April 19, 2010

Why is Bill Clinton suddenly making such a spectacle of himself over the Tea Party?

The former President has cropped up on TV and in an op-ed the NYT warning about the potential for violence. I know why the Tea Party is in the news, but what's with Clinton? Why is he the go-to guy on the supposed latent violence of the Tea Party movement?
Fifteen years ago today, the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Building in Oklahoma City claimed the lives of 168 men, women and children. It was, until 9/11, the worst terrorist attack in United States history. 
Oh! It's a memorial for human beings who died 15 years ago. We are remembering them, and that brings Bill Clinton, who was President in 1995, to the fore. There was nothing partisan about who lived and died in the Oklahoma City bombing. Children — individuals who never thought about politics — died that day. Yet here is Bill Clinton using his special prominence today to unleash a political attack to push back a populist movement that threatens his political party.

303 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 303 of 303
raul said...

Fen said..."Some of us are intelligent to recognize that less government != anti-government."

What does that mean?

Alex said...

raul - less government can start by eliminating the Department of Education.

AprilApple said...

If you don't agree with democrats, you are Timothy McVeigh.


Never mind the union-democrat thugs who are actually beating people up.

raul said...

Alex "raul - less government can start by eliminating the Department of Education."

Maybe, and I've heard many of the arguments for such, but as we both know, there are all kinds of things government can eliminate, but each and every one of them have those who will argue the opposite. (And if this is truly important to those who want a "smaller" government, why wasn't it done during the Bush years, when he held the White House and the Congressional majority?)

And when anything is eliminated, you better have something in place that will do the job at least as effectively as what is eliminated.

Last week Obama signed a new pact with the Russians, to eliminate a specific number of nuclear warheads/weapons, and we heard all kinds of people screaming to high heaven about that...and we still have 1,500 on hand.

Alex said...

raul - since the Department of Education is more then useless, eliminating it w/o doing anything else is a healing measure.

raul said...

AprilApple said..."If you don't agree with democrats, you are Timothy McVeigh."

Again...what does that even mean?

I don't know anybody who feels that way.

Other than partisan politics, what would you possibly be basing such a statement on?

Scott M said...

@raul

Do you think repeating your initial comment somehow negates the information regarding Bush's expansion?

No. I was just as critical then as I am now. Both expansions of federal power are encroachments on states rights and individual liberties.

yet evidently mattered little to you during the Bush years

What part of "I left the GOP over it" don't you get?

And if it mattered, where are your comments taking Bush to task?

I left...the...G...O...P over it. That's taking him to task. My criticisms of Bush, even just hereabouts, are legion.

Why is it so important to you that I am some sort of Bush supporter simply because I criticize further expansion of government under Obama?

...unless it fits a narrative or stereotype of yours...hmm...possibly?

raul said...

Alex - So we just eliminate the entire department...with nothing in place...and...then what?

Everybody home schools?

Alex said...

raul - your bigotry against home schooling is very telling.

raul said...

Scott M said..."No. I was just as critical then as I am now. Both expansions of federal power are encroachments on states rights and individual liberties"

But if that's the case, and this isn't really just related to partisan politics, where were the Tea Partiers then?

Why, if what you say is true, that they're merely pushing for "smaller government," why didn't they recognize the massive expansion during the Bush years?

Sound asleep?

Out of town?

Pogo said...

For the left, failure to love the State (when run by the expansionist left) is proof of disloyalty.

So sayeth Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and now Bill Clinton too.

raul said...

Alex said..."raul - your bigotry against home schooling is very telling."

How do you take what I said and run it to that extreme? I could care less if a family home schools their kids, but are you saying that every family in America can home school?

Families who have both parents working full time?

Single parent families?

How would this work? Who would take up the financial slack?

Want to take a wild guess?

Alex said...

raul - all of us in here were railing against the massive expansion of government during the Bush years. Please don't plead ignorance.

jeff said...

"I love the way the local tea baggers ignore the fact that 9/11 happened under George W. Bush's watch, yet spend every day of their lives here...blaming President Obama for the economic crisis he inherited from the same G.W. Bush."

What I love is the way local idiots insist on what the tea party folks say and do. Not to mention the obligatory childish slur. No one ignores 9/11, it has nothing to do with the financial mess we are in. Perhaps no one is blaming Bush as he hasn't been digging the hole deeper the last year or so. Ever think of that, sparky?

Scott M said...

Alex - So we just eliminate the entire department...with nothing in place...and...then what?

Everybody home schools?


Either that's a joke and meant as such, or you just exposed yourself as a simpleton not worth debating on any of these issues.

Because, as we all know, everyone in the country was home-schooled prior to 1979.

You're a joke.

AJ Lynch said...

Pro-constitution is anti-big govt = tea party's basic goal

I think Jeremy is now Raul. Sucks when you forget your password huh Jeremy?

AJ Lynch said...

Raul- the averge student gets less han $1,000 in funding from the humongous Educ Dept.

So most schools would barely notice the demise of the Educ Dept. Though the schools would no longer have useless fed bureaucrats telling them how to teach kids.

Peter V. Bella said...

