Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

Rand, it is troll-ish flame bait posts like this that makes bi-partisanship so difficult in this country. Besides if Tom Delay gets indicted (as he might) Kos will "hammer" that 'til the cows come home.

But it seems to me we'd all be better off with less flame-baiting from both sides.

Posted by Bill White at November 24, 2004 09:38 AM

...if Tom Delay gets indicted (as he might) Kos will "hammer" that 'til the cows come home.

Why should I care? I'm not a Republican, or a fan of Tom Delay.

Bill Clinton was a narcissist and a corrupt rapist. That's not a partisan position (though defending him is). It's reality. And Hillary enabled it.

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 24, 2004 09:47 AM

Well, I read that the politically motivated attack on DeLay has been squashed for lack of merit.

I would be more concerned about the personal safety of the women in question. Reminding Hill that they are there just means more steps will be taken to quiet things down. Ms Willey was threatened in the past as I recall; others like Elizabeth Gracen were bought off.

Election '08 will be interesting, won't it?

Posted by charlie32 at November 24, 2004 10:37 AM

http://davidwissing.com/index.php

Charges Dropped Against Delay
I really was uneasy about the recent Republican rule change that would allow someone under indictment to remain in their position. Of course this ignores the fact that Democrats never had a rule to begin with, which made their protestations about the GOP removing the rules somewhat humorous. But we Republicans should hold ourselves to a higher standard than Democrats, so I really did not have a problem with the rule in the grand scheme of things. That being said, I did have some sympathy for the charge that the prosecutor in Texas was doing this for political reasons. Well now it turns out that once it became apparent that Delay wasn’t going to be removed as majority leader, the prosecutor in Texas has decided to drop the indictment. From CBS News.

The powerful GOP chieftain is unlikely to be indicted by a state grand jury probing alleged campaign finance violations in Texas, according to an official involved in the investigation.

“No, no, I really don’t think DeLay will be indicted,” the official told CBSNews.com. “And to be quite honest, [DeLay’s] lawyers know that.”

Anticipating a possible indictment by a state grand jury in Travis County (Austin) Texas, House Republicans last week took steps to protect DeLay’s position by changing a party rule that would have forced him to step aside as majority leader if indicted on a felony charge. The change will leave it up to a committee of GOP House members to decide whether an indicted leader should step down.

Of course it could all be some big coincidence that the charges were dropped just after teh rule change went into effect. Oh, and you have to love CBS’s slanted headline for the story - “DeLay Appears To Be Off The Hook". Nothing like a presumption of guilt in an objective news article. Delay wasn’t innocent, he was just let “off the hook” according to CBS News. Nope, no bias here….

Posted by Dave Wissing at 12:11 pm | |Comments (2)

Posted by Mike Puckett at November 24, 2004 11:19 AM

I agree with Bill White on this one. Whether and to what extent Bill Clinton is a narcissist philanderer is between he, his wife and children, and his God. The only basis for judgment for the rest of us is his performance as President.

To be sure, there are things to complain about there, including particularly the absurd and infamous waste that was Hillarycare and the unserious doofing around with the war on terror that allowed 9/11 to build up (although this is largely judgment by hindsight). But it is not clear these faults of omission are entirely the result of Mr. Clinton spending too much time and energy getting into the pants of plump young women.

On the other hand, I also agree with RS that defending his moral character in the face of obvious evidence to the contrary is an action of partisan blindness. On this particular subject, perhaps a gracious silence would better befit both sides.

I don't think the comparison with Kerry and the Swifties holds much water. Kerry made his courage and judgment in 'Nam a center feature of his campaign. It seems unlikely Sen. Clinton will similarly make her performance as wife to the former Philanderer-Commander-In-Chief the centerpiece of her campaign.

Posted by Carl Pham at November 24, 2004 12:14 PM

Whether and to what extent Bill Clinton is a narcissist philanderer is between he, his wife and children, and his God. The only basis for judgment for the rest of us is his performance as President.

You write that as though it's possible to separate them (and it's not just philandering--there is more than one instance of reported forcible rape).

...it is not clear these faults of omission are entirely the result of Mr. Clinton spending too much time and energy getting into the pants of plump young women.

