I was out perusing the blogosphere today and encountered this post on the Urban Grind. Is this not the best moral argument for gun ownership ever? Coach, are you reading? You guys need to get this gal writing for you.
33 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Court Looses Limits on Election Ads Monday June 25, 10:31 am ET By Mark Sherman, Associated Press Writer Supreme Court Loosens Restrictions on Corporate- and Union-Funded Election Ads
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court loosened restrictions Monday on corporate- and union-funded television ads that air close to elections, weakening a key provision of a landmark campaign finance law.
Another former Central Iowa Employment and Training Consortium employee has been indicted on federal charges.
Victor Scaglione is accused of lying to a grand jury about how CIETC employees spent their time.
The indictment alleges Scaglione and others gambled at Prairie Meadows Racetrack and Casino on company time. He has pleaded not guilty and is scheduled to go to trial on July 30.
Scaglione is still an employee at the agency created when CIETC was dissolved. But an official there said Scaglione's future with the job agency is uncertain. Six other people already face a variety of federal charges in the CIETC pay scandal.
and speaking of project destiny. I've received bunches of mailers telling me that I get property tax relief for voting for it. they don't tell me that my sales tax bill is going to MORE than make up for that. I spend more out of my pocket by a long shot to live the same way I do now. I can't deduct my sales tax.
Also, they just raised my property values up a bunch, so even with the "relief", I pay the same I always was paying.
Scaglione is still an employee at the agency created when CIETC was dissolved. But an official there said Scaglione's future with the job agency is uncertain.
But Roberts said, "Discussion of issues cannot be suppressed simply because the issues also may be pertinent in an election. Where the First Amendment is implicated, the tie goes to the speaker, not the censor."
An array of interest groups across the political spectrum sought the outcome the court reached Monday. They include: the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Rifle Association, labor unions and business groups.
The consolidated case is Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, 06-969, and McCain v. Wisconsin Right to Life, 06-970.
WASHINGTON -- The acceptance of former Rep. Jim Nussle to be President Bush's budget director provides more evidence that Republican presidential front-runner Rudy Giuliani is downgrading his effort in Iowa caucuses leading off the GOP delegate selection process next January.
When Giuliani bowed out of this summer's Republican presidential straw poll at Ames, Iowa, the former New York City mayor's camp insisted he was not abandoning the caucuses. But Nussle, defeated for governor of Iowa last year, was the most prominent Iowan for Giuliani.
The perception in Iowa is that Nussle would not become Office of Management and Budget (OMB) director if Giuliani were serious about the caucuses.
Sen. Chuck Grassley, ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, has undermined Republican schemes to capitalize on Democratic tax plans by joining Democratic Sen. Max Baucus, the Finance Committee chairman, in punitive tax plans against private equity partnerships.
Republican fund-raisers had been scolding the financial services industry for giving more than half of its contributions to Democrats in 2005 (according to Bloomberg News). In return, the GOP tells Wall Street, Democrats repay such generosity by increasing the tax burden for financiers.
That argument is undercut by Grassley, the Iowa farmer who continues his long-standing animosity against hedge funds by pushing higher tax rates for them and for private equity partnerships.
It was a mild January evening, and people had filled the restaurant's outdoor patio. As our group walked past the tables, one of my friends said, "This terrifies me." I don't know if she was reassured later by the chilly April, but we are all supposed to be terrified of the weather now.
In "An Inconvenient Truth," Al Gore tells us that unless drastic global changes are made, our cities will be inundated and those of us who haven't drowned will face a world wracked by cataclysmic weather and swarming with pestilence.
One of his devotees, actor Leonardo DiCaprio, is coming out with his own environmental horror movie warning of human extinction if we continue living as we are.
This would have a negative effect on the box office, but extinction might be preferable to the future Gore envisions.
An article in The Post this spring described children anxious, sleepless and tearful about the end; one 9-year-old said she worried about global warming "because I don't want to die."
An essential part of the global warming awareness movement is the belief that scaring us to death is the best way to spur massive change.
Gore explicitly compares warming to the Nazis of the last century and terrorists of this one.
