I think a large part of Clinton hatred was the fact he lied. He committed perjury in a sexual harrassment case and got away with it, with women's groups like NOW defending him.

It was a matter of character, as the man had wagged his finger and lied to my face, about something that could have been inconsequental and easily forgiven.

There is also a confusion factor. Democrats lobbied hard to keep Clarence Thomas off the Supreme Court, because he made a comment about pubic hair on a Coke can toward a female employee. But Clinton exposed himself, demanded a blow job, from a female employee, and this was okay. You keep changing the rules, it generates confusion and frustration.

The author's 'wanting to puke' is really a viceral reaction to the perceived phoniness of Clinton, and the double standard at work on the liberal left. I find myself that the left is incoherent on almost any subject. No matter how hard I try to follow their logic, invariably I come across a wrong fact, or poor logic, which reduces the credibility of the speaker.

And I think this is the problem and source of the immense anger directed toward Bush. Since 9-11, the "selected" president has enjoyed pretty good poll numbers, and the left is getting marginalized, and ignored> People don't want to hear how it was all "our fault" that madmen killed 3,000 citizens. People are buying it.

And so when someone does not listen to you, it makes you frustrated. I do see a particular kind of near arrogance on the left, who think they are right, and if only us rubes would listen, we would realize their genius. But then they complain about being silenced at the National Press Club, in a speech that is aired over and over and over again.

A lot of folks have tuned them out, and that is raising their frustration. They don't know how to convince, or persuade, and cannot contemplate that perhaps they are mistaken. So they get madder and madder.

Ben,

So are you making fun of the the left with that 'selected' president part, or do you believe Dubya is not the rightful CinC? Just want to know, as my sargasm meter is busted.

I agree with the rest of your comment. The left is so full of alleged intellectuals, that they just can't imagine their wishful thinking can ever be wrong.

I saw Clinton's gift for bullshit from his very first run at the white house. It still amazes me that so many Americans bought his line of crap. And the thing that really gallls me is that were you or I to commit the very same offenses that he was given passes on, we would have done time. I could care less if he got hummers from interns. The fact that he thought he could get away with a blatant lie, wagging his finger at us all, was the height of arrogance.

As far as the supposed double standard goes, try to imagine Clinton being nominated to the Supreme Court.

Lying and sex? That's what the Left would have us believe.

Brazen, blatant, repeated, abuse of power.
Lawyering.
Mastery of the double-speak perfected by the Soviets.
Anti-Americanism vis-a-vis the military and CIA.

I have to admit, the level of hatred the left feels for Bush is breathtaking. 9/11 managed to surpress most of it, for about 3 months. Then it returned with a vengence. I think that its not even entirely about Bush. Bush is the proxy for all the hatred and loathing that parts of the left feel for the America that put him in office. The America that stopped listening to them. Thats what really gets them, they got sloppy intellectually, stopped debating policy and started preaching dogma while at the same time the right got extremely savvy and honed their arguments to fine edged rapiers. So the people in the red states started ignoring them (plenty of us blue staters to). All their quasi-peace marches, antiglobalization rallies etc were basically just tolerated with a bit of a smirk. This more than anything has driven the far left into hysterics, they are so sure that they are so much smarter and more worldly than Joe Sixpack that they have yet to realize that the problem isnt that the average American doesnt understand their arguments, quite the opposite, they understand them and have rejected them thoroughly. Until the left actually decides to engage in argument (by, say, coming up with crazy things like 'policies' and 'alternatives') they will continue being ignored, and likely will continue getting angrier and nuttier (see domestic terrorism for where this is headed, hummer dealerships beware).

Mark B I consider myself to be one that sees the necessity of compromise on some issues, but I will not budge on others, and I expect that my elected officials act accordingly. The left (my POV obviously) has demanded compromise on ALL issues, or downright acquisence on others. I've had it up to my ears with that attitude, and I don't think for one minute that I am alone.

The hatred of Clinton started long before Monica Lewinsky.

I remember it in 1993, from the Mormon kids in my high school. They already hated Clinton. They weren't astute political observers, ust repeating what they and their parents had heard on talk radio and elsewhere. My uncle, who is QUITE Republican, hated Clinton for draft-dodging, to begin with, and found more and more things as time went on.

Like with Bush II, it started from Day One and there never was any reason for it.

My problem, and really my only problem because I think it lies at the root of all the other ones, with Clinton was that he would not lead. Takes up gays in the military, sees opposition, comes up with a half-assed compromise that makes no one happy. Goes to war, but only if 14 or so other nations have veto over the targets. Signs Kyoto only because the Senate won't ratify it. Lets the polls determine his vacation, for Christ's sake.

I never voted for Clinton, even when I was a liberal, because he would not lead. I was too young to vote in 92 and in 96 I cast a protest vote for Dole.

By 2000 I was a Republican, but I voted against Al Gore, not for Bush. I can't say Bush has entirely won me over but I think he has the War on Terror mostly right, and nobody else contending for the Presidency does, I think.

I hate to call my last vote the 'lesser of two evils', but I have forced myself to do that. I feel in a lot of ways that the Republican party has abandoned MY 'agenda', and although I don't know why I feel that way about it, I just get real tired of hearing either nothing or nothing but compromise, instead of actual policy statements on issues of consequence to me. How many more of 'me' are there out there? I don't know. I never really considered whether or not my attitudes would make a difference in partisan politics. I will go to the poll in 2004 as I went the last time, and I have no idea who I'm going to vote for. I can almost guarandamntee you that it won't be a Democrat, but here again - maybe there will be some uprising in the party that would consider me and my issues as worthy of some attention. I'm not holding my breath.

