There is no vacation?

Gimme a goddamn break. Bush has taken more vacation than any other president. The time he spends at Camp David and down at the ranch clearing brush, or falling off mountain bikes - that's not vacation. Simply incorrect.

---

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security" - Benjamin Franklin
"Don't you see the rest of the country looks upon New York like we're left-wing, communist, Jewish, homosexual pornographers? I think of us that way sometimes and I live here." - Alvy Singer, "Annie Hall"

Before it gets re-written here, you need to know the context of the question.

Bill Clinton was a defendant in a sexual harrassment lawsuit. The question of his activities was deemed germane by the sitting judge, and Clinton lied, because he evidently felt that a truthful answer would put his butt in a sling. They have a term for that kind of lying: PERJURY.

Now, Clinton was supposed to be the poster boy for women's issues, but he could only defend himself in this case by lying. Doesn't speak well of him. Doesn't speak very well of those who supported him that they didn't seem to find this behavior objectionable. Not only was he a perjuror, but on can safely assume that he was guilty of the offense alleged, since he felt it was necessary to lie under oath, risking perjury charges and impeachment. As a lawyer, he knew the risks. In the end, he ended up paying Paula MORE than she had originally requested.

Newt was a jerk, Hyde was an idiot. Neither of those offenses is actionable. Clinton is a perjuror. That makes him a criminal. From the earliest moments of Common Law, perjury has been grounds for impeachment. Neither being a jerk nor an idiot has ever carried such a penalty. In fact, these shortcomings often lead to reelection, as Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd so aptly demonstrate.

---

Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...

When a president leaves the White House he takes everything with him. He is not out of touch or sleeping at the wheel. When Bush goes to the ranch he is in just as much contact as he is in Washington.

Until the 1930's presidents spent months out of Washington. They would go to upstate New York during the summer.

Bush has so many things to attack on policy alone why the hell aren't you Democrats attacking those? Playing golf, going to the ranch and remaining calm when he was told of the World Trade Centers is not worth even thinking about.

You guys lost it on your own. You could have cake walked this election.

---

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.

I'm not attacking him on his vacation time - just the suggestion that he doesn't take vacation.

As for this election, you seem to be intent on declaring victory now, months before the election, despite his plummeting poll numbers, the disintegrating security situation in Iraq, the upcoming indictments in the Valerie Plame case, and ongoing saga regarding torture memos and Rumsfeld's very Clintonian redefinition of the word "torture".

I still think he's got a ways to go down, and frankly, since midterm elections are essentially referendums on the incumbent, he's going to manage to lose this, and badly. Regardless, Kerry still needs to give voters a reason to vote for him, and not merely against Bush, but I think he's been comparatively quiet, to wait through the conventions, and to see where Bush's numbers settle out.

It's a long way to November, and I don't think anybody benefits from making broad declarations this early.

---

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security" - Benjamin Franklin
"Don't you see the rest of the country looks upon New York like we're left-wing, communist, Jewish, homosexual pornographers? I think of us that way sometimes and I live here." - Alvy Singer, "Annie Hall"

[reply]The NYT says it's "unreadable." [/reply]

Nope, the NYT actually gives it a good review: the full text can be found here,
http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/2004_archives/001073.html
or on the front page of today's web edition of the NYT, but that requires registration.

Michiko Kakutani on the other hand panned it in a different NYT review. But she's a notoriously vicious reviewer..

"worthless lying scumbag" - that would be George II, I think..

---

"It is a good feeling for old men who have begun to fear failure, any sort of failure, to set a schedule for exercise and stick to it. If an aging man can run a distance of three miles, for instance, he knows that whatever his other failures may be, he is not completely wasted away." Romain Gary, SI interview

It comes down to this. Who is most liked? Bush is LOVED by his supporters. The economy is growing and Iraq is entering a new phase.

Kerry is coming off as a rich, elietist New England snob. Democrats aren't hot for him, they just hate Bush. Hate does not generate the votes, love and hope do.

