« More Riders Exit the Straight Talk Express. | Main | Pulliam Spins in His Grave »

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Did you just call Karen Johnson and Russell Pearce the "crazies on the bus"?

Great! Politics so simple the KosKids can understand it.

Why waste time on issues, right?

Newt? Really?

Please God yes.

The only thing we KosKids would have to ask ourselves is not "Do we retain the Senate majority" but "Can we increase it to make it fillibuster proof?"

Please nominate Newt. Or Giuliani. Or McCain. Or Romney. Or Thompson.

Really - any one of your "pygmies" will be fine.

Klute,

It looks as if Hillary and Obama will be war ravaged by the time February rolls around and you think we should be concerned about "pygmies"?

Newt has made some efforts to cozy up to Thompson lately. That could mean a giant increase in his profile.

Both have massive warchests. Both are attacking each other on matters that matter to the base, so that's normal. Both will probably wind up on the same ticket. Both are in total control of their media operations.

The "pygmies" (Newt's term, by the way, not mine), can't raise money (Romney would be floundering if he wasn't dipping into his own gravy boat), can't stay on message, are getting attacked on their base issues (see: Giuliani and the firemen, see: McCain on his "RINO"ism, etc.)... And everyone around them is causing them embarrassment.

Giuliani's campaign chair in SC getting busted for dealing coke. Vitter in Louisiana. McCain's Florida guy trolling public restrooms for oral sex, Romney scaring the s**t out of his dog... And then the desperate GOP scramble to make Thompson the new Reagan. Has anyone actually looked at him lately? Plus, trophy wife? Unseemly.

Newt? You know who liked impeachment? You guys. You know who didn't? Everyone else. Hillary defending her honor against the adulterous, thrice-divorced Gingrich (who shutdown the goverment when he wasn't invited to the front or Air Force One)? Please oh Please bring that on.

Sorry, "twice-divorced, thrice-married Gingrich". Which, you know, same as Giuliani. Thompson's got one less divorce than them. In fact, between the three of them, they've had almost as many marriages as the entire Democratic field.

I do so hope we'll get a lecture about family values from them.

No way will they be on the same ticket. Obama might take #2 but she will never have it. No one will overshadow her and he is way too popular and charismatic. Sorry, if she is #1, he stays in the Senate. Hillary will never accept #2.

I didn’t think Pygmy was yours, I am aware of its origin in this context. As for the rest of your assertions, please help me understand how multiple extra-marital affairs, accusations of rape, murder, alcoholism, bribery, and unscrupulous business dealings makes the Dems morally superior? Divorce is not good. Monica under the desk (and so much more), Mary Jo in the water, cold cash on ice, purged records, all are beyond despicable.

The Bill and Hillary Show could compete against any reality TV show for the most obscene and absurd lives.

As for Thompson’s trophy wife…give me a break! He married at 17, remained married to the same woman for many years, raised their children, and then divorced. Jeri Thompson may be younger and beautiful but she is not a trophy. She is a lawyer, an accomplished professional, and because she is blonde and beautiful she is called a trophy wife. Have you taken a look at Mrs. Kucinich? Now that is something. A radical who is younger, taller, beautiful, and not even American!

America knows Giuliani, warts and all. They were desensitized to things much more shocking during the Clinton years. They know he is strong and capable.

Suffice it to say, we could finger point the humanness of both sides with each taking their turns. But who can and will lead with the strength and wisdom this country needs?

Back in the 90s, I was channel surfing and came across the late and unlamented Jerry Falwell's "Old Time Gospel Hour". In between bits of his sermon, there were snippets of an infomerical for some anti-Clinton VHS he was shilling. The voiceover of the oh-so-dramatic footage of a burned out Secretaty of State's office was Falwell asking the viewer "Does this look like a fire started by a space heater?" to which I thought "Well, without years of training in arson forensic study, I don't know". But the good reverend knew what the score was, you can bet.

I know there exists in the fevered dreams of conservatives a fictional Bill Clinton that killed dozens of people (Ron Brown, Vince Foster, etc.), raped his way through Arkansas, and then tried to have the citizenry barcoded on their way to the UN Re-Education camps - and I hope to God that you people bring it up, because America loves Bill Clinton, and Hillary needs the sympathy points.

As for the whole "everyone's human" plank, that reeks of basest form hypocrisy when the conservative (and thus the GOP) platform is "Cut that out!" and then they're doing it themselves - sorry. You can't worry about the sanctity of marriage when you're cheating on your wife. You can't be against drugs when you're dealing or selling them.

And what, the excuse is he married at age 17? He married too early and thus gets a mulligan? That's the standard now? Well, I'm sure everyone who ever did that in history of mankind sure wish that option without being branded as an adulterer or hellbound.

