Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

January 2, 2008

ROMNEY TAKES THE LOW ROAD....It's likely my standards are low, but I've been relatively pleased that the presidential race has featured very little talk about the Lewinsky scandal. Going into the race, I was a little worried the media would be preoccupied with this nonsense, and Republican candidates, anxious to score cheap points, would make hay of the decade-old controversy.

By and large, that hasn't happened. But leave it to Mitt Romney to take the low road.

"We'll try and represent ourselves and our nation well also to our kids because I think, I think kids watch the White House and there have been failures in the past in the White House -- if you go back to the Clinton years and recognize that -- that I think had an enormous impact on the culture of our country," Romney said. "And we'll do our very best, our whole family will to -- well, if we can't be perfect, we'll do our best to uphold and to be a good example for the kinds of values I think people expect from our leaders."

Wow, that sure is dumb. The Lewinsky scandal had an "enormous impact" undermining American culture? Seriously?

This is actually the second time Romney has given up on decency in emphasizing this, the first coming in October when the former governor said the Clintons hurt "our nation's character."

This strikes me as misguided. First, I haven't seen any polling data on this, but I really doubt voters still care about the Lewinsky scandal a decade later. Indeed, there was scant evidence voters cared about the scandal at the time. If anyone looks bad 10 years after the fact, it's the Republican attack machine that launched an absurd impeachment crusade.

Second, if Romney really wants to go after a rival candidate over "family values," he's picked the wrong target. Indeed, the first two admitted adulterers to ever seek a major party presidential nomination are Rudy Giuliani and John McCain. (Is this some kind of bank-shot attack? If it is, it's awfully clunky.)

I can appreciate the fact that Romney is in a tough spot right now, but gratuitous references to Clinton scandals in the 1990s only make him look desperate and classless.

Steve Benen 12:58 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (83)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Bank shot indeed, with a direct attack on Clinton herself. And it reinforces the "good old days conservative" message that Romney is aiming for. Can't we all just pretend it's the 50's again and all that. The Reagan makeover without the years of taking money shilling for the conservatives.

Posted by: K on January 2, 2008 at 1:05 PM | PERMALINK

The major effect an occupant of the White House has had on our national character was when Nixon taught Republicans that it's ok to trash the Constitution as long as you're beating up on Democrats and hippies.

Posted by: tomeck on January 2, 2008 at 1:08 PM | PERMALINK

I would have liked a more substantial critique of Romney's misplaced set of moral values wherein a personal moral failing is infinitely more evil than starting a war based on lies that leads to deaths of tens of thousands of human beings.

Posted by: gregor on January 2, 2008 at 1:08 PM | PERMALINK

He's just trying to solidify support among the Clinton Derangement Syndrome crowd. I expect he was wild with envy at Huckabee's hard-to-top achievement of freeing a rapist/murderer to appease the crazed Clinton haters.

Posted by: shortstop on January 2, 2008 at 1:12 PM | PERMALINK

Well, some voters did care about the Lewinsky scandal at the time. A majority did not, but some did. And I would wager that most of those people are Republican primary voters.

So this is not a dumb move for Romney in the context of trying to win a primary. If he did it in the general, even against Hillary, I think it would be dumb.

Posted by: mmy on January 2, 2008 at 1:12 PM | PERMALINK

Wasn't Hillary the injured party in the Lewinsky affair?

Posted by: corpus juris on January 2, 2008 at 1:13 PM | PERMALINK

Actually, some of us do still care about the Lewinsky scandal. It may not have been an impeachable offense, but it was shameful on two counts.

First, the former president chose to carry on with an emotionally immature (and young) employee. At least when European leaders take a mistress, it is with some dignity. No one can read the details of the Lewinsky affair without wondering at the judgment, maturity and even sanity of the former president -- who now wants to re-enter the White House as "first gentleman" with a new global portfolio. No thanks.

Second, thanks to this "indiscretion" and his abject political failure in dealing with this self-imposed wound early during the scandal, Clinton allowed it to fester and made his second term a complete waste and it severely took his attention away from important global issues, including Islamic fundamentalism, climate change and our nation's growing economic inequality.

The Clintons entered the White House in 1993 with what appeared to be extraordinary talents. It turns out that they instead have political tin ears, bad judgment and an extraordinary level of narcissism even given the norms of their profession. That is why I will not be supporting Mrs. Clinton in this year's primary and, if she is the nominee, I will take a hard look at the Republican in the general election -- and he will have to be pretty bad (think Guiliani) before I will mark my ballot to put the Clintons and their soap opera back in the White House.

Posted by: Scott on January 2, 2008 at 1:16 PM | PERMALINK

desperate and classless...

I thought that was a pre-requisite for GOP presidential wannabes this year. They're all running like it.

Posted by: Stranger on January 2, 2008 at 1:19 PM | PERMALINK

Why does he have to go all the way back to the Clinton administration? A more recent example would be the gay prostitute Bush had in the White House.

Posted by: sean on January 2, 2008 at 1:20 PM | PERMALINK

I think mmy has it right. Good move now in the GOP primary, dumb move later in the general.

Wasn't Hillary the injured party in the Lewinsky affair?

Well, yes and no. If she hadn't been such an unfeminine ball-busting bitch, Bill might not have sought sexual gratification elsewhere. But she was also a complete patsy, the very essence of an anachronistic woman, for not leaving Bill when he cheated on her. God believes marriage between a man and a woman is for life and holding it together (especially when children are involved) is really important, except when Bill and Hillary Clinton are the married parties. I hope this makes things clearer for you.

Posted by: shortstop on January 2, 2008 at 1:20 PM | PERMALINK

shortstop:

Who are you to tell Hillary whether she should have left Bill or not? Isn't that her decision?

Posted by: Lee on January 2, 2008 at 1:22 PM | PERMALINK

Well, some voters did care about the Lewinsky scandal at the time. A majority did not, but some did.

Yep. Mostly, they are are envious, because they have no first-person experience with a blow-job.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on January 2, 2008 at 1:27 PM | PERMALINK

Oops. Forgot the "WARNING: INCLUDES SARCASM VISIBLE FROM SPACE" tag.

Yep. Mostly, they are are envious, because they have no first-person experience with a blow-job.

LOL. Come clean now--you originally wrote "first-hand experience," didn't you?

Posted by: shortstop on January 2, 2008 at 1:31 PM | PERMALINK

You know me too well, shortstop! :)

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on January 2, 2008 at 1:33 PM | PERMALINK

Shortstop, don't forget that Rudy and McCain made honest women out of their mistresses, unlike that horrible moral monster Bill Clinton, who actually stayed married to his first wife, leaving poor Monica to be labeled a Scarlet Woman in front of the whole world.

Posted by: Mnemosyne on January 2, 2008 at 1:33 PM | PERMALINK

I think you ladies ought to take it outside. This is a serious blog.

Posted by: corpus juris on January 2, 2008 at 1:36 PM | PERMALINK

Steve, did you really want to awaken this sleeping dog? I have a hard time imagining the dems ever looking good arguing about the Lewinsky stuff. The best you can do is like the guy who is carrying a handful of dog crap and says, "Look what I almost stepped in."

Posted by: SJRSM on January 2, 2008 at 1:38 PM | PERMALINK

Nothing to add...I'm laughing too hard.

Posted by: shortstop on January 2, 2008 at 1:38 PM | PERMALINK

It's like attacking Nixon for virtually the same crimes (Watergate is a hotel, not a felony). It was so bad when Nixon lied to the American people and obstructed justice.

