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.
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.
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.
The NYT says it’s “unreadable.”
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…
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.
Fair enough about the bet, but you’re still wrong.
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.
"…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.
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.
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?
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?
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?
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. You mentioned “sex in the White House” as if it is wrong. I never said the President punches a timeclock. I am simply pointing out that there is nothing wrong with sex in the White House. Or do you think George & Laura go check into the Motel 6 down the street when they’re in the mood?
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. Do you think they would have admitted their affairs if asked? If asked in a deposition?
I am not aware of the Arkansas Project or Richard Mellon-Scaife. Then, you’re not informed enough to speak about Clinton or the impeachment. Try some google, and then maybe you’ll have a different take. See my post above.
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.
You’re too funny.
"According to an August 2003 article in the Washington Post, President Bush has spent all or part of 166 days during his presidency at his Crawford, Texas, ranch or en route. Add the time spent at or en route to the presidential retreat of Camp David and at the Bush family estate in Kennebunkport, Maine, and Bush has taken 250 days off as of August 2003. That’s 27% of his presidency spent on vacation. Although to be fair, much of this time is classified as a “working vacation.”
What about Clinton? As of December 1999, President Bill Clinton had spent only 152 days on holiday during his two terms, according to CBS News. A former staffer noted Clinton was such a workaholic that “it almost killed Clinton to take one-week vacations during August.”…And in barely three years in office, George W. Bush has already taken more vacation than Clinton did in seven years"
“Dewey Defeats Truman”
A rather famous headline from the past.
Just a thought.
Brett
so Ken, who do really think is in charge? Reminds me of an article I just read about Reagan - he met for an hour alone with Gorby and afterwards couldn’t recall a single thing they talked about. Yeah, Ron was a great President, too.