When Sam Alito’s wife cried, we were subjected to all sorts of solemn hand-wringing and pious sermons about the need for civility and dignity in our political system. And we're hearing some of these same lectures over Hillary Clinton's terribly crass and uncivil description of the Bush Administration as a dissent-squashing plantation. These GOP sermons are delivered by Republicans who are very, very concerned that such incivility will deter good people from entering public life.
Our media stars, always eager to show their serious and nonpartisan side, join in with these condemnations of the mean and uncivil Democrats. When doing so, they apparently fail to remember, and thus never mention, that the same Republicans delivering these dignity lectures spent the 1990s engaging in elevated and dignified discussions of semen stains on dresses, speculation about whether the President has unusual spots on his penis, tales of the lesbian First Lady’s murder of a male political aide with whom she was having an affair and subsequent efforts to make it look like a suicide, and all sorts of other similar sewer-scraping filth that they spewed for an entire decade in lieu of any substantive or political debate.
In one sense, those days seem to be far in the past. But they really aren’t, and the trash merchants who so fundamentally sullied our political life are still lurking like dormant viruses, eager to reclaim their glory days. The long-awaited and vitally important report of the Independent Counsel who spent 10 years and more than $20 million investigating Henry Cisneros’ payments to his mistress was leaked yesterday, a stark reminder of the bottom-scraping obsessions which dominated the national media and infected our political process throughout the 1990s.
National Review has created a museum dedicated to the Republican political gutter of the 1990s in the form of a new blog hosted by two of the trashy lowlifes who worked during the entire Clinton Presidency to turn our national political dialogue into one big Jerry Springer Show. The authors of the blog are George Conway III and his lovely wife, Kellyanne.
In the short time that this blog has existed, we have been regaled with stern condemnations of Jon Corzine’s payments to his girlfriend "a year following his divorce from wife of 33 years, Joanne"; celebrations of "the eighth anniversary of the deposition testimony [in the Paula Jones case] that earned Mr. Clinton his suspension" from the Bar; and a post devoted exclusively to touting a truly despicable article by Accuracy in Media's Cliff Kinkaid regarding Bill Clinton’s public campaign to encourage healthier diets among Americans, which said this:
If Clinton can persuade kids to eat right, that's great. But let's face it: his sexual appetite has been as serious a problem as what he eats. And it's in the sexual arena that he could really perform a public service. He should step forward and campaign against sexual diseases. That wouldn't be a laughing matter.
In fact, Clinton might be valuable in warning young people not to engage in oral sex. Clinton, who exploited Monica Lewinski for sexual gratification, could cite a Swedish study finding that some mouth cancers are caused by a virus contracted during oral sex. The study, conducted at the University of Malmo, found that individuals orally infected with human papilloma virus, HPV, are at a higher risk of developing oral cancer.
Kerstin Rosenquist, who headed the study, said that mouth cancer has been on the rise among young people and that the prevalence of HPV could be one of the factors.
It is a distinct possibility, of course, that more young people are engaging in oral sex and getting mouth cancer because of the example set by former junk food junkie Bill Clinton. But don't expect Mika Brzezinski to do a report on that. That might remind people of how much of a rogue he was.
This is the filth out of which the Conway couple emerged, and in which, along with so many self-righteous Bush-loving moralists, they continue to wallow.
Since the early-1990s, George Conway has been a partner at the prominent Manhattan law firm Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, where he worked with rejected Bush judicial nominee Miguel Estrada (I was an Associate at that firm for a couple of years after law school in the mid-1990s but had minimal personal interaction with Conway and, to my recollection, none with Estrada). Conway came to be celebrated in Republican circles when it was uncovered that, while at Wachtell Lipton, he had been secretly working to bring about the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit (which ended up being summarily dismissed by a federal court as so lacking in evidence that no reasonable jury could ever find in favor of Jones), and had deceitfully concealed his work from his own partners. He also secretly worked with Linda Tripp and helped engineer her initial meeting with Ken Starr.
This great and courageous crusader for his political principles hid his work on the Paula Jones case, covering it up because he was petrified that his corporate clients and law firm partners would discover the company he was keeping. Out a fear of offending them, and knowing that his partners would not approve of the work he was doing, he worked secretly in the dark alleys late at night to bring about the trashy, lowly scandals which became a Republican obsession. As the New York Times article which exposed him reported:
As it turns out, some of the most serious damage to Bill Clinton's Presidency came not from his high-profile political enemies but from a small secret clique of lawyers in their 30's who share a deep antipathy toward the President, according to nearly two dozen interviews and recently filed court documents.
While cloaking their roles, the lawyers were deeply involved--to an extent not previously known--for nearly five years in the Paula Jones sexual misconduct lawsuit. They then helped push the case into the criminal arena and into the office of the independent counsel, Kenneth W. Starr. . . .
George T. Conway 3d, a New York lawyer educated at Yale, shared Marcus's low view of President Clinton. When the Jones case led to Ms. Lewinsky, Marcus and Conway searched for a new lawyer for Mrs. Tripp. . . .
Conway wanted his role kept hidden as well, because his New York law firm, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, included influential Democrats like Bernard W. Nussbaum, a former White House counsel. Conway's name does not appear on any billing records.
And as Salon reported:
[Firm spokeswoman Liesl] Noll confirmed that Conway, a 34-year-old conservative activist, had recently informed the firm's stunned partners that he had worked for free and without their knowledge on the Jones case, writing the crucial Supreme Court brief that successfully argued Jones' suit should proceed despite the fact that Clinton was still in office.
And, as set forth below, he was also the individual responsible for the dissemination to Matt Drudge of the story about the spots on Bill Clinton's penis. So that’s George Conway. Isn't it about time to hear some more lectures from him about the need for dignity in our political discourse and about the shame of lawyers who act unethically?
Conway's wife and now co-blogger, Kellyanne, is a perfect match for him. Having spent the latter half of the 1990s (before she married George) peddling herself around as one of the soldiers in the army of young, blondish, mascara-drenched Republican loyalists who made a career for themselves digging into Bill Clinton’s sex life, she now runs around creating groups like "Women for Alito" and mindlessly reciting GOP talking points on Fox.
Bob Somerby at Daily Howler has described Kellyanne as "one of our most disingenuous pundits," and has documented multiple untruths she has spewed. Perhaps most revealingly, Kellyanne - who spent the 1990s along with her husband propagating the filthiest and most scurrilous gossip about the President – actually went on Fox and condemned protest songs against the war in Iraq by saying this:
"...it is never proper to be so critical of an administration or a President that you look like some anti-American zealot."
It looks like the Conways’ love of the political sewer is matched only by their love of irony.
