CBS's Nancy Giles Scolds Women's Groups for Giving Bill Clinton a Pass on Lewinsky Scandal
CBS's Nancy Giles on Sunday scolded women's groups for giving former President Bill Clinton a pass for his transgressions with White House aide Monica Lewinsky.
This strangely came during a Sunday Morning piece about Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich's troubles with the media over his own marital infidelity (video follows with transcript and commentary):
NANCY GILES: Of course, Democrats do it, too, sometimes in bigger, splashier ways. President Bill Clinton was considered a champion of women's rights, with a marriage that seemed to be a meeting of equals. Yet in private, he was chasing tail, which led to his impeachment for lying under oath about the Monica Lewinsky affair.
He's still highly thought of by some women's groups, and frankly I've never figured that out.
You've never figured that out, Nancy?
Well, maybe it's because if women's groups had come down on Clinton, it would have been impossible for liberal media members like you to support him during the impeachment proceedings.
That wasn't so tough, was it?
Associate Editor’s note: As you are likely aware, since the financial collapse of 2008, charities and non-profit organizations have seen a sharp reduction in donations. Although the environment has improved, contributions are still nowhere near where they were prior to the recession. Unfortunately, the Media Research Center has not been immune. With this in mind, your support has become more important than ever. With a critical election approaching, the liberal media needs to be monitored 24/7. As we have been predicting for months, the press are willing to do anything to get their beloved politicians elected and/or reelected. As such, we need your help to fight this fight. Any contribution, even $10, is greatly appreciated. Please consider a tax-deductible gift to the Media Research Center to help us battle the liberal media. Thank you.
- Noel Sheppard's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Is CBS going to win the
Submitted by okie-pastor on Mon, 01/23/2012 - 1:11am.
Is CBS going to win the independents with journalism like that?
Well, all these years later, ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 01/23/2012 - 1:13am.
better to criticize Slick Willie late enough to not hurt him politically, than when slamming him over his dalliances might have.
Lady liberal/Democrat think.
MD
This is the liberal mantra to act appalled about a misdeed
Submitted by gmaniac1 on Mon, 01/23/2012 - 1:13am.
by one of their own so they can vilify a conservative front-runner. It's that whole "I never agreed with those actions" flip flop when they refused to honestly cover that scandal in the first place... too little, too late there Nancy but nice try.
Frankly, Nancy, that's what
Submitted by LinTaylor on Mon, 01/23/2012 - 1:47am.
Frankly, Nancy, that's what we Southerners call "locking the gate after the horse has already gotten out".
"Chasing tail"?
Submitted by panzerakc on Mon, 01/23/2012 - 2:02am.
I'd say he caught it.
Clinton wasn't impeached just
Submitted by HelloDare on Mon, 01/23/2012 - 2:20am.
Clinton wasn't impeached just for lying under oath. He also suborned perjury and withheld evidence.
Libs!
Submitted by MacWell on Mon, 01/23/2012 - 2:43am.
The libs are circling the wagons again, because they fear a Newt win. They know that their phony president will get creamed by Newt. That, if nothing else should make all of us get behind Newt. I realize that he has baggage as we all do, but, whatever you can say about Newt, he isn't afraid to get in the ring with Oblunder, and that should be all we need.
From the whining in the establishment GOP'ers to the talking heads telling us Newt isn't electable it seems odd to me that these career politicians are all talking the same talk, I wonder why?
Could it be that they are afraid that they will loose their good old boys club cards? Will they have to go back to their homes and practice law again?
Has anyone else here wondered why there are so many lawyers in Congress?
Has anyone but me understood that Congress was never meant to be a career?
Has anyone realized that Congress, in the house of Representatives was supposed to be filled with a cross section of Americans? Congress should be filled with plumbers, and librarians, and school teachers, and iron workers, and shop keepers, etc. etc.
I guess if you're a lawyer, Congress has your back, if not, well then who cares?