It doesn't seem sustainable to expect people to remain terrified by such a disinterested, often benign -- it was so nice eating out on the patio! -- and even unpredictable enemy. (I understand we're the enemy, but the executioner is the weather.)
Recall that the experts told us last year would be a record-setting hurricane season, but the series of Katrinas never materialized.
Since I hate the heat, even I was alarmed by the recent headline: "NASA Warns of 110-Degrees for Atlanta, Chicago, DC in Summer." But I regained my cool when I realized the forecast was for close to the end of the century.
Thanks to all the heat-mongering, it's supposed to be a sign I'm in denial because I refuse to trust a weather prediction for August 2080, when no one can offer me one for August 2008 (or 2007 for that matter).
There is so much hubris in the certainty about the models of the future that I'm oddly reassured. We've seen how hubristic predictions about complicated, unpredictable events have a way of bringing the predictors low.
It's also hard to believe assertions that the science on the future of our climate is settled when climate scientists can't agree about the present -- or the past (there is contention about the dates, causes and even the existence of the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age that followed).
Now, Gore and others say that Katrina was a product of global warming and that we can expect more and bigger storms. But there is actually brisk scientific debate over the role global warming plays -- if any -- in the creation of hurricanes.
A study from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution last month, looking at 5,000 years of Atlantic hurricanes, found "large and dramatic fluctuations in hurricane activity, with long stretches of frequent strikes punctuated by lulls that lasted many centuries" -- with the stormier periods occurring during cooler ocean temperatures.
But talking about Earth's constant, and still inexplicable, climate changes and cycles is not useful if you're trying to shock.
In his new book, "The Assault on Reason," Gore denounces what he sees as today's politics of fear.
Yet his own campaign of mass persuasion -- any such campaign -- is not amenable to contradiction and uncertainty.
It's about fright and absolutes. But just because something can be plotted on an X and Y axis does not make it the whole truth.
Corporate wizard Willard Mitt Romney has entered the next phase of his presidential initial public offering: Appearing in shirt-sleeves.
As he comes out before a town hall crowd of about 200 in early June, his suit jacket is missing, his pleated pants ride high and his starched white cuffs are turned twice on each wrist -- not rolled to the elbow like those of a working man or George W. Bush, but just a few inches up the arms, far enough to show that he is not wearing a Rolex.
He has been campaigning all weekend in Iowa, eight public events in three days, and his local spokesman says that the jacket started coming off on Saturday, which coincidentally was the same day that the New York Times ran a front-page story with the headline "Romney Struggles to Connect on Stump."
Romney's appearance sans jacket tells the story of that struggle.
For 25 years, he conquered corporate America, a place where the suits hang perfectly, the silk ties have tight knots and the presentations come in PowerPoint.
Now he is campaigning to lead the Western world, and the rules are different.
It is not enough to simply have a set of strategies or the most powerful financiers. He has to become someone people can believe in.
He has to step outside his suit and appear to be more than just another rich guy.
Though he currently leads the GOP in fundraising and the New Hampshire and Iowa polls, this is still a work in progress
Jane Fonda and a number of other prominent liberal figures have joined a campaign to impeach President George Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney for "war crimes.”
An organization calling itself The World Can’t Wait has taken out a full-page ad in Friday’s New York Times seeking donations and announcing upcoming town meetings in several cities.
The ad states that the U.S. government under the Bush administration "is waging a murderous and utterly illegitimate war in Iraq.”
But the campaign is about more than just the Iraq war.
Under the headline "2008 Is Too Late, the ad reads: "What harm can Bush do before his term is up? He can bomb Iran. He can appoint another Supreme Court Justice. He can continue with impunity the crime of torture.”
The ad charges the Bush regime with "openly torturing people” and "moving each day closer to a theocracy,” and goes so far as to state: "People look at all this and think of Hitler – and they are right to do so.”
The World Can’t Wait notice also notes that "there is not going to be some savior from the Democratic Party ... We must, and can, aim to create a political situation where the Bush regime’s program is repudiated, where Bush himself is driven from office.”
In addition to Fonda, the campaign’s "thousands” of signees include Edward Asner, Gore Vidal, Olympia Dukakis, Daniel Ellsberg of Pentagon Papers notoriety, Democratic presidential candidate Mike Gravel, "Born on the Fourth of July” author Ron Kovic, former Rep. Cynthia McKinney, and Sean Penn.
Dick Morris says that "when Hillary wakes up in the middle of the night screaming, the cause is most likely R. Emmett Tyrrell."
Hillary will be screaming about Tyrrell's latest blockbuster: The Clinton Crack-Up.
Tyrrell shows that Bill Clinton is the boy president who never grew up, the high-school jock of America's political locker room—complete with fawning co-eds and a bully's cocksure posture.
But as New York Times best-selling author and America Spectator founder and editor in chief R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr. reveals in this uproarious expose', behind the façade is a dissipated disaster of a man—undisciplined, unbalanced, and unscrupulous.
With his legendary investigative eye for the Clintons' mischief, Tyrrell sheds glaring light on Bill Clinton and reveals:
The real story of how Clinton's team trashed the White House as he left the Presidency in 2001.
Why Clinton is nothing more than a 1960's generation first President: "a smiling, pouty, hulk of a man – an overgrown adolescent."
Why history will remember Clinton for being the most undisciplined President of the modern era and the least ethical.
What FOBs Rick Kaplan and Jeff Greenfield told Tyrrell about Clinton's scandals after he left the White House.
Clinton's "funk" in 2001 and what Secret Service agents said about Clinton's chatter about becoming Secretary General of the United Nations.
Clinton is such a no show in Chappaqua and despite claims by Hillary and Bill of intense religiosity, Tyrrell uncovered that there's no church within thirty miles of Chappaqua that has Bill or Hillary as even casual visitors.
Why the New York City Police Department Dignitary Protective Unit is so angry with the President's desire for "off-the-beaten-path" night spots.
The Clinton curse: Why both Clintons' friends and enemies seem to suffer so much.
"The Chop Suey Connection:" The Clintons' ties to China and why it portends such dangers if Hillary ever becomes President.
How Bill Clinton used his book "My Life" to sabotage any plans John Kerry had in using him to campaign during the 2004 election.
Why the Clintons have become "the two most exaggerated figures in modern American political history."
Tyrrell follows the boy president's wayward trail from Washington to Harlem, from Chappaqua to Hong Kong, from his double-wide presidential library with the penthouse on top in Little Rock to the moneychangers' dens of Dubai.
Globetrotting, shady backstage dealing, and chumming up to Hollywood's dubious elite, keep Clinton's larger-than-life image alive—helped all the while by his enraptured admirers and Episodic Apologists.
But Tyrrell reveals the real Clinton, a Clinton rarely reported: easily distracted, easily seduced, and a prodigal child of the Sixties as prone to squander his potential as an elder statesman as he was while ensconced in the West Wing.
R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr. is founder and editor in chief of the famous and feared American Spectator, a political and cultural monthly, which has been published since 1967.
The author of several books including the New York Times best-selling Boy Clinton, Madam Hillary, The Liberal Crack-Up, and The Conservative Crack-Up, Tyrrell's syndicated column appears in such venues as the New York Sun, the Washington Times, Townhall.com, and CNN.com. Additionally, his writings have appeared in the Wall Street Journal, Harper's, New York Times, National Review, New York Magazine, and in the UK's Guardian, Independent, the Evening Standard, and The Telegraph newspapers.
"Whew! Bob says things about Bill Clinton that even Hillary wouldn't say." —P.J. O'Rourke
Good thing there is no hate in the R speech… But, I’m not too keen on another Clinton presidency either.
So, Bill got a blow job and his staff left the offices messy. W is leaving the world in chaos and most observers think it will take decades to recover. – So which scenario would you pick? Hmm… a really tough call, isn’t it?
So what do you think Americans would prefer, the Clinton years or the W years? – If you stepped out of the partisan echo chamber, I suspect you would hear the answer loud and clear.
Still, I personally don’t want another Clinton presidency. Several better options on my side. And not many D’s I know think of Bill’s presidency as a great success. Most see it as a wasted opportunity. But in comparison to the current fiasco, those times are looking better and better.
BTW, with W, for most of us the issue is that we hate what he has done. Admittedly, it’s easy to go from that to personal hatred. It has happened to many of us.
at least 4 major foreign and 1 domestic terror attack. clinton's response, do nothing and tell people all was well.
the stock market tanking, clinton did nothing.
the economy headed toward recession, clinton did nothing.
major terror plots uncovered clinton does two things, both rather strange: limit contact between the FBI and CIA and prohibit using criminals or others with blood on their hands as sources of intellegence. he should have done nothing.
north korea threatens to go nuclear, clinton gives them the money and nuclear fuel to complete the project.
the fact that clinton was able to pretend that the world's problems were passing us by, and a complicit and criminally pandering media went along.
remember the 2000 campaign when the clintons said w was irresponsible for saying a recession was imminent without a large infusion of cash into the consumer markets? perfect example.
remmber the brown outs in California? where was the clinton energy policy? clinton did nothing.
bubba was simply the calvin coolidge of his generation. catch the wave of a booming economy and leave the country on auto pilot.
Uncle Ted, are you going to have a warm embrace followed by a big wet kiss for Andrew Dorr when he re-enters the Iowa political scene working for Fred Thompson?
Amazing conversation today. One or more commenters are really hung up on sex.
No one noticed that the Supreme Court took away the free speech of students just a little. No Bong Hits for Jesus if the teacher (government) is looking. Where is Sporer when we need him? Carrying on about Clinton when he could be defending free speech.
Spotlight, I initially shared your concerns about this decision, while I celebrated the far more significant victory for free speech in the McCain/Feingold case.
I have seen more coverage of the decision. Apparently the determinative material fact was the student's display of the sign, which urges a criminal act, while at a school sponsored event and functioning as an agent or representative of the school (which was smart lawyering for their side). Since I don't want to read the Appendix to determine if that is, indeed, the best view of the facts (and I'm pretty sure it is 'cause that's the Supreme's findings)it would appear that the legal issue was quite narrow: whether a limited restriction on speech is "reasonable" and hence meets the appropriate legal standard. Clearly a school can limit what people say when the person appears on behalf of the school.
I am going to read the whole decision. The early Fox coverage indicates that the Court did not encroach on Tinker v. DM Schools and drew a very very narrow holding, which is a good thing. So you can still wear your hate America T shirts to school.
Having said all of that something about it still rankles me. I don't much care for any restrictions on speech and they should be very narrowly drawn.
What a lovely, predictable partisan echo chamber version of the Clinton years. Gordo would be proud. Spotlight and I could spend all night typing our partisan version of the W years. Lucky for you, I don't have time for that. And we all have heard the stuff a million times and have seen the disaster first-hand.
The bottom line is, would your average American choose W years over Clinton years? - Unless you also live in W's sound-resistant bubble, I suspect you know the answer just as well as I do.
Apples to Oranges. Clinton served during the calm before the storm (in regard to the Islamists). He also was lucky enough to have the greatest tech boom in the history of our country fall in his lap.
Clinton was lucky. Saying his years in office were better is not probative.
33 comments:
Court Looses Limits on Election Ads
Monday June 25, 10:31 am ET
By Mark Sherman, Associated Press Writer
Supreme Court Loosens Restrictions on Corporate- and Union-Funded Election Ads
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court loosened restrictions Monday on corporate- and union-funded television ads that air close to elections, weakening a key provision of a landmark campaign finance law.
Thanks for the link, Real Sporer, but it was actually my friend Bob F. who did that post. And I agree 1000% that he is excellent.
Another former Central Iowa Employment and Training Consortium employee has been indicted on federal charges.
Victor Scaglione is accused of lying to a grand jury about how CIETC employees spent their time.
The indictment alleges Scaglione and others gambled at Prairie Meadows Racetrack and Casino on company time. He has pleaded not guilty and is scheduled to go to trial on July 30.
Scaglione is still an employee at the agency created when CIETC was dissolved. But an official there said Scaglione's future with the job agency is uncertain. Six other people already face a variety of federal charges in the CIETC pay scandal.
and speaking of project destiny. I've received bunches of mailers telling me that I get property tax relief for voting for it. they don't tell me that my sales tax bill is going to MORE than make up for that. I spend more out of my pocket by a long shot to live the same way I do now. I can't deduct my sales tax.
Also, they just raised my property values up a bunch, so even with the "relief", I pay the same I always was paying.
Scaglione is still an employee at the agency created when CIETC was dissolved. But an official there said Scaglione's future with the job agency is uncertain.
But Roberts said, "Discussion of issues cannot be suppressed simply because the issues also may be pertinent in an election. Where the First Amendment is implicated, the tie goes to the speaker, not the censor."
An array of interest groups across the political spectrum sought the outcome the court reached Monday. They include: the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Rifle Association, labor unions and business groups.
The consolidated case is Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, 06-969, and McCain v. Wisconsin Right to Life, 06-970.
Feinstein and Lott appeared on "Fox News Sunday"
By Robert Novak
WASHINGTON -- The acceptance of former Rep. Jim Nussle to be President Bush's budget director provides more evidence that Republican presidential front-runner Rudy Giuliani is downgrading his effort in Iowa caucuses leading off the GOP delegate selection process next January.
When Giuliani bowed out of this summer's Republican presidential straw poll at Ames, Iowa, the former New York City mayor's camp insisted he was not abandoning the caucuses. But Nussle, defeated for governor of Iowa last year, was the most prominent Iowan for Giuliani.
The perception in Iowa is that Nussle would not become Office of Management and Budget (OMB) director if Giuliani were serious about the caucuses.
Sen. Chuck Grassley, ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, has undermined Republican schemes to capitalize on Democratic tax plans by joining Democratic Sen. Max Baucus, the Finance Committee chairman, in punitive tax plans against private equity partnerships.
Republican fund-raisers had been scolding the financial services industry for giving more than half of its contributions to Democrats in 2005 (according to Bloomberg News). In return, the GOP tells Wall Street, Democrats repay such generosity by increasing the tax burden for financiers.
That argument is undercut by Grassley, the Iowa farmer who continues his long-standing animosity against hedge funds by pushing higher tax rates for them and for private equity partnerships.
By Emily Yoffe
Monday, June 25, 2007; A19
It was a mild January evening, and people had filled the restaurant's outdoor patio. As our group walked past the tables, one of my friends said, "This terrifies me." I don't know if she was reassured later by the chilly April, but we are all supposed to be terrified of the weather now.
In "An Inconvenient Truth," Al Gore tells us that unless drastic global changes are made, our cities will be inundated and those of us who haven't drowned will face a world wracked by cataclysmic weather and swarming with pestilence.
One of his devotees, actor Leonardo DiCaprio, is coming out with his own environmental horror movie warning of human extinction if we continue living as we are.
This would have a negative effect on the box office, but extinction might be preferable to the future Gore envisions.
An article in The Post this spring described children anxious, sleepless and tearful about the end; one 9-year-old said she worried about global warming "because I don't want to die."
An essential part of the global warming awareness movement is the belief that scaring us to death is the best way to spur massive change.
Gore explicitly compares warming to the Nazis of the last century and terrorists of this one.
It doesn't seem sustainable to expect people to remain terrified by such a disinterested, often benign -- it was so nice eating out on the patio! -- and even unpredictable enemy. (I understand we're the enemy, but the executioner is the weather.)
Recall that the experts told us last year would be a record-setting hurricane season, but the series of Katrinas never materialized.
Since I hate the heat, even I was alarmed by the recent headline: "NASA Warns of 110-Degrees for Atlanta, Chicago, DC in Summer." But I regained my cool when I realized the forecast was for close to the end of the century.
Thanks to all the heat-mongering, it's supposed to be a sign I'm in denial because I refuse to trust a weather prediction for August 2080, when no one can offer me one for August 2008 (or 2007 for that matter).
There is so much hubris in the certainty about the models of the future that I'm oddly reassured. We've seen how hubristic predictions about complicated, unpredictable events have a way of bringing the predictors low.
It's also hard to believe assertions that the science on the future of our climate is settled when climate scientists can't agree about the present -- or the past (there is contention about the dates, causes and even the existence of the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age that followed).
Now, Gore and others say that Katrina was a product of global warming and that we can expect more and bigger storms. But there is actually brisk scientific debate over the role global warming plays -- if any -- in the creation of hurricanes.
A study from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution last month, looking at 5,000 years of Atlantic hurricanes, found "large and dramatic fluctuations in hurricane activity, with long stretches of frequent strikes punctuated by lulls that lasted many centuries" -- with the stormier periods occurring during cooler ocean temperatures.
But talking about Earth's constant, and still inexplicable, climate changes and cycles is not useful if you're trying to shock.
In his new book, "The Assault on Reason," Gore denounces what he sees as today's politics of fear.
Yet his own campaign of mass persuasion -- any such campaign -- is not amenable to contradiction and uncertainty.
It's about fright and absolutes. But just because something can be plotted on an X and Y axis does not make it the whole truth.
Higher tax rates for private equity? Higher than what?
These wheeler-dealers are paying 15% tax on their million dollar incomes. What do middle class workers pay?--maybe 28%.
I feel so sorry for the wheeler-dealer! Facing a tax hike--horrors!
Forecasts for a busy hurricane season in 2006 were all dead wrong. This year, forecasters predicted a really busy year again.
But with just two storms to date, and neither one a hurricane, you might wonder where all the action is.
A similarly busy forecast was given for the 2006 season, but ultimately it flopped.
spotlight - perhaps you ought to do a bit more research before you let your intellect hang out there in the breeze for us all to see.
Corporate wizard Willard Mitt Romney has entered the next phase of his presidential initial public offering: Appearing in shirt-sleeves.
As he comes out before a town hall crowd of about 200 in early June, his suit jacket is missing, his pleated pants ride high and his starched white cuffs are turned twice on each wrist -- not rolled to the elbow like those of a working man or George W. Bush, but just a few inches up the arms, far enough to show that he is not wearing a Rolex.
He has been campaigning all weekend in Iowa, eight public events in three days, and his local spokesman says that the jacket started coming off on Saturday, which coincidentally was the same day that the New York Times ran a front-page story with the headline "Romney Struggles to Connect on Stump."
Romney's appearance sans jacket tells the story of that struggle.
For 25 years, he conquered corporate America, a place where the suits hang perfectly, the silk ties have tight knots and the presentations come in PowerPoint.
Now he is campaigning to lead the Western world, and the rules are different.
It is not enough to simply have a set of strategies or the most powerful financiers. He has to become someone people can believe in.
He has to step outside his suit and appear to be more than just another rich guy.
Though he currently leads the GOP in fundraising and the New Hampshire and Iowa polls, this is still a work in progress
Jane Fonda and a number of other prominent liberal figures have joined a campaign to impeach President George Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney for "war crimes.”
An organization calling itself The World Can’t Wait has taken out a full-page ad in Friday’s New York Times seeking donations and announcing upcoming town meetings in several cities.
The ad states that the U.S. government under the Bush administration "is waging a murderous and utterly illegitimate war in Iraq.”
But the campaign is about more than just the Iraq war.
Under the headline "2008 Is Too Late, the ad reads: "What harm can Bush do before his term is up? He can bomb Iran. He can appoint another Supreme Court Justice. He can continue with impunity the crime of torture.”
The ad charges the Bush regime with "openly torturing people” and "moving each day closer to a theocracy,” and goes so far as to state: "People look at all this and think of Hitler – and they are right to do so.”
The World Can’t Wait notice also notes that "there is not going to be some savior from the Democratic Party ... We must, and can, aim to create a political situation where the Bush regime’s program is repudiated, where Bush himself is driven from office.”
In addition to Fonda, the campaign’s "thousands” of signees include Edward Asner, Gore Vidal, Olympia Dukakis, Daniel Ellsberg of Pentagon Papers notoriety, Democratic presidential candidate Mike Gravel, "Born on the Fourth of July” author Ron Kovic, former Rep. Cynthia McKinney, and Sean Penn.
Dick Morris says that "when Hillary wakes up in the middle of the night screaming, the cause is most likely R. Emmett Tyrrell."
Hillary will be screaming about Tyrrell's latest blockbuster: The Clinton Crack-Up.
Tyrrell shows that Bill Clinton is the boy president who never grew up, the high-school jock of America's political locker room—complete with fawning co-eds and a bully's cocksure posture.
But as New York Times best-selling author and America Spectator founder and editor in chief R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr. reveals in this uproarious expose', behind the façade is a dissipated disaster of a man—undisciplined, unbalanced, and unscrupulous.
With his legendary investigative eye for the Clintons' mischief, Tyrrell sheds glaring light on Bill Clinton and reveals:
The real story of how Clinton's team trashed the White House as he left the Presidency in 2001.
Why Clinton is nothing more than a 1960's generation first President: "a smiling, pouty, hulk of a man – an overgrown adolescent."
Why history will remember Clinton for being the most undisciplined President of the modern era and the least ethical.
What FOBs Rick Kaplan and Jeff Greenfield told Tyrrell about Clinton's scandals after he left the White House.
Clinton's "funk" in 2001 and what Secret Service agents said about Clinton's chatter about becoming Secretary General of the United Nations.
Clinton is such a no show in Chappaqua and despite claims by Hillary and Bill of intense religiosity, Tyrrell uncovered that there's no church within thirty miles of Chappaqua that has Bill or Hillary as even casual visitors.
Why the New York City Police Department Dignitary Protective Unit is so angry with the President's desire for "off-the-beaten-path" night spots.
The Clinton curse: Why both Clintons' friends and enemies seem to suffer so much.
"The Chop Suey Connection:" The Clintons' ties to China and why it portends such dangers if Hillary ever becomes President.
How Bill Clinton used his book "My Life" to sabotage any plans John Kerry had in using him to campaign during the 2004 election.
Why the Clintons have become "the two most exaggerated figures in modern American political history."
Tyrrell follows the boy president's wayward trail from Washington to Harlem, from Chappaqua to Hong Kong, from his double-wide presidential library with the penthouse on top in Little Rock to the moneychangers' dens of Dubai.
Globetrotting, shady backstage dealing, and chumming up to Hollywood's dubious elite, keep Clinton's larger-than-life image alive—helped all the while by his enraptured admirers and Episodic Apologists.
But Tyrrell reveals the real Clinton, a Clinton rarely reported: easily distracted, easily seduced, and a prodigal child of the Sixties as prone to squander his potential as an elder statesman as he was while ensconced in the West Wing.
R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr. is founder and editor in chief of the famous and feared American Spectator, a political and cultural monthly, which has been published since 1967.
The author of several books including the New York Times best-selling Boy Clinton, Madam Hillary, The Liberal Crack-Up, and The Conservative Crack-Up, Tyrrell's syndicated column appears in such venues as the New York Sun, the Washington Times, Townhall.com, and CNN.com. Additionally, his writings have appeared in the Wall Street Journal, Harper's, New York Times, National Review, New York Magazine, and in the UK's Guardian, Independent, the Evening Standard, and The Telegraph newspapers.
"Whew! Bob says things about Bill Clinton that even Hillary wouldn't say." —P.J. O'Rourke
Good thing there is no hate in the R speech… But, I’m not too keen on another Clinton presidency either.
So, Bill got a blow job and his staff left the offices messy. W is leaving the world in chaos and most observers think it will take decades to recover. – So which scenario would you pick? Hmm… a really tough call, isn’t it?
I’m your huckleberry!!!
Giddy up TFS. I am sending this around the building! Thanks for the heads up.
