Whoopi in the White House

Lumpy,

Yes, we know all the women were lying. It’s a fact that every President who holds office always has women coming forward claiming that the sitting President is a rapist, just as Wanita Broderick did with Clinton. Oh…no wait…I guess they don’t.

Hey pal sometimes you have to call a spade a spade!

vroom,

Thanks for responding and proving my point. Actually, I wasn’t doing much speculating. Please re-read the post in it’s entirety. Most are established facts.

lumpy,

You stated: “As far as Lewinsky, yes Clinton screwed up. However other Presidents have had affairs before, and were left alone. It was considered a personal matter.”

This is the crux of the issue. It highlights and confirms my previous post. Bill/Monica viewed in isolation might be considered a personal matter. Viewed in the proper context, it highlights very disturbing patterns. It is germane to 2004, because it highlights the approach inherent in the democratic party today. It highlights the unbelievable lengths that you will go to rationalize any behavior if they are a democrat. No, not every democrat engages in this, (Joe Lieberman, Jon Breaux, etc.) However, the most visible members certainly do.
I ask you a simple question, “What does the democratic party offer a successful, thinking member of society?” I am very disenchanted with them. I don’t share most of their stated values or aims. It’s unfortunate, because I don’t believe in a one-party system.

JeffR

Forget Clinton’s well-documented misconduct, the issue with Kerry is one of priorities.

I said it before, but the terror briefing would have been a perfect opportunity for Kerry to explain his position to a national audience for free. It would have been a perfect chance to criticize the color-system if he wanted to, but more importantly, it was a chance to provide an alternative vision to Bush’s domestic terror policy. And since Larry King would never force Kerry to answer any tough questions, he would have the microphone to himself.

A man running for the Presidency needs to be sharp and take advantages of opportunities like this. It’s important to court independent voters who are seriously considering what Kerry provides as an alternative to four more years of Bush.

And forget the liberal-left - they’d vote for Kerry if he stuck chopsticks up his nostrils and had transvestites on his lap during the King interview - so of course they see no problem with a Presidential candidate and sitting Senator skipping a security briefing.

But both campaigns is one long job interview for both men. Kerry had a perfect chance to talk seriously about a serious subject to independent voters - instead he opted to go surround himself with sycophants and second-rate toilet humor.

I’d like to to see the video released, because if it wasn’t that bad, what’s to hide? I suspect it won’t be released and not because it contains some unspeakable language - but because Kerry doesn’t want footage of him laughing at crudeness used in the upcoming campaign.

[quote]vroom wrote:
Do you honestly believe it indicates that Kerry would ignore issues of import if he was president? I think that would be a very foolish conclusion to make, but a great political point to try and make – it will probably convince some stupid people.
[/quote]

Maybe you would be right IF this were a one-time occurance.

Kerry has missed more votes than anyone in congress. Why?

A creature of habit remains so.

I’ll agree this is partisanship. But isn’t that what this game is all about?

ZEB
I have no doubt that Clinton was a womanizer. I don’t believe that he was a rapist, and I can’t believe that you actually do. You have to be kidding.

Some people say George Bush senior had a mistress. Offhand, there was also FDR and Kennedy who supposedly had affairs.

As long as it doesn’t interfere with their ability to lead, and it is done discreetly, I don’t find it to be a deal-breaker.

ZEB, if you have a problem with Clinton’s affairs, I suppose you also are contemptuous of all the Republican congressmen who have had affairs while they were in office? Or is it two different standards?

Psst, hate to bust your bubble, but the president is the leader of the US, nobody else has to listen to this idol of yours.

Calling this position “the leader of the free world” is simply idolizing patriotic mythology. If you choose to buy into this happy think then good for you.

I’m not arguing that the US isn’t important, influential, powerful and so on… but one of these days you folks (those of you who don’t realize it) should start to recognize that there are other interesting and important countries in the world as well.

