Ah Shark, ya beat me to it. Clinton's line about tax cuts for the rich is deadfuckingon!

BUSH: "Please America, open your wallets and give aid to the people affected by the hurricane."

With a nod-nod wink-wink to the top 2 percent of America enjoying billions of dollars in extra tax cuts, and then there's repealing the estate tax....

What a sham.

Well Silas, you get right on getting us more commentary about this summit. I've never heard of it.

In retrospect, Bill Clinton was not particularly a radical president, or especially more liberal than others. He doesn't particularly have much firm philosophical beliefs to push, other than being pro-abortion. That seemed to be the only thing he wouldn't compromise on.

It was those politics of personal destruction that he's still engaging in. He couldn't just say that his idea of what will help poor people is different than Republicans. No, he's going for the hardest, ruthless partisanship he can muster. It's not that the Republicans have mistaken ideas about how best to help, it has to be that the Republicans hate black folk.

He COULD have gone on his high profile interview at ABC and talked about his summit, and praised Wolfowitz for attending and such. Instead, he did this.

There was a very informative special on CNN last night hosted by Christiane Amanpour. The discussion was frank and lively with a wide range of participants. I agree that ABC should have done more to discuss it this morning. It's just another classic example of Georgie S.'s obvious Democrat agenda.

"accusing President Bush of callous indifference to black people."

Wrong, he accused his policies of being indifferent to poor people, and then explained that a majority of the poor people in Louisana are black.

Is that statement incorrect?

RE:CLINTON

Well at least Clinton can string two consecutive sentences together to give you something to kvetch about. In contrast, our dear leader, Kim Yung Bush is a walking affirmative action quota for dwindling rich failed WASP types. Talk about the bigotry of low expectations.

Al, I think it's clear that your dislike of Clinton heavily influenced your opinion here.

First of all, George Stephanopoulos is the host of This Week, so he performs all of the major interviews on that show. Secondly, Clinton also appeared on Meet the Press this morning, where his comments were very similar.

Third, I think the accusation that Clinton is engaging in the "politics of personal destruction" is ridiculous. He made his views known in a very measured, reasonable, and intelligent manner. You might disagree, but I find your characterizations to be way off the mark.

Now, Shark: I strongly disagree that Clinton is a "has been." His Clinton Global Initiative is rather extraordinary in nature, and Clinton really does continue to redefine what ex-Presidents can do. Compare him to Bush 41 -- there's really no comparison. Of course, Bush the Sr. is entitled to retirement or semi-retirement, but it does highlight how active and energized Clinton is on a host of issues.

You need to take a math class or stop letting your anger affect your reading of a math problem.

A hundred times more means exactly that and I think statistics show that the middle class dissapears into the lower class under the last two Bush administrations along with a little help from Newt. Just because Clinton brings it up doens't make it false :)

Well, no matter what your political views, I think all reasonable people can agree that ol' BJ did manage to get at least one overt lie in:

he claims not to have discussed the upcoming vote on Supreme Court nominee Roberts with Hillary. "I have no idea what she's going to do. I haven't talked to her about it."

RJ -

a) You have no proof of that

And...

b) Who cares?

I don't see how that's a lie, RJ. They probably don't speak at all.

Yeah, I don't see Bill and Hillary chatting it up much these days. Other than terse conversations about whatever Chelsea might be up to. But discussing politics? Puhleeese!

Sorry RJ, that dog won't hunt.

Look, if you are married, and your wife is a US Senator, and you are a former US President, and your wife is almost certain to run for US President in the next election, and the first US Supreme Court nominee in over a decade comes before the US Senate, there are only two reasonable options:

1 - This married couple will have spoken in great length about how she is going to vote

or

2 - It's a sham marriage, and they don't even talk anymore

If it's (1), then I'm right on

If it's (2), then BJ is an even worse liar, for playing a part of this phony "marriage"

Are they even living together?

He has his offices in Harlem, I have no idea where Hillary lives. For all I know (and I don't) they have been separated since 2000.

Besides, wtf difference will it make how Hillary votes on the Roberts confirmation?

He's a shoo-in.

Sigh...

Look, either BJ lied to Mr. Snuffleupagus, or he didn't.

If he lied, well, then he's a liar (but we already knew that)...

If he didn't lie, then he is in a sham marriage. And that makes him an even worse liar, pretending to be in a strong marriage when the wife won't even talk to him about her job...

I'll take option 2, RJ. I thought everyone already knew it was a sham marriage.

"Vote for Hillary in 2008! She pretty much single!"

No, RJ. They stay married out of courtesy to their daughter. [cack]

Besides, a divorse would be messy, and public, and who needs that right now?

They don't talk politics. Hillary always believed that she knew WAY more than Bill on that subject, and she's spreading her wings and doesn't need her philandering husband's opinion at this point.

Sham marriage?

No, an average marriage. Or common at any rate.

Okay, lemme get this straight...