Shockingly, I have to admit I've because less and less disdainful of Bill Clinton of late. Say what you want about the guy, at least you could do business with him to some degree. SInce the democrats lost the Senate theyve spun off into lala land (see Kennedy, Ted). Jane's Law at work, the party in power is always arrogant, the party out of power is always insane.

GWB knew of the exposure of a CIA operative by administration officials 11 weeks before acting on it. Said exposure is a felony and, according to his dad in 1999, ""Even though I'm a tranquil guy now at this stage of my life, I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious of traitors."

So a felonious act of treason required no action. Is the reason for that the preservation of national security, or the preservation of the Bush administration? There are many reasons for strong anti-Bush sentiment but a major one is GWB entering the White House to restore 'honor and integrity' after Clinton and benefitting from underhand smear tactics. Such dirty tricks did for McCain in the primaries, and would seem to be the order of the day now GWB is in the Oval Office.

GWB's most vociferous supporters in the media use smear, innuendo and plain insults to nullify the opinions of those the do not support their views; I cite Rush Limbaugh. Yet when revelations occur, they become Clintonian dissemblers. Anyone catch Limbaugh saying he is 'desirous to tell you everything you want to know'? If so, why not deny? Clinton was criticised, rightly, for such delaying tactics, and by Limbaugh in the most extreme and hypocritical manner.

That's why people hate Bush. Plus the election stealing. And the big business slush funds and negative attack ads. And the draft dodging. And calling people who ask reasonable questions of the government of being unpatriotic. Ari Fleischer -
"People better watch what they say". I suppose they must, if telling the truth earns you a Plame-style outing.

Ashcroft:
"The President and I place deterring, detecting, and punishing unauthorized disclosures of U.S. national security secrets among our highest priorities, at all times, but especially in this time of war against terrorism of global reach. There is no doubt and ample evidence that unauthorized disclosures of classified information cause enormous and irreparable harm to the Nation's diplomatic, military, and intelligence capabilities. They impair, especially, the Intelligence Community's ability to provide essential support to U.S. national security policymakers and our military's ability to provide for the national defense. We need an effective Government-wide program to curtail these damaging disclosures and to hold the persons who engage in unauthorized disclosures of classified information fully accountable for the serious damage they cause to intelligence sources and methods, military operations, and to the nation. Those who would break faith with the American people and disclose classified information without authority to do so will face severe consequences under the law."

Will they indeed.

Dirk,

I don't suppose it's too much to ask that you have proof of these statements regarding Plame? Bush knew? Even Robert Novak has denied that and he broke the story.

Also, this happened over two months ago. Why is it becoming an issue now? It wouldn't be politics, would it?

If somebody broke the law they should go to jail. We're a long way from proving anything wrong was done based on the law, much less who did it.

dirk You keep getting your feet tangled up in this decidedly wrong effort to smear the Administration. Mr. Wilson 'outed' his spouse long before anyone in the Administration did - and as for personal agendas, Mr. Wilson has ANNOUNCED he has one. He doesn't like 'Religious minded Conservatives', so we can lay just about all of your goofball ideas where they really belong. In the garbage can. You will undoubtedly want to avoid any further discussion of the issue of 'outing' aside, and come up with something reasonable. Please.

While a very small percentage of the population even gives a crap about politics, I have to say the interested minority has never been more polarized, has never been more at odds with each other, than they are now.

The wounds of the 2000 election and the terrorist attack 9 months later (after the decision, not the date of the election) are still quite fresh, by any standard. If you're on the left, you believe the election was stolen, that Chaney and Bush are running the country with their buddies and have needlessly antogonized the entire world, thus inviting future retribution upon our heads for generations to come.

If you're on the right, you can't believe what a bunch of whiny pantywaists the party of Truman has become. You don't understand how it OUR fault Wahabi-educated terrorists want us all dead, and you haven't seen or heard a single constructive proposal from the democrats since before the election (if THEN). All you hear is bitch, bitch, bitch and it's getting old. It was old 20 minutes into the first spiel.

As a libertarian, I have to say that the next election is possibly the most important election in our young country's life. Do we actively pursue the role of Terror Hunter, or do we change tack completely at this point? Do we attempt some rapport with Europe or do we continue to let them play with themselves in the corner until the hostilities are over (and are they ever OVER?)?

While you're turning that over in your mind, remember nothing's been done with SS, which now represents 25% of the annual federal budget and will only get larger. Then congress tacks prescription drugs onto Medicare, which makes about as much sense as buying $1800 wire wheels for your Eldorado the day before it's repossessed. A republian president with a republican congress spends like Ted Kennedy on ludes while the anxious public waits for fiscal restraint from......who? the democrats?

Personally, I find the republicans truly disappointing. They haven't found a single principle that would distinguish them from a democrat in the past 3 years. Democrats, God bless them, are a faceless bunch of lukewarm leftists. The party faithful can't name a single candidate, even when pollsters feed them the names. They stare straight ahead like Mike Tyson on a geometry problem. And get this, Hillary Clinton's supposed to be the Great White Hope. What, was Oprah busy?

It may be the curse of politics that the people who should be running the country would never want the job and the people least qualified battle with broadswords for the honor. Most of us are rightly cynical and bored with the pagentry. There is no TR, there are no Rough Riders out there to lead the country, take stands, defend their positions. You couldn't squeeze a position out of a candidate with thumb screws.

So we muddle through. But this is a terrible, terrible time for muddling. As they would say in the jungle movies "I don't like the looks of it, Jim."

I post this while watching Gerry Adams argue his case on BBC News 24. Who knows, maybe OBL will be discussing the issues of the day with Tom Brokaw 10 years hence? By then, they will surely both have to be animatronic, for reasons of senility or massive wounding respectively..