Oh, and Jeff, you are raising issues which are unproven – at least in the way you are presenting them. If your conclusions are correct you’re damned right I’d condemn the man (however, as we keep trying to state, Clinton isn’t really an important figure in the current election debate). And yes, it is a troubling pattern, but given the amount of hatred and vitriol towards the man, it’s hard not to see it as conspiracy theories cooked up by hating republicans to discredit the man (this should be a familiar cry to Bushies these days).

Kerry has missed more votes than anyone in congress. Why?

Maybe he has been there a long time? Maybe he doesn’t like to waste taxpayers money on making the trip when the outcome is already decided? Take the conservative defeat on the recent constitutional amendment… why waste taxpayer money traveling to make a vote when you already know it is defeated?

Is it that important to take a stance on things? Perhaps other issues, such as dealing with those in his district, can also be important?

Who knows. The point is, there are plenty of reasons senators don’t get in to vote all the time. However, almost all of them make it in when the vote is going to be a close one.

Is this really a big issue? Are you afraid that if Kerry wins that he’ll take a lot of vacations and not be in the white house when he should be? Oops.

Lumpy,

I stated that Clinton was accused of rape! After seeing his accuser on one of the talk shows, and reading her story in the WSJ I find her to be very credible. I also do not remember any other sitting President being accused of rape. Clinton brought an entirely new stanadard to the oval office. You have to admit that.

I do not think it wise for any high powered public official to have an extramarital affair. However, rape is quite another story!

Vroom,

“Calling this position “the leader of the free world” is simply idolizing patriotic mythology. If you choose to buy into this happy think then good for you.”

It’s an old phrase, nothing new. Chirac even wielded it when he was trying to get Clinton involved in the Balkans.

“I’m not arguing that the US isn’t important, influential, powerful and so on… but one of these days you folks (those of you who don’t realize it) should start to recognize that there are other interesting and important countries in the world as well.”

Every time I hear this, it sounds like the world’s biggest inferiority complex. “Us folks”, as it were, recognize interesting and important countries quite normally. Strange though, how when a US President acts in the naked self-interest of his own country, per his job, even when it is at odds with other countries, these same crybabies start squealing about “unilateralism” and “not considering allies”. Wait a sec - he’s not the executive of the citizens of France, Canada, or Nigeria - what does he owe you?

Fact is, the American President is the leader of the free world. All other free nations defer to the American President. That doesn’t mean he is all-powerful or all-respresentative, but he is the de facto leader. And looks to be more of a burden than a benefit.

Thunder, if he was the leader of the free world you’d think he’d have a few more countries following along in his lead wouldn’t you?

By the way, I’m merely reflecting on the language, not actions. The language helps sustain the “leader as demigod” idolatry that we see on these boards quite a bit.

Being seen as meddling in world affairs, presumably a leftover from the cold war era when certain regions of the world were pawns of either the US or the USSR, is probably one of the reasons that hatred has built up to the point of having a war on terrorism.

It certainly isn’t that people give a crap about whether or not people in the US are free. The moronic description of “they hate our freedom” is just stupendous. Oh, well, lead on.

Just remember to look behind you and make sure at least someone is following once in a while. If nobody will follow, maybe you are not a very good leader.

Zeb, I don’t recall seeing that first hand myself, so I can’t really form an opinion.

I’ll admit is certainly is possible. However, being accused of something isn’t the same as being guilty of it.

I’m not trying to defend the man, but the principle remains the same whether it is Bush or Clinton. Bush hasn’t been found guilty of having a predetermined course of action involving the invasion of Iraq but he has been accused of it and some folks claim to have felt the pressure. Many believe it to be true.

If either is true, it is wrong. An no, I’m not trying to compare the two in terms of scope or anything. They are just plain wrong. I would be willing to wager that many presidents have conducted wrongs, abuses of power, funding scandals and other inappropriate behaviors before, during and after their presidencies.

These people are just human.

