May 23, 2003
From the desk of Jane Galt:And people ask me why I think the Democrats have gotten insane on teh subject of the Administration.
Favorite line: "Another thing that gives me hope is knowing that historically, what is done in secret will be brought to light." Would have sounded just as convincing in the mouth of Ken Starr, no? Though, in keeping with the cutesiness of the piece, it might have been better phrased as "there's got to be a pony in here somewhere".
Dude, it's true! Complete insanity! Look at the baby dreads on that weirdo!
"In just two years, America has witnessed a $10 trillion projected deficit swing--- undoubtedly the biggest swing in fiscal expectations in U.S. history other than during years of total war." Peter Peterson, Concord Coalition, House Financial Services Committee, April 30, 2003.
Gee, I wonder what that bought us? Full employment? Comprehensive health insurance? A diamond-encrusted chandelier in every trailer home in America?
My favorite line: "Want to read the rest of this article? You have two options: Subscribe now, or watch a brief ad and get a free day pass." Thanks, I'll pass on that.
There are sane and reasonable liberals out there. You just have to avoid certain places if you expect to meet them - including the New York Times, the Boston Globe, Reuters, the BBC, Salon, The American Prospect, Atrios, Hesiod, Molly Ivins, Robert Scheer, nearly anyone who writes for a San Francisco paper, the universities, Hollywood, or anywhere you might find Tom Daschle, Nancy Pelosi, Al Gore, John Kerrey, Howard Dean, Al Sharpton, or Ralph Neas.
?? what the hell was that...
so many things.. so many things..
just remember.. if you're sure that anyone/thing would be better than western civ, no matter what it was, since western civ is so evil... we just can't have a discourse
Jane, Anne isn't insane, she is inane.
I suspect that as she was waiting for her herbal/latte rubdown (her bad back remedy), she must have heard one of the technicians speaking positively about the current admin, hence her words of wisdom.
Remember, this is a woman who said (about Bush 41) in her book "Operating Instructions": "I hate Bush as much as I love Jesus."
This article is about as coherent as the far left gets. There is no real argument or logic, just a bunch of nonsense like the Concord Coalition quote and dripping disdain for those who disagree.
I'm not ususally one to judge a person by their looks -- and in this case, it's easy enough to simply judge Anne Lamott by her horribly bad writing. But damn, is she ugly.
Lamott can't even get the First Crusade right. "Ripple effect"? Was she unaware of Tours? Spain? Sicily? Asia Minor? The newly converted Turks, Moors, Franks and Germans had been tussling with each other in situations far less tidy than she'd like to have for her piquant little column. And anyone confusing the manifest conquest and destruction of the Crusades with the tiptoe, polite democratization of the Near East might as well compare Bush to Hitler as an utterly unserious encore.
Laughable.
Question for Crank: please can you point me in the direction of sane liberals?
Seriously, I'm solidly conservative but would like to read and hear about the ideas that rational and reasonable liberals hold. Am I just not looking hard enough? I feel surrounded here in Boston: Kennedy, Frank, Kerry, Derrick Jackson, John Carroll, Ellen Goodman. Going further afield there is no improvement: Carville, Colmes, the liberal twit on Crossfire, Hedges, Scheer, McKinney, Daschle, Gephardt, Dean, Kucinich, etc.
Wait a minute, maybe that's why I'm going insane.
All I can say is, if I were going to live in a fantasy world, I'd come up with a better one than that.
Folks,
With all due temerity, I have to ask who is Anne Lamott ? I've never heard of her. (Should I be embarrassed ?)
And why is she 'the Democrats' ?
Cheers,
Good grief, I have to admit I'm surprised. It doesn't seem that you get this kind of lunacy from people who has seen the downside of life (think Star Parker here.) It's generally people like Chomsky and Pinter, who have lead an easy middle- or upper-middle-class life who are so one-sided. But she shows herself to be yet another thoughtless boob (and I don't mean the latter in the mammary sense, either.)
I loved the part about "surviving" Reagan. Wasn't he the guy who nuked Seattle or forced all newborn US babies to be irradiated?