Hey Alpha,
You seem to forget all the violent speech from the left during the 1960s and 1970s. Then there was all the violent speech during some protests during the Reagan years. During the Bush years it escalated again.

How do you keep wearing that cape of hypocrisy. By the by, Clinton released real terrorists- the FALN members at the behest of one of their members- Congressman Luis Guiterrez. Then you have the other terrorist in Congress, Bobby Rush.

Al Sharpton, who Obama has cozied up to is responsible for arsons and deaths. He may as well be a terrorist. Ted Kazcinski had a copy of Al Gore's book in his hovel. We can say Al Gore promotes terrorism.

WHat about Greenpeace, ELF, PETA, and all the rest of the the whacko envirofacists?

One would think the left is way more dangerous than middle aged, senior citizens, and young professionals.

raul said...

jeff said..."Perhaps no one is blaming Bush as he hasn't been digging the hole deeper the last year or so. Ever think of that, sparky?"

Do you happen to remember who started the digging on this "hole" you refer to?

And of course, you have plenty of solutions that do not involve spending, tax cuts or financial reform? And you ignore the fact that almost every real financial signal (the same ones we've used for decades on end) say the economy is improving, even as jobs lag behind. (Which is always the case following every recession.)

This constant argument that President Obama created the situation at hand or is just not doing what needs to be done is just partisan silliness.

If the GOP had a firm grip on real solutions, we'd be hearing them.

But we don't. All we get is no votes on every strategy or policy put forth.

Right now, we have Goldman Sachs gearing up for indictments, while still paying out 5 billion in bonuses...and the GOP fighting tooth and nail against financial reform. (And they base it on their fear of future bailouts...as if they weren't around for the first 800 billion.)

I hear plenty of screaming here, but no real solutions.

Sweet Child O Mine said...

OMG TMT
too much tea

Kirk Parker said...

Cedarford,

I've gotta hand it to you--when you're on, you're on. Your concluding paragraph is superb. I especially appreciate the (true) nuance here entailed by that word "sometimes":

"Violence works some of the time, and sometimes violence has led to the betterment of the citizenry."

Most of the time, when we hear someone say "Violence never works" we could mentally translate that to "Don't use violence on me!"
and be close to the truth.

AJ Lynch said...

Althouse:

Just thought of this- Clinton wants to get as many comments as a Palin post!

raul said...

AJ Lynch said..."Raul- the averge student gets less han $1,000 in funding from the humongous Educ Dept."

First of all, I never said we shouldn't eliminate it, but I did mention having something in place to take up the slack.

And if what you say is true, and "the averge student gets less han $1,000 in funding," why do we need to eliminate it?

"So most schools would barely notice the demise of the Educ Dept."

And their funding would come from...?

"Though the schools would no longer have useless fed bureaucrats telling them how to teach kids."

Who would be the overseer of the schools?

Explain all of this to me.

Adam said...

@Raul,

The preferred usage for questions such as yours is, "Are you now or have you ever been a [small-government advocate/Birther/Republican]?"

Alex said...

raul - explain to me why we need a national overseer of the schools. Each state can take care of itself according to it's needs. Your position simply betrays a statist mentality.

AJ Lynch said...

The states and towns and cities would oversee schools just like the Constitution intended.

Every little bit adds up- $1,000 per student is real money - more than $50 Billion a year to help close the budget gap.

Alex said...

The fact that liberals can't even give up the $50 billion Dept of Education betrays their real intentions. They have no interest in balancing the budget.

raul said...

Adam said..."The preferred usage for questions such as yours is, 'Are you now or have you ever been a [small-government advocate/Birther/Republican]?'"

I don't care what they call themselves, I just think there should be a reasonable and factual basis for their complaints.

The small government argument is ludicrous, considering how many of the Tea Partiers have to be collecting unemployment, Medicare, Medicaid and other BIG government assistance. (Unless of course, they're all fully employed, independently wealthy and so healthy they'll never need health care of any kind.)

As for the birther movement, it's so completely crazy it's hard to imagine how it continues to have a life.

Republicans are fine; I just wish they'd take an active part in governing the nation, and spend less time opposing everything Obama says or does.

Just Lurking said...

Were you and the tea baggers asleep on your sofas during Bush's eight years in office?

The sleepers have awakened!

Alex said...

Republicans are fine; I just wish they'd take an active part in governing the nation, and spend less time opposing everything Obama says or does.

Translated - Republicans should just bend over and accept Obama's magnificent genius.

raul said...

Alex said..."The fact that liberals can't even give up the $50 billion Dept of Education betrays their real intentions. They have no interest in balancing the budget."

And once again, you blame the "liberals" for not "balancing the budget"...and use the Dept. of Education as your base point?

Did you miss the previous comments I posted relating to the years Bush and a Republican majority had the spending reins?

Did you see the "anti-liberal" GOP take charge and handle any form of balancing?

What did they "eliminate" to get that balancing act in gear?

Alex said...

raul - the whole point of the TP is to punish both parties for their reckless spending. But you can continue to play the partisan hack.

raul said...

Alex - No one has to bend over.

But voting no on every measure put forth?

C'mon...