Look at Clinton he was up on the future. Hard times where just a reason to smile bigger, blow the sax and give the people hope.

Bush is super exposed but Kerry has no prayer of killing him. He is not liked by either side.

Bush has it in a lock.

---

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.

You're entitled to your view, but the polls don't seem to support you at this point.

First of all, its not as if Bush isn't a rich elitist New England snob as well. I will say he represents well, but thats a fundamental deception. As for his supporters loving him, that may be so, but there are also a lot of moneyed Republican donors who are quite unhappy with his foreign policy and what they see as his failed leadership, so I would be careful to draw any definitive conclusions this early.

While I'm not personally enamored with Kerry, I think as a man he's head and shoulders above Bush the "I got out of Vietnam service but couldn't even complete the Guard service because I'm a political brat". I think that part is indisputable. Bush has done a fantastic job of convincing people of his ability to lead despite having absolutely not history of doing so.

If you want to make a gentleman's wager on teh election, I'd be happy to oblige. I think Bush is likely, given his inability to discipline his Cabinet and understand the complex issues before him, to screw up more in the coming days.

---

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security" - Benjamin Franklin
"Don't you see the rest of the country looks upon New York like we're left-wing, communist, Jewish, homosexual pornographers? I think of us that way sometimes and I live here." - Alvy Singer, "Annie Hall"

I got $10. The simple fact that it's this close is a sure sign the Dems have no idea what they are doing. If I was head of the DNC I could easly have a 20 point lead for the Dems. You are dead wrong about Bush's supporters by the way. They love the forgien policy and his leadership. You don't see it but bush is pretty damn likeabel and even though he is rich he doesn't has that snob label on him.

I look forward to you 10 bucks but don't send it to me just donate it to your local animal shelter in my name.

---

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.

Fair enough about the bet, but you're still wrong.

---

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security" - Benjamin Franklin
"Don't you see the rest of the country looks upon New York like we're left-wing, communist, Jewish, homosexual pornographers? I think of us that way sometimes and I live here." - Alvy Singer, "Annie Hall"

No matter who is right we are both screwed.

---

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.

You can go on and on about so-called perjury (Clinton was never charged with that outside of the politically motivated impeachment, and almost every law professor in the country signed a letter to Congress saying that it was most certainly NOT an impeachable offense), but the point you and the other poster seem to be missing is this: The so-called "vast right-wing conspiracy" was much more than a punchline for jokes about Hillary - it was and is an established fact. The Arkansas Project, Richard Mellon-Scaife, the Heritage Foundation, the Washington Legal Foundation, and Landmark Legal Foundation are just a few cogs in the machine - and they are directly responsible for the initiation of the Paula Jones lawsuit and, ultimatley, the never-ending Whitewater investigation that yielded the impeachment. If ANYONE had an effort like this seeking something, anything that they did wrong - they are bound to do something wrong (and noone argues that Clinton's adultery wasn't wrong) that will be magnified and used against them to the Nth degree. That's what happended with the impeachment.

To villify Clinton for his failures, while ignoring the nature of the beast that was chasing him, is dishonest and unfair. Most of Clinton's critics seem fine with that.

"You can go on and on about so-called perjury (Clinton was never charged with that outside of the politically motivated impeachment"
- - That would be a "YES" then, to a charge of perjury. Most would concede that impeachment is a might heavier than a filing by some local judge. He was not charged by the local judge, because he settled the suit for MORE than Paula asked for. FYI, he was also disbarred before the Supreme Court. That's pretty strong stuff for as lightly as you seem to want to dismiss it.

"and almost every law professor in the country signed a letter to Congress saying that it was most certainly NOT an impeachable offense),"
- - Let's remember that "law professors" are not lawyers who pursue a career as such, but academics, the vast majority of which (I'm sure you know) are flaming liberals. Their desire to see Clinton get away with this is not particularly compelling. One of Clinton's supporters through impeachment was FL Congressman Alcye Hastings, an impeached federal judge. Impeached for... (can you guess?)