They're hard to find but not extinct. Lieberman's not crazy. Edwards shows some signs of not being crazy (the jury's out on his honesty). The New Republic's not crazy. On the web, I've been reading Josh Marshall, Calpundit and Matt Yglesias; Marshall can be severely overwrought on occasion, but they're not crazy. Tom Friedman has his faults, but he's not crazy (unlike the rest of the NYT). Nat Hentoff's not crazy. Bob Rubin and Leon Panetta and Robert Reich aren't crazy. Donna Brazile's shown signs lately of not being crazy. There's more, but that's a start.
1) I utterly deplore "lookism" (applied almost exclusively to women), and that's not just because I, personally, have to have someone else tell me the time, lest the clocks stop dead. But you ought to be required by law to post a warning before linking to a site that contains a picture of Lamott.
2) When Lamott is a prominent (e.g. state officer, or somesuch) member of the Democratic Party, then you can refer to her as "the Democrats".
3) What I hate about Lamott is that (judging by her writing, which is the only thing I can) she is a caricature of some people's idea of what a woman should be: all caring, no brains. Sort of a Stepford Ex-Hippie Soccer Mommy. Brrr.
4) Oh, and the other thing I hate about her is that she GETS PAID to write like that.
Anne Lamott is a non-Democrat writer who has nothing at all to do with the Democrats, has never even heard of the Democrats, and is surely being raked over the coals in Salon's letter pages by all the Democrats who read the site faithfully despite the fact that it never publishes anyone who has anything to do with the Democrats. Of course the article speaks for itself: no true Scotsman, I mean Democrat, would write such a thing.
Re: Non-insane Leftists
Just a few that I’ve found are worth reading whenever I get the chance and actually make some of the strongest arguments for their respective (albeit wrong) arguments:
Professor Bjorn Lomborg author of “The Skeptical Environmentalist”
Camilia Paglia, Humanities Professor
William Raspberry, Washington Post Columnist
Christopher Hitchens, Columnist for The Nation
Gregg Easterbrook, Editor for The New Republic
Re: Non-insane Leftists
Just a few that I’ve found are worth reading whenever I get the chance and actually make some of the strongest arguments for their respective (albeit wrong) arguments:
Professor Bjorn Lomborg author of “The Skeptical Environmentalist”
Camilia Paglia, Humanities Professor
William Raspberry, Washington Post Columnist
Christopher Hitchens, Columnist for The Nation
Gregg Easterbrook, Editor for The New Republic
angie, by definition, aren't all Stepford Ex-Hippie Soccer Mommies democrats?
TW, hitchens no longer writes for the nation, something about hypocrisy?
the insanity we were refering to, had to with democrats. there are some very intelligent liberals out there such as neoconservatives and libertarians.
TW, hitchens no longer writes for the nation, something about hypocrisy?
the insanity we were refering to, had to with democrats. there are some very intelligent liberals out there such as neoconservatives and libertarians.
Annie Lamott is certainly not representative of the entire Democratic Party. She is highly representative of a form of San Francisco area liberalism that: a) takes for granted the obvious evil of those that oppose it, b) tends to support Democratic candidates from Bill Clinton to Gray Davis to Willie Brown, and c) loves to discuss how full of hate right-wing Christians are while penning lines like the aforementioned "I hate Bush as much as I love Jesus."
Yet another straw man (or woman in this case) argument?
Other than in your writings were else does Anne Lamott represent the Democrats?
Michael Ubaldi said: "might as well compare Bush to Hitler"
That's been done, though not by her. Blame it on the Harry Potter movies--too much gratuitous fantasy.
"Annie Lamott is certainly not representative of the entire Democratic Party. She is highly representative of a form of San Francisco area liberalism that: a) takes for granted the obvious evil of those that oppose it, b) tends to support Democratic candidates from Bill Clinton to Gray Davis to Willie Brown, and c) loves to discuss how full of hate right-wing Christians are while penning lines like the aforementioned "I hate Bush as much as I love Jesus.""
And their high priestess is now the Minority Leader of the House of Representatives. . .bet that a lot of House Democrats will wish they voted for Harold Ford, Jr. come next November.
I consider myself a "devotee of the party out of power" and would like a diagnosis from the right as to the exact nature of my "insanity."
Here are my "delusions":
* Iraq was a mistake. Pissed off the world, killed a lot of people, no WMDs, no liberation, now total anarchy.
* A faith-based foreign policy is a mistake. International law is the only way to create peaceful conditions that better humankind. Thousands of years of history on the rise and fall of empires and you believe that this one is going to be different?