According to a highly revealing (and highly revolting) expose in Salon, George’s involvement with the Paula Jones circle came as a result of his romantic interlude with Laura Ingraham (before he ended up marrying Ingraham-clone Kellyanne). It was Ingraham, according to the article, who "connected Conway with Matt Drudge during the summer of 1997." This all happened because Conway, who even back then earned well in excess of $1 million each year at Wachtell, Lipton, was:
Short, dark, slightly overweight, and painfully shy, he was also, at the age of thirty-three, unmarried and without a regular girlfriend at the time. He aspired to date tall blondes, preferably of the conservative persuasion.
And during this time, it wasn’t only his own private parts that Conway was obsessing over:
On October 8, 1997, Conway sent a long E-mail message via America Online to Matt Drudge. "Subject: Your Next Exclusive" is the caption on that message. "Remember me?" it begins. "I'm Laura's friend. We talked once about Kathleen Willey ... This is being given to you, of course, subject to your not disclosing the source." (Conway forwarded the same message to Ingraham the following day.)
The main topic of the October 8 message was not Willey but the "distinguishing characteristic," a matter nearly as sensitive as the Willey allegations. Like Coulter, Conway must have realized that with the leak of its details to Drudge, any further settlement negotiations could again be disrupted.
Davis certainly thought so. "Conway's leaking of this stuff certainly jeopardized a settlement," said Davis after examining the Drudge E-mail in 1999. "I had no concept, no idea that they did or would do such a thing [as to leak Willey's name]."
Somehow, in a way I can’t quite put my finger on, this photograph of the Conways tells one everything there is to know about them.
Examining filth-peddling relics of the 1990s like the Conways is not merely an exercise in masochistic nostalgia. As their new National Review blog demonstrates, lowly character smears are a quite current and integral weapon in the Republican arsenal. These gutter tactics and their vile purveyors haven’t gone anywhere. And it is beyond doubt that all of the Clinton smears which lowered our political discourse to the primordial level, along with many new ones, are being kept warming in the oven just in case Hillary gets anywhere near a Presidential election.
But the real reason to remember this despicable filth-peddling is because these same Republicans are being permitted by an amnesic and manipulated media to parade themselves around as the Paragons of Civility and Dignity. That Republicans can deliver dignity lectures to the media, which then dutifully reports them with a concerned face while repeatedly showing video of Sam Alito’s wife crying, is quite compelling evidence of just how wretchedly dishonest Republican moralizing is and, worse, how utterly dysfunctional our media has become.
I think the Conways are a great addition to the blogosphere and have no doubt that they will be generating all sorts of revealing commentary. Where else can you read one day about the mouth cancer that American kids are getting as a result of Bill Clinton’s oral sex addiction and the next day read sterling tributes to the need for dignity in the political process? And where else can you read smug commentary about Bill Clinton’s suspension from the Bar by a lawyer who secretly worked on a baseless sex scandal lawsuit while concealing his work from his own partners?
This nice couple is a lovely little microcosm of sanctimonious Republicans who manage to live in the sewer while sermonizing to the world about the virtues of cleanliness.
Oh. My. God. that's all I can say about that post.
ReplyDeleteYou obviously spent last night sharpening your knives and woke up needing to use them on someone. At least you picked a deserving target.
good expose, Glenn. The funniest part is from the Salon article you linked to:
ReplyDeleteWith his name and Yale Law School degree, Conway looked on paper like a scion of old wealth; he was in fact the middle-class son of an electrical engineer from suburban Boston. Short, dark, slightly overweight, and painfully shy, he was also, at the age of thirty-three, unmarried and without a regular girlfriend at the time. He aspired to date tall blondes, preferably of the conservative persuasion. Laura Ingraham, the woman he was pursuing in 1997, epitomized that desire. The willowy Ingraham had become a budding celebrity early in 1995 when the New York Times Magazine profiled young Washington conservatives, featuring her on the cover in a fetching leopard print miniskirt. For Conway and other right-wing males of his generation, she was an intellectual pinup.
He began to pursue her several years after both had clerked for Ralph Winter, a federal judge and leading patron of the Federalist Society. Conway's magnanimous courting behavior included inviting Ingraham on all-expense-paid ski trips and island holidays. On a Caribbean trip they once ran into Bob Bennett, an embarrassing moment for Ingraham. Before commencing her television career, she had been an associate at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom-the firm where the president's lawyer was a partner and her friend.
Evidently it was Ingraham who connected Conway with Matt Drudge during the summer of 1997, though she and the tobacco lawyer insist they played no part in the Internet gossip's Willey scoops.
That is just gross. Laura Ingraham as the grand prize to these right-wing losers. And the way he had to settle for the B-grade Kellyanne model. Just grotesque.
Having read your post, and looked at the fifthy picture - it's time to hit the shower!
ReplyDeleteGreat Work! But when you're posting photo's like this, don't you think you should add an "Unsafe for Work" advisory?
Hey tomaig, what about Newt Gingrich dumping his wife for some new bimbo while the wife was in the hospital with cancer - or Rush Limbaugh on his 11th "marriage" - or Henry Hyde's fat blubbering affiars, or all of them?
ReplyDeleteThe difference is that Democrats don't go around acting all self-righteous about sexual matters and Republicans do.
And I know this will come as a shock, but Bill Clinton isn't the first President who had extra-marital affairs. Many, if not most, of the Presidents did, including some of our greatest ones.
The only difference is that those Presidents didn't have slimy little perverts like Ken Starr and this Conway creep running around wanting to document with footnotes every place that they got their cock touched.
tomaig: The slime machine directed at the Clintons was absolutely breathtaking, and I write that as one who did not vote for him, and who objected to much that he did, including his trampling of civil liberties and, yanno, causing a bunch of people to die in places like Waco, TX.
ReplyDeleteFor all of the 80s and into the 90s I took the conservative political magazine The American Spectator, which was usually quite interesting and substantive about a wide variety of issues. Then two things changed: (a) Clinton was elected, and (b) The Spectator began advertising on The Rush Limbaugh show and acquiring that demographic in its readership.
The physical change in its layout at that time reflected a change in its focus, style and content. Rush was describing the adolescent Chelsea Clinton as an ugly dog, and the Spectator spewed out story after story about the Clintons' sex lives. The deal-breaker for me was when it "reported" how Bill had purportedly come home to the Governor's Mansion after a night of catting around and gone upstairs to bed. Supposedly, Hillary stood at the base of the stairs and screamed, "I need to get fucked too, you know."
That is Jerry Springer crap, and it made me feel soiled reading it. I let my subscription lapse, and that magazine then soon folded. It let Clinton-hating debase and destroy it.
Finally, if you think teens didn't know about oral sex until Bill Clinton, well, one can only wonder what kind of sheltered teenage experience you had. The idea that American youth suddenly began engaging in that all because of Bill is not only stupid, but even if true, would be a good thing. Oral sex doesn't generate teen parents.
Honestly. With their combined income you would think that George Conway could have afforded a chin implant by now. Their NRO shot would indicate that he has a mouth in his neck.
ReplyDeleteMaybe he could just use part of Kellyanne's lantern jaw.....