"but the point you and the other poster seem to be missing is this: The so-called "vast right-wing conspiracy" was much more than a punchline for jokes about Hillary - it was and is an established fact."
- - You're welcome to mischaractarize political action any way you choose, as long as you're prepared to acknowledge the left-wing conspiracy as well. I personally don't believe that holding the president accountable to civil law is evidence of a conspiracy.

"The Arkansas Project, Richard Mellon-Scaife, the Heritage Foundation, the Washington Legal Foundation, and Landmark Legal Foundation are just a few cogs in the machine - and they are directly responsible for the initiation of the Paula Jones lawsuit and,
ultimatley, the never-ending Whitewater investigation that yielded the impeachment."
- - Somehow you conclude that all these people leveling charges against Clinton is somehow an indictment of them, rather than him. I find that fascinating. Care for some Kool Aid®?

Meanwhile, consider this. For Clinton to have been telling the truth (and we already established that he lied) ALL of the women who claimed rape or sexual harrassment had to be lying... ALL OF THEM. I think it's safe to say that at least Paula Jones was telling the truth.

"f ANYONE had an effort like this seeking something, anything that they did wrong - they are bound to do something wrong (and noone argues that Clinton's adultery wasn't wrong) that will be magnified and used against them to the Nth degree. That's what happended with the impeachment."
- - Again, Clinton wasn't impeached for adultery, but for PERJURY.

You should also be aware (if you've studied your Constituton and if you followed the impeachment) that the Senate violated the Constitution by in effect ruling that the charges brought by the House were insufficient. The statutes on impeachment dictate that the House brings the charges, and the Senate renders the verdict. If you've ever sat on a jury, you know that you don't get to second-guess the DA, only to rule on the evidence. The Senate vote was relatively close, but a number of DIMOCRAT Senators readily admitted afterward that they voted NAY (not guilty) even though it was obvious to the blindest of them that Clinton was indeed guilty as charged. Their reasoning? They didn't feel the offense "rose to the level..." (the mantra of the vast left-wing conspiracy that worked so hard to get Clinton's trial moved to the court of public opinion. So the Senate arrogated the responsibility of the House. A travesty, no matter how you slice it.

"To villify Clinton for his failures, while ignoring the nature of the beast that was chasing him, is dishonest and unfair. Most of Clinton's critics seem fine with that."
- - To excuse Clinton of his CRIMES simply because you don't like the folks who turned on the lights so that we could catch him in the act is blindness in the extreme.

---

Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...

"...the NYT actually gives it a good review
- - Nope, the NYT gave it TWO reviews, one good one pan. Although I only saw the first, you seem to want to ignore it.


"Michiko Kakutani on the other hand panned it in a different NYT review. But she's a notoriously vicious reviewer."
- - Sure, since she panned Clinton!!

" 'worthless lying scumbag' - that would be George II, I think."
- - Interesting proposition, considering that Clinton was a proven liar, and the twisted allegations against Bush have more holes in them than my four year old Speedos.

---

Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...

>>>Also, has anyone bought the book yet? Read it? Preliminary reviews? <<<



Some good reviews to peruse:

seanhannity.com; anncoulter.com;lauraingraham.com


The book is gaining but still lagging behind Michael Savage's "The Enemy Within" out here in Vista, CA.

Just what we all want to read, a bunch of un-biased reviews by right wingers.

Thanks.

Well Tibbs.... I agree that Kerry is the other guy and that people will vote for him because they hate Bush. But, you say that "bush's people will vote for bush because they love him". No crap.

There are however a lot of people pissed off that he got elected in the first place. There are even more people pissed off about how he's handled the war, science (stem cell issues), free speech, likening himself to reagan (props to reagans son for catching him on that), and overall coming off as the epitome of a dumbass rich kid that only got in because of his daddy.