Guess he owes a big up to us godless liberals for destroying the institution of marriage, otherwise he'd still be stuck with that mistake.

These contortions you guys are going through really are fun to watch. "Giuliani's adultery is OK because Bill Clinton desenstized America to it. Damn Bill Clinton for Rudy's adultery!"

A man who can't remain loyal to his wife can't remain loyal to his country. It's true for Clinton, it's true for Rudy McThomrich. I'm just amazed that as a lapsed Catholic, I'm making this argument.

Trophy Wife, see

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trophy_wife

Looks like to me that Jeri Kehn Thompson does qualify... The lib's here posting are making me believe all the more that my running theory that the left will bring back the impeachment of Bill Clinton and run against the Republicans based on that narrative. All the more reason why we need a "Washington Outsider" who has no personal "baggage" in a closet, tucked away somewhere. That takes out Giuliani, Newt & Fred Thompson. That leaves us with Mike Huckabee & Mitt Romney.

The Clinton's invented the "politics of personal distruction" and believe me, they will use it as much as they can in this next election. They will go for "playing" the "moral card" and if we choose a nominee who ends up looking like David Vitter, say hello to Pres. Hillary Clinton come January 2009.

Mr. Conservative,

To quote Cecil Terwilliger, were you on Mars during the 90s, in a cave with your eyes shut, and your fingers in your ears?

Ever day, there was another unfounded accusation whether it was delaying airplanes on the runway with a haircut (what *is* it with the GOP's obsession with haircuts anyway?) to murdering Ron Brown in a plane crash in Bosnia. The politics of personal destruction began with the GOPs obsession with destroying the man who dared end the Reagan era.

And it hasn't stopped. Hannity's apparently dredging up Vince Foster's suicide. Conservative talk radio was weaned on Clinton hate like a crack baby.

Don't complain now that it's got the gun out of the nightstand. Learn to love it, because that's all you people got.

Klute - your propaganda is always good for a laugh. Most accusations against Clinton were likely true. Everyone, even his most devout supporters, knows that. Man it’s so funny to see you pathetically defend such a slimy redneck.

What we on the right enjoy most is that the author of the politics of personal destruction got destroyed by his own scumbag tactics. Do you actually think anyone respects the man? He is a laughing stock - a human joke. Bill Clinton's claim to fame is that he united the nation behind their mockery of him. Sure people like Bill Clinton - he's hard not to like - all rednecky and charming but no one respects him. I think in the end all people will remember is the caricature of Clinton - the Simpsonesque lovable degenerate.

And if you think that your Party is wise to get behind his wife then you will be in the depths of despair come Election Day. She’s Bill Clinton without the charm. She is one of the few women on the planet that men feel no shame using the C word against. I admit she is also good for a laugh – you know when she goes into that Southern Black accent – wow she just radiates authenticity. Maybe she could deliver the State of the Union with that voice. And her normal voice – polls show that many actually prefer chalk board scrapings.

Yes Klute we Republicans are having a difficult time. We have 4 candidates that no one can decide over. All of them are extremely intelligent, articulate and appealing to the public. All of them are right of center. One is a genuine war hero. Two were popularly elected leaders from the Northeast – blue states - great experience in getting their opponents base to switch sides. And unlike your partisan actors, ours can actually think, debate, articulate conservative ideals, and has a resume more substantial than Obama’s or Hillary’s.

But please Klute – don’t stop praising your Hilldabeast. It brings us such comical joy.

Mark,

You really should have your Clinton Derangement Syndrome looked into. I didn't come here to praise Clinton, but to bury him.

"A man who can't remain loyal to his wife can't remain loyal to his country. It's true for Clinton, it's true for Rudy McThomrich."

Wow! That's a rousing defense! I'm such a shameless defender, I should be getting checks from the DNC!

For the record, Clinton should have resigned when he was caught lying during his deposition. He should have faced charges and served time for perjury (even though the Monica allegations had nothing to do with Starr's initial investigation - much like Scooter's charges had nothing to do with the leak itself). I didn't vote for him in '96 (voted for Nader).

Of course, I'm willing to call a man a moral coward for his actions. You, Ann, and others here I'm sure are willing to overlook lying, adultery, flip-flops, etc. on the desperate hope that one of them, maybe, can stave off the end of Republican bell curve just a little bit longer.

Romney won in MA because he supported things like abortion - so did Rudy. Of course, "a man has a right to change his mind"... Which I suppose also applies to who he shares his bed with, eh?

And no one said I was supporting Hillary (I'm for Chris Dodd, even though he has no chance). I'll support her in the general if I have to, because 1. the Supreme Court is too important to leave in Republican hands, 2. it'll drive you people absolutely mad, 3. and she's got the money, ambition, and brain damage it takes to absolutely destroy the Republican candidate.

