Both campaigns screamed about the theft of the videotape. Why this woman did it we may never know. I sure would like to have seen all the raw data collected in this investigation (assuming I had the time to review it.) I am certainly tempted to believe the worst (and I do mean worst) of Rove and company. I just would like that if this woman did have co-conpirators to know that a good effort was made to uncover them.
But I am really tired of this attitude that Democrats must only defend stupid charges, like getting blow jobs, and criminal activity like Iran/Contra gets a pass.
I’m going to dish out when I think it is appropriate.
Most experts agree, the hands down, low-down, dirty trickiest, no goodnick, cheapest shot (and it worked good too) was The Daisy commercial.
It was used in 1964 by LBJ against Barry Goldwater and it scared a lot of people into voting for LBJ. And LBJ, unless my memory fails me was a Democrat.
Of course, four years later, in 1968 LBJ himself had to withdraw from the race because he had become almost what he predicted an aministration under Goldwater would become.
Willie Horton was bad, I’ll grant you that, but Daisy is the firstest and the bestest.
However, I’d just like to say to those of you who repeatedly use the Democratic mantra of “just a blowjob” that you deserve to be dick-slapped across the cheeks with your beloved ex-prez’s philandering willy.
First of all, you are all perfectly aware that none of the problems Clinton found himself in at the time of the impeachment were regarding lying under oath, and obstruction of justice.
Was he guilty of those crimes? Maybe not. Should he have been investigated and accused of those crimes? Maybe not. Should he have had to lie? Was it entrapment, and all the other stuff you say it was? Perhaps so. But quit being intellectually dishonest.
It wasn’t about the blowjob. It was about perjury and obstruction of justice. And you know it.
Perhaps Clinton’s trysts with Monica weren’t illegal. But your utter dismissal of it with “just a blowjob” is either wrong, hypocritical, disingenuous, or some combination of the three.
You show me a boss who’s getting his dick sucked during work hours, in the workplace, by an intern, and I’ll show you a boss that should be fired. Make it a governmental office, and taxpayers could rightfully have an interest in those kinds of goings-on.
That many of you who whip out the “just a blowjob” phrase as fast as Clinton whipped out something else, while at the same time championing the cause of women’s rights, workplace discrimination and the rest is rather interesting.
Uh, that shoulda read, “First of all, you are all perfectly aware that the problems Clinton found himself in at the time of the impeachment were regarding lying under oath, and obstruction of justice.”
No Minty, do your own research. You’ve made a lot of assertions and dropped a lot of names without making any cites or making any quotes. And stop claiming to be a Democrat, you are only fooling yourself.
Gee Misso, when Newt did it, it wasn’t sex. That’s a double standard. And your Republican buddies couldn’t get anywhere near enough votes in the Senate to cash the arrogant check their mouths wrote in the house. We call that acquittal. And I call the charges complete bs. Just a blowjob. The Republicans broke any number of laws to try to set it up as discussed above. Clinton did nothing wrong.
I have spent the past three years monitoring the Indian Trust Fund scandal. I kid you not, Judge Lamberth was absolutely excoriating in his characterization of the inaction and incompetence of Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt, to the point where he placed him in contempt of court.
Nobody cared.
Well, now it’s a truly bipartisan scandal, as I detailed toward the end of my OP in this thread. Actually, it has been a bipartisan scandal since Cleveland succeeded Arthur, but still…
Nobody cares.
While Ken Starr was chasing down fellatists, genuine, honest, good-old American corruption was proceeding apace, and it still is. Anywhere from four to 100 billion dollars has disappeared over the past hundred years, and nobody seems to want to find out where it went. The Democrats were stone-cold busted covering it up, and the Republicans have already implicated themselves in falsification.
Now, I ask you, december, which is more important, a potential one-hundred billion dollar slush fund, or a nine-year, ongoing investigation of a savings and loan fraud that conclusively proved that the President received a blow job? If that does not underscore the small-minded frivolity of the Clinton witch-hunt, I don’t know what does.
And, I might add, merely asking the question you asked shines the spotlight on this current administration, which is on its surface one of the most solid old-boys networks in recent memory. While the current political climate has exchanged this glass house’s windows for Lexan, we’ll still be able to watch the furniture break inside. What sources are you going to be trusting?
Moreover, fellatio isn’t sex by the definition of most dictionaries, and every medical dictionary (as far as I know). Republicans lie about their opponents at every opportunity, just like this one. It’s kinda like how they accused Gore of saying he “invented” the internet when he in fact claimed to have “helped to create it”. They don’t use his exact language because they know that only the lie is worthy of passing their lips. If they repeated the truth, their own right wing press wouldn’t even print it.
This is all a pretty lousy whitewash over the fact that Starr had the goods on Clinton, and choose to ask him at the deposition about “sex” and not “fellatio”. It was deliberate poor lawyering to go with his unethical lawyering.
