Thinking Right

By ron

January 23, 2008 9:11 AM | Link to this

There have been two columns in the AJC this week explaing how we are all subliminal racists at heart,so we couldn’t vote for Obama even if we wanted to.So not to worry,Jim,Obama can’t be elected.I don’t know what’s going to happen when he isn’t.

By Jeff

January 23, 2008 9:11 AM | Link to this

One thing above all else sinks the campaigns of any Democrat and most Republicans.

In this, I include everyone from Obama, Clinton, and Edwards, to Romney, McCain, Guiliani, and Huckabee.

They are all Statists. They believe Big Government holds the answer to all of life’s problems and that the problems are caused by Individual Liberty and Personal Responsibility.

Dr. Ron Paul, on the other hand, believes that Individual Liberty and Personal Responsibility are the answers to all of life’s problems and that Big Government is the cause of many - but not all - of them.

The choice is clear. If you want Big Government, vote for the people the mass media is telling you to vote for.

If you want Liberty and Limited Government constrained by the Constitution, vote Dr. Ron Paul.

By jbmlaw

January 23, 2008 9:13 AM | Link to this

Good morning everyone. I would like to take this time to praise Wooten and agree with everything he says. Have a good day.

By Peter

January 23, 2008 9:20 AM | Link to this

Blah, Blah, Blah…….Jim makes a point WOW !

“Kerry is right on one point. Politics can get nasty. “

How about this point that came out today…..seems like the powers in office have been doing allot of nasty lying to us all along!

White House spokesman Scott Stanzel did not comment on the merits of the study Tuesday night but reiterated the administration’s position that the world community viewed Iraq’s leader, Saddam Hussein, as a threat.

“The actions taken in 2003 were based on the collective judgment of intelligence agencies around the world,” Stanzel said.

The study counted 935 false statements in the two-year period. It found that in speeches, briefings, interviews and other venues, Bush and administration officials stated unequivocally on at least 532 occasions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or was trying to produce or obtain them or had links to al-Qaida or both.

“It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to al-Qaida,” according to Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith of the Fund for Independence in Journalism staff members, writing an overview of the study. “In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003.”

Named in the study along with Bush were top officials of the administration during the period studied: Vice President Dick Cheney, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and White House press secretaries Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan.

Bush led with 259 false statements, 231 about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 28 about Iraq’s links to al-Qaida, the study found. That was second only to Powell’s 244 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 10 about Iraq and al-Qaida.

The center said the study was based on a database created with public statements over the two years beginning on Sept. 11, 2001, and information from more than 25 government reports, books, articles, speeches and interviews.

“The cumulative effect of these false statements — amplified by thousands of news stories and broadcasts — was massive, with the media coverage creating an almost impenetrable din for several critical months in the run-up to war,” the study concluded.

“Some journalists — indeed, even some entire news organizations — have since acknowledged that their coverage during those prewar months was far too deferential and uncritical. These mea culpas notwithstanding, much of the wall-to-wall media coverage provided additional, ‘independent’ validation of the Bush administration’s false statements about Iraq,” it said.

Seems they “Independent Thinking American” understood this to be the case all along….. no wonder so many of them were against the WAR.

Shall we say the majority of Americans.

Wrongs following again like lemmings, making up excuses for the powers at be.

Now we have a economy in crisis, a huge government, a huge debt, a WAR that will take the next president to fix, and a President who borrows money from around the world to put in his made up WAR.

Congratulation’s WRONGS your support will be about sticking up for our worst President ever.

Lemmings marching to quite a perverse BEAT!

By Van

January 23, 2008 9:28 AM | Link to this

I thought I would drop in and see if things have improved any, sadly no.

Regarding Ron Paul. While I agree with him on the majority of his stances, I must vigorously disagree with his views on the battle against illegal drugs. Removing or relaxing the laws against non-doctor prescribed, current illegal drugs would tear apart the very fabric of our way of live.

I also think his stances on foreign affairs are simplistic and naive.

With the choices narrowing down to either twiddle-dee or twiddle-dum.

On the democratic side, I would vote for anyone that promises to cut spending, fix social security, encourage job growth in the private sector and strengthen the US military.

The downside is, none of the candidates on either side will address these issues. I guess none of them will cut spending by Congress and the Federal Government.

By You know you are.

January 23, 2008 9:34 AM | Link to this

Band-aids with little purple hearts drawn on them adorning Republican conventioneers to mock someone who ACTUALLY served in a war, to elect someone who didn’t. Does anyone remember Mr. Wooten’s commentary on THAT?

Pssies. Cowards. It’s all nasty and partisan for you people. Americans are finally waking up to the fact that war, fought by honorable soldiers sworn to duty, is created by and the last resort of pssies and cowards who have nothing better to offer. That’s what you’ve got: nothing.

The fine men and women serving honorably in uniform deserve better!

By Dennis

January 23, 2008 9:36 AM | Link to this

Mr. Wooten writes, “Bork was a first-rate judge with a brilliant legal mind who should be on the high court today.”

Since he was not appointed to the Supreme Court, then how should one reply Mr. Wooten, that perhaps Bork was not the caliber to be on that Court?

After all, Bork and Scalia, and maybe Thomas, are of the opinion that the Constitution does not give Americans the freedoms they are use to. And this would include the right for a woman to control her own body.

Fortunately, the “bewildered herd” of Americans aren’t ready for the “trust us” leadership conservatives would provide - if you would call that being “free”.

You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

By Jeff

January 23, 2008 9:41 AM | Link to this

Van:

The free market is already at work in the drug trade. The only reason we have so much bad stuff associated with it (and I’m not counting the individual affects of what the drug does to the individual, only the ‘societal’ affects) is because Big Brother thinks he can somehow stop drugs from being used.

The ONLY way to do so is to become Big Brother’s Big Brother - a Government so powerful that its citizens LITERALLY have ZERO freedom.

Personally, I’ll side with Patrick Henry on this one:

“No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the house. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The question before the house is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at the truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the numbers of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth, to know the worst, and to provide for it.

I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received?”

…

“Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”

By profit

January 23, 2008 9:47 AM | Link to this

I know where we can get 10 billion dollars quick and easy: STOP giving 10 billion american tax dollars to Israel each and every year

By Kevin

January 23, 2008 9:48 AM | Link to this

Obama doesn’t riff very well. His litmus test for Clinton’s blackness was “dancing ability”, and did you see Edwards grimace?

I was never impressed with Obama’s speeches.

Hillary? Do we want a co-dependent in the white house? Does anyone doubt that in crisis, Hillary and Bill wont share counsel? He’s going to get another four years if we let him.

The swiftboaters are inevitable. The way to head them off is to look at your opponent’s weaknesses and expect your opponent to accuse your own candidate of them. Thus, Rove saw that George Bush was a total coward who deserted during a time of war and thus charged Kerry with military misconduct.

Fact: There still isn’t one piece of paper that proves george bush did his tour of duty in the guard. Not one person who saw him. not one photograph or order or review or paycheck or barrack mate or gomer pyle or sgt. carter or even a uniform in an attic or a button or a sleeve.

Co-dependent traitors? How about a poster of George Bush and Jane Fonda?

at least hanoi jane actually went to hanoi. Where was george? where was that fathead cheney? cowards. Plain and simply. Cowards.

By DawgBite

January 23, 2008 9:57 AM | Link to this

Ted Kennedy didn’t lie about Robert Bork. Bork’s vision of America is exactly as stated by Kennedy.

By Apocalypse

January 23, 2008 10:07 AM | Link to this

Kevin,

So who do you like then dude? No one? What are you, the negative politico critic?

By getalife

January 23, 2008 10:09 AM | Link to this

Betrayus wants to waste another 6 months in Iraq so what does the Senate do for economic stimulus?

They borrow another $696 billion for the wars. At least the troops got a raise.

Yes, we know w punked the wingnuts on Iraq but wait until the State of the Union.

They love getting disrespected and lied to and will believe everything w spews.

By jbmlaw

January 23, 2008 10:22 AM | Link to this

Good morning all. Interesting topic today Mr. Wooten, my compliments. I suspect our history buff friends Glenn and Shar may be able to trace dirty politics to a time before seven men in black robes disenfranchised the legislatures of 50 states. The real question for discussion today is “where do we draw the tension line separating free speech and misrepresentation, and what consequences shall we attach for a breach?”

I start with the fundamental position that all political speech should be protected, including lies. Thus every campaign we will hear democrats warning in sonorous tones that republicans plan to lynch all black folk and take away social security from old folk. Similarly, my side will remind the patriots in the populace of the democrat tendencies to (1) cut and run from every fight, (2) wimp out against every terrorist act against the country, and (3) spend money on welfare. The Swiftboat guys deserve the right to attempt to be heard, as does Cindy Shiite and the Dizie Chicks. (That’s a typo, but I elect to not correct it.)

I do regard the “Borking” as an unacceptably bad form however, as that was a conscious effort by the corrupt democrats to politicize the judiciary. The only sad part about Sen. Osama/Osama’s [for the idiots reading, I do not slander the noble junior senator of Illinois, I am criticizing the senior drunk of Massachusetts] obvious lies about Judge Bork is that not one democrat was honorable enough to challenge him. Of course, that Kennedy protocol is now the democrat playbook on every conservative nominee to the court, and that is why I will never vote for even a moderate democrat, even if the opposition is a lunatic RINO.