Torpedo:
The Bush tax cut is the next salvo in a broadside to dispense with the pesky problem of paying for social security and a sick, ageing population. I don't accept your point that the Republicans cannot break free from Dem dogma. I suggest this is the first Administration to do so. Reagan was an exploratory attempt. GHWB was the last traditional Republican President. The polarisation of opinion is a symptom of this schism. It's a problem east of the Atlantic too. The boil will have to be lanced. There are people earning up to $50K in the US who cannot afford health insurance. That makes for a large underclass.The US currently supports 45 million citizens without health insurance. The surpluses accrued under the Clinton administration, during a period of tax hikes for the wealthy, could have sustained SS, Medicare and Medicaid for a longer period than under the Bush tax regime. If you are disappointed with the current Republican administration, then do not fret. A nation that pursues policies that enrich the few and create a large disenfranchised subclass tend to create extremist governments, be they socialist or fascist. The unique problem the US faces is that the subclass will be heavily armed, and its political history suggest socialism won't be a factor. The degree and distribution of the opposition to the status quo will decide the fate of the US. Good luck to all concerned.

clinton was alright, i had a good time when he was in office. I thought the republicans hounding him was a bad idea.. just let the pres do his job and wiat for him to leave office..
can you imagine dole being pres for that second term? man that would have really sucked.

although the dole/kemp role/hemp bumper stickers were funny.

Elvis,
Good to hear you are still alive. The selected part is how they view the President. I disagree with that veiw.

But it does bring up a good point. There are two very disparate views of the election of 2000. The left think, or at least says, that Bush stole the election. My own observation of the same events are quite different.

It was the Gore campaign who challenged the election, it was the Gore campaign who sued to change the couting proceedures, it was the Gore campaign tried to convince Democrat appointed judges to go with an "intent of the voter" standard, rather than what the ballot said. It was the Gore campaign who attempted to disqualify as many military absentee ballots as they could, it was the Gore campaign... well you get the picture.

Because of this incident, as well as the flip flop on sexual harrassment, the hypocricy in rules applying only to opponents but never to oneself, etc. I have given up on the Democratic party. With basic facts of history are in dispute, and two completely different and mutuall exclusive views of the same events, it is impossible to achieve any kind of common understanding.

I don't think I am alone here. I know a few ex-Democrats who have dropped their party allegence, and become independent, specifically over the election. And the events since then, and the Democrats failure to join with the administration in preventing future attacks, some of us see as potentially deadly to our country, and only embolding the enemy.

Lets face it, with our military might, the only hope that Saddam and bin Laden have is our lack of will. There are many who see Democrat sniping, and a failure to present coherent or viable alternative strategies as essentially aiding and abetting the enemy. I know that is a strong charge, but it is the conclusion one is left with.

I am sure it is unintentional, but that makes it no less problematic, nor harmful, both to us and our troops in the field. And the fact that many on the left fail to see that, well, that is probably the most disappointing aspect of this whole episode.

Yo Dirk,

What have you been smoking?.

"There are people earning up to $50K in the US who cannot afford health insurance."

How dare you. I make that much & pay for healthcare. Its important so I give up on other things. How is it my problem that there are people in this country who make 50-large and CHOOSE not to purchase health insurance? If they don't think it is important enough to cut back on the cable bill why should I? Those who live in high cost of living areas should consider moving. It can be done. I'm tired of paying for the grasshoppers of this world.

"The surpluses accrued under the Clinton administration, during a period of tax hikes for the wealthy, could have sustained SS, Medicare and Medicaid for a longer period than under the Bush tax regime. "

So why didn't Clinton fix it then? Because the surpluses were mostly projections. As soon as his smoke-and-mirrors economy crashed in 99, those projections became worthless. That kind of "lawyerly" use of projections as money-in-the-bank borders on the same kind of accounting practices we are now prosecuting people for in the corporate world.

As for the tax cut; let me give you a very brief economics lesson: Price is the final motivator.

How do you increase revenue? Lower the price. Rasing the price of a widget sitting on the shelf does nothing if stays there. If what you are selling, isn't; lower the price. If it isn't selling fast enough, lower again. repeat untill you are maxed out in capacity, then start raising it up slowly untill you see a decrease in volume. At that point you are earning the full potential of your business as it currently exists. You can have honors from the fanciest schools money can buy, but if you do not understand that concept, you have nothing.

Raise taxes and people will find legal ways to not pay them. They can move, as what has happened to business in California, or they can legally restructure their tax liabilities so they no longer apply to the new rates. These are the cold hard facts. Why is this so hard for the Left, and even some "learned ecomomists" to see? The results of raising taxes: the rest of us are stuck with the share they were paying.
"The Rich" as defined by most democrats (top 5%) already pay for 56% of the federal tax burden (Source: IRS. 2000 data). This isn't enough?

The rest of your screed reeks of a bad communist manifesto.

Get some rehab, man.

And on the subject of Clinton, I never thought he was the antichrist, nor did I call im a communist, socialist, facist or any other kind if "ist".

Marriage is an oath you take before God. If a man would betray that oath, what good is his word on anything else? If the Leader of the free world can be had by an ordinary looking 19 yr old, how secure were we really?
"Everybody does it" is a lie. This from adults? Thats an excuse, not a reason, and it didn't work in grade school. "Everyone" may want to do it, but many do not out of respect for others, their family, God or all of the above. This is something most of us in the red states understand.
What is the true value of a man if his word is worthless?

Yeah, it was "just about sex".