But you pick your choice of flip-flopping adulterous pygmy. Enjoy!

Oh, and PS, this: "Most accusations against Clinton were likely true". I guess you believe Vitter should be out of the Senate, yes?

Klute - how do I have a Clinton Derangement Syndrome? I don't waste a second of my time thinking about him - he's a living walking joke for me - nothing else. But he is the husband of your Party's likely nominee and in that sense he is relevant. He is relevant in that she is still married to him, that she uses him, that she needs him. Without Bill do you believe she can stand on her own? I do not.

What is so fascinating is that your Party needs her because they really need him. For all his immoral foibles the man is an incredible politician and knew when to compromise with the Right. You say he came to end the Reagan Era - the truth is that his most impressive accomplishment was that he brought the Democrats into the Reagan Age, many kicking and screaming. I remind you that Clinton said the age of Big Government is over. I remind you that Clinton had the smarts enough to sign Republican legislation that balanced the budget and greatly weakened welfare. Bill Clinton is the man who outlawed gay service in the military, declared marriage should be between a man and a woman, and made it the official policy of our government for regime change in Iraq. Without Clinton your Party is lost which is why you have pinned all your hopes on his wife.

But the great part for Republicans is that your primary is actually far more difficult than ours, even if you don't yet realize it. Why you ask? For all of the anti-Clinton things you, yourself, wrote. (Should have resigned when he was caught lying, should have faced charges and served time for perjury, moral coward, etc.) This is who Hillary is - this is her resume - her choices - her life. This is a weight on her back as much as it was on his - actually I think more so because she has none of his charm and political smarts.

You asked me if I can overlook adultery - the answer is yes I can. I can forgive most sins because I have a Christian understanding of human nature. I know that "no one is good, no not one". "All have sinned and deserve the wrath of God". My angst with Bill Clinton was not that he had these horrible sins in the past but that he was so morally week that he was and is incapable of ending the pattern of his misdeeds. With Bill Clinton his terrible sins are also likely present and future. He does not have the moral restraint required of a good leader. Does Guiliani or Thompson? I do not know - I honestly do not know enough at this time to make that judgment. However, I am unaware of any individual(s) who have come forward and given any reason to date why they do not have that moral restraint. Do you?

Also - you really honestly believe that Romney won because he was pro-choice. Are you saying that all else being the same that the residents of Massachusetts would not have elected him had he been pro-life? That the ability to abort a baby is so important to your Party in Mass that they made it the most important issue? Is that what you are saying?

Who knows Romney's heart but God? I do not know if the stem-cell debate really led him to have a road to Damascus moment. I do know that he is now stuck being pro-life in name. There is no flippin back now if that is what he originally did. And he knows that. So for all practical purposes his conversion is real - it is something he has really chosen to be forever identified as. That is the most we can deduce using logic, however.

"'All have sinned and deserve the wrath of God'. My angst with Bill Clinton was not that he had these horrible sins in the past but that he was so morally week that he was and is incapable of ending the pattern of his misdeeds."

So, even though, as a Southern Baptist, a born-again Christian, and accepted Christ as his Savior... It's no different than David Vitter saying he's made his peace with God and his wife. What's the difference? Vitter could still be schtupping whores for all we know.

"With Bill Clinton his terrible sins are also likely present and future."

You don't know that. You're standing in judgement of a man you know only through the filter of the media - and gauging your attitude, probably the filter of people who are filled with nothing but admitted emnity for the man.

"However, I am unaware of any individual(s) who have come forward and given any reason to date why they do not have that moral restraint. Do you?"

If referring to Giuliani, yes I do. The man's children by Donna Hanover will have nothing to do with him because of what he did to their mother. Caroline, his daughter, goes so far as to use her *mother's* surname. A man who doesn't have the respect of his children for his deeds is diminished, regardless of how much rubble he stood on on September 12th.

As for Romney, his pro-abortion stance is just an example of his moderate position that gave him the edge in Massachusetts. I've no personal problem with Romney. I disagree with his politics... the reason I point out his flip-flopping is that it was such a huge issue of character with John Kerry in 2004 for you people, but if a Republican does it, it's a "Road to Damascus" moment, and not a craven political ploy to make it out of the primaries.


Vitter? I am not one of his constituents so my opinion doesn't really matter. But you seem to be confusing womanizing and affairs with being a sexual predator, which is exactly what Clinton is. He is so sick that he cannot control his urges.

As far as I know (and care to know), Vitter paid for escort service in the past, stopped, told his wife and moved on. With Clinton a woman is at risk of being harassed - one was even raped. Clinton was so weak he couldn’t even stop himself from groping a distraught woman in the oval office. And you want the enabler of this deviant man to beat the Republicans - ha!