The WSJ has a related piece today, “Obama’s Clinton Education” http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120104819435508233.html?mod=opinionmaincommentaries . Not that is says anything unknown to anyone who was not in a drug haze throughout the 1990s.

By deegee

January 23, 2008 10:26 AM | Link to this

“Incidentally, it’s becoming a standard argument of those inclined to vote Democratic: If we don’t elect Obama President, it’s evidence that America has not moved beyond race.”

Huh? Where did that come from? Those that are inclined to vote democratic are choosing between the first serious african-american candidate for president and the first serious female candidate for president. If JW’s point was valid we could say that to withhold a vote for Hillary means that America has not moved beyond gender. It’s not flying, JW. Those that tend to vote democratic have no reason to complain. Those that tend to vote republican are not motivated by guilt. There is no basis for the statement, and it only serves as a distraction from the more important policy distinctions between the candidates.

By getalife

January 23, 2008 10:29 AM | Link to this

The gop already swift boated Obama on religion.

Called him a Muslim and said he swore on the Koran.

Corporate donors have given $250 million to Freedom Watch for these lies and disgusting ethics for the gop to attack in the general.

Corporate will not give up their power in government with out a fight.

By JK

January 23, 2008 10:30 AM | Link to this

Tell us again, jbmlaw, how you think an American’s right to vote should be tied to his or her wealth? Or perhaps you’ll refresh us on your willingness to let the military choose our president for us! We want to put your astute opinions and observations in perspective after all…

By jbmlaw

January 23, 2008 10:32 AM | Link to this

To note the obvious, 9:13 was our friend HIDT.

Seemingly as proof of Jim’s argument, I see some of the moonbats are spewing their lies about “lies.” Pretty early in the day for that sort of invective, but I suspect they’ll ratchet it up as the day goes on. Related, our leftist friends like to revile the Jewish Neoconservatives, but Norman Podhoretz has another unanswerable analysis, this time on Iran. The argument is “unanswerable” due to his proof that the left acknowledges the failure of diplomacy in the case of Iran and weapons-grade nuclear production. Not for our dimmer leftist friends, many big words: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120103739264407641.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

By jbmlaw

January 23, 2008 10:36 AM | Link to this

Dear getalife @ 10:29, you err. It is your Clintonistas who are calling voters and always use Obama’s middle name.

By jbmlaw

January 23, 2008 10:40 AM | Link to this

Dear JK @ 10:30, perhaps you have a future as a plaintiff’s attorney. When the facts are with you but the law is against you, you argue the facts. When the facts are against you but the law is with you, you argue the law. And when, as here, both the facts and the law are against you, you change the subject. I understand your particular form of moonbatism is actually a personality cult, and is rooted in identity politics, but I will not allow you to hide the fact of your consistent deceptions.

By Glenn

January 23, 2008 10:41 AM | Link to this

Had a good reason for taking the easy way out Had a good reason for taking the easy way out now

He is a day trader, eTrade ticket yeah It took him no time to find out, and he found out

He’s a big teaser, he’d even rib the Fed Chair He’s a big teaser, he’d even rib the Fed Chair now

He is a day trader, eTrade ticket yeah It took him no time to find out, and he found out

Tried Red Season, he only played one-day trades Tried Red Season, he only played one-day trades now

He was a day trader, turn ‘em over yeah It took him no time to find out, and he found out

Day trader Day trader yeah

Day trader Day trader yeah…

Whassup with Bernanke? He’s like the guy who, having run a red light, stopped at the next green one to make up for it. Is there anything about this guy that warrants confidence?

By T.J.

January 23, 2008 10:41 AM | Link to this

Since he was not appointed to the Supreme Court, then how should one reply Mr. Wooten, that perhaps Bork was not the caliber to be on that Court?

Are we to assume then that Kerry was not of the caliber to be POTUS. He lost the vote of the American people but the dems are still whining. Gore wasn’t of the caliber either based on the vote and they still whine about that loss too.

dems are just a bunch of whiners in chorus.

By Abomi Nation

January 23, 2008 10:46 AM | Link to this

Robert Bork the conservative hero has said that Congress should enact tort reform to protect business.

This same “brilliant legal mind” is asking for over a million dollars in damages plus punitive damages for a fall he suffered while climbing a few steps. Aren’t punitive damages rare in cases like his jmblaw?

This “brilliant scholar” is also asking for attorney’s fees that are not recoverable in his case.

This is your hero? Sounds like Congress got it right.

By getalife

January 23, 2008 10:47 AM | Link to this

Dear ambulance chaser,

Was it a lie? No, he has an unfortunate name like willard or John Sidney McCain III.

By Curious Observer

January 23, 2008 10:50 AM | Link to this

It is your Clintonistas who are calling voters and always use Obama’s middle name.

Perhaps jbmlaw would like to explain the 3 a.m.—yes, 3 a.m.—robo-calls being made in Atlanta during the past three weeks. Each call features the slightly speeded up voice of Hillary Clinton and excerpts from her recorded speeches. I am not the only one to receive such calls. I doubt that they are being funded by Obama supporters.

By JK

January 23, 2008 11:01 AM | Link to this

jbmlaw at 10:40: Right. Calling me a moonbat means so much for your credibility. If you did not publicly advocate on this very board what I accused you of at 10:30 — if I misread your posts last week, I apologize. If you said those things but didn’t mean them, perhaps you should apologize for the confusion. Would you like me to check the archives for the exact wording?

By Shar

January 23, 2008 11:04 AM | Link to this

Good Morning. Mr. Wooten’s comparison of the febrile lobbying by conservatives and liberals over the nomination of Robert Bork to the Supreme Court and the Swift Boat Veterans disputatoin of John Kerry’s military service record is strained.

Mr. Bork, while recognized as a brilliant legal scholar, had repeatedly and publicly advocated the overturn of foundation decisions such as Griswold v. Connecticut, establishing the concept of a right to privacy, and of course Roe v. Wade. He was a contentious figure politically due to his willingness to obey Richard Nixon’s orders and fire the Watergate special prosecutor after both the Attorney General and his deputy had resigned rather than do so. During the confirmation hearings on his nomination, Mr. Bork professed to have changed his views on some of his more controversial opinions, such as limiting First Amendment protection to political speech and Fourteenth Amendment equal protection to race but not gender. Although he tried to present himself as a moderate, his judicial record and political past had more credibility than his promises of even-handedness, and in fact he later admitted in a CNN interview that his intentions were not objective, saying “The core of the issue was, they were afraid I would vote to overrule Roe against Wade. And they were quite right.” Both sides in this fight were frenzied and extreme but they fought on the basis of Mr. Bork’s record, and they fought openly, admitting their identities and the biases they carried.

Mr. Kerry’s situation was not as straighforward. The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth claimed that their members had fought in Vietnam at the same time and in the same area as had Kerry, and that they were a neutral, non-partisan group dedicated only to ‘setting the record straight’. Both of these claims were untrue, as almost none of the members had served with Kerry and the group was tightly aligned with the Bush/Cheney campaign, receiving most of its funding from major Bush donors and having several directors in common. The group’s claims were unsupported by either Kerry’s contemporaneous crews or by Navy documentation, and several of the Swift Boaters who had originally supported commendations for Kerry said their dislike was not for his actions on the ground but his antiwar activism once he had left the military. An early member who renounced the group said, “It became clear to me that it was morphing from an organization to set the record straight into a highly political vendetta. They knew it was not the truth.”

Two bitter political fights, with plenty of sleazy tactics on everyone’s part, to be sure. However, the Bork nomination was fought on decisions and writings relevant to the position he sought to fill, by partisans who freely admitted their identities, ideologies and interests in the outcome. The Swift Boaters questioned Kerry’s credentials as a honorable military veteran as a means of denigrating his character, hiding their political affiliation and basing their claims on untrue or undocumented accusations. One was a nasty battle in the culture war and the other a poitical ambush.

By Camus

January 23, 2008 11:07 AM | Link to this

In the spirit of serious debate, I clicked over to the Podhoretz opus cited by jbmlaw as revelatory and deeply serious. There is nothing new there, just the same old straw men re-hashings of Norman’s consistently wrong about everything fulminations against the rampaging Islamofascists, but wrapped up in an overlong and overly pedantic prose style designed to hide the emptiness of the arguments.

Just how is it that overpaid imbeciles (I include the always incorrect Kristol in this) who are consistently and demonstrably wrong about their policy pronouncements even given the time of day, much less prominent soapboxes to spout their drivel.

Just one example of Podhoretz’ argument: And just as everyone agreed with the American intelligence community that Iran was “determined to develop nuclear weapons,” everyone also agreed with President Bush that it must not be permitted to succeed.

No, dammit, no a thousand times. Not “everyone” agreed with this, any more than “everyone” agreed that we needed to invade Iraq. There have, at every step of both the insane Iraq venture and this looming “crisis” with Iran, been people who have called bullsh!t on these trumped up alarms. “Everyone” can only be considered accurate in this sentence if “everyone” means “people who agree with me to begin with” or “the select group of serious pundits who are allowed to speak through the mass media”. Really, if “everyone” agreed with Pod, with whom does he argue so vehemently?