So, he broke his vows, lied to the american people, was convicted of perjury, disbarred,Lobbed hundreds of cruise missles blindly into other countries, refused to accept the worlds biggest terrorist when offered to him on a platter, and had the audacity to publicly criticize the performance and decisions of a sitting president at a time of war. Lets not forget letting his un-elected wife hire an ex-Bar bouncer to rifle through the secret FBI files of a thousand US citizens; wrongfully prosecuted to the point of bankruptcy a business working for the white house just to award the contract to your friends; and "found" doucuments under supoena for years, only after expiration of the supoena, in her "living quarters".

Sounds like the greatest administration of the 2oth century to me...

dirk, I have a lot of trouble determining how the republicans can distinguish themselves from the socialists when they have Ted Kennedy write the education bill, they reinstate massive subsidies to farmers and erect protective tarrifs for steel. These are part and parcel of the New Deal, not Morning in America.

As far as the aging population is concerned, we are 10 years late privatizing SS. As it is now most of us writing here will have nothing whenever it is they let us retire. SS funds have never been set aside for SS, they have been spent the moment they passed through the door. So the government has a massive, unfunded debt to the population. That's not the populations' fault, it's the government's, but the only way to correct things now is to let people keep their own SS contributions and create some sort of investment plan for all Americans so they'll have something to leave their survivors.

I don't understand how the left equates a lack of medical insurance with a lack of medical care. Millions of healthy Americans forego insurance to spend their incomes on things they believe have priority in their lives. That's a personal choice, not one foisted on them by a repressive socialist agenda. Are there a lot of poor, uninsured Americans? Certainly there are, but no one is refused health care when they arrive at the hospital. The poor do not have the health care the rich have, but there are plenty of things the poor don't have that the rich have. I know it's the socialist agenda to correct such inequities, but everywhere it's been tried, it's only served to lower the entire population to the poverty level - ask any Russian in their 60's.

Once again, there were NO SURPLUSES under the Clinton administration, there were only 10 year estimates of surpluses, but even those were a happy fiction that ignored the unfunded liability of SS. We need a flat tax that doesn't punish investment or hard work. Let individual Americans decide who gets ahead and who doesn't, not some board of pinheads hand-picked by Hillary.

A poor man never gave me a job.

All of you seem to be angry. Democrats, Republicans and Independents, all angry. Why?

I'm not sure. But I think it is due to the fact that in the U.S. we worship competition. Everybody runs around saying that he is right and everybody else is wrong. We don't listen to anyone. We're too busy pointing out how correct we are.

Republicans could not stand that Clinton had a different sense of morality than they did. He must be evil and he must be destroyed. And they almost succeeded.

Democrats can't stand that Bush has a different sense of morality than they do. They call him "Dubya" and they want to get rid of him.

As a Democrat, I do not hate Bush. He probably believes in what he does. I feel that his policies have deprived the U.S. of many overseas friends, helped produce more terrorists, reduced job opportunities for the little guy, polarized our society, and reduced personal freedoms. This is why I am completely and irrevocably against Bush for a second term.

If you are a Republican, you have a right to speak up for your man. But you have no right to talk about hate. Neither does a Democrat or anyone else. All this talk of hate does is increase anger, resentment and violence in our society.

Paul,

You too with the pipe?

Hate? Is that when you make unsubstatiated charges against an individual for your own gratification.

" feel that his policies have deprived the U.S. of many overseas friends,"

A friend that does not stand by his word is no friend. To recognize this and deal with it is the adult thing to do. How many Binding UN Resolutions did France turn their backs on when they declared they would not under any circumstances support a resolution enforcing previous resolutions? 17? We were justified on that count alone.

"helped produce more terrorists,"

Um, according to Bin Ladem himself, our inaction in Somalia is what encouraged terrorists. Try again...

"reduced job opportunities for the little guy"

Exactly how has this President or his policies done this? The economic bubble broke in 99, then came 9/11. Those were both Bush's fault? According to most economists we are now on the road to recovery. Now what has GB done to help the economy? Oh yeah, a Tax cut to spur growth. Looks like its working.

" polarized our society, "

Again, how? I did not see him, or his supporters, out in the streets comparing Ted Kennedy to Hitler...

"and reduced personal freedoms"

Name for me one personal freedom guaranteed to you in the constitution you have been deprived of that this administration is responsible for.... Ferris?....anyone?...as I thought, not one. The patriot act has only consolidated reporting of previous legal tools for the purpose of keeping our country from being blindsided again.

Now all of that is supposed to be somehow morally equivalet ot the ultimate boss in our country having his way with the office staff, supporting purjury, lying on National TV, taking a "I'll let the next guy deal with it" approach to foreign policy (somalia, OBL, letting Saddam off the hook, giving N Korea Nuclear reactors, hey didn't somebody get a nobel prize for that?, duped the public into believing Arafat could be reasooned with) and allowing the terrorists to think they could attack us with no fear of serious reprisal.

Those are just some of the facts about your bud Bill Clinton. And through all of that George Bush Sr. His predecessor, kept his opinion of the situation to himself (like how The recovery Clinton is credited with started on his watch in 1991).

You don't want to vote for the man, don't! Its still a free country. But get your facts straight before "polarizing our society" with unfounded rhetoric.

Is Bush perfect? Nooooooo. Never said he was. Has he done a good job with what he has been given? It would be pretty partisan to argue no.

Have a great weekend.

Bad Speelers of the world untie!

Darn the typos! Gotta slow down.

My dislike for Bush started with the way he went after McClain during the primary, negative ads, and rumors that McClain being a POW wasn't mentally strong enough to be president. He has not compassion.

I actually like Bush Sr, he did what was neccessary, raised taxes which started the boom of the '90's, he also did what was neccessary with the saving & loans, I voted for him both times.

