Althouse: Bill Clinton had Newt's number.

December 23, 2011

Bill Clinton had Newt's number.

And he played him!

Clinton is the master!

60 comments:

Ann Althouse said...: Please read the underlying story I'm referring to!

Sigh.

""In an interview with Marianne in Esquire, [Gingrich's] former wife revealed that Clinton called Gingrich one night and asked him to come to the White House immediately. The president laid out his case, according to Marianne: “You’re a lot like me.” Whatever transpired in that conversation, from that day to the midterm elections Gingrich took a back seat in bashing the president. He was still reeling from the unprecedented ethics censure his colleagues in the House had handed down the year before, when five Republicans went down in 1998, and Gingrich was virtually forced out as speaker by his Republican members, and he resigned from Congress."; 12/23/11, 10:21 AM
Ann Althouse said...: If you read the whole article, you'll see the similarities in Newt and Bill's lives, especially with respect to their mothers and fathers. Bill played Newt at the key moment in both of their lives.

Please address this.; 12/23/11, 10:23 AM
cliff claven said...: you didn't do your homework, boys! now, put your heads on your desks.

white house tapes also revealed clinton said to newt, "we're a lot alike in that we both hate women but love to boink them, and we have small crooked dicks.; 12/23/11, 10:26 AM
DADvocate said...: Clinton is a master manipulator and a likable guy. He knows how to play nearly everybody. He's still trying to play Obama.

http://news.yahoo.com/bill-clinton-o-reilly-yes-press-favored-obama-053218104.html; 12/23/11, 10:29 AM
Methadras said...: Reps caved. I called it. Idiots. Thank you.; 12/23/11, 10:33 AM
Chip S. said...: Oh, please, Althouse. The article doesn't say what it was that Clinton said to Gingrich to demonstrate their similarities. Maybe Bill was a master at psychology, or maybe he just let Newt see his FBI file. The paragraph you're highlighting hardly invites deep exegesis.

Anyway, by putting up two posts referring to a "solitary boy" and "'playing" and being a "master", you're absolutely inviting someone to point out that this guy is an indisputable master.

Not of his domain, of course.; 12/23/11, 10:34 AM
Ann Althouse said...: I'm deleting the first 3 comments because they start this thread off the wrong way. This post is about something specific.

This is a type of deletion that doesn't related to the "good faith/bad faith" distinction discussed yesterday. It's just about getting new readers/commenters into the discussion without confusion.; 12/23/11, 10:34 AM
Bayoneteer said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 12/23/11, 10:36 AM
pm317 said...: Ann Althouse said...

Please read the underlying story I'm referring to!

Sigh.
-------------

I linked the Esquire interview with his ex-wife here sometime ago and read it when it first came out and thought then that Newt would be toast if ever all the details got out.

There is a key difference between the two though their family lives appear similar -- Bill Clinton's mom was a nurse and didn't have any debilitating mental disease.; 12/23/11, 10:37 AM
cliff claven said...: thanks ann. you could do some comment cleanup in the post on the motel. it's just sniping back and forth.; 12/23/11, 10:39 AM
pm317 said...: Clinton is the master!

------------

Glad you're giving your devil its due.; 12/23/11, 10:43 AM
cliff claven said...: and you know that story about when bill stood up to his drunken stepdad and put him on his ass. i always thought he stood up to him, but the stepdad put bill on his ass. classic clinton spin. only mommy knew and she certainly wouldn't contradict her oedipal son.; 12/23/11, 10:43 AM
Right is right! said...: Let me fix if for you Ann...

Yes, Bill Clinton, the mainstream media and RINOs like Romney had Newt's number.

But don't let me get in your way of trashing a conservative that actually tried and did something conservative. Otherwise, you might label me a "Bad Faither."; 12/23/11, 10:47 AM
mccullough said...: Obama has had Clinton's number like Clinton has Newt's number. Part of the 2012 election will be whether Clinton will be finally able to one up Obama.; 12/23/11, 10:52 AM
Meade said...: Dane County Taxpayer said...
Otherwise, you might label me a "Bad Faither."

Feel free to email me if you would like to discuss it.; 12/23/11, 10:55 AM
The Crack Emcee said...: Two lying adulterers competing - and you're rooting for one over the other, or claiming one is somehow better?

Ugh. Such low standards.

What's it matter what similarities in their lives exist? They're both scum. Accept that. Breath it. Smell it? That's scum.

And, like so much in this country right now, it's nothing to celebrate,...; 12/23/11, 10:58 AM
pm317 said...: mccullough said...