Podhoretz has had a publicly proclaimed obsession with dominating both Iraq and Iran for years. He proved in the leadup to Iraq that he would say anything to help make it happen.

His “argument” in unanswerable in the same way that the crazy preachers in the Marta stations are unanswerable…because their rants are not based in fact or rational thought, there can be no grounds upon which to answer. No amount of three-dollar words strung together can paper over the bloodlust Podhoretz thrills to promote.

By Dennis

January 23, 2008 11:07 AM | Link to this

By T.J. January 23, 2008 10:41 AM Since he was not appointed to the Supreme Court, then how should one reply Mr. Wooten, that perhaps Bork was not the caliber to be on that Court? Are we to assume then that Kerry was not of the caliber to be POTUS. He lost the vote of the American people but the dems are still whining. Gore wasn’t of the caliber either based on the vote and they still whine about that loss too. dems are just a bunch of whiners in chorus.”

If you can take it as well as dish it out, your reply is a fair shot.

As to “whinning”, the democrats don’t hold a monopoly on that.

Fortunately, the “bewildered herd” of Americans aren’t ready for the “trust us” leadership conservatives would provide - if you would call that being “free”.

You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

By Camus

January 23, 2008 11:11 AM | Link to this

Well done, Shar @ 11:04. Bravo.

By Camus

January 23, 2008 11:13 AM | Link to this

Well done, Shar @ 11:04. Bravo.

By Glenn

January 23, 2008 11:18 AM | Link to this

I agree with Jim about Bork; he should sit on the big bench. That quote from Kennedy is odious. I’m pretty sure that in modern times no member of Congress has displayed such vitriolic prejudice against a judicial nominee as Kennedy did with that one statement—-that’s how far his remarks were from the customs and traditions of the Hill.

Thing is, though, Bork had it coming. I was studying Con Law at the time, and we watched portions of the hearings from the Law School lounge. (I’m not an atty.; did doctoral work involving church/state conflict.) Though Bork seemed continually baffled by the hostile line of questioning, it was apparent to us what the Democrats were trying to do: to box him into denying that the Constitution contemplates a right to privacy. We were shouting at the TV for three days, to express our Hitchcockian frustration at the bomb under the table. Finally, on the third day, Judge Bork detonated the bomb when at last he said flat out that the Constitution is not concerned with privacy rights.

So sad that Bork understood only afterward that the Democrats’ jurisprudential questions were all insincere, that they were not authentically jurisprudential, but rather were political, and tactical. The intellectual in Bork, the professor, grasped those questions like a kid in a candy store, all the while not realizing that every one of them was scripted to maneuver him into that privacy trap.

What he said about privacy was, of course, jurisprudentially true and accurate. The Constitution does not contemplate a right to privacy. But it was also politically suicidal and, in a purely political sense, also untrue: the entire Constitution deals with individual privacy and private property, the limits of that privacy, and the limits on the government constituted to secure and protect those rights.

When Bork finally dropped the hammer, and the air went out of the Law lounge and we dispersed, it was as though we’d just watched a very suspenseful onscreen murder. Just the effect for which Hitchcock would have aimed.

To John Kerry,

You’re a sick and twisted narcissist, and I’m really glad you never took up residency in the People’s House. It’s disturbing to think that someone as phony and delusional as you could get elected to Town Council in rural Massachusetts, let alone to the most exclusive club in the world, the United States Senate.

You’re so friggin out of touch that when you point out that the Clintons have stooped to new lows in campaigning, you’re not even aware that their chief innovation is manipulation of Internet misinformation, not the obsolete methods you discribe, some of which precede your first ventures onto the bunny slopes of politics.

You’re right to throw your residue of cred into defending Sen. Obama, if only because you yourself are indefensible. Let this effort be your swan song, then.

Jeff,

If statism sinks the campaigns of those candidates, then what is it that has sunk the campaign of Rep. Paul? Could it be that the top two concerns on voters minds are the economy and national security, and that they have concluded that Dr. Paul displays rather ostentatiously his ignorance of both, and at every turn?

[Rudy 08]

By Kevin

January 23, 2008 11:23 AM | Link to this

Yeah, apocalypse, I am that guy. Hey, look at me! I’m the negative politico critic guy person thing….LADY!

Now you listen, you obvious pap smear for twin-lipped double speak obfuscation of the issues so’s no one knows nothing about the candidates so the GOP has a chance in november: darn, i forgot what i was going to say but it was good, oh, consider yourself flamed.

Shar: Febrile? You use that word a lot. I dont think it means what you think it means. Also, you’re well-written argument sinks when you used the “almost none of the members served with Kerry” premise to your unsupported conclusion. But not bad. We need more of your kind. And what kind is that? A non troll who actually advances the discussion.

By Truthifier

January 23, 2008 11:34 AM | Link to this

“it’s becoming a standard argument of those inclined to vote Democratic: If we don’t elect Obama President, it’s evidence that America has not moved beyond race.”

Huh?! Jim, WHO is saying that? I’m a Democrat and I’ve heard no one say any such thing. Do you think all the people who are supporting Clinton are saying that? It would be kind of self defeating wouldn’t it?

And you’re correct — what was done to Mr. Bork was wrong. But that doesn’t give anyone the right to do it to anyone else. Didn’t your mama ever tell you that two wrongs don’t make a right??

By Dennis

January 23, 2008 11:45 AM | Link to this

By Glenn January 23, 2008 11:18 AM Thanks for that anaylsis of the Bork hearings and the participants. It’s as good as I’ve seen anywhere.

I am thankful, tho, that Bork is NOT on the Court (which for me, is little longer an interpreter of the Constitution and of laws, but has become just another political office with (unfortunately) politically permanent fixtures; forget impartiality.

I am currently reading the book, “Cracks in the Constitution” by Lundberg; who points out quite adequately that the framers of the Constitution had the protection of the elite/wealthy/themselves/commerce in mind, to hell with the people.

And the only reason we have some of the “freedoms”/”checks and balances” we have is because they needed someway to sell the Constitution to the people and get it ratified.

You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

By Glenn

January 23, 2008 11:48 AM | Link to this

Shar,

I’m almost with Camus in my admiration for your clear-eyed account of the two smear campaigns. Except. Except.

Except that Kerry was indeed brought down by the truth, which is to say that his lying took him down, and the Swifties did one final service to their country in pointing up his lies. To this day it gives me the creeps to think that that man still stalks the Senate chambers, as fully delusional—-as fully confabulatory—-as Al Gore or the late Emperor Norton II of San Francisco.

The Swifties had a top-grade political consultant in Sal Russo, the former Reagan staffer and (with his partner Ed Rollins) Reagan campaign manager. Sal is a true believer in conservatism, an upstanding attorney, and an honest campaigner. He believes that if you have to stoop to lying, you ought to get out of the game.

You’re quite right in making the important point that Swifties took in an increasing number of members whose standing to criticize Kerry extended not far beyond their resentment of his having called them, in camera, torturers, sadists, murderers of babies, etc. To them, this seemed one of Kerry’s several giant lies, and one that the voters ought to know about.

Your perceptive analysis, Shar, doesn’t allow for the fact that most of the founding Swifties did serve contemporaneously with Kerry, and in his zone. That cohort included Sailors and Marines who served with, and over, the man. And to this day none of their claims has proved untrue, which is precisely why Kerry is reduced to the kind of carom-shooting and shoelace-tying that Jim cites in today’s column. Even when it’s about Obama, still it’s All about John.

One of the confusions about what happened with the successful Swiftboat Veterans campaign against Kerry’s election stems from Sal’s having set up for the Swifties a nonprofit pass-through to take in donations to pay for his and their television commercials, media buys, live satellite feeds, travel, legal counsel, research, etc. If you responded to one of the ads by going onto the website and making a donation, then in so doing you became a “Supporter”. Several journalists have mistaken the numerous Supporters for the relatively few Members, the veterans themselves.

Like all successful campaigns for anything, the Swiftboat effort gathered force and strength in numbers, becoming ever more heterogeneous—-a “big tent”, you might say. Nothing wrong in that, surely.

Kerry’s twisted psyche needs badly to make “Swiftboating” into a pejorative. If he can achieve this monomaniacal aim, then we truly will have found ourselves in Orwell territory, as his achievement will have signalled that even the word “expose”, and therefore the act of exposing a public fraud, will be off limits for any but pejorative use.

By ron

January 23, 2008 11:59 AM | Link to this

If anyone deserved a Borking,it was Bork.It saved this country a lot of grief.Maybe now we need to do a Chertoffing.He seems to be eating up freedoms at an alarming rate.

By Glenn

January 23, 2008 12:12 PM | Link to this

Hi Dennis,

Thanks for the encouragement. The book sounds fascinating. There have been several really fine analyses along those lines, going back to Gordon Wood, I believe.

The simplest way in which I can think to put it is, that the Constitution they approved as an accurate memorialization of the states’ agreements—-not the subsequent, amended version we use today—-was concerned preeminently, and almost exclusively, with property rights. Because of this, it’s irrefutably true to say that the Framers were concerned chiefly with those who held the most property; namely, themselves. (Another useful vantage on this mindset is afforded by a close study of their structure for, and enumeration of the duties of, the Senate.)