As for Clinton he was president during boom years, maybe none to his credit but he didn't do any thing that hindered it.

sophia, understand something, I am truly sincere here. Explain to me how hiking taxes creates an economic boom. Either everything I know about economics is wrong, or you have discovered some way to run your car on tap water.

Paul, is there something wrong with competition? I don't hate anyone. I don't have a lot of patience with policies aimed at limiting personal freedom, but that doesn't have anything to do with hate. And as for people being "too busy pointing out how correct we are." rather than debating, show me one person here arguing against himself/herself. Even you aren't doing that. You think you're just as correct as the next poster, so get off the high horse and don't be afraid of a little give and take. I don't have any trouble exchanging ideas, but I'm not taking any duds (like sophia's) home with me.

I'm listening man. Come on, share with me. Hate is not a family value. It ain't a dessert topping, either.

The Patriot Act is scary stuff, man. The section about how the Defense Secretary can detain people and indefinitely classify the reasons why is just begging for abuse. I don't trust anyone with that kind of power.

Dark Jethro,

Any relation to my hero, Jethro Bodine? I am a gradiate of the Bodine School of Double Naught Spying. But I didn't tell you that (wink, wink). I like your comments above. Keep 'em coming. I don't remember seeing your Nic here before. Are you a newbie, or just an oldie with a new handle?

I kind of go along with Tim Wilson's line about political parties: "Lord help me if I ever voted for a Democrat. I'd have to just cut my wrists and bleed in a cup. I'm not really a Republican, more of a Libertarian. Leave my money alone, do all the heroin you want to. Good luck with it."

Sophie drops in once in a while to leave us with her little pearls (turnip turds) of wisdom. I would really like to know how you get from a tax hike to an economic boom. Must be akin to cooking up wild ass numbers and saying, "look at our wonderful surplus!"

The whole tech bubble that gave the illusion of a boom in the 90s was based on a lick and a promise. When the most fundamental rule of bidness (you have to bring in more money than you spend) finally caught up with all the ecommerce speculators, guess what? Investors took it in the shorts. His cheerleading during the false boom is one of the many reasons Clintshnyev will be remembered as one of the worst presidents in US history. His moral bankruptcy just made him that much harder to stomach.

T_8, Well said.

//As for Clinton he was president during boom years, maybe none to his credit but he didn't do any thing that hindered it.//

I blame it on Al Gore for inventing the Internet and encouraging all of us to invest in those dot.coms!

Edwin Edwards isc where he belongs, Bill and
Hillary belong there too, but for amuch longer term.

The problem with Clinton is what he repesents. He is the apotheosis and embodiment of a pathological sort of character. If he had less power, no one would hate him. Those few who would even know of his existence would dislike him, but not actively hate him. He simply wouldn't be worth getting worked up about.

The problem is that a man of his character became President of the United States, and we still don't know the full extent of the harm he did. I don't hate Bill Clinton the man, such as he is. I hate President William J. Clinton, the abomination that causes desolation. It's not really personal, because he's not enough of a personality to be dignified with a personal animus. It would be like wishing a cockroach to be condemned to an eternity of hellfire.

If he had been content to be just another pathetic little phallic narcissist somewhere in Arkansas, there would be no problem. But no. He had to inflict himself upon the world. That's the issue here. Vermin are fine, so long as they're not in the house.

Oh, and Dubya represents, among other things, an attempt to repair some of the damage Clinton did. At least as far as the war on terrorism is concerned.

C H I N A G A T E!

F A L N CLEMENCY!

PARDON GATE!

MARC RICH!

FBI FILES!

HILLARY-HEALTH-CARE-GATE!

BUDDHIST-TEMPLE-Al-GORE-CAMPAIGN-GATE!

LONG-LIST-OF-DEAD-MYSTERIOUSLY-PEOPLE-GATE!

Shall I continue? I haven't scratched the frosting...

I supported every signle one of Clinton's Wars.

Except SUDAN-MEDICINE-FACTORY-GATE!

Other than that.. I supported em all with open arms. I can't believe these liberals would hate President Bush so much that they would protest our National Security!

There is a huge different between the hatred of the Right towards Lefty Presidents and vice versa.

There weren't any RIGHT-THINKING Protests against Mr. Clinton! None. We never protested. We supported his wars. We gave him the benefit of the doubt. We voted him in twice. Ohio (very conservative) went to Clinton instead of Dole.

I mean come on now? Us Consevatives do hate President Clinton but not even nearly the same as the Left does to Bush. Not close.

GWB has been funded by the same guys that fund OBL. Do you think if Clinton had been funded by such people he would have been criticised? Would you be using caps, Jeff MacMillan? Instead, he was allegedly funded by Buddhists, those murderous, foreign types that enslave women and enforce brutal, repressive laws. The shame he brought on the office! If only he'd chosen those nice Wahabist types.

dirk, who might these 'same guys' be that are funding OBL at the same time they're funding GWB? I always have a hard time following the left's 'moral equivalence' campaign (you know, Arnold's an Austrian, Hitler was an Austrian, thus it follows that....) , so speak slowly and draw pictures if necessary.

This should be good.

and sophia, still waiting on your 'tax yourself to prosperity' logic. Have your people call my people.

Again, the puppets of the left trot out weak innuendo to counter facts.


Dirk's answer to the undeniable truth that Clinton was what the critics claimed, was to change the subject:

"GWB was funded by the same guys that funded OBL"

Whatt?? Oh, yeah I forgot! Innuendo is a favorite weapon of the left. The trigger? The proven facts that the communist Chinese government infiltrated our election process through a "straw-man" purchase (the Buddhists. Or, as Dirk tries to sarcastically downplay it: those murderous Buddhists). The Payoff? MFN trading status, permission to buy sensitive missile technology (that directly threatens the US with Chinese nuclear ICBM's for the first time in history) from fat cat Dem. donors. ...Where is Charlie Tree, anyway?

