September 06, 2012
Clinton Nominates "The One"
President William Jefferson Clinton once again proved his ability to give a good speech. He nominated President Barack Hussein Obama for a second term with the right mix of hyperbole, bovine excreta and selective use of data one may expect from a partisan speech.
I'll leave the self-appointed fact checkers to debate the validity of his words. I won't even comment on whether he patted himself on the back more than he praised Obama. Watching Clinton on TV, I was immediately struck by the similarity with past Clinton speeches in his faux use of body language. There it was, his head cocked to one side, his eyes narrowed, pointing his finger into the camera, oozing sincerity as he made his points. We've seen it before. Fourteen years ago, in the midst of the Monica Lewinsky affair, President Clinton appeared on TV - "I did not have sex with that women Miss Lewinsky..." Same head tilt, same eyes, same finger point, same sincerity but a boldfaced lie.
Also curious was the Democratic Party, the proponents of women, placing in a highly prominent convention role a man with his sexual history of abusing women and cheating on his wife. Elicit sex with Jennifer Flowers, controversial accusations of rape by Kathleen Willey and Juanita Broaddrick, oral sex with intern Monica Lewinsky. And Democrats accuse Republicans of a war on women?
That Obama needed Clinton to bolster his re-election campaign says volumes.
Posted by warrenpeterson at September 06, 2012
07:13 PM | Email This
1. Yes, it's very strange the things you have to pretend you don't see in Clinton while being the party that claims they are for women. If Clinton's sex and cheating behavior is what they call being FOR women, then who needs to be against them anyway?
A: A party that rabidly celebrated a married man last night that used his young intern as a humidor would have to point to themselves in the mirror as the party with a "war on women".
B: The disgraced and impeached carrying water for the incompetent. Needless to say, of course we're talking about a democrat convention. Pathetic.
Yes, in the words of Dick Morris - Clinton was the good defense lawyer defending a criminal (an economic terrorist) Obama.
Honest fact-checkers had a field day with Clinton's speech.
I am sitting here wondering .. is there really an alternative universe? The one I live in and another you folks see?
The entire RNC struck me as badly produced, as if some TV guys form the era of Reagan .. the actor not the President, tried to make a political commercial. Who was this aimed at?
About the only things missing were ads for the Marlboro Man, warnings about Commies, and ladies in petticoats as they vacuumed the place.
Or .. did I miss something about the world I live in .. the world with global warming, Arab democratic revolutions, American domination of the internet, multi colored americans, a surging China and Brazil????
[i]President Clinton appeared on TV - "I did not have sex with that women Miss Lewinsky..." Same head tilt, same eyes, same finger point, same sincerity but a boldfaced lie.[/i]
He never said that; his actual words were "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky." Since there is an actual legal definition of 'sexual relations', he actually didn't lie. He was a total weasel about it, but this was not a lie if there was not actual penetration by a penis into a vagina. The BJ's that were a part of all this do not fall under that particular legal definition.
Yeah, I know it's the same type of weaseling (along the lines of "depends on what the definition of 'is' is"), but he's been hammered for years with a mis-quote, when his actual words were, technically, correct.
6. Since there is an actual legal definition of 'sexual relations',
Specifically, the one Paula Jones' lawyers used in her trumped-up, worthless, since-dismissed lawsuit. As you correctly noted, that prudish definition did not include any of the acts in which Mr. Clinton and Ms. Lewinsky agreed freely to engage.
To be fair, when confronted with the spectacle of a privileged white male engaging in (a) consensual intercourse with an (b) adult (c) single (d) woman, we can understand how the party of Strom Thurmond, Mark Foley, Henry Hyde, and Larry Craig would recoil in abject horror.
Let's not forget Bubba was also disbarred. Now if a conservative speaker had been impeached, disbarred, and a known sexual predator, I do believe the MSM would be presenting things very differently.
Have watched the two speeches, Romney clearly did a much better job. Obama seemed rather bored with the whole thing and was most likely thinking of his next tee time. If this were a job interview, Romney came across as the better candidate. Obummer has the "you owe me" attitude.
8. Now if a conservative speaker had been impeached, disbarred, and a known sexual predator, I do believe the MSM would be presenting things very differently.
How about if he had been forced from office for allowing a trumped-up impeachment to proceed?