This may come as a bit of a shock to law students, but not so to students of American history, as the War itself was fought for property, with “Liberty” as little more than a recruitment tool. But this account is overbroad if it ignores that there were the radicals-among-the-[radical]Framers, and for these uber-radicals, liberty was foremost. They included Franklin and, more to the point, the drafter of the Constitution, the elder Mr. Adams, every bit the full-blown and well trained philosopher that the property-loving patrician Jefferson was.

The greedfest, incidentally, was led by the Virginia planters, with the Knickerbockers in close train.

By jbmlaw

January 23, 2008 12:14 PM | Link to this

Dear JK @ 11:01, I did not call you a liar, I called you a lunatic. Get it straight. You are unhinged in that you cannot even address the daily topic before you launch your ad hominems. Of course, the reason you cannot address the daily topic is that you are on the wrong side of the angels there.

By Peter

January 23, 2008 12:14 PM | Link to this

The budget deficit grows…… All the lemmings fail to realize how poorly Bush has run the country.

7 years into being in power, it very much looks like all his major policies have failed….

LAME DUCK PRESIDENT!

If Bush actually knew what he was doing, why would we be going into recession ?

There is not one Wrong that can say Bush or the Republican Lead Congress has done a GOOD JOB.

2 terms for Bush and we have a 250 Billion dollar debt, not counting the new 150 Billion dollar incentive package……..and we all know the WAR DEBT is being kept off the books as well.

“Budget deficit expected to reach $250B Slowing economy and cost of wars are expected to send the 2008 budget deficit to $250 billion, compared with $163 billion last year. WASHINGTON (AP) — The deficit for the current budget year will jump to about $250 billion, the Congressional Budget Office estimated Wednesday, citing the weakening economy. And that figure does not reflect at least $100 billion in red ink from an economic stimulus measure in the works.

“After three years of declining budget deficits, a slowing economy this year will contribute to an increase in the deficit,” the CBO report said.

The figure greatly exceeds the $163 billion in red ink registered last year. Adding likely but still unapproved outlays for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan brings its “baseline” deficit estimate of $219 billion to about $250 billion, the nonpartisan CBO said.

Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, D-N.D., said the 2008 deficit would reach more than $350 billion once the costs of an upcoming economic stimulus measure under negotiation between the Bush administration and Congress are factored in.”

READ AND WEEP WRONGS !

BIG spend government, and very poor planning by the Republicans again…..

It appears it will AGAIN take a fiscally responsible Democrat to rein in the waste, and the fix the problems, yet again brought upon us by the Republican’s

Good Job Wrongs….. Lining up again like lemmings!

Funny thing here is anyone who goes against the President is obviously not AMERICAN…….HA HA HA.

Real Americans protect their country, not abuse it like the Republicans !

By Glenn

January 23, 2008 12:15 PM | Link to this

ron,

Judge Chertoff hasn’t eaten up any of my compelling freedoms yet, notwithstanding my freedom to yell “bomb” in a crowded airport. I plan to Bork him, though, as soon as he sets his sights on one of my cherished freedoms. The rest of you are on your own.

By jbmlaw

January 23, 2008 12:21 PM | Link to this

Dear Camus @ 11:07, if I read your post correctly then you deny that “everyone” advocated diplomatic talks to attempt to dissuade Iran from developing nuclear fuels? I think you deny in error; I am unaware of anyone, other than the Russians, who did not think those talks highly desirable. I understand Podhoretz is a tough read, but that was his “unanswerable” argument. By the way, do you think those talks are likely to be productive? Now that the CIA has sabotaged the conservative view via a deceptive “footnote” in their left-lauded review. When has the CIA ever gotten something right? Abolish the agency, rely on miltary intelligence only.

By getalife

January 23, 2008 12:23 PM | Link to this

Yes, the wingnuts are coming unhinged.

Was it this that made your heads explodes:

“President George W. Bush and seven of his administration’s top officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, made at least 935 false statements in the two years following September 11, 2001, about the national security threat posed by Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. Nearly five years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, an exhaustive examination of the record shows that the statements were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses.”

Duh, we knew that already. You punks have been punked.

Dumbas-sses.

World markets took another big today.

Wall Street will correct tomorrow.

By Jim's a Cherry Picker

January 23, 2008 12:25 PM | Link to this

Hi Jim,

Excellent analysis….

It’s the Democrats’ fault…once again.

Superb, insightful, stuff.

I’ll be looking for your comments on how Bill and Hillary are to fault for the impending recession.

By getalife

January 23, 2008 12:31 PM | Link to this

“Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do.”

“Paging Mr.Orwell. Mr.Orwell. In my humble opinion, Rudy Giuliani is by far the most extremist and dangerous of the Republican candidates that could succeed George W. Bush.”

Pathetic.

By Glenn

January 23, 2008 12:31 PM | Link to this

jbm,

The era of Casey and Angleton. By the time of the presidency of the former DCI, ironically, it was back to Keystone Kopping.

[An answer to your question, When was the last time the Agency got anything right (that we know of)?]

Eliminating the Agency is more feasible now than ever, and can even be done now without much blowback, because it can be dissolved into Homeland Security, leaving MI to hold down threats abroad and to continue to feed domestic threats of foreign origin into Homeland Security for intel mgt. What’s the point of maintaining multiply duplicative sets of mainframes anyway? How Murphy-prone can you get?

By jbmlaw

January 23, 2008 12:33 PM | Link to this

Dear JaCP @ 12:25, you are too specific. Not Bill and Hillary, but the democrat congressional leadership. The looming recession is attributable to their promised largest tax increase in the history of the world, in that they are committed to allowing the Bush tax cuts to lapse. They may manufacture some vote-buying redistributionist tax cuts, but the sound Bush capital-formation tax cuts are history, and so is the economy.

By jbmlaw

January 23, 2008 12:35 PM | Link to this

Dear Glenn @ 12:31, you are correct, as always.

By Glenn

January 23, 2008 12:37 PM | Link to this

Yeah, get, I agree. That “paging Mr. Orwell” quote is pathetically sophomoric. Whoever it is, some immature punk trying to sound world weary. That’s SO yesterday.

How’s your campaign for a one-party system coming along?

By getalife

January 23, 2008 12:42 PM | Link to this

Punks are those who allow the gop to steal your freedoms, thousands of great Americans have died for you to have it.

When will you man up and stop getting punked?

By Glenn

January 23, 2008 12:45 PM | Link to this

Kevin,

If you’re willing to humor for a minute a deviation from Jim’s daily topics, would you please answer the 10:41? Is there any reason not to be concerned about Bernanke?

By Glenn

January 23, 2008 12:48 PM | Link to this

Jim,

I hereby, and with a heavy heart, denounce Mr. Garst for his feckless meddling in politics. That man clearly has no idea what better things should occupy his time.

He has in his gift the capacity to bring this country to multilingual fluency, and he’s instead peeing on Mr. Lewis’ shoes?

How can such a patriotic idiot be such a genius?

By Peter

January 23, 2008 12:49 PM | Link to this

4,000 Americans DEAD…… 350 Billion in debt soon to happen, a recession about to get going in full swing, and the BIGGEST Government in History.

Oh what about the 935 FALSE statements made by the current administration.

Looks like the Wrongs were dead wrong on this President and administration!

I guess, all they can focus on is the crap they spew, like the stuff Jim writes about today!

Jim has at least pointed out today, that we should be listening to those who will lead and tell the truth!

“The truth matters, but how you fight the lies matters even more. We must be determined never again to lose any election to a lie.”

Wake up Lemmings…… this is YOUR country as well!

By Glenn

January 23, 2008 12:58 PM | Link to this

Peter,

If you’re still talking about Iwo all these years later, your figure is more than a thousand shy. Unless you’re talking instead about securing the Okinawa beachead, in which case you’re more than four times under.

You don’t have to be so gentle with your statistics, you know, Peter. The Marines and the Infantry are grown-up people, even for their average age, and even the true figures wouldn’t scare them.

As they may have noticed, they don’t scare so easy.

So why don’t you peddle your chickenlittling over at Kos, and sell as many high schoolers on it as you can?

By Dennis

January 23, 2008 1:01 PM | Link to this

By Peter January 23, 2008 12:49 PM “Jim has at least pointed out today, that we should be listening to those who will lead and tell the truth!”

Unfortunately, Jim has not followed his own advice.

You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

By Glenn

January 23, 2008 1:02 PM | Link to this

getalife,

I don’t mind your “man up” remark, my friend, but I don’t think I’ve been punked since I voted for Clinton first go ‘round.

Now, to make sure I don’t get punked by you, please tell me which of my freedoms has been stolen by the GOP.

By Peter

January 23, 2008 1:05 PM | Link to this

Glen…… why don’t you live in the NOW for a change ?

Your country is in trouble….Hello ?

By JK

January 23, 2008 1:06 PM | Link to this

jbmlaw @ 12:14. You are quite correct, Sir. Bravo! I am indeed a lunatic for asking you to clarify your previous confusing and conflicting stance on elections (plutocracy and military dictatorship) while trying to decipher your current commentary on election-year politics. History clearly shows that you not only make sh-t up as you go along, quote people who make sh-t up as they go along, but you talk sideways out of your a-s-s every day. To expect you to stand by your own statements or clarify even one to any point of coherence clearly demonstrates a lapse in logical thinking on my part. Thanks for pointing that out, and pleases continue with today’s flatulent emissions.