Entirely? Of course not, but it's absurd to say that his behavior didn't affect his job as president when he was getting hummers under the desk while he talked to Congressmen about deploying troops in Kosovo, or kept dignitaries waiting so that he could complete his current dalliance. And it's equally absurd to say that this was just about his "private life."

But ignoring everything else, it was irresponsible for him to engage in behavior that exposed him to potential blackmail. What if Linda Tripp had sold the tapes to Saddam instead of giving them to Ken Starr? He was engaging in behavior for which anyone else would have had their security clearance pulled.

It's difficult to be graciously silent when there's a perception that he got away with, and continues to get away with much of his misbehavior, and it grows tiresome to be accused of being part of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy when one points this out.

Even if he hadn't made his service a cornerstone of his campaign, the Swift Boat Vets would have done him a lot of damage. That he did simply made it all the worse.

Senator Clinton is an accomplice in all of the people that she and her husband wronged in a manner worse than Nixonian, and it's unrealistic (and in fact cruel) to expect them to remain silent if she decides to become Commander-In-Chief, just as it was unrealistic for Kerry to think that those he had slandered would do so when he ran. They don't want to see her become president, and they'll have no compunction about telling the public why she shouldn't.

And they'll be right.

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 24, 2004 03:03 PM

Thank you for your rejoinder, Rand. On this topic we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I don't think you really mean to say that one can never separate personal morality from the execution of public office. Of course it's hard, but we have to try, and we make these distinctions in our professional life all the time. I would not reject a paper for publication if I knew the first author had cruelly exploited his students to get the data. I might despise the man and his methods, but the professional work is sound.

I understand you can forge a decent chain of logic between Bill Clinton's private moral failings and his possible failings as President. I'm not arguing with any one link, but for me the whole chain is just too long. There are too many places where unknown aspects of the man or of circumstances could make your argument perfectly plausible and logical, but wrong.

And making this kind of argument is not cost-free, because it coarsens the public debate and invites similar (or lower) response from the other side. When it becomes routine to draw unproven if plausible connections between a man's personal moral slips and his fitness for public office we drive out good but human candidates and are left with unimaginative prigs.

Secondly, I don't as a general rule believe in holding wives responsible for what their husbands do, or vice-versa. Yes, I understand Hillary was an enabler, but so were many other people, including his yes-men and procurers and the media and plenty of other folks who looked the other way when they probably shouldn't have. You have to draw the line of responsibility somewhere, and I draw it around the man himself. It's not Hillary's fault.

Of course, what she did and failed to do points to her own moral lapses, and a chain of deduction can then be drawn between this and her ability to be President, but I've already said what I feel about that up above.

Finally, I disagree that the Swifties would have done as much damage if Kerry hadn't focussed on his role in Vietnam. Suppose Kerry had avoided Vietnam when he could, and when pressed hard said something like this:

Well, I was in that war, and I did some stuff I'm not proud of, and when I got home I decided the war itself was not something our country should be proud of, so I joined the opposition to it. I still believe we should never have fought that war.

Now I understand a lot of people felt differently about Vietnam and still do. It was a difficult time and feelings ran very high. I think many of us on both sides said and did things 35 years ago, as young men, that we have come in our maturity to realize were mistaken. I know I regret a few things I said and did. Probably any man my age does. Our hearts were mostly in the right places, I think -- all of us -- but we did not always make the best judgments about how to argue our case.

In any event, Diane, what happened to me in Vietnam is not important, because I came back. The most important thing that happened to young men in Vietnam is that they didn't come back. And that's why what I want to talk about today is how we can minimize the number of our young men who in the future might not come back from overseas. . .

I don't think the Swifties would have had nearly the impact. But of course, John Kerry could not be John Kerry and say what I put in his mouth above. He's always been an opportunistic sanctimonious bullshitter, and so his fate was cast long ago.

No comparison can be made to Hillary. She's very careful and crafty, and no blowhard. There's no chance she's going to walk out on this kind of limb and hand the saw to a group of American icons.

Which is fine. There are plenty of sober political reasons not to want Hillary Clinton as President, and I fully expect them, if she runs in 2008, to be sufficient to garner her a respectable 46% of the vote, after which she can retire with Geraldine Ferraro to the Old Symbol's Home.

Posted by Carl Pham at November 26, 2004 01:20 AM

I don't think you really mean to say that one can never separate personal morality from the execution of public office.

