Delbert -- In spite of the global warming hysteria, you said something here recently that caused me to believe you might be partly normal. I erred.
Re. "world affairs" or anything else of importance, when the president is in the office looking after the country I prefer his oxygen-rich blood in the big head, not the little one. I am of the firm belief that a man's judgement is less impaired by a blood alcohol level of .10 than an honest-to-God "steelie". Wars have been started and empires lost. You can check it out, my man.
Anyway, Delbert, I don't think any other executive with "visibility" in the public or private sector would last a NY minute when found (or even strongly suspected) to be putting his dick into the mouth of a witless employee while "in the office." And, if the employee dropped trou' on her own, any exec who "gets it" would shout for his secretary to get in here right now!
It is hard to imagine a greater indictment of the press/media who began coverage by saying, "if true," Clinton won't last the week in office. And, St. Hillary saying, "if true," it would be a serious matter, indeed.
Sure, the media covered the hell out of the story because of it's commercial value. Sure, they went, "tsk, tsk, tsk".
But, the plain fact is; when the president and his spinning scum said, "Yeah, so what?," the press fundamentally said, "Yeah, so what?"
I listened to Woodward and Bernstein canonizing themselves on the tube last weekend in marking the anniversary of Nixon's fall. What irony. Nixon's legacy (domestically as well as internationally) makes Clinton look like the "Being There" president. To be sure, Clinton is glib, Nixon was not. Clinton can charm, Nixon could not.
Nixon inherited (from JFK/LBJ) a tragic war and kept his promise to get out. Clinton inherited an economic slow down (in which the tide had already turned). "Clinton's economy" has, in reality, been a high tech revolution (that he and Gore had NOTHING to do with) at least as important as the industrial revolution.
And, Delbert, re. the importance of "all of the Iran-Contra lies of Reagan," show me the conviction; show me the indictment. Come on, Delbert, show me. Or is it just one of those "IMO" thingies? Hey, I'll grant you that, IMO, there was some hanky panky in the actions of the administration and, also IMO, Oliver North was/is a self-serving weasel and a disgrace to the Marine Corps. You might want to check out Robert Timberg's, "A Nightingales's Song." Very interesting book. And, by the way, do you think other presidents have ever gone out on a limb when acting in what they thought was the best interest of the country? If you answer no, recommend you PM one of the history profs. on the thread.
Re. Bush's "no new taxes," the Dem. congress put him up against the wall and, unlike Clinton, he thought in the best interest of his country (not his party) and decided NOT to "shut the government down." Frankly, I think the Dems. are scared to death by the very notion of candidates making easy to understand, unequivocal statements and that there was a definite, "make him pay" motive behind what Bush had to do. If you doubt this, look at the vilification, by the Dems. and the media, of the Republican "Contract With America" in the '94 elections. They were horrified! The GOP has, of course, blown the win by blunder after blunder since. Oh, well. |
