Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

Dick Morris?

He is about as credible as Ward Churchill.

Posted by Bill White at June 5, 2007 03:26 PM

So, Bill, an ad hominem attack is your best response? And you call yourself a lawyer?

Posted by Rand Simberg at June 5, 2007 03:42 PM

Where is there a disputable fact in that article?

Posted by Dennis Ray Wingo at June 5, 2007 03:44 PM

Clintons (spoken with dripping disgust and contempt). Ick.

Once a scumbag, always a scumbag (only this one comes in a handy twin-pak).

Posted by Dave G at June 5, 2007 03:48 PM

Hillary will NOT be getting my primary vote. For MANY reasons.

Dick Morris has made a career out of being an anti-Clinton attack dog and even a broken clock is right, twice a day (if analog).

And the irony of this is positively precious:

So, Bill, an ad hominem attack is your best response? And you call yourself a lawyer?

Well done, Rand!

Cheers! :-)

Posted by Bill White at June 5, 2007 04:09 PM

Please, please, please, NOT Hillary!!!

She is a confirmed man-hater; children are next worst on her list. Ten years from now, we'll see the book from Chelsea on what a reptile her mother was. QEII will seem like Mother Theresa in comparison.

Posted by Trudy Schuett at June 5, 2007 06:48 PM

Bill: "Dick Morris has made a career out of being an anti-Clinton..."

But only after making a career of getting Clinton re-elected as Governor and as President. I would bet Morris knows the Clintons pretty well.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at June 5, 2007 07:33 PM

Bush 43 is the best reason for me to be not voting for Clinton 44. Take that as you may.

Posted by Bryan Price at June 5, 2007 09:19 PM

What if its Clinton 44 and then (Jeb) Bush 45 and then we learn they ALL were associates of the Carlyle Group? Forty years of Bush/Clinton rule -- then Chelsea for Clinton 46 and 48 years of BC madness.

Hint: The above is late night snark, not serious commentating. /snark

Posted by Bill White at June 5, 2007 10:50 PM

Rand: when I think that my take on both presidents is reasonably objective.

"Objective" in the Machiavellian sense of judging who best serves your agenda, but your remarks in no way resemble honesty, fairness, or an ethical approach to politics. The article you cite is typical of the ludicrous innuendo, transparent attempts to "frame" facts beyond all rational limits, and borderline (if not explicit) fabrications that characterize most right-wing coverage of the Clintons. As everything you accuse of the former president, falsely or correctly, is both vastly more pervasive and more egregious under Cheney, the only purpose of your remarks is to attack the power of a persuasive and popular antagonist--and any degree of advantage that may lend to his wife. Perhaps you meant to say "Objectivist" rather than objective.

The Clinton years were this kind of thing non stop

If you believe the American Spectator, and think the Arkansas Project was a journalistic endeavor. Apparently Clinton had dozens of people killed and set up to look like accidents or suicides, including prostitutes, State Troopers, a couple of judges, and some personal friends. He also may have been involved in the "car accident" that killed his biological father three months before his birth, perhaps through a time travel mechanism developed by the Soviet Union and given to their American operatives. Who was used for the other hits is unknown, but the Clintons would have had plenty of opportunity to establish mob connections through their work on the Eugene McCarthy campaign--an organization frequently suspected of involvement in racketeering, drug dealing, and murder for hire.

Personally, I don't know why you people find Hillary so threatening. I have no intention of voting for her even if she wins the nomination, because her presidency would just be cave-in after cave-in to your agenda.

Dennis: Where is there a disputable fact in that article?

Where is there a relevant fact in the article? Its innuendo is two bridges too far, implying (a)that a marketing demographics firm is disreputable if anyone has ever abused the information it provides, and (b)that anyone who has ever consulted for such a firm is therefore also disreputable.

Dave: Clintons (spoken with dripping disgust and contempt). Ick.

Why?

Once a scumbag, always a scumbag

Thus you dismiss a Rhodes Scholar; the youngest governor in Arkansas history; the Democrat from an insignificant Republican state who came out of nowhere to win a presidential nomination; and defeated an incumbant from a wealthy dynastic family with ties throughout the economy and power establishment.