Obama has had Clinton's number like Clinton has Newt's number. Part of the 2012 election will be whether Clinton will be finally able to one up Obama.
-----------------

This comment makes me wonder if this 'playing your opponent's number' game works only if you have the media protection?; 12/23/11, 11:00 AM
KCFleming said...: Bill Clinton had Newt's number.

867-5309?; 12/23/11, 11:01 AM
KCFleming said...: 42?; 12/23/11, 11:02 AM
KCFleming said...: Number 9?

Number nine.
Number nine.; 12/23/11, 11:04 AM
Christopher in MA said...: Beechwood 4-5789.

You can call him up and have a date any old time.; 12/23/11, 11:08 AM
mccullough said...: Pm 317

That's a lot of it, which is why Bill Clinton was on O'Reilly the other night. Clinton will try to sink Obama with independents.; 12/23/11, 11:09 AM
dbp said...: Clinton may or may not be superior when it comes to negotiation; it is difficult to tell because they did not have equal power at the time of the government shutdown showdown.

The president has complete control of his own decisions since the power of the presidency resides in him alone. The speaker is the leader of the majority in the House, but that majority does not have to vote as he commands. Rather, some in his party will leave him if he strays too far to the right while others will leave him if he strays too far to the left.

The speaker is in an intrinsically weaker position than the president. Plus it kind of helps when the press hates one side and loves the other.; 12/23/11, 11:13 AM
Right is right! said...: dbp, good analysis. Though Meadhouse might not like it because they are grasping to find ways to justify their support for Big Government Rino Romney. Trashing Newt, the only candidate who actually has done stuff to advance the conservative cause, now seems to be their last defense. Pathetic.; 12/23/11, 11:19 AM
dreams said...: That's BJ Clinton and I guess BJ Gingrich too. I liked the article and thought it made Gingrich more likable though I'm for Romney since it seems Perry has faltered.; 12/23/11, 11:20 AM
pm317 said...: Clinton has Obama's number too!

{Ann, I said my piece on Newt and Clinton's similarity. This is for extra credit to show in your words, 'Clinton is the master!'}; 12/23/11, 11:21 AM
Anonymous said...: Clinton's a master what? Manipulator? At being popular? So what? He's still an empty suit, using smooth and confident delivery of shaky if not outright wrong information to sway opinion his way, only to further his own ambitions regardless of the effects on anyone else and everyone else.; 12/23/11, 11:55 AM
MadisonMan said...: I think the number starts BUtterfield 8.; 12/23/11, 11:56 AM
Anonymous said...: Ann,

Clinton has your number too. That you would praise such an obvious immoral person, who demonstrably uses women for sexual gratification (Lewinsky and Jones) or professional ambition (Hilary), and lies at will if it makes him look better, only shows that he depends on people like you to admire him for his extreme faults, rather than condemn him for the type of man he actually is.; 12/23/11, 12:00 PM
ricpic said...: Yes yes, their life stories have some similarities, but one became a serial rapist and the other didn't. It was the brillianter one, the Rhodes Scholar one, who topped off his six layer cake of a life with the cherry, or should I say cherries of rape. And yet feminists can't see that, or won't see that, willfully. Could it be that feminists practice bad faith? Grammatically incorrect? Okay, could it be that feminist women are bad faith womyn? Yes, it could.; 12/23/11, 12:06 PM
Dante said...: I thought a while ago it was Romney, the Republican Clinton, or something.

Now it's Newt is Clinton. Is the idea that Newt is the "Bad Clinton" and Romney is the "Good Clinton"?; 12/23/11, 12:16 PM
Writ Small said...: Now it's Newt is Clinton. Is the idea that Newt is the "Bad Clinton" and Romney is the "Good Clinton"?

Everyone knows Clinton rolled Gingrich like a Super Ball on a glass table. The question was always, how did he do it?

It's important to understand Newt's exploitable weaknesses before we make him the Republican standard bearer. If Bill has Newt’s number, then Obama by way of Hillary surely does, too. Throw in a compliant press corps and we're talking landslide.; 12/23/11, 1:13 PM
Meade said...: Ironically, of the two, Bill has accomplished more for conservatism and trade liberalism than has Newt.; 12/23/11, 1:20 PM
Marilee said...: "I think the number starts BUtterfield 8."
Heh, wondered if anyone else remembered that. Excellent; 12/23/11, 1:21 PM
Anonymous said...: Ironically, of the two, Bill has accomplished more for conservatism and trade liberalism than has Newt.

I wonder what makes you say that. When Clinton was elected in 1992, he swung wildly to the left and showed incompetence similar to Obama in handling policy and economics. Only with the political stomping Clinton got in 1994, ushering in Newt, did Washington policy shift to a more conservative and free trade liberalization.

