Tag Archive 'Bill Clinton'

Implications of the Pletka Purge

Roland picks up an interesting piece by Jacob Heilbrunn for the National Interest, describing an ongoing purge of neoconservative intellectuals from the American Enterprise Institute, allegedly instigated by Vice President Danielle Pletka. So far Michael Ledeen and Reuel Marc Gerecht are gone, with Joshua Muravchik soon leaving. Others are said to be soon in following.

This could signal the reemergence of an old conflict over machtpolitik and just war doctrine, which used to exist in Republican security policy circles (ie, coercion-for-values vs. coercion-for-interests). If Pletka is indeed purging with intent, we may even expect AEI to shift its attitude toward the Middle East, Asia and Africa, given how much more amenable authoritarian regimes tend to be to interest pressure.

And the idealism of the AEI departed is considerable. Gerecht for instance wrote a fascinating but bizarre book I read in the late 1990s under the pen name Edward Shirley, in which he smuggled himself into Iran in the trunk of a car, essentially for the romance of it.

(more…)

Sphere: Related Content

Oral Nonsex

I recall it being reported at the height of the sordid and tedious Monica Lewinsky scandal, that Bill Clinton personally felt he had not violated his wedding vows because in his view, receiving fellatio did not constitute adultery. Evidently Clinton had researched the topic at some length and found a kind of tortured reinforcement for his perspective in the Bible itself. At the time I thought it seemed a rather instructive example of the essential convenience of Clinton’s morality, as well as providing a further lesson that one can find divine justification for almost anything in scripture if they look hard enough.

But in 2003 it was revealed that the New Hampshire Supreme Court had grown to share Clinton’s view as a matter of law. And today, it seems the idea may have trickled into youth culture, as a survey of students at Montrose High School in Colorado revealed a majority of them didn’t consider oral sex to be sex at all. Which may of course provoke lament from those enrolled in the increasingly pessimistic venture of social conservatism, but causes even more distress for our shared language. That’s because if oral sex isn’t sex, what then should we call it? Fellatio, analingus and cunnilingus are cumbersome and particular words after all.

Having consulted the online thesaurus for advice, some social conservatives will perhaps be pleased to learn that in failing to find a suitable synonym it asks, “did you mean irreligious?” But this of course won’t do for the rest of us.

Taking a cue from the dictionary, we might call it “oral stimulation.” However, this may tend to unnecessarily confound the boundaries between a blowjob and an interesting conversation.

Therefore, I propose the use of “oral nonsex” for its utility in both complying with the children’s liberalized definition, and preserving the capricious nature of public morality for the prize of irony. Also, social conservatives disappointed by the purposes of redefinition itself, could be comforted with a gifted advantage over their adversarsies. After all, anyone contending that “oral sex is nonsex”, has a certain literal and yet ridiculous argument on their hands.

Sphere: Related Content

Minor Scandals Can Help

Apparently the teenage pregnancy of Sarah Palin’s daughter Bristol has excited social conservatives even more about the candidate (for the when-it-counts demonstration of opposition to abortion). According to Grover Norquist, the soc-cons are “over the moon” in their support.

That’s interesting. It reminds me that historically a minor or unfair scandal that is politically survivable (as this one most certainly is), can often help a young candidate, as it compels his or her supporters to circle wagons and commit to advocacy, as well as forcing his or her opponents to commit to opposition and be proven either wrong or very petty and vindictive. It should also be said that it can have more obvious benefit in stripping the candidate of any illusions about comity in national politics.

(more…)

Sphere: Related Content

Jerome Corsi, 9/11 Denier

Anyone out there who is tempted to buy Jerome Corsi’s vituperative new book trashing Barack Obama (which conservatives are unfortunately buying in droves), may want to consider what they’d be supporting if they did.

Careful observers will have long noticed that Corsi’s views tend to be more than a little paranoid and frequently even delusional (such as his belief that Bill Clinton is a communist). His rhetoric also is often peppered with far-rightwing conspiracy theory jargon and acronyms (NAU, NWO, etc). But now is circulating on the web of Corsi on the Alex Jones show of all places, stating his belief that explosives destroyed the World Trade Center on 9/11. With that, Jerome Corsi has nothing more to say that I’d ever care to listen to.

Sphere: Related Content

Sins of Omission – Updated

The sin of omission that Hillary is committing with the re-telling of the Indiana plant moving to China (while not mentioning that it was sold to China during her husbands tenure,) is starting to gather some light. The following story was linked by the DrudgeReport today.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/election2008/story/35337.html

It’s a story Hillary Clinton loves to tell, about how the Chinese government bought a good American company in Indiana, laid off all its workers and moved its critical defense technology work to China.

And it’s a story with a dramatic, political ending. Republican President George W. Bush could have stopped it, but didn’t.

If she were president, she says, she’d fight to protect those jobs. It’s just the kind of talk that’s helping her win support form working-class Democrats worried about jobs and paychecks, not to mention their country’s security.