Alex said...

raul - when every Democrat measure is objectively pro-socialist I commmend the GOP for being the "party of No". Atta boys!

Pogo said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Pogo said...

If the Dept of Education ceased to function tomorrow, no one would ever know, except perhaps the folks holding DOE staff mortgages.

raul said...

jeff said..."Really? you are under the impression that everyone home schooled until the 70's. I take it you are a product of public schools?"

Ahhh, and now we take a trip back to the good ol' days.

But, as I said before...so get rid of it...but I do think we should have something in place to handle matters once it is gone.

And yes, I did attend a public elementary and high school and a state university.

Can I assume you're an "elitist?"

AJ Lynch said...

What Pogo said.

raul said...

Alex said..."raul - when every Democrat measure is objectively pro-socialist I commmend the GOP for being the "party of No". Atta boys!"

And that "socialist" mantra rears its ugly head.

Tell me which of the "socialist" programs in place right now that you and all of your family members and friends do not or will not be taking advantage of.

List them out for me.

Alex said...

raul nobody I know uses:

* welfare
* food stamps
* WIC
* government mortgage program
* government backed student loans

I have used unemployment, but that doesn't count because my taxes directly pay into the fund from which it comes out. I tell you this, if we eliminated everything but unemployment compensation we'd balance the budget.

Kirk Parker said...

Scott,

"...justify[ing] your point of view by pointing to all the thing Bush did or didn't do doesn't traffic with me at all. I left the GOP over his administration."

No kidding! For myself, I never left the GOP because I never was a member of the party in the first place (or of any other party, for that matter.) But about the only thing to like about Bush, domestically speaking, was that Gore and John F'n Kerry would have been even worse.

lucretius said...

There was something partisan about the victims of the Oklahoma city bombing--they were targeted because of their participation in federal government programs. Children in federal daycare. Federal prosecutors prosecuting gun crimes. Administrators handing out Medicare checks. These victims were chosen precisely because they were on federal government property. This was an entirely political act.

Adam said...

Of all the stupid arguments routinely deployed by the left, this may well be the stupidest:

"Tell me which of the "socialist" programs in place right now that you and all of your family members and friends do not or will not be taking advantage of."

A safety-net type of program--i.e., something actually arising out of compassion for the unfortunate or luckless among us--is one that we hope not to take advantage of. A pretty good litmus test for "socialism" (why the ironic quotes, Raul?) is precisely that the government arrogates to itself the responsibility for taxing and spending us into dependency upon its programs. Why in hell wouldn't I "take advantage" of Social Security if I've paid SS taxes my entire life?

That's some catch, that Catch-22. If I oppose the imposition of a huge expansion of the welfare state, I'm a racist, fascist, hate-filled militiaman. If I cash any of the government checks I've been taxed to underwrite, I'm a hypocrite.

Alex said...

These victims were chosen precisely because they were on federal government property. This was an entirely political act.

a more humane method would have been to protest outside the building instead of murdering them. But McVeigh was an evil bastard.

raul said...

Kirk - "But about the only thing to like about Bush, domestically speaking, was that Gore and John F'n Kerry would have been even worse."

The crystal ball approach to justifying a vote for G.W. Bush...twice.

Had they been "worse," as you say...it would have really taken some doing to even match George's failures as Commander In Chief.

Alex said...

That's some catch, that Catch-22. If I oppose the imposition of a huge expansion of the welfare state, I'm a racist, fascist, hate-filled militiaman. If I cash any of the government checks I've been taxed to underwrite, I'm a hypocrite.

Well that's the Alinskyite game they play. Just be wary my friend.

Alex said...

Had they been "worse," as you say...it would have really taken some doing to even match George's failures as Commander In Chief.

I can imagine Gore/Kerry doing much worse after 9/11... Like not doing anything and America absorbing more 9/11-style attacks in 2002-2004. Easily.

raul said...

Adam - Enough of the silly blather.

Tell me which of the many government sponsored "socialist" safety nets you won't accept.

raul said...

Alex - Are you trying to say, with what we know now, the facts that 15 of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudis, that Osama Bin Laden was in Afghanistan...that George W. Bush handled matters in the right manner?

By invading Iraq?

Alex said...

raul - you're much too "stuck on stupid" for me to explain the finer points of Bush's Iraq policy. So I won't bother wasting my time.

raul said...

Alex - Bush expanded the "welfare state" more than any previous president in our nation's history.

What is it about that that you don't understand?

Anil Petra said...

'Birtherism' reflects a profound distrust of the mainstream media, where Democrats are nearly universally lionized and their worst excesses (and wrongdoings) are regularly suppressed or buried.

Journalistic malfeasance has bred an environment in which many ordinary Americans would put nothing past activists throughout the mainstream willing to tell any lie to advance the liberal agenda.

Still, 'Birtherism' is largely a refuge for kooks of the left and the right, and is mainly a wedge used to advanced leftist polemics against conservative Americans.

The mainstream Right is more infused with the well founded notion that Obama has brought to light the "myth" of the conservative, or even moderate, Democrat.

It's not that Obama is the "other" (a la 'Birtherism'), it's that every Democrat has signed on to a profoundly left wing agenda that will change America in so many ways, much of what we hold dear is at risk.

raul said...