Damn, DPW, you were doing so well! Don’t do this! I don’t care what dictionaries say and neither does anyone else. When I’ve got ** Pump Action Gerbil’s ** MP [sub]Masterful Penis[/sub][sup]TM[/sup] in my mouth, we’re havin’ sex.
No Milo, it was about prosecutorial misconduct, and a lack of perspect on the part of Republicans in Congress (and yourself). The majority of Americans seem to have the perspective that you lack. I’ll bet you find that infuriating.
For most of us “it’s about a blowjob” sums the situation up nicely without giving it any more weight than it deserves.
You try to dress it up in terms of seriousness ‘Perjury’ and ‘Obstruction of Justice’. But that’s just spin. It all comes down to a set of technically true statements made with intent to mislead, over a question that wasn’t even relevant to the case at hand.
It’s just a blowjob is shorthand for The half-vast Right Wing conspiracy is just as guilty as Clinton was for this sordid mess. They had no business setting a trap, and Clinton was a fool to fall into it. Not to mention it had nothing at all to do with his job performance, which by the way was excellent when he was allowed to do it..
I won’t accuse you of knowing this, however. I don’t think you are capable of knowing it.
Of course it’s ok to expose Democratic corruption.
december you have been asked multiple times to give actual examples of Democratic corruption that have been exposed, and you have passed on the chance each time.
Incidently, unless you believe Starr to have been a rank incompetent, then you are forced to admit that he actually exonerated Clinton of all the charges that he was investigating (except of course the Perjury charge, which was a consequence of the investigation itself).
With that discarded, some of us have been wondering exactly what corruption should/has been investigated?
Stoid, I know your point well. They are charging the guy with breaking the perjury law. Big dog is legally entitled to rely on dictionary definitions. They did not ask him the question and still tried to hang it on him. I’m surprised these lawyers show their faces in courtrooms. They try to set him up on a bs charge, they have him in the palm of their hand, there is no way out as long as they ask: “Did Monica Lewinsky perform fellatio on you?” and they don’t ask it. And they had to know it was essential to their case. How utterly incompetent. So then they look like idiots asking the Senate to remove Clinton from office (which they knew wouldn’t happen) on plainly insufficient evidence. And they wonder why we treat them as if they are stupid and don’t know the difference between a consensual affair and the stability of the country.
These guys fiddled and diddled with the specific intention of crippling our government, so Clinton couldn’t do what he was elected to. Conservatives assassinate character in hopes of keeping the government, which they regard as only evil from working.
Their job was to oversee the government, to make sure each government agency was working and effective. They deliberately failed. Over 5,000 people died, probably as a result, we will never know. I in no way shift reponsibility from the terrorist murderers, but the conservative view of domestic politics is deadly to us. It’s time they cut out the bs and started dealing with policy.
I’m sorry, but this looks like you’re buying scripts from Falwell and Robertson. The key is “we’ll never know.”
I will grant that the CIA and FBI suffered a massive failure, but their organizations do not rotate in and out with the administration. There are Right-wing wonks out there claiming that it was a Clinton failure because the info-gathering people were shackled under his watch (although a fair amount of that shackling had occurred under George I and before–going all the way back to events that happened under Ford in response to Nixon’s abuses).
I’d say that just about any assignment of blame to any administration is opportunistic grand-standing by their ideological opponents. Failures have occurred under every administration, both by giving the FBI & CIA tasks that were either illegitimate or out of scope or by telling them to behave in particular ways, but the bottom line is that the careerist spooks are the ones who have made specific decisions about how they will implement policy. Let’s leave the post hoc ergo propter hoc arguments out of this discussion.
Me, disprove your wacky, evidence-free conspiracy theory? Certainly. From The Dallas Morning News story on her sentencing: “Ms. Lozano – a longtime Democrat – did not reveal her motivation. Under the deal with prosecutors, she must cooperate and testify against anybody else charged in the affair. A source close to the investigation said that government officials would not rule out additional charges until they debrief Ms. Lozano.”
Here’s The Washington Post: “Lozano, who had worked for Democrats in the past – and who was discovered to have had a checkered work history – apparently acted alone for motives she did not explain in court.”
ABC News: “Lozano may have fallen under suspicion because she and McKinnon have a history of helping Democrats. Lozano worked for former Texas Gov. Ann Richards, whom Bush unseated, and state Rep. Vilma Luna. McKinnon, who runs Maverick Media consulting in Austin, also worked for Richards as well as other Democrats before signing on with the Bush team.”
And here’s the clincher: The Associated Press says she was a Democratic precinct chairwoman.
There, the whacked-out conspiracy ball is back in your court. Your retraction will be forthcoming immediately, I presume?
“Overcondemned” is the word. The OP was about people helped to expose Democratic corruption who were subsequently overcondemned or underappreciated. In many cases, they were condemned for some activity other than their anti-Demorcat role. However, my allegation is that one reason they were singled out for attack was in payback for the harm they had done to Democrats.