In other words, Clinton had nothing to do with the "conservatism and trade liberalism". He simply reacted to the electorate and the obvious politics of the 1994 elections. The newly elected republican congress is responsible for that "conservatism and trade liberalism", to which Clinton could only react.

I'll give him credit, though, for working the liberal press (who were all to willing to shill for him) to make it look like all these things were to his credit and not due to being forced politically to do it, in order to ensure a second presidential term.; 12/23/11, 1:52 PM
Meade said...: So you agree with me when I said "ironically"?; 12/23/11, 2:05 PM
Writ Small said...: Along those lines, one of Newt's great achievements, Welfare Reform, wouldn't have been possible without Dick Morris.

Newt created the environment, but according to the Stephanopoulis memoir, it was Morris who ran the re-election numbers and made the pitch to Clinton. The way George tells it, Morris was the only advisor Clinton was listening to after the '94 House defeat.

No Dick Morris type in the Obama White House, it seems.; 12/23/11, 2:54 PM
Peano said...: Please read the underlying story I'm referring to!

No, thank you. Gail Sheehy's "reporting" is typically a farrago of errors, omissions, inventions, and unverifiable "facts." Anyone who takes her seriously must be kind of, you know, blonde in the judgment department.; 12/23/11, 3:36 PM
Anonymous said...: So you agree with me when I said "ironically"?

You weren't being ironic; you were claiming the situation was ironic. You said it's ironic that Clinton did more for conservatism and trade liberalization than Newt.

I'm saying not only is your statement not ironic, it's wrong. Newt absolutely did more for conservatism and trade liberalization than Clinton.; 12/23/11, 4:14 PM
MarkD said...: So if that's victory, what does defeat look like? Humiliation, impeachment, dodging conviction, losing your law license and watching the VP you tainted by your unprincipled behavior lose isn't my definition of win.

Well, it did get the kids asking about oral sex, and the meaning of is.; 12/23/11, 5:03 PM
ndspinelli said...: Ken, Here are the rules, the professor and her court jester husband are NEVER...NEVER wrong. Remember Joe McCarthy, "I have a list.." Believe me dude, you don't want to get on the shit list. If you do, they won't even let you in the bathroom. You've been warned, bad faith commenter. The professor is the benevolent despot, and the husband is the court jester enforcer, being a prick w/ stupid humor.

Ken, truly strong people surround themselves w/ strong people. The professor is not strong, righteous, or wise. And she's looking pretty old lately.; 12/23/11, 5:12 PM
ndspinelli said...: If you want to see the "climate" this dysfunctional couple has fostered, go to the only post w/ significant comments today..the Clinton/Newt post. It starts w/ the professor/school marm taking out her ruler, and it just goes straight down the shitter. Perfect!; 12/23/11, 5:17 PM
Meade said...: ndspinelli,

Beyond hurling childish insults, if this is such a terrible blog and we are such terrible people, why do you keep coming here? I've deleted dozens of your comments and yet you keep coming back. What's with that? What is your purpose?; 12/23/11, 5:33 PM
rcocean said...: "What's with that? What is your purpose?"

Attention.; 12/23/11, 5:57 PM
deborah said...: I attended a college in the early eighties, and took a class in which the professor mentioned his outrage that Sheehy had (he alleged) highjacked data from his colleague, which her "Passages" was based upon. I'm under the impression he was telling the truth.; 12/23/11, 6:10 PM
Wally Kalbacken said...: I knew that Newt was blackmailed by Clinton into taking no role in the impeachment phase. It was too conspicuous of him to be in the background when, really, a serious push by Gingrich could have been all she wrote for Clinton.

When can we expect Sheehy's piece on Barack Ob.... Oh, never mind.; 12/23/11, 6:34 PM
Peano said...: I attended a college in the early eighties, and took a class in which the professor mentioned his outrage that Sheehy had (he alleged) highjacked data from his colleague, which her "Passages" was based upon. I'm under the impression he was telling the truth.

That's why she settled a plagiarism lawsuit for $10K plus 10 percent of royalties.

She knows full-well that her "reporting" is merely a means to advance her coo-coo leftist agenda. Anyone who credits her is terminally blonde. (I could name names.); 12/23/11, 6:39 PM
bagoh20 said...: OK, I'm totally confused, and now realize I'm one of the dirty dozen.

My comment got deleted, but Meade later posts very nearly the same comment.

Who's a guy got to sleep with around here to get some respect?; 12/23/11, 6:49 PM
Meade said...: Nice try, bags. If you're one of the dirty dozen, I'm the man in the moon.

