because he’s eeeeeeevvvvviiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilllllllll.
My point is still that you do not hear about these things in the mainstream(read liberal) press. Bush and Cheney’s supposed stock misdealings are everywhere and when it turnes out to be a red herring…nada. Billy is accused of rape and where does it turn up?? In “right-wing as you can get” publications. Why is that?
Um, because Bush and Cheney’s stock misdealings are not red herrings. They may or may not be guilty, but they are definitely suspicious. Especially Cheney’s.
You are asking why the mainstream press didn’t report an accusation of rape in which both the alleged perpatrator and the alleged victim say never happened and has no evidence to back it up except a lone accusation? Is that really your question? Get real.
Clinton never got a free ride from the press. The press hated his guts. Reagan, now HE got easy treatment. As is Bush, to some degree.
Bush sold options to make a payment on his baseball team. he had no choice he needed the money. Not only that after a slight dip the stock rebounded and went higher than what George sold it at. Ann Richards tried to hammer him with it when he ran against her and failed. So why do they hammer him over something he was cleared of???
Cheney? Let us go back to the election. Do we remember the press hounding him to sell his Haliburton stock? I do. They, esp Dana something of the Washinton Post I believe, kept saying that it was a conflict of interest. Since Cheney could make energy policy that would benefit him. So to distance himself from the controversy he sold. Now that same press, Dana someting, is saying he did something illegal. Pick one and stick with it can we?
And the press hated Clinton? Whoa do we disagree on that? They orgasmed over him. You almost needed Kleenex when you turned on Peter Jennings.
First of all, he has never been cleared of anything. And I agree that Bush probably didn’t commit insider trading for that reason. Still suspicious, however.
As for Cheney. That would be a nice excuse, except Cheney specifically said that he wasn’t selling because of political pressure. But he could have been lying. Of course, Halliburton is much more than insider trading, but also “accounting irregularities.”
I was wrong about the press hating Clinton. I mean, they never paid any attention to any of his scandals at all. Just whitewashed right over them. Please.
The press hated Clinton because he tried to make them irrelevent when he first went into office. The White House press corps was furious with the Administration for closing off the upstairs foyer in the West Wing to reporters, who felt it was a slap in the face. Not only that, in the first two months Clinton never held a full-scale press conference with the WH corps, but held about 25 sessions with local representatives, another slap in the face. They also changed conference times often and without warning, often causing reporters to miss deadlines.
Reporters, especially the White House corps, loathed Clinton and loathed his administration. They didn’t cut him any slack, especially in the beginning because of those perceived slights. Editorial boards probably had different opinions, in fact, breaking down total number of media outlets, it probably broke about even.
Bah. This makes no sense. This should read:
First of all, Bush has never been cleared of anything. The reasoning that he needed funds for the purchase of the Rangers was the reason for the sale and not the subsequent dip is a pretty plausible explanation that I already agreed with before. I feel that this scenario is the most likely and that Bush probably didn’t commit insider trading for that reason. Still suspicious, however.
As much as I despise Bill Clinton for deserting his country in time of war, fraudulently profiting from his business ventures and pronging every skank in sight, his affair with Monica Lewinsky was consensual, with her “suggesting” the idea. Packwood was sexually assaulting the women he worked with, forcing his tongue down their throats and other such crap. No it was not the same. But I will say that Packwood was a liberal. Democrats = Bad; Conservatives = Good.
Clarification - I do not condone what Packwood did. However Billy didn’t flash the willy only once. He had a pattern of this sort of thing. Almost nobody gets caught after one sin. My point all along has been equal treatment. Packwood goes…Billy goes…Toricelli goes. After all aren’t we all equal before the law? The Torch gets a slap on the wrist while other half of the crime is in a federal ass pounding prison. Reminds me of a story from the Bible where the adulteress is brought before Jesus and they wanted to stone her. Last I saw adultery takes two. So does bribery or whatever the crime was. And Daschle, I believe, says “We need to put the politics of personal destruction behind us”. Or some such drivel. Don’t get me started on that one. Grrrrrrr.