Of course I don't objectively know what deplorable future act Bill will engage in but I do know he has a well documented history which continued while he was President and it is foolish to assume it has ceased. You can deny all of the gory accusations made by numerous individuals in the light of day if you want but I prefer to be more grounded in reality.

"A man who doesn't have the respect of his children for his deeds is diminished..."

That's nonsense and not backed by history. Many great men have had brats. Look at Reagan.

Maybe Giuliani’s kids have a point but I don't know enough - from either side - to reach any conclusion.

Re. Romney, I said I did not know if he had a Damascus moment so don't hang that on me. Maybe he did - maybe he didn't. A few examples does not a hypocrite make. A pattern, similar to Kerry's, does though.

And no, Romney could not convert to a pro-lifer just for the Primaries. It doesn't work that way in our Party. If he switched back after becoming the nominee he would lose 40 states. Now I guess he could privately govern as a pro-abortionist while claiming the mantle of life but we wont know that unless he wins. But even that would be preferable to an avowed pro-abortionist.

"With Clinton a woman is at risk of being harassed - one was even raped."

Wow. I must have been in a persistent vegatative state for the last 15 years, because I'm sure I might have seen the scandal surrounding that conviction.

Was this before or after he had Ron Brown shot and then crashed a plane in Bosnia with 30 other people on board to cover it up.

Yeah, you don't have Clinton Derangement Syndrome. Not at ALL.

"Maybe Giuliani’s kids have a point but I don't know enough - from either side - to reach any conclusion."

And I don't your inquisitive nature will permit you to look into the faults of anyone without a (D) after their name, and as the particular person feeds you enough of the appropriate bulls**t to keep you placated.

"Maybe Giuliani's kids have a point..."

Yes, that point is the public humiliation of their mother when their father decided to start schtupping a Broadway baby. Say what you will about Clinton, but at least Chelsea still calls him "Dad".

"And no, Romney could not convert to a pro-lifer just for the Primaries"

"During the 2002 governor's race, Romney's platform stated, "As Governor, Mitt Romney would protect the current pro-choice status quo in Massachusetts. No law would change. The choice to have an abortion is a deeply personal one. Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not the government's." Romney promised to "preserve and protect a woman's right to choose" and declared "I will not change any provisions in Massachusetts' pro-choice laws." In that campaign for governor, Romney received the endorsement of Massachusetts Republican Pro-Choice Coalition."

"Maybe he did - maybe he didn't. A few examples does not a hypocrite make."

Yeah, little issues like abortion, gun control, gay rights... Little inconsequential issues like those, an unfavorable position on which would cost him the nomination.

I must say I've found our little exchange enlightening. I feel a little like Balian with the Bishop towards the end of "Kingdom of Heaven".

2008 is SO ours.

"Was this before or after he had Ron Brown shot and then crashed a plane in Bosnia with 30 other people on board to cover it up."

That is not a fair comparison. You have the word of one woman and the word of one man. Whom do you believe? I believe the woman because there are so many others like her who give similar accounts. I guess it is easy for you to believe they are all liars. I find such naiveté foolish.

"Yes, that point is the public humiliation of their mother when their father decided to start schtupping a Broadway baby. Say what you will about Clinton, but at least Chelsea still calls him "Dad"."

Maybe she is as deranged as her mother? Maybe she was raised in an environment where she does not feel she has the freedom to betray her father? Who the hell knows? But, that in itself says something about Rudy. His kids aren’t scared oh him, that we can deduce. I don't think you are really prepared to play judge on this issue yet. I have no idea if it is true, but I've read Chelsey is scared to death of her mother and takes refuge in her father. Maybe something for you to consider, lol.

Romney claims that he had a conversion. I am not in his camp and personally hold doubts. However my previous assertion stands, he must now live with that conversion for a very long time. And, most importantly, he knows that. Knowing that, his conversion, regardless of motive, is likely real, even if he has to continually convince himself. Regarding his stand on gay rights - I do not see any inconsistencies. Unless you are arguing that Hillary and Edwards are also hypocrites?

I also believe in the big picture leader. A leader must know who he represents and should only depart from their judgment on issues that are inherent to his conscience. Reagan is a prime example of this. Reagan believed strongly in balanced budgets and limited spending yet he understood that the nation had more crucial problems to deal with, making those his priority, which had the effect of allowing (and even inflating) all of those things he personally despised.

I hope you continue to believe 2008 is yours. Underestimating the electorate and prescient assuredness has always been your side's downfall.

Well, we'll just have to see. I'd offer a gentleman's wager, but Greg would have to report me to the law for betting on an election. ;)

Well, if referees can bet on games they officiate, Klute, why can't you bet on an election...

I'm rather resigning myself to a Hillary victory in '08.

Especially because of the backlash sure to come in '10.

The comments to this entry are closed.