Posted by: Luther on January 2, 2008 at 1:39 PM | PERMALINK

"there was scant evidence voters cared about the scandal at the time."

Exactly! The Clenis made America not care -- which was precisely the damage wrought.

And you can see the reverberations even today, as blowjobs are shown on Blue's Clues.

Posted by: Grumpy on January 2, 2008 at 1:39 PM | PERMALINK

And now Jingo weighs in...stop, stop it. "Sleeping dog"...LOLOL.

Funnily enough, the Lewinsky thing came up in a convo with my lifelong Republican mother the other night, and she said, "At this point, I think we're all nostalgic for Bill Clinton's quaint little blow job." I love my mom.

Posted by: shortstop on January 2, 2008 at 1:44 PM | PERMALINK

Ironically, the Lewinsky scandal was probably the only thing in the last 10 years that actually improved the US reputation abroad.

Posted by: Nobcentral on January 2, 2008 at 1:47 PM | PERMALINK

> First, I haven't seen any polling data on this, but I really doubt voters still care about the Lewinsky scandal a decade later.
>
>

I work in a unionized, 90% male, blue-collar shop, surrounded by the kinds of voters who 30 years ago were true Blue but have been listening to lots of Limbaugh lately. In the past couple of weeks, not once but three times in different company, the issue of the "epidemic" of casual oral sex among teenagers has come up in break room conversation. This is a question of actual concern to guys (and gals) with school-age kids who, if mostly not regular churchgoers, still tend to hew to traditional mores. On both occasions the conversation ended with "Well, thank Clinton for that" followed by a chorus of "Yeps" and "uh-huhs."

The actual name "Lewinsky" doesn't come up much, but I think you underestimate the lingering distaste with which a big part of the former Democratic core looks back on the Clinton years.

Posted by: MattT on January 2, 2008 at 1:47 PM | PERMALINK

I don't mind necessarily if a candidate has had a divorce, nor do I care too much if he/she had an affair.

What was troubling both for (Bill) Clinton and Guilliani is they both showed a lot of poor judgment that went beyond just having an affair. I think it was wrong for Clinton to have an affair with an intern. As far as Guilliani goes, I think his affairs did affect his conduct as mayor, not just the affair with Judith, but the earlier affair with his communications director. (Which has been denied, I know, but I trust the people who have told me they know it's true.)

I'm not going to judge Hillary on her decision to stay with Bill. That's her business. I certainly hope her husband can show some restraint if there is a Clinton 44. Perhaps if Hillary is President, he will.

Posted by: PE on January 2, 2008 at 1:48 PM | PERMALINK

So Romney is pandering to the hardcore sufferers of CDS? I'm shocked. But you are correct that the majority of Americans thought that the impeachment circus was uncalled for in this case, try as the Washington media establishment and the Republican Party to make this ethical molehill into a mountain of outrage.

http://www.democrats.com/clinton-impeachment-polls

But start an illegal and immoral war or unconstitutionally wiretap the public or politicize the DOJ or game with our electoral process? Certainly those actions don't rise to the definition of high crimes and misdemeanors.


Posted by: Innocent Bystander on January 2, 2008 at 1:53 PM | PERMALINK

In the past couple of weeks, not once but three times in different company, the issue of the "epidemic" of casual oral sex among teenagers has come up in break room conversation. This is a question of actual concern to guys (and gals) with school-age kids who, if mostly not regular churchgoers, still tend to hew to traditional mores. On both occasions the conversation ended with "Well, thank Clinton for that" followed by a chorus of "Yeps" and "uh-huhs."

YES!!! That's exactly right!

And, why, praytell is that so, liberals? It's because that hillbilly from Arkansa (the one named Clinton, not the one named Hucksterbee) has been going in front of crowds and letting his heavy-lidded little eyes mist up at the nostalgic thought of his freakshow wife running things.

If you start reminding Americans of what Bill Clinton wrought upon this country, you'll get the kids running to their Google to find out what the fuss is about. The Google has that feature that "screens out" and "censors" the more disgusting things. I leave it on, of course, because every time I search for 'toys play young boys tinker lincoln' I get the foulest and most horrible things that come back to me. For twenty minutes one day, I had to wade through the most disgusting images ever seen, just to purchase a collector's set of 'Lincoln Logs' from the early 1960s.

Bringing a sexually permissive abomination to the table is what hillbilly boy Clinton does. I don't want to hear about Guiliani or McCain--they were not disgusting about their affairs. They were discreet gentlemen who found a way to extricate themselves from loveless marriages in a way that didn't spew their personal baggage all over the news like a slobbering vicar with a premature ejaculation problem.

Take that, Catholics. I'm in a foul mood today.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on January 2, 2008 at 1:55 PM | PERMALINK

It's like attacking Nixon for virtually the same crimes (Watergate is a hotel, not a felony). It was so bad when Nixon lied to the American people and obstructed justice.

I thought the problem with Nixon was that he was using federal employees to spy on his political opponents but, hey, if you think getting a blowjob from an intern is worse ....

Posted by: Mnemosyne on January 2, 2008 at 1:55 PM | PERMALINK

We aren't electing Bill, are we?

Posted by: corpus juris on January 2, 2008 at 1:57 PM | PERMALINK

Clinton sex is still there as a dogwhistle to a bunch of people.

I was on a Colorado newspaper forum discussing strict Voter-ID. I pointed out that this was just a voter suppression tactic, and imagine what the attempts to suppress the female vote will be if HRC is the nomination.

This caused several ballistic reactions against BC, one woman going as far a penning a long rant about how just the image of BC makes imagine his smell of stale bodily fluids.

I'm sure this is important to maybe 25% of the voters.

Posted by: MonkeyBoy on January 2, 2008 at 1:58 PM | PERMALINK

Ummm... isn't it more than a little rude to blame the wife for the husband's infidelities? I can't imagine Romney's argument is a persuasive one among women...

Posted by: CA Pol Junkie on January 2, 2008 at 1:59 PM | PERMALINK

We aren't electing Bill, are we?

But we can't let his wife profit from his heinous crimes!

I really cannot stop laughing. "...one woman going as far a penning a long rant about how just the image of BC makes imagine his smell of stale bodily fluids" just put me over the edge.

Posted by: shortstop on January 2, 2008 at 2:01 PM | PERMALINK

"The best you can do is like the guy who is carrying a handful of dog crap and says, "Look what I almost stepped in."
Posted by: SJRSM on January 2, 2008

Laughing my Freakin' Ass off Hilarious !!!!
ROFLMFAO

Does this policy statement reflect YOUR family's traditional values of humor? :-)

Posted by: MarkH on January 2, 2008 at 2:03 PM | PERMALINK

I get it, the sins of the husband against the wife are being visited on the wife. Sweet Jesus.

Posted by: corpus juris on January 2, 2008 at 2:04 PM | PERMALINK

I thought the problem with Nixon was that he was using federal employees to spy on his political opponents but, hey, if you think getting a blowjob from an intern is worse ....

Shows you what YOU know! Monica was on the government payroll when she did you know what with you know who.

And decency precludes me from talking about it. No, I will not go into the gory, splattered details. Suffice it to say, a gentleman holds a ladies hair and helps wipe up what is left.

And Bill Clinton is NO gentleman, sir. His monstrous crimes against humanity ring through the ages. In fifty years, in a hundred years--for the rest of American history--students will learn of his pillaging of the public pocketbook and his crimes will stack up against some of the worst monsters to ever hold the reins of power. He is a despicable cad, and his crazy wife with her fluttery, mad eyes is worse.