-Coach B.
it's ok that i stole the cookies from the cookie jar - johnny did it too.
you guys simply refuse to see the corruption of the clintons and can only use - we don't like bush - as your defense.
tell us something that billy boy blow job did that was good and why he deserves a third term? is it because he got blow jobs from interns?
is that your threshold of character?
So what do you think Americans would prefer, the Clinton years or the W years? – If you stepped out of the partisan echo chamber, I suspect you would hear the answer loud and clear.
Still, I personally don’t want another Clinton presidency. Several better options on my side. And not many D’s I know think of Bill’s presidency as a great success. Most see it as a wasted opportunity. But in comparison to the current fiasco, those times are looking better and better.
BTW, with W, for most of us the issue is that we hate what he has done. Admittedly, it’s easy to go from that to personal hatred. It has happened to many of us.
Yes, I'll take W, who cares about national security, over the president with the unusual taste in cigars anyday.
let's look at the clinton years.
at least 4 major foreign and 1 domestic terror attack. clinton's response, do nothing and tell people all was well.
the stock market tanking, clinton did nothing.
the economy headed toward recession, clinton did nothing.
major terror plots uncovered clinton does two things, both rather strange: limit contact between the FBI and CIA and prohibit using criminals or others with blood on their hands as sources of intellegence. he should have done nothing.
north korea threatens to go nuclear, clinton gives them the money and nuclear fuel to complete the project.
the fact that clinton was able to pretend that the world's problems were passing us by, and a complicit and criminally pandering media went along.
remember the 2000 campaign when the clintons said w was irresponsible for saying a recession was imminent without a large infusion of cash into the consumer markets? perfect example.
remmber the brown outs in California? where was the clinton energy policy? clinton did nothing.
bubba was simply the calvin coolidge of his generation. catch the wave of a booming economy and leave the country on auto pilot.
Never, in the field of human conflict, was so much bull, ignored by so many, caused by so few(Billary).
Uncle Ted, are you going to have a warm embrace followed by a big wet kiss for Andrew Dorr when he re-enters the Iowa political scene working for Fred Thompson?
Amazing conversation today. One or more commenters are really hung up on sex.
No one noticed that the Supreme Court took away the free speech of students just a little. No Bong Hits for Jesus if the teacher (government) is looking. Where is Sporer when we need him? Carrying on about Clinton when he could be defending free speech.
Spotlight, I initially shared your concerns about this decision, while I celebrated the far more significant victory for free speech in the McCain/Feingold case.
I have seen more coverage of the decision. Apparently the determinative material fact was the student's display of the sign, which urges a criminal act, while at a school sponsored event and functioning as an agent or representative of the school (which was smart lawyering for their side). Since I don't want to read the Appendix to determine if that is, indeed, the best view of the facts (and I'm pretty sure it is 'cause that's the Supreme's findings)it would appear that the legal issue was quite narrow: whether a limited restriction on speech is "reasonable" and hence meets the appropriate legal standard. Clearly a school can limit what people say when the person appears on behalf of the school.
I am going to read the whole decision. The early Fox coverage indicates that the Court did not encroach on Tinker v. DM Schools and drew a very very narrow holding, which is a good thing. So you can still wear your hate America T shirts to school.
Having said all of that something about it still rankles me. I don't much care for any restrictions on speech and they should be very narrowly drawn.
much like calvin coolidge leaving a recession, a stock market crash and weaker America to his successor.
that's right papa bear-
Sporer,
What a lovely, predictable partisan echo chamber version of the Clinton years. Gordo would be proud. Spotlight and I could spend all night typing our partisan version of the W years. Lucky for you, I don't have time for that. And we all have heard the stuff a million times and have seen the disaster first-hand.
The bottom line is, would your average American choose W years over Clinton years? - Unless you also live in W's sound-resistant bubble, I suspect you know the answer just as well as I do.
Apples to Oranges. Clinton served during the calm before the storm (in regard to the Islamists). He also was lucky enough to have the greatest tech boom in the history of our country fall in his lap.
Clinton was lucky. Saying his years in office were better is not probative.
Whatever helps you sleep at night.
Post a Comment