Alex - Right. Bush's Iraqi policy was very deep.

So "deep" there isn't a thinking person on the planet who believes he would do it again.

Including Bush.

Alex said...

raul - once again you fail to be anything except "stuck on stupid" partisan hack. I already explained that tea party holds both parties to account. Can you stop being a partisan Democrat hack for even one millisecond?

raul said...

Anil Petra said..."'Birtherism' reflects a profound distrust of the mainstream media, where Democrats are nearly universally lionized and their worst excesses (and wrongdoings) are regularly suppressed or buried."

That's ridiculous.

And anybody who thinks there are people on the "left" who buy into this fanatical delusion is crazy.

And as for the all "media is liberal" garbage, it's just that.

Are haven't you ever read all of the comments here, raving about how Fox is the number one rated broadcast from 1-10?

raul said...

Here's your party of obstruction at every turn:

SEC Vote On Goldman Was Split Along Party Lines

Bloomberg: The SEC's commissioners voted 3-2 along party lines to prosecute Goldman over its Abacus deals -- the three Dems voted to charge and the two Republicans voted not to charge.

Now why would the GOP vote NO to this?

Just Lurking said...

Tell me which of the many government sponsored "socialist" safety nets you won't accept.

This is the argument of a bullshit artist. Another stereotype- that those who are opposed to O's proposed deficits, and his takeover of health care, are against all govt programs.

Peter V. Bella said...

Now why would the GOP vote NO to this?

Why would the Dems vote yes? Who ordered them to? You open up a can of political worms with the question.

The better question is did they actually violate any regulations or is this just an extortion attempt by the Democrats to get publicity fines.

There is no mention that Obama has given back the hefty six figure campaign bribes he received from Goldman either. Curious, no?

Big Mike said...

@raul, Fox is the exception, and not the rule. The Washington Post, the New York Times, the Boston Globe, the Philadelphia Inquirer, the LA Times, the ABC, NBC, and CBS nightly news broadcasts, CNN, and MSNBC, these are all liberal to the point of bigotry.

I guess you're not a mathematician or computer programmer if you don't know that != means "not equals," as in "is not equal to."

Sad, very sad. How do you avoid hanging yourself in shame and humiliation?

If you're going to talk back to pro Tea Party people, you really need to ditch the "Bush did it first" rhetoric. While some of us would be grateful to have Bush back again, given what has transpired since the Obama inaugeration, no one sane thinks that Bush represented optimal stewardship of our tax dollars

At any rate, when Barack ("a trillion, is that more or less than a thousand?") Obama has run up a deficit in 15 months that is within epsilon (that's another mathematical formalism) of what Bush ran up in eight years, even a center-right person who found Bush's spending spree to be supportable is going to gag.

bagoh20 said...

"Tell me which of the many government sponsored "socialist" safety nets you won't accept."


Every single one they refund my money for... with interest please.

Alex said...

bagoh - except socialists say that the money you claim you earned in the first place was not possible without all the government built infrastructure, so they deserve a cut.

Ken said...

The right wing fringe is way more dangerous, because of guns and military fetishism.

75% of the American people are pro-gun these days. Not exactly a fringe.

Put away your Hootie and the Blowfish CD's and get with the new millenium, man!!!

garage mahal said...

If you're going to talk back to pro Tea Party people, you really need to ditch the "Bush did it first" rhetoric.

Can't blame Bush for any of problems he created, but you can sure blame Obama for them! [and the people that blamed Bush when it was happening..... see, crazily, Alinsky, Saul.] "we're just using the tactics you used on us!

damikesc said...

I am htrying to figure this out.

If you oppose big government, to avoid hypocrisy, you must refuse Social Security, Medicare, and other programs you've been forced to support for years financially...

But Libs who oppose tax cuts aren't hypocritical if they don't pay 70% of their income in taxes retroactive to 1982. Heck, getting them to pay taxes at all is a huge challenge.

Why is that?

Ken said...

Just today we have armed right wingers rallying on the anniversary of Timothy McVeigh's terrorism.

Right, because a political rally in favor of as popular an issue as gun rights is indistinguishable from terrorism.

Keep pushing the anti-gun issue and see where it gets you. Hell, we might pick up 100 seats if you go that route.

Fen said...

Libtard: And anybody who thinks there are people on the "left" who buy into this fanatical delusion is crazy.

"...its just about sex, MoveOn"...

[snicker]

Yes Raul, after lecturng the rest of the country on the evils of sexual harassment [Jones], sexual discrimination [Lewinksy], and sexual abuse in the workplace [Wiley], the Left folded when Clinton performed these acts on female Democrats.

"Its just about sex" was your fanatical delusion.

AGW is another.

And as for the all "media is liberal" garbage, it's just that.

Anyone who thinks the media doesn't have a liberal bias is not someone to take seriously.

haven't you ever read all of the comments here, raving about how Fox is the number one rated broadcast from 1-10?

Nope. Show us "all" the comments.