What Clinton never tells in the oft-repeated tale is the role prominent Democrats played in selling the company and its technology to the Chinese. She never mentions that big-time Democratic contributor George Soros helped put together the deal to sell the company, or that the sale was approved by the administration of her husband.

I’ve been following this since the 24th when I finally got around doing some investigation of the claims she made in her ad. And even noted that Senator Bayh of Indiana is complicit in her sin of omission.

And what is their excuse for not being concerned with the purchase in 1995…

Because “there were assurances made that production would stay in the United States,”

In other words, they promised not to move production out of the US.

Update:

Instapundit linked to the same story also.

And the story made the Special Report w/ Brit Hume last night on Fox News.

The Rollin’ Rollin’ Rollin, keep this wagon rollin’ Update:

More coverage,

Kevin Griffis, Indiana spokesman for U.S. Sen. Barack Obama, said Hillary Clinton’s comments about Magnequench were part of “Washington game-playing” in which “people are willing to say anything to win an election.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24315615/

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4757257&page=1

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/abc-digs-into-clinton-tra_b_99473.html

“In 1995, when this group bought Magnequench, there were assurances made that production would stay in the United States.” But as ABC recounts, the Congressional Research Service reports that the state-owned Chinese company that Clinton allowed to purchase Magnequench “promised to keep those Anderson, Ind., jobs in the U.S. only until 2005.”

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/trailhead/archive/2008/04/29/hoosier-daddy.aspx

Hillary’s chutzpah in flagging this issue is compounded by her criticism of the sale on national-security grounds (“They’re building up their military. They want to compete with us every step of the way. And we’re basically helping them.”) In the late 1990s, Republicans in Congress decided that U.S.-approved technology transfers to China under Clinton were creating a disastrous national-security breach, and conservatives tried to stir anxieties about imminent U.S. surrender to the Middle Kingdom to defeat presidential candidate Al Gore in 2000. Now, to win Indiana, Hillary Clinton seems to be saying that the wingers were right all along about that no-good husband of hers.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2008/05/01/abc-corrects-clintons-indiana-tale-blaming-bush-closed-factory

Interestingly, the hometown paper did carry this on the 17th of last month. But it hasn’t received national attention until now. Hmmm, wonder if the email to the Obama campaign had anything to do with it???

Sphere: Related Content

Clinton to Keep Defense Jobs Here

Here’s an ad some of you may not have seen. But now (wonder of wonders) since Indiana is a battleground state in the Democratic primary, it’s been getting plenty of air play during the local news programs.

Hillary Clinton:
Right here over 200 Hoosiers built parts that guided our military’s smart bombs to their targets.
They were good jobs, but now, they’re gone to China.
And now America’s defense relies on Chinese spare parts.
George Bush could have stopped it, but he didn’t.
As your president, I will fight to keep good jobs here, and to turn this economy around.
I’m Hillary Clinton and I approve this message because American workers should build America’s defense.

Seems like a simple enough case, doesn’t it. Bush and the Republicans failing to do what she would do.

But wait till you here the kicker about this.
(more…)

Sphere: Related Content

Bill Clinton’s Laws of Politics

Bill Clinton

from 2004. Bill Clinton:”If one candidate is appealing to your fears and the other one is appealing to your hopes…” You know where that’s going. Ahem. Clearly these were not carved in stone.

(HT: BigDog)

Sphere: Related Content

Two For You

My thanks to Gay Patriot for today’s two excellent links.

Presidential support for liberating Iraq.

Yes we can! The original.

Sphere: Related Content

Dreams of Restoration…

..don’t quite work:

Hillary with Bill Clinton audio book in place of face
photo: Alan Chan

Sphere: Related Content

Moral, Yet Alluring

Huckabee Endorsed by God sign
photo: Steve Kaiser

Have you ever taken a moment to read some of the many Huckabee blogs that have sprung up over the past months? They’re really quite strange. For instance, here is a snippet from a Blogs 4 Huckabee post on Ann Coulter’s infamous endorsement of Hillary Clinton:

If the Democrats win, the American people will flock to the Party of God. As it is, 8 years of moral, sensible government have made the American people complacent, and ripe for the lies and distortions of a deviant candidate like Hitlery.

As usual, Coulter’s one of the smarter analysts out there. (I do wish she’d strap her chest down, but otherwise I also find her a very moral, and very alluring, woman.) Where I tend to disagree with her is her failure to endorse Brownback. I’m not sure America can stand 4 years of Hitlery, even if it’s followed by another 2 decades of Republican dominance. We’re still languishing under a recession caused by Bill Clinton; do we really want a Hitlery recession added onto that? We’ll be in the Great Depression in no time if we keep letting Democrats rule us.
(Blogs 4 Huckabee)

Probably the most disturbing element of this is his using the term “Party of God” in a sincere and supportive way to describe the GOP. “Party of God” in Arabic is literally “Hezbollah.”