Seriously, you do know why your comment was deleted, right? If not, email me.; 12/23/11, 6:56 PM
ndspinelli said...: Well Meade, my purpose is simple. It is what I spent my entire professional life searching...the truth. Not spin, not pomposity, not politcal correctness, simply the truth. I was lured to this venue by the promise of freedom of speech. When I see that sacred premise raped, I fight. I'm a blue collar, ethnic guy. You and your bride are not righteous and that is becoming crystal clear. I will not be bullied or marginalized, that's the blue collar ethic in which I was raised. And, I'm damn proud of it!

Now...hit your delete button and light up a Camel.; 12/23/11, 6:58 PM
Meade said...: Ann has a problem when the first few comments of a post indicate the link has not been read and those comments, even unwittingly, threaten to take the discussion in an entirely different direction. It becomes less of a problem somewhere after 30-50 comments. (Which explains why I save most of my wacky comments for later in threads. She'd be deleting me all the time!)

Here are the earlier deleted comments. Nothing really wrong with them, she just didn't care for the timing at the time.:

richard mcenroe said...
Hey, guys! Remember how you all felt last night about Boehner? That's how we felt about Newt in '98. Just saying...
12/23/11 10:13 AM

pm317 said...
I bet Bill Clinton had (still has) Obama's number too. Hope he plays it one day.
12/23/11 10:15 AM

bagoh20 said...
"Clinton is the master!"  Because during his administration he made the biggest move to right of any President in my lifetime. I agree, that's smart.; 12/23/11, 7:08 PM
deborah said...: I recall, a few years ago, Althouse warning people to keep on topic. Cafes are there for a purpose.; 12/23/11, 7:20 PM
Meade said...: Spinelli, I will leave your comment up for all to see just what a liar you are. You do not value freedom of speech. The truth is that your purpose here is to misuse free speech in order to bully, insult, and dominate others. You are not welcome here at all and your continued attempts to participate on this blog constitute harassment. Expect deletion of any and all future attempt to comment here.; 12/23/11, 7:21 PM
bagoh20 said...: Meade,

I understand completely, but I think the policy discriminates against those of us who suck. It's like the fat cheerleaders never get to be in the front. We have to let the hotties go out front. I hate being a fat cheerleader, but I'm gonna go on a diet now. Then I'll show you. I show you all!

BTW is this far enough down the thread to stay up? I'm gonna be hot soon. I swear, just give me a couple weeks, and you will see a new me. I can do this.; 12/23/11, 7:21 PM
Meade said...: That's the spirit, bags. Know this - I am rooting for you all the way, baby! Say it with me now - YES WE CAN! YES WE CAN!; 12/23/11, 7:27 PM
Writ Small said...: This is far from the first time Ann has deleted the first several posts that derailed a thread, and I've not been reading this blog all that long.

To act as if this were something brand new or a serious curtailment of free speech is ridiculously melodramatic.; 12/23/11, 7:54 PM
bagoh20 said...: OK, Yes we can, yes we ca...Oh look, a Bon Bon.; 12/23/11, 7:55 PM
Meade said...: Really? Hey, I like bon bons.; 12/23/11, 8:13 PM
Anonymous said...: What a futile thread. Clinton played Gingrich in every single aspect like a flute. Gingrich was a fine revolutionary but, as is so often the case, he was not an effective politician. He lost every single battle with Clinton. It was humiliating to be a Republican then.

Also, Clinton campaigned on single-payer health care and tried to pass it -- foolishly, in my opinion, both because single-payer creates awful shortages and because he did not have the votes in his own party. Other than that, Clinton passed the other things he campaigned on: NAFTA, welfare reform, et al. He also got the economy going, as he promised he would.

If you want to fault Clinton, foreign policy is the place to do it -- the starving Iraqis, the obvious percolating terror threat, an absurd narcissistic belief in his own persuasive abilities that led to the huge waste of time that was trying to solve the Middle East's 6000-year-old-plus political issue.

But, anyway, Clinton was a good president. Gingrich was, at best, an unfocused goofball as a speaker. Any objective reading of the facts leads to this conclusion.; 12/24/11, 4:06 AM
I'm Full of Soup said...: How will historians view the Clinton presidency in 100 or 150 years? I suspect it will be with a mouth-wide open ho-hum [pun intended] with some negatives for missing the threat of Bin Laden and Al Quaeda.

That is the way you should objectively assess a presidency. When one was alive during a presidency, one gets influenced by one's own experiences. Historians won't give a damn about Gingrich, single payer fiasco, or gays in the military.; 12/24/11, 7:59 AM

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)