Hillary is going to run for President in 2008. (Does anybody disagree with that???)

BJ Clinton, for better or for worse, is still a very popular public figure. (Does anybody disagree with that???)

When Hillary runs for President, she will use BJ Clinton (her "husband") on the stump. (Does anybody disagree with that???)

Hillary, when she is going for the Dem nomination, will face some challengers. (Does anybody disagree with that???)

If she votes for Roberts, there will be at least one challenger on her Left who attacks her for that. (Does anybody disagree with that???)

If she doesn't vote for Roberts, there will be at least one challenger on her Right who attacks her for that. (Does anybody disagree with that???)

So. In order to properly formulate a strategy for victory in 2008, one of the things she needs to take into consideration is whether or not to vote for Roberts. (Does anybody disagree with that???)

Now, does ANYBODY HONESTLY THINK that she hasn't brought this issue up with her husband, who happens to also be the guy who will endorse her for President in 2008 and then give a lot of speeches and appear in a lot of ads for her?

I think that's the only remaining question...

What do YOU think?

I think that with the array of issues facing our country, the Roberts vote is a small thing indeed.

I haven't heard Bill Clinton say anything negative about Roberts.

Or Hillary for that matter.

Since he's a lock to be confirmed, don't you think Hillary is smart enough (in conjunction with her advisors) to make the decision to say yea or nay without the input from Bill?

Your repeated focus on the "BJ" part is juvenile. Have you ever been fortunate enough to be on the receiving end?

Thought so.

Move on, RJ. You'll come off as more balanced and mature. Less like Anthony if you get my drift.

RJ -- My only reaction is that you're insatiable curiocity about a marriage that you have, I presume, no real relation to.

I could care less about the inner workings of Bills marriage with Hill. If they profess to be happy, married, "happy," or "married," I could care less.

I don't know why you or anyone else is so hung up about this. I care about leadership and policy and politics. What they do on their off time is their own business.

I use "GW Bush" all the time...what is wrong with "BJ Clinton" ???

Meant to say "insatiably curious..."

Yes, RJ, I agree with Bennett in saying that there's plenty of *real* things to disagree with both Clintons about.

"Since he's a lock to be confirmed, don't you think Hillary is smart enough (in conjunction with her advisors) to make the decision to say yea or nay without the input from Bill?"

So, IOW, she doesn't even want to DISCUSS this huge issue with her own HUSBAND, who will also be her strongest supporter and campaigner in 2008?

Look, if that's the case, she's toast. The American people will not elect their first female President if she's a willing party to such a bogus marriage...

Believe it or not, character matters. At least to the American voting public.

If Hillary and BJ can be portrayed (truthfully) as a "couple" of opportunists who don't really love each other and who don't even sleep in the same bed, or have sex, or even talk much, but only stay "together" for political reasons, then that will be a big issue in the minds of voters.

No, I'm saying that it's really not a HUGE issue.

Dealing with Iraq is a HUGE issue.

Education in America is a HUGE issue.

Deficit spending is a HUGE issue.

Preparing for natural disasters and potential terrorist attacks is a HUGE issue.

Tax reform that helps the middle class is a HUGE issue.

The "already a done deal" Roberts vote doesn't even show up on the radar of things that need to be discussed.

So yeah, I believe him when he says that he and Hillary haven't talked about this issue.

There are more important things to talk about.

...can be portrayed.

Portrayed by whom? I'll answer that: there will always be people who try and rip the Clintons apart in exactly the same manner that is always deunciated as Bush Bashing today.

I'll repeat: if the Clintons claim to be a happy couple, have worked out their differences, etc. why the hell should anyone look to "portray" them as anything different?

I'll also repeat: there are plenty of policy reasons that you can disagree with either Clinton upon. Why bother getting tawdry and going after their personal lives? It's not necessary and not at all effective.

Bogus marriage or not, Bill Clinton has his own issues he's tending to in New York and elsewhere around the globe and Hilary is in Washington doint her thing...given that they are both extremely busy, they may not get to talk much. Occham's Razor: that's the simplest answer I can provide. I'm sure it will come up when they do find the time to talk...

Yes Scott, Bill Clinton just wrapped up his first Clinton Global Initiative with leaders from around the globe. He then gave (at least) two major interviews for the Sunday morning shows over the weekend. Hillary is one of the most active Senators on the Democratic circuit. So they've both been pretty busy...

If you believe him on this, I suspect you'll be more than willing to believe a lot of other BS the Dems stuff down your throat over the next 3+ years...

Bon appetit! :)

RJ, don't retreat into inanities!

You can do better than that. Hell, you picked Redskins over Bears last week. C'mon, man!

Normal married couples, you know, talk every day. They, you know, own cell phones.

And they often talk about their work...

If Hillary has not once mentioned the Roberts nomination to her own husband, I would be utterly shocked.

Occam's Razor leads me to belive he's a liar.