We the people have one more chance to take America back from the minority who dictate to us how we shall live, a minority sometimes less than 1% of the population. Why do they have all the power?
Why do the majority of us, who work, pay our taxes, mind our own business, continue to allow the few to wield all the power in America?
We are told what we can eat, drink, smoke, where we can go, what we can do with our own homes, our own property.
These career politicians continue to allow the few to dictate to the many, and I for one, am sick and tired of it.
Newt might be a lot of things, but he does love America, and with the right makeup in Congress will be held to do the right thing.
Thank You Mac Well
Submitted by old cro on Mon, 01/23/2012 - 7:33am.
Well said.
Too late Nancy.
Submitted by Order270 on Mon, 01/23/2012 - 4:10am.
These so-called women's groups already reveled themselves as liberal fronts by their mysterious disappearance during the Clinton affairs.
NOW, the Feminist Majority, and other feminist groups . . .
Submitted by Galvanic on Mon, 01/23/2012 - 1:18pm.
. . . have longed withheld criticism of predatory Leftist males whom they regard as political allies. Gloria Steinem, for instance, dismissed Kathleen Willey's lurid account of Slick Willie's sexual assault on her as nothing more than "a clumsy pass."
How long did it take for them to condemn Congressman Weiner? They waited until his own party was ready to pitch him overboard before they joined in.
Former NOW LA-Chapter President-turned-conservative Tammy Bruce recounts how she tried to lead a candle-light vigil the night of the OJ Simpson verdict to call attention to violence against spouses, only to be scolded and disowned first by the California NOW President, and later on national TV by national NOW President Patricia Ireland. In their reprimand of her, they pointed out that Simpson was a hero to African-Americans, therefore NOW would not make an issue out of his case.
Nancy Giles is courageous enough to question this atmosphere, but she is virtually a lone voice in the MSM.
Order: Do you ever fact check or simply parrot Hannity talking
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 01/23/2012 - 5:03am.
points?
Letter from Patricia Ireland to the media about portrayal of NOW
reprinted in USA Today (4/8/98) and the New York Post (4/9/98)
Contrary to the portrayal in the media, neither NOW nor I have been silent on the allegations of sexual harassment against President Clinton, nor do we have a history of being blindly loyal Clinton supporters.
Before Ms. Jones filed her case in 1994, we cautioned that "every Paula Jones deserves to be heard, no matter how old she is and how long ago the incident occurred, no matter what kind of accent she has or how much money she makes, and no matter who she associates with."
Last summer we successfully took on the president's lawyers over the use of the "nuts or sluts" strategy of irrelevant personal attacks meant to discredit and intimidate Ms. Jones.
When allegations of an affair between the president and Monica Lewinsky surfaced, we condemned the misuse of power by the president or any public official who has a sexual relationship with an employee or intern.
Ironically, the media reported we were finally breaking our silence when Kathleen Willey's deposition became public and we noted that her allegations, if true, constituted not just harassment but assault.
We will continue to speak out in support of women's right to a fair hearing and a just resolution of their complaints, and their right to be free of irrelevant personal attacks, regardless of who they are bringing charges against.
NOW is an independent political force that believes feminist principles trump practical politics. Our political action committee did not endorse in the presidential races of 1992 and 1996, and we have organized many protests over policy differences with the Clinton administration.
We urge everyone to check our web site at www.now.org to read our statements directly. As one correspondent wrote by email, "My first five minutes browsing your website made it clear that your position and attitude towards this case and others have been gravely misrepresented...I pledge that I will never believe another thing that I hear about NOW or Patricia Ireland, until I cross check it against your excellent website. " We urge your reporters and readers to do the same.
Patricia Ireland
President, National Organization for Women
Jer---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 01/23/2012 - 5:13am.
Must be another one of them occasions, eh?
Letter aside, protestations noted; Patricia Ireland and NOW were never known for going after Clinton and his bimbo eruptions.