Of course I don't, and I didn't say that. I was speaking of this particular personal morality, and this particular public office.

Of course it's hard, but we have to try, and we make these distinctions in our professional life all the time. I would not reject a paper for publication if I knew the first author had cruelly exploited his students to get the data. I might despise the man and his methods, but the professional work is sound.

That's a different situation than as is the case with the president of the United States, one of whose roles is to serve as a model to the nation. It is not just a public office--it is a symbol, and a powerful one, of the Republic. If he were a Prime Minister, you might have a point, but we have combined that role and King into a single one.

But that's not even the real point. You seem to have ignored my argument that someone with as much power and responsibility as the President of the United states has an equal responsibility to not put himself in a position in which he can be blackmailed. He has a responsibility to not engage in behavior that he's unwilling to read about on the front page of the Washington Post.

I repeat the question: what if Linda Tripp had sold the tapes to Saddam Hussein? Or Kim Jung Il?

I understand you can forge a decent chain of logic between Bill Clinton's private moral failings and his possible failings as President.

Again, this is not about his private moral failings. It is about his behavior at work, when he's supposed to be serving the American people, not having interns pleasure him while on the phone with Congressmen. The "chain" is quite short.

I find this irrelevant to my arguments, since this isn't about "personal moral slips" (do you really consider forcible rape a "personal moral slip"?) Is it really too much to ask that our leaders not use their personal power to intimidate and abuse women for their own gratification, and when confronted on it, smear them publicly using all the tools of the White House?

It wasn't simply a matter of "looking the other way." She was complicit in all of the lies and smears. If she had divorced him, instead of forming part of the phalanx surrounding him, then she could legitimately say, "I would have no part of it--I am not responsible" but under circumstances, Kathleen Willey and all the other women she helped victimize are perfectly within their rights, and indeed right to call her on it.

Finally, I disagree that the Swifties would have done as much damage if Kerry hadn't focussed on his role in Vietnam.

Then you disagree with something that I didn't say. I said they still would have done damage, not that they would have done as much damage.

There are plenty of sober political reasons not to want Hillary Clinton as President, and I fully expect them, if she runs in 2008, to be sufficient to garner her a respectable 46% of the vote, after which she can retire with Geraldine Ferraro to the Old Symbol's Home.

I agree, but the Slick Grope Vets will have their say as well, and I say good for them.

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 26, 2004 05:32 AM

I seriously doubt that Hillary will ever be President of the United States. For that, we can all utter thanks. She has entirely too much baggage. Even if Bill had been the perfect husband, I don't see Hillary as a serious Presidential candidate.

Women who have made won election as their country's political leader typically have made it on their own. Think, for example, Margaret Thatcher or Golda Meier. Yes, Indira Ghandi was clearly part of a dynasty. But even she made it mostly on her own.

Can anyone name a wife who eventually succeeded her husband as leader of any Western nation? The only case I can recall of even an American governor being succeeded by his wife was George Wallace.

Now, let's look at men who have become President in the past half century or so.

We have Eisenhower -- famous military leader.

Kennedy -- young Senator.

Johnson -- Senator, Majority Leader, then VP, who became President upon death of Kennedy.

Nixon -- VP who eventually won a three person race.

Ford -- "The Accidental President", former House Republican leader.

Carter -- former Governor.

Reagan -- former Governor.

Bush I -- "Reagan lite", former VP.

Clinton -- former Governor.

Bush II -- son of President, former Governor.

None of this looks good for Hillary, does it?

Googling "Democratic women governor" lead me to http://www.sacbee.com/24hour/politics/election/governors/story/1762055p-9609260c.html

I've heard of Granholm. If she had been born in the U.S. (or we change the Constitution), I'd put her pretty far up there as a potential President.

Linda Lingle of Hawaii? She's a Republican who won election in a heavily Democratic state. We should watch this woman. I'm betting the first woman President will be a Republican governor who made it entirely on her own. If Lingle doesn't fit that category, who does?

Other Democrats to watch: Napolitano of Arizona, Sebelius of Kansas, Blanco of Louisianna, Minner of Delaware.

Another Republican: Rell of Connecticut. I must note, though, she came to office via a scandal and resignation of the previous governor, not a direct election.

I'm willing to bet any of these women would be superior to Hillary -- and would stand a better chance. Somebody should tell Hillary. The sooner the better.