Bill Clinton makes Mao Zedong look like Vaclav Havel, if that makes any sense to any of you, and I highly doubt that it does.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on January 2, 2008 at 2:06 PM | PERMALINK

"We aren't electing Bill, are we?"
Posted by: corpus juris on January 2, 2008

On last Sunday's morning talk show Hillary said she thought the death of Benazir Bhutto was horrible and it would be awful if Musharraf was the only name on the ballot in the upcoming election.

Well, Musharraf isn't going to be on the ballot.

He was re-elected in October and the upcoming elections are for parliament positions. Bhutto was going to run for parliament and lead her party, so she might become Prime Minister.

Hillary didn't know.

So, that raises a question. Do Iowans know that Bill Clinton, who has been giving a ton of speeches and was all over C-SPAN a couple of days ago, actually isn't running?

On caucus night, will some people ask where to stand for Bill Clinton?

Bill isn't running. Stand for John Edwards.

Posted by: MarkH on January 2, 2008 at 2:09 PM | PERMALINK

A good example would be to have one of those strapping young sons of his join their peers in Iraq, but that won't happen I'm sure.

Can we get the Mittster to promise not to embarrass the US like little Goergie Bush has. Like when he told the world that he had looked deep into Putin's smoldering coal black eyes and seen the depth of his soul? Or when he sneaked up behind the the German Chancelor and attempted to give her a sensual massage? Or when he bombed the hell out a mid-eastern country so he could go in agrab their Nukular weapons. I sure was embarassed when we didn't find them, weren't you, Mittster?

Posted by: Henk on January 2, 2008 at 2:09 PM | PERMALINK

I understand that we are electing Hillary and not Bill. That said, many of her supporters speak of a Clinton administration as a restoration of the prior Clinton administration and how we get Hillary and Bill when we elect Hillary.

While Bill Clinton may not sit in on cabinet meetings, he is going to be part of a Hillary Clinton administration. I doubt that he's going to stay in the background like Margaret Thatcher's husband. (She was married, wasn't she?)

Posted by: PE on January 2, 2008 at 2:09 PM | PERMALINK

"Bill isn't running. Stand for John Edwards."

Stand for him? To bring it back to this thread's topic, where do I get in line to kneel?

Posted by: mark too on January 2, 2008 at 2:13 PM | PERMALINK

Rogers's New Year's Resolution is obviously to stay off his meds -- and he's off to a good start. His Complete Raving Nutjob personality has taken over.

Posted by: DJ on January 2, 2008 at 2:26 PM | PERMALINK

The primaries aren't over. Romney isn't appealing to the general electorate. This cements his to remind socially conservative voters of his reputation as a squeaky clean candidate for, while perhaps making a difference to some who might otherwise vote for Giuliani.

Posted by: Rick Taylor on January 2, 2008 at 2:27 PM | PERMALINK

Bringing a sexually permissive abomination to the table is what hillbilly boy Clinton does. I don't want to hear about Guiliani or McCain--they were not disgusting about their affairs. They were discreet gentlemen who found a way to extricate themselves from loveless marriages in a way that didn't spew their personal baggage all over the news like a slobbering vicar with a premature ejaculation problem.

Take that, Catholics. I'm in a foul mood today.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on January 2, 2008 at 1:55 PM | PERMALINK

Bringing a serial hypocritical lying abomination who is currently engaging in actual high crimes and misdemeanors to the table is what cokeheaded deserter Bush does. I don't want to hear about Clinton--he was not engaging in illegal activities while president. He was a discreet gentlemen who was mercilessly skewered by the conservative press in a way that no Republican't candidate has ever had to deal with when trying to run for office.

Funny how you seem to be completely okay with rampant illegal activity as long as it's a Republican't doing it. Nice set of selective moral outrage you gots there, jack...

Almost as funny that you don't seem to notice the personal baggage (which included even more illegal activities by a Republican't. Funny - you seem to have missed that, too...) that 9iu11ani's mistress courting (on the public dime, while his wife and children were living in the mayor's mansion) activities have been exposed to lately. Then again, Republican'ts and reality haven't been mixing well together for a while now. Maybe you can find some Teddy Kennedy drunk jokes so you can get back into form.

Take that, Reich wingnut. I'm in a foul mood today. Too foul to suffer Republican't fools lightly...

Posted by: (: Tom :) on January 2, 2008 at 2:34 PM | PERMALINK

Funny how you seem to be completely okay with rampant illegal activity as long as it's a Republican't doing it.

You bet your sweet little ass I am "completely okay" with it.

When a Republican breaks the law, it means he has to do so because liberals have passed laws that prevent him from defending this country from its enemies.

When a Democrat breaks the law, it means someone, somewhere, got between them and free food, cheap sluts, and a pile of money.

There endeth the lesson.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on January 2, 2008 at 2:39 PM | PERMALINK

You bet your sweet little ass I am "completely okay" with it.
When a Republican breaks the law, it means he has to do so because liberals have passed laws that prevent him from defending this country from its enemies.
Posted by: Norman Rogers

Just what enemy was Larry Craig defending the nation from during his unfortunate encounter at the Minneapolis airport, Nutjob? Considering your interest in "sweet little asses", you might be able to shed some light on this.

Posted by: DJ on January 2, 2008 at 2:45 PM | PERMALINK

Norman, go back to sleep now.

Posted by: pol on January 2, 2008 at 2:54 PM | PERMALINK

Gotta love the parody trolls! Norman's gotta be a parody, right? I mean, COME ON, who is really that much of a caricature in real life? Nobody...


Posted by: PigInZen on January 2, 2008 at 2:59 PM | PERMALINK

Gotta love the parody trolls! Norman's gotta be a parody, right? I mean, COME ON, who is really that much of a caricature in real life? Nobody...

Uh, excuse me? Are you not acquainted with the crimes of William Jefferson Clinton? All of the people he has ordered killed? All of the money he has stolen from good Americans like myself? All of the women he has damaged with his relentless, predatory sex-addict ways?

Around here, as soon as you're right about something that makes liberals uncomfortable, they call you a parody. Well, I am used to being laughed at. I am used to being humiliated. It used to bother me, but it doesn't anymore. I sit here on a sunny day thinking of all the times in my life when I was right and when everyone else was wrong.

And when I check my bank balance, I see a "five" and enough numbers behind it to warm my heart and remind me why I don't care what a bunch of penniless liberals with cheap computers and excessive free time think of me.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on January 2, 2008 at 3:04 PM | PERMALINK

Now, Rogers's Fabulously Wealthy Gentleman of Leisure personality has taken over. No meds for Normie = Comedy Gold.

Posted by: DJ on January 2, 2008 at 3:07 PM | PERMALINK
…I check my bank balance, I see a "five" …ab-Norman Rogers at 3:04 PM
With your 5 bux you can get yourself a snowgal hooker. Hunt for one that looks like Rudy's Judi Posted by: Mike on January 2, 2008 at 3:17 PM | PERMALINK
…. severely took his attention away from important global issues, including Islamic fundamentalism, climate change and our nation's growing economic inequality. ….Scott at 1:16 PM
Chum, you forget that Clinton took actions against bin Laden, actions that Bush couldn't be bothered with despite people running around with their hair on fire. Thanks to Bush's inequitable policies, economic inequality has drastically increased in the past seven years. Posted by: Mike on January 2, 2008 at 3:22 PM | PERMALINK

...gratuitous references to Clinton scandals in the 1990s only make him look desperate and classless.