That was little Georgie Stephan-howeveryouspellit's job.
MD
I guess that depends on what the meaning of "going after"
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 01/23/2012 - 5:16am.
is.
Jer
By the way, md...how is pointing out that NOW criticized
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 01/23/2012 - 5:19am.
Clinton an example of my defending Clinton?
Jer
Defending hypocrisy - not Clinton
Submitted by Agnostic on Mon, 01/23/2012 - 6:02am.
Ted Kennedy -- Women's Rights Strongest Champion in Congress
It is Congress' fault for not supporting our issues that is distracting NOW from supporting the victims of Clinton - Republican Congress - therefore the President doesn't have to shoulder blame, I am sure I've heard of that recently
Clinton: Our Option, Not Our Answer they did acknowledge he wasn't ideal
NOW's 'defense' of the Paula Jones verdict
NOW may have made statements against Clinton but the only time he became part of their 'crusade' was when he compromised with Republicans.
Also, I believe this was part of CX26's point to you earlier - the lawyer is willing to take the exception and try to pass it off as the normal and call it truth. Others see this as getting caught up in a technicality. Yes, NOW made statements against Clinton's escapades but the normal activity for NOW was to overlook those actions in favor of having a President favorable to other core issues. Unfortunately the businessmen that come under attack from this group can not push a Bill in Congress to curry their favor.
Agnostic...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 01/23/2012 - 1:25pm.
CX's point, raised in a response which did not even address the issue presented in the post to which he replied, but rather was introduced by him as a peripheral indictment of the integrity of a significant portion of the the legal profession--which CX then promptly personalized by tossing me in with that group, i.e. those lawyers who purportedly have only a casual regard for the "truth"--was offensive and very disappointing. I thought CX was above engaging in such behavior.
Jer
Jer, try to be factual when you talk about me, OK?
Submitted by 26CX on Mon, 01/23/2012 - 2:09pm.
Let's review the incident to which you're referring and see what's factual and what's not:
Is it true that I raised a point which did not address the issue presented in the post? No, that is not true. The post included a number of statements and I specifically identified and explained to you in detail the sentence in the post to which I replied. If the sentence to which I responded is in the post, my response is relevant to that post.
Is it true that my statement was a peripheral indictment of the integrity of a significant portion of the legal profession? No, that is not true. My post included a quote written by an author in the early 1900's. I did not personally indict anyone; I offered the quote for consideration.
Is it true that I promptly personalized my comment by tossing Jer in that group? No, that is not true. I only associated the quote with Jer after I responded to a gratuitous, condescending swipe at me by Jer in which he misrepresented what I wrote in my post and he continued his unwarranted accusations even after I explained my original post in response to the Vet comment.
So, Jer, once again you have offered statements of the type described in the quote which, through your own actions, includes you in the group Mr. Swain was discussing.
I'll repeat the quote here for reference:
"The lawyer, however, does not always limit himself to the discovery of the truth, but often seeks to discover and bring to bear unsound but plausible arguments to refute the other side; and by his skill in dialectics he may often deliberately "make the worse appear the better reason.""
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2012/01/20/mark-levins-liberty-vs-thomas-friedmans-tyranny#ixzz1kJ0sLwW1
Let me point out, finally, that your opinion of me is meaningless, so what ever you might think of me personally is totally irrelevant.
Not to mention, 26CX, that Jer's ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 01/23/2012 - 5:39pm.
12:25 post was a perfect example of the "circular excessive wordiness" cajun was ribbing him about. :o)
MD
matthewdean
Submitted by 26CX on Mon, 01/23/2012 - 11:58pm.
True dat! ;)
Good advice, CX...heed it.
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 01/28/2012 - 11:32pm.
Please see my response on original [Mark Levin] thread.
Thanks...
Jer
What advice are you talking about, Jer?
Submitted by 26CX on Sun, 01/29/2012 - 12:48pm.
Can you be specific because I'm not sure what you're alluding to.