DeleteIf a junior partner in Wachtel, Lipton was being paid over $1 million back in 1997, they can certainly afford to chip in the $9 required to upgrade the firm's website by several orders of magnitude.
ReplyDeleteLiving in DC for almost 20 years, I have had the displeasure of actually knowing Kellyanne personally. I once went to a dinner party at her condo, before her first husband (an avid soccer player) left her. Her dishonesty is deeply ingrained, phony from top to bottom. She is one strange fembot from Jersey, an aspiring Carmella Soprano, but without the naivete. And have you ever seen her and Ann Coulter at the same time? Hmmm...
ReplyDeleteLet's not forget what he learned from Laura Ingraham before they broke up. She's a former writer for the infamous spittlewad Dartmouth Review, which "investigated" the Gay Student Alliance at that school by surreptitiously taping meetings, then outing speakers to their parents, all of it written up in the pages of the newspaper. (Source: Blinded by the Right)
ReplyDeleteThere's really no depth to which this slime won't drip.
This is very interesting, thanks for the links. We tend to forget that the problem started with Clinton. Without his inappropriate sexual activity the 'elves' would have been out of luck.
ReplyDeleteRepublican sermons? Apparently Tomaig missed Justice Sunday 1. And 2. And 3. Those are pretty good examples of Republican sermons.
ReplyDeleteJeez, it sure is a shame that all those kids are having oral sex. Maybe all these successful abstinence programs are also part of the problem? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6894568
No, Tomaig's right. Kids follow their president, which is why so many kids are waterboarding and wiretapping these days.
No doubt Tomaig is also outraged by the illegal and degrading acts of our current president and demands the media and the Congress investigate these acts just as thoroughly. Anything less would mean he's just a witless partisan.
Remember when the Wall Street Journal offered, as an incentive to subscribe, a wall-sized poster detailing every sordid "crime" and conspiracy "Billary" were involved in, including their nefarious plot to off two teenaged dopers from Arkansas by having a train run over them?
ReplyDeleteNow that's reasoned discourse!
No doubt (Brownshirt T) is also outraged by the illegal and degrading acts of our current president and demands the media and the Congress investigate these acts just as thoroughly.
ReplyDeleteBWAAAAAAAAAAAAAA-HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Oooooooooooh, mercy!
And here pops up the ever-inane tomaig, like a piece of shit that simply won't flush.
ReplyDeleteWe tend to forget that the problem started with Clinton.
ReplyDeleteGood one, ChiLois! Excellent use of sarcasm to put tomaig in his place, since he seems to think that there were no political scandals about personal behavior before the 1990s.
As hypatia astutely notes, it's okay to disapprove of President Clinton by deploring his policies. Criticizing Mr. Clinton's sexual proclivities is not the same thing as a substantive disagreement with his governance. I really did not and do not care about the Clenis, the thought of which absolutely consumed so many on the right in the 1990s. And tomaig, it's obvious that you don't understand this post's usage of the word "sermon," since you just gave one. Oooh, the oral sex! Let's clutch our pearls and call for the smelling salts!
"Since they think it is their job to run the plantation, it shocks them that I’m actually willing to lead the slave rebellion.” -- Rep. Newt Gingrich, 1994
When, oh when, will Democrats stop lowering the level of discourse? Good grief, Thomas Jefferson's supporters ran articles insinuating that President Washington was senile. Yet the same people who think Purple Heart Band-Aids are hilarious suddenly need their fainting couches again.
(I do actually wish that the focus could be on serious debate, but I reject the "reasoning" that allows one side to lecture the other, "Shut up while we repeatedly accuse you of treason.")
--mds
TOMAIG -
ReplyDeleteYour link to the SFGATE article does not support your claim that Clinton was responsible for the rise in oral sex and does not in fact demonstrate that there was indeed an increase.
"Taken together, the two findings suggest a possible shift in sexual practices, in which females are using oral and gay sex "as a safer alternative than (vaginal) sex with men," said epidemiologist William D. Mosher of the National Center for Health Statistics, the study's lead author."
Tomaig - Do you read newspapers? The whole point of the Crying story is that Republicans were profoundly offended at the improper and mean questions asked of Alito by Democrats. But if you need some examples of civility sermons, here are but a few:
ReplyDeleteFrom the dainty and always-polite Michelle Malkin:
"SHAME, SHAME ON THE DEMS
I have many differences with Sen. Graham, but thank God for his show of decency and humanity today. Now, where are the apologies from Sens. Schumer, Kennedy, Biden, Feingold, and the rest of smear merchants?"
From Kathryn Jean Lopez of National Review, home of the smear merchant Conways:
RE: MRS. ALITO [1. Kathryn Jean Lopez]
And you wonder why good people think ten times before considering public service...Right now you can't help but think of Bill Pryor's family vacation plans being attacked, Charles Pickering being unfairly painted as a racist, and Miguel Estrada--whose name should be a verb--for not being Hispanic enough.
And from the erstwhile Lindsay Graham, one of the House Managers of the Clinton impeachment:
"Judge Alito, I am sorry that you've had to go through this," Graham said. "I am sorry that your family has had to sit here and listen to this."
The same people who spent the 1990s talking about semen on dresses and Bill Clinton's penis are so very very offended that someone who wants to sit in the swing seat on the Supreme Court for the next 30 years was asked about his membership in political clubs.
On Jan. 20, 2001 it became obligatory to treat the President with respect, and after that date partisan criticism was inappropriate. Didn't uoi get the memo?
ReplyDeleteWe had all learned our lesson from the terrible events of the previous eight years -- everyone but you, apparently.
tomaig: Oral sex doesn't produce parents...what it apparently DOES produce is increased rates of syphilis, herpes, pharyngeal gonorrhoea and (per the study which is airily dismissed when it is mentioned by a conservative), increased risk of mouth cancer.
ReplyDeleteDo a search for yourself and see. But hey - as long as you can rationalize to yourself how this is "a good thing" I guess there's no further thought necessary.
Have you rasied kids? I did, three boys. And teen boys have sex. They don't tend toward monogamy. Sex carries risks. The risks from oral sex are far less than many other kinds.
A campaign to scare people that teens are all getting cancer because Bill Clinton got them started having orla sex is stupid, and no serious person is going to respect those who promote it.
And I note you have nothing to say about the viciousnes of Limbaugh and The American Spectator where the Clintons were concerned. No, you want to yammer about oral sex: that is bizarre.
tomaig,
ReplyDeleteHere are some Republican sermons:
Lyndsay Graham on Bill Bennett's show practically shedding tears himself because the lukewarm grilling of Alito actually caused a poor, helpless woman to cry. And as a two-fer, he whined about how awful it was for Hilary Clinton to mention plantations on Dr. King's holiday. Yes it was a sermon followed by...