Most of us dont even watch FOX. Most [all?] of us think OReilly is a blowhard. Most of us think FOX is all about the LCD, esp when they engage in yet another round of Chandra-Lacy-Natalie underwear-sniffing rubbernecks.

You're the one who's been programmed into an Obama Zombie Drone. You cant even accurately describe what your enemy does. You've been fed with a shovel, and you love it.

Fen said...

Libtard: Can't blame Bush for any of problems he created, but you can sure blame Obama for them!

1) Bush is not in office, Obama is.

2) As bad as Bush was, Obama is 10x as worse. Maybe thats why [duh, libtard] you're seeing 10x the outrage

3) I did blame Bush back then, and was angry enough about it to leave the GOP.

You fail. Again.

Sweet Child O Mine said...

Tea party came up when the Republican brand became toxic. Perfect timing for those who "arent" Republican.
Now that you have your new club, who's gonna be the leader?

Pogo said...

'If you oppose big government, to avoid hypocrisy, you must refuse Social Security, Medicare, and other programs..."

False.
If big gummint takes my money, those programs are the only way I can get any of it back.
More, the gummint has made it impossible, even illegal, to opt out.
Bullshit, danielle.

Pogo said...

"Now that you have your new club, who's gonna be the leader?"

Don't worry your pretty little head about it.

Michael said...

Garage: I would stipulate that I blame Bush for all the problems he created and I also blame Obama for all the problems he has or is about to create. So, having said that can we now proceed to have a discussion or are we doomed to go in circles? I think many on the left are confused and angered by the kind of populism that has arisen from the right and middle: an anger that showed itself when Rick Santelli asked the very good question of why am I expected to bail out my neighbor who put in an new bathroom when I myself did not. The anger that is displayed in the tea parties is not the kind of frothing at the mouth anger that Democrats showed toward Bush/Cheney/Halliburton/Bloodforoil, but a more reasoned anger that is born of a deep suspicion that someone is after all they have worked for. Our president has done little to dispel that fear through his smug and snotty attitude toward the people who make up the middle of the country. Look hard at the photos that Althouse has produced in these pages and you will see the people who are sitting on some savings they have slaved to get and they see them evaporating. Most politicians do not understand this and their bafflement may cost them their political careers. Clinton is living in the past and only the most propaganda gobbling dolt would conflate Timothy McVeigh with the people in the Althouse pictures.

raul said...

damikesc said..."If you oppose big government, to avoid hypocrisy, you must refuse Social Security, Medicare, and other programs you've been forced to support for years financially..."

There are many who have never themselves paid a dime into Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid who still accept their benefits.

I think you should tell all of your friends and relatives who haven't paid in...to discontinue taking such benefits.

And continuing to complain about big government, while at the same time, collecting unemployment, welfare, veteran's benefits, etc. is also counter productive.

We must stop these people from denigrating our government and ripping off America.

raul said...

Pogo said..."If big gummint takes my money, those programs are the only way I can get any of it back."

What if you didn't pay anything in, numbnut?

You think people who never worked or never worked and still collect their dead spouse's benefits would agree to give up all of these BIG GOVERNMENT socialist benefits?

Big Mike said...

@garage, I can certainly blame Obama for making things worse and not better, can't I?

Big Mike said...

@Michael, eloquently put.

Troubled Voter said...

KEY PARAGRAPH:

"Civic virtue can include harsh criticism, protest, even civil disobedience. But not violence or its advocacy. That is the bright line that protects our freedom. It has held for a long time, since President George Washington called out 13,000 troops in response to the Whiskey Rebellion."

read the op-ed. harsh criticism is cool. don't threaten people with violence. on the right or left. he's just stating the facts that he sees as a president who was in office during a terrible act of terror. give him a break.

garage mahal said...

@garage, I can certainly blame Obama for making things worse and not better, can't I?

Of course. What part of the economy has he made worse so far? Not what you think might happen.

Pogo said...

It's Jeremy Raul - he needs two names just be to half-ass it!

garage mahal said...

Rick Santelli asked the very good question of why am I expected to bail out my neighbor who put in an new bathroom when I myself did not.

But no one in government bailed out someone to pay for a bathroom, that I know of. Santelli and his crew are the ones that lit this economy on fire and literally stole people's money. That's who tea partiers should be mad at.

Pogo said...

"harsh criticism is cool. don't threaten people with violence. ...in office during a terrible act of terror. give him a break.

Oh, bullshit.
Clinton is doing his same old plausible deniability crap. He suggests a connection between the tea party and radical violence, but then rejects that he has made any such connection.
A man who argues the definition of 'is' gets no slack cut.
He can go to hell.

Sweet Child O Mine said...

I didnt think you had an answer...Im all for tp-ers blowing up! [by that I mean organizing and getting bigger.
More votes for the Dems

garage mahal said...

I know what Clinton is really up to!. Things don't change much.

Pogo said...

"Im all for tp-ers blowing up! "

Criminey, yer jes' another violent Democrat.

Troubled Voter said...

i'm just stunned at the vitriol on these comments. i like althouse because, even though there are times when i don't agree with her, i know i can count on her to come at an issue with a thoughtful perspective. not one in which she gets emotional or so passionate that it reflects badly on her character.

you guys might try it?

the lame jokes and mean-spirited attacks on clinton are just as bad as anti-bush or anti-cheney or anti-palin word vomit.