Maybe he is desparate and classless.

Posted by: AJ on January 2, 2008 at 3:24 PM | PERMALINK

Steve said, "I can appreciate the fact that Romney is in a tough spot right now, but gratuitous references to Clinton scandals in the 1990s only make him look desperate and classless."

I am a devout Mormon and devout Democrat (yes, you can be both.) I think the attacks on Mitt Romney's (and my) religion have shown that, unfortunately, America still suffers from blatant bigotry and prejudice, born mainly from simple ignorance.

Having said that, however, I totally agree with Steve's comment.

Posted by: lamonte on January 2, 2008 at 3:46 PM | PERMALINK

Keep Rogers going. Now that Colbert's on hiatus, this is the most fun around.

Posted by: Henderstock on January 2, 2008 at 3:50 PM | PERMALINK

Chum, you forget that Clinton took actions against bin Laden, actions that Bush couldn't be bothered with despite people running around with their hair on fire. Thanks to Bush's inequitable policies, economic inequality has drastically increased in the past seven years. Posted by: Mike on January 2, 2008 at 3:22 PM

If you simply want to argue that Clinton was a better president than Bush then, brother, we have nothing to argue about. Agreed ten times over. But do you really want to argue that the Lewinsky scandal and Clinton's lack of judgment in both entering the relationship and then not dealing with it forthrightly did not seriously impede his effectiveness as president? Blaming Clinton for these failures is not the same as exonerating his enemies, but it gives me pause, at least, to wonder whether Bill should be part of a future presidential administration because mayobe just being better than Bush is not good enough for the challenges we face.

Posted by: Scott on January 2, 2008 at 4:07 PM | PERMALINK

Agreed ten times over. But do you really want to argue that the Lewinsky scandal and Clinton's lack of judgment in both entering the relationship and then not dealing with it forthrightly did not seriously impede his effectiveness as president?

Yes, I would.

Leaving aside the fact that there were numerous Republican'ts engaging in similar behavior, and not dealing with it as forthrightly as the president, one is left to wonder why the so-called liberal media ignored them completely while focusing the nation's attention on the (perfectly legal, if not conforming to the mores of some) activities of the president almost exclusively over the second term. Perhaps of they were somewhat less biased in their coverage, this affair would have been handled in the same manner as Bob Barr's, Henry Hyde's, Newt Gingrich's, Mark Foley's, and Larry Craig's (to mention just a few Republican'ts whose affairs were not mentioned until much later than they took place), the partisan moral scolds might nor have had as much of a foothold in the american mind.

I could also mention the illegal activities being engaged in by Republican'ts at the time which also went unreported by the media. Funny how that impeachment stuff just made them go away...

When a Republican breaks the law, it means he has to do so because liberals have passed laws that prevent him from defending this country from its enemies.

When a Democrat breaks the law, it means someone, somewhere, got between them and free food, cheap sluts, and a pile of money.

There endeth the lesson.
Posted by: Norman Rogers on January 2, 2008 at 2:39 PM | PERMALINK

For real? Did that lesson come to you from Falwell's Clinton Chronicles? Or did Rush tell you what to think about that?

Let's see now - who was it who had a yacht on the Potomac (paid for by my tax dollars, troll-boy) called the DukeStir? Was it okay for my tax money to pay for that free food, those cheap sluts, and that pile of money?

Smarter hypocritical Republican't ditto monkeys, please...

Posted by: (: Tom :) on January 2, 2008 at 4:50 PM | PERMALINK

Lyndon Johnson managed to get laid with his secretaries and still work 20 hours a day.

Posted by: Lee on January 2, 2008 at 4:56 PM | PERMALINK

Norman,

I don't want to hear about Guiliani or McCain--they were not disgusting about their affairs. They were discreet gentlemen...

ROTFLMAO. Guillian was a discreet gentleman? You have got to be kidding me.

Posted by: Edo on January 2, 2008 at 5:33 PM | PERMALINK

Re Mr. N. Rogers and "pillaging of the public pocketbook" by Bill Clinton.

Let us see . . .

Clinton's administration ran surpluses after the first few years in office, presiding over the biggest private sector economic boom since the 1950s, with people at all income levels profiting. This made it possible to vastly reduced Federal welfare programs, thus satisfying a long standing demand from the Republican side. He conducted two successful interventions in Yugoslavia (no thanks to the GOP, with the exception of McCain) and one unsuccessful one in Somalia (you may recall that the GOP demanded cut and run after the Blackhawk-down incident).

As Wm F Buckley, the founder and dean of the modern American conservative movement, recently remarked, in matters of public policy, old Bill C turned out to be pretty much a conservative President in the mold of Eisenhower.

Bush II immediately spent the Cllinton surpluses on tax cuts, the vast majority of which went to the big end of town (especially those who can express their winnings as capital gains), and has run deficits ever since. He and his Congress rammed through the biggest expansion of entitlements (the prescription drug program) since LBJ set up Medicare, and deliberately understated the cost. The drug companies, who wrote the bill to suit themselves, are now raking in the taxpayer's money.

After the GOP took over Congress in 2002, they broke all records for pork barrel spending---and continued to cut taxes at the same time. Several members have resigned while under investigation (the strange departure of Delay , for example) while others have been convicted (eg Cunningham).

After a downward hit due to the end of the Internet bubble, the economy has grown modestly since 2001 in what is one of the weaker recoveries overall on record. Most of the gains have been at the top end, due to tax policy and huge jumps in executive compensation. People in the middle and lower income groups have seen incomes stagnate and benefits be cut as US firms struggle to compete globally, in large part because of the load of medical benefits---which, thanks to the rapacious business run US medical system, cost 1.5-2 times as much as those in other countries which achieve better metrics, such as longer life expectancy and lower infant mortality. In fact, it now appears that the middle class is shrinking for the first time since WWII, and there is even some evidence that social mobility in the US is declining relative to that in Europe, a significant change.

Bush II has started two expensive wars that have lasted longer than WWII without achieving anything more than a lull in fighting. The more expensive Iraq war (we are spending at least $150B a year to occupy a country with a GDP of $40B per year) was justified on the basis of Saddam's weapons program (that did not exist) and sneaky suggestions that he organized 9/11 (which were always figments of the fervid imaginations of Likudnik neocons).

The conduct of the Iraq occupation has also been a gross financial scandal, with supervision by politically connected but incompetent staff, billions of dollars spent on faulty, overpriced contract work, and even the complete disappearance of $10M in US currency that was shipped in boxes to Iraq.

GAO figures now show that Bush II nearly doubled the forward obligations of the US govt. Furthermore, 70% of the accumulated (since George Washington's administration) US obligations were incurred under Reagan and the two Bushes---and 50% under ONLY the two Bushes.

Back in Old Europe, financial profligacy cost members of French and English royal families their heads. And the last of the Russian royal family ended up dead in a mine shaft.

It is absolutely stunning that any supporter of the GOP can even think of claiming that the party has even a shred of fiscal responsibility.

The GOP touts itself as being the party of limited government. Well, while waving that flag, they have expanded the powers of the surveillance and detention state to Soviet proportions. It now appears that they started warrantless wiretapping BEFORE 9/11, and have expanded it ever since while waving the bloody flag. And then there is the stain of torture---it is now US policy to use interrogation techniques for which members of the Japanese and German secret intelligence services were imprisoned or executed after WWII---in judicial processes under the aegis of the US. No wonder the GOP is scared about the election---a succeeding Democratic administration might use these expanded powers to persecute GOP opponents.