2. Bill Bennett himself using 3 full segments of his show to sermonize about the degradation of American politics by the Democrats shown at its worst by the relentless questioning of Alito, who was up for a life-time appointment to the Supreme Court. Oh the Humanity! He then went on to echo Graham's sermon about Clinton's plantation remark, which was actually pretty accurate.
3. Jeff "Aw Shucks" Sessions, also on the Bill Bennett Radio Toilet, in a lengthy sermon about the evils of Democrats actually bringing up the fact that Judge Alito consistently acted as an activist judge (and ending up on the minority side, thank God) in cases about executive power and always siding against personal freedoms. Sessions warned against the "horrible judgement" that was going to befall the Democrats because they made Mrs. Alito weep. "My husband is a bigot, Wah Wah Wah!" If that wasn't a sermon, I don't know what is.
teabag, or whatever your name is, I've got about 8 more republican sermons I can name, but I've got work to do today. Just let me know if you want the rest of the list.
TOMAIG -
ReplyDeleteYour link to the Medical News article also fails to support your claim that there has been an increase in oral sex since the late 90s.
"According to studies conducted by Johns Hopkins Medicine researchers, 65% of men and 80% of women between 2001 and 2002 reported having performed oral sex, compared with 20% of men and 40% of women between 1989 and 1991, Jonathon Zenilman, an infectious disease specialist at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, said (FitzGerald, Philadelphia Inquirer, 3/28)."
All: I don’t want to repeat myself from earlier threads here, but the disgust with what Teddy Kennedy was trying to do w/ Sam Alito’s CAP membership is totally justified, and driven by revulsion with the utterly vicious and cynical campaigns to destroy Robert Bork and then Clarence Thomas. Let it be recalled that the Democrats had us all discussing pubic hairs in Coke cans and that Major Motion Picture, Long Dong Silver. Justice Thomas’s purported sex interests were the hot topic for some time, up to and including how many Playboy magazines there had ever been in his apartment.
ReplyDeleteSo let’s not pretend it is only Republicans who will stoop to the most debased, sex-saturated campaigns of personal destruction
What about the disgust _at_ Alito's CAP membership? I dont't want a former member of an elitist, sexist, racist organization like that to be anywhere near a judge's bench.
ReplyDeleteGlenn, I'll bet the Tomaig post is NRO shooting back.
ReplyDeleteClinton's presidency was pretty good. In fact I think it was the best Presidency of the 2nd half of the 20th century and the Republicans know it, but will not admit it.
However, Clinton is a dodge at this late date. The real problem is Bush, and the army of ready apologists that seem ready to smear anyone who comes with information that Bush or his gang are corrupt, incompetant, Fascistic, or just plain illegal.
Thank you for the expose' of the Conways, however, the letters NRO tell most of us all we need to know. Conways, K'Lo, Doughy Pantload, J.Pod....it's all tweedle dum and tweedle dee, you see one, you see them all.
Reason magazine published a superbly insightful 1992 piece by Edith Efron, on the Clarence Thomas lynching. Efron sees through the silly posturing of the GOP in depicting Thomas as the right man for the job who had been chosen for absolutely no reason having to do with the fact that he is black. But her most penetrating -- and damning -- analysis applies to what the Democrats did to Thomas, with sex.
ReplyDeleteFor some reason I can't generate a link, but Efron's piece is at this url:
http://reason.com/9202/fe.ee.native.shtml
anon: Disgust at Alito's CAP membership? Please.
ReplyDeleteAt Alito’s confirmation hearings, Kennedy brought up the nominee’s alleged membership in Concerned Alumni of Princeton (CAP), and said the nominee’s "affiliation with an organization that fought the admission of women into Princeton calls into question his appreciation for the needs for full equality in this country.
Except, of course, Teddy belongs to just that kind of organization.
By all legitimate reports, CAP was neither sexist nor racist, but Alito also had almost nothing to do with the organization, as those Rusher papers Kennedy was shrieking to have subpoenaed demonstrate. Ted was assigned the job of borking Alito, and it didn’t work; Mrs. Alito cried, and Ted, yet again, is exposed as a thorough hypocrite.
So let’s not pretend it is only Republicans who will stoop to the most debased, sex-saturated campaigns of personal destruction
ReplyDeleteYeah, I've never seen a more vicious, sex-saturated grilling than when that out-of-control monster Teddy Kennedy went after someone seeking a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court for his membership in an activist racist, sexist organization. (It was not simply a group that excluded women; it campaigned against their presence.) Oh, but he probably never belonged to it; he merely lied about belonging to it. Well, I for one am relieved.
Now, Thomas should have been attacked on substantive grounds about his pseudo-federalist views, but since he was willing to mislead the committee about his views on Roe, it probably wouldn't have done any good. Anita Hill was a foolish distraction, though, just as Jefferson should have focused on the substantive arguments about England vs. France instead of making personal attacks upon Washington and Adams.
But that is why I previously brought up Jefferson's personal attacks on President Washington. This sort of bloodsport has always been with us. It's the hyprocisy that rankles the most, when the party that's trying to swift-boat Representative Murtha thinks that tough questions of a Supreme Court nominee are beyond the pale. So Lindsay Graham made Mrs. Alito cry; let's move on. Mr. Alito will be hostile to civil rights as a Supreme Court justice, and seems likely to embrace the unilateral executive; whatever. But something really needs to be done about Teddy Kennedy.
Oh, and tomaig, I made note of your mindless regurgitations about Senator Clinton's remarks that someone apparently has read to you off the RNC press release, by quoting Newt Gingrich. (I didn't bother with the Limbaugh, Cal Thomas, etc, endless invocations of the "democratic plantation." Learn how to use Google yourself.) Funny how you skipped right over that, and got back to oral sex, which was invented by Bill Clinton.
--mds
Great post. Keep up with the fantastic work... I've been impressed by everything I've read at your site so far.
ReplyDeleteLet's all keep our focus on the like of Alito's wife crying. And don't forget, Clinton did it first. Or he is to blame for everything, even when he is five years out of office.
ReplyDeleteThis is where political discouse is in the new century.
Let's throw more dirt and never come clean. Keep up the shouting so the whisper of truth has no chance. Or something. Oy.
Great post, thanks Glenn for doing the work.
ReplyDeleteClinton, Clinton, Clinton. Isn't he like so....yesterday? Nothing like dredging up the past to avoid talking about the present, is there? Buuut Cliiintooon diiiid iiiit! Whiners. Losers. Your beloved preznit and GOP leadership are rotten to the core, evident by the non-stop smear campaigns. I'm amazed how the issues always get buried in the name-calling. Tomaig, etc.: all your hopeless whining about the Clinton administration is not going to change.one.thing.
ReplyDeleteTomaig, your first post about Clinton is like someone saying that Ronald Reagan was gay, and demanding that you find a statement where Reagan either denies his homosexuality, or affirms his heterosexuality, and since you won't offer either, then concluding he was indeed gay.