9. The Lewinsky scandal, sordid as it was, happened in 1995. It seems to be the only thing you wingnuts are interested in or talk about. The rest of the country has moved on. We have new issues to worry about.
Steven Hayward (Powerline) summarizes Owebama's speech - enough discussion of Clinton - he is so 1990's...
"On the eve of the one-year anniversary of Solyndra's bankruptcy, Barack Obama made the latest in a four year string of empty promises about his plan to achieve American energy independence. Despite his pledge to create 600,000 jobs in the energy sector and 1 million new manufacturing jobs, President Obama has presided over the worst economic recovery in a generation. He has refused to permit the Keystone XL pipeline, which would create tens of thousands of jobs, and he has instituted a de facto embargo on offshore energy development that has left the Gulf coast economy struggling to recover. At every turn, President Obama has denied access to taxpayer owned energy resources on federal lands, including more than a trillion barrels of oil sale.
President Obama has a record, and he cannot run from it. He's waged a three year war on coal, directed a federal regulatory assault on the hydraulic fracturing technologies that are responsible for our natural gas boom, and enacted numerous policies that prohibit American job creators from unlocking more than 200 years of oil supply that lies under our feet and off our coastlines. Meanwhile, he's spent the country into the poor house by pumping billions of taxpayer money into Solyndra-style renewable ventures, in some instances increasing the handouts by as much as 1700 percent.
America indeed has a choice. The United States must not embrace the failed policies of the past three years that have led to higher energy prices, more restrictions on domestic energy production, and reward the president's political cronies with lucrative loan guarantees at the expense of hardworking Americans who deserve a better use of their tax dollars.
America's energy future is less secure, less independent, and more expensive because of Barack Obama's policies. It is unlikely that the next four years would offer a different course under his continued leadership."
You know, after listening to the Democratic Convention, I now know there are Americans, who have put themselves in harms way to defend this country. They are called "the Troops."
Strange, didn't hear a word about them from Mitt Romeny last week at the GOP.
How did I know the lemming's would be weighing in on the truth that a scumbag philanderer was called in to carry the water for an incompetent empty suit at the DNC convention trying to push the narrative that the GOP had an imaginary "war on women". Seems you kids have some skeleton's in the closet...quite literally. Mary Jo Kopechne is rolling over in her grave at the hypocrisy.
As I said in another thread on this site. This Dem party has no Honor, Itegrity nor fidelity. It's all about pushing their fanatical religion known as the democrat party- the truth is optional to them.
"Now if a conservative speaker had been impeached, disbarred, and a known sexual predator, I do believe the MSM would be presenting things very differently."
The MSM would be even more nasty to a Libertarian if he or she had behaved as badly as Clinton. The MSM is mostly progressive in its outlook, and thee absolutely hate the Libertarians due to the Libertarian desire for less government. People in the media, with the exception of orgnizations like Fox, support larger and larger government influence over our individual lives. Unfortuanately, the Republicans have only paid lip service to truly reducing government because, in the end, shrinking government means millions of government employees get fired.
But we simply cannot afford the American Empire any longer. The private sector cannot produce enough wealth to satisfy the needs of either the Democtrats or the Republicans when it comes to keeping government employees on the payroll.
Clinton has about a 60% approval rating, so it seems like most people have forgiven him, with the notable exception of the party that was on the receiving end of his rhetorical whipping last night. It is ironic that the last Democratic president was celebrated by the DNC, while the last Republican president was practically He Who Must Not Be Named at the RNC.
Mitt is going to have to step up his game in the debates if he is going to have a chance, and I don't think he has it in him.
16. I like how the next speaker was Lewinski's Rabbi. Great casting for "Crouching intern, hidden stoggie."
Despite the hypocritical left's 3 days of whining,blaming and excuse-making of why they haven't done the job they were sent to do in 2008, I'm looking forward to the debate where America chooses its path. One path is to less individual liberty and increased slavery by the government (dem's) and the other is the path to freedom and self governance (Repub's).
Amazingly stark choices for the American electorate if/when they choose to wake up from their stupor in 2012.
18. Great casting for "Crouching intern, hidden stogie."
Agreed. And they have the gall to claim that the GOP has the war on women while wile they celebrate that reprobate former president yesterday. Clinton is your classic sociopath- it's his world, you're just living in it.