* There is a role for government in society. Government regulation can improve efficiency and correct for market failures. From traffic laws to securities laws, the market requires the order of the law to function, and thus the government has a place in society. Electing those who hate the government on principle is going to lead to a poorly run government.
* Our health care system sucks. Maybe it's better in terms of catastrophic care, maybe it does encourage R&D, but the fact is, millions of uninsured have a shiny cadillac with no gas.
* Running deficits is bad for our economy. Especially when the deficits are run to benefit the rich. The rich already have disposable income--they aren't going to drive consumption any further with their new temporary dividend tax cut. Furthermore, the market isn't going to respond to tax cuts that run deficits because eventually, the market knows that what goes down must go back up--to pay those debts.
* We should protect our environment. Environmental laws have substantially improved the quality of life in America and conserved what is great about this nation.
I can believe in all these things and yet not:
* Hate America.
* Hate our Troops.
* Think that all Western Civilization is corrupt.
* Want to nationalize industries into a communist utopia.
* Go into a frothing homicidal rage whenever a Republican walks into a room.
* Quit my job at a billion-dollar a year corporation.
* Wear natty dreads and smoke reefer every day.
So what's the diagnosis?
I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that the right-wingers who populate this board just can't pass up a delicious opportunity to insult an ideological opponent's appearance instead of sticking to the issues.
"I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that the right-wingers who populate this board just can't pass up a delicious opportunity to insult an ideological opponent's appearance instead of sticking to the issues."
Yeah, because liberals *never* insult politcal opponents based on their physical appearance. . .
*cough cough* "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot" *cough cough*
I notice that you don't want to dispute the notion that the individual you're all outraged on behalf of is indeed a major league nutbar. What a shock.
Iraq was a mistake...now total anarchy.
In that respect, I don't think you're insane. You're just ignorant of history and without patience. Read about the enormous problems that were overcome in Occupied Japan, compare that situation to the far smaller difficulties in Iraq that are present within the infinitesimal time frame of less than two months, and lose the "total anarchy" shibboleth.
Timmy the Wonder Dog asks:
angie, by definition, aren't all Stepford Ex-Hippie Soccer Mommies democrats?
No, indeed (in fact, not all of them are Democrats, either). Many are Greens, some are Commies. Probably a fair amount of LaRouchism in your Stepford Ex-Hippie Soccer Mommy communities.
But much more to the point, not all Democrats are Stepford Ex-Hippie Soccer Mommies (or Daddies).
Damn those Democrats! If only they would act more like Republicans, I wouldn't think they were so insane!
You guys do realize that the gist of what you're saying is "Democrats are fine as long as they agreed with me."
I'm looking at you, crank. And you, Timmy. And you, Steve. And you, Thorley.
"Question for Crank: please can you point me in the direction of sane liberals?"
Forgive me for eavesdropping but one of my favorite liberals, a Democrat, Timothy Burke from Swarthmore, has a sparse blog.
http://www.swarthmore.edu/SocSci/tburke1/
He seeks to be thoughtful and seems to demand that his views be defensible. One can draw different conclusions but still benefit from reading his views. For example, he has the ability to explain liberal positions in a way that they can be seen to be wrong rather than insane and sometimes explain non-liberal positions in a way that they can be seen to just as wrong. We are all often wrong.
"Yeah, because liberals *never* insult politcal opponents based on their physical appearance. . .
*cough cough* "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot" *cough cough*
I notice that you don't want to dispute the notion that the individual you're all outraged on behalf of is indeed a major league nutbar. What a shock."
Posted by M. Scott Eiland at May 23, 2003 04:24 PM
The fact that Al Franken called Rush Limbaugh fat makes it OK for people on this message board to insult the appearance of a woman whose opinions they disagree with instead of discussing the issues at hand. Got it. Thanks.
And Jane, until there is some sort of proof that George Soros is financing a Texas Project to throw dirt at George Bush and is paying Miss Lemott to accuse him of rape, fraud, and murder, please stop equating Democratic opposition to Bush with Republican opposition to Clinton.
You guys do realize that the gist of what you're saying is "Democrats are fine as long as they agreed with me."
Not necessarily, but they have to at least recognize some of the same realities. I mean, if you're a scientist and somebody disagrees with you on a controversial theory, you can respect that person even if you think they're wrong. If they disagree with the "earth is round" theory, they're nuts.