ReplyDeleteYou are yet another of an endless example of Right Wingers too lazy to do their own work and need a Liberal to educate them. Pay close attention now:
1. Chris Matthews show 1-18-06, the Right Wing Lemming opposite DeeDee Meiers lectured us on Hillary's 'plantation' statment, then feigned ignorance about Newt's similar statement.
2. Lindsay Graham lecturing Senate Judiciary Democrats on the line of questioning that allegedly made Alito's wife go boo-hoo.
Any more info you need, roll up your sleeves, get busy, and stop asking Liberals to do your homework for you.
While you're doing your homework and while you're posting links, feel free to post a link to the scientific research that demonstrates beyond a doubt that Bill Clinton's actions have led to Oral Cancer.
Then you can engage in substantive discourse.
Wait, it's ok to mention B. Clinton's on-the-job sex life in relation to teenagers' behaviors (I don't try to prove assertions I don't make and/or support), and yet it's not ok to mention C. Thomas's alleged on-the-job behaviors (his mention of pubic hair, his mention of porno titles) to his female subordinates, while he was head of the EEOC, in relation to his own judicial views on policy that directly involve women?
ReplyDeletePlease guide me.
did you happen to catch blitzer, and the 2 jeffs [greefield & toobin] wallowing for most of the show about poor mrs. alito's tears, and how the dems had finally "gone too far"?
ReplyDeletebalance that with 5 days of NO's poor, in the rising water of katrina, with babies and old and sick reallyreallyreally suffering: the MSP [main street propaganda] outcry...what is wrong with those people!!
Tomaig,
ReplyDeleteIt "might" "help" to "give" "us" your "definition" of "sermon" so that "we" can "properly" "address" your "deflections."
I'm concerned that this nonsensical practice of using 1 definition while ignoring another is a frequent tactic of those with no substantive argument.
Also looks as though you ignored mention of each "Justice Sunday": 1, 2, and 3.
Aaron G. Stock writes: Wait, it's ok to mention B. Clinton's on-the-job sex life in relation to teenagers' behaviors (I don't try to prove assertions I don't make and/or support), and yet it's not ok to mention C. Thomas's alleged on-the-job behaviors
ReplyDeleteI don't know to whom you are addressing that, and I haven't seen anyone making that argument. My point is simply that before the Conways and others began a vicious campaign about hitting on subordinates, semen-stained dresses & etc. wrt Bill Clinton, liberals and Democrats were humiliating a nominee to the S. Ct. by inquiring into his purported discussions of pubic hairs, porn flicks, and soft porn magazines. There was actual discussion about whether someone who had been in Thomas's apartment had seen Playboy magazine.
Do you think Justice Thomas found that all just a bit humiliating, and degrading? As the Efron article describes, he finally threw off his GOP handlers -- who were of no use to him -- and gave an impassioned, yet coldly angry speech he drafted entirely himself to his senatorial accusers. His wife -- seated behind him -- silently wept with trembling chin. No one, not even the most jaded liberal partisans, doubted that Virginia Thomas was genuinely distraught, or that her husband was fiercely outraged and angry.
If you condemn the sex-obsessed attacks on Bill Clinton, you cannot, unless you are a total hypocrite, defend the degradation of Clarence Thomas.
Shorter totaig:
ReplyDeletePardon me while I get my F-150 to drag these here goalposts about.
I think the recent reaction to Hillary's "plantation" comments give us a tantalizing preview of 08, and shows not just that the VRWC is still easily mobilized, but that the SCLM is a willing and eager accomplice to the context-free repetition of feigned Republican outrage.
ReplyDeleteClarence Thomas (allegedly) willfully discussed pubic hair and porn titles with (allegedly) unwilling female subordinates on the job, all of this corroborated by sworn testimony that hasn't been disproven or retracted (that I know of). That this would later be brought further into a more public setting is something Thomas might have considered before he allegedly made those comments, particularly in a place concerned with equal employment opportunity!
ReplyDeleteBill Clinton's alleged behavior, from what I've read, was much less well-corroborated, by any legal standard.
Aaron G. Stock demonstrates that he is, indeed, a partisan hypocrite: That this would later be brought further into a more public setting is something Thomas might have considered before he allegedly made those comments, particularly in a place concerned with equal employment opportunity!
ReplyDeleteBill Clinton's alleged behavior, from what I've read, was much less well-corroborated, by any legal standard.
I see. We are to believe that Anita Hill got the vapors when Clarence Thomas allegedly told jokes about pubic hairs and porn flicks, and we must track down everyone who has ever been to the man's apartment to see whether he has Playboy hiding under the National Geographics. These are pressing -- nay, vital -- matters to pursue about a nominee to the S. Ct. -- cuz he worked at the EEOC! (And only Republicans are supposed to be sex prudes, not the usually left-of-center keepers of sexual harassment policy, no sirree. Telling a woman an "unwanted" joke about a pubic hair -- at the workplace, where no one ever engages in off-color humor! -- should forever preclude a man from any office, high or low, but we be no prudes.)
And, if Bill Clinton was ejaculating in the Oval Office on a subordinate's dress, to make this known, to make an issue of it, why, that is disgusting beyond uttering. The many women who said he raped or harassed them, they are all to be disbelieved and dismissed as nothing but pawns in a campaign of vicious attack, because each of those encounters were wholly consensual, no matter what the sluts may say. Further, Bill Clinton should not have been expected to know that he was poorly behaving in the nation's White House, but Clarence Thomas was evil for telling dirty jokes at the EEOC.
Hypocrite.
No one, not even the most jaded liberal partisans, doubted that Virginia Thomas was genuinely distraught, or that her husband was fiercely outraged and angry.
ReplyDeleteObviously, these are both preeminent qualifications for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. One's spouse must have a "trembling chin." Good God, this reads like a Johanna Lindsey novel. Not that I know anything about that...Well, there goes my Supreme Court appointment.
But okay. Poor Clarence Thomas got a bum rap, all while successfully being elevated to the Supreme Court. In that we apparently see the seeds of a multiyear, multimillion-dollar witch hunt ending in the impeachment of a President for private (not public) sexual behavior. I am so glad that the GOP has a sense of proportion.
Maybe the Democrats went after Mr. Thomas in this fashion in payback for Mr. Hoover's snooping into the sex lives of Mr. King and President Kennedy. Or possibly the innuendo about 49-year-old Grover Cleveland marrying a 21-year-old. Or perhaps both sides trace it to the slurs about Julius Caesar and the King of Bithynia.
None of this sprung from the empty void a mere decade or two ago. However, very little has reached the heights of partisan and media hysteria as the Clinton matter. You want him to be impeached for not firing Attorney General Reno? Fine. But don't start out determined to impeach the President for something, and then spend years looking for the excuse.