On the "social values" front, elected and appointed GOP officials have been exposed as frequenting prostitutes, hitting on male pages, and soliciting same sex relations. The five leading GOP presidential hopefuls (Giuliani, Romney, McCain, Huckabee, and Thompson) have between them been in 9 marriages---only Mitt and Mike are still married to the same person. And "Gentleman" Giuliani announced that he was splitting with his second wife in a press conference---this was the first she had heard of it.

In contrast, the leading Democratic presidential hopefuls Clinton, Obama, and Edwards are all still married to their original spouses. As Mike Huckabee himself remarked, whatever the personal sins of Bill Clinton are, he and Hillary have managed to make their marriage work.

And so, it is absolutely stunning for GOP supporters to argue that their party is somehow superior on the family values front. Indeed, the lowest divorce rates in the US occur in the bluest states like Massachusetts, while hyper Red states like Arkansas lead the country in divorces. (No wonder Huckabee has caused a stir by promoting "covenant marriages" while governor).

While it remains to be seen what the voters will do, I get the impression that a majority of our fellow citizens have had it with the utter incompetence and sanctimonious hypocrisy--on foreign affairs, economic and social policy---of the present generation of Republican leaders. I find it interesting that the the Republican candidates with the most appeal outside the GOP leadership cadres----John McCain, Mike Huckabee, and Ron Paul---- have been scorned by the GOP Politburo (who are at least softening on McCain these days, perhaps out of desperation, but he is mouthing word to make it easier on them).

Mr Rogers is of course entitled to his views and expression of them in any forum. And there is a lot to criticize on the Democratic side.

But I don't think the kind of arguments we are hearing from GOP supporters have any weight anymore, and the name calling that so often accompanies them grows lamer and lamer with each new outrage from the Bushies.

[As an aside---I think we will find in looking back that the "emperor has no clothes" moment was in fact Stephen Colbert's performance at the WH Correspondents dinner in late 1996. On watching it again, I realized how much courage it took to do that, and in fact how nervous he was up there, five feet away from W himself. As in Shakespeare, it is the often the jester who expresses--at great risk---great wisdom.]

The latest of these outrages is the destruction of the video tapes of torture, for which there can ONLY be two explanations: (1) the tapes show what they ordered the CIA to do was utterly against US law, or (2) the tapes show that the torture did not produce the oft claimed important information. It is even possible that both explanations apply. Today's appointment of a DOJ-controlled prosecutor for the case is clear evidence of the seriousness of the matter, but is likely turn out to be merely an attempt to run out the clock so the Bushies once again get home free, or at least allow them get away with throwing an underling to the lions, as they did with the Abu Ghraib and Plame affairs.

jh


Posted by: JHH on January 2, 2008 at 6:19 PM | PERMALINK

Hey Normie I'll match my bank account against yours any day.I don't think that yours matches the interest I collect. Oh and I'm 100% sure I've got a bigger dick than you do.

Posted by: Gandalf on January 2, 2008 at 6:58 PM | PERMALINK

Don't be so sure about that last part, Gandy.

Posted by: Paula Zahn on January 2, 2008 at 7:15 PM | PERMALINK

Holy smokes JHH, awesome post. I was gonna say something, but no need to now.

Posted by: Aaron on January 2, 2008 at 7:23 PM | PERMALINK

"desperate and classless"

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Posted by: Alan in SF on January 2, 2008 at 7:29 PM | PERMALINK
….But do you really want to argue that the Lewinsky scandal …did not seriously impede his effectiveness as president?…. Scott at 4:07 PM
Absolutely. If you can't remember, you can read a quick review of the second term.

…In the closing year of his administration, Clinton attempted to address the Arab-Israeli conflict. After initial successes such as the Oslo accords of the early-1990s, the situation had quietly deteriorated, breaking down completely with the start of the Second Intifada. Clinton brought Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat together at Camp David.[20] However, Barak and Arafat could not find common ground, and the negotiations were ultimately unsuccessful.[20]
In November 2000, Clinton became the first president to visit Vietnam since the end of the Vietnam War.[53] Clinton remained popular with the public throughout his two terms as President, ending his presidential career with a 65% approval rating, the highest end-of-term approval rating of any President since Dwight D. Eisenhower. Clinton also oversaw a boom of the U.S. economy. Under Clinton, the United States had a projected federal budget surplus for the first time since 1969….

Posted by: Mike on January 2, 2008 at 7:29 PM | PERMALINK

While I think Norman Rogers is a bit off his rocker, let's ditch the Clintons and force him to learn a new game. Edwards in '08.

Posted by: Vincent on January 2, 2008 at 10:26 PM | PERMALINK

Of course, had it not been for Ken Starr's soft-core porn book, it is highly unlikely that many people would have known of the Lewinsky affair.

Posted by: raj on January 3, 2008 at 9:04 AM | PERMALINK

Isn't it amazing how the Reich wingnuts toss their illogical screeds into progressive blogs' comment threads, then disappear as soon as someone presents them with, like, facts and reality and stuff? It's almost as if they're bloviating farging iceholes who can't deal with the real world...

Posted by: (: Tom :) on January 3, 2008 at 10:29 AM | PERMALINK

Isn't it amazing how the Reich wingnuts toss their illogical screeds into progressive blogs' comment threads, then disappear as soon as someone presents them with, like, facts and reality and stuff? It's almost as if they're bloviating farging iceholes who can't deal with the real world...

But you didn't offer any of those things here--you merely make a point you can't defend and run off.

What you're accusing ME of doing, you do yourself. When confronted, you will no doubt run away. You are projecting a characteristic--intellectual cowardice--onto ME when it is, in fact, you who possess a significant amount of self-importance coupled with blatant intellectual dishonesty.

Debate what issue? You choose.
Debate for what amount of time. You choose.
Debate in what format? You choose.

I accept. Go.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on January 3, 2008 at 11:27 AM | PERMALINK

But you didn't offer any of those things here--you merely make a point you can't defend and run off.

Funny - I don't see where you've enumerated exactly what that point is. I also don't see where you've proven your unfounded allegation that whatever the point I made was unable to be defended. And responding to trollish comments like the previous one (mainly to show others how intellectually bankrupt Reich wongnuts like you are) is considered running away exactly where, again?

Debate what issue? You choose.
Debate for what amount of time. You choose.
Debate in what format? You choose.

I find your statements

Uh, excuse me? Are you not acquainted with the crimes of William Jefferson Clinton? All of the people he has ordered killed? All of the money he has stolen from good Americans like myself? All of the women he has damaged with his relentless, predatory sex-addict ways?

Around here, as soon as you're right about something that makes liberals uncomfortable, they call you a parody. Well, I am used to being laughed at. I am used to being humiliated. It used to bother me, but it doesn't anymore. I sit here on a sunny day thinking of all the times in my life when I was right and when everyone else was wrong.

And when I check my bank balance, I see a "five" and enough numbers behind it to warm my heart and remind me why I don't care what a bunch of penniless liberals with cheap computers and excessive free time think of me.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on January 2, 2008 at 3:04 PM | PERMALINK

and

When a Republican breaks the law, it means he has to do so because liberals have passed laws that prevent him from defending this country from its enemies.

When a Democrat breaks the law, it means someone, somewhere, got between them and free food, cheap sluts, and a pile of money.

There endeth the lesson.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on January 2, 2008 at 2:39 PM | PERMALINK

extremely dishonest and lacking in a rational basis in reality.