Lumpy, talk a little smack about Bubba and you turn right into a “thin-skinned sensitive crybab[y].”

How much money was paid out to Paula Jones?

The Gennifer Flowers tape was or was not authenticated?

Hilary Clinton did or did not, going way back, use political opperatives to quell “bimbo eruptions.”

He was or was not accused of sexual assault and rape at least twice?

No, there is absolutely no pattern to his behavior, none whatsoever. If, say, Dubbya came to the White House with this kind of track record, NOW, and all the rest of the leftwing pack would have given the whole sordid affair a collective shrug.

By the way, I suppose being married to
that megalomaniacal shrew can send the eye wandering, although he did choose to do so, but couldn’t the leader of the free world do any better? That is a very serious lapse of judgement in my book. So is, in the end, getting caught. Kennedy didn’t, LBJ didn’t, lots and lots of pols didn’t. That says something about the reckless, sloppy manner of the CIC, doesn’t it? As a savvy political operator, Bubba would have thought through the inplications of leaving his calling card on the dress of an somewhat full-figured twenty-one year old intern, don’t you think? If he were in a position to inflict such damage, and more certainly his loving wife, he wouldn’t have done it? Wait a minute, they tried to do that to many of his accusers, and largely succeeded with many a naive dimwit, not that one should name names.

Get over the Wilson thing. His wife outed herself when she lied about recommending him for the Niger tea sipping party. She wrote a freakin’ memo. Brillant.

Clinton was, in conjunction with a partisan Repubican legislature good on the economy. Almost none of his foreign policy was worth a shit, and if you talk to a number of military people that served under him, they wouldn’t have great things for the most part to say about him.

As for his first two years with a Democratic House and Senate, see the figures for fourth quarter GNP growth 1992 and where they went. Look up Legislative seats lost, Republican, state houses and above, 1994. It was the economy, stupid.

I find it interesting that you go so nuts when posts critcize your boy. You go off on their ad hominem this and lack of credibiilty that. And then what do you do? The same damn thing.

As far as Kerry goes, I don’t think he was doing himself a huge favor talking about the freak show that is America’s popular culture as the embodiment of the country’s values. Preaching to the converted doesn’t win you more swing votes. Giving the opposition great attack ad material isn’t a great help either. Kerry needs to learn a few things about campaigning from Bubba. Hate him or love him, or be in love with him like Lumpy, the man had the gift.

By the way, while we are talking about politicians, hypocrisy and morality, why have none of you on the left brought up the following:

Newt Gingrich - was he getting Lewinskys from a staffer, whom he later married while bad-mouthing Clinton?

Ahnold the Governator- that gleam in the suburban Republican eye has a um, colorful, shall we say, past.

The Limbaugh thing is too easy.

Enough with this talk of if only Clinton this and that he would have cured cancer and world hunger and AIDS. Maybe the economy went along so well because of the partisan bickering and namecalling. I, for one, am all for it. If we had it now, maybe the fiscally conservative Republicans wouldn’t be making Bubba look like such a tightwad.

Cheney telling that stupid, mean, leaky bastard from Vermont to go fuck himself was a perfectly T-mannish thing to do.

Vroom,

“Thunder, if he was the leader of the free world you’d think he’d have a few more countries following along in his lead wouldn’t you?”

You mean like France and Germany? I believe there are quite a few countries that followed Bush’s lead. And there were plenty that didn’t. Leaders aren’t necessarily going for unanimity.

“Being seen as meddling in world affairs, presumably a leftover from the cold war era when certain regions of the world were pawns of either the US or the USSR, is probably one of the reasons that hatred has built up to the point of having a war on terrorism.”

I assume you’re meaning the Islamic-fascism movement is a result of American foreign policy. Is this correct? I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but of this is what you think, there is an argument against it.

“It certainly isn’t that people give a crap about whether or not people in the US are free. The moronic description of “they hate our freedom” is just stupendous. Oh, well, lead on.”