Well. considering that OBL has been chased back into a cave, our protective force has been withdrawn from Saudi Arabia, and now looks more and more like a pre-staged invasion force, That "idiot" GWB, and the US, seems to have hornswagled those donors, now doesn't it. I knew I liked that man for something.

Dirk, Even your innuendo is weak. What's worse, it proves your post was a blatant and unrepentant partisan snipe, instead of a discussion of facts and a debate on merits. That was the whole point of this thread wasn't it?

The argument against Bill Clinton was that he wasn't what the media portrayed. Those doubts about him were largely proved correct. That makes the republicans, as a whole, Clinton haters and responsible for the “tone our political discourse has taken”

On the other hand, GWB has been called an illegitimate president because he won a close election in a free country, compared to Hitler & Stalin for no reason other than he won that free election, has been accused of giving the US treasury to Halliburton (btw, why was Halliburton getting government work under Clinton?) and control of the FBI over to the SS, Accused of lying in the SOTU ( a claim still being repeated today in the press), and has had his reasons to go to war completely re-written by the left & widely parroted by some in the press to fulfill their own arguments. None of the charges against Bush are even remotely true, yet this behavior is considered justified because Clinton was proven to be what the “right-wing” accused him of?

Somebody ‘splain dis to me…

BTW, Whats the record for the longest thread? This one has been fun.

Dark We had one on the Iraqi page that went to over 700...

T-8 Methinks you sent several Portsiders to the bottom of the briny. No need to rub salt in the wounds at this point - They're bathing in it.

DJ (DarkJethro), may I call you DJ?

There have been a couple of threads in excess of 7 or 8 hundred, if memory serves. There was one that got so cumbersome at around 800 that the players jumped over to a dead thread and carried on for another 200+ comments, I believe. Anthony probably has those things archived. That was in the early days of Dan/Don/PtG, Bubba, Anthony, DoobieDave, Wolf, Seth, Devil'sChewtoy, and many other colorful commentors.

Torpedo eight and dark jeff

Let's discuss facts

The 'same guys' are the bin Ladens. And China's MFN status and NAFTA are two policies of the Clinton years that Republicans would have enacted. They've made a lot of stockholders wealthy. And the tax thing: Clinton hiked taxes on the top 2 percent, cut or froze them for middle income families and small businesses and presided over millions of new jobs, a fair chunk of them manufacturing and construction. Or was that the Reagan '81 supply-side cut kicking in over a decade later? Maybe it was the dot-com bubble. What extenuating factors excuse Top Gun's 3.4m job loss? Clinton cruises over a boom like a hapless pervert.

Clinton's dodgy deals. Let's discuss them rather than the present incumbent: insider trading, buyouts by Daddy's chums (including bin Laden) and employment of dozens of offshore tax loopholes and he still barely broke even. The acumen of the first MBA president. And then skimming Texan taxpayers for the construction of the Rangers' stadium and getting bought out for $12m by yet another of Daddy's chums. The central theme is tax dollars are good. They fund wealth, under this admin for the wealthy. 42.6 percent of Bush's $1.6 trillion tax package will end up in the pockets of the top 1 percent of earners. The lowest 60 percent gain 12.6 percent. Roll on the recovery, fueled by the economic activity of thousands of limo drivers and domestic servants.

The telling parallels between Arnold and Adolf aren't the nationality but rather the pathological narcissism and hunger for power. That was the gist of the pro-Hitler comments attributed to the lad. Is Arnold simply a pervert, or does he like to dominate and bully people? Clearly the latter. Rape and sexual harassment is more a power than a sexual issue.

Since Hitler has been mentioned, let's recap. Hitler was in power despite winning a minority of the public vote, reacted to a terrorist attack by rushing through laws restricting democratic freedoms in response to external threats, incarcerated 'enemies of the state' without due process (quotes obligated by the phrase without due process), invaded (sorry, annexed) countries to establish more compliant regimes and enacted policies favourable to firms from the military-industrial complex (guns not butter) including several firms controlled by the Bush family. That was Hitler. But we've all moved on since then. We're older and wiser. At least Hitler actually served his country in battle rather than dodging service like Clinton, Bush, Cheney and most of the people prepared to throw US and UK citizens into the firing line.

dirk You are a whiner par excellence... The wealthy generally make money because they have money. If I had my way, the Income Tax would be a flat tax, and everyone could complain equivalent to the amount that is being sucked from their pocket - but we don't. As for your diss on service, we had a draft which took proprotionately higher numbers from poor and rural areas. I was not drafted, but I served with Marines who were. Our military, despite the huge cuts suffered under your goodie-two-shoes wanker, is comprised primarely of volunteers. We hear now of success stories which trump your gloom and doom. And the reason why they win out is because we went for the success and we will stay for the success. Your doom and gloom can go to hell with those that bring on the doom.

dirk, I got encouraged there because you said you were going to switch to 'facts'. How disappointing.

So the 'same guys' who funded GWB and OBL are the bin Ladens? I can understand how and why a wealthy Saud family might be 'funding' their son in the construction business (actually, that's gainful employment), but you've yet to indicate where the bin Laden money flows in the pockets of GWB.

Rather, there's the usual litany of shady deals and bad news stories churned out weekly by Molly Ivans like so much racid bacon. No doubt, I agree with you regarding the Texas Rangers, that was undoubtedly a crooked deal from the start (public funding, private profit, city left holding the bag).

But that doesn't answer my question: show me where money from the bin Ladens has ended up in Bush's pocket - as funding.