@ 11~ after listening to the Democratic Convention, I now know there are Americans, who have put themselves in harms way to defend this country. They are called "the Troops."
Obama has been in charge of afghanistan for 1/3 of the war, yet 2/3 of the casualties there.You don't hear about it from the press do you?
The best year of Obama casuality-wise is twice that of the worst under GW Bush.
If I were a "troop" again, I'd certainly know which of the two I'd prefer to be in charge of me.
20. The Ave: Or .. did I miss something about the world I live in .. the world without the junk science of global warming, Arab undemocratic revolutions or those that elect leaders from the muslim brotherhood, American domination in creativity and commerce of the internet, the left's obsession with multi colored americans, a surging China and Brazil because of pro-business tax and regulatory policy while the U.S. falters by being anti-competitive in these and many other factors????
There, fixed that for you.
21. Marlboro Man, you stole my comment and did a great job although it probably wasn't all that difficult debunking a leftist's ridiculous assertions.
One of the most interesting -- to me, anyway --small stories of the Clinton presidency was this one: He was getting regular lessons from a drama coach from one of the Ivies, Yale, I think.
The man would come down at least once a month to give Clinton lessons in how to better fool people. And I think we can all agree that the coach had a student with more than a little natural talent for fooling people.
Why not give the more accurate account? Why be so willfully deceptive?
oh, and next time Obama praises Planned Parenthood for 'women's health', just know that PP in fact doesn't do mammograms.
The Obama administration finally admitted it.
Bill Clinton. A liar, rapist and perjurer who never once received a majority of the vote.
This is the best the leftists can offer.
Why the lying and perjury go hand in hand with his impeachment, rape is a very serious charge that he happened to never face in court (which happens to be the only suitable place to discuss such).
I think reasonable people should be able to refrain from throwing around unfounded accusations, particularly considering something as serious as what you mentioned. If he did in fact rape someone, the good-ole-boy, backwater buddy judicial network of wherever said crime supposedly took place has a lot of answering to do for not following through.
I wonder how many people here will have to look up John McCain's, Mitt Romney's, Ronald Reagan's, etc., middle name. Clinton's full name was rarely used while he was in office, but on this site and others similar to it it seems like using Obama's middle name is meant as some sort of pejorative remark. The fact that Warren used Clinton's full name in this instance just makes it stand out even more.
To pre-empt the Bush comparison, people used terms like G.W. or said George W. Bush to distinguish him from his father. Totally different.
I'm no fan of President Obama, but I'm not afraid of, nor liken any silly conspiracy to his middle name (or his first or last name).
Get over the name already and move along with things that matter.
28. Why not give the more accurate account? Why be so willfully deceptive?
I gave the accurate account, what would you like? Oh, and quit being the thread nag. Your incessant whining is really annoying. Check the facts out for yourself.
Oh, and the left have been referring to Mitt as "Willard" , his birth name,(even blowhards that think they're "journalists" like Joel Connelley) so both play the name game. Democrats just tend to roll into the gutter with it more. If you recall, they tried to link Ronald Wilson Reagan with the sign of the beast 666.
Here's a link for you, Brian. http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/node/1043
You'd think I could find a mainstream press that would highlight this fact, but we don't have an objective mainstream press in this nation. What is outrageous is that even FoxNews doesn't cover this reality since they're hyped as the "leader in news".
30. I waited all night for Clinton to explain why he didn't take out osma when he had the chance and we would not have had 911, but he didn't. any quess why RR? (The biggest lair from ha)
31. The topic starter give us some decent points there~~~ before I have no idea about it but now I seemed know somthing~~~lol~`thanx the starter ~~keeping your blog fresh..I will get your back~~~
32. Mitt made an interestng comment today about why he did not even mention the troops in his convention speech. Are you going to start a discussion topic on that?
It is love/hate romance.welcome to our site
If office 2008 seemed, you actually often treasured the item as well as loathed the item. Having office this year available currently, your personal despise could alleviate to help acknowledging this product, including your like will probably just simply deepen.(www.topoffice2010.org) Often the sorrow with office 2010 centered on the looks in addition to truly feel with the solution. The introduction of a whole new Ribbon, which will exchanged toughness toolbar with office the year 2003, acquired end users grumbling. Just one was the well known search this preceding office solutions organised. You could possibly improvement along with the adaptation seemed to be uncomplicated. With windows 7 activation key
, office 2010 professional
has built soar into your completely new in addition to mysterious, causing quite a few LAPTOP OR COMPUTER end users cushioning. The
34. Newest Gallup. Obama +4.
Dear ' Oh please let me distract you'
hyperbole of the inflammatory non-issue at @27...
Dear Wayne @ 34,
Gun Sales Surge: An Obama Bounce?
"I should put Obama's picture on the wall up there," said one New Jersey gun salesman, asking not to be identified. "I'd name him salesman of the month!"
Hope and Change, baby!
Warren claims "that Obama needed Clinton to bolster his re-election campaign says volumes."
What, he shouldn't accept support from one of the most prominent, popular, and successful people in his party?
Here's the shocking truth: every presidential convention involves many people "bolstering" their candidate. By your measure, a candidate should have really weak speakers to "speak volumes" that they don't need anything more. I guess that's why Romney chose Clint Eastwood.
Surely you can come up with better criticisms of the Democrats.
38. You mean this lawsuit?
Yes, that trumped-up garbage was ultimately thrown out of court for lack of substance. Yes, she made far, far more money by legally harassing President Clinton than she ever could have earned in any legitimate job for which she could ever possibly have qualified; thank you for reminding us of that. (Maybe you could list the rich, male, right-wing opponents of President Clinton, who bankrolled her means to her unearned payoff?)
Now why would he have paid her off unless he had something to hide?
When that worthless piece of utter garbage was thrown out of court for total lack of merit, that demonstrated President Clinton had nothing to hide; do try to keep up, hopeless though that obviously is for you.
Meanwhile, persons so utterly deluded they can possibly image W. was an effective leader will predictably fail to understand that actual governing of the world's most powerful country in unsettled times requires as few distractions from that office as possible, hence President Clinton's admirable decision to relieve himself of that trumped-up garbage, and govern effectively.
He was getting regular lessons from a drama coach from one of the Ivies, Yale, I think.
Jim finds self-improvement efforts impossible to understand. (No surprise there, really.)
Bill Clinton ... who never once received a majority of the vote.
Would having the Supreme Court appoint him have made it better for you?
I think reasonable people should be able to refrain from throwing around unfounded accusations,
tensor@38: You know tensor, it's almost as if you're living in your own world and just making sh!t up.
"fail to understand that actual governing of the world's most powerful country in unsettled times requires as few distractions from that office as possible" - Should I take your word on it or a "three-judge appeals court" and the US Supreme Court in a rare 9-0 ruling? (US Supreme Court --"As for the case at hand, if properly managed by the District Court, it appears to us highly unlikely to occupy any substantial amount of petitioner's time.")
The Washington Posts timeline states:
September 14, 1995
A three-judge appeals court panel hears Clinton's lawyers argue that allowing Jones's case to proceed while the president is in office would distract him from more important matters. Jones's lawyers argue she should have the same rights as anyone else bringing a lawsuit.
January 9, 1996
The appeals panel rules 2 to 1 that Jones's lawsuit can go to trial.
May 15, 1996
Clinton asks the Supreme Court to delay Jones's case until he leaves office.
June 24, 1996
The Supreme Court agrees to consider whether Jones's lawsuit should be delayed until Clinton leaves office. The move puts the lawsuit on hold until after the November election.
May 27, 1997
The Supreme Court rules the lawsuit can move ahead.
Seeing liberals attempt to defend the perpetrators of the implosion of the once proud and meaningful democrat party is kinda sad. I guess that's pretty much all you have left
. Some might even call blind allegiance in the face of such utter nothing
... I wouldn't be one of them.
Sometime after the Supreme Court said the case could proceed, as your timeline indicates, the trial court judge dismissed Jones' entire case as without merit, except a sanctions order against Clinton for lying at his deposition. The case was on appeal by Jones with the Eighth Circuit when the case, including the civil sanctions, was settled.
42. Wayne: and your point is... Clinton is a liar?
43. Clinton certainly lied about whether he fooled around with Lewinsky. However, I can certainly understand why someone would be tempted to lie about that.
It's that part about Lying under oath that shows how screwed up Clinton really is. You don't really think a pathological liar like Clinton suddenly stops lying, do you?
Clinton gave Owebama a bounce. Here's another issue that will rise to the surface after the following controversial information about the Medicare plan of Romney/Ryan -
"The president picks up where he left off Saturday in St. Petersburg, focusing on Medicare and making no mention of the Bureau of Labor Statistics on Friday that showed the national unemployment rate in August dropped from 8.3 percent to 8.1 percent. However, the decrease was largely because Americans stopped looking for work.
The study also is expected to say the Medicare costs will be even higher for younger Americans who retire later. A person who qualifies for Medicare in 2030 -- today's 48-year-old -- would see an increase of $124,600 in Medicare costs over their retirement period.
While Romney's changes to Medicare would affect future retirees, the study also said that Romney's plan to get rid of Obama's health care law could raise health care costs in retirement by $11,000 for the average person who is 65 years old today by reinstating limits on prescription drug coverage.
The study was conducted by David Cutler, a Harvard professor and health policy expert who served in the Clinton administration and was Obama's top health care adviser during the 2008 presidential campaign. Cutler conducted the study for the liberal Center for American Progress Action Fund.
Romney would seek to contain Medicare costs by giving retirees voucher-like government payments that they could use to either buy regular Medicare or private health insurance. But Cutler says older Americans would have to pay more out of pocket to cover the rising costs of health care."
What wasn't stated is that Owebama's $716 B taken out of Medicare to fund Obamacare will also cost seniors more. This seems like another biased study from a Dem. surrogate, but don't believe it is sufficient for Romney/Ryan to reject it without a substantive debate. They had better respond and counter with a study of their own or additional numbers because independent are watching indicators like this !
The fact that Clinton lied under oath about sex in a case that was eventually dismissed as without merit does not prove he is a "pathological" liar. The lie was understandable. At the time I was more upset with Clinton's appalling judgment in screwing around with Lewinsky in the first place.
By the way, Obama is getting that post-convention bounce, Rasmussen +4, Gallup +5.
47. The bounce is expected to be short-lived though. It will come down to the debates coupled with external factors between now and Nov. 6th.
Wayne's "the lie was understandable" mantra. Only to a Democrat or a sleaze ball. Makes one wonder which of his other lies you find 'understandable'. Or Obama's and his surrogates' lies. (Interesting note, in trying to decide how to specify the possessive here, do I assume joint or singular ownership
Imagine the media uproar and public outrage if Nixon ever appeared at a convention after his resignation.
How on earth is it possible that, after nearly four years of a manifestly dismal, failed presidency, Barack Obama has any support at all, beyond the ten percent of the population who do not know that America has a president? How can a single sentient person on the planet claim that he has been a good leader, a good steward of the economy, a good strategist on foreign policy, a unifier of the American people, a jobs creator?
He has in fact been the worst president since Jimmy Carter and has seen to it that we have surpassed Carter's misery index scores. Obama has further ruined a fragile economy, an economy shaken by a Democrat-engineered housing scandal, a bomb begun under Carter, made catastrophically worse under Clinton, and detonated under Bush. He has thoroughly and completely bungled our foreign policy by embracing the so-called Arab Spring, effectively handing over a large swath of the middle east to the Muslim Brotherhood, putting Israel in the gravest danger since 1973.
--- Why do intelligent people, in the face of certain disaster, cling so wretchedly to a failed ideologue and a discredited ideology? How is it possible that there is a single American Jew who can cast a vote for this anti-Israel president? Obama has made his antipathy for Israel abundantly clear over and over again. Having reduced women to nothing beyond reproductive systems, how can any woman in this country cast a vote for Obama? Because he demands that abortion be free and available up to the moment of natural birth (and after if necessary) and taxpayer-funded contraception for all women, regardless of need? Because he has imposed a bill, Obamacare, that will take all choice about our own medical care completely out of our hands? These women are their own worst enemies.
What has happened to the American spirit of open-mindedness, to our the ability to think critically about what is best for ourselves and the country? When did it become impossible to change one's mind upon the realization one has cast a misguided vote? When did at least half of us become the type who dig in our heels like a stubborn child demanding our way? Have those tenured radicals who control our universities and our media been so effective that Americans can no longer make informed decisions? 'Tis a mystery.
Or have the American people perhaps realized that, in the words of Clint Eastwood, "President Obama is the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people."
(1) The lawsuit was politically motivated; it was without merit.
(2) He was never charged with perjury (despite endless claims, some repeated up-thread, that he had been) because the testimony he gave was not material to the case, which is required for perjury. He was asked irrelevant questions about his sex life, and he dodged them imperfectly. Yell about that all you want; one of the persons who voted to remove Clinton from office later pled guilty to a sexual misdemeanor, and yet served out his term in office without penalty; we have no record of Clinton's impeachers demanding action then.
(3) The Supreme Court could not have predicted that the lawsuit would introduce such irrelevancies as Ms. Lewinsky; that they failed to understand how unreasonable and hateful his political opponents would be is not their fault.
(4) For some reason, Mr. Clinton continues to enjoy high popularity and credibility, while the public refuses to give much credence to the moral scolding delivered by the party of Strom Thurmond, Mark Foley, Larry Craig, Henry Hyde, or Newt Gingrich. If you can't understand why, we can't help you.
tensor: Yet again you're making sh!t up.
Ever hear of a thing called the Clinton Impeachment?
"Bill Clinton, 42nd President of the United States, was impeached by the House of Representatives on two charges, one of perjury and one of obstruction of justice, on December 19, 1998."
(I know, I know. Now you're going to say that wasn't in a court of law, but that stipulation isn't in what you claimed. That probably explains your lack of comprehension when people say he was charged with perjury.)
And how would Clinton's behavior with other subordinate females be relevant to a sexual harassment lawsuit? Think about it.
#50 - Get your head out of the 90's. What you wrote is lame spin and has little significance today. That was Clinton's blind spot - other than that he was a competent President and was flexible when it came to policy.
I see similar qualities in Mitt Romney - however he is also principled, whereas Clinton - not so much. He is also pragmatic and competent. Obama is not and only those who live in a parallel universe believe otherwise.
Oh, and tensor, in looking into this issue more as I sit at SeaTac waiting for a flight I found a Washington Post article
"The settlement foreclosed the possibility that Clinton's personal life would be reopened for public inspection at a sensational trial had the lawsuit dismissed in April been reinstated, as many lawyers involved believed it would be."
Kind of throws water on your whole "it was without merit" and "trumped up garbage" claims.
That same Washington Post article
also answers your request to "list the rich, male, right-wing opponents of President Clinton, who bankrolled her means to her unearned payoff". I'm not sure who you thought those opponents would be given the sh!t you make up (or the questionable sources you use), but the article states:
"John W. Whitehead, president of the Rutherford Institute, which financed her lawsuit, called the deal 'justice for Paula' and said it would draw attention to 'the importance of protecting powerless women from workplace harassment and the role of the rule of law in our highest offices'. ... The Rutherford Institute is legally entitled to reimbursement of its $400,000 in expenses."
The Rutherford Institute's About Us webpage states:
"Founded in 1982 by constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead, The Rutherford Institute is a civil liberties organization that provides free legal services to people whose constitutional and human rights have been threatened or violated.
The Rutherford Institute has emerged as one of the nation's leading advocates of civil liberties and human rights, litigating in the courts and educating the public on a wide spectrum of issues affecting individual freedom in the United States and around the world.
The Institute's mission is twofold: to provide legal services in the defense of religious and civil liberties and to educate the public on important issues affecting their constitutional freedoms.
Whether our attorneys are protecting the rights of parents whose children are strip-searched at school, standing up for a teacher fired for speaking about religion or defending the rights of individuals against illegal search and seizure, The Rutherford Institute offers assistance--and hope--to thousands.
The Rutherford Institute is a 501(c)(3) organization, gifts to which are deductible as charitable contributions for Federal income tax purposes."
Here is Wikipeda's description of the Institute:
"While once primarily concerned with the defense of religious liberties, in recent years the organization has expanded its mission to encompass other constitutional issues such as search and seizure, free speech, and zero tolerance policy. The institute has been described as 'a more conservative American Civil Liberties Union.' The Institute has received some level of notoriety for its various legal actions, including helping Paula Jones pursue a sexual harassment lawsuit in 1997 against then-President Bill Clinton, as well as its defense of airline pilots and passengers affected by the Transportation Security Administration's security procedures, middle and high school students suspended and expelled under inflexible zero tolerance policies, and the free speech rights of preachers and political protestors.  The Rutherford Institute has worked with a number of similar groups across the political spectrum, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the Cato Institute, the Constitution Project, and the Liberty Coalition. President and founder John W. Whitehead has been described by jazz historian and civil libertarian Nat Hentoff as 'this nation's Paul Revere of protecting civil liberties.'"
If this is just "the rich, male, right-wing opponents of President Clinton", what would be your analogous description for the ACLU and other left-leaning groups?
55. (1) The lawsuit was politically motivated;
How utterly and completely despicable.
A WOMAN claimed sexual harassment. She was one in long line of them. For you, a member of the party who claims to fight FOR women to call her claim political is disgusting and further proves every word of every pundit who claims a double standard when it comes to advocating for and supporting of women. How do you look yourself in the mirror? How do you tell your wife, mother, grandmother daughter you are 'pro-woman? You and your ilk are not; you are pro-women-who-agree-with-my-political-agenda.
Really, you are the perfect icing on the cake at the celebration of the part of death's abortion palooza last week... Mary Jo Kopechne, Paula Jones, Katheleen Whiley, Juanita Broderick, Monica Lewinsky, Gennifer Flowers and Elizabeth Ward Gracen could not be reached for comment.
Any Democrat politicians who happen to read these posts, listen up: You no longer have the benefit of the doubt; If you do not, can not, will not publicly disavow this hateful double standard by your party members, I will assume you are in agreement with them. Your silence is no longer optional if you want me to consider you for a vote. Your party and those who support it have debased our culture into something ugly and vile. If you do not publicly stand against it, you stand with it.
56. This is the really good viewpoint on the subject, I am staying in touch up to now along with your posts today. :)
57. Now you're going to say that wasn't in a court of law, but that stipulation isn't in what you claimed. That probably explains your lack of comprehension when people say he was charged with perjury.
Actually, I'll repeat that perjury has an exact legal definition, requiring the false testimony to be material (that is, legally relevant) to the case at hand. Prior to her dismissal of Paula Jones' lawsuit, the judge had ruled that all testimony from, and about, Ms. Lewinsky, was not material to the case. Therefore, it could not possibly have formed the basis for any perjury prosecution. The House Impeachment leadership either did not know this, or cared as much for our legal system as they did for their own wedding vows, and so they fabricated their own definition -- which the Senate then rejected, as I'm sure you were going to admit, right?
The fabrications of the Republican Impeachment Kangaroo Court meant nothing, and I refuse to make your mistake in claiming that their fabrications have value.
Miss Lewinsky consistently testified that she had made sexual overtures to Mr. Clinton, and that all of their resulting sexual activities were consensual. This destroys the point you keep trying to fabricate, that Mr. Clinton preyed upon women, and you don't even seem to understand this.
Meanwhile, I hope you're flying to one of those countries where justice is whatever the current ruling claque says it is; our own evidence-based rule of law seems to bother you immensely.
58. That issue is a dead horse. Clinton should have not lied to the Grand Jury and the issue would have gone away and the GOP would not have made fools of themselves over the rule of law. I know I don't side with Republicans or Democrats here - so be it.
59. That issue is a dead horse.
You're right, of course. The willingness of folks like Village and Rags to flog it this hard, and to continue getting their facts wrong, almost fifteen years after everyone else in our country has moved on, speaks volumes about the tenacity, vindictiveness --- and connection to reality -- of the hard-core Clinton-haters.
Still, one has to sympathize with Warren, if only a little. The complaint of this post -- insofar as it makes a coherent point -- is that President Clinton is respected and popular as an elder statesman, years after his departure from office, while W., gone only a short while, has already become persona non grata, even to the most partisan Republicans at their own Party's convention. To a self-appointed superior judge of morality, having his own judgements rejected by nearly everyone -- and having those rejections made public, night after night, for two solid weeks, on national television -- must hurt almost beyond measure.
Wow, tensor, just wow. I've proven (with supporting evidence) over and over how utterly out of touch you are with your totally unsupported "facts" and you're still clueless.
And so what if BJ Clinton "is respected and popular as an elder statesman" by Democrats and other slime balls? It just shows how immoral (and stupid) they (and by extension, you) all are.
Whatever... Have fun in your make-believe world.
61. not be ashamed absolutely then you Novel locking us alongside one another
62. dwelling Not wondering or does the attained pills new tricks