Hey, it wouldn't be the first time he lied to a national audience! :)

RJ -- My point is that you (and Al) are exactly predisposed NOT to believe anything Bill Clinton says.

RJ Grande,

The Roberts nomination isn't a big issue. He's already got enough votes to get in on all accounts.

You have no idea how the campaign is going to be run so it's premature to say it's a fact that her husband will be on the stump. It will be a numbers game. If she's doing fine on her own, Bill won't get involved.

"If Hillary and [Bill] can be portrayed (truthfully) as a 'couple' of opportunists"

They are already portrayed like that. It will only be brought up when the right starts losing on actual issues like Iraq, Katrina and the economy.

"If he lied, well, then he's a liar "

Do mean a lie like when President Bush said, "I don't think anyone anticipated the breach of the levees."

Your odd fixations reveal your political knowledge is about as poor as your football knowledge.

Well, when someone perjures themselves, and lies to the American people in a public statement...yes, a lot of people are going to question the veracity of what this individual has to say in the future...

I'm trying to remember how many convictions the Whitewater hearings yielded again...

"The Roberts nomination isn't a big issue."

Riiight...

Like, two-plus years from now, after he has written numerous right-of-center opinions on the USSC, and overturned a few rulings that Leftists agreed with, you don;t think this will be an issue???

"If Hillary has not once mentioned the Roberts nomination to her own husband, I would be utterly shocked."

Don't you think that's going to be asked about in the future? And the right will jump all over Bill getting a thrid term. They are both lawyers and know how to prepare, so if they don't talk about it, then people like you who don't know what important issues are, will have nothing to whine about.

RJ -- Are you serious in your fixation about whether or not Bill and Hillary discussed the Roberts nomination?

Just curious.

"I'm trying to remember how many convictions the Whitewater hearings yielded again..."

Your time might be better spent trying to recall all the US Presidents who have been disbarred by the US Supreme Court...

Let's not forget either that he's doing major work with the first president Bush with their Katrina relief fund. Bill's a busy boy...he has bigger fish to fry than hashing out a cel phone strategy session with his wife on the Roberts nomination.

Not if he has enough votes to get in. Do you know how the Senate works? It's not like she's going to be the tie breaker.

"RJ -- Are you serious in your fixation about whether or not Bill and Hillary discussed the Roberts nomination?"

It's hardly a "fixation" of mine - it's merely an obvious lie that BJ committed that is being denied by numberous BJ apologists...

That's so important because you know how many ex-Presidents pratice law.

That's true, RJ. But at some point you have to let the poisen drain from your soul and move on with your life. Hate causes cancer, you know.

I don't hate GWB, not any more anyway. I've moved on. Bill Clinton is doing a lot of good for a lot of people. If he was the slimy bastard you paint him to be, would the Bushes even be involved with him?

He made mistakes, we all do. Lord knows I wouldn't wany my secrets hung up on the national clothesline...

What, should we shoot the guy? Or let him contribute to our country in ways that he is suited to contribute?

I was pissed off at the whole affair, because I liked the man, and was incredibly dissapointed at his lapse in judgment.

But I know that I am far from being without sin, so hey, let's move on and let Ex-President Bill Clinton do what he can to make ammends for letting his country down.

It's what I would beg for, if I was him.

RJ -- I've enjoyed this little time warp back to 1998, but I'll check out now to worry about things of actual importance.

If Roberts is confirmed (and he will be), and then he issues a few "controversial" majority opinions that the Left doesn't like (which WILL happen), then those who voted to support his nomination will have to face tough questions in the Dem nomination process.

Does anyone truly disagree with this???

Wrong again, RJ Grande. You have yet to prove it's a lie and that's all anyone is saying, but I know your side hates it when actual facts are used.

I stopped reading when I hit this line:
"First off, ABC News is rapidly losing credibility as a news source. Fox News is often accused of being biased in favor of the right, but they're not hiring Karen Hughes or Karl Rove to conduct news interviews with George Bush. That ABC absolutely handed their prime Sunday morning news show to a supposedly retired political operative tells you a lot a"


Are you perhaps forgetting the identity of the CEO of Fox News? Namely, Roger Aisles, a political spin doctor-campaign manager for repubs for years?

Here's his career summary via Wikipedia:
Employment history
Property Assistant, The Mike Douglas Show, 1962-1965
Producer, The Mike Douglas Show, 1965-1967
Executive Producer, The Mike Douglas Show, 1967-1968
Media adviser to Richard M. Nixon Presidential Campaign in 1968
Consultant in 1984 to President Ronald Reagan
Media Consultant for Vice President George H. W. Bush's 1988 Presidential campaign
Chief Executive Officer, Fox News Channel 1996-present


Ok, and you expect me to be concerned about Steph. as a host?


As for this clinton business... have you ever noticed that about the only time you hear conservatives complain about racism is when they're accused of being
guilty of it?

