After stories of real indiscretions deftly handled by a large "bimbo eruptions" team whose main task seems to have been to slander the girls who came forward? But for a democrat, it was acceptable!
Uh, how acceptable was it? Clinton was impeached for that, as you'll recall.
Look, Coyote, I read Frum Forum too, so I know your marching orders are "be sure to deflect criticism from Herman Cain by reminding liberals that Democrat sex scandals always get excused." But here's the problem - Frum (and you) seem to forget that it's never liberal sex scandals that get excused - the aforementioned Clinton impeachment, Edwards currently facing Federal indictment for not using campaign money to pay off his preggo mistress, Elliot Spitzer. It's Republicans who always get away with it - Newt Gingrich's adultery while he was impeaching Clinton for his, David Vitter who confessed to crimes on national TV and yet was never charged, Rush Limbaugh stealing Viagra for a trip to the Dominican Republic (this hemisphere's primary sex tourism destination.)
Guess the democrats are getting a bit nervous about 2012, eh?
You're not thinking it through. Come November 2012, we'd much prefer to have Obama up against not-ready-for-primetime, gaffe-a-minute Herman Cain than Mitt Romney, currently the only Republican adult in the room. Unlike Cain, Romney has actually won elections and has experience as an executive. Romney's ACA-predecessor Massachussets health care system is much more of a liability for him in your primary than in our general, since Obama can hardly hang around his neck what Obama would like to claim as a victory for himself, right?
No, we'd much rather have Cain vs. Obama. Call it the Audacity of Hope vs. the Audacity of a Dope.
Uh, how acceptable was it? Clinton was impeached for that, as you'll recall.
Clinton was impeached largely for lying under oath. The excuse was "it's just about sex and everyone lies about sex" but if I recall he also lost his law license for a time as well.
And if "it is the charges that count" as is often the case, Clinton was in far hotter water than Cain. But all the libs just fell in line to support him because he was all they had. So much for principles, eh?
Look, Coyote, I read Frum Forum too, so I know your marching orders are "be sure to deflect criticism from Herman Cain by reminding liberals that Democrat sex scandals always get excused." But here's the problem - Frum (and you) seem to forget that it's never liberal sex scandals that get excused - the aforementioned Clinton impeachment, Edwards currently facing Federal indictment for not using campaign money to pay off his preggo mistress, Elliot Spitzer. It's Republicans who always get away with it - Newt Gingrich's adultery while he was impeaching Clinton for his, David Vitter who confessed to crimes on national TV and yet was never charged, Rush Limbaugh stealing Viagra for a trip to the Dominican Republic (this hemisphere's primary sex tourism destination.)
I don't read Frum, and from what I know about him I wouldn't want to. (Sorry to disappoint you.)
Guess the democrats are getting a bit nervous about 2012, eh?
You're not thinking it through. Come November 2012, we'd much prefer to have Obama up against not-ready-for-primetime, gaffe-a-minute Herman Cain than Mitt Romney, currently the only Republican adult in the room. Unlike Cain, Romney has actually won elections and has experience as an executive. Romney's ACA-predecessor Massachussets health care system is much more of a liability for him in your primary than in our general, since Obama can hardly hang around his neck what Obama would like to claim as a victory for himself, right?
No, we'd much rather have Cain vs. Obama. Call it the Audacity of Hope vs. the Audacity of a Dope.
Even Cain is saying this is an inside job. Look to your own guys, Coyote. Obama's style is to let his opponents shoot themselves in the face.
I agree with you--I'll take Obama vs. Cain in 2012 any time. (Be careful what you wish for.)
Who are the Blacks going to vote for then? They voted about 96% for Obama last time, what do you think they will do with an Obama vs. Cain race? Maybe a sizable percentage of them would see a new way of doing things?
Sometimes Critical Thinking Requires Sustained Irony
Whereas, as I pointed out, and as you can see, my one allusion to Herman Cain's well-known, widely-publicized "bimbo eruption" was to say that I'm not even going to talk about it right now. And I'm still not going to. I've let the whole thing pass and talked about his inexpertise in foreign policy. The very nastiest thing I've done is to mention in passing that the story exists, something that we all know.