Big Mike said...

@garage, both Obama and Bush came to office having to deal with a recession. Bush took the tested approach and cut taxes, leading to one of shallowest, albeit lengthiest, recessions in the post WWII era. Obama's approach was to throw the matter to Congress and offer no guidance, resulting in a stimulus package that has stimulated nothing. Temporary jobs have been created at an average cost in excess of a hundred thousand dollars per job, and the recession is now the deepest post WWII recession, with no end in sight.

If you want more, it's easy to give you more.

Adam said...

Raul said...

Tell me which of the many government sponsored "socialist" safety nets you won't accept.

Are you really this obtuse, or just the kind of person who gets off on "winning" internet comment-thread debates? Clearly, I am drawing a distinction between safety-net-type policies designed explicitly to help those who've fallen on hard times and "socialism," which involves government financing of a wide range of things that people could provide for themselves.

To answer the question you should have asked, if you gave me the chance to go back in time and opt out of the social security system, I'd gladly do so. If you offered me a chance to opt out of DemoCare, I'd do that too.

But of course those choices are never allowed, because the bankruptcy of the ideas behind socialism would be self-evident.

edutcher said...

raul said...

edutcher "People are free to think anything they want, doesn't make it the least bit true, however."

Do you believe President Obama was born outside the U.S.? Do you believe he's a Muslim?


Not a clue as to where he was born, although I'm curious about the reason he won't let anybody see his birth cert; BTW it's the same curiosity that makes me wonder why he sealed his medical records and academic transcripts.

As the son of a Moslem, he is also a Moslem, according to Sharia. Then again, the Moslems believe we're all Moslems, some of us just don't know it yet.

Here's your party of obstruction at every turn:

SEC Vote On Goldman Was Split Along Party Lines

Bloomberg: The SEC's commissioners voted 3-2 along party lines to prosecute Goldman over its Abacus deals -- the three Dems voted to charge and the two Republicans voted not to charge.

Now why would the GOP vote NO to this?


First, I seem to recall the Demos doing a lot of obstructing for 8 years or so.

Second, why should the Republicans go along with a show trial staged by the Demos to justify their takeover of the financial sector?

Mind you, I think Goldman is getting exactly what it deserves for making a deal with the devil in the first place. They funded The Zero, the Hildabeast, Christopher Dodd and the rest of the slugs. Now, they're going to go up against the wall as the sacrificial goat to try to justify Slobbering Barney's financial takeover. As I said before, Farben and Krupp made the same kind of deal and they were destroyed, too.

(If I knew a better analogy, I'd use it. I hate being seen as violating Godwin's Law.)

Cedarford said...

Troubled voter - "read the op-ed. harsh criticism is cool. don't threaten people with violence. on the right or left. he's just stating the facts that he sees as a president who was in office during a terrible act of terror. give him a break."

Do you mean Waco?
Or the overseas acts of terror against the USA he had "law enforcement agents" seek to address through 'criminal indictments' ?

George Washington, BTW, is hardly the one for Clinton to quote with his actions in the Whiskey rebellion somehow proving in Clinton's mind - that "violence and disrespect towards rule of lawyers" never is justified.

Washington was all about using violence to take power from his then-Governments Parliament and King and Crown attorneys creating the "Rule of Law" he disagreed with.

Citing Washington as a non-violence in politics role model is like the ACLU brainlessly citing John Adams, the author of the Alien and Sedition Acts, as the bulwark of individual liberies because he defended Brit soldiers a quarter century previous.

c3 said...

Raul;
blaming President Obama for the economic crisis he inherited from the same G.W. Bush

(I will dare to summarize what the general sentiment regarding this on this blog has been)

I haven't heard anyone here blame Obama for the crisis but certainly heard many suggest his efforts (i.e. Stimulus Plan) have done little good at an extraordinary cost.

furthermore, there have been many who've suggested that after 1 1/2 years it is time to put to rest the we inherited line?

damikesc said...

There are many who have never themselves paid a dime into Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid who still accept their benefits.

Take up your complaints with the AARP. And the Democrats who champion those programs as outstanding programs without any real problems.

I think you should tell all of your friends and relatives who haven't paid in...to discontinue taking such benefits.

My grandparents have all passed away and my parents have had to pay into the system for their working careers.

So, who am I supposed to demand stop taking such benefits?

We must stop these people from denigrating our government and ripping off America.

Run on that.

The AARP doesn't really tend to vote often. No sir.

jim said...

Yes, truly Clinton's commentary is a profound mystery ... especially after a certain political party has fostered dissent up to & including talk of a new civil war or a 2nd American Revolution, while the POTUS gets exponentially more death-threats daily than his predecessor, in the immediate wake of raids on a militia group that was planning to mass-murder police in hopes of sparking a mass uprising ... the mystery deepens.

Remember how the left was constantly screaming that the repression was coming any day during the Bush administration?