Incidentally Aisles was involved in the Willie Horton ad? If you want to talk about "racial demagoguery - " that's a good place to start.

And before you or anyone says that was not demagogery let me post the definition from dictionary.com:


demagogue

n : an orator who appeals to the passions and prejudices of his audience [syn

Bennett -- Very well said, I largely agree.

"That's true, RJ. But at some point you have to let the poisen [sic] drain from your soul and move on with your life"

And I will. As soon as you admit the obvious fact that I was right, and BJ lied on national television...again...

...and you held off for an entire 30 minutes without calling him "BJ"!

I'm so proud of you Anthony!

you held off for an entire 30 minutes without calling him "BJ"

Aren't those his initials?

Don't you think the left will bite their tongue if Hil is their best shot at getting the White House back?

You have yet to show you have any serious grasp about the way politics works.

comment #48:
What exactly does "numberous" mean?

No, it would be WJ. You are just as bad of a liar as Bush.

So, after all the amusing political kabuki BS, we end up with the same questions that no one seems to want to answer:

Did BJ Clinton lie in a nationally-televised interview with his former subordinate George Snuffleupagus ... or is he just in a sham marriage, that he only maintains in order to not harm himself politically?

Either way, he's a lying ass.

Have fun in 2008, Dems! :)

Thanks Roger, I was on that one too.

"No, it would be WJ."

Does anyone seriously call him "William" ???

Does anyone take you seriously, RJ Grande

"is he just in a sham marriage, that he only maintains in order to not harm himself politically?"

Just how would it harm politically? Bush constantly calls him for help.

If your biggest concern today is whether Bill did or didn't talk to his wife about a supreme court nominee than, well, I'm surprised because on my list of things to worry that's pretty low, below nuclear war and the war in Iraq and the cleanup of Katrina.


Look, let's turn this around.
Judges like Roberts are told things in confidence they are not supposed to share with anybody.
Just as presidents like Bush sr. and jr. are told confidential information.
By your logic Roberts and Bush are in "sham marriages" if they don't talk about these things - violating those confidences - and are "liars" if they suggest they are.

So. I see a lot of personal attacks against me, and no real, credible answer to the main question I asked in this post:

DID BJ CLINTON LIE ON NATIONAL TELEVISION?

IF HE DID, THEN HE'S A LIAR.

IF HE DIDN'T, THEN HE'S IN A SHAM MARRIAGE.

Choose one. And run with it, in 2008... ;-P

I also see a lot of comments attempting to change the subject...

Not surprising! :)

Or he wanted to distance his own position from a United States Senator on the Judiciary Committee who is about to cast a vote on a nominee for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

Talk about a "third way"!

So, is there some evidence that he has talked to Hilary about Roberts that you have and we don't know about RJ?

Will some Republican pundit grill him with some hard-hitting question like "Mr. Clinton on This Week with George Snuffalupagus on September 18, 2005, you declared you had not discussed Judge Roberts nomination with your wife Hilary when you, in fact, had done just that. Care to explain?"

How is this a big deal, like, at all????

Of course not, but RJ Grande knows it happened.

"Or he wanted to distance his own position from a United States Senator on the Judiciary Committee who is about to cast a vote on a nominee for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court."

Then why not be...I dunno...HONEST?

He could have said that he has opinions on the matter, and his "wife" has opinions on the matter, and they are to remain private.

Instead, he (almost certainly) lied.

CLINTON IN 2008!!!

"How is this a big deal, like, at all????"

So, I guess politicians lying while giving nationally-broadcast interviews on friendly media doesn't bother you...

Should I remember that? :)

"Of course not, but RJ Grande knows it happened."

Either he lied on nat'l TV, or he's in a sham marriage.

YOU DECIDE! :)

And, I'm sure you think it's both of those, right RJ?

Of course, because you decide what constitutes a marriage and how people should act in it.

There was some hope for you, RJ. But you have officially descended into the relm of 16 year old hater-screamers.

All hail "RJ Grande".

Al on Clinton: "...he's going for the hardest, ruthless partisanship he can muster."

And that's why he's seen arm in arm with Bush Sr. every time Jr. gets flooded in deep shit with some Tsunami...

=====

RJ playing Dr. Phil on Lithium: "...Normal married couples, you know, talk every day. They, you know, own cell phones."

You, you know, are single, right?

=====

I think it's great that Clinton's ghost can still haunt the likes of Barger and RJ.

He must have some heavy-duty ju-ju.

PS: RJ, your obsession with the Clinton marriage is starting to make you sound, um, more insane than usual.

Take a deep breath, man.

IT DON'T MATTER.

And if if it do -- MOST AMERICANS DON'T GIVE A SHIT.

Why?

~ 'cause we're married.

Hillary in 2008!

Chelsea in 2016!

bwahahahahaha!

PERSONAL NOTE:

Big Al, you have my sympathy re. RJ.