By Joe D

January 23, 2008 1:13 PM | Link to this

Jim, the MO of just making blanket statements is wearing thin. I too have not heard one Democrat say that it is evidence we have not moved beyond race if Obama doesn’t win. You’ve made that up, just to stir the pot. The Democrats I know are making a serious effort to decide between Obama and Clinton and to a lesser extent, Edwards. You guys on the right who have nothing to better to do are creating these straw men to stir the pot. That probably explains your willingness to just ignore John Garst’s stupidity as ‘he apparently just doesn’t like Lewis’ representation of the district’. Right. Under what theory of philosophy, history, politics or any other doctrine is it required that an elected official base his support and endorsement of a political candidate on the wishes of his constituents? Leglislation, policy matters, yes, but support of a political candidate? Are Democratic congressmen in this primarily Republican state obligated to support Republican candidates? What utter nonsense. Garst is nothing more than a hack political operative who was stirring the pot much the way JW does. Oh, and by the way, the call wasn’t interpreted as having a provactive racial subtext; it had one. Just listen to the call. Or read your own newspaper, Jim.

By Camus

January 23, 2008 1:16 PM | Link to this

jbm

The Pod argument, and yours, depends upon the rhetorical trick of insisting that “everyone” sees a situation as an issue of great concern, when in fact not everyone does. This is heavily at play in the Iran situation (where “everyone” was outraged at the temerity of those speedboats issing verbal threats, except of course the threats were faked), just as it was (is, sadly) in the debate on Social Security in which “everyone” allegedly agrees that SocSec is in deep trouble and therefore what do we propose to do about it…

It is a dishonest trick, akin to the question “When did you stop beating your wife?”. It is one reason that the argument is unanswerable, as the basic premise is predicated on pure bullsh!t.

By getalife

January 23, 2008 1:19 PM | Link to this

I see Glenn is still getting punked.

By Glenn

January 23, 2008 1:30 PM | Link to this

Peter,

I am living in the now, in the now made by the past. Your near-hysteria over our Iraq casualties is so ahistorical that it’s eccentric, that’s all. I was merely using a satirical device to point that up. The truth—-now, this very instant—-is that our military has accomplished, with four thousand of its number dead, a great deal more than ever has been accomplished by any military in history with such low casualty figures. What’s still more to the point, now, is that the military leadership of every other nation is now taking note of that fact with considerable respect and jealously, while also taking note, as usual, of the chickenlittling on the Left. Which kind and source of chickenlittling, by the way, the U.S. military knows very well to have caused, in the past, far more casualties than the Iraq ones. Meanwhile it’s by now apparent that we are kept safe at home.

As for my country being in trouble, yes. I think we’ll be facing a spread of Michigan’s recession if we pull a Bernanke and implement an inadequate stimulus (also if Detroit doesn’t unveil a sufficient number of brilliant new products in next month’s shows). So we’re in line to get into trouble on the economic front.

Militarily, we’ve got enemies to find and kill, and troops to rest and replace, and we’ll be in trouble if we fail to accomplish these things very soon.

Legally, I think that we remain a nation of laws; more specifically, the most liberating body of laws in human history.

Environmentally, it seems that the nation is rapidly developing the kind of consensus not seen since 1967’68: agreement to redouble efforts to protect the environment.

Politically, the nation is in danger of hiring leaders who seek power only for its own sake, and yet I can think of no better way to prevent that from happening than the way handed down to us by our wise Framers, and so my fear along those lines is alleviated somewhat by my own active efforts to inform the discretion of my fellow voters—-which efforts, as you know, necessarily involve work both constructive and destructive.

So tell me again, then: How is it that the greatest nation in history is in trouble?

By Shar

January 23, 2008 1:36 PM | Link to this

Jbmlaw@10:22: While I have not done research on the point, I can confidently assert that dirty politics was blighting the landscape far before the emergence of what P.J. O’Rourke calls “our nine old nags in black muu-muus.” I believe the Pharaohs could have taught Alcidiades a thing or two, and that Cassius on the Ides was a loyalist compared to the nasty intrigues of Caligula, the Holy Roman Empire, the Spanish Inquisition or the Huguenot repression. And then there were Jefferson’s attacks on Adams, while the Court was still figuring out where to meet. We humans are a sorry lot, particularly when we are found in groups.

Your comment brought to mind a terrific book I read, William Martin’s “Citizen Washington”, in which the central device is a naive but ambitious reporter being assigned to dig up dirt on George to counter the hosannas being heaped upon him at his death. Dirty tricks indeed, and all for naught as Washington emerges from interviews with his confidants as a fine, if human, hero. I recommend it if it has not come your way.

Glenn, thanks for taking the time to both read my post and to respond. You clearly have strong views on Senator Kerry, which I do not. On the Swift Boat issue, however, I think you are on shaky ground. You may be right about the probity of Mr. Russo, but there were plenty others involved whose claims to integrity and fairness were far less defensible. Also, there was only one member who had ever served under Kerry, actually on a boat with him, and he was only there for about six weeks. The Naval Inspector General investigated the charges relative to Kerry’s medals and commendations, and found that all procedures had been followed, all relevant affidavits and testimony in order, all Naval action reports supporting the citations, and no reason to believe the Swift Boat charges or pursue the rescinding of the medals. Saying that the SBVT claims have not been disproven ignores the fact that neither have they been supported, and is rather along the lines of asking when you stopped beating your wife. It also strikes me as significant that SBVT is a one-trick pony: Although they seem to have considered a broader purpose in advocating for veterans following the 2004 election, they never followed through, merely continuing their anti-Kerry political agenda.

None of this changes the original thrust of my argument, that Mr. Wooten’s equating of the fight over Mr. Bork’s nomination and the Swift Boat campaign against Mr. Kerry, although they were similar in nastiness and emotion.

By jm

January 23, 2008 1:36 PM | Link to this

Actually, the treatment of Judge Bork and Senator Kerry pales when compared the how the late Senator John Tower was treated, when President George H.W. Bush nominated him for Defense Secretary.

By Glenn

January 23, 2008 1:43 PM | Link to this

I see that getalife still can’t say how.

getalife, you and Peter got punked by that tendentious report of 57 card-carrying Communists in the State De—-excuse me, I meant “935 FALSE statements”. The very first thing you guys did was to take the bait and label “false statements” lies. In this way, you were duped into lying yourself.

Moreover, because both of you want the innuendo to be true, you haven’t examined either the provenance or the validity of the list of 935.

You are similarly punked by the implication that the cummulative weight of a long list of inaccuracies led to the invasion of Iraq. It seems to have slipped your memories that that invasion was acceptable to the UN and approved by every one of your candidates for President, including Mr. Kucinich. Moreover, the invasion was not approved—-in North America, in Europe, in Australia—-solely for the reasons named. It was approved preeminently for Iraqi non-compliance with the terms of its surrender in the Gulf War. That Iraq was multiply and intransigently non-compliant is indisputable.

So by all means, go ahead and be childish and dispute it anyway. Just please do it on one of Hillary’s blogs, or at least over at Luckovich’s place or Tucker’s. Because this place isn’t Romper Room.

By jbmlaw

January 23, 2008 1:44 PM | Link to this

Dear Glenn @ various times, I have failed to support your Bernanke concerns, but that is my own negligence. I am much distressed by the problems that have arisen during his easy-money regime, and fear we will pay mightily for it. Eerily reminds me of the days of the Bill Miller governorship. Time to start looking for another Volker.

By Shar

January 23, 2008 1:50 PM | Link to this

Camus, we seem to be thinking in tandem today, substantively and metaphorically.

By Dusty

January 23, 2008 1:56 PM | Link to this

Oh, I’ve just come in and another good day for Jim Wooten! Oh give it to ‘em, Jim.

I will give the Democrats credit for one thing. If they are brave enough to mention Kerry, their loyalty knows no bounds. Shar gives it a good try with the effort to match Kerry with Bork but it didn’t work. Bork was a man held in great esteem in legal circles while Kerry had a political reputation on the level of Jane Fonda’s. To say their goals were lost by equal measure is stretching even the great width of liberal loyalty. Shar gave it the “good try”.

My thanks to jbmlaw for his wise commentaries on Jim’s editorial. I agree with his logical and informed posts. I don’t always agree with his patience with some of these liberals but…somebody’s got to do it!

jbm also gave us the best question of all. He asked Where do we draw the line between separating free speech and misrepresentation and what consequences shall we attach for a breach?

So often I have read misinformation labeled as facts about President Bush and his policies. Much of it not only discourages our troops but undermines the war efforts of this country.

When the effects of this speech are noted, liberals always point to “free speech”. I think that the stability of our country is more important than the election of politicians. The last is important but not as important as our country.

Did our ancestors really mean “free speech” at any cost?

By Peter

January 23, 2008 1:58 PM | Link to this

Glen,

The country is in trouble because of the large government created by the Republicans.

The willingness to turn out Ports over to a foreign country.

The debt created after we were actually in a surplus.

The lies told to the American public during the State of the Union Address.