Thus you dismiss a president who worked patiently with an insanely hostile and antagonistic Congress; who pursued trade policies I and his own party opposed, but which you probably supported; whose administration was the most demographically inclusive in history; who presided over the largest and broadest prosperity in history; who created, heavily funded, and *listened to* the first White House terrorism task force; who fostered the most pro-American global political environment since WW2; and somehow managed to do all this while the Legislative branch spent 24 hours a day, seven days a week doing everything in its power to sabotage his administration at all costs to the nation.

Thus you dismiss a leader who was more popular while being impeached than Ronald Reagan ever was in office or ever has been since. But I guess there's something about his personality you just can't stand, so all that adds up to "scumbag" as far as you're concerned. Speaking for myself, I find that kind of frivolous judgment troubling.

Bush 43 is the best reason for me to be not voting for Clinton 44.

The pupil isn't always inferior. And it would probably be appropriate to call him Bush 00, although if he heard it he might think he's a secret agent.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at June 6, 2007 12:08 AM

"Where is there a relevant fact in the article? Its innuendo is two bridges too far, implying (a)that a marketing demographics firm is disreputable if anyone has ever abused the information it provides, and (b)that anyone who has ever consulted for such a firm is therefore also disreputable."

Correctly distilled, that's what there is in this piece. Unless, one thinks marketing demographics is evil, there is nothing here. Now perhaps there is more to come from the Morris couple who have been hawking this; that may be more serious, but at this point, if one wished to get in a huff about capitalist exploitation, there are quite a few better tear jerker sob stories for example in relation to unscrupulous lending or credit cards.

Posted by Offside at June 6, 2007 04:34 AM

BS: "Thus you dismiss a leader who was more popular while being impeached than Ronald Reagan ever was in office or ever has been since. "

What ARE you smoking??

Posted by Cecil Trotter at June 6, 2007 05:21 AM

who presided over the largest and broadest prosperity in history

Created by an earlier administration.

Posted by Mac at June 6, 2007 05:24 AM

who presided over the largest and broadest prosperity in history

Created by an earlier administration.

Don't look now (few are), but the current economy has been going pretty strong for several years now.

BTW, for old Bill White, who else would be better at pointing out the skeletons in the Clinton's closets than their previous campaign strategist. If Morris was doing this against a Republican, he would be heralded as a whistleblower, and the Democrat lead Congress would be calling for investigations.

Hillary didn't have a prayer before, and she still doesn't. Her best chance was to stay out of the race for a long time. Eventually, people would have had enough of Obama and Edwards and begged Hillary to throw her hat in the ring. As it is, they've had enough of her.

On another note, I'm with Fred is up.

Posted by Leland at June 6, 2007 07:35 AM

The Clintons' corruption is, even by the low standards of politicians, exceptional, obvious and disturbing, as are attempts by their apologists and the media to ignore or explain the corruption away. The Clintons treated political opponents as class enemies, routinely made (and make) vicious personal attacks on reasonable people who disagree with them, refused (and refuse) to take responsibility for mistakes, gin up division among their fellow citizens for political gain and often operate in bad faith. Say what you will about George Bush, he never took a bribe and then brazenly claimed it was a futures trading profit, he never blackmailed critics by making it known that he had their FBI interview files, he didn't sell pardons, or evade campaign-fin*nce rules by labeling contributions as speaking fees or book advances or library donations. And he never got on TV to shake his finger at his fellow citizens and lie and try to intimidate them into inaction as if they were children who had caught him screwing a sheep.

The Clintons' corruption has done the country a lot of damage, not least by lowering standards about acceptable behavior by public officials. Ethical? Honorable? Who cares. All that matters now is whether you can get away with it.

Posted by Jonathan at June 6, 2007 10:58 AM

Cecil: What ARE you smoking??

Is that a denial?

Mac: Created by an earlier administration.

The earlier administration created a recession.

Leland: Don't look now (few are), but the current economy has been going pretty strong for several years now.