That's an extreme example, but people like this woman have just completely lost perspective. Some Democrats/liberals have; others may be wrong, but they aren't that unhinged from reality.
Oh, and it's not nice to make fun of her for being ugly. But making fun of someone's idiot hairstyle is totally fair game. You don't get hair like that without making a deliberate choice, and a poor one at that.
And Jane, until there is some sort of proof that George Soros is financing a Texas Project to throw dirt at George Bush and is ..
You sound like you haven't tried it....C'mon be real.
Yoshi: "So what's the diagnosis?"
Yup, you're delusional. Not because you believe those things but because you seem to think no conservative could agree with any of them. Believe it or not, "government has a role" and "the environment deserves protecting" are not controversial statements, even among the radical right-wing fanatics who read Jane's blog. You seem to think all Bush voters are clones of Monty Burns.
Here are Yoshi's "delusions":
* Iraq was a mistake. Pissed off the world, killed a lot of people, no WMDs, no liberation, now total anarchy.
I see no alternative solution. The point appears to be simply fault-finding. I suspect the problem here is willful denial.
* A faith-based foreign policy is a mistake. International law is the only way to create peaceful conditions that better humankind. Thousands of years of history on the rise and fall of empires and you believe that this one is going to be different?
Here we see apparent delusions, in regard to a non-existent but perceived "faith-based" foreign policy. Also, the idea that "international law" can fix all ills, and that the U.S. is or even wants to be an empire show a distinct separation from reality.
* There is a role for government in society. Government regulation can improve efficiency and correct for market failures. From traffic laws to securities laws, the market requires the order of the law to function, and thus the government has a place in society. Electing those who hate the government on principle is going to lead to a poorly run government.
I see no signs of serious mental illness here; just a perhaps unfortunate attraction to straw men and naive belief that electing those who love government on principle will not lead to facism.
* Our health care system sucks. Maybe it's better in terms of catastrophic care, maybe it does encourage R&D, but the fact is, millions of uninsured have a shiny cadillac with no gas.
Is there a psycholigical term for focusing exclusively on the negatives while simultaneously exagerating those negatives all out of proportion?
* Running deficits is bad for our economy. Especially when the deficits are run to benefit the rich. The rich already have disposable income--they aren't going to drive consumption any further with their new temporary dividend tax cut. Furthermore, the market isn't going to respond to tax cuts that run deficits because eventually, the market knows that what goes down must go back up--to pay those debts.
Some sort of understanding of basic economics might help here. In order to run deficits, SPENDING has to exceed revenue. Where is all the spending being done for the benefit of the rich? Most of the class-specific spending in this country is done for the poor, so the deficits are run for the benefit of the poor. Also, since when has the left gave a damn about deficits?
Gotta go. Basically, my diagnosis is a moderate infection of leftist ideology. It will hopefully correct itself with time and more exposure to reality.
angie, do you speak from personal experience?
mighty, democratic positions, i'm more than happy to discuss their positions when they have one. let's take tax policy as example. please explain why jfk's tax proposal was sound policy and bush's proposal is not.
angie, do you speak from personal experience?
mighty, democratic positions, i'm more than happy to discuss their positions when they have one. let's take tax policy as example. please explain why jfk's tax proposal was sound policy and bush's proposal is not.
In case tmrm was referring to the most infamous allegation of rape regarding Mr. Clinton, unless he has evidence that Juanita Broaddick received payment for making such an accusation, it can be assumed that tmrm has slandered Broaddick. As to allegations against Mr. Bush, it should be noted that a prominent Democratic pundit such as Paul Krugman has printed lies regarding Bush's Texas Rangers partnership in an attempt to insinuate illegality, and has assisted in propagating the Bush was AWOL trope without supporting evidence. Frankly, the wanton lying about opponents' alleged misdeeds that both parties now engage in, which really began full-bore during the Reagan years (Robert Bork's movie rentals, VP Bush flying a SR-71 to Tehran, etc.) makes politics sickening, and provides little cause for wonder that people tune politics out. It also has the unfortunate effect of encouraging people to ignore REAL misdeeds. Juanita Broadick IS a credible person, who risked much, and had little to gain by telling her story. The manner in which George W. Bush made his fortune DID stink to high heaven, despite it's undoubted legality, and commonplace occurrence. The truth just won't do for these partisans, however; they prefer to lie.