The Lies told by the Bush administration to our Allies, embarrassing the American Public.

The housing market that went wrong, with SO many Americans loosing their homes.

The debt will be paid by the kids and grand kids of the next generation.

The chaos created by this Administration that started with the allowing of the Bilking of California, by this administration.

The allowing of machine guns to be put out on the street, in stead of having Congress keeping the ban. Now the Police feel they are out Gunned by the criminals.

The allowing of American infra structure to not be fixed.

The allowing of thousands of Americans in New Orleans to loose all, and then the terrible waste of American TAX money as part of the aftermath.

Allowing American soldiers to go into battle with out the proper armor.

The 4,000 soldiers that lost their lives.

The families of those soldiers that are affected.

The problems with the VA hospitals, and how the sick, and injured have NOT been properly taken care of when they come back maimed from WAR.

The failure to realize the EXPENSE that we would take on after we invaded a country, and what it will take to rebuild that country.

The Giving of Huge contracts to Haliburton, a company that has failed to live up to their word despite the fact the are totally bilking America.

Allowing the contracts to stay with Haliburton, after they moved from the US, so they will no longer pay Corporate Tax for all the monies they are stealing.

All I have mentioned are NOT “Family Values” as we were led to believe.

Probably the number 1 thing of all…..

BUSH still has yet to go after BIN LADEN….the guy who created the whole 911 Problem……thus NOT showing respect to those that died during that tragic event!

By Camus

January 23, 2008 1:58 PM | Link to this

Now if we could just work on the physically part, it’d be all good. Sugar britches.

By getalife

January 23, 2008 1:59 PM | Link to this

Yep, Glenn will forever keep getting punked.

By Dusty

January 23, 2008 2:02 PM | Link to this

I meant to say that the misinformation labeled as facts about President Bush and his policies may be right but is wrong because I say it is because I’m right and everyone who disagrees with me is wrong unless they are right and I will be the one to tell them if they are right or wrong.

By Camus

January 23, 2008 2:04 PM | Link to this

Behold Ben Bernanke. When the markets began to panic, Ben stood bravely in front of the mob and shouted, “Stop! Here is a rate cut! All is well!”

The mob responded by trampling Ben underfoot in their mad rush for the fire exits.

By getalife

January 23, 2008 2:05 PM | Link to this

Bwa.

Geez.

– your friend, political foreskin

By Glenn

January 23, 2008 2:06 PM | Link to this

Shar,

All true, and thank you for remaining cool in your analysis. I always want to hear what’s on your mind. The Swifties did, however, throw in with some rather robust efforts to aid troops in theatre, and have done good work there. I know nothing of their helping actual vets, though, and believe that their spigot dried up not long after the election.

The reason I mentioned that their claims have not been disproved was not to trump up the innuendo, but rather to point out that a lot of money and motive has gone into trying to diprove their claims. The IG’s efforts were totally by the book, and expected, and a-s-s-covering in a manner reminiscent of a long history of Naval a-s-s-covering. The Swifties were sincerely trying to clean up a mess made by the Navy, that mess being the lionization of John Kerry, from which lionization his very public defamation of the military and subsequent political career in patriotic Massachusetts ensued.

Those members of the organization who served with Kerry in Vietnam and were of lower rank include other veterans than the one who served on board briefly with Kerry, who himself served aboard quite briefly.

The IG, incidentally, did not touch Kerry’s bizarre confabulation about running a CIA officer behind Cambodian lines, as witness the boony hat Kerry has to show for it. (Reminiscent of the time Lincoln got permission to adjourn the court to a nearby, hillside tree, to show the jury that here was the very real tree to which the allegedly stolen horse actually had been tied by the defendant!)

That Kerry gave, and still gives, every indication of believing that impossible story, alone makes him unfit for office. It is up there with Gore’s Internet inventions, his repeated insistence that it had been Tipper and him upon whom the book and film Love Story had been based, his detailed accounts of sad scenes in disaster areas never visited, his 20-foot sea-level rise, etc.

For the good of the country, the Democratic Party has got to stop nominating Paul Bunyans. At least the Swifties stopped one of them in his giant tracks.

By Glenn

January 23, 2008 2:08 PM | Link to this

PoFo,

You did get me this time, but on many other occasions you’ve preened over putting one over when in fact I just chose to use one of your personae as a straw man.

Now please tell about Bernanke.

By jbmlaw

January 23, 2008 2:08 PM | Link to this

You’re right when I say you are Dusty!

By More Tall Tales, by Glenn Flynn

January 23, 2008 2:16 PM | Link to this

“The ones who brought these buildings down will hear from all of us soon.” (OBL is still wating for that promise to be fulfilled, oh wait, or is it UBL?)

“We must stop Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction from falling into the hands of the terrists.” (Saddam from the grave _ “I told you I had no WMDs.”)

By Camus

January 23, 2008 2:16 PM | Link to this

Stop it, Glenn. The canard that Gore claimed to have invented the Internet and was the primary source of Love Story was never true and is still not true. It was an invented storyline, even though “everyone” knows it to be true. You should know better.

And bravo your crusade against Bunyans, confabulators, and dissemblers. Oh wait, except for the 935 documented falsehoods floated as justification for invading Iraq. That stuff is okay, not really lies at all, and besides, “everyone” agreed that we needed to invade. “Everyone”.

Shar, I’m sure you know that 1:58 was not me.

By Dusty

January 23, 2008 2:18 PM | Link to this

Peter@1:58

The whole of your whole is full of holes. So many, in fact, it should be written on a longer roll than is available here. (I refrain from mentioning what kind of roll would be best.)

I don’t know where you get your “lists” but you need a new source. The twists, turns, misrepresentations and out dated lies are obvious. Please call headquarters and tell them you need new material. Either that, or use your grocery list. Evan that would be more helpful.

By Jackie

January 23, 2008 2:19 PM | Link to this

The thought that dirty politics began with Judge Bork is ridiculous. There too many examples of what was done to past politicians to gain a position of their opposition. I wonder if anyone remembers Lee Atwater, the modern day apostle of dirty politics? He was a Repub and the current tactics being employed in SC, his home state, are those perfected by him. JBMLAW is an attorney and asks the question “Where do we draw the line between separating free speech and misrepresentation and what consequences shall we attach for a breach?” Our Constitution provides a comprehensive answer. It is called the First Amendment. And, for all comments made, we have the right to take that person to court and make them answer to the public and punish that person financially if they are found to have misrepresented the truth. As for the swiftboat guys, I say “bring ‘em on!”

By Jackie

January 23, 2008 2:27 PM | Link to this

News report just released indicates that Israel is blaming Egypt for not securing the border between the Gaza Strip and Egypt. The Israeli government asserting the problem with the humanitarian crisis is the fault of Egypt because they fail to maintain the border crossing by keeping people from escaping from that prison they have built for the Palestinians closed off from food and water. Is there are disconnect with this logic?

By getalife

January 23, 2008 2:33 PM | Link to this

In the spirit of Obama’s unity message, I offer this compromise for change:

Clintons President.

Obama VP.

Edwards AG.

Clark Defense.

Gore EPA.

Kucinich NASA.

By Dusty

January 23, 2008 2:34 PM | Link to this

Stolen ID at 2:02. No mo Po Fo!!

By Redneck Convert

January 23, 2008 2:36 PM | Link to this

Well, I been watching this blog all day and all I can figure out is a godly man like this Bork was kept from the Supreme Court on account of not liking abortion and not beleiving anybody had a right to privacy while a evil no-good like Kerry got what was coming to him. Leastwise, that’s how I read the comments on this blog.

The libruls can’t figure out the diffrence between a lie and a misrepersentation. It’s pretty easy. It’s a lie if its told by a librul Democrat but only a misrepersentation if its told by a godly Republican. We ain’t liars. We’re just misrepersenters.

Anyhow, Wooten needs to do a lot better than this. He writes some boring stuff today. If I want to be bored I can just go to the trailer.

By Camus

January 23, 2008 2:38 PM | Link to this

Yeah, Shar, you know that I’m a 10, not a 1:58. Rowrr. Kitty, kitty. Here, kitty.

By Glenn

January 23, 2008 2:45 PM | Link to this

Yes, Camus. Every member of the House and Senate, except for my old boss Barbara Lee, authorized the President to enforce the treaty, with invasion if he deemed it necessary. Invasion was what “everyone” knew was on the table.

Gore did repeat the story of his “invention” of the Internet. It happened, in front of multiple witnesses, on multiple occasions. You ought to know better.

The truth, by the way, is that Mr. Gore was the last and most crucial congressional patron of that technology’s completion. Those with whom I’ve worked who were beneficiaries of his patronage have been most grateful to him and also most derisive of his bizarre cockreling of the sunrise.

I see that you too have seized on the 935-point oppo research piece. What diligence have you performed on that, Camus? Do you like to hear what you like to hear?

By Peter

January 23, 2008 3:00 PM | Link to this

Dusty PLEASE…..give me a few examples of what you mean………

“The whole of your whole is full of holes. So many, in fact, it should be written on a longer roll than is available here.”

Statement like yours hold zero merit if you are not able to expound.

Please let me know where I have not understood, and I will be happy to be more informed……

Please take each statement one at a time, and tell me your take.

