those who abandon the GOP because they don’t get their way will follow Pat Buchanan into irrelevance and embarrassment. In 2000, the three-time GOP contender insisted that he couldn’t choose between George W. Bush and Al Gore. His Reform Party campaign drew only one-sixth the votes of Ralph Nader – and less than 00.3% of the total. His efforts didn’t succeed in “purging” the Republican Party, but they did purge Pitchfork Pat himself of all political influence.
http://michaelmedved.townhall.com/blog/g/9f591751-f113-4c3b -a6ec-d25f332666b7
|
|
|
|
Rush Limbaugh IS a big fat idiot:)
|
|
Just shows how idiotic your show must be, as a matter of fact it shows how little regard you have for America and I for one will call you out on it - you may have a little pull now, but when the revolution comes your way, we will run over you...and you will have to go back to your hole.
Ron Paul is the only current candidate that wants to help the poeple...not the press, the pundits, the corporations, the NEOCON cronies, and that is why we the poeple will have our leader - just get that straight. we are coming for you! |
|
with the sentiments about Rush, from her sleazy lawyer compadre.
Birds of a feather... |
|
|
|