--mds
Hypatia:
ReplyDeleteAs morally reprehensible as I find it, Clinton's conduct with Lewinsky, was a sexual relationship between 2 consenting adults. Thomas' actions constituted illegal sexual harassment, and while he was head of the EEOC, no less! There is simply no equivalence between the 2. Clinton's conduct bore no relationship to his ability to carry out his constitutional duties; Thomas' directly related to his.
mds writes: Obviously, these are both preeminent qualifications for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. One's spouse must have a "trembling chin." Good God, this reads like a Johanna Lindsey novel. Not that I know anything about that...Well, there goes my Supreme Court appointment.
ReplyDeleteI never addressed whether Mr. Thomas was qualified -- tho given his dissent in Raich and some of his other opinions, I have come to admire him -- rather, the point is that Democrats tried to destroy him with the most vulgar and humiliating discussions about his alleged sexual proclivities and interests. They did this to keep him from an office they ardently did not wish him to fill.
The Republicans went after Clinton's sexual Achilles Heel to destroy him, and see him removed from an office they ardently did not wish him to fill. That began very shortly after the Thomas filth.
Neither Republicans nor Democrats hold a monopoly on the vile politics of personal destruction.
I agree with Hypatia that nobody can defend Clarence Thomas' treatment while objecting to the treatment Bill Clinton received. It's just not possible.
ReplyDeleteBut there is an obvious question of magnitude and impact. Clarence Thomas' examination lasted a couple of weeks, and he was then confirmed to the Supreme Court. As vile as the effort was to stop his confirmation - and vile it was - it is but a footnote in our history.
From the moment Bill Clinton got into office, a cabal led by a raving billionaire heir and a bunch of wild-eyed, ravenous extremists set about to destroy Bill Clinton and anyone near him at all costs. For 8 years, they didn't stop to breathe and they recognized no limits, in the process turning this country and its political conflicts into a cesspool of unprincipled, filthy and decadent trash which culminated in the impeachment - impeachment - of a twice-elected, extremely popular, by all measures highly successful, and ultimately vindicated President.
Neither the treatment of Thomas nor the treatment of Clinton can be justified. But in terms of scope and damage, they also cannot be reasonably compared.
Thomas' actions constituted illegal sexual harassment, and while he was head of the EEOC, no less! There is simply no equivalence
ReplyDeleteI find this so freakin' hysterical. Supposedly, it is the religion-obsessed GOP that is all uptight about sex, yet so many fail to realize that leftist notions of sexual harassment so often are nothing but the new prudishness. Even if everything Anita Hill said was true, I have nothing but contempt for her, not Mr. Thomas. Get some smelling salts, babe, and realize that women have it, and (straight) men want it.
It doesn't matter which brand of Puritanism is behind it, destroying those who seek office with lurid ranting about either pubic hairs and porn flicks, or semen on a dress, is all appalling. Anyone who is not a hypocrite, and who resides in neither camp of prudes, will see that.
tho given his dissent in Raich and some of his other opinions, I have come to admire him
ReplyDeleteHamdi v. Rumsfeld. Justice Rehnquist sides with the majority, and Justice Scalia unloads a barnburner of an opinion, and there sits one Justice who thinks it's just fine for the Executive to unilaterally suspend habeas and hold US citizens forever. He could advocate heroin kiosks on every street corner, and still not make up for that.
Anyway, whew! Passions certainly are running high in this thread (mine included). Sex apparently really is good for the heart. I hope Mr. Greenwald posts another legal / Constitutional post soon, so we can get back to the minutiae of Supreme Court decisions, the fine print of laws, and checks and balances. And possibly opinions about the new Battlestar Galactica.
--mds
Hypatia said...
ReplyDeleteThomas' actions constituted illegal sexual harassment, and while he was head of the EEOC, no less! There is simply no equivalence
I find this so freakin' hysterical. Supposedly, it is the religion-obsessed GOP that is all uptight about sex, yet so many fail to realize that leftist notions of sexual harassment so often are nothing but the new prudishness.
"Sex" involves all of the parties engaged.
"Sexual harassment" involves less than all of the parties -- sort of like "Republican sex."
Get it? Doubt it!
Glenn,
ReplyDeleteNow THAT was the funniest post ever, also the most ridiculous, and most hate filled I've seen from you.
Says the "Dog"
I notice that in some of the posts above, people are bringing back the old claim that Bill Clinton is a serial rapist and abuser of women. So ... any garbage that was dumped on him then, or that is dumped on him now, is all fair game since it serves a worthy cause.
ReplyDeleteSo -- here we are in the land of moral relativism, where belief matters more than facts and the ends justifies the means. Even if those means are atrocious, undignified. Even if they involve lying or passing along lies. Even if they damage the office of the Presidency and pervert national discourse for YEARS.
The irony, of course, is that like a snake swallowing its own tail, the "secret" rape and abuse allegations were themselves false, and were being peddled by the same hacks and partisans. But who was checking?
And it continues.
Do I think some people went too far in discussing Clarence Thomas's sex life when it did not directly involve Anita Hill's testimony? Yes. Do I think a lot of Democratic money went into these people's efforts? No. Do I think it was a Democratically-coordinated campaign? No.
ReplyDeleteDo I think more people went too far in discussing Bill Clinton's sex life? Yes. Do I think these people were well-funded by Republican interests? Yes. Do I think it was a Republican-coordinated campaign? Yes.
That it was coordinated is not so much my concern. It may have been better for Democratic leadership to coordinate efforts to discredit Thomas or prevent him from being nominated, though not regarding his sexual life outside of that alleged in testimony. The testimony was fair game.
Everything about the scale of each discussion is different. Everything about the degree of coordination is different.
If a woman had believed she'd been raped by Bill Clinton, I would have strongly desired her to press charges. I still do. Hill testified she may have erred in judgment when keeping her allegations private and not bringing her charges before the Thomas EEOC confirmation hearings. To my untrained eye, that's a good sight different than a person's deciding to go to tabloids and encouraging paid right-wing agents and discuss charges of rape outside a courtroom. Though I will never say that these women who allege rape by Clinton did so falsely (that is or was for a judge to decide), I will say that their behavior did and does give me pause when determining their trustworthiness.
I hope we can all agree that there was a widespread paid industry to discuss Clinton's sex life. The most the Republicans could gather on Hill, from my having just read some of the Thomas confirmation hearings here, was from a USA Today article, that a couple of staffers *may* have told Hill that acquiring Hill's anonymous testimony might cause Thomas to withdraw. Which is certainly a reasonable conclusion, and it's not wrong of someone to wish Hill would speak, even if the article was factual.
Hypatia wrote:
Even if everything Anita Hill said was true, I have nothing but contempt for her, not Mr. Thomas. Get some smelling salts, babe, and realize that women have it, and (straight) men want it.
Fascinating opinion. I recall Anita Hill only saying she believed that Thomas's mentioning sexual acts to her and asking her out repeatedly was humiliating, not that she believed either the sexual acts themselves or a man asking a woman out were wrong or humiliating.