What about Condi Rice? Not a chance. She might be the darling of some in the blogosphere, but I (and others) have real doubts about the woman.

Posted by Chuck Divine at November 26, 2004 07:41 AM

Rand, thank you again, and maybe one more go around. I don't want to give the impression that I would defend or I like Bill Clinton as a man, because I wouldn't and I don't. I just don't agree that his demonstrated level of moral corruption rises to the level that it constitutes in itself a major judgment against his Presidency.

Well, that particular role is not written into the Constitution, and in fact the Founders inveighed with significant passion against any interpretation of the President as a symbolic king. True, many people today do feel the President should be a moral role model, just as they feel sports stars or astronauts should be, too, and demand that they be squeaky clean. But others, including me, find this expectation unfortunate. (In fact I find the idea of any public figure as model for my personal behaviour demeaning and distasteful. I don't need any man to show me right from wrong, and I prefer to assume other adults feel similarly.)

I don't think we should look to the President to be a moral leader, and I think doing so weakens us as capable and self-reliant adults. We edge closer to becoming a herd, not a pack. We should find our moral guidance privately, perhaps in our actual fathers and not in any Great White Father in Washington. We should keep the job description of the President as close as possible to the mundane operations of a CEO. We don't expect the CEO of General Electric to provide moral leadership to his employees, and I would rather we see the President as CEO of America, Inc., then as chief priest or Daddy-In-Chief.

I realize you would not suggest the President become Daddy-In-Chief, but others would, and I think it's worthwhile to resist this deifying trend with respect to the President (and infantalizing trend with respect to ourselves), and to actively promote lowered expectations of what Presidents can and should be.

That's why I suggest we judge the President morally in the same way we make similar judgments on ordinary people we know. That's why I think Clinton's situation is different only in degree, not in kind, from the situation I described.

He has a responsibility to not engage in behavior that he's unwilling to read about on the front page of the Washington Post.

I assume you're not talking about behaviour consequent to his executing his office, like Eisenhower secretly ordering dangerous overflights of the Soviet Union, which Ike would have been horrified to discover in the Post. Obviously if the President had to make official decisions in a glass house like that, he'd become as timid a nonleader as, for example, NASA has become under its own excruciating regime of microscrutiny and second-guessing.

So I think you mean his private moral behaviour, like whether he asks his interns to blow him or pays his child support on time. But, no, I don't agree being President gives him the formal responsibility to avoid these things unless he has the formal obligation as President to be a moral role model, which, vide supra, he doesn't. (He may have these obligations as a citizen and a man, however.)

The crux of the argument seems to be this:

What if Linda Tripp had sold the tapes to Saddam Hussein? Or Kim Jung Il?

I don't know what would happen. No one does. That's the general problem I see in your argument. You assume that because Bill Clinton would obviously be very unhappy seeing his pecadilloes in print it's equally obvious he might seriously compromise his execution of American foreign policy. But is it? I'm not persuaded. For one thing, you must also assume Clinton could convince himself that this inexplicable major change in foreign policy would be quietly accepted by everyone indefinitely, and its real origin never revealed and come horribly home to roost. There's a big difference between being impeached over lying to a grand jury about spooging on a girl's dress, possibly losing your law license, and being convicted of high treason, possibly being sentenced to death.

For another, both Hussein and Kim were heads of state with access to enormous resources. They had much larger persuasions available, if they thought Clinton could be moved by personal bribes or threats. Hussein, for example, could have made him rich with shady oil money, the way he seems to have done Kofi Annan. Kim could hire gorgeous women by the dozens to drop to their knees in front of Clinton and take secret lurid photographs of the First Dick being sucked. Or either could have had tapes faked up that were similar to (or much worse than) anything Tripp could provide.

This is not meant to be an exhaustive list, only to suggest that if you feel a President can be moved by personal bribes, blackmail or threats, then even being squeaky clean is no real protection against their use.

Naturally, all else being equal, I'd prefer not to run the risk, and to have a President who has no dirty laundry. But all else is rarely equal, and so it's better to choose and judge a President primarily on his execution of the office. If there's nothing else to lay at Clinton's feet besides his moral sleaze, then we might as well criticize it, although it would be a great day when we have a President whose only real failure in office is his personal scumminess.

This isn't about "personal moral slips" (do you really consider forcible rape a "personal moral slip"?)