AS mentioned…… I am an “Independent” I have no real tie to either party……. my true wish is for this country to do well !

By Peter, Peter, Peter

January 23, 2008 3:15 PM | Link to this

Tsk, tsk. Dusty is capable only of what you see. There is no there, there. She is a chirping parakeet politically, cheerfully singing the party line and parroting the Rush Rove lies about all who aren’t in the party. You can continue to yell at a rock, or you can walk around it. I’d recommend the latter.

By Andy Rooney

January 23, 2008 3:26 PM | Link to this

Didja ever notice how the Glenn character appeared about the time the tftt character began to wind down? Sure they made love publicly over musical tastes they “shared.” Don’t really blame the Creator for finally killing off the crusty corpsilicious faux Brit. It was probably as tiring to write that crap as trying to wade through it.

By Peter

January 23, 2008 3:28 PM | Link to this

Well whom ever Peter. Peter, Peter is……

I think we should give Dusty a chance here…..

This is America where we have free speech and debate.

By I'm your friend, Pete

January 23, 2008 3:32 PM | Link to this

Dusty’s had a looooong time to write anything of substance on this blog, to make a coherent argument. If you want to practice Einstein’s theory of insanity and wait for that to change, knock yourself out Mr. Founding Father. We have the right to free speech and debate. Some of us (Dusty) are incapable. Good luck with that.

By jbmlaw

January 23, 2008 3:48 PM | Link to this

“A study by two nonprofit journalism organizations found that President Bush and top administration officials issued hundreds of false statements about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attacks,” the Associated Press reports:

The study concluded that the statements “were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses.” The study was posted Tuesday on the Web site of the Center for Public Integrity, which worked with the Fund for Independence in Journalism. White House spokesman Scott Stanzel said he could not comment on the study because he had not seen it. Nowhere in the entire dispatch does the AP tell us anything more about the two groups than that they are “nonprofit journalism organizations.” In fact, the Center for Public Integrity is a liberal-left group that has taken money from George Soros, who has compared contemporary America to Nazi Germany. The Fund for Independence in Journalism seems to be but a spinoff; its Web site says its “primary purpose is providing legal defense and endowment support” for the center.

Certainly if the AP is going to report on this “study,” it ought to disclose the political leanings of the groups that sponsored it. Though come to think of it, given those political leanings, it’s hard to see why this is even newsworthy.

By Louie D. Palmer

January 23, 2008 3:55 PM | Link to this

Boy that George Soros is the boogeyman isn’t he? Does he steal and eat the children of conservatives?

By Peter

January 23, 2008 4:04 PM | Link to this

jbmlaw……

Why is it news worthy?

Well maybe some of the FALSE statements made by this administration had “Something” to do with public, congressional, and our Allies opinion’s of what was going on.

Perhaps at the time ALL wanted to believe this President, and didn’t realize the lies that were spewed, and the tall tales, that were later called…..

“Faulty Intelligence”

Now we know the faulty intelligence were just made up stuff to get everyone on the WAR band wagon.

Spin it any way you want, this is much worse than Clinton getting a blow job!

By getalife

January 23, 2008 4:04 PM | Link to this

Jim will be happy about this:

We waste billions in Iraq but no health care for children:

“We will come back to this floor in the next week or two with a $150 billion economic stimulus package to get us out of a recession,” said Representative Phil Gingrey, Republican of Georgia. “We need the money for that. We don’t want to be squandering money to provide health insurance for those who can afford to do it for themselves.”

The veto vote failed due to pos gop like that. They fail to address the real waste of billions in Iraq and that is pathetic.

Vote out that pos.

By Redneck Convert

January 23, 2008 4:12 PM | Link to this

Well, I’m glad to see ol jbmlaw is keeping them libruls honest by pointing out how crooked they are, lying about the poor Presidunt. But I sure wish he’d lay off by buddy George. He pays me good to bring a few cases tereckly to his lake house here in Forsyth County when he’s meeting Hanoi Jane and her ex up there for librul meetings. Librul money spends almost as good as Godly conservative greenbacks. Well, I got the stores stocked up for the after prayer meeting rush. Now I’m going to go meet up with Jim Earl to reinact Brokeback Mountain in honor of that dead actor feller.

By GaVoter

January 23, 2008 4:14 PM | Link to this

Louie D. Palmer,

What did Mr. Soros do this time? Is he still making runs on the banks?

By Crusty

January 23, 2008 4:17 PM | Link to this

Glenn/TFTT, if you have some quotes from Al Gore claiming he invented the internet, then now is the time to put up or shut up. If he did, then I’d be curious to read the quotes. But the following site seems to debunk your story.

http://sethf.com/gore/

By Redneck Convert

January 23, 2008 4:19 PM | Link to this

That guy at 4:12 wasn’t me. It must of been some librul trying to make me look bad. Wooten needs to kick him off of the blog.

By Jim Earl

January 23, 2008 4:19 PM | Link to this

I can’t quit you.

By Dusty

January 23, 2008 4:24 PM | Link to this

getalife,4:04

getalife lies again. Poor children of America are already getting free healthcare. Those “poor children” twenty five years old with an eighty thousand dollar family income are the ones not getting free healthcare.

Quit making up stuff.

By Peter

January 23, 2008 4:29 PM | Link to this

Well maybe ALL are Right….ha ha ha…..shall I say CORRECT !

Dusty can talk all she wants about toilet paper, but making a rational argument is not part of her make up.

Oh well I really thought she might have something useful to say, while debunking my thoughts.

My bad….

Sorry Dusty I gave you way too much credit !

By Crustacean

January 23, 2008 4:30 PM | Link to this

Crusty, my younger incarnation, they did both have a fond liking for “Cali.” tftt always knew the crime stats out there, hmmm… and Glenn is a law-type who likes Scramento,…hmmmm, and then there’s Camus….

By GaVoter

January 23, 2008 4:33 PM | Link to this

Who’s dragging up the Gore era again? I remember hearing Gore make a claim about the internet. I can’t recall his exact words after all these years but he basically said that the internet as we know it would not exist were it not for him. Of course, I had been on the “internet” with my latest and greatest modem for many years at that point — 9600, 4800, 2400, 1200, 300 baud. Those were the days. They ranked right up there with preparing a stack of punch cards for the Tech computer and watching grass grow while waiting for your precious few minutes of run time.

By Newsweek

January 23, 2008 4:40 PM | Link to this

Sorry, guys - I could contain myself no longer.

By getalife

January 23, 2008 4:42 PM | Link to this

Quit trying to form a thought, gop hack. crusty the clown.

By Dusty

January 23, 2008 4:43 PM | Link to this

Peter,4:29

Where is your rational return? I haven’t seen it. I hope you are not in the law & order department. Maybe you chase flying saucers?

By See, Pete

January 23, 2008 4:47 PM | Link to this

Just whipped air. “Clever,” and “funny.” She thinks.

By Dusty

January 23, 2008 4:48 PM | Link to this

Quit goofin’ off, getalife. Why do you lie so much, lil’lib?

By Peter

January 23, 2008 5:00 PM | Link to this

I have to agree Dusty…….. all whipped air and zero substance.

Nothing said nothing gained……

By Jackie

January 23, 2008 5:22 PM | Link to this

The cuts of 70,000 children from PeachCare says that poor children are not getting free health care.

By Dusty

January 23, 2008 5:24 PM | Link to this

Peter,5:00

For your information, I am neither “See,Pete” nor “Crusty”. That is a lib who is too paranoid to use his usual ID.

Anyway, you did not back up your liberal dream list. All accusations and no proof.

By Jackie

January 23, 2008 5:28 PM | Link to this

Please note the Repubs ALWAYS attack the messenger and refuse to address the message. Major obfuscation. “Talking loud and saying nothing!”

By Camus

January 23, 2008 5:30 PM | Link to this

GaVoter

Respectfully, it is unlikely that you remember hearing Gore make that claim. You very likely remember the adolescents of the press corps chuckling every time one of their member repeated this fictional joke.

Gore claimed, correctly that he had been part of the effort to spur the development of the Internet. When he made this claim, in an interview on CNN on March 11, 1999, nobody objected or thought it out of line.

Ten days later, however, the floodgates opened. The following from Bob Somerby:

In the March 21 Washington Post, for example, Jason Schwartz quoted several Internet pioneers, including Vinton Cerf, the man often called “the father of the Internet.” Cerf praised Gore’s role in the Net’s development. “I think it is very fair to say that the Internet would not be where it is in the United States without the strong support given to it and related research areas by the vice president,” he said. Meanwhile, Katie Hafner, author of a book on the Internet’s origins, penned a short piece in the New York Times, quoting experts who said that Gore “helped lift the Internet from relative obscurity and turn it into a widely accessible, commercial network.”

Drat. Still no controversy. Certainly, someone would call Gore on his fantasy.

It took a full six months, though, before the well-known conservative attack master Newt Gingrich took Gore to task with this:

In all fairness, it’s something Gore had worked on a long time. Gore is not the Father of the Internet, but in all fairness, Gore is the person who, in the Congress, most systematically worked to make sure that we got to an Internet, and the truth is—and I worked with him starting in 1978 when I got [to Congress], we were both part of a “futures group”—the fact is, in the Clinton administration, the world we had talked about in the ’80s began to actually happen.

