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.
B: The disgraced and impeached carrying water for the incompetent. Needless to say, of course we're talking about a democrat convention. Pathetic.
Posted by: Rick D. on September 6, 2012 07:55 PMHonest fact-checkers had a field day with Clinton's speech.
Posted by: KDS on September 6, 2012 08:18 PMThe 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????
Posted by: THE-Ave.US on September 6, 2012 09:12 PMHe 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.
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.
Posted by: tensor on September 6, 2012 09:36 PMHave 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.
Posted by: Burdabee on September 6, 2012 09:42 PMHow about if he had been forced from office for allowing a trumped-up impeachment to proceed?
Posted by: tensor on September 6, 2012 09:50 PM"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."
Posted by: KDS on September 6, 2012 10:04 PMStrange, didn't hear a word about them from Mitt Romeny last week at the GOP.
Posted by: Lionel Hutz Esq. on September 6, 2012 10:10 PMAs 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.
Posted by: Rick D. on September 6, 2012 10:26 PMThe 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.
Posted by: Politically Incorrect on September 6, 2012 10:32 PMNow why would he have paid her off unless he had something to hide? (Isn't that what they said about Cain?)
Posted by: It Takes a Village to Convene a Grand Jury on September 6, 2012 10:43 PMMitt 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.
Posted by: Wayne on September 6, 2012 10:50 PMAmazingly stark choices for the American electorate if/when they choose to wake up from their stupor in 2012.
Posted by: Rick D. on September 6, 2012 11:13 PMAgreed. 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.
Posted by: Rick D. on September 6, 2012 11:40 PMfacts:
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.
Posted by: Rick D. on September 7, 2012 06:32 AMThere, fixed that for you.
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.
Posted by: Jim Miller on September 7, 2012 07:27 AMWhy not give the more accurate account? Why be so willfully deceptive?
Posted by: Brian on September 7, 2012 01:48 PMhttp://www.lifenews.com/2012/09/07/obama-admin-concedes-planned-parenthood-doesnt-do-mammograms/
The Obama administration finally admitted it.
Posted by: Monterey on September 7, 2012 01:56 PMThis is the best the leftists can offer.
Posted by: jimg on September 7, 2012 04:08 PMWhy 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.
Posted by: Brian on September 7, 2012 04:49 PMTo 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.
Posted by: Brian on September 7, 2012 05:04 PMI 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.
Posted by: Rick D. on September 7, 2012 06:54 PMYou'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".
Posted by: Rick D. on September 7, 2012 07:23 PMJOBS
DEBT
FREEDOM
"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!"
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.
Posted by: Bruce on September 8, 2012 12:50 PMYes, 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,
They do.
"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.
JOBS
DEBT
FREEDOM
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.
Posted by: Wayne on September 8, 2012 05:40 PM"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 !
Posted by: KDS on September 9, 2012 10:39 AMBy the way, Obama is getting that post-convention bounce, Rasmussen +4, Gallup +5.
Posted by: Wayne on September 9, 2012 11:36 AMImagine the media uproar and public outrage if Nixon ever appeared at a convention after his resignation.
Posted by: It Takes a Village to Convene a Grand Jury on September 9, 2012 12:32 PMHow 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."
*Emphasis mine
(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.
Posted by: tensor on September 9, 2012 02:24 PMEver 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.
Posted by: It Takes a Village to Convene a Grand Jury on September 9, 2012 03:04 PMI 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.
Posted by: KDS on September 9, 2012 04:33 PM"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.
Posted by: It Takes a Village to Convene a Grand Jury on September 9, 2012 04:53 PM"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,[3] 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.[4] The institute has been described as 'a more conservative American Civil Liberties Union.'[5] 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,[6] as well as its defense of airline pilots and passengers affected by the Transportation Security Administration's security procedures,[7] middle and high school students suspended and expelled under inflexible zero tolerance policies,[8][9] and the free speech rights of preachers and political protestors.[10] [11] The Rutherford Institute has worked with a number of similar groups across the political spectrum, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the Cato Institute,[12] the Constitution Project, and the Liberty Coalition.[13] 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.'[14]"
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?
Posted by: It Takes a Village to Convene a Grand Jury on September 9, 2012 05:11 PMHow 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.
Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on September 9, 2012 07:26 PMActually, 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.
Posted by: tensor on September 10, 2012 08:32 PMYou'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.
Posted by: tensor on September 10, 2012 10:48 PMAnd 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.
Posted by: It Takes a Village to Convene a Grand Jury on September 11, 2012 06:34 PM