Can you prove the crimes of William Jefferson Clinton? All of the people he has ordered killed? All of the money he has stolen from good Americans like myself? All of the women he has damaged with his relentless, predatory sex-addict ways? If so, why aren't you bringing this evidence to the courts? If not, why do you continue to spew baseless slander in this manner?

What exactly do you think you were right about something that makes liberals uncomfortable? And what exactly makes you think you were right, or that you have proved it to anyone here?

Where exactly do you get off saying When a Republican breaks the law, it means he has to do so because liberals have passed laws that prevent him from defending this country from its enemies.? Can you prove that this occurs every single time a Republican't gets caught breaking the law? Funny that you didn't seem to notice the whole Duke Cunningham scandal. Or the Abramoff scandal. Can you tell me what laws liberals passed that were the cause for illegal illicit activities by these Republican'ts that wasted my tax money?

And, finally, you say When a Democrat breaks the law, it means someone, somewhere, got between them and free food, cheap sluts, and a pile of money. Can you prove that this occurs every single time a Democratic politician gets caught breaking the law?

Now, go run away back to mommy's basement, and let the grownups talk about real issues.

Smarter fundamentalistic religiously insane hyproctitical Republican't ditto monkeys, please...

Posted by: (: Tom :) on January 3, 2008 at 11:58 AM | PERMALINK

Funny - I don't see where you've enumerated exactly what that point is. I also don't see where you've proven your unfounded allegation that whatever the point I made was unable to be defended. And responding to trollish comments like the previous one (mainly to show others how intellectually bankrupt Reich wongnuts like you are) is considered running away exactly where, again?

What point? Which one? My point enumerated that there are specific crimes committed by WJC in office. Summary:

BILL CLINTON
(1) Used State Police for personal purposes.

(2) Directed State Police to fabricate incriminating evidence
against a political opponent: Terry Reed.

(3) Conspired with David Hale and Jim McDougal to defraud the
Small Business Administration.

(4) Was complicit in the shipment of drugs through Arkansas.

(5) Allowed laudering of drug money through ADFA.

(6) Appointed and protected Arkansas Medical Examiner Fahmy Malak
who repeatedly obstructed justice by declaring murders as
"suicides" or "accidents."

(7) Has never accounted for his actions during 40 days behind the
Iron Curtain during the Vietnam War.

(8) Tipped off Governor Tucker about upcoming criminal referral.

(9) Violated Arkansas campaign finance laws.

(10) Violated his oath ofoffice to uphold the Constitution by
signing into law an ex post facto law, a retroactive tax
increase.

(11) Fired RTC chiefAlbert Casey to allow his friend Roger
Altman to monitor and block Whitewater investigations.

(12) Fired FBI director William Sessions to prevent an
autonomous FBI from investigating the Foster suicide and from
resisting cooperation in the Filegate operation.

(13) Fired all U.S. Attorneys to appoint Paula Casey to prevent
Judge David Hale from testifying against Clinton.

(14) Offered State Troopers federal jobs in return for their
silence about Clinton's crimes.

(15) Blocked Justice Department indictments after Inspector
General Sherman Funk found "criminal violations of the Privacy
Act provable beyond reasonable doubt" when former Bush employee
files were searched and leaked to the press.

(16) Appointed friend and now-convicted felon Webster Hubbell to
number 3 position in Justice Department in order to be able to
block Whitewater criminal referrals.

(17) Blocked the criminal trial of Representative Ford, a
Tennessee Democrat.

(18) Appointed a campaign activist to head the Commodity Futures
Trading Commission, without the mandated "advice and consent" of
the Senate, to derail a probe of his and Hillary's financial
dealings.
--------------------

extremely dishonest and lacking in a rational basis in reality.

As is your irrational decision to not prove a negative. You accept what? That WJC never committed a crime? Then why was he impeached? Why did he lose is law license? Why did he spend millions in legal fees? Innocent people don't have to do those things, nor do they have these things done to them.

Can you prove the crimes of William Jefferson Clinton? All of the people he has ordered killed? All of the money he has stolen from good Americans like myself? All of the women he has damaged with his relentless, predatory sex-addict ways? If so, why aren't you bringing this evidence to the courts? If not, why do you continue to spew baseless slander in this manner?

Thanks to the obstruction of justice, no, one cannot prove these crimes. You are correct in that assumption. But that doesn't mean he is innocent and it doesn't mean he didn't do them, does it?

What exactly do you think you were right about something that makes liberals uncomfortable? And what exactly makes you think you were right, or that you have proved it to anyone here?

I'm correct in most every assertion, and I even correct any mistakes that I make. I am generally right because, at the age of 64, I've been there and I've done that. The t-shirt is folded neatly and kept in my dresser drawer. I don't wear the t-shirt, unless I'm lounging. I'm rarely lounging. I often wear a dress shirt and chinos, with socks and loafers. So what was your point? Oh yes. I'm right. Prove otherwise.

Where exactly do you get off saying When a Republican breaks the law, it means he has to do so because liberals have passed laws that prevent him from defending this country from its enemies.? Can you prove that this occurs every single time a Republican't gets caught breaking the law? Funny that you didn't seem to notice the whole Duke Cunningham scandal. Or the Abramoff scandal. Can you tell me what laws liberals passed that were the cause for illegal illicit activities by these Republican'ts that wasted my tax money?

In truth, Duke Cunningham broke the law because he was funnelling money to defense firms--defense firms that were defending America. Oliver North broke the law to get weapons and aid to our allies in the fight against Communism. Scooter Libby broke the law revealing that someone's dingbat wife was responsible for sending her layabout househusband on a free junket as he was defending America. Meanwhile, Representative Jefferson was shoving money in his freezer. Meanwhile, your Democrat friends were figuring out how to send more earmarks back to their districts while failing to find a way to end the war in Iraq.

And, finally, you say When a Democrat breaks the law, it means someone, somewhere, got between them and free food, cheap sluts, and a pile of money. Can you prove that this occurs every single time a Democratic politician gets caught breaking the law?

I can prove that NO ONE gets between Ted Kennedy and a buffet line with a cheap slut and fifty bucks on it, sir. Can you prove that one could dissuade him from rubbing his hands and hollering with glee? Of course you cannot.

Now, go run away back to mommy's basement, and let the grownups talk about real issues.

Grownups? I don't see any grownups around here. I see a bunch of couch-sleeping slacker liberals, pounding out their missives in coffee shops. Admit it--you're in a coffee shop, using a Macintosh laptop and you're secretly pining for that cute girl who doesn't realize she has foam on her cheek, aren't you?

Smarter fundamentalistic religiously insane hyproctitical Republican't ditto monkeys, please...

Oh, what a lame kiss off. Can't you think of anything better? Can't you come up with something original? Or are you too busy cutting and pasting your favorite put-downs out of the comment thread on the D-Kos website?

Perhaps if you thought with your brain, as opposed to stuffing it with drugs and using it to get yourself accepted into social cliques that didn't want you in the first place, you'd have something here. Sadly, all you have are recycled thoughts and put-downs I was wincing at three years ago.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on January 3, 2008 at 12:18 PM | PERMALINK

This is just painful to watch.

But perhaps what I really mean is: it hurts so good.

Posted by: shortstop on January 3, 2008 at 12:24 PM | PERMALINK

Hahahahaha! The wingnut thinks he actually answered something!

No proof at all for your venomous lies. None. Maybe senility is working its' magic here?

I can prove that NO ONE gets between Ted Kennedy and a buffet line with a cheap slut and fifty bucks on it, sir.

Okay. Prove it.