Presidents get too much credit and too much blame for the economy. Many times it TAKES YEARS for policies to show their true colors. Take the Ponzi scheme known as SS. Great deal for my great-grandfather (one of the first people to retire under the system) - POS for my kids. And probably me. Consequences are never swift and sure and yes, the economy takes time to swallow each new change (like Greenspan choking off investment which subsequently triggers the Dot Bomb).

And yes, how could tax cuts go to anyone else BUT THE RICH? They're the only ones left paying taxes. In the same way I don't qualify for disaster funds from the last flood, either, because MY HOUSE WASN'T FLOODED. Which part of this don't you comprehend?

PS I'd love to hear your definition of 'rich' - every socialist has a different answer.

One more time: government does not 'make' jobs, it creates them to the extent it gets out of the way and lets the private sector do its thing. It is not the government's responsibility to ensure employment, create jobs, make wages 'livable', or any of the myriad fantasies I've seen advanced. To the extent government takes money out of the productive engine of the economy, jobs are threatened. Again, no one ever taxed themselves into prosperity. A large government running a surplus is NOT prosperity. It's a danger.

Or as the totally respectful scouts over at the Clinton campaign would have said, it's the economy, stupid.

...and thanks for the Hitler recap.

He was from Germany, right?

Cap'n

We could talk about marginal propensity to consume if you like. Cutting taxes on middle income families is a better engine for growth than throwing billions of dollars at billionaires. Supply-side economics is a joke.

'your goodie-two-shoes wanker' - who's that? Clinton? I never voted for him. I simply think it's rich to criticise him for duplicity, suspect business deals and draft-dodging without tarring Top Gun with the same brush. All TG needs is a blowjob and he has the full set.

Supply-side economics is a joke for people who think the government creates wealth.

I guess that explains why Nordstrom's does so well in down markets, why more people are hired when the company's losing money, why most advertising is aimed at the poor and homeless, and why there's more people traveling to Europe because the dollar doesn't buy as much there.

Oh wait.

Maybe that's wrong.

(I'm the Government Wealth Fairy, would you like a living wage, or shall I just make the minimum $34/hour?)

Yeah, government bad. Check out which states receive more federal fundage than they contribute in taxes per head. It pretty much correlates with the states that voted Rep last time round. 16 states get less than they put in (Gore 12, Top Gun 4), while 33 get more (Top Gun got 27). 'Dole' wins in 2000.

Thanks for the Economics 101 Torpedo 8. Why not supply us with an ASCII demand curve? Raising the income of thousands of citizens is better than raising the income of millions. I see.

People in jobs create wealth. 3.4 million fewer people are creating wealth since the Florida debacle.

Tell you what dirk, why don't we go back to a Constitutional government where the Feds handle their business and the states handle theirs? Wouldn't that be lover-ly?

Then we wouldn't have to play Envy Pie where the contestants whine about how big a slice they got back of the monies seized by Washington.

And it's not 'people in jobs creating wealth', it's businesses. Yes, Evil Businesses with their nasty Free Market, far from the socialists' Utopia of equality for all Peoples. Awful, isn't it? Like the company you work for, and the one I work for. Awful, awful. Mine dribbles out just enough to keep me alive. That, and an occasional quarter for treats.

And while it's up to individuals to raise their own incomes, not the government, personally, I'd like to see as many raised as possible. Your equation is bass akwards - we're not talking about raising people's income, we're talking about letting them KEEP their income (big difference). What they do with it is their business. It's called FREEDOM.

Embrace it, dirk, and your anger will leave you. I believe you're wound tight enough now you could ride your bike without the seat.

Peace, brother.

...eh, you were going to explain the direct funding of GWB by the bin Ladens, weren't you?

tap, tap, tap (looks at watch)

Ah torpedo,

You don't anger me - you entertain.

Salem bin Laden (OBL's eldest brother) invested in Arbusto Energy. The link continued via the discredited (money laundering, links to terrorism) BCCI bank through Arbusto's transition to Bush Exploration and Spectrum 7. After several years of failure ameliorated by stock dealing, the company was now Harken Energy which was awarded a Bahrain drilling concession despite no overseas drilling experience. Said venture came up dry, as did the investments of several parties (financially speaking - the political capital accrued is undeniable). Top Gun sold his Harken stock 8 days before it announced catastrophic losses and the stock price subsequently plunged. Top Gun failed to file this with the SEC for 34 weeks. The SEC investigation came to naught. Richard Breeden, the SEC chairman at the time, was deputy counsel to Bush's father when he was Vice President and was appointed SEC chairman when H.W. Bush became President. So that's the bin Laden link.

Torpedo, you seem to hanker for a pre-New Deal America. In fact, you would probably deny the New Deal had anything to do with the recovery from the Depression and subsequent post-war boom. Or do you hanker for a pre-Emancipation Proclamation America a la Ann Coulter? Those pesky minorities don't see that wealth creates wealth.

That feckless pervert Clinton presided over the creation of millions of jobs, while Top Gun's watch has seen millions lost. How does that raise incomes?

Why not shoot down my federal pie slice point? Show us that Top Gun's states aren't shaking down the US taxpayer while his supporters bleat about the injustice of taxation. After all, it's not their money - it belongs to the taxpayers.

dirk All these jobs that Clinton created - do they include the farm/ranch/agri business related jobs that left this country with NAFTA? Do they include the military/defense related jobs that he hacked? You are one sick puppy, dirk. Domestic feel-good social programs got a lot of attention, right? Bleh.

dirk, I didn't think I was angering you, I just sensed some unresolved hostility. I'm always entertaining.

Nice Six Degrees of Separation on the Bush-OBL link. By your logic, I'm pretty sure I'm being 'funded' by the bin Ladens as well. Think they'd mind if I stopped by for a week?