Many more will be out to vote this year. And, with the backlash from the new Michael Moore movie as well as the swing voters (that are leaning predominantly toward Kerry) attributed to Howard Stern I think you'll be looking at a much different election since last year.

As for feeling warm and fuzzy about Reagan and Clinton - I agree. You may not get that out of Kerry BUT I certainly don't get that out of Bush. I get fear out of Bush. Every time he speaks I cringe...

I'm not saying Kerry is the cure-all. But, he can't do any worse than Bush. And, I for one am willing to give him a shot.

Your post is all the proof I need. "My guy sucks but he ain't that guy."

The right loves this guy. It's an election no one votes on issues it's all about feeling. You guys have no real passion about Kerry and the Bushites LOVE them some Bush. You don't see it because you hate him. The Bushies are scared of him loosing and will show up and vote.

Howard Stern? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Michael Moore? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

It's anybodies win but come now it's all Bush.

---

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.

Amazing that you go on for so long and yet completely avoid responding to my point. I'm not sure if that's just the way that some people argue when the facts are against them, trying to shift the focus of the argument, or if you simply don't get it. Either way, I tried, and I'm done.

You laid down the talking points, I just picked 'em off like fish in a barrell. Were the points you raised NOT the ones you wanted to raise, or did you just decide you didn't like them anymore because I had answers?

What is it with you guys on the left? You change topics like I change socks, and then you complain because we're somehow on a different topic?

---

Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...

I think you know what I mean when he's "on duty" 24/7. Even when he's on vacation he receives briefings every day by his advisors, has the "black box" within an earshot, and is on call at all times. He cannot simply forward his phone to voicemail, turn off his computer or his cell phone.

Gingrich, Hyde, or Livington's behavior is deplorable. No matter what party you belong you're responsible for your own actions. While cheating on one's wife isn't against the law and in theory isn't any of our business in practice it's a bit different. An elected official works and represents the people. Their actions in a way reflect the people. An elected officials life is in the spotlight and that should be remembered.

I am not aware of the Arkansas Project or Richard Mellon-Scaife.

You picked off nothing, but somehow can't even see it. The point of my posts in this thread admittedly takes careful reading to discern - and it is NOT to defend Clinton's actions. The POINT is that if one was being truly fair about the whole impeachment fiasco - the way history will be if not truly distorted by those currently in power - one MUST look at the actions, history, and background of those who pursued Clinton. No one even denies that there was a concerted, focused effort to dig up dirt on relatively minor issues, and use every conceivable method to bring Clinton down. It was unprecedented, and has been unmatched by tactics on the other side. Most people are simply unaware of what went on, but IMHO would be just as outraged at Clinton's pursuers if they knew the depth and intensity of teh offort to oust him.

If you are the fair-minded individual that you claimed to be in your thread on debating tactics, you'd concede that you have to look at both sides to get a true picture of Clinton and the whole impeachment fiasco. It's not that I'm making excuses for him - it's that I refuse to make excuses for the Republicans who chased him around at the expense of foucsing on their jobs in Congress - they pursued an impeachment purely for political purposes, and not for the good of the country.

If your reply is going to focus on Clinton again, and not his accusers, don't bother. I understand how you feel about Clinton and everything he did. Can you say anything about his accusers?

Bear in mind as you read this, that I'm as non partisan as you're going to find in this country. I despise the GOP and it's lazy approach to politics, it's acquiescence to Vicente Fox and the UN. I am a conservative NOT a Republican.

"You picked off nothing, but somehow can't even see it. The point of my posts in this thread admittedly takes careful reading to discern - and it is NOT to defend Clinton's actions."
- - Funny it certainly reads that way.

"The POINT is that if one was being truly fair about the whole impeachment fiasco - the way history will be if not truly distorted by those currently in power - one MUST look at the actions, history, and background of those who pursued Clinton."
- - No, actually, that's attempting to find justification fo the unjustifiable. And so while you're going there, you don't seem to pay any attention to the "politics of personal destruction," that was the central focus of Clintonian politics.