Thanks...
26cx
Being factual.
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 01/29/2012 - 8:47pm.
Jer
I don't know, Jer...
Submitted by 26CX on Mon, 01/30/2012 - 7:58pm.
That's kind of open-ended advice on your part. I gave you specific examples. I can't really take any guidance from such a general statement as yours.
But I appreciate the thought...
CX...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 01/30/2012 - 8:28pm.
I addressed in detail each and every one of the specific examples you raised, and carefully pointed out where and how you, the facts, and common sense had parted company--while also meticulously describing your misinterpretations and misstatements--and directed you to my response in which I had done so on the other thread. You chose to blow it off. So, please spare me your complaints about the "generality" of my reply here inasmuch as your dismissive attitude extends to explicit explanations as well.
Jer
Huh, Jer.
Submitted by 26CX on Mon, 01/30/2012 - 9:17pm.
I think you're grossly overstating your alleged contribution to my enlightenment but I'll go along with the gist of your statement and say in response that I must have missed it while I was trying to get you to see the light.
Jer, questions
Submitted by Agnostic on Tue, 01/31/2012 - 9:14am.
not to get involved too much but in the post above I tried, with minimal effort, to show that NOW speaking against Clinton was the exception and not the rule but you only addressed the portion of my post the alluded to CX responding to your post - that was also not the point being made in my post. I was addressing the specific idea that in law the exception can be made the rule inside the courtroom and therefore the 'Truth' is skewed to fit a particular argument.
None of my post related in any context to how your post was not addressed properly but you took one thing from my post and continued responding on a different discussion without acknowledgement of the remaining substance.
My questions: How is this different then what CX did originally to your post? And, why is it necessarily a problem (other than the fact that you two are still debating the issue)?
Agnostic, in answer to your quesrtions...
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 01/31/2012 - 4:45pm.
a few points:
--I have never disputed the fact that most of the high-profile women's groups--including NOW--embrace positions which generally find more sympathy among lib/Democratic politicians;
--My initial post was to refute order's assertion that those groups had "disappeared" during Clinton's indiscretions involving females and prompted my linking official statements from NOW criticizing Clinton's conduct. I did not suggest it represented a complete and permanent break from the organization's historical support for Clinton or his administration's general alignment with women's issues endorsed by NOW. Perhaps if order had framed the reaction of NOW and other groups as "more muted" or "less vocal" instead of "disappeared", I could have accepted that assessment.
--I understand the points you were raising in your comments on the other thread about lawyers, the Truth, their inclination to come up with something new and different, etc. I don't entirely disagree with them, but I was initially attempting to tie them into perspectives on "living Constitution" issues--which after all was a topic of the blog and the topic which the Vet had specifically asked me about. I found it odd, and admittedly a bit insulting, that CX would respond directly to the Vet's question to me with a disparaging quote about lawyers. I assumed at the very least he intended to associate it with the Vet's query regarding the living Constitution issue, but CX assured me he wasn't addressing that question at all. If that were the case, it seemed to me to be an unnecessary and unrelated jab at lawyers and/or a word of caution to Vet to take whatever I stated in response with a grain of salt because lawyers--according to Swain--are inclined to dissemble and deceive.
--When you resurrected CX's behavior in your comment to me on this thread, I felt obliged to again explain my objections to his tactics on the other thread. And to that extent, my reply to you wasn't out of left [or right] field but responsive to a point you had raised--nor did it represent either a direct or implied criticism of you or your profession. It did catch my attention and narrow my focus to the exclusion of the balance of your post. And my avoidance of the latter invites fair criticism, but that avoidance--which I hope I have rectified earlier in this post--still should be distinguished from what I believe to be a far more inappropriate approach by CX on the Levin thread.
Jer
all well and good Jer,
Submitted by Agnostic on Wed, 02/01/2012 - 10:58am.
