Showing posts with label Bill Clinton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bill Clinton. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
The Blow Job That Roared
Bill Clinton was impeached over lying about a blow job. He wasn't convicted, despite the fact that lawmakers such as Trent Lott voted against impeaching Richard Nixon for his high crimes and misdemeanors, yet thought Clinton's sexual habits were worthy of removal from office.
That is just politics. Impeachment is a political act as much as a legal one. The conviction of Bill Clinton did not occur because the American people were opposed to drumming a man out of office for the high crime of adultery.
Large segments of the media on the other hand, cheered and declared Clinton unfit for office despite what the rabble in the masses thought. They knew better. David Broder famously quipped on the "seriousness" of Clinton's transgressions.
"He came in here and he trashed the place," says Washington Post columnist David Broder, "and it's not his place."
Oddly, like Trent Lott, "Dean" Broder thought the Nixon impeachment was much ado about nothing.
Today, comes word that Karl Rove gave pep talks to U.S. Diplomats on ways they could give help to at risk Republican congress members. The ambassador to Denmark needs to know how to help Chris Shays beat a challenger in order to do his job apparently.
Also today, Alberto Gonzales lied under oath once again, with the response being another stifled yawn. It turns out, under version 583 of Gonzales' story, that he was there talking to a sedated man out of surgery to be helpful.
"We never had any intent to ask anything of him if we did not feel he was competent," Gonzales testified at an oversight hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee, saying that Ashcroft was "lucid" and did most of the talking during the meeting.
There is a litany of abuses. Habaes Corpus, Geneva Conventions, illegal wiretapping, going around the courts, ignoring subpoenas and to call the reaction muted in contrast with the stain upon our constitution that was Monica Lewinsky's navy blue Gap dress would be an understatement.
My question is why. Why is violating our constitution brazenly, repubsively, wantonly and arrogantly less of a crime than a horny middle aged man playing doctor with a twenty-three year old woman? There never is an answer. "Moderate" pundits such as Chris Matthews, David Broder, Maureen Dowd either don't hear the question, or demur from answering.
It does not mean we should stop asking. Anybody who went against the public wishes and demanded that a blow job create a constitutional crisis does not deserve to be listened to discussing inane chatter while our Republic is torn assunder by a disrespect for our constitution that would have even given Richard Nixon pause.
Today is the 33rd anniversary of Nixon being compelled by the courts to turn over the White House tapes. Even Nixon realized that executive privilege was a matter to be litigated by the court. Does anybody feel that serenely about Bush complying even under the order of the Supreme Court?
But, he didn't get a blowjob. There is that.
Friday, May 18, 2007
Once again last night on Hardball, you were drooling over the candidacy of Rudy Giuliani. He's a real man's man and all. Yet, in the 1990's, you went literally crazy over the news of Clinton having an affair.
So far as I know, Bill Clinton didn't bring his mistress into the house and have sex with her while the wife and kid were upstairs. He didn't marry his cousin, pretend after over a decade that he had no idea she was his cousin. He didn't go marching in parades with his mistress. He didn't announce a divorce by press conference, not even informing his teen-aged children that they were about to be embarrassed in the largest media market in the country, if not the world.
Bill Clinton's behavior was intolerable. Rudy Giuliani is a great guy. Would you care to explain the difference to your viewers so they can appreciate your wisdom? Is it because Rudy looks great in drag? Did you enjoy him screaming at ferret owners in a manly way? Is it his loyalty to Bernard Kerik?
Tell my Chris. Why is it ok for Rudy to be brazen about his serial adulteries and marriages when it's not all right for Bill Clinton.
Wednesday, March 07, 2007
Friday, February 23, 2007
Many of Bill Clinton's six-figure speeches have been made to companies whose employees and political action committees have been among Hillary Clinton's top backers in her Senate campaigns. The New York investment giant Goldman Sachs paid him $650,000 for four speeches in recent years. Its employees and PAC have given her $270,000 since 2000 -- putting it second on the list of her most generous political patrons.
The banking firm Citigroup, whose employees and PAC have been Hillary Clinton's top source of campaign donations, with more than $320,000, paid her husband $250,000 for a speech in France in 2004. Last year, it committed $5.5 million for Clinton's Global Initiative to help encourage entrepreneurship and financial education among the poor.
Asked about the companies and their relationship to the Clintons, Jay Carson, a spokesman for the former president, said, "It certainly makes sense that reputable New York companies who support the policies and works of President Clinton and his foundation would also be supportive of their senator."
We should be looking towards real reforms of these industries once Hillary Clinton takes office right? I mean, they are giving her all this money because they feel upset that their big bonus checks are being taxed at a lower rate, forcing deficits, program cuts and the like. That is why they are passing out the money like it grows on trees. They want an intervention, and Hillary Clinton is there to give it.
Subscribe to:
Comment Feed (RSS)