"No one even denies that there was a concerted, focused effort to dig up dirt on relatively minor issues, and use every conceivable method to bring Clinton down."
- - Then let me be the first. When you get pulled over for speeding, is that concerted effort to dig up dirt on you? What part of sexual assault did you find "minor," which part of perjury did you find inconsequential? What part of bank frauh? What happens to our legal system when the nations chief law enforcement officer lies under oath, or when his wife conceals evidence?

There are many people in their comfortable homes who think that Whitewater was a persecution. It wasn't. It was a major scam in which a great many people were financially destroyed, and the Clintons were deeply involved. One can argue that they weren't culpable, but then those same people believe that OJ didn't murder his wife, and that Rodney King was justified in leading police on a 120 mph chase and then assaulting them. (see "what happens when...?" just above)

"It was unprecedented, and has been unmatched by tactics on the other side."
- - Unmatched by tactics from the other side? How's the Kool Aid? How about bringing Larry Flynt into the fray to obfuscate the whole business into a morality play about sex, thus convincing most of the country that the issue was adultery, not sexual assault, perjury and bank fraud. And before you say Whitewater was nothing, you might want to consider that the McDougles spent some time behind bars, and Jim died there under very questionable circumstances.

"Most people are simply unaware of what went on, but IMHO would be just as outraged at Clinton's pursuers if they knew the depth and intensity of teh offort to oust him."
- - I doubt there's a person on planet earth who hasn't heard the litany from Clinton's defenders about how unfair it was that people wanted the president to be accountable to the law. Most people have an inflated view of what happened and like you, many think it's OK to be a criminal if the people pursuing you can be properly vilified.

"If you are the fair-minded individual that you claimed to be in your thread on debating tactics, you'd concede that you have to look at both sides to get a true picture of Clinton and the whole impeachment fiasco."
- - I do, I have, and nothing that happened in the pursuit of this criminal (Clinton) seemed in any way disproportionate to the acts of which he was accused, and of which he was surely guilty or culpable.

"It's not that I'm making excuses for him"
- - No, that's EXACTLY what you're doing. You're saying that it doesn't matter what he did, because Henry Hyde was a jerk who cheated on his wife back in 1841!!

It's that I refuse to make excuses for the Republicans who chased him around at the expense of foucsing on their jobs in Congress"
- - Perhaps they could have focused on the part of their jobs that you're concerned about if Clinton had had the honor (ROTFL) and concern for the nation that Richard Nixon (and the GOP) showed when he resigned rather than put the nation through such a debacle.

"they pursued an impeachment purely for political purposes, and not for the good of the country."
- - Many of us felt that the impeachment WAS for the good of the country. And the Dimocrats set the good of the country aside to pursue a defense of Clinton that never got around to defending him, but rather claiming that for the first time in history, perjury was not sufficient grounds to impeach. Oddly, the primary charge against Nixon was not lying under oath, but lying to Congress. Funny how things change when it's YOUR ox being gored.

"If your reply is going to focus on Clinton again, and not his accusers, don't bother. I understand how you feel about Clinton and everything he did. Can you say anything about his accusers?
- - I'd say that Ken Starr had more class in his little finger than the entire Democrat Party could muster. Here's an idea for you: Go rob a bank (or defraud one out of several million dollars) and then base your defense on the claim that the DA is rotten no good scumbag. See how far that gets you.

---

Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...

I mentioned sex in the white house with another women who is not his wife is wrong.

If one is being deposed in an official hearing you tell the truth. No matter what the question. Clinton lied to the question asked.

I'm informed enough to know that he lied and was impeached. I don't need to dig into some conspiracy theory on why the investigation was launched and who was behind the supposed conspiracy. It's very simple. He was impeached by a vote in the House of 228-206 for perjury before a Federal Grand Jury. It is what it is....due process was taken according to the laws of this country and justice took its course.