Thanks,
- I'll except 'generally' but for accuracy sake I would think the word 'predominately' would be a better choice.
- Once again in the name of accuracy, 'disappeared' is incorrect but they definitely were very noticeable in their lack of a noticeable voice. However, if you were a female victim I'm sure the term 'disappeared' would seem very accurate to you.
- I read CX's response to you initially and did not see any insult in it and presumed he was addressing a single point in a multi-point post - maybe because I have a bad habit of doing that myself from time to time. After all, we don't all find every aspect of such large legal issues within our realm of knowledge nor do we feel comfortable debating them total. I certainly do understand how you interpreted his response and wouldn't presume to say you are wrong but I did not get that impression upon my first reading.
- in all things in presuming the motives of others I try to stay open to the idea that my interpretation has no bearing on the conditions within their psyche (state of mind, what they have read recently, debated, etc...) when they decided to respond (much easier to do in anonymous writing). Also, it is important, IMHO, to allow people the room to retreat from emotional responses once time the opportunity for reflection has occurred. As always I could be wrong but I think your original comment sparked an interest for CX that was off topic and perhaps proper protocol would have been to make a separate post and not a response but it is a blog after all.
Concerning the Living Constitution idea, FWIW - The word 'living' has not been adequately define and continues to have a meaning that exist across a spectrum. To deny there is any reality to a 'living' Constitution denies the very structure of its existence and paints the framers as very short sighted people. However, the document was created to be difficult to amend to prevent reactionary events, fads, social anomalies from affecting the governance of the nation. The should be ample evidence that while the Constitution is open for update - the update isn't necessarily a need to meet the changes in society because society changes all the time and it is not necessary to change the Constitution. The Constitution only needs to be changed when the structure is not only harmful to the ability of governing the nation but is recognizably harmful to a substantial portion of both the population and their elected representatives. Otherwise the responsibility of safeguarding the rights of citizens falls squarely on the three branches of government established by our Constitution.
Many people in the business world have had their lives ruined and careers ended by NOW's inability to 'keep quite' on the issues important to women. No businessman facing allegations can just get on camera and spout support for a feminist cause and get a pass from the group but a politician can as long as they have the all important Get-Out-Of-Jail-Free-Card (otherwise known as a 'D' after their name.
Agnostic...
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 02/01/2012 - 9:00pm.
"generally"
1. almost always, as a rule, by and large, conventionally, customarily, for the most part, habitually, in most cases, largely, mainly, normally, on average, on the whole, ordinarily, regularly, typically, usually
2. commonly, extensively, popularly, publicly, universally, widely
3. approximately, broadly, chiefly, for the most part, in the main, largely, mainly, mostly, on the whole, PREDOMINANTLY, principally [my emphasis]
Once again in the name of accuracy, 'disappeared' is incorrect but they definitely were very noticeable in their lack of a noticeable voice. However, if you were a female victim I'm sure the term 'disappeared' would seem very accurate to you.
I'll readily concede had the behavior been engaged in by a president less sympathetic to the issues these organizations supported, the condemnation would have been far more vigorous and relentless. In Clinton's case, perhaps the groups should be given some grudging credit for the criticism which they did vocalize. But that only slightly mitigates the undeniable hypocrisy and double standards involved in their disparate reactions.
I read CX's response to you initially and did not see any insult in it and presumed he was addressing a single point in a multi-point post...
Multi-point? The ONLY clearly relevant point was Vet's asking MY opinion as a lawyer about the concept of the "living Constitution". What in the world was the point of another poster [CX] jumping in before I had even replied to the Vet in order to cite a disparaging quote about lawyers and their tendency to deliberately mislead and twist the truth? The relationship to Vet's post was practically nil, the single commonality being that they both contained the word "lawyer".