Economically, FDR put the capital 'D' in depression (as in Great). Federal policies exacerbated the situation post-Crash. With the Hawley-Smoot Tarrif Act and federal tax increases, FDR pretty much guaranteed the country wouldn't recover until he was dead. Or are you going to tell me now that Franklin Delano arranged WWII to assist in our country's recovery?

Yes, I would 'hanker' for a time when the 9th and 10th Amendments were still in force and the Feds didn't try to be all things to all people. That wasn't the intention of the Founding Fathers, despite 'penumbras' found in the interstate commerce clause (Article 1, Sec. 8). And interesting straw man there, slipping in the racist overtones. Why is it every time someone opposes your point of view, you leftists trot the usual smears? Can't argue the facts, eh?

And if GWB managed to get 'his' red states to shake down Gore's blue states PRIOR to his own election, he's not a President man, he's a damn magician!!

Still don't understand you're point about job losses, but I assume it has something to do with your political agenda. No, obviously losing your job does not raise your income (duh). But this recession started in the spring of 2000 and ended early last year. Clearly not started under GWB, but it has ended. Businesses got a lot more efficient in the meantime (6% in one year?) and haven't needed to hire as their work has expanded. Clearly, this is a new phenomenon for our times, but hard to link to any political leader (for me, probably not for you).

And what ARE people like you going to do as the economy improves? Pray for a crash? Pity.

Torpedo

You've received millions of dollars from the bin Ladens to bail out your failed business? Nice if you can get it. What is the quid pro quo? I said:
'Salem bin Laden (OBL's eldest brother) invested in Arbusto Energy. '
How many degrees of separation?

No magic involved with Top Gun, but maybe sleight of mouth. The shakedown is a symptom of GOP freeloading and begs the question why kill the golden goose?

Cap'n. So Clinton slashed military jobs and instigated a NAFTA jobs hemorrhage, yet still saw millions of jobs created. You emphasise this success of his Presidency, for what purpose is unclear.

dirk, shakedowns are symptom of the federal government. It matters not who's at the helm at the moment. The Fed monster grabs $2.2 trillion from the productive end of the economy and sticks it into sweet potato research, babysitting programs for public schools, subsidies to GM and Kellogg's, several tens of billions in Medicade fraud, Medicare fraud, advertising for the new $20 bill, Americorps (where the 'volunteers' make $17,000/year) and several thousand more programs they have no authority to manage/fund.

The best way to get rid of 'freeloaders' republican or democrat, is to leave the money with the rightful owners. Notice I didn't say GIVE them anything. The federal government doesn't have ANYTHING to give. It only has what it takes from others. When you KEEP your own money, no one is GIVING you anything. Unless, of course, you believe the govenment owns everything and everyone (plantation mentality). That's not you, is it, dirk?

As George Washington noted "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force." Intelligent men knew to keep it as SMALL as possible.

dark dirk NAFTA has 'ushered in' the rather dramatic demise of the Family Farm and Ranch. I see that as a miserable failure not a freakin' success story. Oh yah... He smiled while he doin' it, too.

Cap'n - NAFTA didn't kill the family farm and ranch. The Death Tax, a democrat's best friend, did most of the dirty work. Since farms and ranches are incredibly expensive to maintain and require lots of expensive machinery, it was quite easy for the family farm to be worth far more than the yearly revenue it generated for the family. When dad died, Uncle Sugar showed up to claim a huge chunk of each farm, so much that most families were forced to sell in order to satisfy the necrophiliacs in Washington.

Thus the Evil Rich are justly punished once again for Busting Their Ass and their legally-obtained wealth is split by the parasites and their buddies in Washington (with a bit doled out to the poor to make it look 'equitable').

Income redistribution is hard work, Senator, can I help you to a gimlet?

T-8 Excuse me, but my family's (In-Laws) not getting any freakin' subsidy, and watchin' wheat roll into this state from north of the border - which IS subsidized by the CAN govm't. Which means, the CAN's can sell it for less than my folks can, and STILL make a profit. Can any business stay afloat selling product for less than the investment? NO, it cannot. They are dirt rich, and in the middle of a 5 year run of no help from the sky. Thus, I have reached the end of my rant.

Cap'n - As bad a deal as that is for your in-laws, going up against the Canadian government, it is great to know our imported Canadian wheat is subsidized by Canadians themselves. I have a hard time complaining about cheap food, even if these practices hurt existing farmers.

Free trade implies that both sides sell their product at market prices. Clearly, what the sociaists north of the border are doing is not cricket. However, if the Canadians are stupid enough to pay for my next loaf, I say "Let 'em." In the long run, let's fix the process and put everyone on a level playing field. In the short run, I marvel at their stupidity.

Please remember that the labels are your own.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (Click here should you choose to sign out.)

As you post your comment, please mind our simple comment policy: we welcome all perspectives, but require that comments be both civil and respectful. We also ask that you avoid the extensive use of profanity, racist terms (neither of which we consider civil or respectful), and other boorish language.

We reserve the right to delete any comment, and to prohibit you from commenting on this site, if we feel you have broached this policy. As a courtesy, we will first send you an email noting a violation so you understand the boundaries. This will occur only once, however, and should we ban you from our comment forums we expect that ban to be permanent.

We also will frown upon those who suggest that we ban other individuals for voicing unpopular opinions, should those opinions be voiced in a civil and respectful manner. The point of our comment threads is to provide a forum for spirited though civil and respectful discourse … it is not to provide a forum in which everyone will agree with your point of view.

If you can live by these rules, welcome aboard. If not, then we’re sorry it didn’t work out, and thanks for visiting The Command Post.

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: