Politics As Usual

[Tyrone Slothrop]

put aside your "lied to get us into Iraq" schtick- that is played and no one is moving there-


Ruy Teixeira on a LA Times poll from earlier this June: "Finally, note that Bush has ... only a one point advantage on 'he has the honesty and integrity to serve as president' (41-40). For a president whose stock in trade used to be the strong leader who told it like it was, that's not very encouraging news."

...but now he lied because allegedly he claimed to support some bill, but didn't really and worked to make it go away. This is absurd.


Where does Kleiman have the facts wrong? You don't have any idea, do you?


... This is much less a lie than Clinton is responsible for welfare reform.


Now he's lying, but it's "less a lie"? OK.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
This is much less a lie than Clinton is responsible for welfare reform. Politicians has to take positions in sound bytes- and bills come in 100 page packets. There is not way any politician is against fixing health care, but it sure is possible to be against some of what's in any given 100 page bill.

Alrighty, I've told others that the day Hank comes out arguing that "complexity is no vice" is the day that I'm quittin' show business.

I knew this day would come, but I thought it would occur distant day in the second Schwartzenegger Administration, when he finally decided to stop defending the revelations that the "group sex" references in Pumping Iron were actually referring to Arnold and Secretary of Defense DeLay.

Obviously, I've got to reassess my betting strategies.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Now he's lying, but it's "less a lie"? OK.

This reminds me of the best description I've heard of the current "Link"/"No-Link" debate on Iraq and Al-Quaeda, where watching the GOPers describe the shades of "link" reminds me of a teenager describing the distinction between "hanging out," "going out," "going steady," and "dating."

Carry on.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Gattigap
While convoluted, I think her argument* has gone something like this.

Forgot to add:

5. Doesn't matter, because Joe Sixpack won't care. We'll still win.



This last point remains to be seen (and who knows, it may turn out to be true, at least in the narrow, electoral sense), but if this becomes the most significant remaining argument, I hope I'm not the only one who finds this to be a particularly depressing refuge.

(Hat trick!)

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Alrighty, I've told others that the day Hank comes out arguing that "complexity is no vice" is the day that I'm quittin' show business.

I knew this day would come, but I thought it would occur distant day in the second Schwartzenegger Administration, when he finally decided to stop defending the revelations that the "group sex" references in Pumping Iron were actually referring to Arnold and Secretary of Defense DeLay.

Obviously, I've got to reassess my betting strategies.

my initial response to this sounded like sometihng Sidd might post- so now I'm thinking of quitting- Ty posts one of his bloggers with unsupported statements about several different bills over the course of several years. Ty's blogger reaches the conclusion that taking different positions over the several different bills and years is lying.

I say "guys- this bills are 100's of pps long. how can you take a guy seriously who writes about the bills like they are identical and one sentence truisms I support health care reform!"

Ty/Gattigap say I'm dumb. Ty ads in that I don't know where the guy misses in his analysis. Was a time I'd argue with him- but that's pointless. He has the memory of Andie McDowell in Groundhog Day. Sure every time we do it gets quicker to fuck him up, but he keeps forgetting the next day. Now all I can hope is that Ty didn't take the time to actually study the several bills and know whether his blogger has cut some corners. Please Ty, tell me you haven't read them all.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I say "guys- this bills are 100's of pps long. how can you take a guy seriously who writes about the bills like they are identical and one sentence truisms I support health care reform!"

Like it or not, that's the way the game is played these days. Check out W's attack ads, like the one on Kerry wanting to "gut" our intel budget by voting against reauthorizing some godforsaken CIA program back in the early 90s. Or do you not take the W campaign seriously? A welcome development, but I doubt that's your point.

Originally posted by Not Me


Oh and my posts about people telling me about the parts of Clinton's book on Juanita Broderick were a joke. I posted that because according to several people who have read the book, Clinton left those [her] out of the book.

What a fucking joke.

If someone accused you of rape and it became a big media story, would you have left it out of your book? Not if you didn't rape the person. If you didn't rape her, you would want to tell your side of the story.

AN OPEN LETTER FROM JUANITA BROADDRICK TO HILLARY


'DO YOU REMEMBER?'
SUNDAY OCT 15, 2000


As I watched Rick Lazio's interview on Fox News this morning, I felt compelled to write this open letter to you, Mrs. Clinton. Brit Hume asked Mr. Lazio's views regarding you as a person and how he perceived you as a candidate. Rick Lazio did not answer the question, but I know that I can. You know it, too.

I have no doubt that you are the same conniving, self-serving person you were twenty-two years ago when I had the misfortune to meet you. When I see you on television, campaigning for the New York senate race, I can see the same hypocrisy in your face that you displayed to me one evening in 1978. You have not changed.

I remember it as though it was yesterday. I only wish that it were yesterday and maybe there would still be time to do something about what your husband, Bill Clinton, did to me. There was a political rally for Mr. Clinton's bid for governor of Arkansas. I had obligated myself to be at this rally prior to my being assaulted by your husband in April, 1978. I had made up my mind to make an appearance and then leave as soon as the two of you arrived. This was a big mistake, but I was still in a state of shock and denial. You had questioned the gentleman who drove you and Mr. Clinton from the airport. You asked him about me and if I would be at the gathering. Do you remember? You told the driver, "Bill has talked so much about Juanita", and that you were so anxious to meet me. Well, you wasted no time. As soon as you entered the room, you came directly to me and grabbed my hand. Do you remember how you thanked me, saying "we want to thank you for everything that you do for Bill". At that point, I was pretty shaken and started to walk off. Remember how you kept a tight grip on my hand and drew closer to me? You repeated your statement, but this time with a coldness and look that I have seen many times on television in the last eight years. You said, "Everything you do for Bill". You then released your grip and I said nothing and left the gathering.

What did you mean, Hillary? Were you referring to my keeping quiet about the assault I had suffered at the hands of your husband only two weeks before? Were you warning me to continue to keep quiet? We both know the answer to that question.

Yes, I can answer Brit Hume's question. You are the same Hillary that you were twenty years ago. You are cold, calculating and self-serving. You cannot tolerate the thought that you will soon be without the power you have wielded for the last eight years. Your effort to stay in power will be at the expense of the state of New York. I only hope the voters of New York will wake up in time and realize that Hillary Clinton is not an honorable or an honest person.

I will end by asking if you believe the statements I made on NBC Dateline when Lisa Myers asked if I had been assaulted and raped by your husband? Or perhaps, you are like Vice-President Gore and did not see the interview.

Juanita Broaddrick
Arkansas

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
my initial response to this sounded like sometihng Sidd might post- so now I'm thinking of quitting- Ty posts one of his bloggers with unsupported statements about several different bills over the course of several years. Ty's blogger reaches the conclusion that taking different positions over the several different bills and years is lying.

I say "guys- this bills are 100's of pps long. how can you take a guy seriously who writes about the bills like they are identical and one sentence truisms I support health care reform!"

Ty/Gattigap say I'm dumb. Ty ads in that I don't know where the guy misses in his analysis. Was a time I'd argue with him- but that's pointless. He has the memory of Andie McDowell in Groundhog Day.

You were the one who called the blogger's claims "absurd" -- what did you mean? Were you blowing smoke, or can you back it up? I think I know, but let's see.

And my memory is bad? Do you mean I can't use the search function? That's cold.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You were the one who called the blogger's claims "absurd" -- what did you mean? Were you blowing smoke, or can you back it up? I think I know, but let's see.

And my memory is bad? Do you mean I can't use the search function? That's cold.

see where I said "unsupported." that means i win unless you claim the guy did read the entirety of all the bills he mentioned then accounts for any historic changes over the years. You don't get the presumption on the "president lied." that was my first point. you want to prove it fine, but you have the burden, and some space fuck with time to have a blog ain't proof on his own.

sheesh Ty, You're smarter than this aren't you? you're going Sidd level here.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Ty/Gattigap say I'm dumb.

Hank, Hank. You wound me.

First, though my unnatural attraction to Ty may earn me some odd stares back home, please be assured that he and I are less than the same person.

Second, I didn't say you were dumb.* Surely as one who's mastered the quick partisan dig and the scatalogical observation, you readily recognize the Mocking Aside. It's how we invite converted liberals in from the cold. As a new convert to the Doctrine of Nuance, and of deconstructing political arguments to square the the messy realities of life, you're not rejected as dumb, but instead are cordially invited into Liberalism's warm, soothing embrace. Meetings are now at 9:30, and since Club rarely attends, you can have his chair.

Gattigap

* ..... today. [ba-dum-bum [crash]] Thank you! thank you.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
see where I said "unsupported." that means i win unless you claim the guy did read the entirety of all the bills he mentioned then accounts for any historic changes over the years. You don't get the presumption on the "president lied." that was my first point. you want to prove it fine, but you have the burden, and some space fuck with time to have a blog ain't proof on his own.

sheesh Ty, You're smarter than this aren't you? you're going Sidd level here.

So I just have to say that your post is "unsupported," and I win unless you read the entirety of all the bills he mentioned, etc.? Jeez, Hank, your post was so unsupported, it was like Colin Farrell in boxers.

T.S.

(6.3456 x 10^5) - 6

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Not Me
If someone accused you of rape and it became a big media story, would you have left it out of your book? Not if you didn't rape the person. If you didn't rape her, you would want to tell your side of the story.

If Clinton responded to the psychotic rantings of every wackadoo who fantasized about having sex with him, it would be like me constantly responding to you and Hank.


And at 950 pages, the tome hardly needs another chapter. I'm not particularly interested in prez auto-massages, but even if I were I'd wait for the Cliff Notes on this one.

[Gattigap]

Can't afford to buy the book? Don't want to be seen clutching something with a picture of Bill so close to one's hoo-ha? Or, simply too closeminded to consider other, ahem, perspectives?

Fear not. Slate has deconstructed a 957-page tome into a single web article.

My favorite excerpts:

Clinton on Sex

***

Page 197: "I was so exhausted I fell asleep while the stripper was dancing and the goat head was looking up at me." Look it up for yourself.

Obviously you conservatives have worn the cigar metaphor down to the nub, and Bill has graciously provided you with some beastiality material. If that doesn't drive you to Waldenbooks, I don't know what will.

Gattigap

[the Spartan]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
If Clinton responded to the psychotic rantings of every wackadoo who fantasized about having sex with him, it would be like me constantly responding to you and Hank.


And at 950 pages, the tome hardly needs another chapter. I'm not particularly interested in prez auto-massages, but even if I were I'd wait for the Cliff Notes on this one.

Exactly. Any of these psychotic ranting women who fantasize about having or having had sex with Clinton are wackadoos (as are all of the women who claim to have ever been raped-lying slut whores, just looking for attention-they wanted it). Like that Monica......what's her name? The zaftig chick in the blew dress. Wackadoodle doo! With a capital W. After all Clinton told us, straight, "i did not have sex with that woman, Ms. Wackadoo". Absurd.

Speaking of which, remember when Hillary was on the Today and she unmasked the VRWC's role in promoting this wackadoodling of her husband. Let's go to the tape:


MATT LAUER: Let me take you and your husband out of this for a second -- Bill and Hillary aren't involved in this story: If an American president had an adulterous liaison in the White House and lied to cover it up, should the American people ask for his resignation?

HILLARY CLINTON: Well, they should certainly be concerned about it.

LAUER: Should they ask for his resignation?

CLINTON: Well, I think -- if all that were proven true, I think that would be a very serious offense. That is not going to be proven true.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by the Spartan
Exactly. Any of these psychotic ranting women who fantasize about having or having had sex with Clinton are wackadoos (as are all of the women who claim to have ever been raped-lying slut whores, just looking for attention-they wanted it). Like that Monica......what's her name? The zaftig chick in the blew dress. Wackadoodle doo! With a capital W. After all Clinton told us, straight, "i did not have sex with that woman, Ms. Wackadoo". Absurd.

Speaking of which, remember when Hillary was on the Today and she unmasked the VRWC's role in promoting this wackadoodling of her husband. Let's go to the tape:


MATT LAUER: Let me take you and your husband out of this for a second -- Bill and Hillary aren't involved in this story: If an American president had an adulterous liaison in the White House and lied to cover it up, should the American people ask for his resignation?

HILLARY CLINTON: Well, they should certainly be concerned about it.

LAUER: Should they ask for his resignation?

CLINTON: Well, I think -- if all that were proven true, I think that would be a very serious offense. That is not going to be proven true.

I like this Spartan guy, he has a good memory.