I know the feeling, man; There are a few "liberals" hereabouts who I just HATE to have on my side during a 'debate'.

I see my comments as responding to your allegations about Clinton being a liar which so far appear to be baseless.

Agreed, Sharky;

Bobby (RJ) Elliott should pay more attention to his own perfect relationship.

By the way Bobby, you really ought to pump some more air into her...she's looking a little peaked...

RJ in a moment of unintended irony: "...I guess politicians lying while giving nationally-broadcast interviews on friendly media doesn't bother you..."

If it bothered us, George Bush would be in prison instead of the White House.

RJ, I've got some news for ya.

Are you sitting down, man?

Okay. Good.

Get this: Clinton is going to divorce Hillary...





and





















marry


























CINDY SHEEHAN.
















[RIP, babe]

Believe it or not, character matters. At least to the American voting public.

Um, OK. If character mattered, George Walker Bush would not be President. The American people only have themselves to blame for the leadership vaccuum in the United States by discouraging quality people from seeking office. We've got to develop a standard of excellence -- we must expect it from our elected officials. I'm not saying that they have to be perfect. We are all human, believe it or not. One thing that I have heard many times over the last few days is that had Bill Clinton been President these last 2 1/2 weeks, the people of the Gulf Coast would not have been temporarily abandoned by a crippled FEMA. This comes from Clinton supporters and detractors, my friends.

In the meantime, short of impeachment, GW Bush remains in office for another three years and four months. There are things we can do to influence this White House. We can start by applying pressure on members of Congress. If they fail to respond in kind during next year's session, throw the damn bums out! Is there anything simpler than that?

I feel your pain.

First off, I'm not sure why exactly RJ cares so much about the Clinton marriage. I do not. But Bill's goddam lying about not talking to Hillary about Roberts. He could have just said he didn't want to talk about it, but that would have blown the opportunity to tell another lie.

Mr Berlin, I do hold an extremely low personal opinion of Bill Clinton, but it's not on grounds of politics (again, he's more or less moderate), but of low personal morals. I was a little embarassed to be represented before the world by such classless trash- but that's not a question of liberal or conservative.

If I were of age, I'd have probably had similar feelings about being represented by President Nixon- except that Nixon was significantly less bad as a person, though much more politically liberal than Clinton in practice.

I'm aware that Stephanopoulos is the regular host of This Week. I considered the show appointment television for years- until they handed the reins to him. That ABC News would give him this job tells me a lot about how fair and balanced they are.

There's perhaps some point to be made legitimately about objecting to Roger Ailes in that PART of his resume was political, but the practice isn't the same. Their major news hosts are not paid partisan operatives. Brit Hume is a legitimate journalist, Stephanopoulos just isn't.

Granted, if Karl Rove called in sick, Sean Hannity wouldn't know what to say on his show. But then, he's BILLED as a conservative, with an official liberal co-host right there.

Pinkos can all give up bitching about that perfectly legitimate Willie Horton ad. They put a face with a particularly notorious criminal case reasonably directly attributable to the specific policies of the opposition candidate. You might legitimately somewhat question whether you think that was "necessary," but it was one maybe somewhat marginally questionable ad most of 20 years ago.

The worst reasonable interpretation of that ad is nowhere near comparable to Clinton absolutely and inarguably consciously poisoning the well like this shameful ABC appearance.

Oh, and Shark, you think you're clever wanting to wedge between me and RJ. Ain't happening. RJ's a key man on Team Al. He perhaps let y'all sidetrack him here for a minute with this Bill and Hillary thing, but that's a minor point.

Shark, if RJ caught rabies, and he was foaming at the mouth, he'd still be more sensible and logical than you. I say this with love, but you don't even PRETEND to be rational. RJ's mistake is that he sometimes forgets what he knows and actually tries to take your avowed nonsense seriously.

When Clinton said "I don't think it's race based", he was exactly right. The decline in black unemployment during his time in office wasn't race based either. If you have record low unemployment for everyone you almost certainly also have record low unemployment within each ethnic group. Nothing in our national policy under the Republican policy is done for purposes of race. Not for the white majority or in particular for any minority group. The Republican philosophy is that if the country is stronger economically then everyone will benefit - more jobs, more money, more housing, freer credit, etc. It's a sound concept, and seems to work.

Dave

There's a great quote from Mark Shields that agrees with the Bush Isn't Racist argument (and I agree with it... emphasis is mine):

In the enduring American tragedy of New Orleans, President George W. Bush has been libeled.

The foul charge, as untrue as it is unjust, has been made that he is a racist. George Bush is most definitely not a racist.

He is, however, isolated -- and he may be almost criminally uncurious.

Proud of the fact that he neither reads daily newspapers nor watches television news, the president has never publicly questioned why in 2004 -- the third full year of the national economic recovery -- the number of Americans living in poverty had increased from 32.9 million to 37 million, or why 45.8 million of his fellow citizens -- 6 million more than in 2000 -- were uninsured.