Yes it is and yes I do. Perhaps you see more in the word "slip" than I meant to imply. I can rephrase as "moral lapse". I don't mean to minimize the seriousness of the failure. I mean only to distinguish between personal moral failure and a failure to execute the duties of the office as set forth in the Constitution, which do not include being a nice person.

And I do maintain that making it more thinkable to go nuclear, to base a case against a President on accusations of personal moral failure, is bad news in the long run. The dangers of freely using such potent scorched-earth weaponry is similar to the fact that, as soon as divorcing couples go to Court and start trading accusations of child neglect and abuse, all compromise becomes impossible. You're attacking a man's personal integrity, not his mere fitness for office. How can you compromise with his followers after doing that? And we must as a country be able to strike workable compromises between those millions who despise Bill Clinton and those other millions who admire him.

She was complicit in all of the lies and smears.

I agreed she was an enabler. But an accomplice after the fact does not bear the same guilt as the principal. A similar form of guilt-by-enabling reasoning was used by the left to argue that a U.S. company invested in South African ventures was guilty of promoting apartheid, and that George Bush was personally guilty of torture because of Abu Ghraib unless he fired Don Rumsfeld. One can try to argue subtle distinctions based on the degree of involvement, but I prefer to draw a bright line around the principal and restrict guilt to the man who actually did the deed.

If she had divorced him. . .

Down that road lies a Japanese emphasis on the importance of symbolic repudiation, whereby in extreme cases she might even be obliged to kill herself because of her association with a malefactor. Not for me. (No, I don't think you would suggest seppuku for Hillary. But do bear in mind that for some participants, e.g. Chelsea, a divorce is almost as destructive.)

Kathleen Willey and all the other women. . .are perfectly within their rights. . .to call her on it.

Absolutely. I just don't think it would be wise.

the Slick Grope Vets will have their say as well, and I say good for them.

It might well be good for them, and it might be good for preventing a crappy President (Hillary Clinton) from being elected. I only suggest it would not be good for the Republic in the long run. America would survive President Hillary Clinton. America would not survive a destruction of our ability to have a public debate without demonizing our opponents. That way lie the mistakes of the 1800s that led to the Civil War.

No, I don't think the SGV will lead directly to another Gettysburg. But if nothing else the internecine strife in Iraq and Chechnya should teach us that holding a heterogeneous polity together is surprisingly difficult, and hence perhaps even minor centrifugal actions should be avoided when they are not necessary, however just and ethically satisfying they may be.

Posted by Carl Pham at November 26, 2004 04:47 PM

Carl, I must confess that I find this discussion kind of amazing, in the context of your general comments on other topics.

I assume you're not talking about behaviour consequent to his executing his office,

Only to a limited degree (as far as I know he didn't actually rape someone as president, but is it OK that he did so as Attorney General and Governor of Arkansas?).

So I think you mean his private moral behaviour, like whether he asks his interns to blow him or pays his child support on time.

Why do you continue to ignore the fact that this all happened on company time, at the taxpayers' expense? While he had official business to take care of that couldn't have been unaffected by it?

The crux of the argument seems to be this:

What if Linda Tripp had sold the tapes to Saddam Hussein? Or Kim Jung Il?

I don't know what would happen. No one does.

You would seem to have a limited imagination...

That's the general problem I see in your argument. You assume that because Bill Clinton would obviously be very unhappy seeing his pecadilloes in print it's equally obvious he might seriously compromise his execution of American foreign policy. But is it? I'm not persuaded. For one thing, you must also assume Clinton could convince himself that this inexplicable major change in foreign policy would be quietly accepted by everyone indefinitely, and its real origin never revealed and come horribly home to roost.

You assume that he didn't do other things that were harmful to US policy and that the chickens actually did come home to roost. There is in fact abundant evidence of damage to our national security over which he presided over which the chickens never came home to roost (e.g., sales of military secrets to China in exchange for campaign finance donations).

Why would he think that this would be treated any differently by an adulating press?

There's a big difference between being impeached over lying to a grand jury about spooging on a girl's dress, possibly losing your law license, and being convicted of high treason, possibly being sentenced to death.

You apparently don't know Bill Clinton. He had gotten away with many things throughout his life and career (including a rape charge as a student at Oxford). Why do you think that he wouldn't assume that he couldn't continue to? Are you unaware of the mindset of sociopaths?