Some people may actually go so far as to say that losing things like habeas corpus or the right to consult with a lawyer once arrested, or having your phone, mail & e-mail under random (& illegal) government surveillance, or being penned into "Free Speech Zones" before being allowed to protest certain events actually ARE repression - those wacky nutjobs!

I can't recall President Bush ever slandering the opposition.

"You're either with us, or you're with the terrorists" may have been directed at foreign governments, but the anti-war movement heard the dog-whistle loud & clear ... slandering the opposition is a hell of a lot nicer than arresting them for the heinous crime of wearing the wrong t-shirt, or putting them on surveillance watch-lists for nefarious activities like quilting-bees.

9/11 was enabled and planned under Clinton's watch, while he was busily distracted molesting interns.

So distracted that he gave Bush America's first ever comprehensive anti-terrorism program - his response to the original WTC bombing - a program that had brought Clinton within a hair's-breadth of killing OBL & had kept America 100% free of terrorist attacks ... & a program that Bush promptly ignored, with gruesomely predictable results. If only Bush's litany of epic fail was as trivial as "what the meaning of 'is' is" or dalliances with interns.

Preachers talking martyrdom, politicians actively encouraging militias, homes with their gas-lines cut, pipe-bombs in mailboxes, huge runs on ammunition nationwide ... yeah, all those crazy lefties worried about violence MUST be smoking some good stuff, eh?

Big Mike said...

@jim, you are simply factually wrong. The first World Trade Center attack was in 1993, on Clinton's watch, the attacks on the Cole and the US embassies were all, under international law, attacks on the US on US soil.

We have it from the words of al Qaeda leadership itself that the feeble response of the Clinton administration to these attacks was a major contributor to their escalation into the 9/11 attacks, whatever the amount of attention that the Bush foreign policy advisers paid or did not pay to the threat of al Qaeda. The fact that Clinton made no effort to follow up his unsuccessful attack on bin Laden suggested to the entire Moslem world that Clinton was more talk and show than serious. Unfortunately 3000 Americans had to die before the Moslem world came to appreciate the difference between a Democrat president and a Republican. (A huge number of Moslems also died as a consequence of 9/11, by no means all of them deserving.)

You lefties have always believed that Obama's election would lead directly to violence, and I specifically point to the out-loud musings of various liberal talking heads back during the 2008 campaign to the effect that Obama the candidate would be assassinated and never be allowed to take office. You're all caught up in some sort of fantasy, and it would be nice if you'd take a deep breath and decide to live in the real world, the way the rest of us do.

Daddio said...

@raul - Tell me which of the "socialist" programs in place right now that you and all of your family members and friends do not or will not be taking advantage of.

I would gladly give up all of my future Social Security and Medicare benefits if the payroll tax disappeared today. I wouldn't even want to be repaid for my previous 30 years of contributions. I'd gladly vote for any political candidate who promised to abolish them both.

JAL said...

He's just an all round spectacle himself.

Excerpt

It’s also worth recalling that the Clinton administration organized, coordinated, and participated in some of the ugliest rhetoric we have seen in recent American politics. I have in mind, for example, the campaign against Judge Ken Starr, who was the independent counsel during the Clinton-Lewinsky investigation. The Clinton team said Starr was a “spineless, gutless weasel” and “engaged in anti-constitutional destructiveness.” He was a “thug” and a “Grand Inquisitor for life.” His tactics were “frightening,” “vicious,” and “lawless.” His investigation was an “inquisition,” “smacks of Gestapo,” and “outstrips McCarthyism.” He was acting “irresponsibility, illegally.” Starr was “undermining the very integrity of the criminal-justice system.” The office of independent counsel was filled with “a crew of prosecutorial pirates” and Starr was using “instruments of intimidation and smear without restraint.”

And now Mr. Clinton is preaching to us about not demonizing our opponents and about the importance of not crossing rhetorical lines. Can a Clinton sermon on the importance of fidelity and the gift of celibacy be far behind?


Bill Clinton’s Double Standard on Rhetoric by
Peter Wehner in Commentary

damikesc said...

Yes, truly Clinton's commentary is a profound mystery ... especially after a certain political party has fostered dissent up to & including talk of a new civil war or a 2nd American Revolution, while the POTUS gets exponentially more death-threats daily than his predecessor

Wow, not just more --- but EXPONENTIALLY more. I know I haven't seen a figure showing an increase of a truly startling magnitude from before, but I bet you can provide that evidence any moment now.

Some people may actually go so far as to say that losing things like habeas corpus or the right to consult with a lawyer once arrested, or having your phone, mail & e-mail under random (& illegal) government surveillance, or being penned into "Free Speech Zones" before being allowed to protest certain events actually ARE repression - those wacky nutjobs!

...yet the law allowing them was renewed and signed by Obama. I, uh, notice that you don't seem bent out of shape over it.

Heck, he's pushing to be able to read your emails without a warrant.

"You're either with us, or you're with the terrorists" may have been directed at foreign governments, but the anti-war movement heard the dog-whistle loud & clear

Given that Bush was rather clear with who he was referring to, the whackjob Left's inability to comprehend English is hardly a concern.