The economy of the past few years has been difficult for most people, and especially so for the greatly expanded ranks of the impoverished.

Hillary didn't have a prayer before, and she still doesn't. Her best chance was to stay out of the race for a long time.

I actually agree. Hillary lacks her husband's charisma and Obama's dignified gravitas, leaving everything she says sounding like the output of a word calculator programmed by focus groups. She's a smart woman who once had good intentions and real vision, but you can't go that far through the looking glass and remember your name. I feel sorry for both of the Clintons, regardless of their accomplishments.

Eventually, people would have had enough of Obama and Edwards and begged Hillary to throw her hat in the ring.

"Had enough" of Obama and Edwards? Leland, Obama is a charismatic force of nature whom even casual supportes often describe as the second coming of Kennedy, and who was drawing the heaviest crowds of any candidate before he even announced. Edwards is the lone voice for the large majority of the working population, speaking to issues the political elite has decided to ignore, and he does so with uncommon honesty and gravity. Democratic voters will not tire of these men in favor of mediocrity.

On another note, I'm with Fred is up.

I haven't looked deeply into Fred Thompson's record, but if he got nominated we might have ourselves the first meaningful presidential election in decades. Of course the Waffen SS in his party would still do what they do, with or without his permission, but between the Swiftboating might be actual policy discussions. Personally, I would nominate Barack Obama to be his counterpart: His relative youth appears more as energy and innovativeness than inexperience, and would contrast with Thompson's age and conservative demeanor; his heritage would present an insightful perspective on the racially monolithic GOP; and his worldly, cosmopolitan outlook could offer an alternative to the "down-hown" image that people may be getting a little tired of from elected leaders. The stoic conservative father-figure vs. the charismatic young liberal visionary; it would be a real choice, and America should have real choices again.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at June 6, 2007 11:17 AM

What ARE you smoking??

I've long suspected that Brian was a college student. He comes across like the sort of campus radical who hangs out in hallways, discussing his theories with other true believers and never having any contact with the real world.

(Where else could someone advocate increasing the NASA budget to $360 billion a year and think it's a serious policy proposal?)

It appears I was right. To top it off, Brian just made frat boy, which confirms the fact that he's smarter than us. :-)

http://eveningprograms.ursinus.edu/news/announcements/asl.asp

Posted by Edward Wright at June 6, 2007 01:39 PM

Come now Ed, are you practising age discrimination in reverse? Is this a Senior Citizen blog? AARP, AARP, AARP ;-) Perhaps young sprites like Brian can help us hang on to our wits?

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at June 6, 2007 05:40 PM

http://eveningprograms.ursinus.edu/news/announcements/asl.asp

[nelsonmuntz]Ha Ha![/nelsonmuntz]

No wonder he comes across as someone totally divorced from reality. He has no real world experiences.

Trapped within the intellectual wasteland, that forbidden zone of free thought and true self-actualization. Where sheepthink is sold as bleating truithness to power. The victim of intensive memetic engineering.

Yes, BS is trapped within the bubble of acedemia.

One wonders if he will ever emerge or simply remain within his 'unreality', his pocket universe like Soren withn the nexus.

Posted by Mike Puckett at June 6, 2007 08:19 PM

Yes, BS is trapped, with the same initials (and same perspective) as another brain-damaged idiot: Barbra Streisand. Also used as a particularly powerful expletive by the boys of South Park.

How appropo. Perhaps BS is a nom-de-plume for the aforementioned Babsy? Nah, it couldn't be.

Posted by Dave G at June 6, 2007 09:17 PM

I've long suspected that Brian was a college student.

Sorry to disappoint you, Ed--I graduated from college quite a while ago, in California, where I was born and have lived most of my life. I've never been to Pennsylvania, never joined a fraternity, and I have a full head of hair. :D But given the general level of competence in your posts, your "gotcha" was a solid effort that deserves recognition for the spirit it showed.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at June 6, 2007 11:22 PM

Geffen on the Clintons: "everybody in politics lies, but they do it with such ease, it’s troubling"

BS: "the Waffen SS in his party would still do what they do, with or without his permission"

As will the Communists in Obama's party, likewise. Perhaps BS knows some of them.