I'll return to the used car analogy: Assume the subject of a blog is the reliability of American vs foreign automobiles and poster Y says "Agnostic, as a used-car salesman, what is your opinion of an '04 Honda Accord with only 50K miles? Before you can respond, Z jumps in and posts a poll showing the public believes the average used car salesman is a liar whose opinion shouldn't be trusted. Is Z's information really germane to the issue? Well, perhaps tangentially--but it's extremely tenuous. Is it a gratuitous knock on used-car salesmen generally and at you personally, at least by implication? In my opinion it is, and I believe most reasonable observers would agree that, in the context presented, it was neither an appropriate nor constructive comment to inject into the dialogue at that juncture.
in all things in presuming the motives of others I try to stay open to the idea that my interpretation has no bearing on the conditions within their psyche (state of mind, what they have read recently, debated, etc...) when they decided to respond (much easier to do in anonymous writing). Also, it is important, IMHO, to allow people the room to retreat from emotional responses once time the opportunity for reflection has occurred. As always I could be wrong but I think your original comment sparked an interest for CX that was off topic and perhaps proper protocol would have been to make a separate post and not a response but it is a blog after all.
I agree with you about keeping an open mind and allowing room for retreat. But it was simply impossible to interpret CX's post in a positive light. Swain's assault on the legal profession was unambiguous, and CX--in that post--neither rejected it nor amended it, or softened it or qualified it any manner whatsoever [and demonstrated in his next post that he essentially embraced it.]
To what original comment of mine is your reference related? Is it where I stated I hoped CX didn't embarrass himself by insinuating a lack of integrity with respect to Holmes and Posner? If so, I can only say I thought my reaction was relatively mild considering the provocative nature of his response to the Vet. And of course he then promptly doubled down on me by questioning MY allegiance to the truth.
Concerning the Living Constitution idea, FWIW - The word 'living' has not been adequately define and continues to have a meaning that exist across a spectrum. To deny there is any reality to a 'living' Constitution denies the very structure of its existence and paints the framers as very short sighted people. However, the document was created to be difficult to amend to prevent reactionary events, fads, social anomalies from affecting the governance of the nation. The should be ample evidence that while the Constitution is open for update - the update isn't necessarily a need to meet the changes in society because society changes all the time and it is not necessary to change the Constitution. The Constitution only needs to be changed when the structure is not only harmful to the ability of governing the nation but is recognizably harmful to a substantial portion of both the population and their elected representatives. Otherwise the responsibility of safeguarding the rights of citizens falls squarely on the three branches of government established by our Constitution.
Well said!
Jer
Jer,
Submitted by Agnostic on Thu, 02/02/2012 - 8:37am.
As a lawyer, you have a better grasp of the use of words than I do. Let me ask you, if you were trying to make a point that someone was of a certain disposition or character would you use the word 'generally'? While accurate, it definitely is a weak word that allows the listener too much leeway to assign value. I would think that you would not use 'generally' unless you were trying to soften the effect of the statement.
I read the thread in question and since CX had replied to Vet and myself prior to replying to you it seemed evident that he was not addressing you specifically but was picking up a point of interest in Vet's post. (To my recollection Vet rarely makes a single point poast.) However, looking at his first post to you (also, you already seemed to be in a defensive state of mind from another unrelated accusation on the thread by another poster) I can see now how you could come to your conclusion. Because of the off topic nature of his post it is almost like you both jumped out of the middle of two different conversations and into a single discussion bringing with you the predisposition created by previous context. In the context of CX's discussion with me based on Vet's post his statement was not an insinuation of a lack of integrity or a questioning of 'truth' on your part. It was an observation (in my words not CX's) of the use of 'grey area' concepts to pass off opinion as facts as established in another line of conversation.
Jer---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 01/23/2012 - 5:32pm.
By pointing out that NOW "criticized" Clinton, you were in fact defending him against all who posited that no women's groups had anything negative to say about him.
I put quotation marks around 'criticized' because given what is known about Clinton's sexual proclivities and peccadilloes, there is no way in hell what NOW had to say in one instance rises to the level of definitive criticism when measured against the totality of how often the priapic prez indulged himself.