Mycin: A very large part of government spending does wind up disproportionately in the pockets of the rich. Most government contracting profits for starters (not that anyone with a connection to reality sees an alternative to defense increases at this point). Social Security funnels money from working families to retirees who are richer on the average. Government regulations create many, many grossly overpaid job opportunities for accountants and lawyers...
Um, I don't think that was exactly what Yoshi meant... 8-))
Excuse me...I consider myself well read and well informed, but who is the elderly woman with the wannbe Aguilera locks? Can anybody help on this question? During WWII, was she also against the US? Inquiring minds want to know.
Will-
Actually, Will, I was referring to the "journalists" directly and indirectly in the employ of Richard Mellon-Scaife who constantly played up any rumor or innuendo they could come up with, accusing Clinton of everything they could think of, until there was so much shit flying through the air that people started believing anything bad about him (Michael Isikoff and Kathleen Willey, anyone?). Then of course there was that lovely video of Jerry Falwell's (not to mention his financial support of Citizens for Honest Government, which paid people like those two notorious Arkansas state yroopers to make various allegations) that accused Clinton of running a cocaine-smuggling operation out of Little Rock and murdering Vince Foster.
So no, I wasn't accusing Juanita Broaderick of receiving payment for her allegations, so please spare me the slander rhetoric. But thanks for your concern.
Just wanted to clarify, and like I said, one of the unintended consequences of lying about one's political opponents, like the who killed Vince Foster or Ron Brown brouhahas, is that when a credible person, like Juanita Broaddick, comes forth, the public's attention span has been wasted. I thought Clinton was an ill disciplined man with an overrated intellect (on some level, one really has to be a dunce to get jammed up the way William the Noble did; diddling the office help while in the midst of a sexual harrassment suit? What an imbecile!), until Broaddick made her allegation. Judging the two individuals, I found Broaddick far more credible, on balance, and thus concluded that Clinton was more than likely a rapist, at which point my attitude toward him turned from tolerable dislike to bottomless contempt.
At this point, my attitude towards Bush is that of a person who has chosen the least bad of poor choices. I think Bush is no friend of free markets, with his embrace of corporate welfare (funny how Krugman of the NYT doesn't seem to mind when his employer practices it, though), and pork barrel politics, among other noxious attributes. I do think, however, that the international order had become completely untenable, particularly with regard to the middle east, and I therefore welcome a revolutionary approach, without regard for maintaining that old bugaboo of the reactionary school of international relations, the pursuit of stability. Massive instability is what is called for at this time, so Bush's approach, for all it's faults, is preferred to maintaining the status quo. It's too bad politicians can't be discussed on their merits; that lying about them has become the preferred method of discourse.
Will-
As I recall, you were one of the people I actually found to be rather reasonable the last time I ventured onto these boards, and I'm glad to see that still holds true. I agree, the problem with crying wolf so often is that it becomes damn near impossible to tell when something bad really did take place. I don't really know what I think about the Broaddick issue, but I tend to think that if Starr, who had nearly unlimited funds and nothing resembling ethics, couldn't make it stick, it was most likely untrue. But I understand how you can feel the way you do.
Your overall point is absolutely true (even if I disagree with your characterization of Krugman). The political waters are muddied to the point where I doubt the situation will ever improve.
So, you know, whatever.
"I don't really know what I think about the Broaddick issue, but I tend to think that if Starr, who had nearly unlimited funds and nothing resembling ethics, couldn't make it stick, it was most likely untrue."
Though I certainly found Juanita Broaddrick to be a more credible speaker than Bill Clinton (a rather low burden to meet), I think that pursuing an accusation of rape based on an alleged incident from twenty years before is going to be inherently unfair to the accused (much like sexual harrassment accusations based on events from a decade before--I didn't hear any Democrats saying that Clarence Thomas was getting an unfair shake), even if statutes of limitations hadn't foreclosed any criminal indictment. Clinton had the sense to muzzle his attack dogs regarding the Broaddrick matter, since calling her a liar could have led to a defamation lawsuit, where the relative credibility of Clinton vs. that of his accuser would probably have not gone well for Our Bill.
Will, if you would like to discuss Juanita Broaddrick, please address the following issue:
Juanita Broaddrick swore in an affidavit that Bill Clinton never assaulted her.
You can find her credible or sympathetic, but it does come down the question of whether she is a perjurer or just a liar. I've never heard a satisfactory explanation as to why we should believe Ms. Broaddrick's word against that of that most notorious of perjurers, Bill Clinton, if we have to accept her perjury to believe her.
No matter how "credible" we think she is.
OK, Google "Juanita Broaddrick affidavit" and you get plenty to support whatever your prejudices are... According to various articles, in 1998 she gave Clinton's lawyers an affidavit that she was not raped. Then she recanted the affidavit when questioned by Starr's investigators. So I suppose rabid Repubs will claim that she was bribed or threatened to sign the affidavit, and rabid Dems will claim that the Starr chamber, errr, investigation or other parts of the "VRWC" bribed or threated her to recant. All I can say is that a witness that swings 180 degrees depending on who talked to her last is hardly credible.
Now if you could show that she received money from Clinton? Or got rich suddenly from untraceable sources? But otherwise, I have to think that she buckled to threats at least once - and federal prosecutors seem to have even the Mafia beat at that game. Although I'd guess that their tactics would be gross overkill here. Broaddick sure doesn't sound like a strong person, and one wouldn't have to be too good at threatening to get her to swear the sky is red...
Anyway, all reasonable persons should agree that Clinton was a major sleaze. So was Nixon. And those were just the two that got caught! But Republicans, you've got to quit talking like screwing women is worse than screwing the country. And Democrats, you haven't actually caught either of the Bushes yet, so stop talking like Dubya is as evil as Saddam. You're both sounding like insane fools.
OTOH, since I'm more or less a Libertarian - please do continue talking like insane fools.
I'm not advocating that Clinton be imprisoned,so I'm not seeking proof beyond a reasonable doubt. I can easily see a woman, when approached by the attorneys for the President of the United States, giving an affadavit, to simply get them to go away. I can also see the same woman, when approached by a prosecutor with an unlimited budget, recanting the afadavit. What I can't see, however, is why the same woman would give an interview on national television to tell a false allegation of rape against a sitting President, unless there is some monetary gain to be had, or unless the woman is mentally unbalanced. Since I see no evidence of either, and since it is obvious that making such a televised appearance carries considerable potential pitfalls, and given Bill Clinton's history of truthfullness, I therefore conclude that Juanita Broaddick is substantially more credible than Bill Clinton. Thus, it is more likely than not (although certainly not beyond a reasonable doubt) that Bill Clinton is indeed a rapist.
b33 and will, there was a demonstrated pattern of sexual abuse by clinton. it was this pattern of abuse that sold me on Juanita Broaddick's charges. packwood is an example of another serial abuser, whereas there was no demonstrated pattern with justice thomas.
You guys are great. I love it. Keep spinning.
Is she a perjurer or a liar?
Timmy the Wonder Dog, Clinton had a pattern of having flings with adoring women, that's for sure. Women love him. I don't see it, but it's not for me to say. Clinton most certainly does NOT have any known history of raping women, despite well-funded efforts to prove otherwise.
I'm not going to convince you of Clinton's innocence, but that doesn't matter. I have no reason to be convinced of it, either. Perhaps he did rape Juanita Broaddrick, and if he did, that's a terrible thing. Perhaps George W. Bush raped his daughters, and that would be a terrible thing, too. The bottom line is that Broaddick swore under oath he never assaulted her. The fact of the matter is that there is no objective way to know, but in light of Broaddrick's sworn affidavit and the lack of any evidence, it is extremely hard for anyone to find Clinton guilty until proven innocent. That's not how America works.
The bottom line for you, Will Allen, is that it is not hard at all to find motives for people to publicly discredit Bill Clinton. Quite a few individuals have made a good living off of it even if they didn't have an animus against him.
It's a muddle. Those of you who pride yourselves on your moral clarity should be able to answer the simple question: why should anyone take the word of a sworn perjurer?
Brittain33, if you have any evidence that Broaddick has "made a good living" from discrediting Bill Clinton, please supply it. Otherwise, your raising the possibility should merely be taken as a method of smearing Broaddick. If one of the Bush daughters were to come forth now and make such an allegation against their father, I would treat it just as credibly, absent evidence of mental illness, even if they had previously denied such a thing. The standard of innocent until proven guilty applies to criminal trials. Once again, I am not advocating that Clinton be imprisoned, but merely drawing conclusions as to who is more credible. By your standard, all the victims of John Gotti who maintained that Gotti had not wronged them, when asked by law enforcement, are no more credible than Gotti was himself. Some may beg to differ.
b33, catherine willy or is it, katherine willy comes to mind as does that other arkansas individual, who sued (i'll think of the name later) both accused clinton of sexual abuse (not of rape). but it does represent a pattern, the common thread in abusers.
now you can spin it any which way you would like, but i never heard clinton deny it.
Yoshi said, So what's the diagnosis?
Yoshi, you're clearly insane. :)
"It's a muddle. Those of you who pride yourselves on your moral clarity should be able to answer the simple question: why should anyone take the word of a sworn perjurer?"
Well, since we've got perjurers on *both* sides of the issue (hey, if you want to play the game, we'll play the game), you still need to decide which one is more trustworthy. IMO (based on Clinton's vanishingly rare association with the truth--not many Presidents have been described as "an unusually good liar" by a prominent member of their own party), Broaddrick is more trustworthy, though I wouldn't find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt after all this time, barring some compelling evidence beyond victim testimony.
Steve:
Ted Barlow (tedbarlow.blogspot.com) is another good leftist pundit.
Orbitron:
So, you singled out the off-hand comments on that woman's appearance for destruction, because...? I guess you can also add me to your black list, because I'm on a slow dial-up and skimmed most of the article before her picture loaded. It was free from substance. Then the picture loaded and I nearly decided to put out my eyes with a ball-point pen. I mean, all people age, but people who choose to wear teeny-bopper hairstyles after the eye-creases have set in deserve whatever criticism they get.
Yoshi:
Okay, I'll bite on a couple of these:
* Iraq was a mistake. Pissed off the world, killed a lot of people, no WMDs, no liberation, now total anarchy.
IMHO the position, at least as you have summarized it here, is grievously lacking in historical context, as well as a present-day understanding of what the various parties in "the world" had to gain or lose from this conflict (and why they might have been pissed off. Hint: It may not have had anything to do with the best possible long-term result for Iraq). Second Michael Ubaldi's suggestions.
* A faith-based foreign policy is a mistake. International law is the only way to create peaceful conditions that better humankind. Thousands of years of history on the rise and fall of empires and you believe that this one is going to be different?
I'll overlook that opening line as being an immaterial slur, and proceed to the substance by asking you to do this: Show me that International Law has a credible enforcement mechanism, meaning, it can independently enforce its principles over and above any nation's interests to the contrary. Failing that, it is not really law, but a set of clubhouse rules that promptly go down the lavatory stool when the most influential members of that club no longer find those rules to be convenient.
In anticipation of the obvious response, no, the US is not the only nation to have flushed the stool. It's just the only the one that catches any real flak for doing so.
* There is a role for government in society. Government regulation can improve efficiency and correct for market failures. From traffic laws to securities laws, the market requires the order of the law to function, and thus the government has a place in society. Electing those who hate the government on principle is going to lead to a poorly run government.
In other words, don't elect any extreme libertarians or other forms of anarchists. The moderate libers and the neo-cons would generally have no argument against that statment, only debates over the degree to which the government should be given influence.
* Our health care system sucks. Maybe it's better in terms of catastrophic care, maybe it does encourage R&D, but the fact is, millions of uninsured have a shiny cadillac with no gas.
Those "millions of uninsured" break down more ways than simply people who want insurance but have literally no access whatsoever. People in that last category are not especially common thanks to Medicare/Medicaid, and no person can be refused critical care if they show up at the emergency room in need of it, so I'm not sure what you're trying to argue on this one.
The alternative system, pretty much anywhere it has been implemented, promises everyone a Ford Taurus but ultimately leaves them in a Yugo. Thereafter, spare parts for even a Yugo are often in short supply. Even Medicare/Medicaid suffer from inefficiencies and bureaucratic nonsense; at least they are available, hence the corresponding low-income sectors have access to SOMEthing, but I do not want to see that -- or, in all liklihood, far worse -- transferred to the entire population.
I don't define social justice as the point at which everyone is equally screwed.
"So, you singled out the off-hand comments on that woman's appearance for destruction, because...?"