BS: "The stoic conservative father-figure vs. the charismatic young liberal visionary; it would be a real choice, and America should have real choices again." "Visionary"? :rolleyes: Hey, just say you're for Obamessiah and be done with it.

BS: "racially monolithic GOP"

Condi.

And what was the highest post for a non-white in Slick Willie's administration?

And how racially un-monolithic was Kerry's campaign management?

Posted by Jim C. at June 7, 2007 01:37 AM

Jim: As will the Communists in Obama's party, likewise.

There are none. The radicalization of the GOP doesn't obligate us to pretend it's mutual.

Hey, just say you're for Obamessiah and be done with it.

But Democrats don't need a messiah to win, Republicans do. I've already heard some of them call Thompson the "Little Gipper." Isn't that cute?

Condi.

Hallelujah, the dream is realized. But seriously, the GOP remains a racially homogeneous wasteland, often openly hostile to the few minority members deluded enough to seek change from the inside. It's a WASP nationalist party that has no choice but to deny it, and their rare opportunities--and even rarer willingness--to actually be inclusive only emphasize that fact. Of course they have their own theory about why the GOP is such a whiteout: Namely, that every single ethnic group in America but WASPS has been brainwashed, or is genetically corrupt and susceptible to "bribery" with social programs few ever use. Any core Republican will dish out these rationalizations on demand, but basically their standard of humanity is the image in the mirror--regardless of the person projecting it.

And what was the highest post for a non-white in Slick Willie's administration?

That depends: Out of Secretary of Energy, Secretary of Commerce, and Secretary of Health and Human Services, which is "highest"?

And how racially un-monolithic was Kerry's campaign management?

I don't know, I never bothered to check. The vast spectrum of shapes and shades in his audience would have made that kind of trivial, but Bush needed every ounce of color in his Party standing on stage beside him. The dais at the 2004 GOP convention looked like an Earth, Wind, and Fire concert, but the delegate floor might have been the studio audience of a 1950s sitcom. Republican protect the wall between image and reality with the violent desperation of a wife beater, all smiles and idyll in public. They hate modern American values with white-hot passion.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at June 7, 2007 04:43 PM

Mr. Swiderski is respects self-proclaimed liar Seymour Hersh. It doesn't matter whether or when he graduated from college.

It seems quite clear that he is less interested in fact, and more interested in the frisson of joy that comes to the agent provacateuse.

Posted by MG at June 7, 2007 04:48 PM

Out of Secretary of Energy, Secretary of Commerce, and Secretary of Health and Human Services

Nice, how about Secretary of Defense? Conservatives have proven that they are equal opportunity. You'll of course say thay were token appointments to appease the minorities, but how come the appeasement appointments were higher than the left ever appoints? Gore's father was a KKK leader, but the conservatives are the racists.....riiiiight

Posted by Mac at June 8, 2007 05:55 AM

Mac: Nice, how about Secretary of Defense?

I believe you mean Secretary of State.

Conservatives have proven that they are equal opportunity.

They don't even grasp the concept, and nobody other than conservative WASPs believes that about them in any significant numbers. An ultra-partisan, ultra-conservative non-white who goes out of their way to avoid offending Southern sensibilities will be tolerated in the Republican Party, and might get an appointment if they demonstrate extreme personal loyalty to a powerful Republican.

but how come the appeasement appointments were higher than the left ever appoints?

1. They aren't. I just mentioned Secretaries of Energy, Commerce, and HHS.

2. They aren't "appeasement" appointments on either side--Democrats appoint qualified people, and Republicans appoint loyal lackeys. The latter have to be careful, however, because their base is virulently racist.

3. Democrats don't have to appease anyone, because our Congressional delegation is brimming with the people that comprise America. Yours is a Siberian blizzard.

Gore's father was a KKK leader

I looked around for any mention of this, and couldn't find any. Are you lying?

but the conservatives are the racists

Yes.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at June 9, 2007 11:16 AM

Post a comment