Dr A, congratulations on allowing the hypocritical promoters of cleanliness in politics show their true sleaze colors.
You deserve something more than a POTM after this PWNED, How about the Jonathan Swift award for making ideologues look like the unexamined life folk they truly are.
And I mean that for all 'sides' of the sleaze promoters. Argue the policy, not the peccadilloes (sorry, sometimes you have to spell it out and even then they still insist on misspelling {ex. Buzsaw}).
After seeing Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin at their finest the wife said all candidates should be forced to be on the TV show "Are you smarter than a fifth grader". I learned about China having nuclear weapons from the 1965 World Book Year Book back in the third grade. Perhaps the grade level she asked for was a bit high for America's best and brightest potential representatives that are so vehemently defended by our political equivalent of creationists.
I hope that you do not feel I have stepped on your irony game here, but I feel that even if in their face, the ideology will take precedence over the truth and we can both still find laughter out of tragedy in subsequent posts.
OK some other posters, make us laugh, not necessarily till it hurts but because it hurts, and laughter is the only way to overcome the feeling of hopelessness when sharing this reality with infallible ideologues, be they political or religious in excuse.
Ain't I terrible? Well back to studying Mideast history and Islam, the next grad class I have.
Thanks folks for keeping me thinking and writing in the interim.
Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider. - Francis Bacon
Re: Sometimes Critical Thinking Requires Sustained Irony
You deserve something more than a POTM after this PWNED, How about the Jonathan Swift award for making ideologues look like the unexamined life folk they truly are.
Inadvertently, you have hit on the best possible way to flatter me. I may disagree with Swift about his religion, his politics, his philosophy, and his misanthropy, but I do regard him as the master of English prose.
Clinton was impeached largely for lying under oath.
For lying under oath about sex. With Monica Lewinsky. During an investigation that had nothing to do with sexual misconduct. Remember that Ken Star was supposed to be investigating Whitewater? What was the plausible probitive value of his sexual antics?
I notice you don't even try to defend the Edwards indictment. I'm glad that we're on the same page about conduct that may be personally reprehensible but shouldn't be against the law.
I agree with you--I'll take Obama vs. Cain in 2012 any time.
Is that what you're so afraid of?
I don't understand how you reconcile these two statements. Doesn't matter to you, I guess - politics for you isn't an expression of an ideal or a means to translate policy into law, it's just a big game of "fuck the liberals."
Bill Clinton, President of the United States, was impeached by the House of Representatives on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice on December 19, 1998, but acquitted by the Senate on February 12, 1999. Two other impeachment articles, a second perjury charge and a charge of abuse of power, failed in the House. ...
Upon the passage of H. Res. 611, Clinton was impeached on December 19, 1998, by the House of Representatives on grounds of perjury to a grand jury (by a 228—206 vote)[15] and obstruction of justice (by a 221—212 vote).[16] Two other articles of impeachment failed — a second count of perjury in the Jones case (by a 205—229 vote)[17] and one accusing Clinton of abuse of power (by a 148—285 vote).[18]
quote:Bill Clinton, President of the United States, was impeached by the House of Representatives on charges of perjury
First...Wikipedia? Please.
Second, Clinton was never convicted of perjury. He was up on actual charges of perjury before a real court, not this fake "impeachment trial" and was not convicted of such.
So Taz was correct: By a strict interpretation of the law, he didn't lie. Did you read the transcript of the trial? The prosecution fucked themselves up. They knew they were up against a lawyer and thus crafted their questions in extremely intricate ways such that they were implying an ongoing relationship right then and there at the time of the trial. Thus, Clinton was being perfectly honest when he said no because there wasn't.
Re: The Republican party is full of fucking buffoons.
I want to go on record that I did not vote for him . He is and was a embarrassment to Texas long before this fiasco. Like back when he was wooing the Tea Party stating Texas may cede from the union.
Re: The Republican party is full of fucking buffoons.
Texas is fortunate in have a weak Governor system. About the best that could be said of Rick Perry is that he was marginally better than his predecessor.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
™ Version 4.2
(1)