Petty, pandering partisans

A bunch of petty Democratic partisans got their tighty-whities in a bunch Thursday because this web site had the audacity to publish a news story about former Bill Clinton security advisor Sandy Berger’s incredibly stupid and illegal stunt of removing classified documents, hiding them, and then having to retrieve them from a dumpster.

They just could not believe we would run a story about one of Clinton’s minions breaking the law. How on earth would we stoop to such things when it is our mission, they say, to concentrate only on the bad things that George W. Bush and his gang of Republican thugs try to foist on the American public day after day?

Typical partisan pap from a group of political sycophants who think fairness is exposing only the wrongdoings of the other side while ignoring the same kinds of actions of their own.

It is this kind of bullshit that cheapens political debate in this country and makes any real reform impossible. Partisans don’t want reform. They just want their side to have the power and the upper hand. Reform is always for the other guys.

And the partisans accept the biased crap that their one-side only web sites put out as gospel, ignoring the old adage that there are three sides to every story: Your side, my side and the facts.

There is no doubt that George W. Bush may go down as the worst President in American history. He is a lunatic, a madman on a mission from God, albeit a God that exists only in his deranged view of the world.  We at Capitol Hill Blue are always around to point out what a danger this man is to freedom, justice and the American way.

But we were also around in the 1990s to ride herd on another despotic American President, a philandering whoremonger named Bill Clinton who lied to the American people, abused the power of his office and deserved a lot more punishment than the disbarment he received for his many crimes.

Clinton is, and always will be, Arkansas trailer trash and no amount of makeovers can mask the unbridled and unprincipled political ambitions of his wife, the carpet bagging Senator from New York.

Let’s not forget that a number of Clinton’s gang went to jail or left their positions in disgrace because of multiple crimes against the state. Sandy Berger is just the latest Clinton crony to get caught.

Republicans blew their chance to nail Clinton because they got wrapped up in the tawdry tales of blowjobs from interns in the Oval Office and strayed away from the corruption of Whitewater that triggered the original investigations.

The Clintons went into such deals virtually broke, yet left the White House millionaires. They continue to live high on the hog while their legal bills and other obligations remain unpaid. Such antics are not the actions of honest people.

I consider both Clintons lairs, scumbags and crooks. Both belong in jail, not public office and certainly not back in the White House.

So a word of advice to partisans of any political stripe: If you want one-sided political pap, try DailyKos, NewsMax, Free Republic or Democratic Underground.

They pander to partisans.

We do not.

86 Responses to "Petty, pandering partisans"

  1. Kent Shaw  December 22, 2006 at 5:39 pm

    Bravo!! Great rant. But in describing Bill Clinton you left out “traitorous”. I hated Clinton almost as much as I hate Bush. Maybe more, because he was sane and knew what he was doing. And Nancy Pelosi scares the hell out of me. And I can’t imagine Hillary Clinton as president, using the power of the unitary presidency that Bush has usurped. We are in deep s**t people.

  2. John Hanks  December 22, 2006 at 5:41 pm

    Doug is a crook like everyone else. The old story was a partisan setup to catch so-called “partisans”. Sorry, Doug. Negativity is a lot better than gullibility.

  3. Kent Shaw  December 22, 2006 at 5:44 pm

    I kind of agree that calling Clinton “Arkansas trailer trash” was a bit over the top, because trailer trash have some redeeming qualities and its not fair to them to compare them to Bill Clinton.

  4. Donna Erickson  December 22, 2006 at 5:46 pm

    Now you have brought up the other side…I think Clinton has the gift of relating to the “people” but is “crooked as a dog’s hind leg.” An honest man would never survive in the political arena. Hilary, too, talks a good game but I wonder where her heart lies when it comes to change or if anyone can pull it off. It will have to be a “village” effort.
    Thanks for the Rant.
    Merry Christmas…

  5. June  December 22, 2006 at 5:48 pm

    That does it–you’re f______ crazy, and this is
    the last time I’ll even bother checking your site.
    The Clintons are certainly no angels, but for you to go on a diatribe like today is irrational and uncalled for. You are a person in love with their own voice, and a “recovering” alcoholic to boot. I’ve unfortunately had a lot of experience with the 12-step
    crowd and you’re a classic example. It’s all about you, isn’t it?

  6. AustinRanter  December 22, 2006 at 6:05 pm

    I dig this site because nobody is exempt from the possibility of public scrutiny and opinions.

  7. Jeffers  December 22, 2006 at 6:53 pm

    Bye, June.

  8. brtex  December 22, 2006 at 6:57 pm

    If you are offended by Doug’s rant then your eyes are probably glazed with partisonship!

  9. Michael T.  December 22, 2006 at 7:29 pm

    Doug…you rock. Please run for President. Although it’s probably the worst job you could wish on anyone, I believe that it is people like yourself that will bring this country into the light of Constitutional governance.

    Our country needs men and women like you now more than ever. Please consider it.

  10. John Hanks  December 22, 2006 at 7:48 pm

    I like Doug because he is what I call an honest crook. After the setup, he smeared the people with smarts as being partisan Democrats. You don’t have to love Democrats (I don’t) to object to trickery.

    The world is divided into crooks, suckers, and lazy cowards. Non-partisans are lazy cowards who are incapable of preserving their freedoms. It takes a person, who has a black hatred for crooks, to get rid of crooks.

  11. Old Curmudgeon  December 22, 2006 at 8:06 pm

    The ones who reveal the truth to those refuse to see it or are deluded into believing that they already know it are the true patriots today. Those who stand and proclaim their patriotism most surely are in their minds only.

    In these times we need more of your ilk Doug. Great stuff.

  12. JUDY  December 22, 2006 at 8:18 pm

    I am someone who wants reforms more than anything else in Washington beginning with campaign finance reforms & strict
    enforcement of the rules already in place. Doug, I
    disagree with you on your opinions of the Clintons. As for Vince Fosters death & the Whitewater scandal…
    Fosters death was ruled as a suicide by multiple investigations by the United States Park Police, the United States Congress, and Independent Counsels Robert B. Fiske and Kenneth Starr.
    The Clintons were cleared of all wrongdoing in two reports prepared by the San Francisco law firm of Pillsbury Madison and Sutro for the Resolution Trust Corporation, which was overseeing the liquidation of Madison Guaranty.
    The only reason Republicans
    didn’t go full throttle on the Clinton impeachment is Larry Flynt”s threat to expose congressmen for their having extra marital affairs, paying 1 million $$ to informers(he exposed Livingston, Hyde, Burton and Chenaworth then said there would be a “Really really big fish by that weekend). There has never been a Congress so totally honest as to not fear exposure..Clinton’s was no exception. I have never been able to understand why so many seem to hate the Clintons (I was no supporter either way) but it now seems clear that it was Reps vs Dems. I can tollerate blow jobs but not crime but miost eespecially eminating from our elected officials. Bush & his pimps will prove to be the worst criminals in history.

  13. Alexandria Lupu  December 22, 2006 at 8:24 pm

    Tho in some cases you were accurate, you have sunk to a new low in your criticism of the Clinton’s. You are following the pattern of the extreme right. Signed Sandy

  14. Joe Lawrencce  December 22, 2006 at 8:40 pm

    Doug, good work, even if a tad hyperbolic. To those calling Doug’s rant/tactics into question; who among you thinks it wise to take only a knife to a gunfight?

    The Bushies have lied, connived, misrepresented and just plain made shiite up, and some of you worry that (sniff) perhaps Doug went too far.

    I have been a Republican conservative (the real kind) for many moons, but these days both Keith Olbermann and Doug Thompson speak for me as much as anyone can without, you know, actually BEING me.

  15. Joe Lawrence  December 22, 2006 at 8:42 pm

    Sorry, I very nearly forgot to say goodbye….to June.

  16. Robert  December 22, 2006 at 8:42 pm

    Doug if you had to vote for Clinton or W for President, which one would you choose?

  17. larry the grinch  December 22, 2006 at 8:48 pm

    Your blog today, 12/22/06, is a masterpiece of malediction. The objects of your scorn more than merit it.
    Since I can’t drink eggnog because the milk sours as I drink it & the booze evaporates as my tongue touchs it, I know a bit about malediction but you, sir, are a past master of the art of malediction. I’d take my hat off to you if my girlfriend wouldn’t kiss my bald spots.
    Keep exposing politicians, bureaucrats & sychophants in the coming years & be well.

  18. Fred P  December 22, 2006 at 8:49 pm

    I note for the second time in a few weeks that Doug has suggested that there was something substantive to Whitewater. Could someone point me to an article with substantive information about Whitewater?

  19. Fred P  December 22, 2006 at 9:21 pm

    @JUDY: “I can tollerate blow jobs but not crime but miost eespecially eminating from our elected officials.”

    But William J. Clinton committed a crime in lying under oath (about his relationship with a now famous former intern). Had he chosen to, he could have attempted to take a 5th amendment defense, or gotten that portion of the transcript under seal. Personally, I don’t think that that crime alone rose to the level of impeachment (see article II, section IV), but I did support his disbarment and censure.

  20. dave  December 22, 2006 at 9:21 pm

    Evil deeds past do not excuse evil deeds present. It is all too easy to get into the so and so did that so it is alright if I do this mode. If you do not focus on the present you have no control over the future, but if you forget the past, you are condemned to relive it.

    I was trying to make some sort of point, but I guess I lost it. It was something like, don’t let a fish off the hook.

  21. LesserFool  December 22, 2006 at 9:38 pm

    I don’t visit here often so I may have missed the shakeup. But, wasn’t there supposed to be some editorial oversight to keep zeal from getting out-of-hand; and to preform some basic fact-checking?

    Methinks Doug has a good racket going here. Is there a third, fourth, fifth retirement to the hills of Virginia in the offing?

  22. Steve Horn  December 22, 2006 at 9:54 pm

    I believe it was Jackson Browne who sang …
    “you take Sally, I’ll take Sue, ain’t no difference between the two”.

    However – corrupt though William Jefferson Clinton may have been, his administration wasn’t responsible for the death of nearly 3000 Americans in Iraq, wasn’t responsible for the illegal invasion of a soverign nation and the toppling of its government, wasn’t responsible for trampling the constitution and destroying personal freedom in this great nation of ours and didn’t hide behind the Bible.
    I see an ocean of difference between the two myself. On one side you’ve got a classic corrupt politician, greedy for power, who enjoys being fellated by young women. On the other side you’ve got a madman dedicated to the destruction of the nation he’s pledged to defend.

    Maybe I’m wrong – I mean that’s why they put rubber on the end of pencils – but I don’t happen to think I am.

    Peace

    Steve

  23. Kent Shaw  December 22, 2006 at 9:56 pm

    June, for Pete’s sake, research Clinton’s actions while President before you condemn Doug’s rant. Clinton is a stone cold globalist and he pushed through lots of legislation that resulted in the loss of millions of American jobs to slave-wage sweatshops overseas. Not to mention selling out military secrets to the Communist Red Chinese. Its all about YOU, isn’t it June?

  24. Judy DiGennaro  December 22, 2006 at 10:00 pm

    Trailer trash? This is as bad as our parents’ generation (I’m 59) calling them hippies. Clinton was destroyed by his being a sex addict and like all sex addicts (addicts, in general), he thought he could get away with anything.
    What would you be saying these days about the Kennnedys, Doug, me boy? Papa Kennedy supported the Fascists. JFK was loaded on medication for his back. He brought women to the White House. McNamara has apologized for the Vietnam war. Lyndon Johnson comes close to “trailer trash”. Reagan suffered from the effects of Alzheinmers his entire last term. REMEMBER Kent State, or is your mind so poisoned with vitriol against Clinton that you have put aside the sins of presidents past.
    The reality is, we are always advised to be on guard against people in power, whatever the party. Pelosi acted like a jerk during her first few days. We’ll see if she was just drunk with adrenalin or truly knows how to be a competent Speaker. Let’s see how “Clean Gene” Eliot Spitzer of New York does as governor. Then there might be hope for 2012.
    Merry Christmas, Happy Channukah (and yes, I have enough spit to say it correctly even though I am a gentile). Everybody’s God bless or for secular humanists, have a wonderful year.
    Judy Di

  25. Dave  December 22, 2006 at 10:02 pm

    Excellent says it all piece of work. I too hate partisan whoring websites.

  26. Ross  December 22, 2006 at 10:06 pm

    Hi from the UK Doug. Bloody brilliant rant. I too am heartily sick of the dull ‘us and them’ approach to politics. It’s had it’s day in my opinion. We live in different times now. A time when it’s becoming increasingly obvious that there are good and bad policies on both sides and there are good and bad people on both sides. It’s about time we all acknowledged this in an adult way and try to engineer a political system that suits that – like a permanent coalition or something. Then perhaps we can have the political leadership the people of this world deserve and need in these times. A modern system for a modern age instead of something more suited to a playground. Anyway, great stuff. Keep up with the righteous outrage!

  27. roger johnson  December 22, 2006 at 4:11 pm

    This is why I love this website. You dish it out to both sides when they deserve it.

  28. Teresa  December 22, 2006 at 4:14 pm

    You go, Doug! Kick ass!

  29. Joe Keegan  December 22, 2006 at 4:23 pm

    What would you expect from some nattering nabobs of negativism?

  30. anthny  December 22, 2006 at 4:25 pm

    That’s pushing it a bit calling Clinton Arkansas trailer trash. Yes Clinton came up the ladder worked his smart ass off to go to Oxford and lived the Great American Dream.Sounds like your a bit jealous Mr. Thompson, who walks the halls of justice and never became more then a mere so-called journalist.
    You can dish it out but sometimes you hit below the belt.
    I have no use for politicians most are crooks and thats putting in mildly.
    Clinton learned to dirty his hands while governer.
    Most crooks like Bush were born with a silver foot in there mouth. They all belong to the same club, and thats to rule the great unwashed with a iron fist…

  31. Mike Giroux  December 22, 2006 at 4:27 pm

    This is why I read Capitol Hill Blue before The New York Times! But Doug, I wish you’d tell us what you REALLY think.

  32. Gloria Bryant  December 22, 2006 at 4:32 pm

    Doug
    I read your Rants because you state the facts and let the fan distribute fallout where it belongs. Democrats are not angels from on high sent to release us from Republican bad guys. Conversely Republicans are not especially Christian in their actions. There are crooked & slippery politicians on every side and at every level from town to Federal. I applaud your refusal to let the partisans’ thinking or failure to think influence you. My Webster’s defines partisan as someone who shows a biased, emotional allegiance. Their reactions prove the bias! Keep on ranting!

  33. wethornet  December 22, 2006 at 4:36 pm

    doug,

    glad you’re feeling better.

    if you want to really stick it to the clintons do 3 things.

    1. have them research the oklahoma city bombing. start with what brig. general, usaf, ret., benton partin said about tim mcveigh and the bombing. (hint: partin was the air force’s explosives expert.)

    2. this speaks to how the clintons did, or didn’t do, building the party. ask them to find out how many democratic senators, congressmen, governors, state legislators, etc. there were in 1992. now how many were there in 2000? also, which way were people switching parties, ie, dem. to gop or vice versa. i’ve seen the numbers. they’re “fugly.”

    3. ask yourself this: after 28 years of either a bush or a clinton in the white house isn’t it time for someone else?

  34. Janet Kahn  December 22, 2006 at 4:40 pm

    You lost me here. As someone who believes Bill Clinton was a President who did well for USA, I don’t like learning that Sandy Berger stole and hid documents from the National Archive — but I totally support your decision to support it and generally agree with your awareness of what we lose in democracy when partisanship trumps full disclosure.
    Nonetheless, I am disgusted by the rant you went on in your lead piece here. You may have many legitimate descriptions of Bill Clinton but to refer to him as Arkansas trailer trash, along with the generally foul tone of this and many of your reports, totally discredits you for me.

  35. Nicholas H.  December 22, 2006 at 5:17 pm

    Bravo!

  36. Janice  December 22, 2006 at 10:15 pm

    At least the Clintons are intelligent. Given the choice, I will trust the Clintons with our country over Bush. Nor do we have to cringe every time either of the Clintons open their mouths, like we do with Bush. Personally, I do not give a damn about a BJ, and the question should never have been asked of Clinton. That was just partisan politics.

    And speaking of partisan politics; it’s about time to get over it. I’m already writing to my representatives about expanding the war in Iraq. It makes no sense to pour more lives and money into a lost cause.

    And, for the record, I will not go shop to further our trade deficit with China. In the past, we Americans were asked to sacrifice to help with a REAL war effort. This bad joke is nothing but a new way to fleece the American public. Go shopping, what kind of leadership is that?

  37. Mary  December 22, 2006 at 10:46 pm

    Woa!!!! I have no problems with your denouncing Sandy Berger’s stupid act, nor Bill Clinton’s disgraceful conduct with Monica. I wrote him numerous times to resign.

    I do have problems with your other accusations about the Clintons. Nothing criminal materialized from Whitewater that involved the Clintons. They have been exonerated of almost all the accusations brought against them by Starr and the right wing. The Clinton administration was not the bastion of corruption you depict.

    Again, Bill’s conduct with Monica and his cover up were enough for me to want him to resign. However, let’s not overstate the case. As for Hillary’s political ambitions, are they any different than the majority of ambitious politicos??

    Considering where we have been led these past 6 years, I will take the Clintons warts and all. Please show some context here.

  38. Bill Robinson  December 22, 2006 at 10:59 pm

    Personally I like Clinton. I don’t like what he did publicly to his wife–that should have been kept private but you can blame Ken starr for the publicity more than President Clinton. Calling him names, well, we call Bush a lot of names so what’s the difference? Who cares? Call him whatever you want. I don’t really care. Fact is that he is a very smart man. He makes very wise, planned moves other than those sexual slips where he got caught with his pants open or down by his knees. Hillary won’t make those errors. First of all, she doesn’t wear pants, usually. Second, she has to have benefited from her husband’s errors and learned from Bill’s mistakes. Third, she knows what to do to cover up the errors if they are discovered before they hit the national press. And lastly, she is a master at switching platforms and sides. She can change positions faster than a chamelion can change colors. This ability has been honed to perfection in the years as a NY Senator. She is superb. We do not know what or who she is anymore–a liberal, a moderate, a conservative? Who knows?
    Who cares?
    She is tough, smart, and adept. She can do the job. She can be the President, make no mistake about that. The question is whether the voters will allow her to serve.

  39. Doug Thompson  December 22, 2006 at 11:07 pm

    Robert asks:

    Doug if you had to vote for Clinton or W for President, which one would you choose?

    Neither. I don’t waste my votes on crooks, liars, metnal cases or scumbags.

    –Doug

  40. Kent Shaw  December 22, 2006 at 11:27 pm

    If the Dems run Hillary in ’08 they will surely lose. They simply do not grasp the the fact that most of the country hates her regardless of any possibly ability she might be able to display as president. I will not vote for Hillary Clinton. I will not vote for McCain. Looks like another Green or Libertarian ballot for me.

  41. Mary  December 23, 2006 at 12:48 am

    I hope that Hillary does not run for President. I have had enough of the Clintons in the WH and don’t want to risk Bill embarrassing the country again. I do see her as Senate majority leader.

    However, the polls do not show that most of the country hates her. It is just that the right wing mindlessly hates her intensely.

  42. Kent Shaw  December 23, 2006 at 1:05 am

    Most polls have an axe to grind — that is, they have an agenda. Everyone I talk to, liberal to conservative, black or white, dislikes Hillary Clinton. She is an arrogant opportunist and no more than that. She would be a horrible president. And John McCain is, sadly, just another warmonger. One would think he’d learned something after 5 years at the Hanoi Hilton. Not to mention that he lost all respect after Bush’s smears in the 2000 nomination campaign and then turned around and basically licked W’s boots.

  43. Paul Feltman  December 23, 2006 at 1:10 am

    get some help

  44. Spartan75  December 23, 2006 at 1:47 am

    Allthough I thought you were really over the top on Bush, at least you go after both sides. I already knew that from this site in the pre-W days. If we the people ever want our country back we would be well advised to get rid of both political parties and start over.

  45. Pat  December 23, 2006 at 2:08 am

    Regardless of party affiliation, I do believe we need to hold our leaders accountable for their words and actions, but at a time when our democracy is in grave danger, I don’t think it is constructive to nit-pick everything they’ve done. Calling Clinton “trailer trash” and a “scumbag” serves no purpose at all.

    I do not condone Bill Clinton’s personal behavior, but he was a competent, intelligent leader. JFK’s womanizing was just as bad if not worse. FDR wasn’t a model husband either.

    So many of us worked for change to save our country and to now tear apart the politicians who could bring about that change is appalling and frightening. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t question their actions, but at least we can give our support when we agree.

    I found this Rant very disturbing and I am at loss to understand what Doug expects or wants from government.I fear there is no one who could possibly live up to his expectations. I am a realist. I know there are people who, though flawed as we all are, have the competence and ability to make this world a better place.

  46. Pat  December 23, 2006 at 2:17 am

    Mary,

    I agree with you about Hillary. If she stays in the Senate, she could become the most powerful woman in the country. I cannot see her as president. Too many people really don’t like her. I liked her years ago before she started talking like a politician. Now I just don’t trust her – she’s the female version of John McCain.

    I don’t know why the polls show her as a front runner. No one I know wants her to be president.

  47. Shag  December 23, 2006 at 2:55 am

    To hell with the naysayers, when Dems. are wrong, we’ve got to acknowledge it, correct it, and move on. What Pelosi did in denying Wm. Jefferson any committee positions is as it should be.

  48. Kent Shaw  December 23, 2006 at 3:10 am

    What is required is a new paradigm to replace the political party. Yes, I know, I’m dreaming… this is something that will not happen over the short run. But political parties spend too many resources keeping the party in power or trying to obtain power that the true needs of the country take second place. Total allegiance to any party is a dangerous thing, blinding the individual to what is good for his country. Too much time is spent slandering “the other side” to make ones one side look better. Parties are dangerous; they do not have the best interest of a country in mind, only their own interests which are not necessarily benevolent. So, what is the new paradigm? Darned if I know, I ain’t that smart. There is currently no honesty in politics. Honesty and accountability are direly needed, and yeah there I go again with more platitude. We are always talking about honesty and accountability but how do we get there? If there was any place to run and hide I’d go, but there is nowhere safe. I am enormously frustrated and I have no answers.

  49. Meredith  December 23, 2006 at 5:10 am

    When CHB reported about Sandy Berger, at first I thought, “Oh man, we already know about him!” Then all I could think was that there was something really wrong with Berger. You know, wrong in the head. Those are the actions of a sick man, not just a stupid, dishonest one.

    I don’t think Hillary Clinton is electable. She might be nominated, but she cannot win. So in the long run, Doug, it may not be worth it to use up your energy fulminating against her.

    Bill Clinton was terrible in terms of his personal life, to be sure. He lied and he cheated. Who knows what else he did; I don’t have all the facts at my fingertips, but as far as I know, Clinton didn’t sell out the Constitution on as grand a scale as this Bush has.

    That being said, I’m wondering if something else hasn’t happened to upset you. You don’t usually use such diction. I hope everything’s OK with you and yours.

  50. estellle raderman  December 23, 2006 at 5:28 am

    doug thompson had my ear till he started with the name calling, whore mongering, trailer trash, trash. imho: this puts him on the same level as those he criticizes.

  51. TM  December 23, 2006 at 6:47 am

    “I found this Rant very disturbing and I am at loss to understand what Doug expects or wants from government.I fear there is no one who could possibly live up to his expectations. I am a realist. I know there are people who, though flawed as we all are, have the competence and ability to make this world a better place”
    I could not have expressed this better. Doug, you seem to perceive yourself as above the political fray. These kind of comments really point to latent wackjob tendencies. If you really mean it, you are losing your grip on reality…I’m sorry for you.

  52. Ray  December 23, 2006 at 7:38 am

    Nothing that Doug ranted about the Clintons is untrue. If you all did your homework and paid attention during Clintons rule, you’d know that. There is a list of people who are now dead that tops two hundred. The common thread between all of them is that they had dealings or contact with the Clintons, Vince included.
    They all were suicided, or had headon crashes, or outright butchered. Bill Clinton sold this country down the river, or should I say, sold us out. They are all the same bunch as the Bushies. Can’t you see that Bush 1 ran the whitehouse when he was vice asshole, then when he was “thee” asshole. Then came Bill, then the present whacko. Next it will be Hillary. They are all alike with thier lying ways, lack of compassion for the human race, and bloody hands. It’s all about them, well isn’t it?

    Trailer Trash, Scumbags, Killers, and greedy pigs they are. Just look who is gaining from actions of the last few presidents. It surely has not been the average citizen tax payer. We think we are free and that we actually choose our leaders. We can vote, but we can’t choose who is on the ballot. We pay an income tax that is unconstitutional, never being radified. Our government borrows money that has no backing and we pay the interest for paper that is only worth the ink on it. If you are an Elite in this country, you are getting richer by the day and and the rest of us chinch the belt a little tighter every day. To become eligible for the presidency these days, you have to be all those things, that they are. I would not give a plug nickle for any of them Policos Bastards. Not but a very few are truely honest with a desire to serve and adhere the oath of the office. But those few will never get to the top by not playing the game of lie and steal.

    Politicians are nothing more than lazy slackers who don’t earn or deserve what they get. Doug is right about the Clintons and Bushes. Nothing will change for the betterment of the common folk. We are slaves to fund the follies of egomaniacs with our tax money and our youths blood, sacrificed beyond belief. The people should just say NO to participating any further in a major crime against humanity called the Iraq War, “war on terrorism”.
    It’s just about money, and enslaving the working class. For what? Spreading Democracy, HA HA. The only real terrorists can be found in the White House.

    Ray
    Get your education somewhere besides the main stream media if you want to know anything remotely true.

  53. kathryn  December 23, 2006 at 8:31 am

    Janet and June i agree with you both i loved Clinton and all he did for US. i am deleting this from my comp. Doug you have gone too far.

  54. JUDY  December 23, 2006 at 11:33 am

    Fred..you’ll get no argument from me that Clinton lied and that ws wrong..my point was that they didn’t have the balls to go the whole way, because #1 many of congress would be proven to be infidels, & #2 there crime did not merit any more than he received for punishment. Here is an interesting thought …how many of our presidents have been proven to be philanders? We cannot legislate morals, but we can laws and the laws must be obeyed or we end up with what we have now..and it is what I consider the moste dishonest, greedy administration I know of. As I have said for the past 7 years “I don’t care who the politicians are screwing, nor where they do it or who its with..just as long as it isn’t me and my country being screwed” And folks..we have been getting screwed non stop for almost 6 years !

  55. The South Point  December 23, 2006 at 12:04 pm

    Ha ha ha ha! Clinton was sleazy from the word go. I don’t care about Clinton’s sex life, it’s none of my business, but Billy sure was a sleazoid in other ways. Clinton’s only saving grace in comparison with GW is that Billy wasn’t a completely psychotic sleazoid.

    What? Is there something wrong with goodness? Being a politician is just a job like any job is a job, so what’s wrong with applying the principles of goodness in accomplishing that job?

    Answer to my own question: Nope. There’s nothing wrong with goodness at all. It’s the way things are supposed to be done. And why not? Who has anything better to do than doing goodness? Particularly when goodness is the best way of doing things?

    Politicians, take heed…

  56. Kevin Ray, Adair  December 23, 2006 at 3:43 pm

    Doug,

    Thanks so much for your non-partisan posts and news. Have so many on my lists that are Bush die-hards that sometimes I was a bit reluctant to forward your insight. Though I’ve known since subscribing, of your non-partisan reporting, as you well know its difficult to convey such to those with a one track/party mind. No reluctance at all with this one and keep ‘em coming. Great site no doubt and enjoy your sometimes satirical conveyance of reality.

    Kevin Ray, Adair
    Texas

  57. Walter F. Wouk  December 23, 2006 at 3:53 pm

    Doug, you hit the idiomatic “nail on the head,” and irritated more than a few Clinton cultists in the process. Well done!

  58. Lysistrata  December 23, 2006 at 4:48 pm

    Sounds like Doug is saying my bastards are bad but yours are too, maybe even little more so.
    Deep down Doug is a little partisan too, guess we all are to some extent.
    I believe I am partisan too but I don’t think so.
    Happy Holydays.

  59. Mary  December 23, 2006 at 5:36 pm

    Regarding polls. Many posters said they don’t trust polls or that polls have an agenda. Then the posters go on to say that noone they talk to likes Hillary—. They have in effect conducted their own very unscientific polls.

    The polls are not infallible, but all reputable polls conduct their polls SCIENTIFICALLY and that is the big difference between your poll and theirs. I strongly urge you to research how polls are conducted before slamming them. Remember that in most elections the reputable polls are quite right within their margins or error. Again, I am not a shill for Hillary, only reality.

  60. kasinca  December 23, 2006 at 6:25 pm

    Doug you should maybe put your Rant into the freezer overnight and allow it to cool off before you post it. You sometimes go over board as most of us in recovery do. Some of your Rant about Whitewater is just no fact. The reason Ken Starr drifted to the blowjob over Whitewater is that there was no there there. I never voted for Clinton but I sure as hell would take him back over the drunken AWOL coward we have now.

  61. Kent Shaw  December 23, 2006 at 7:13 pm

    Mary,

    Do you know what a “push poll” is?

    Doug

  62. Kent Shaw  December 23, 2006 at 7:16 pm

    Example of a push poll question: “Would you have voted for George Bush if you knew he had been beating his wife?” Note that no one is accusing Bush of being a wife beater. It is simply a hypothetical question. But results of our (unnamed) poll show that 87% of respondents would not have voted for George Bush.

  63. Lysistrata  December 23, 2006 at 7:18 pm

    Even Clinton was felled by his emotions. Objectively he should have said no comment, it was a sin and only between him and his wife and his maker. Had he not been president no court would have bothered. He did not get good advice.
    Why did Berger take the documents, what was in them?

  64. Pat  December 23, 2006 at 8:53 pm

    Mary,

    I agree with you about scientific polling (provided they aren’t “push polls”), but what the polls don’t show is that most people aren’t political junkies. They don’t recognize many of the names of those who have thrown their hats in the ring. Everyone knows who Hillary Clinton and John McCain are.

    Prior to the 2004 elections I knew nothing about John Kerry and John Edwards, and now they are household names. Obama is now creeping up in the polls because he is getting so much exposure in the news. The terrain will look much different in 2008. Money, marketing, and news coverage will determine who is front and center in 2008 and I’m sure there will be some surprises.

  65. dave  December 24, 2006 at 12:42 am

    To me, it always goes back to, do I want the largest surplus in history or do I want the largest deficit in history.

  66. Mary  December 24, 2006 at 1:17 am

    Sure, I know what a push poll is. That is not the kind of polling I am talking about. That is a decidedly biased poll meant to influence participants. If the major polling groups like Rothenberg, Pew, Gallup conducted polls like that, they would not be in business long. Their clients want valid information. Who is doing well in the polls 2 years out from and election is not as valid as who is ahead 2 days before an election.

  67. Wendy  December 24, 2006 at 5:06 am

    Although lying under oath is technically breaking the law, I see a distinct difference betweem lying to avoid admitting cheating on your wife and lying about putting this nation’s security (not to mention the world’s) in jeopardy. One is hiding a personal fault – the other is treason. So, while I believe Clinton abused his position for sexual gratification, I’ll take him anyday over the current egomaniacal buffoon sitting behind that same desk.

  68. Barbio  December 24, 2006 at 7:45 am

    Doug –

    I am a long time reader, but this Rant has really questioned whether that will continue. I read just about everything that I could on the whole Whitewater saga. Never did I read anything that stated that the Clintons became millionaires because of their investment in a failed land deal in Arkansas. Where did you uncover this fact? Please provide additional information to support this allegation. Also, you stated that many on Clintons staff went to jail or left their office in disgrace – I can’t think of any so please help me out with their names (okay I can think of one – the Hispanic who received a misdemeanor fine for lying about how much he paid his mistress on his FBI report) – what are the others?

    My favorite saying is “you are entitled to your own opinions – not your own facts”. It is obvious that you despise Bill and Hillary Clinton – that is certainly your own opinion. However, I don’t believe you can make up facts to support this. Yes, Bill cheated on his marriage. Not the first man – certainly won’t be the last. I would just like to know what facts you have to support the rest of what you said. Please elucidate. I read you because I have believed that because of your years of working in DC you have sources that your readers are not privvy too. I now am not sure of that because of what you said about the Clintons. From what I know, what you said about them is not true. Unless you have supporting data for your claims, I will not be able to believe what you say about the Bush administration and will therefore no longer be able to read your Rant.

  69. Puck  December 24, 2006 at 1:19 pm

    Good on you Doug. Keep calling ‘em like you see ‘em and folks like me will keep coming back.

  70. jozey  December 24, 2006 at 1:50 pm

    Good gracious. Something I never knew……Clintons became millionaires over the WW deal? I missed that I guess.Ahhh, but it is like old times seeing the Clinton bashers spinning their webs.Limbaugh must be once again fueling their tanks.

  71. Doug Thompson  December 24, 2006 at 2:42 pm

    Folks, you are reading things into the article that aren’t there. I didn’t way Whitewater alone made the Clintons millionaires. I said “such deals” did and they went from virtually broke during Clinton’s reign as governor to millionaires by the time they left the White House (although it is a lot easier to get rich when you don’t pay $15 million in legal bills).

    The Republicans lost track of the real issues of Whitewater when they became obsessed with the Lewinsky scandal. The conveniently-missing legal files (later “found” on an end table by a couch in the Whitehouse) are just one of the many unanswered questions of the whole affair.

    Shady land deals, get-rich quick schemes and playing fast and loose with the rules have long been part of the Clinton playbook.

    Bill Clinton is a product of the Arkansas political system — a corrupt, crooked, backroom-deal way of government that is all too typical in Southern politics. Bush is equally corrupt. He’s just a product of a different system.

    To some Democrats, raising issues about Clinton turns me into a “Clinton basher” and invites suggestions that I’m part of the conservative Limbaugh camp. To some Republicans, doing the same thing with Bush turns me into a “Bush basher” with ties to the Al Frankens and Michael Moores of the world.

    In reality, I’m just a journalist who distrusts all politicians, hates partisanship and applies the same standard of conduct to all.

    There’s a sign that hangs over the desk in my den. It reads:

    If your mother says she loves you, get a second source.

    –Doug

  72. Mary  December 24, 2006 at 3:35 pm

    Doug, you say you hate partisanship. I am not sure what you mean by that.
    Does that mean you have no policy preferences?? When you strip away the so called corruption, spin, and political maneuvering, the parties do represent differing policy preferences. We have certainly seen the rightwing’s policy preferences expressed under GWB. Do you think that Al Gore would have made the same policy choices as Bush?? Partisanship is about policy objectives. Representative democracy is about partisanship. A dictatorship tries to do away with annoying partisanship to causes other than those of the dictator.

    I can agree that loyalty to a party can blind a devotee to empirical reality and that should be avoided.

  73. Doug Thompson  December 24, 2006 at 3:42 pm

    Mary:

    I define partisanship as putting party loyalty above the needs of the nation. I define it as excusing the corrupt and criminal actions of someone from your own party while condemning such actions on the other side.

    I disagree that partisanship is necessary in a representative Democracy. Politics, as practiced today, puts party above country, hype above truth and political expedience above what’s right.

    Political partisanship has nothing to do with policy. It’s all about power, greed and control. Because of that, there is no real difference between the political parties.

    –Doug

  74. Lysistrata  December 24, 2006 at 4:56 pm

    There is a partisanship that does have to do with the believe in a political policy. But when facts are shaped to confirm with once partisanship then it is just plain bias.

  75. Mary  December 24, 2006 at 5:11 pm

    Well, you are using partisanship in a broader sense than the definition given by my Webster’s dictionary which refers to supporting a cause.

    Certainly partisanship can be excessive and the way you define it is not desireable.

    However, I am not as cynical as you and despite the acknowledged corruption of both parties, I do think that our two leading parties have different policy objectives and causes that fuel their partisanship. Partisan members do think they know what is right for the nation and persue those policies. I disagree that there isn’t a difference between the two parties. How you can say that after 6 years of Bush and a Republican controlled Congress is beyond me? For one we would not be stuck in Iraq if Gore or Nadar were president and we would be doing something serious about global warming.

    Of course, the evils of power, greed, and control are involved. That is why the Founding Fathers were so big on checks and balances. As long as individuals have differing views partisanship will exist. Only in Utopia or in a version of a 1984 style government could it be eliminated.

  76. Doug Thompson  December 24, 2006 at 7:01 pm

    Mary, your idealism is admirable but naive at best and dictionary definitions are based on theory not reality.

    The kind of idea, policy-driven partisanship you desire is impossible in today’s political environment. As I said, parties are driven now by power, not policy and decisions are based on what’s best for the party, not the country.

    Both parties want single-party rule and strict adherence by all who follow them to a strict set of standards. Look at how the Democrats treated Joe Lieberman because he dared oppose them on a single issue: Iraq. They were willing to scrap years of devotion to what some could call Democratic party policy and principles because of disagreement over that issue.

    I’ve been around politics for 40-plus years as both a journalist and a political operative and I can tell you that the policy-driven scenario you desire is a fantasy. Voters this past November turned out a corrupt Republican Congress and replaced it with new leaders: An incoming Speaker of the House who brags she learned politics at her daddy’s knee (and her daddy was a mob-controlled mayor of Baltimore) and an incoming Senate Majority Leader who uses his office to profit from get-rich land development schemes.

    The Mafia has a saying for this: New boss, same as the old boss, and the Congress of the United States is the most powerful example of organized crime operating in this country today.

    It doesn’t matter is Democrats or Republicans control Congress. Corruption will rule, special interests will call the shots and the people will lose. Let’s remember that a majority of those Democrats returned to office voted to allow the invasion of Iraq, voted for the rights-robbing USA Patriot Act and for other legislation that have trampled freedom in this country. So did Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.

    I’m not a cynic. I’m a realist. I see things as they are and expect the worst…and I’m seldom disappointed.

    –Doug

  77. Mary  December 24, 2006 at 8:09 pm

    My last words on the subject. I consider myself a realist. I am not even sure what would be ideal, so I generally avoid dwelling on that. I sort out my preferences according to function trying to avoid the dysfunctional

    BTY, theory is supposed to be based on observable and testable reality.

    Granted you have more of an insider’s view of what goes on in the political arena. However, I stick to my point that policy is an important part of partisanship.

    Your example of Joe Lieberman proves my point. Iraq is not just a minor issue about power. It is about a disasterous policy that has gotten thousands killed and maimed as well as draining the treasury.
    That Ds who had a problem with the war were unhappy with Lieberman is based on policy choices. His was to agree syncophantly with Bush while many Ds disagreed. Some of Lieberman’s Senate buddies like Dodd stuck with him. So I don’t know what your point is about Lieberman. Iraq is not just a minor policy disagreement. It has become the major policy
    issue of the day. Additionally, Lieberman pretty much told the Ds they were unpatriotic to criticize Bush.

    Of course, the Ds will have to be monitored for corruption just as the Rs. Granted Ds were duped into voting to give Bush authority to go to war, not for the war per se. There is a difference. I won’t go into it that now.
    As for the Patriot Act, everyone was shaken by 9/11. Many Ds want to readress the worst provisions of the Act.

    However, to not see policy differences between the two parties makes me wonder if your observation skills have become clouded by an excess of gloom. Reminds me of what Nadar said in 2000. Thanks to him Bush is president. Nadar got 96,000 votes here in Florida.

    Final word, I promise. Why do parties want power??? They want the power to implement their partisan policies. “Realist” that you are, you might argue that they want the $$$ that goes with power and for some members that may be true. It is up to the American people to hold them accountable. I will admit that Americans have not upheld their democratic obligations of citizenship.

    However, there are some signs that they are starting to pay attention.
    You certainly have a role to play and usually you do it well. Keep up the good work.

  78. Pat  December 24, 2006 at 9:40 pm

    Mary,

    Well said. You put so many of my thoughts into words. I too consider myself a “realist”. I know that in order to be elected to a position where one can make a difference, one has to make compromises and play political games. Saints, if there are any, do not seek political office and would not get elected if they did.

    As for Lieberman, he was held accountable for his position on Iraq and his support of Bush’s policies. This was not “an” issue, it was “the” defining issue of the election. His being rejected by many of his own party was not betrayal, but rather democracy at work. His former supporters did not follow him blindly because he was a Democrat.

    There is no perfect system, and there are no perfect people in public office. It is up to us to hold our elected officials accountable when they do not represent us, but our criticisms have to be realistic. There is too much at stake right now and petty, personal attacks will only cause us to lose our focus.

    Perhaps an “insider’s” perspective isn’t always a good thing. I think it could serve to make a person more cynical and less constructive.

  79. Wayne K Dolik  December 24, 2006 at 9:53 pm

    I will be darned if I will give another family member a second chance at the White House after the Bush II disaster. We put little Shrub in after daddy couldn’t figure out what a loaf of bread costs. And now, some of my fellow Democrats want to drink the same coolaid again.

    Pour acid on me if I ever vote another family member in the White House. One time is enough.

  80. Doug Thompson  December 24, 2006 at 10:47 pm

    This is all a nice academic exercise but, like most academic debates, is has little to do with reality.

    The sad reality is that the Democrats will soon fall into the same “power corrupts” trap as Republicans and prove themselves as criminal as the leadership they replaced.

    The war in Iraq will continue, more Americans will die and the Dems will fail to deliver on the any promise of bringing the troops home.

    The system is corrupt and beyond repair. But as long as idealists continue to believe in a failed system it will keep these clowns in power.

    –Doug

  81. The South Point  December 25, 2006 at 12:42 am

    Partisanship is just another word for tribalism.

    Tribalism in itself isn’t bad, but it can become pathological when the attitude that “Our tribe is MORE important than your tribe” develops. This is completely insane and asinine beyond words because the existence of everyone is important. No one group of people can possibly contain all the abilities that are needed for the establishment and progression of a civilization. The more ties and connections people establish with each other, the more everyone benefits from the sharing around of things that get invented that make life easier and more fun and interesting. And this is where using good manners and respect becomes important because if you unnecessarily piss someone off, that someone isn’t likely to feel too chummy towards you and very likely to tell you to go (censored) yourself when you need that someone’s ability to better your own existence. And if you kill that someone, rather needless to say, that someone’s ability is now gone and you will have no access to it and as a result, your life will suffer.

    There also seems to be a component of dominant/submissive behavior involved in partisanship. Why, I don’t know. There is no such thing as dominant/submissive behavior for sentient beings. That kind of behavior is for non-sentient animals who don’t have the intelligence to figure out how to do things in a better way. And dominant/submissive behavior is definitely an incredibly crappy way of doing things as it causes problems, problems, problems, problems.

    Speaking as a male entity, neither tribalism nor dominant/submissive behavior have any interest to me. As a male entity, I am responsible for the safety and welfare of everyone everywhere. No one group of people is any more important to me than any other group as all groups are important to me. The safety and integrity of everyone’s life is important to me. The daddyness factor that comes with the job description of being a male entity, I suppose.

    And dominant/submissive behavior? All I can say is, “Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!” Trying to play the role of control freak would show I was too damn stupid to be anything else. And me, a male entity, be submissive? Now, there’s a truly ludicrous thought…

    Expand your horizons. Expand them not only to include the rest of the planet, but also the rest of the universe and all the universes because of all of us are in this together and we need the abilities and help of everyone if we are to have a satisfying and fun time. The more and wider the network of ties and connections to other people that is made, the greater the resource of abilities is made that benefits everyone.

    “And we’ll have fun, fun, fun until daddy takes the t-bird away-ay-ay-ay…”

    Because daddy wants to have fun driving the t-bird and then tells you to go buy your own damn t-bird and stop constantly mooching off him borrowing his… It’s about time you got a job, anyway. You’re old enough now.

  82. Kent Shaw  December 25, 2006 at 12:47 am

    Exactly. The system is broken. And I fear it is all going to end badly in the form of a fascist police state. The prison camps are waiting.

  83. Pat  December 25, 2006 at 1:05 am

    “The system is corrupt and beyond repair. But as long as idealists continue to believe in a failed system it will keep these clowns in power.”

    I read this as it is hopeless, give up, as if there is no viable solution.
    As I see it, we could just put our blinders on and let it all fall apart, or we could start a major revolution (don’t see that happening) or we could start making changes within the system that we have. The latter does not make us starry-eyed idealists, but rather pragmatists who know that change takes patience and compromise combined with consistent diligence and oversight.

    Americans became complacent and ultimately the blame lies with the citizenry. It is not the first time its happened and probably won’t be the last, but we are capable of waking up and reclaiming our government.

    Doug, do you have any answers yourself? Is there something I’m missing, because all I’m reading are the problems, but no hint of any answers?

  84. Pat  December 25, 2006 at 1:08 am

    South Point – very interesting as well as amusing! Thanks for lightening things up a bit.

  85. Lester Eohippus  December 25, 2006 at 5:17 am

    I’m mad as hell, and I’m not going to take it anymore:
    Democrats / Republicans what’s the difference?

    When they all start acting like true honorable men and women and accept personal self responsibility for their actions, Then I will take notice.

    When less the honorable men and women finally get it through their heads that they work for the citizens and not the interests of the Corporations of this country, Then I will take notice.

    When these cowards can stand with pride before their peers and say NO to the corruption that is the present government, Then I will take notice.

    When these wolves in sheep’s clothing return America to the greatness I which she stands, Then I will take notice.

    When these treasonist empty shells in human form look up and realize “My God, what have we done, Then I will show them the LIGHT they so willingly snuffed.

  86. sherry  December 28, 2006 at 8:13 am

    Never voted for Clinton. Ken Starr’s report read like a cheap porn novel.
    Ken Starr turned me from a straight republican voter to an independent.
    That said, I resent terms like “trailer trash” I don’t judge people by what they live in or don’t. Clinton was not rich growing up but that is no reason to disparage him.
    As for Sandy Berger, he got off waay to easily. Classified info stashed in a construction trailer? OMgosh!!! Hidden in his socks? Sheesh!
    Never mind Clinton. Berger is not Clinton. Berger committed a crime. He should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.
    You get a little carried away at times, Doug. That’s ok. I still love ya.

Comments are closed.