Dean said, "Paul Craig Roberts' article was good, but two thirds of the way into it he degenerated into a couple of paragraphs of gratuitious Clinton-bashing. This sort of kneejerk 'blame Clinton for everything' attitude makes a certain breed of conservative look, well, obsessive and daffy. "

Agreed. But I disagree that this is what Roberts was doing. He suggested that two reforms were enacted in the early 90's set the foundation for the current scandals. Now, he does suggest that character was also an issue that's a conservative favorite and he made some good if not valid points. I'm mean not many thieves have good moral character. Frankly, the 1990's were the years for BAD JUDGEMENT! The paragraphs weren't gratuitious Clinton bashing because he was merely stating facts. Also, NO where in that article did he say that these scandals are CLINTON'S FAULT. He suggested that the general moral decay was helped by Clinton not the crimes commited by the corporate execs. Remember, Reagan got blamed for the excesses of the 1980's.

Get 'em, Rosemary!

I fully agree with your reasoning. The only thing I would add is that if Clinton was one of the primary movers in passing those 2 laws, then he might be, to a degree, responsible.

On the other hand, when you consider some of the other charges levelled against US Presidents during a presidential campaign, this one is positively friendly... Heh heh heh.

In going back and re-reading Paul Craig Roberts' piece, I would only change one of my comments: Clinton's only mentioned in one paragraph. Nevertheless, the example he gives strikes a sour note to my ear, since it's the only example of government dishonesty he mentions.

I was horrified by Waco, and even moreso by Ruby Ridge--which got nowhere near enough attention. Nevertheless, we know government has a tendency to protect its own. Was that a Clintonista innovation? I think not.

If you're going to bring up examples of government perfidy and coverup, you don't want to be seen as a ranting partisan. You should bring up more examples than just the Clintons. Some of the things Roberts brings up (like the requirement that companies post quarterly results) were decisions made before I was born. (I was born in 1966, for those who don't know.)

I understand the overall point--government is not particularly trustworthy--but by bringing in the Clinton administration, and only the Clinton administration, this message is destroyed for at least a third (if not more) of all Americans. If there's any hope of getting moderate centrists to support your cause, you don't do it by bashing people in such a partisan manner.

You can think Clinton was a phony and a weasel--I thought that as far back as 1991--without bringing it up at every opportunity. The very first time in my life I voted for a Republican for President was 1996, and that was only because I couldn't stand the thought of four more years of The Big Weasel. But, just like George Dubya in 2000, Clinton won fair and square, and that's all there is to it. Fer Chrissakes, he was a weasel, not the source of all evil in America! (Besides, as a ferret-lover, I think weasels are kinda cute! ;-)

I think America's conservatives would be doing themselves a huge favor to adopt an "if you can't say anything nice say nothing at all" policy about the Clintonistas. They should collectively take a vow to neither type nor utter the name "Clinton" in public for at least another six years!

In fairness, I will say that this not unlike people who chose to bring up "that Damn Bastard Nixon!" at every opportunity back in the 1970s. Christ, it was still going on when I was in High School in the 1980s!

Well, mr. Esmay... you stated very clearly that "This sort of kneejerk "blame Clinton for everything" attitude makes a certain breed of conservative look, well, obsessive and daffy. " as I clearly pointed out and you have yet to dispute was that HE WAS NOT BLAMING CLINTON FOR THE SCANDALS. So by saying, "In going back and re-reading Paul Craig Roberts' piece, I would only change one of my comments: Clinton's only mentioned in one paragraph. " Well, La Di Da! How about, Gosh I was WRONG. There wasn't this 'knee-jerk blame Clinton for everything attitude'. Stop being such a conservative apologist - I'm gonna have to coin a new term just for you. How about Eddie Haskell Conservative Weenie?? I LIKE IT!
Any comment?Hmm...

P.S.
I love you ;-)

The small "m" in Mr. Esmay (above) is a typo...although he is my little man so I guess it's fitting. :-)

All just proof that they never should have passed the 19th amendment if you ask me.

Stop Suffrage Now!

Dean

Seriously--Okay, you win. He didn't say Clinton was responsible. He did not. Definitely, he said no such thing.

But: Rumor has it that there are these weird voters out there who are "independent" who are nevertheless tired of hearing Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton from conservatives. Also, legend tells of a strange creature called the "reasonable Democrat" who might be open-minded enough to listen to your arguments. Now, sure he may be like the Abominable Snowman or Nessie, but I'm not willing to give up on the chance that such a creature exists just yet. And if you want to get through to him or her, you don't hold up prominent and popular Democrats as your only example of why government is sometimes dysfunctional.

As for Eddie Haskell--Hey, I'll take that as a compliment. I like being a troublemaker. :-)

Love you too, shorty. :)

Dean

(Oh, man, I'm in so much trouble!)

Dean, most of what you have to say is proof that the 21st Amendment was a HUGE mistake...

"All just proof that they never should have passed the 19th amendment if you ask me."
I agree. Women shouldn't vote. In general, women are unreasonable and vote with emotion not logic or intelligence. I would gladly give up my right to vote if it meant that every woman that voted for Clinton because he was cute were banned from the polls. Of course, if they required a literacy/political history test I would be back in and they'd still be gone - plus a few other dullards. Either way is fine with me!

"Reasonable Democrat" meet Jumbo Shrimp. Any questions???

You said it:
Gore has been talking like a space alien again, hasn't he? At times I think his nickname should be "Gort."

"Klaatu barada nikto!"
Indeed...

Oh, man, lemme tell ya...

Remember the 2000 Debates? That one moment when Bush was standing there answering a question, and Gore suddenly lurched up and lumbered toward him? I remember seeing this perfect shot right over Gore's shoulder, where Bush just gives him a funny look, nods, and turns away to finish his question. It was hilarious and weird.

I spent days -- days! -- looking for a still photo of that moment. If only I could have found it. The caption I wanted to put under it: "Gore! Klaatu! Barada! Nikto!"

Alas, the moment passed, and I never found the photo.

Dean

I suppose the GOP keeps dragging Clinton's name in about the "executive scandals" because the Democrats keep trying to make it all Bush's fault...

As for the "small" remark, I was tempted to say something about kiss & tell, but refrained.

Regarding troublemaking:
"Gee, Mrs Esmay, you look very nice today!"
"Why thank you, Eddie."

I always wondered about those two...

Thank you DIRTY TOONS XXX TOONS PORN XXX COMICS XXX TOONS
Free xxx password
NYLON STOCKINGS LINGERIE
Nylon Stocking
Fetish High Heel

tremendous site