MD
Talk about revising history!
Submitted by CobraMan on Mon, 01/23/2012 - 3:45pm.
"Before Ms. Jones filed her case in 1994, we cautioned that "every Paula Jones deserves to be heard, no matter how old she is and how long ago the incident occurred, no matter what kind of accent she has or how much money she makes, and no matter who she associates with.""
Talk about revising history! NOW claims that they talked about Paula Jones before her name EVER became public! Let's be honest: NOW never even heard of Paula Jones before that lawsuit was filed, let alone talk about her in any way, shape, or form. But, hay, let's not a little revisionism get in the way of a good retort, shall we? Right, Jer?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Why the press protected Clinton
Submitted by CO2Maker on Mon, 01/23/2012 - 5:42am.
The reasons, in alphabetical order:
A - Abortion. Clinton supported it. End of reasons. No other reasons are necessary, because protecting abortion from any attempt to limit it is the most important duty of the president. And the most important single thing a president can do to fulfill that duty is to nominate SCOTUS justices who will prevent any challenge to Roe v. Wade.
The other 25 letters? Fuhgeddaboutdem.
BTW, I happened to pick up an issue of Newsweek [don't ask] from last October and noticed they interviewed Robert Bork. After questions about Romney, Obama, and Holder, the got around to his nomination to the SC. (It was the 25th anniversary of the Senate vote to reject him in October 1987.) He was asked whether he finally forgave Kennedy for the infamous "Robert Bork's America" speech on the Senate floor. Nope. Bork said "I'm trying to see how I could conceivable do that." And, for good measure, he said of Biden, who was the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, "He's not a very thoughtful or intelligent man." Zinnnng.
Also, among Bork's students at Yale: Bill and Hill, Anita Hill, Robert Reich, Jerry Brown, and John Bolton. And further to Bork's unusual c.v., when Eliot Richardson and William Ruckelshaus refused to fire Archibald Cox and themselves were fired during the Saturday Night Massacre, Bork was named Acting Attorney General and was persuaded to fire Cox and maintain some stability in the AG's office.
CO2Maker...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 01/23/2012 - 5:42am.
I believe if you do a bit of research you'll discover that if a Democratic president is removed from office, the Republicans don't get to name his replacement. Do you think Gore would have appointed a bunch of Borks to the bench?
You might also check the editorial pages of the NYT, Washington Post [a client of Ken Starr] and the LA Times. The notion they "protected" Clinton is a bunch of hooey.
Jer
What does Gore have to do with this?
Submitted by CO2Maker on Mon, 01/23/2012 - 6:18am.
My point is that Clinton "got a pass on Lewinsky" because he was a staunch advocate for abortion.
Perhaps "protected" is a verb too far, but the public debate in Congress and in the media quickly became "lying about sex" rather than lying under oath, suborning perjury, and sexually harassing a subordinate employee—all serious allegations. Clinton had the remarkable super power, which Darrel Hammond on SNL parodied, "I am bulletproof."
I made no argument that if Clinton had been convicted, the Republicans would get to nominate a SC justice or that Gore would nominate a conservative like Bork.
CO2Maker...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 01/23/2012 - 1:34pm.
A - Abortion. Clinton supported it. End of reasons. No other reasons are necessary, because protecting abortion from any attempt to limit it is the most important duty of the president. And the most important single thing a president can do to fulfill that duty is to nominate SCOTUS justices who will prevent any challenge to Roe v. Wade.
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/01/23/cbss-nancy-giles-s...
Gore's position on abortion was essentially the same as Clinton's. So how did the alleged "protection" of Clinton by the press make any difference regarding the appointment of pro-choice judges?
Jer
Narrative folks, Narrative
Submitted by David Kramer on Mon, 01/23/2012 - 7:05am.