Thanks to the obstruction of justice, no, one cannot prove these crimes. You are correct in that assumption. But that doesn't mean he is innocent and it doesn't mean he didn't do them, does it?

Help me out here - I'm really struggling with this one: here in america (at least before Putsch and the Republican't Junta took over) the principle is innocent until ... Can your syphillitic brain remember how that statement ends?

Just because a bunch of people believe superstitious fables from the Big Book of Christian Fairy Tales, it doesn't prove there's a gawd, does it?

Your eighteen flights of fancy have been duly noted. As has your complete and utter failure to prove anything at all except that Republican'ts are ignorant morans who have no clue as to what constitutes rational argument. Still no proof for your unfounded allegations. Want to try again? Maybe with some sort of proof of your shroom trip hallucinations this time? The whole this is true because I say it's true debating style thing doesn't work here in the reality-based community.

Lame kiss offs are better than you deserve, troll-boy. But, being the liberal that I am, I am willing to give you a break and put things in terms that even your infantile melon can process.

Have a nice day!

Posted by: (: Tom :) on January 3, 2008 at 12:37 PM | PERMALINK

Don't stop now, (: Tom :). You're sticking it to him good.

Posted by: shortstop on January 3, 2008 at 12:44 PM | PERMALINK

This is just painful to watch.

But perhaps what I really mean is: it hurts so good.

Posted by: shortstop on January 3, 2008 at 12:24 PM | PERMALINK

The moment it stops being fun on my end is the moment I stops commenting. Pointing out how completely ignorant this waste of protoplasm is helps me realize how seriously deranged Republican'ts are, as well as infotaining the studio audience, and showing others how easy it is to call them in their bs.

I would like to take a moment here to point out to all and sundry that conversations like this generally happen on progressive blogs where opposing opinions are actually tolerated. I'd love to see something equivalent in Reich wing world, just to find out how long I can read it without wondering how these cretins can function and survive.

Posted by: (: Tom :) on January 3, 2008 at 12:46 PM | PERMALINK

Hahahahaha! The wingnut thinks he actually answered something!

No one is laughing. That nervous laughter comes from you, sir.

No proof at all for your venomous lies. None. Maybe senility is working its' magic here?

There's plenty of proof--for example, did WJC fire FBI Director Sessions? Are you going to sit here and try to tell us that this did not happen? Why don't you research that one tidbit and then come back and tell the assembled group in your little coffee haus what happened. Maybe they'll think you're smart and make you their leader in their insurrection against the girl who wiped the foam off her cheek and called you a putz.

I can prove that NO ONE gets between Ted Kennedy and a buffet line with a cheap slut and fifty bucks on it, sir.
Okay. Prove it.

Very well, I have anecdotal proof: my cousin Bryce was at a reception in Washington in 1971 at a hotel. As he watched the crowd to see whether or not my Father had arrived, he saw Senator Edward Kennedy lurch past three security guards and grab a woman who was positioned near a payphone in the lobby. He forced an aide to give her money and he disappeared into an elevator, holding the woman with one hand and a gravy boat filled with gravy in the other. In his mouth was a potato bun.

Help me out here - I'm really struggling with this one: here in america (at least before Putsch and the Republican't Junta took over) the principle is innocent until ... Can your syphillitic brain remember how that statement ends?

You speak of the rule of law? In which we find that the crime of "obstruction of justice" often prevents the rule of law from being carried out? See: the firing of FBI Director Sessions. Did you learn anything yet? Are you their leader? Did the girl with foam on her cheek smile at you again?

Just because a bunch of people believe superstitious fables from the Big Book of Christian Fairy Tales, it doesn't prove there's a gawd, does it?

What? Like raising taxes and spending more money is a great way to "grow" an economy? You speak of the Devil, sir.

Your eighteen flights of fancy have been duly noted. As has your complete and utter failure to prove anything at all except that Republican'ts are ignorant morans who have no clue as to what constitutes rational argument. Still no proof for your unfounded allegations. Want to try again? Maybe with some sort of proof of your shroom trip hallucinations this time? The whole this is true because I say it's true debating style thing doesn't work here in the reality-based community.

"Morans?"

Who's the moron, sir? And what "reality-based community" are we talking about? The one where Hillary Clinton in a pantsuit with her freakshow eyeballs is a viable candidate for the Presidency of the United States of America?

Lame kiss offs are better than you deserve, troll-boy. But, being the liberal that I am, I am willing to give you a break and put things in terms that even your infantile melon can process.
Have a nice day!

My "infantile melon can process" refers to what? Are you deliberately obscure? Or are you just "out of ideas" and "flailing about in the water" and "about to drown."

This is proof that young people contribute nothing to the daily discourse in this country. I'm sorry, but you are ridiculous and quite sad, sir. Quite sad, indeed.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on January 3, 2008 at 12:53 PM | PERMALINK

The moment it stops being fun on my end is the moment I stops commenting. Pointing out how completely ignorant this waste of protoplasm is helps me realize how seriously deranged Republican'ts are, as well as infotaining the studio audience, and showing others how easy it is to call them in their bs.

And we appreciate your taking the time to provide that infotainment.

I would like to take a moment here to point out to all and sundry that conversations like this generally happen on progressive blogs where opposing opinions are actually tolerated. I'd love to see something equivalent in Reich wing world, just to find out how long I can read it without wondering how these cretins can function and survive.

That's because liberals are sharp and savvy enough to welcome the cretins into our midst. We're not afraid of them.

Posted by: shortstop on January 3, 2008 at 12:56 PM | PERMALINK

The moment it stops being fun on my end is the moment I stops commenting.

...is the moment I stops commenting

That's hilarious. Are you and your little friend Spanky on your way over to help Alfalfa start up the local chapter of the He-man Woman Haters Club?

Pointing out how completely ignorant this waste of protoplasm is helps me realize how seriously deranged Republican'ts are, as well as infotaining the studio audience, and showing others how easy it is to call them in their bs.

I think the audience left with a sickening, metallic taste in their mouth, not unlike biting into a Twinkie and finding tin foil. My "bullshit" is certainly not under siege from your incisive commentary, which you will stops when you is nots having the funs anymore, I suppose.

I would like to take a moment here to point out to all and sundry that conversations like this generally happen on progressive blogs where opposing opinions are actually tolerated. I'd love to see something equivalent in Reich wing world, just to find out how long I can read it without wondering how these cretins can function and survive.

Ladies and Gentlemen, your Master of Ceremonies for the evening here at the Copacabana Room...

Sir, you need to put down the double mocha and interact with the species. Mingle with the folks. Rub shoulders with the hoi polloi. And stop wading into waters that are too deep for you. That mouth of yours has already written a dozen checks your ass has no intention of cashing.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on January 3, 2008 at 1:00 PM | PERMALINK

Not content to shove one of his feet into his mouth, this brain dead (but perfectly exemplary) Repulican't does it again...

No one is laughing. That nervous laughter comes from you, sir.

Did you see this from your awesome vantage on the hub of teh intertoobz? Or are you, once again, just like a typical Republican't moran, telling everyone else what they are thinking?

Here's a clue, ace: That's the voices in your head talking.

Very well, I have anecdotal proof: my cousin Bryce was at a reception in Washington in 1971 at a hotel. As he watched the crowd to see whether or not my Father had arrived, he saw Senator Edward Kennedy lurch past three security guards and grab a woman who was positioned near a payphone in the lobby. He forced an aide to give her money and he disappeared into an elevator, holding the woman with one hand and a gravy boat filled with gravy in the other. In his mouth was a potato bun.