Is a person's belief that there should be no sexual harassment between a boss and subordinate in the workplace the only requirement you need to declare that person a prude? Do you believe sexual harassment exists? Do you think laws attempting to prevent sexual harassment are necessary?
Wow that new special counsel's report about all of the JUST LIKE NIXON, ILLEGAL ACTIVITY AND ABUSIVE USE OF THE IRS, SEC, AND OTHER GOVERNMENT AGENCIES, must really have the Clintonistas very concerned. Just think how concerned these clintonista leftnuts would be if Hillary hadn't spent MILLIONS of dollars over the last 10 years keeping over 100 pages of disclosures about improper activity of the whitehouse, Bill and Hillary censored out of the report.
ReplyDeleteSo much for LIBERALS stated belief's in the Public's right to know. Of course I always knew such statements from lefties were just so much horse shit.
Anyway, I digress. What we see here in Glenn's hysterical (you can just see him wiping foam off his keyboard after typing this little piece of obfuscation, distortion and distraction) is the same old tried and true Clintonista tactics when they are caught redhanded committing various third rate burlaries and felonies.
The tried and true method of the Clintonistas is to divert the discussion away from the Clinton's felonies, 900 FBI files, using the IRS and Secret Service as their personal Praetorian Guard, by engaging in such over the top and irrelevant hysterics.
These tried and true Clinton diversion/obfuscation tactics have always involved don't talk about my felonies and disbarment, rather slime the otherside, talk about blow jobs and lower the standards of public discourse, slime every other President who held office before Clinton, and do or say any and all outrageous lies and half-truths possible so that the entire discussion becomes an argument over the Clintonista diversion tactics. Make the public argument be over anything, but the Clinton's mirroring the Nixon administration's use of spying, the IRS, and so many illegal FBI files it would have made even Nixon himself blush.
This is the true nature of Glenn's posts and the similar posts we will see all over the blogosphere. Slime anybody and everybody, use dirty language, false analogies, distortions, and half truths, anything at all no matter what national office or institution or memories are sullied in the process. The end justifies the means to these people, and they must divert attention away from the criminal Nixonian behavior of Hillary Clinton at all costs, lest their chance to put this cold lying manipulative felon back in the whitehouse be diminished.
This special counsel report must have some real important the people have a right to know statements about wrong doing. Especially in the parts that Hillary's lawyers and Bill's hand picked federal judges have ordered be CENSORED AND KEPT FROM THE PUBLIC ON PENALTY OF IMPRISONMENT.
SCUM all of them. Expect all replies to this post to be about anything BUT this new special counsel report and why the public doesn't have a right to know all the details of abuse of power and all the details of the criminal acts committed by Hillary for the protection of her future Presidential campaign. The more they can make discussion of this Special Counsel's report be about Bill's oval office cigar humidor having a special surgeon general's warning that said "Caution these cigars may cause a yeast infection" the more they can keep the public diverted from just how criminal and felonious the Billary whitehouse was in its Nixonian abuse of IRS, SEC, FBI, and Secret Service.
Says the "Dog"
Aaron G. Stock: What I believe about sexual harassment was well-captured in the Edith Efron article for which I gave a url (capital emphasis mine):
ReplyDeleteCertainly, no one knew better than Thomas what "sexual harassment" had become over the years -- a cultural phenomenon beyond his or, apparently, anyone’s control. Once an objective description of the use of male employers’ power to subjugate and exploit female subordinates, this new and ever-expanding legal offense, first defined in 1986, had turned into PURE FEMINIST DEMENTIA. Now "sexual harassment" meant anything or everything said or not said, done or not done, to a woman by a male superior, by a male co-worker, by any male in the vicinity, which upset, angered, or offended her -- in the woman’s judgment. Men’s judgments had become legally irrelevant. The subjectivity and dubious First Amendment implications of the New Harassment are well-known. Thomas was charged by Anita Hill with crimes of "verbal conduct" -- "speech crimes," which, of course, implies thought crimes.
Please read the whole Efron piece. It explains why a pack of lily white Senators were taken by surprise when a black man fiercely refused to sit still for their engineering a campaign that pandered to every one of the crudest stereotypes about black men.
I'm trying again to post that Efron link, because her article really is the definitive assessment of the Thomas degradation: Native Son: Why A Black Supreme Court Justice Has No Rights A White Man Need Respect
ReplyDeleteFurther, while I agree with Glenn about the scope and length factors being quite different wrt the Thomas v. Clinton campaigns of sexual vilification, I would not characterize the Thomas affair as a mere "footnote" in history. It shocked the nation, changed the ways people thought about sexual harassment (for the better), and hangs over every confirmation hearing since. If Mrs. Alito was waiting in nervous anticipation for unbridled filth, lies and distortions to be unleashed on her husband, and so easily cried, the Thomas debacle makes some sense of why she'd be so nervous.
"Men's judgments had become legally irrelevant." Please. I guess men are lucky that women are merciful enough to keep them all out of jail. Why? Perhaps women "want it" too?
ReplyDelete"speech crimes, which of course implies thought crimes"?
I'm sorry, what? Without seeing any legal basis for that statement, I'm forced to conclude it is baloney.
Again, you assert without any support:
"prudes"
"[Senators] engineering a campaign"
Baloney.
Mr. Stock: Efron has it exactly right about the feminist sexual fascism to which Thomas was subjected. This is how the 9th Circuit parses whether workplace comments constitute "sexual harassment":
ReplyDeleteWe . . . prefer to analyze harassment from the victim's perspective [which] requires . . . an analysis of the different perspectives of men and women. Conduct that many men consider unobjectionable may offend many women. See, e.g., Lipsett v. University of Puerto Rico, 864 F.2d 881, 898 (1st Cir. 1988). ("A male supervisor might believe, for example, that it is legitimate for him to tell a female subordinate that she has a 'great figure' or 'nice legs.' The female subordinate, however, may find such comments offensive"). . . . We adopt the perspective of a reasonable woman primarily because we believe that a sex-blind reasonable person standard tends to be male-biased and tends to systematically ignore the experiences of women
It has become fashionable feminist jurisprudence to adopt not a "reasonable person" standard, but rather, the "reasonable woman," and this ends up meaning that if the woman is offended, she has been sexually harassed. Do read more in this superb Cato Institute analysis of the sorry state of sexual harassment law and feminist jurisprudence, as set forth by Michael Weiss and Cathy Young
Hey "the dog," while I should have been tipped off by your pretentious nickname and signing your posts in the third person, I clicked through and read your blog anyway, apparently doubling your readership. Can I have back those five minutes of my life I wasted doing that?
ReplyDeleteHypatia,
ReplyDeletePut a cork in it. You're starting to sound rather shrill.
What is the point of this article? Oh yeah, the GOP smear machine is alive and well.
Thanks Glenn, a very fine and succint post,as always.
ReplyDeleteWhat is the point of this article? Oh yeah, the GOP smear machine is alive and well.