Big Al bitchin' -- in an unintended moment of EXTREME IRONY said this about Clinton's alleged "racial demagoguery":

BARGER: "Pinkos can all give up bitching about that perfectly legitimate Willie Horton ad. They put a face with a particularly notorious criminal case reasonably directly attributable to the specific policies of the opposition candidate."

Okay. Pinkos will quit bitchin' about the Horton ad if you and RJ quit bitchin' about this:

Clinton: "if you give your tax cuts to the rich... and poverty goes up, and it disproportionately affects black and brown people, that's a consequence of the action made."

--- which, btw, sorta put a face with a particularly notorious series of tax breaks for the rich -- reasonably directly attributable to GW Bush -- on the racial and economic trickle-down effects they have on poor people.

Btw: IT'S TRUE, but don't let that get in the way of you guys chasing after the scary ghost of Clinton.

PS: ~BOO!

Bill Clinton didn't do anything significant for black people in this country, despite his overwhelming popularity with black voters. He, with the help of Newt Gingrich and later George W. Bush, helped create the conditions for the disproportionate increase in black poverty in this country since he left office.

That being said, you've become so predictable, Senator. This was really poorly-written and even foolish.

RJ, to his credit, is seriously worried that Hillary will be President. He has told me in other discussions that he thinks Hillary would beat Bill Frist, the front-runner for the GOP nomination in 2008, by a historic 55-45% margin. Since the only thing people who hate Hillary can cling to is some speculation about the state of her marriage, I would take his obsession with "BJ Clinton" and wife as a mark of his respect for their political skills.

That is all.

Al to Shark: "...if RJ caught rabies, and he was foaming at the mouth, he'd still be more sensible and logical than you."

I forget more in a day than RJ has learned in a lifetime.

BTW: Al, you really must stop worshiping this phantom "logic"; "Logic" is whatever justifies one's opinion.

And by admitting that, "logic" says I'm more HONEST than you and RJ put together.

: )

Al: I do hold an extremely low personal opinion of Bill Clinton, but it's not on grounds of politics... but of low personal morals."

Al, c'mon, bubba;

I come from the same hillbilly-redneck-white trash culture as you do, and we both know that if either of us got into the Oval Office, the FIRST thing we'd do was see if we could score a blow-job from some cute intern.

C'mon, Al, admit it: among our 'contemporaries' -- that would be a source of pride and accomplishment!

~Find a new source of outrage.

Only people who so obviously have no grip on logic in their intellectual skill set and in their disposition throw words like "logic," "reason," and "rationality" around so frequently. It's their desperate attempt to convince themselves as much of you that they're not rabid ideologues or people who just aren't able to function in mainstream society. Call it a pre-emptive projection of character that begs the question of some insight into their own character that they are aware of but unable to come to terms with when it's so apparent to the rest of us.

That's why I think names like "Mark the Sensible" are pretty funny and self-aware.

Does anyone know what the Senator does for a living day-to-day? Just curious.

That is all.

Bill Clinton got head, so what? Does his infidelity to his wife really matter when it comes to his presidency or place in political history? Unfortunately, until our grandchildren have all died the history books' take on Bill Clinton will not go far beyond Monica Lewinsky. FDR was a philanderer, yet he is regarded as the patron saint of the presidency. Ike cheated on Mamie -- didn't make him a bad guy, did it? Nixon, on the other hand, probably only had sex twice in his life and look what happened there. Forget about what a President does in his/her bedroom -- be more concerned how he governs in the Situation Room.

Does anyone know what the Senator does for a living day-to-day?

Which Senator?

Now come on Silas, you have to know that Clinton was not impeached for anything to do with sex. If it were a Republican president absolutely provably dead to rights caught lying under oath in a federal court and- worse- tampering with witnesses, you'd be calling for his head. I'd be right there with you.

Or do you want to argue that perjury and witness tampering are not impeachable offenses?

There was no witness tampering. He lied about sex, something that had NOTHING to do with what he was investigated about.

It was wrong to lie under oath, he was duly punished, but was able to move on.

So was the rest of America.

As far as I'm aware, the perjury pertained to Clinton getting a blow job from Monica, nothing more. Hardly earth-shaking, and certainly not in the category of taking a nation to war & pouring thousands of American lives & billions of dollars into an Iraqi rathole on the basis of sworn statements/excuses that changed day to day depending on whether the previous day's had been discredited, from "WMD" to "Yellow Cake" to "Bioweapons" to "Saddam & BinLaden are allies" to "Democracy for Iraqis" (when all else fails, wrap yourself in the flag so you can claim your detractors are unpatriotic).

What other items are you talking about? If there are more, it's interesting that Ken Starr wasted millions & millions of $$ investigating BJC out the wazoo (& Hill, too) & never came up with enough to charge either one of them, to the fury of the GOP, altho gawd knows they tried, hard.