Dang it, wait, I meant to print something that showed how “everyone” knew right away that Gore had committed this outrageous Bunyanesque deception. But in fact, there was no decpetion, no lie concerning Gore’s role in boosting the development of the Internet. At least not of Gore’s part.

The deception, which GaVoter’s impeccable “memory” demonstrates, was a rowsing success, as the jokers of the press corps distorted an accurate statement and ran it into the collective memory so that “everyone” now remembers it as a egotistical lie. Clearly. First hand.

Thanks to the Daily Howler archives for the supporting quotes.

By Jackie

January 23, 2008 5:33 PM | Link to this

Another dagger in the election chances of the Repubs in November .
“Vice President Cheney called on Congress today to permanently extend the Protect America Act as the White House launched a drive to secure the tools it says are needed to fight a continuing terrorist threat beyond the law’s Feb. 1 expiration.

In a speech to a sympathetic audience at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative Washington-based think tank, Cheney also said the law must include immunity from lawsuits for telecommunications companies that assisted the U.S. government’s electronic surveillance efforts after Sept. 11, 2001.

“There is no sound reason to pass critical legislation like the Protect America Act and slap an expiration date on it,” Cheney said. “The challenge to the country has not expired over the last six months. It won’t expire any time soon, and we should not write laws that pretend otherwise.”

By Camus

January 23, 2008 5:48 PM | Link to this

Well, Mr Wooten ignored my entreaties to write on what a great idea it is to invest SocSec funds in the financial markets. Too bad, that might have been fun.

But I know how to let go, so let’s look at another timely topic. Given the Common Sense dedication here to the wisdom of the free market — letting winners reign and losers take the hindmost — how about a column regarding the proposal for a massive bailout of the mortgage bond insurers who are on the hook for approximately $130 billion in bad business choices? Surely our solons of conservative and libertarian wisdom will rise up in full-throated outrage at this taxpayer-financed safety net for irresponsible bad actors.

{{crickets}}

Nah, that’s what I thought.

By Dusty

January 23, 2008 5:53 PM | Link to this

Jackie @ 5:33

I don’t think you even believe there are terrorists. Cheney does and is trying to protect this country. He knows a whole lot more about terrorist activity than you. I will take his word for it because the terrorists have already shown their regard for us. (Shhhhh..it’s about things like 9/11, buddy.)

Don’t bother to say Cheney is making us “afraid” of nothing. That is propaganda put out by liberals while they bravely cut-n-run from a fight.

By TAFKAH

January 23, 2008 6:07 PM | Link to this

If Dick Cheney pi$$ed on Dusty’s cornflakes, Dusty would tell us all how wonderful the yellow milk tastes.

You are a Good German, Dusty.

By GaVoter

January 24, 2008 8:06 AM | Link to this

Re: Camus @ 5:30PM, January 23, 2008

Dear Camus,

During an interview with Wolf Blitzer in March of 1999, Gore said, ‘During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the internet.’

On comparing this quote with my prior comments, I must respectfully disagree with your assessment that I was somehow deceived by the press.

By chuck

January 24, 2008 8:32 AM | Link to this

Camus, I have to agree with GaVoter. I heard his comment with my own ears on a number of occasions. He did not qualify these statements in any way. He flat-out stated that he invented the internet.

By chuck

January 24, 2008 8:45 AM | Link to this

As for the topic this morning, Kerry can go “Bork” himself. He is the worst of the worst… A liar who would say or do anything to be elected. Unfortunately, he is not alone in this malady. There are many on BOTH sides of the aisle who are the same way. He also isn’t the first to exagerate his resume and probably won’t be the last.

Prior to Gore’s invention of the internet, one could get away with such shenanigans. That is no longer possible. We have instant access to information now. When a politician makes a ridiculous statement, fact checkers have the truth before the echo dies away. Kerry was hoist on his own pitard and has noone to blame but himself.

By Glenn

January 24, 2008 9:04 AM | Link to this

GaVoter & Camusant,

I agree that Mr. Gore’s statement on national television that while in Congress he initiated the creation of the Internet—-that this statement may be fairly shortened to saying that Mr. Gore claimed to have invented the Internet.

It goes without saying that the Internet was not invented, per se, but rather was developed over time. In this sense, Mr. Gore’s term “creating” is no more on the mark than is the term “inventing”, to characterize what happened, but I personally find the point de minimus. The larger point is that the “smear” or the “Swift-boating” to the effect that Al Gore made a claim of priority—-as the scientists say—-or a claim of invention with regard to the Internet, is not the making of a GOP operative, but rather is the making of Mr. Gore himself. He brought the endless characterizations and mockeries of his “inventitiveness” upon himself when he made such a truly bizarre claim tantamount to theft of intellectual property.

The truth: the conceptual design of the Internet (ARPANET) began 15 years prior to the beginning of Mr. Gore’s rather brilliant congressional service, while its development was “initiated” in earnest 12 years before Gore’s first swearing-in. Gore was a student at the time, at a university not involved in the “creation” of ARPANET. His vital contributions to the public availability of the networking technology already in use, came in the five years 1986-91, culminating in his authorship of the visionary HPCC, the High-Performance Computing and Communications Act, of which I myself was a grateful beneficiary, and at a time when I and my university-employer really needed the boost.

In 1916 the Wright Brothers joined in partnership with the aviation visionary Glenn Martin, who brought fresh ideas and vitally needed capital. There is no record of Mr. Martin’s having said subsequently that it was he who “took the initiative in creating” the first powered, manned, heavier-than-air, fixed wing aircraft capable of sustained flight. Indeed, had he made such a claim he’d have been a laughing stock. What’s more, the bankers probably would have cut him off without a cent.

By Glenn

January 24, 2008 9:28 AM | Link to this

I agree completely with chuck @ 8:45.

By Glenn

January 24, 2008 9:39 AM | Link to this

Oh, and Camus?

I’d be happy to do the same, if you’d like, with respect to Mr. Gore’s inexplicable confabulations regarding the book and film “Love Story”. Basically, you’ve been punked by Gore apologists, who made up the stories about Gore’s famous remarks being urban legends. It’s very clearly choreographed counterfoil stuff, and rather disturbing at that, as it represents a concerted effort to rewrite the record. The Gore apologists are Orwellian as hell.

By Camus

January 24, 2008 9:43 AM | Link to this

Aside from calling Kerry “the worst of the worst” (would you care for a little salt on your hyperbole, sir?), chuck @ 8:45 is spot on — the people who wish to attain great power are generally willing to do or say anything to gain AND KEEP that power. This is why, fundamentally, governments are not to be trusted.

Would that chuck/glenn/gavoter could apply the same stringent parsing that they brought to Gore’s unremarkable statement about the internet (one that was verified by Newt Gingrich for christ’s f^cking sake) to the double-dealings the Bush admin has shoveled out from day one.

(Or do you guys still believe that the outgoing Clintonistas really removed all the ‘W’s from the white house computer keyboards. Lies from day one.)

By Camus

January 24, 2008 9:55 AM | Link to this

Your paranoia about Gore is a bit over the top, Glenn. Yet you trust Rudy The Man Who Stopped Time.

It is as I said…none of these power-questing people are to be trusted by what they say. They are to be judged by their actions.

You seem to be one of the more sober commenters here, but you are a bit over the top on this one. The Gore stuff WAS taken out of context and embellished by a press corps that had it in for Gore. This is an utterly non-controversial statement as many of the worst offenders admitted it as such in subsequent years. (“We just didn’t like him”, one famously said. Others pointed to their desire to make Gore pay for Clinton’s transgressions.) This includes not just the Internet and Love Story angles, but Gore’s summers spent on the farm, his work in Vietnam as an armed forces correspondent, and the astonishingly adolescent nonsense about Naomi Wolf and the earth tone suits.

But cling to the fantasy if it makes you feel better. Probably easier than admitting you were punked.

By GaVoter

January 24, 2008 10:06 AM | Link to this

I think it is fair to say that we all do, or should, take all comments from politicians with “a grain of salt”. After all, they are trying to get “elected” to a “job” and the voters are the “interviewers” for that position. That said, I viewed Gore’s statement for what it was — a hyped up resume — and that I can deal with. The defining moment for me was hearing a president use the phrase “…it depends on what the definition of is is…”. Now, before anyone takes off on a tangent regarding dragging a president through the mud over such an indiscretion, I don’t agree with the behaviors of any involved in that fiasco. My point here is that as a result of that sentence by President Clinton, I now view politics and those involved in the process in a different light.

By Camus

January 24, 2008 10:25 AM | Link to this

Voter

What does Clinton’s parsing of the word ‘is’ have to do with whether the Gore myths have any validity?

And does your disgust with the parsing of ‘is’ extend to legal fine points regarding whether torture is legal?

By Glenn

January 24, 2008 4:25 PM | Link to this

The question is not whether the “Gore myths have any validity”, because the accounts are not myths; they actually did arise from Gore’s inexplicable behavior. The question, then, is whether Gore has any validity.

By Camus

January 24, 2008 5:36 PM | Link to this

Again, the “accounts” that you rely upon are embellished myths. Gore’s validity will continue to be debated. Your own is being debunked in real time, by your own hand.