See, they are setting up the Narrative. Notice the capital N. Narrative is something that the leftist media is extremely good at. When has the Democrats ever run on family values? It has been decades since they have tried that, but what does their current first family have? They have to work the Narrative that works for them. If I am not mistaken, soon you will get stories about some evil capitalists, say like Madoff or other vulture capitalists. Stories like the Obamas helping out in their communities on modest jobs and such. It is all just an intertwined story, just like what is created in Hollywood.
People have to realize it is all just theatre. Look at how they have these agreements on how to write articles. You actually use to see in print, illegal immigrants but that morphed into undocumented workers or immigrant farmers or whatever. People always bring up Goebbels, heck that guy learned from an American, Creel. The leftist media is the master of Newspeak. The MiniTru is alive and well in the US.
It is so completely obvious when you look for it.
David Kramer
Submitted by amyshulk on Mon, 01/23/2012 - 5:42pm.
Hell David - no need to look - it just jumps out at me!!!
Ronald Reagan
Hmm, let's see...
Submitted by HockeyKid on Mon, 01/23/2012 - 7:26am.
Could it possibly be that, now that Clinton won't be harmed by the attention, the libs can turn up their indignation so as to go after Newt while he CAN be harmed? No, the press couldn't possibly be that duplicitous, could they?
"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me
HockeyKid
Submitted by 26CX on Mon, 01/23/2012 - 8:21am.
BINGO!!!
Agree
Submitted by stratman on Mon, 01/23/2012 - 4:14pm.
This is an attempt at inoculating the Left while setting up further attacks on Gingrich. It's political chess which the Left have been better at playing for a while. Newt is a danger because he doesn't abide by the Leftist rules.
I also wonder if this isn't a twofer by the radical Giles - not only setup a line of attack on Gingrich but also re-open a line of attack on the Clintons which will help protect Obama from a run by Hillary.
stratman
Submitted by amyshulk on Mon, 01/23/2012 - 5:44pm.
Good point - I only thought of the erasure of cognitive dissonance for the D's past behavior so they could pummel Newt!
Ronald Reagan
The press/media
Submitted by notinstl on Mon, 01/23/2012 - 8:15am.
...still go down on clinton
Hypocracy
Submitted by jpalm32 on Mon, 01/23/2012 - 11:13am.
How about PETA and Mikel Vick???
"Court documents show Vick personally participated in killing at least a half-dozen dogs. Some were hanged, suspended from a crossbar with a nylon rope. Some were drowned, held upside down while their heads were forced into a bucket of water.One was killed when Vick and one of his partners seized it by the legs and slammed it repeatedly to the ground, breaking its neck and back.Other dogs at the "kennel" - an awfully nice name for what was really a charnel house for helpless animals - were reportedly electrocuted, shot or forced to breed until their bodies just gave out. According to a report released by U.S. Department of Agriculture officials who were part of the investigation, on a couple of occasions Vick and his pals threw untrained family pets into the pit with savage fighters.Pet dogs that apparently belonged to his own family: Vick "thought...
show more
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/09/12/bob-barr-get-off-michael-vicks-ass/#ix...
truth
Submitted by angelann1 on Mon, 01/23/2012 - 12:42pm.
My GOD, truth from a liberal !!
liberals only tell the truth
Submitted by ohio granny on Mon, 01/23/2012 - 1:05pm.
Liberals only tell the truth when it means nothing. Can't have them telling the truth when someone could be held accountable now can we?
Two things you know about liberals (1) the ends justify the means (2) they have no morals. If we always remember these two things they will never be able to fool anyone again.
The "women's" groups are just laying low
Submitted by sherlock1 on Mon, 01/23/2012 - 1:46pm.
The "women's" groups are just laying low during a Democrat presidency, just like the "anti-war" groups and the groups who wanted to de-politicize the Department of Justice and the "human rights" groups who regularly crap on US efforts to fight terrorism. Never fear, as soon as a Republican gets elected, they'll magically revive from their hibernation and come roaring out of their caves!.