Are you similarly unaware of why it's a bad idea to give such the nuclear football?

There is a huge difference between bribes and threats. The carrots you mention would be trivial to a Bill Clinton, who could get any woman he wanted, willingly or otherwise. Threats would be a different matter entirely.

Naturally, all else being equal, I'd prefer not to run the risk, and to have a President who has no dirty laundry. But all else is rarely equal, and so it's better to choose and judge a President primarily on his execution of the office. If there's nothing else to lay at Clinton's feet besides his moral sleaze, then we might as well criticize it, although it would be a great day when we have a President whose only real failure in office is his personal scumminess.

Ignoring the fact that his personal execution of the office include keeping cabinet officers waiting while he was getting blow jobs, "moral sleaze" can cast a very wide swath. I'm kind of amazed that you believe that it has no effect on job performance, or that it's unrealistic to vote for someone who isn't morally sleazy. I thought I was cynical, until I read your posts.

> This isn't about "personal moral slips" (do you really consider forcible rape a "personal moral slip"?)

Are you really saying that it's OK to have a rapist in the White House, as long as he was able to get away with it because he was Attorney General of the state at the time, and could intimidate the victim from coming forward for the crime?

Carl, I'm amazed again.

And I do maintain that making it more thinkable to go nuclear, to base a case against a President on accusations of personal moral failure, is bad news in the long run. The dangers of freely using such potent scorched-earth weaponry is similar to the fact that, as soon as divorcing couples go to Court and start trading accusations of child neglect and abuse, all compromise becomes impossible. You're attacking a man's personal integrity, not his mere fitness for office. How can you compromise with his followers after doing that? And we must as a country be able to strike workable compromises between those millions who despise Bill Clinton and those other millions who admire him.

You continue to write this as though Bill Clinton was a typical politician, and that we shouldn't expect any better from politicians. That's the attitude that will result in the election of more Bill Clintons.

I agreed she was an enabler. But an accomplice after the fact does not bear the same guilt as the principal.

It does when it's serial behavior.

A similar form of guilt-by-enabling reasoning was used by the left to argue that a U.S. company invested in South African ventures was guilty of promoting apartheid, and that George Bush was personally guilty of torture because of Abu Ghraib unless he fired Don Rumsfeld. One can try to argue subtle distinctions based on the degree of involvement, but I prefer to draw a bright line around the principal and restrict guilt to the man who actually did the deed.

I'm sorry, but these are absurd and frankly odious analogies. Investors in South Africa didn't engage in smear campaigns against those who complained about South African investments. George Bush didn't accuse people of being "sluts" and "nuts" because they reported on Abu Ghraib.

Carl, I can't express how disappointing I find this defense on your part of Hillary Clinton, not to mention Bill.

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 26, 2004 06:03 PM

There's some other people from the Clinton past I've wondered about. If the Whitewater real estate deal was a scam, who was it that got scammed? Might Hillary have to worry about ads from Real Estate Scam Victims For Truth?

Posted by Alan K. Henderson at November 30, 2004 12:25 AM

Thanks again for your riposte, Rand. There's not much more I would like to add, so I'll close with only this:

I am not defending Bill or Hillary Clinton as human beings. In fact, I find both of them repugnant.

I am certainly not objecting to your determination to judge for yourself their fitness for office on moral grounds. I do the same, with similar outcomes.

I speak only to the terms of the public debate over their merits as candidates for President. I realize it may seem faintly Victorian to believe that what should be discussed in public differs from what may be appropriately discussed in private, but that's how I feel, for somewhat complicated reasons to which I've alluded above. I recognize that not everyone will find my reasons compelling.

Posted by Carl Pham at November 30, 2004 06:53 PM

"I don't think we should look to the President to be a moral leader"

I see the problem. Kings have subjects, we in America are citizens and the President is a public servant. He works for me and his behavior certainly is relevant in how he represents me, regardless of whose votes put him in office. It seems people continue to forget these facts.

Hillary isn't insulated in any way from her husbands behavior because she has done nothing to separate his behavior from hers (She only seems angry that he let himself get caught.)

They are both disgusting (more for selling out to China than perhaps anything else.)

Posted by at May 29, 2005 07:23 PM

Post a comment