Because, after all, anecdotal evidence is an awesome basis for proving anything. And something that someone did over thirty years ago is the basis for making statements about them now.

By this rationality, Bush is an ignorant AWOL criminal rapist, Cheney is a foul mouthed criminal embezzler, and you're a form of life somewhat lower than the black goo in the treads of my shoes. Somebody told me all of these were true! They saw it with their own eyes!

You speak of the rule of law? In which we find that the crime of "obstruction of justice" often prevents the rule of law from being carried out? See: the firing of FBI Director Sessions. Did you learn anything yet? Are you their leader? Did the girl with foam on her cheek smile at you again?/i>

Can't you even get this one right? I practically handed it to you...

The correct answer is innocent until proven guilty. Which is why I refrain from calling Ollie North a traitourous felon (even though he was convicted of some of his crimes). He's just a traitorous asshole...

Plus, if you're aiming to prove that infantile juvenile behavior might be connected to increasing age, I think we have some more anecdotal evidence to add to that pile...

What? Like raising taxes and spending more money is a great way to "grow" an economy? You speak of the Devil, sir.

I speak of no such ficticious concept. Perhaps you could avoid putting words in other people's mouths for just a moment or two? And keep your occult pagan superstitions to yourself? We're talking about reality over here...

Also, perhaps you could check on spending by Republican'ts vs. spending by Democrats. Especially by the clown installed in the last two federal elections vs. the rest of the administrations in american history combined.

"Morans?"

Morans.

Who's the moron, sir?

You are, 'sir'.

And what "reality-based community" are we talking about? The one where Hillary Clinton in a pantsuit with her freakshow eyeballs is a viable candidate for the Presidency of the United States of America?

Actually, the one where a drunken cokeheaded Republican't idiot who deserted in wartime was selected, not elected, as president. The one where the Republican't veep told a US senator to go fcuk himself on the senate floor. The one where a Republican't adminstration ignored all of the warnings about bin Laden from the departing Democratic administration, left two planes to guard the entire eastern seaboard, and hid like a scared bunny rabbit on 9-11. The one where that Republican't administration started illegally spying on its' own citizens shortly after it was illegaly installed (and before 9-11). The one where the Republican'ts drowned New Orleans, outed a covert CIA agent (also during wartime) for partisan political payack, and did so many illegal and unethical things that our grandchildren's grandchildren won't have enough time to review, much less prosecute, them.

The one where a religiously insane rapist enabler is the best and brightest hope for the Republican'ts in 2008. And you're worried about how Hillary looks?

This is proof that young people contribute nothing to the daily discourse in this country. I'm sorry, but you are ridiculous and quite sad, sir. Quite sad, indeed.

This is proof that you have no idea who you're talking to or dealing with. But thanks for considering me to be one of the 'young people'.

[sigh] Too bad so many of the elderly are proving how senile they are by making statements lacking any basis in reality, and expect them to be considered as 'facts'.

I think the audience left with a sickening, metallic taste in their mouth, not unlike biting into a Twinkie and finding tin foil. My "bullshit" is certainly not under siege from your incisive commentary, which you will stops when you is nots having the funs anymore, I suppose.

At least you think this is true, as opposed to your knowing so many things about so much else (cough).

I'm glad you have deluded yourself into thinking you are handing out anything but horsehockey here. What color is the sky in your world again?

And you also suppose correctly* that I will stop commenting once I stop enjoying the spectacle of an old Republican't moran making a complete and utter ass of himself in these comments. I'm guessing that won't happen any time soon, though...

* - I believe this falls under the category even a stopped watch is right twice a day.

Posted by: (: Tom :) on January 3, 2008 at 2:05 PM | PERMALINK
….people contribute nothing to the daily discourse in this country. I'm sorry, but you are ridiculous and quite sad, sir…..ab-Norman Rogers
Talk about being self-referential. Does you neighbor's Yorkie have a snowball up its butt today that's keeping you from your usual exercise? Posted by: Mike on January 3, 2008 at 2:08 PM | PERMALINK

Note that the "kid" has only negative things to say about "aged" people.

See how far that gets you in life, sir.

The phrase is not even a stopped watch is right twice a day.

It is: Even a stopped clock tells the right time twice a day.

-from Withnail and I.

Were you even reasonably intelligent, you might have even gotten that one right. Too bad for you, the girl with the foam on her cheek turned out to be into the older man with the nice car and the bankroll. He is her sucra papa now, and you get to go home and watch your Mother's boyfriend change the oil in his El Camino in the driveway.

I am sucra papa, sir. I have the money, the car, and I always get the girl. In fact, the girl is freshening up in the guest room as we speak. Too bad you were too preoccupied with your own navel to do anything about it.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on January 3, 2008 at 2:22 PM | PERMALINK

Note that the "kid" has only negative things to say about "aged" people.

Can anyone be this consistently wrong? Besides an ignorant Republican't moran, I mean...

I have (mostly) negative things to say about Republican'ts, regardless of their age. It does amuse me that you're old enough to be retired and collect socsec while ranting about excessive taxation and gubment spending - basically my taxes are paying for your hookers and blow while you're whining about excessive gubmint spending. But I guess this is a living example of IOKIYAR...

The phrase is not even a stopped watch is right twice a day.

It is: Even a stopped clock tells the right time twice a day.

Actually, the version I heard first was even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while. I've never heard anyone use this type of statement in the form you have told me is the only correct way it is used.

Say it with me now: I, Norman Rogers, am wr... wro... wwrroo...

Too bad for you, the girl with the foam on her cheek turned out to be into the older man with the nice car and the bankroll. He is her sucra papa now, and you get to go home and watch your Mother's boyfriend change the oil in his El Camino in the driveway.

Another fabulous prognostication from the resident Republican't loon! Just as wrong as usual, I'm afraid...

I am sucra papa, sir. I have the money, the car, and I always get the girl. In fact, the girl is freshening up in the guest room as we speak. Too bad you were too preoccupied with your own navel to do anything about it.

You get what you paid for. Did you inflate her before you started lying in this comments thread, or has all the hot air you've produced here been your primary inflation source?

Maybe Republican'ts think that measuring each other's dicks is the way to determine who's being truthful. Good luck with that, sport...

If you had even half a point to bring to the discussion, this might be more than an exercise in infotainment. Too bad you're what passes for a reasonable, rational Republican't these days...

Posted by: (: Tom :) on January 3, 2008 at 2:44 PM | PERMALINK

Maybe Republican'ts think that measuring each other's dicks is the way to determine who's being truthful.

You're the only one bringing THAT up, pun intended.

Could someone buy this kid some sympathy? He seems so...pathetic.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on January 3, 2008 at 3:46 PM | PERMALINK

You're the only one bringing THAT up, pun intended.

Yes, I was the first to make claims about my fabulous wealth, my awesome vehicle, and my ability to buy a woman.

Could someone buy this kid some sympathy? He seems so...pathetic.

Could someone buy this geezer some intelligence? He seems so...stupid.

Posted by: (: Tom :) on January 3, 2008 at 3:52 PM | PERMALINK
….and I always get the girl…..ab-Norman at 2:22 PM
The only kind you get, chimp, is a blowup doll from your favorite porn supply outlet. As time goes on, you only grow stupider and stupider. Posted by: Mike on January 3, 2008 at 7:00 PM | PERMALINK

BamHZE hi! http://msn.com my site

Posted by: gosha03 on February 12, 2009 at 11:53 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly