Widgetized Section

Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone

You can’t redeem a political whore

By Doug Thompson
September 17, 2007

When historians sit down to write the sad, tattered, corrupt legacy of President George W. Bush, let’s hope they do acknowledge his singular accomplishment as President – the redemption, at least in the public eye, of another corrupt, morally-flawed President: William Jefferson Clinton.

It is ironic that Clinton, who brought immeasurable amounts of shame and disgrace onto the White House and the Presidency, is now viewed in favorable light when compared to the shenanigans of Bush and his gang.

That’s the flaw of the American political system: Excellence is neither demanded nor expected of our elected leaders. All we want is a politician who is less corrupt, less dishonest and less flawed than the other side. Call it grading on the curve, political relativity or situational ethics.

George W. Bush will go down as one of the worst Presidents in American history. He will be viewed as a corrupt, dishonest, politically-motivated leader who put his personal agenda above the needs of his country, the Constitution and the American people.

Bush is, and always will be, a disgrace to the office of the Presidency, a monument to a failed political system and a rallying cry for all those who feel our system of government has fallen beyond the point of redemption and must not be repaired but perhaps even replaced by something that will prevent such despots from ever again taking over such complete control of our government.

There is no doubt that Bush has inflicted serious harm on America. Our economy is in chaos. We are mired in another unpopular and unnecessary war launched for questionable reasons. We are despised on the world stage.

But this is no reason to give Bill Clinton a pass for his many crimes in the White House. Forget the partisan whine that Clinton’s only sins were ones of the flesh, that he only screwed interns while Bush screwed the country.

Bullshit. Bill Clinton is, always has been, and always will be, scum. So is his wife. Like Bush, he manipulated the system to avoid serving his country in time of war. Bush hid out in the Texas Air Guard while Clinton backdated documents to save his student deferment. Both lied about their reluctance to serve their country.

Both men are serial liars. Bush lied about the reasons for invading Iraq, among other things. Clinton lied under oath about his affair with Monica Lewinsky, among other things. Bush sent Americans to die in Afghanistan and Iraq. Clinton sent Americans to die in Bosnia. He bombed a pharmaceutical factory to divert interest from his sexual dalliances.

Bush uses the power of the federal government to discredit his enemies. So did Clinton. Just ask Katherine Willey about what happens when you speak out against the Clintons.

Bush surrounds himself with crooks and con-artists. Same for Clinton. Clinton cronies went to prison too.

Claiming Bush is worse than Clinton when it comes to corruption and scandal is like saying Britney Spears is more of a slut than Paris Hilton. Trash is trash and both men disgraced the office they held and the Constitution they swore to uphold.

Now Democrats want to nominate Hillary for President. Given the damage Bush has inflicted on the Republican Party, a $50 whore from the French Quarter of New Orleans could probably take the race if she ran on the Democratic ticket.

Hillary shares her husband’s moral ambiguity and putting her in charge at 1600 Pennsylvania will not restore dignity or honor to the Presidency. She lied openly in the Whitewater investigation and the recent scandals over some of her fundraisers shows she, like Bill, will wink and look the other way when someone walks in with a suitcase full of cash.

This political game of redemption by using Bush as a moral yardstick reminds us of an old story about a confrontation between playwright George Bernard Shaw and Lady Astor.

At a fancy London dinner party, Shaw is reputed to have asked Lady Astor, in front of others, if she would spend the night with him for a million pounds.

“Why yes Mr. Shaw, I suppose I would,” she replied.

To which Shaw responded: “Well then, how about five pounds?”

“Mr. Shaw,” the suddenly indignant Madame Astor retorted. “What do you think I am?”

“I’ve established that,” Shaw replied. “What I am trying to establish now is the price.”

54 Responses to You can’t redeem a political whore

  1. bryan mcclellan

    September 17, 2007 at 7:35 pm

    Speaking of medicine,empty your pockets America,Hilly jumped on the mandatory health insurance bandwagon.Looks like she is a big Pharma whore too.I can barely heat my house in the winter,afford gas to go to work, put hot dogs on the table,(2 jobs/wife 2 jobs)save for retirement, or catch a movie once in a while,and I have it better than 50% of the people I know.She might as well hand out free bullets so we can shoot ourselves and get us out of her misery.Think about the drug problem when everyone can freely access a physician for the sniffles and a script for the next designer ailment.OOOOH the profit margin boggles does it not? Where is My pharma portfolio and my health care insurance payment?I’ll tell you where,going down the carburetor of my 67 chevy on the way to my second job and back,thats where.Back off people,Doug is just being nice when using the designation ,whore,for descriptive purposes.

  2. nuQler Ostrich

    September 17, 2007 at 9:05 pm

    I think I’ll vote for someone who is so honest that he would rather risk his political career, not to mention a mob hit on his life, so that he can honor his campaign promises.

    Remember the “Boy Mayor” from Cleveland who saved the City Electric company from a corrupt extortion take-over?

    That’s who I’m voting for. Dennis Kucinich.

    Dennis Kucinich – He’s no insurance salesman.

  3. Cpt Kirk

    September 17, 2007 at 10:44 pm

    How many americans died in Bosnia and was the mission completed?

  4. Doug Thompson

    September 18, 2007 at 3:52 am

    If one American dies in one useless war that is one death too many. Or is it OK when a Democrat sends Americans to die? I sometimes forget the rules when it comes to partisans. You folks have so many double standards.

    Was any mission accomplished in Bosnia? Seems like the jury is out on that one as well.

  5. Sandra Price

    September 18, 2007 at 9:08 am

    It all comes down to what kind of government and leadership do we want? I’ve discovered that too many CHB people want a full coverage of government programs so they no longer have to research their own problems. The first candidate who guarantees full responsibility for all Americans, wins the prize.

    America was content with Reagan’s policies so they voted for his Vice President. America woke up to this neoconservative movement and voted for the Arkansas Governor! America discovered a President who was a moral degenerate and followed the Religious Right for “moral repair” and got the Bush group back.

    America does not know what they want. They want to be left alone to watch television, bet on their ball games and drink their beer. They discovered too late that their kids are out of control, the jobs are heading overseas and the moral repair was a total fraud.

    So we bounce back and forth between two corrupt political groups and nothing is ever changed. We need an honest agenda to hold onto for our ideal government but it is the masses who direct the agenda whining they cannot act as individuals. It is the road to failure for all Americans.

    The war in Iraq is a very small example of American values. Our own individual security is broken and we gather around in gangs to defeat whatever is the going fear of the day. It will make no difference to America who we elect as it will be a gang-related force for control.

    The debate is controlled by two pit bulls and they can fight it out making money for their owners. We are only observers.

    Doug has explained what we do not want for leadership. Where are the suggestions for what we do want? He leaves that to his readers and forum but the fight is too bloody.

  6. JudyB

    September 18, 2007 at 9:15 pm

    Sandra…We know what we want in a president..but its unattainable and always will be because of the false banners the candidates fly under just to get elected.. so, its either we vote for the lesser of two evils or don’t vote and let the other guy decide or us.

  7. Cobaltkid

    September 19, 2007 at 10:24 am

    Way to go Doug!

    This rant has got to be one of your all time bests. The deluge of partisan responses is proof of how jaded we have become and how we are willing to accept (and elect) such a collection of political whores – regardless of which party. It is amazing to see so many people who have become totally mesmerizes by the political hacks in federal and state elected offices.

    Why can’t people see that we have been duped by so many of our self serving presidents and congressmen? For example, just the other day we learned that the Bill to appropriate funds for bridge repairs contains billions of dollars of pork. The Bushes and Clintons fit right in to and promote this broken system.

  8. JoyfulC

    September 19, 2007 at 10:38 am

    Sorry I didn’t respond sooner, but for some strange reason, I haven’t received my e-mail newsletter since Sept 14.

    So Doug, what happened to your claim that you’re going to give up name calling and mudslinging? Whore? Scum? You just can’t resist, can you?

    And as for Clinton’s “many crimes in the White House” — what crimes would those be exactly? What crime has Bill or Hilary Clinton been convicted of? Because if there aren’t any, after all this time that their detractors have had to make something stick, then your words are little more than malicious libel. The practice of telling a lie often enough in the hopes that someone will believe it.

    I have often accused you of having unrevealed reasons for hating the Clintons and trying to tear them down, and I feel more strongly than ever that is so because none of your stated claims hold water except that Clinton lied about his personal and private sex life — if “immeasurable amounts of shame and disgrace” were brought down on the presidency over this, then I suggest that it was those who chose to make an issue out of this private affair who are responsible for that. Lewinsky was a consenting adult — no rape and no crime. Clinton certainly wasn’t the first president to commit adultery while in the White House, and certainly isn’t the first man to lie when confronted with a no-win question about his very personal private matters.

    To date, you refuse to even to question why anyone would find it necessary to put a sitting president on the spot over something that was a purely personal and private matter. To date, you refuse to acknowledge that those who did so put their desire to bring down Clinton ahead of their love for this country and their respect for the office of the President of the United States. To date, you refuse to even address the motivations of those who did this, knowing it would only hurt the United States and the American people, and would serve no good whatsoever.

    If it were up to you and those like you, we’d be governed by gossip rags and tabloids. The real issues wouldn’t matter, good governance wouldn’t matter — all that would matter would be the next big scandal.

    I’ve known too many people like you over the years to be fooled by you. I gave you the “trust but verify” benefit of the doubt about wanting to clean up your act — but I guess an act is all we can expect out of you. For shame!

    Christine

  9. Doug Thompson

    September 19, 2007 at 12:08 pm

    Christine:

    You are welcome to your opinion of my motives, although I believe your perception is ill informed. Any serious reader of this web site knows we hold most politicians, elected and appointed officials in equal disrespect. They are both products and symptoms of a broken system.

    The Arkansas Bar Association thought Bill Clinton committed the crime of lying under oath and took away his law license for it. Hillary lied repeatedly about the missing records in the Whitewater investigation (the ones that “suddenly” reappeared on a table in the White House). She and her husband, in my opinion, escaped justice because of the ineptitude of those pursuing them not because of any innocence.

    Does having such an opinion suggest a hidden hatred of the Clintons? No more so than my open and obvious distrust of politicians in general. I don’t see you accusing me of a hidden agenda on Bush yet I write many columns that go after him with a vengeance that far exceeds anything I have written about the Clintons. I think Bush is pond scum. I share the same opinion of both Clintons. I feel the same about 95 percent of those elected to office. What I find laughable is the fact that the Clintons are suddenly redeemable because Bush may be bigger pond scum.

    I’m sorry but we don’t play that game here. I’ll leave it to the partisan sites to find excuses for members of their parties. I use the same yardstick to measure everyone and both the current President and the one before him failed to measure up to that yardstick.

    There’s no hidden agendas here, just overall disgust with a system that plays by two sets of rules. Any failure to comprehend that is yours, not mine.

  10. revwhit7

    September 19, 2007 at 2:26 pm

    revwhit: There is no lesser of two evils. Evil is just evil, and all sins are deadly, especially if one continues in their sins.

  11. RichardT

    September 20, 2007 at 10:51 am

    Doug, I couldn’t agree with you more. Americans are obligated to do their part to protect our Republic. That means electing honest citizen as representatives and holding them accountable.

    For those of you who whine about the current state of affairs in D.C.; take some personal responsibility and start cleaning out the vermin in Congress and elect someone who understands what liberty under The Constitution is all about. Take back your country!

    Richard

  12. RichardT

    September 20, 2007 at 2:41 pm

    Just because other Presidents were philanderers and libertines makes it okay for Bubba to be one too?

    For God’s sake, The Office of the President should be held by someone of integrity, honesty and the highest morals!

    An example: Franklin D. Roosevelt lied to the American people about the Pearl Harbor attack. Clinton lied, UNDER OATH, about his affairs. And President Bush lied to us about WMDs in Iraq and the other reasons he went to war, should they be excused because FDR got away with it??

    Get Real.

  13. Helen Rainier

    September 20, 2007 at 12:40 pm

    My thinking may be skewed, but I believe that trying to compare Iraq to Bosnia/Kosovo is like comparing apples and oranges, and here is why:

    Our involvement in Bosnia/Kosovo was as a signatory and member of NATO, which was responsible for the overall operation. Muslims were being mass-murdered. Our involvement in Iraq was not done as a part of an overall UN member and was taken against another UN signatory nation. Iraq joined the UN as a signatory on 21 December 1945. Coincidentally, Iran, another UN signatory, joined on 24 October 1945, as did the US.

    Iraq was a pre-emptive and unilateral military action based on at least two premises — both proffered by Dubya and/or from his own lips: Saddam was the guy who “tried” to get his dad, and two, because of non-existent WMD. There was plenty of corroborated evidence prior to going in that, had the Bush administration chosen to, they could have availed themselves of. UN Inspection Reports are on-line — very boring reading, but they are there. Additionally, the CIA had previously debriefed Kamel Hussein (Saddam’s son-in-law) in Jordan when he defected from Iraq. Kamel was the head of Iraq’s WMD program and said they had been destroyed after Gulf One. His statements are corroborated by the UN Inspection reports. We also had a CIA mole in Saddam’s inner circle who stated there were no WMD. UN Inspectors were on the ground with unfettered access prior to “shock and awe” although Bush lied about that, too.

    Since the debacle with Clinton — and I am, by no stretch of the imagination condoning Clinton’s behavior — and the standards of comportment that were established by the Republicans — I have used what I now call the “Clinton Standard” and applied those standards to Bush. Those standards were established by the Republicans in Congress, not me.

    In so doing, not only should Bush have been brought up on charges of sedition and treason, but also of neglect of duty and misconduct by not adhering to the rule of law and the US Constitution. He should also be brought up on grounds of impeachment, and detained by the appropriate law enforcement authorities and turned over to the UN on charges of being a war criminal.

    Put very bluntly, Bush is a mass murderer who acts with wanton disregard and disrespect for the rule of law, all while proclaiming to be a “family values” Christian and compassionate conservative who says he admires Jesus.
    I say BS to all of his political rhetoric and I call him out, along with his political ideologues, be they democrats or republicans. Those who enable him by going along with his illegal and immoral actions are surely as guilty as he is.

    In my reality, actions speak louder than words. Clinton’s actions — compared to Bush’s, indicate to me that Clinton will go down in history as a humanitarian with feet of clay, and Bush will go down as dismal failure who worships at the Altar of Mammon, or thinks he is Mammon.

    Doug, you have a right to your outraged indignation, but I, for one am not buying it. Power to the People!

    Oh, and BTW, I am a political and religious non-partisan. I am a humanitarian who does my best to live my life in accordance with secular ideals of what is morally right and wrong — not ideals decided by anyone else — especially politicians and religious sycophants.

  14. ekaton

    September 20, 2007 at 9:35 pm

    “UN Inspectors were on the ground with unfettered access prior to “shock and awe” although Bush lied about that, too.”

    Bush STILL sometimes repeats his LIE that Saddam evicted the weapons inspectors led by Hans Blix and Scott Ritter. THIS IS A LIE. Bush himself told them to leave because Iraq was about to be attacked.

    Why has someone not stomped the guts out of this lying cretin?

    — Kent Shaw

  15. lexiedogmom

    September 20, 2007 at 10:00 pm

    Lexie Homewood Excellent commentary, Helen.

    I think Doug pretty much doesn’t like anybody. I am an admirer of Joe Biden, but Doug characterized him in one lousy line, as being a plagiarist. In Doug’s book, it seems, one flaw, one mistake, and you are forever dogmeat.

    I so agree with everyone here that to even think of comparing Bush unfavorably with Clinton, and then in the same breath basically saying that Clinton was almost as bad, borders on the illogical, the ridiculous, and the fanatical. Who, I ask, is worthy of Doug’s admiration?

  16. Warren

    September 21, 2007 at 2:22 am

    Guess it’s all relative. Sadly, most of us have come to expect a certain amount of dishonesty from our elected representatives. Business as usual. What separates the Bush Gang from the rest is just degree. Clinton and his gang, even Nixon and his, were mere Pikers compared to this Bush Gang. How do you compare the several hundred thousand lives that Bush’s ambitions have cost, the loss of respect around the world, the disintegration of the US dollar, the terrible destruction of our Constitution and Bill of Rights with lying about a blow job? All dishonest, but orders of magnitude apart in degree.

  17. km0591

    September 21, 2007 at 6:52 am

    Who is worthy of Doug’s admiration?

    That’s simple.

    Doug.

  18. Doug Thompson

    September 21, 2007 at 8:39 am

    lexiedogmom writes:

    I think Doug pretty much doesn’t like anybody. I am an admirer of Joe Biden, but Doug characterized him in one lousy line, as being a plagiarist. In Doug’s book, it seems, one flaw, one mistake, and you are forever dogmeat.

    Who, I ask, is worthy of Doug’s admiration?

    If Biden’s errors of omission had been an isolated incident I might have cut him some slack but it happened more than once.

    I admit I don’t admire many politicians. The distrust comes from more than 40 years of either covering them as a reporter or working with them as a political operative. I admired President Truman. I think he was a decent man caught up in difficult times. He came into politics as part of a political machine in Missouri but rose above that dubious beginning.

    Among American military leaders, I greatly admired Gen. Omar Bradley. His concern over the welfare of his soldiers would be sadly out-of-place in today’s Army.

    On Capitol Hill, I worked for, liked and admired Congressman Manuel Lujan of New Mexico. He wasn’t concerned with getting his name in the paper or with being remembered for legislation. He wanted to use his office to help the people of his home state by serving as an advocate against the federal bureaucracy. He was the only member of Congress that I know who regularly went back to his district and held “office hours” to meet one-on-one with constituents and do case work on their behalf.

    Yes, there are some I admire but it’s a short list and, in today’s political environment, it will sadly remain so.

  19. hillbilly

    September 21, 2007 at 1:56 pm

    Warren I agree completely. Some hacks just don’t want to address the problems at hand, but choose to continue yesterday’s war…in my opinion, the very reason why the country is in the mess we find it in, in todays world. All this BS puts me in the mind-set of a bunch of high schoolers.

    One kid calls his girlfriend from his cell phone during class which is against the rules…
    Another kid calls in a bomb threat from his cell phone during class which is against the rules…

    Only a hack could make equal headlines of these stories
    outside the school paper. Until real people address the real issues we face as a country…all these comparisons to what happened yesterday don’t mean squat. It’s time we all quit looking in the rearview mirror and took a look at the road ahead of us…that’s where the collision is gonna occur.

  20. km0591

    September 21, 2007 at 10:42 pm

    I am neither a fan of Bush or of the Clintons. I am even less of a fan of the easy pseudo-wisdoms of self satisfied cynicism. But then, if they are all “whores and scum,” such cynicism can allow one to feel superior and so removed from it all. Quite tempting, but a miserably corrupt and useless exercise.

  21. WINFIELD MCMURTREY

    September 22, 2007 at 9:42 am

    Doug, I’ve accessed your website daily for probably ten years,but if I read one more ‘Rant’ about how Clinton and Bush are equally worthless, I’m going to delete CHB from my favorite places. If you can’t tell the difference, and, in your joking response to the first comment above (‘you must be inhaling’), perhaps you’ve started drinking again. The Clinton administration was a veritable golden era compared to Bush – try peace instead of war, surpluses instead of deficits, and higher taxes for the wealthy. Bosnia? – two American casualties. Iraq? – thousands. All those ‘Clinton crimes’ in the daily headlines of the rightwing media? Indeed, I remember – Whitewatergate, Travelgate, Troopergate, Filegate, Vince Foster, and Clinton’s sexlife. Q: how many served jailtime for these ‘scandals’. A: None. You seem contorted that Clinton didn’t share intimate details of his private, personal sexlife with you and other perverted Republicans. Me? – I don’t care. Not being a pervert, I’ve never asked anyone for intimate details of their sexlives – not interested. Your charge that Clinton dodged the draft, according to Urban Legends, is unproved – but everyone knows it’s true about Bush, and the subsequent AWOL. You’re too old to say ‘grow up’, but, dude, grow a brain – if you can’t tell which of these men did greater harm to America, which is THE ISSUE, then you’ve lost all credibility as a journalist – please, complete your retirement, and disappear into the hills where there are perhaps others of a comparable mentality (think ‘Deliverance’).

  22. ekaton

    September 22, 2007 at 7:47 pm

    “the disintegration of the US dollar”

    When Bush took office a Canadian Dollar cost $.62 cents. Today it costs, drumroll … $1.00 A Euro cost $.87 cents. Today it costs $1.40 This means for example an inexpensive hotel room in Europe went from $87.00 then to $140.00 today.

    Theoretically a devalued dollar would bring jobs back to America and stimulate manufacturing here. But much of our infrastructure has been allowed to rot and the newest technology exists on foreign soil under American brand names. Plus, its pretty hard to compete with $.17 cents an hour in a Chinese gulag factory making those “just do it” Nike $150 sneakers.

    I suspect a trend evolving here.

    Something is definitely rotten in the state of Denmark.

    –Kent Shaw

  23. ekaton

    September 22, 2007 at 7:59 pm

    As to a single payer health care system, why must the wheel be reinvented? Why all the complication in the various “plans” being offered or outlined?

    Medicare operates at around a 4% overhead. The current “private insurance or hmo system” operates at around 35% overhead before profits.

    Why not simply expand medicare? Younger peoples’ health issues certainly are not as complicated as those of older people.

    We already HAVE a good single payer system called MEDICARE. Yes it needs tweaks like reform of Bush’s costly drug plan Part D I believe it is called. But any fraud involved has always been on the part of the provider community.

    Why must the politicians make everything so complicated? Surely not in order to obfuscate matters concerned with plums and loopholes handed out ot private interests? Why, that would be akin to organized crime.

    The generally redundant,

    Kent Shaw

  24. SEAL

    September 23, 2007 at 1:32 am

    Well, this cerainly has been a lively topic and discussion. While I agree that comparing the results of the Bush and Clinton presidencies is ludicrous I understand that Doug’s comparison is intended to compare the character of the individuals involved. The problem is that Doug has used the players actions to demonstrate their character flaws and that could only generate the firestorm of jusifiable responses pointing out the fallacy of that. Of course, the results of the Bush presidency have been far more detrimental to the nation when compared to the Clinton one. That is a given. However, the dishonest and corupt nature of both is also a given.

    Doug, my friend, thank you for maintaining a forum that would allow people to critisize the owner. I’ve never known anyone that would do that, before now. That makes you a remarkable individual in my view. However, when you choose to make a point like this one, consider how you are making it so that you give the right impression. I know damn well you understand the difference in the damage caused between these two totally dishonest and corupt political families. Next time, present your view in such a way that it will reflect that which you intend.

  25. MainstreamExtremist

    September 24, 2007 at 10:06 am

    I listened to Hillary this weekend on all the talk shows and I like her even less than before. She is such a calculating, twist-in-the-wind politician, saying and acting whatever way she believes will get her the most votes. Never mind her questionable past. We need fewer politicians with their fingers in the air; and more leaders who lead the country in a general direction, such as JFK on the race-to-the-moon. Get EVERYONE on board – e.g. ridding ourselves of dependence on foreign natural resources. Instead, Hillary has mastered the art of spinning-on-the-fly. I’m not interested in her word-smithing and cleverness. I’m interested in what SHE wants and what SHE thinks and what SHE intends to do – or at least WANTs to do. Rambling on about moderation – and working with others is stating the obvious.

    Why don’t Democrats get this? Bush gets it. His ideas may be very bad and very stupid, but at least the guy has the courage and stamina to fight for what he believes. Some may say it is stubbornness born out of blissful ignorance and that would probably be right. And that a more informed person – aware of the uncertainty and grayness of reality – is less sure. Nevertheless, a candidate should be able to tell us what they would LIKE to accomplish if they could get everything they want. And then fight like hell to get it. The political realities of compromise etc. will take care of themselves.

  26. hank-the-nite-watchman

    September 25, 2007 at 3:32 am

    Sandy, you say, “Where are the suggestions for what we do want?” It’s been voiced in these comments above by a previous ranter and Doug himself, I believe, previously ventured the same choice, which is Dennis Kucinich (sp?) He’s the one true honest, credible idealist. But it’s the idealism which is so evasive, sadly. His goal of a Department of Peace should be acceptable to all sane citizens. Who says a person who pursues peace is or should be viewed as a wimp or a person of little courage? Only, I am afraid to say, the rabid kick-ass warmongers in our midst.
    Pax Americana!

    Hank-the-nite-watchman

  27. Jim C

    September 17, 2007 at 8:53 am

    Yeah , and how about that Harding ? I’m still indignant about that , getting caught in a closet in the Whitehouse with his mistress , absolutely scandalous and don’t even get me started about Buchanan . While we’re at it lets rehash the crooks around Nixon , Reagan and HW Bush . I’m also still steamed about Fords parden of Nixon , you can’t tell me that wasn’t pre ordained . Whats your point smuck ? OK , Clinton was a flawed individual , I get it . But to compare his personal and legal failings with this crowd is laughable . This putrid little fascist has destroyed two countries caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people , ruined our reputation around the world , tortured people and damaged our constitution possibly beyond repair . So you’re still worried about Clinton . You sir can take your right wing conservative yammering and shove it where the sun don’t shine , and while you’re up there give my regards to george bush .

  28. Doug Thompson

    September 17, 2007 at 6:13 pm

    Right wing? Me? You must be inhaling.

  29. km0591

    September 17, 2007 at 11:19 am

    Only one problem, Doug. Bert Lance was a crony of the Carter administration and not Clinton’s.

    What the hell, they are both southern democrats, so who the hell can tell them apart? Politicians are all a bunch of crooks and liars anyway. Bush, Clinton? They are both scum!

    You know, Doug, I can hear the same penetrating insights from some drunk at a local sports bar on a Sunday afternoon, and I don’t even have to use a computer.

  30. Doug Thompson

    September 18, 2007 at 3:47 am

    Sorry. All those Southern Democrats look alike to me. Or maybe it’s just Southern governors. Bush, Clinton, Carter: Wouldn’t let any of them date my sister. Should have had more coffee.

    Can’t speak about drunks at the local sports bar. Don’t drink and we don’t have any sports bars in my neck of the woods.

  31. yeoman

    September 18, 2007 at 8:27 pm

    It is ironic that anyone who brought immeasurable amounts of shame and disgrace onto the White House and the Presidency is viewed in favorable light when compared to the shenanigans of any other crumb and his gang who brought immeasurable amounts of shame and disgrace onto the White House and the Presidency.

    The editorial requires either an enema, or a comic page, because there is absolutely nothing ‘ironic’ in the contrast, only the delivery. Certainly there is nothing productive offered, but sickening reductio absurdum in getting things right through self-abusiveness. who wrote your sham of reflection, Homer Simpson or Al Bundy?

  32. dr. boris

    September 17, 2007 at 11:54 am

    In the end, looking at the forest instead of the trees, this country prospered as seldom before under Clinton and went to hell under Bush. And no, if Bush is responsible for what has happened under his regime, then Clinton is equally responsible for what happened under his.

    We are all a gemisch of faults, flaws, and virtues – I’ve even told the occasional lie myself, maybe you have too. The thing that matters to me is that the Clintons seem to care about this country and the people in it, the Bushes care only about themselves, power, and their (mostly inherited) wealthy cronies.

    I’d love to have a saint in the White House, but I don’t know any.

  33. JudyB

    September 17, 2007 at 1:03 pm

    “….Bill Clinton is, always has been, and always will be, scum. So is his wife.”
    Doug this statement was not only cheap, vulgar and biased but a moot subject.

    Though I did not support or appreciate Clinton while he was in office, I now have a better perspective and view his years as President much differently…I doubt seriously if I or the historians will ever be able to do this when it comes to Bush/Cheney.

    All ayone has to do, is ask themselves if this nation is in better shape now or when under Clinton and they’ll have their answer. I am almost 70 and I having been through it all, I have never seen such a screwed up mess as our nation is in currently!

    By the way…Way back in November 19, 1998, Kenneth W. Starr told the House Judiciary Committee that he lacked sufficient evidence to pursue a criminal case against Clinton in connection to Whitewater.
    Even The New York Times,a newspaper that showed no shyness about pushing Whitewater over the years, editorialized on March 24, 2002, “If an eight-year investigation fails to find any substantial evidence of criminal wrongdoing by the Clintons, the only fair response is to declare them cleared.

  34. Doug Thompson

    September 17, 2007 at 6:15 pm

    I’ve found that when dealing with cheap and vulgar people it is best to describe them in cheap and vulgar terms. Where I come from escaping punishment is not the same as being cleared of a crime. The Clintons skated because the Republicans chasing them were inept.

  35. Citroyen

    September 17, 2007 at 8:57 pm

    ” Bill Clinton is, always has been, and always will be, scum. So is his wife.”

    If this is the level of political discourse on this site, it is a disaster.
    Everybody knew Clinton’s foibles going in. Remember he let a retarded man be executed rather that appear “soft” on capital punishment?

    But – what has this to do with the person Doug calls “his wife”?
    Her crime – lying about Whitewater. For this you call her “scum”?

    I think you have big problems with women.

  36. Elmo

    September 17, 2007 at 2:26 pm

    I too, have grown tired of having to choose between the lesser of two weevils — and in order to get nominated by either party you definitely need to be a weevil who insinuates down into the fund raising tree and sucks money from anywhere. The MSM marginalizes any new candidate until they have proved their bona fides by sucking up enough donor cash to start buying advertisements from the MSM.

    I don’t have much love for Ron Paul’s politics but I have to admire his guts for speaking the truth.

  37. Virginia

    September 17, 2007 at 2:36 pm

    Doug, I know you like to be seen as a “pox on both houses” curmudgeon, but this is laughable. How can you possibly compare Bush’s lies about war and death with Clinton’s dissembling over a blow job between consenting adults? And you comparing Hillary to a whore is downright offensive. Bill and Hillary are still married and their daughter has never had to deal with a broken home, unlike so many Republican offspring.

    And by the way, Clinton never “screwed” interns. He got sucked off by one, which is definitely NOT the same thing. In fact, I seem to remember that Monica (an adult, college graduate) wanted to do the horizontal thing but Bill refused.

  38. Doug Thompson

    September 17, 2007 at 6:22 pm

    Ah, the old “eatin’ ain’t cheatin'” defense. God I love rationalizations. So, Chelsea never had to deal with a “broken home” but I hardly think having a father who let an intern nosh on the First Member is hardly a role model. The Bush twins don’t come from a broken home either and a lot of Democrats are divorced too so that rationalization doesn’t cut it.

  39. John Q

    September 17, 2007 at 3:29 pm

    The two-party system in this country is a shell game. In reality, there is only one party. The party that wants unlimited power and profit for its high-ranking members. The appearance of two parties is the most ingenious innovation in all political systems. The beauty of this arrangement is two-fold. One, it allows finger pointing when things went wrong and avoid accountability. Eventually, neither party would have to take responsibilities. Two, they can help each other in building up more power and control by criticizing each other publicly and support each other behind the scene. Neither can be achieved in a one party system because everybody can see it’s a dictatorship and there’s no way to hide it. The party not in power will never intentionally block any attempt of the party in power to expand its control. The expectation is that once it regains the White House everything will be theirs. They can only benefit themselves by helping the other party. If you weaken the power of the current occupant of the White House then you’ll inherit less when you move in. No one is that stupid. What’s good for the Republicans is also good for the Democrats, and vice versa. What’s good for the White House now is good for the White House in the future, whoever the owner is. The pea is passed back and forth from on shell to the other. No matter which shell you bet your money on, you can never win. Pull the curtain away and you’ll see just one “wizard.” That’s why whatever you say about one president it can be equally applied to the others. And my friends, that’s the sad reality.

  40. eric

    September 17, 2007 at 3:45 pm

    Apparently, you can’t redeem a media whore, either.

    From your 3 September Rant, Doug:

    Here at Capitol Hill Blue we’ve noticed a disturbing increase in hatred in comments posted by readers.

    Hatred towards President George W. Bush, hatred towards Senator Hillary Clinton, hatred towards former President Bill Clinton and even hatred towards this country.

    This disturbs us. It disturbs us a great deal. While we agree with many of our readers that this country is in great trouble, we cannot agree with the level of vitriol that is directed at those who serve in or seek public office.

    Care to explain today’s Rant within the context of what you wrote two weeks ago?

  41. Doug Thompson

    September 17, 2007 at 6:11 pm

    Easy. No hatred. Just disgust.

  42. bryan mcclellan

    September 17, 2007 at 6:31 pm

    Clinton ,Bush,Clinton,the three headed coin,or is it an oreo?Whatever expletive used to describe them has been duly earned by past performance.You cannot defend the indefensible with comparative analysis or a microscope for that matter.They have earned the stripes we have come to know run up their spines and lie hidden in the rhetoric spewed daily by each of them.Well deserving of contempt be they all.We didn’t need a Bubba to bring us a Fiat economy(NAFTA),we didn’t need a frat/cowboy to lie us into a war,and we certainly don’t need a smarmy/harpy Florence Nightingale type to tuck us in at night.Bill is a whore monger,smirk is a whore to the corporate borg,and Hilly is a whore to the ideal that she knows what is best for us and we will take the medicine or else. Doug your reference to GBS’s conversation with the lady Astor is a shining example of politics as usual in DC.I can’t for the life of me figure out why everyone is in such a snit about your rant,after all it’s a rant ,get it? P.S.

  43. ekaton

    September 18, 2007 at 11:17 am

    NO MORE CLINTONS.

    NO MORE BUSHES.

    Kent Shaw

  44. ekaton

    September 22, 2007 at 7:52 pm

    “Clinton, Bush, Clinton, the three headed coin, or is it an oreo? … Bill is a whore monger, smirk is a whore to the corporate borg, and Hilly is a whore to the ideal that she knows what is best for us and we will take the medicine or else.”

    AMEN

    — Kent Shaw

  45. eric

    September 17, 2007 at 9:06 pm

    This is a personal attack no matter how you try to spin it:

    Bullshit. Bill Clinton is, always has been, and always will be, scum. So is his wife.

  46. km0591

    September 17, 2007 at 9:20 pm

    Yep. No doubt about it.

    Don’t expect Doug to admit it though. Then he would actually have to think about his rants and find out such things as who Bert Lance was before he started to write.

    Mindless ranting is so much more emotionally satisfying, and it sure is a hell of a lot easier for smug and intellectually lazy types.

  47. Doug Thompson

    September 18, 2007 at 12:10 pm

    And a lot more fun. And I thought conservatives took themselves too seriously. :)

  48. ekaton

    September 18, 2007 at 1:09 pm

    Who has been forcing you to read Doug’s rants? Tell me and I’ll find them and make them stop.

    — Kent Shaw

  49. Doug Thompson

    September 18, 2007 at 3:49 am

    Bill Clinton is a woman? God, I missed the story of the century. Or maybe he just uses a “wide stance” in airport men’s rooms. Oops. Wrong party. I wonder if Hillary uses a wide stance?

  50. Citroyen

    September 18, 2007 at 9:55 am

    If this is your reply, I’m afraid you’re stuck with it.

  51. Doug Thompson

    September 18, 2007 at 12:10 pm

    Yep. That’s my story and I’m sticking to it.

  52. Virginia

    September 18, 2007 at 9:12 am

    If you think a blow job is the same thing as f**king, ask youself which you would rather have your teenage daughter do with her boyfriend.

  53. Doug Thompson

    September 18, 2007 at 10:58 am

    Jesus. I can hear it now: “Honey, be home by midnight and remember, spit…don’t swallow!”

    The “oral sex isn’t really sex” defense is why we have middle schoolers treating the act like nothing more than kissing.

  54. ekaton

    September 21, 2007 at 10:41 am

    “Certainly there is nothing productive offered”

    It is a RANT. Its not supposed to offer anything “productive”.

    — Kent Shaw