Oh no? You should read the jihadist literature. They despise Western institutions. They think representative government is unholy. They think that liberal societies - permissive of homosexuality, etc. - deserve to be destroyed. They think women are property. Their war is against the West and its liberal democracies. Read up.

[quote]vroom wrote:
I’m not arguing that the US isn’t important, influential, powerful and so on… but one of these days you folks (those of you who don’t realize it) should start to recognize that there are other interesting and important countries in the world as well.
[/quote]

Vroom -

Canada exists under the wing of the US defense. NATO IS the United States. Many nations on this planet are free and exist only because of the U.S.'s shadow of protection.

We do lead. Those who shed no blood in their own defense need not bite the hand that defends them.

We defend the free world. I don’t think this issue of terrorism is open to debate. At least not for those parties to lazy to defend themselves.

Rainjack -

You nailed it! Where would the rest of the world be w/o the USA? And, what are we to think when these other countries actually resent us for freeing them and/or protecting them?

rainjack,

Great post!

You nailed it! Where would the rest of the world be w/o the USA? And, what are we to think when these other countries actually resent us for freeing them and/or protecting them?

It’s called being an ally. Your attitude would have us all living as serfs to the great US. What a pile of malarky.

As has ALSO been stated in this thread, the US acts in it’s own interests. If you want the rest of the world to worship the US and your president like you folks do, you are in for a rude surprise.

Many people have died from many countries in the fight for freedom. To belittle these efforts is disprectful and dishonorable.

I doubt anyone resents the good things the US does. However, the assumption that the world owes the US something for this is possibly something that could foment resentment.

Finally, though I am tired of typing it, I will, because I know some of you hotheads will read my words and assume otherwise. I don’t dislike the US. I don’t hate the US. I don’t resent the US. I do think some of its citizens have a poor attitude.

Do you know what a poor winner is?

Oh no? You should read the jihadist literature. They despise Western institutions. They think representative government is unholy. They think that liberal societies - permissive of homosexuality, etc. - deserve to be destroyed. They think women are property. Their war is against the West and its liberal democracies. Read up.

Do you honestly think these people would have given a shit about the US, as far away as it is from their lives, if it wasn’t something that was rubbed into their noses over the years by their media (due to being involved in affairs in the region)?

The question I have is whether or not the Jihad training material you state is what the leaders believe or instead merely what they use to brainwash followers?

Anyhow, it could become a “self-fulfiling prophesy” whereas the next generation of leaders could end up with those beliefs. Perhaps it has indeed already happened.

vroom,

The central issue is this: Other countries are allowed to feel love, hatred, envy, boredom, tingles, etc… about the United States. BUT, if you launch unprovoked attacks against our people, if you harbor terrorists who have attacked us or are likely to attack us, if you try to kill our President, you are going to pay the penalty.

We are the leader of the free world in every way that matters.

You can spend your time debating these facts if you wish. However, I suggest you focus your energies on other endeavors.

Have a great day!!!

JeffR

[quote]vroom wrote:
It’s called being an ally. Your attitude would have us all living as serfs to the great US. What a pile of malarky.
[/quote]

I think you and your European-loving friends are misusing the word ally. We were there for France not once, but twice. The US singlehandedly kept West Germany free following WWII. We helped defend England.

When we need some support - where are those we lent our blood and guts to? That is not an ally - that is a user.

Being that the UK is the only major european country lending aid to us when WE need it - I would venture to say that France is not an ally. Germany is not an ally. They’ve pretty much proved that.

I could give a shit whether or not the feelings of the international community get hurt while we are doing what is right and neccessary to protect the lives of our citizens.

Being from Texas, I can tell you that it doesn’t matter what we do - Texans will always be disliked by other americans - I won’t change who I am to please those not fortunate enough to be called a Texan.

Same goes for the US in the world community - our swagger is what makes us great, and reviled. It’s what makes us hated when we are not wanted, and worshipped when we are needed.