But where do you even proceed from there? Moral yet alluring? A recession caused by Bill Clinton in 2008, Ann Coulter as the smartest “analyst,” with her only fault being a failure to endorse Sam Brownback of all things? Yes, this is pretty much beyond criticism, and well into the realm of opinions which are simply too bizarre to seriously comment on.

Sphere: Related Content

Extra Baggage

 

Hillarybaggage_2 United has announced that it will charge some flyers if they wish to check a second bag. $25 is the expected tab if you don’t travel light.

I wonder; what will the charge be for Hillary’s extra baggage?

Questions about Hillary’s role in the Clinton administration, and about Bill’s business and philanthropic ventures since he left office, are not just fair but necessary.

Why won’t the Clintons speed up the release of White House papers that would let us see what kind of authority Hillary Clinton enjoyed? Who donated how much to the Clinton presidential library, and might those donors expect anything from a Hillary Clinton administration? What business tycoons have snuggled up to the former president, and what — other than the chance to bask in the radiance of his wit — did they hope to get out of the exercise?

Would Bill return to his foundation and its high-profile international projects? If so, would that work be coordinated with Hillary’s foreign policy? Could donors be sure that the foundation’s priorities were still being set independently, in accord with what they were told when they wrote the check?

It’s natural to ask whether Bill Clinton is grasping at the chance for an Act II of his presidency to redeem the Clinton name from the impeachment scandal. It’s also natural to ask whether he’s capable of playing second fiddle to anyone, even his wife.

Hillary Clinton had to know she was bringing this baggage along when she boarded the train. She’ll be stuck with it the rest of the way.

Sphere: Related Content

The High Cost of Hillary

 

(Cross posted at What if?)

Finally. The veil of ignorance has been lifted from the eyes of many liberals.

One former Clinton supporter whom I do not know e-mailed me about a recent piece I’d written on the Clintons and said this:

allow me to apologize on behalf of all other liberals concerning the Clintons, though I doubt I’ll be the only one. They really are the soulless, cynical spinmeisters that many on the Right made them out to be… Speaking only for myself, I never actually thought there were purely political motives for conservatives to detest the Clintons that much. The visceral hatred directed at them always seemed sincere enough to me, just hard to understand because apparently so excessive. But now that I’m on the opposite side of them in a campaign for the first time (as an Obama supporter), I know what it feels like to wake up each morning and face ever new depths of shamelessness from the Macbeth Family. Now I may actually catch myself going back to Impeachment Trial evidence for the sake of Schadenfreude. I’m starting to regret not having enjoyed it at the time.

This note is typical of others I have received, and the list of liberals turning against Bill and Hillary Clinton is noteworthy. A partial list includes Senators Kennedy, Kerry, and Leahy; former Clinton Administration cabinet member Robert Reich; former Clinton lawyer Greg Craig (whom Bill Clinton asked to lead the defense team the White House assembled for his impeachment battle); liberal radio talk show host Ed Schultz; liberal columnists E.J. Dionne, Eugene Robinson, Frank Rich, William Greider, Bob Herbert, Joe Klein, and now Chait; Nobel Prize winner Toni Morrison, who described Bill Clinton as America’s “first black president”; and others.

Sphere: Related Content

The Transformational Dream

Bill Clinton’s recent emergence as Hillary’s principal anti-Obama attack dog has left a lot of people somewhat uncomfortable. We’re not generally accustomed to seeing this sort of bare knuckled political brawling from a former president (all the effort seems to be wearing Bill out too). Eugene Robinson supplies a reason for Bill’s furious anti-Obama rhetoric: “Obama’s candidacy not only threatens to obliterate the dream of a Clinton Restoration. It also fundamentally calls into question Bill Clinton’s legacy by making it seem . . . not really such a big deal.” Robinson notices that Barack’s remarks on Reagan possess a deeper subtext. While Clinton merely repositioned the Democrats in the post-Reagan era, Obama wants to transform the landscape like Reagan did, leaving Bill’s accomplishments a historical footnote.

Sphere: Related Content

Notes from the Vote

Romney is walking away with Nevada and has declared victory. American Research Group’s last-minute poll in South Carolina picked up an enormous Thompson surge (to 21%). However the exit polls are saying it’s the McCain and Huckabee show. Byron York writes a fine but sad obituary on the late developing FDT campaign that could have been. The Ron Paul campaign is upset about something in Nevada and demanded a delay in voting, which was refused. Surprisingly, Hillary is winning Nevada (and yet Bill Clinton still needs a sedative). Plus Russ Feingold called, he wants his record back from Edwards.

Sphere: Related Content

M. President

The Tyra Banks Show emailed Michelle Malkin with some quotes from Tyra’s interview with Hillary Clinton (to be broadcast Friday). Hill proposes a nationwide reality show to determine what to call the First Husband…with dancing! And you thought the 90s were tawdry.

Sphere: Related Content

Get rewarded at leading casinos.

online casino real money usa