Posted by anony-mouse at May 25, 2003 01:43 AM
Because they were nasty and vicious, and had nothing to do with the article the woman wrote. They were not comments about her hairstyle, although what her hairstyle has to do with the validity of her opinions is beyond me. They were comments like this:
"I'm not ususally one to judge a person by their looks.... But damn, is she ugly."
Posted by Matt Johnson at May 23, 2003 11:00 AM
Will
You want to know the difference between the right and left. The right peddled false story after false story about Clinton, spent millions trolling around Arkansas to dredge up con men and liars, funded a bogus lawsuit against Clinton brought by a woman who purportedly wanted to protect her reputation, then posed in Penthouse, etc., ad nauseum. But the biggest difference between the right and left is the Broaderick rape charge. Because if Bill Clinton is, on balance, a rapist, then the right wing hero, Ronald Reagaon, is clearly a rapist. A credible woman, who didn't deny the rape under oath, has stated that Reagan raped her. She didn't do so under the oppressive manipulations of Starr, but voluntarily came forward, and nobody said a word about it. It just faded away. All democrats must adopt a rule. Every time the Broaderick allegations are raised, Ronald Reagan's rape of Selene Walters should be raised.
"Every time the Broaderick allegations are raised, Ronald Reagan's rape of Selene Walters should be raised."
Hey, if Reagan had a well-earned reputation as a pathologically dishonest user of women, you might have something. As things stand, you're just whining. But please, do adopt this strategy--particularly in public forums. I'm sure you'll be very pleased with the results come next November.
Orbitron:
Because they were nasty and vicious, and had nothing to do with the article the woman wrote.
Wonderful. In that case, please justify how the following is not slain by that same criterion:
I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that the right-wingers who populate this board just can't pass up a delicious opportunity to insult an ideological opponent's appearance instead of sticking to the issues.
Anony-mouse: I'm with you. Anyone who attaches a huge, close-up photo of herself to her online essay is clearly unafraid to draw attention to her visage. If she had not wanted us to notice her appearance, I'm quite sure she would not have chosen that big face shot.
My guess? She thinks that her "hip" look will reinforce her "hip", anti-Republican politics, and she chose that look, and that picture, to support her statements. Anyone who claims that we can't interpret dreads on an older white person as some sort of political statement (and thus criticize the dreads along with the statement) is naive. It's no coincidence that the wacky appearance accompanies the wacky politics.
"Wonderful. In that case, please justify how the following is not slain by that same criterion:
'I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that the right-wingers who populate this board just can't pass up a delicious opportunity to insult an ideological opponent's appearance instead of sticking to the issues.'"
Posted by anony-mouse at May 26, 2003 07:22 PM
It is neither nasty nor vicious, and it pertains to previous posts to this board.
Orbitron:
Review what was written prior to your protest, and then what you wrote in that protest. I'll try and hit the highlights:
I suppose I shouldn't be surprised [rhetorical slur] that the right-wingers who populate this board [broad-brush plural -- implicates every right-winger who contributes here] just can't pass up a delicious opportunity [delicious? Are you suggesting the commentary was appropos?] to insult an ideological opponent's appearance [actually, only a few of those 'right-wingers' had done that, many of the others had addressed issues] instead of sticking to the issues [since some of them DID address the issues, this statement is false as phrased here].
Now, how am I supposed to read that in light of te above? If I were to say that "I shouldn't be surprised that Orbitron couldn't resist a delicious opportunity to sneer at an ideological opponent's appearance-related comments which will have no meaningful impact whatsoever on the author in question," would you assume that I was issuing constructive criticism, or being nasty and vicious, and speaking in terms irrelevant to the article in question?
anony-mouse, give it a rest. I think it's mean-spirited and intellectually lazy to attack an ideological opponent's appearance instead of engaging the opponent's arguments on their merits. I made a sarcastic comment to that effect. This is not the same thing as reading an article which expresses opinions you disagree with, and responding that the author is ugly.
I'll accept that as your terms of surrender!
I do think the fact that she chooses that photo to be the one that readers look at when reading her column says something about her. Of course the admonition that "you can't judge a book by its cover" works most of the time but it doesn't mean you never can, just that in general it pays to inquire more deeply. In this case the opinions match up rather nicely with the photo.
Sorry...I can't respond. I can't think with my mouth hanging open this wide.
Comments are Closed.