Well now, that is a substantive rebuttal, if ever there was one. In point of fact, Cato is not Republican, and most of its fellows oppose both the war in Iraq and they have been quite loud in denouncing Bush's warrantless surveillance program.
You might try addressing what that article actually says, as opposed to, you know, trafficking in ignorant snark.
Back to the subjects of the OP...
ReplyDeleteRecall when Kerry during one presidential debate referred, perhaps needlessly, to Cheney's "lesbian daughter"?
My favorite insight into Kellyannne Conway is her appearance on Faux the next morning asserting that Kerry might as well have called Ms. Cheney "a slut."
Anonymous, well thanks for the read. I don't think you doubled my readership, but you probably increased it materially.
ReplyDeleteIf it were within my power to give you your 5 minutes back, I definitely would if that was your wish. I'm just an easy going guy that way.
I would have been interested in a comment on the substance of my MLK day post.
My the "Dog" affectations are just a minor comfort in my old age. Is it any more pretentious than Anonymous? Maybe.
Best wishes,
Says the "Dog"
Funny thread, I was particularly amused by Hypatia's nitpick about Cato not being Republican and opposing the Iraq war (now that their prior recommendations have failed completely and been memory-holed) and by tomaig's definitional guessing-game argument about 'sermons'. Way to keep the characteristic logical fallacies and misrepresentations of the right humming along.
ReplyDeleteYou know, if sophistry is required to make even the simplest arguments stick, did it ever occur to you folks that you might not be correct? Or is it unconscious sophistry?
Man, "the dog," now that you've been kind of charming and self-deprecating, I feel kind of bad for my earlier snark, even if I still find your politics to be icky. Let me make it up to you by giving your MLK essay another read.
ReplyDeleteHow interesting that the picture of the Conways comes from a conservative magazine's fluff piece on conservative Washingtonians and their dogs. And who is included, if you scroll down? Tweety.
ReplyDeleteI got a lot more head before the Clinton presidency than during or after.
ReplyDeleteI blame Clinton.
I had oral sex at the age of 13. 34 years ago, I doubt my little girlfriend had ever heard of Bill Clinton.
ReplyDeleteSorry to see that the troll tomaig has found your site. He manages to infest a lot of good blogs with his rnc talking points.
ReplyDeleteUniversity of Malmo.
ReplyDeleteI just like saying that.
And the clowns at volokh and elsehwere are going to be hearing a lot aobut this esteemed university over the next few weeks.
As always a great post, despite some of the outraged righteous indignation here in the comments section. It always makes for a lively conversation when you can hit a nerve like that.
ReplyDeleteI have been thinking on the idea that teen blow jobs increased as a direct result of Clintons behaviour simply because he was the president. If that is possible then I am worried for the next generation. Look at their current role model, a liar and a cheater.
Someone who hasnt done a days work in their life, someone who would simply not show up. someone who would sit apathetically and stare into space or strum a guitar while all hell is breaking loose. What a terrible and frightening thought.
Anybody who defends Clarence Thomas as a poor little victim is an uninformed idiot. I watched those hearings that weekend and I regret that the Dems didn't hit him harder and spare this country the embarrassment of having him and his incoherent, make-it-up-as-I-go "natural" law opinions on the Supreme Court. In fact, I would have much preferred a congressional law that simply gave two votes to Scalia and let Thomas fade into obscurity.
ReplyDeleteOMFG... That NYT article about the Cisneros investigation:
ReplyDeleteOMFG.
short form- independant counsel has been at it since Clinton left office. 5 full years. And they have...just what they had from the travelgate 'scandal': Millions of government dollars 'worth' of Republican outrage.
The important point: The clintons have been impeding the investigation. And we all know how much control they have over the government what with the Republicans controling the government...
And they do this by extra special Clinton mind control. From my lefty perspective the Times article never discusses how friggin bizarro this is..merely noting: 'Hillary's a Senator' and Bill.. which by implication means they can call up members of the justice department and somehow order this investigation stopped.... Just friggin bizzarro.
Dear Glenn,
ReplyDeleteI knew, in a really abstract way, how bad the 1990s were. Forgive me for being in my 20s, and busy trying to make a life for myself. I woke up in 2000. Things are truly awful now.
I'm not sure I envy you, having gotten to know both rotten decades in such excruciating detail.
Tomaig,
Your big funders are a guy who probably had his sister's fiancee killed and a close, personal friend of the class "A" war criminals of Hirohito's Japan. Strauss himself would have been a Nazi, were it not for their anti-semitism.
tomaig,
ReplyDeleteAn example of a Republican sermon woul d be any show featuring Bill O'Reilly.
Another little discussed factor is the FISA Court's changing of the parameters of a number of requests submitted to it by this Administration. Naturally, we the citizens are in the dark about the rationale for these changes
ReplyDeleteI'm so exhausted by reading these comments that I barely have the strength to post my own. But this is important...
ReplyDeleteRegarding that crazy "Clinton is responsible for an increase in mouth-cancer" business, HPV is a very misunderstood virus that has recently been linked to cervical cancer. Research on the virus, including efforts to identify it and diagnose the conditions it causes has increased in the past couple of decades or so, and as a result more cases are being recorded.
The CDC estimates that 75% of the adult population is infected with HPV.
If that rabid dude from upthread is really concerned with the rise in HPV-linked cancers (Clintonian copycat blowjob inspired or otherwise)he might do well to educate himself on the subject, and perhaps get himself tested before he potentially spreads not only insidious disinformation but contagious disease, as well.
This one comment in the article reveals the reality of the Republican "anti-Clinton" bias. "I think the Conways are a great addition to the blogosphere and have no doubt that they will be generating all sorts of revealing commentary. Where else can you read one day about the mouth cancer that American kids are getting as a result of Bill Clinton’s oral sex addiction and the next day read sterling tributes to the need for dignity in the political process? And where else can you read smug commentary about Bill Clinton’s suspension from the Bar by a lawyer who secretly worked on a baseless sex scandal lawsuit while concealing his work from his own partners?
ReplyDeleteThis nice couple is a lovely little microcosm of sanctimonious Republicans who manage to live in the sewer while sermonizing to the world about the virtues of cleanliness. "
More than that. It sets up inherent conflicts of interest for the firm as a whole--with existing and future clients. There's a difference between pro-bono and "extracurricular" involvements that cost the partners money and set you up for lawsuits.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNeither a Trump or a Clinton fan (very much the opposite), I am puzzled about why reporting dirt makes one dirty while doing dirt doesn't make the perp dirty. Double standards and hypocrisy are to be condemned, I agree. But for decades I have been inclined to believe the bad things I've heard about the Clintons and Trump, and I want them fully investigated, including tactics HRC masterminded as head of the Sluts and Nuts committee. However, I am extremely dismayed that all of this sex-based talk is obscuring urgent (for me) issues like a possible global currency crash and a race toward WWIII. I remain a big fan of yours, however. Thank you for your courageous work.
ReplyDelete