So. Since Bill was impeached on the basis of denying he had sex with someone who basically was a semi-professional whore (at least, according to congress) what do you know that congress didn't? Please enlighten us all, because I do want to know. Really.

I would say on a scale of things, BushBoy is a whole lot guiltier of worse than BJC is.

Oh - and if you want to talk about famous libidos in the WH, don't forget the all-time champ, JFK, one good man nobody could keep down. So to speak.

The Management has asked that the discussion of Bill Clinton's blow job be consolidated with the debate over the status of Terri Shiavo's mental state.

Thanks for your cooperation.

I'll use this as a cheap opportunity to point out that there's one picture of when Terry Schiavo was a blonde where she got really kind of hot. It's amazing how disease and physical deterioration can change the human body so drastically. But in her prime, when she apparently was fitness and diet-crazed and had the blonde dye job, I would have given her the Clinton treatment for sure.

That is all.

None of which (the Clinton marriage or lack thereof) has anything whatsoever to do with the economic facts cited by Bill that Al is whining about.

Booey, I dunno, man, I ain't no Christoid expert, but I think there's some sorta eternal religious punishment for lustin' after the brain dead.

No, no, Sharky poo.

When she was hot and anorexic, not when she was drooling and vegetative.

See ya in Heaven -- read my comments about Jesus and materialism in the "economic morality" BS-fest.

That is all.

Just curious, Shark -- is that on the grounds that two bent heads are better than one?

ROTFLOL - men are SO sick-o! (Mental image of you guys drooling over photos of T.S. in the hospice). EEEEyew.

Mr Berlin, Clinton absolutely was tampering with witnesses. For starters, he was trying to get his secretary to lie in court. "Now, I was never alone with her, right?" Rather than perjure herself, she reported this to the grand jury even while she was still working for him.

There were numerous other examples of witness tampering by Clinton around just this Lewinsky situation much less in every other kind of legal issues he was facing, but that's the most well documented in court under oath.

Now, I don't care that much about it today. But when people keep repeating again and again the falsehood that Clinton was impeached for having sex, I'm not inclined to just concede that point- especially when they're doing it on MY articles. No, Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice- charges for which he was clearly totally 100% guilty.

You may wish to argue that you don't like the policies of the Bush administration, but that's NOT the same kind of thing as the grotesque levels of personal corruption displayed by Clinton. There's just no excuse for it, even if you agree with Clinton's policies.

No, Al - you're 100% right that Bill SHOULD indeed have been impeached for perjury & witness tampering. Perjury/w.t. are perjury & w.t. and that is that. Incredibly stupid of him to even try to deny it. Actually, I didn't believe it when I heard it (about Monica, that is), and I did believe him when he denied it, because w/all the people around in the WH, especially the omnipresent SS, who would be stupid enough to even try to screw her in the first place? I thought surely he would have had to have been out of his mind A) to try it, and then B) to deny it.

That said, I think Jr. should be held to the same (at least) standards.

But Nancy, has Dubya been commiting perjury? He's not even been in court.

Clinton probably came out about right on the Lewinsky thing, being impeached but not convicted and removed from office. It was probably right that he got to finish his elected term, but he got the unerasable and inarguably appropriate black mark of a formal impeachment.

Again, you might disagree with Dubya's policies, but that's not impeachable offenses. That's just politics.

Al -- I agree that Clinton got about what he deserved. And I also think that he's done a hell of a lot to burnish his image, legacy, and rep in his post-presidency.

And you're right about Bush never having landed himself in court, but I refer back to Shields once again:

"He is, however, isolated -- and he may be almost criminally uncurious."

Now we're talking about life and death, global and domestic.

Al, from all I've read, and from the evidence of Jr.'s own remarks & actions as recorded on tape, et al., I do believe there are indeed grounds for impeachment, and the only reason it isn't happening is because the Pubs control congress. Granted some of the charges are more serious (or better grounded) than others, but they are there, and all the spin in the world doesn't make them go away.

Actually, there are a lot of current, sitting politicians on the hill on both sides I'd also like to see impeached or removed or whatever they do to congresspersons, on the basis of overwhelmingly blatant evidence, but it's unlikely, because those schmucks cover each others' asses even more assiduously than doctors do.

Nancy, what exactly would be the high crimes and misdemeanors for which Bush should be impeached? Note that the opinion that Iraq was a bad move does not constitute a crime, even if it has deadly serious consequences. Has he been commiting felonies?

Yes. I believe a summary of charges can be found at impeachbush.com. I decline to take up all the space necessary to repeat them here when they're already outlined in detail there together with what evidence exists, better than I could do it. Again, not all of them are viable, & some are outright partisan, but there is enough, IMO, that some of the charges apply, and only political partisanship on the hill protects Bush & keeps him or his staff/adjuncts from being charged.

The url www.impeachbush.com is a dead link.