...and, to be blunt, the whackjob Left hasn't been for America in a long, long time. ANSWER is hardly a pro-American outfit.

slandering the opposition is a hell of a lot nicer than arresting them for the heinous crime of wearing the wrong t-shirt, or putting them on surveillance watch-lists for nefarious activities like quilting-bees.

...or returning from overseas military duty for the US.

And attacking private citizens and news channels? Truly, that is change we can believe in.

Feel free to list the oppressive laws of Bush that Obama has repealed or asked to have repealed...

So distracted that he gave Bush America's first ever comprehensive anti-terrorism program - his response to the original WTC bombing - a program that had brought Clinton within a hair's-breadth of killing OBL & had kept America 100% free of terrorist attacks

Provided you ignore the first WTC attack or the attack on US embassies. And I thought his stonewalling on investigating the slaughter of US servicement at Khobar Towers was impressive.

Heck, did Bush refuse to label genocide "genocide" --- you know, like Clinton did --- to avoid having to do anything about it?

& a program that Bush promptly ignored, with gruesomely predictable results.

The program being that the FBI and CIA couldn't communicate at all, killing off any domestic intel on terrorist groups.

Why is that the the only side that is actually being violent is the Left? Can you explain that?

Preachers talking martyrdom

Who brought up Rev. Wright?

politicians actively encouraging militias

Well, yes, Durbin was wrong to compare US soldiers to Nazis. But, again, who are you criticizing here?

yeah, all those crazy lefties worried about violence MUST be smoking some good stuff, eh?

Given that a Leftie flew a plane into the IRS building, a Leftie shot up Ft. Hood, Leftie pundits calling critics of Obama traitors and accusing them of sedition...one must wonder the hell you get off acting like your shit doesn't stink.

To give you a hint...when you do things the public hates and then MOCK them over it and invent lies about them --- they tend to get annoyed with you.

Clinton was a sleazy hypocrite and our inept buffoon-in-chief is more of the same. Everytime you think we can't get a worse President than a Republican, Democrats invariably prove us wrong.

The DNC: Lowering standards for competent leadership for 50 years.

John Stodder said...

AprilApple said..."If you don't agree with democrats, you are Timothy McVeigh."

Again...what does that even mean?

I don't know anybody who feels that way.


Raul, inadvertently refuting Clinton's entire strategy.

He is trying to make people feel that way, but it isn't working. Independents clearly don't feel that way, and few rank-and-file Democrats do either.

Clinton's op-ed was odious but predictable. Maybe the best plan was to leave it alone. Nobody really thinks like the talking points machine the Dems use to counter their critics. They say these things, but few actually believe them. The scariest thing teaparty types will ever do is vote -- and to a plugged-in Democrat, that's plenty scary enough.

But don't worry: The Democrats have a plan. Wall Street reform. Those three words. It'll turn eeeeverything around.

JAL said...

Mmm... Sounds like Raul's last name might be Castro.

Wonder if he read the Commentary piecce. (There's more besides the Starr stuff.)

What the lefties did does not justify violent rhetoric -- but of course, as others have mentioned, the evidence for that is scanty and isolated, if it ever occurred at all.

froggyprager says @ 10:21 am The message of anger and violence that you hear by the Tea Party fans ... [???]

Show us something like this. and multiple it exponentially.

JAL said...

Point being Clinton is


an ass.

And a completely dishonest exploiter besides.

former law student said...

is that there is no proof that Jindal's son being beaten outside of a Republican event was politically motivated

Bobby Jindal's sons are 4 and 6 years old. Why are they attending Republican events on their own?

Fen said...

former law student: Why was her skirt so short? She was asking for it.

Cad.

John said...

The only reason that douchebag was ever president is because of the arrogance of Gary Hart. How stupid do you have to be to dare reporters to follow you when you're cheating on your wife with a publicity-seeking whore?

-jcr

HDHouse said...

you unfortunately deny that two wrongs don't make a right.

you deny that the uberfringe of the tea party is filled with absolutely crackpots and that they are a danger and that Clinton called them out on being a danger.

Was Reno off mark? Sure. There had to be another way. Does this in ANY POSSIBLE WAY excuse McVeigh? Not on your life.

So here we are again with a lunatic fringe all caught up in perhaps a reasonable movement but part and parcel of the entire mess...and you Ann, beat up on the messenger.

Revolution said...

It was the rapacious murders of American citizens at Ruby Ridge and Waco by Clintonistas and other big government jack booted douchebags (yes, Ruby Ridge happened under Bush I's BATF, he's just as guilty) that resulted in the bombing of the Murrah Building. Furthermore, under the laws of war, government facilities are legitimate military targets to attack, so it was NOT a "terrorist attack". Finally, also under the laws of war, if you keep unarmed civilians in the building for nongovernmental purposes (i.e. the little kids in the day care center on the 2nd floor), they are "Human shields" under the laws of war, and it is a war crime by the side that is keeping the civilians there, not by whoever does the attacking.
So, McVeigh was a legitimate combatant (he was even wearing camouflage and his dog tags, so he was in a recognised military uniform) under the laws of war, and the federal government committed the war crime in Oklahoma City, i.e. Clinton is the real terrorist.

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 303 of 303   Newer› Newest»