Actually, when I tried it, it flipped to a completely different site, with a Networking Solutions header...

Try www.impeachbush.org.

Now THAT link is dead...

OK, let's try this again. This link should take you to that silly little site.

Well, it's around here, somewhere, I know it is. Thanks, Silas.

Megadittoes, dewd!
I think it was really kewl when you said that President Clinton "carefully and purposely accusing President Bush of callous indifference to black people." Your imagination is ossum dewd!

And when you said: "Most former presidents at least try to put on a minimal facade of class", I thought, "Dewd! Kick some butt!" You're bigger than Rush, man! Bigger than Jesus!

And you knock it out of the park when you say: "there's the casual conflating of black with poor."
Conflating is such an ass-kicking word! I looooove it! You are so freaking ossum it's crazy.

But you don't stop there. You say: "Bill Clinton on ABC, on the other hand, knew what he was doing, and did it with malice aforethought."
Malice afterthought is sooo kewl! And Clinton makes watches run backwards. Bush is a futuristical GENIUS! Look at all his ideas! He makes Einstein look like Schopenhauer or Pat Buttram! Really!

Man, you should get a radio show! The fat man's messiah can't carry on forever. Make it your own, dawg! Yourn kampf! That'll show them wussies!

Bill Clinton was politically incorrect. He didn't do what he was supposed to do. He too good to suck up?
Too free to be politically correct?
Think he is more important because he was elected? The nerve!

Dewd, I worship you! (Granted, dull minds think alike.)

-anonyMoses Hyperlincoln Jr.

On Bush's High Crimes, Misdemeanors and Subsequent Chimpeachment


I notice that folks are talking about Bush's snowywhite unimpeachable character, or the converse, and I must say that I prefer Converse. Hightops. Brown.

Not only that, but John Dean has said that Bush was guilty of no less than 11 impeachable crimes.

Hmm...

Thanks for your kind words, anonyMoses. Glad to count you as a fan.

Glad to see you have maintained your sense of the absurd.

Lively discussion!

Cheers!

To all you folks wasting valuable space attempting to reason with RJ, I simply ask why? RJ can not be swayed by logic, he stuck in one gear, the I hate Clinton gear- and Republicans can do no wrong. What a hell of a mess this attitude has landed our country in. How do you take care of IRAQ when we can't even take care of America. AND did I mention no weapons of mass destruction have been found or will be found, WHY? Because they were never there in the first place. This little idiot of a leader has humiliated America before the entire world. This guy is not qualified to run a lemonade stand, let alone a country.

Dude, this blog was awesome.

[I'm fully expecting DaveNalle to write his unoriginal take on this theme -- with Bush replacing Clinton -- since Nalle loves to steal my shtick and redo it with less creativity and humor...]

Pre-emptive Strike: Nalle, get yer own material.

Thanks in advance,
S

Every once in a while, Shark, you justify your existance.

You're good for another two weeks, now...

That was a pretty good effort Shark. It's good that somebody understands me. I lay awake nights thinking about that damned Clinton, and wondering when he's going to strike next.

Great job, Shark! Someone's gotta get a Blogcritics Halloween Comedy Players troupe together to act this stuff out.

LOL - GREAT poem, Shark. If it were all that clever, I could learn to like Emerson & tolerate Browning.

Hickory dickory dock,
Monica sucked Bill's c#$k,
Who knew the goo,
On the dress of blue,
Would give the public such shock.

Perhaps Shark and now Silas might offer audio performances of these little masterworks for a BC podcast.

Oh, now this is much more tolerable than having to scan Elizabeth BB's whining & swooning. For some reason, my English teacher never considered Dorothy Parker & Isaac Asimov to be great poets. I think a clever limerick beats an elongated strophe any day.

>>[I'm fully expecting DaveNalle to write his unoriginal take on this theme -- with Bush replacing Clinton -- since Nalle loves to steal my shtick and redo it with less creativity and humor...]

Pre-emptive Strike: Nalle, get yer own material.<<

No, Shark. I liked this one. It was even mildly amusing, and certainly seasonal. I can't wait to see what you do with 'Twas the Night Before Christmas'.

Dave

Elizabeth BB. Oh Lord. The floodgates are about to open. How do I love thee? Let me count the ways. All sixty-nine of them.

The Political Section editng team, headed by Natalie Bennett this week, picked this as one of her posts of the week. Thank you very much.

Thanks, gang. Special thanks also to Shark for his poem in comment 129, which I lifted as a separate post back on my More Things domain.

Aha, the old 'send the blacks north so the polar crowd can move south' ploy. In California, 'browns' were sent into Denver as a quasi-legal welfare aid scheme [which also relieved such families of their southerly property] resulting from a call-demand STRATEGY imposed.

Marcia, I is a dumb Kentuckian what could not understand a word a what you was sayin' there. I aks you, can you dumb that down for a poor hillbilly boy such as myself?