IT IS OBVIOUS

3.3.02 | Mia T

[Mia T]

IT IS OBVIOUS

By Mia T, 3-3-02

It is obvious to anyone who bothers to remove his political blinders. It is so patently obvious that even those whose political blinders are a permanently fixed fashion statement -- that is to say, even Hollywood -- can see it. (Just ask Whoopie Goldberg...) Bush's poll numbers are a reflection of this self-evident truth.

What is manifestly obvious and confirmed on a daily basis is the plain fact that Democrats are, by definition, constitutionally unfit to navigate the ship of state through these troubled, terrorist waters. Democrats were unfit pre-9/11, but few could see it then. It was 9/11 and its aftermath that made this truth crystal clear even to the most simpleminded among us.

The unwashed masses, the uninformed, the disinformed can see it now. All America can see it now. Self-preservation is kicking in, trumping petty politics at every turn.

And this is why Democrat demagoguery and stupidity and sedition are achieving new lows...

We are witnessing the last grasp of a political relic. The Democrat party is not merely obsolete. As 9/11 and clinton-clinton-Daschle action and inaction have demonstrated, the Democrat party is very dangerous.

We must now make sure that this fact, too, is obvious to all...

[Mia T]

NOW, in our time of crisis, helpfully comes former President Jimmy Carter to pronounce that the current president - this would be the president who actually has the job at the moment, as opposed to the president who set a record for incompetence...In the opinion of the man who presided over 400-plus days of "America Held Hostage," President Bush's description of Iran, Iraq and North Korea as an "axis of evil" was "overly simplistic and counterproductive." Added the man who was once attacked by a rabbit, "I think it will take years before we can repair the damage done by that statement."

It is tempting to accept Carter's verdict as all the proof needed that Bush is solidly on the right track. But the argument needs to be addressed, not because it is not foolish but because it is the fashion among fools. And, as the great political novelist Ross Thomas once pointed out, when you've got all the fools in town on your side, you've practically won.

"The reviews are in, and they are bad," recently declared Mark Lilla, who is a professor of something called social thought (presumably, there are professors of antisocial thought too, but no one knows who they are since they won't answer the phone). "President Bush's characterization of Iraq, Iran and North Korea as an 'axis of evil' has been met by our allies' puzzled annoyance and by massive rallies in Iran that only strengthened hard-line elements there."

This is a fair summation of the fools' position, and it is almost entirely wrong.

First, the suggestion in the adjective "puzzled" is that "axis of evil" describes nothing valid, since Iran, Iraq and North Korea are not - in the World War II sense of Germany, Japan and Italy - an axis.

Right. As the French Foreign Minister Hubert Vedrine noted to Washington Post columnist David Ignatius, "axis of evil" was intended not as literal description but as evocative shorthand for an abstract but real concept - something akin to John F. Kennedy's "New Frontier."

...Prior to Sept. 11, U.S. policy toward regimes such as those in Iran, Iraq and North Korea - regimes that were indeed fundamentally evil, that were avowed enemies of the United States, that aggressively sought to acquire weapons of mass destruction and that supported anti-American terrorist groups - was this: We can live with them.

The Bush administration's post-Sept. 11 policy is: No, we cannot. Not anymore, not with 3,000 dead.

The reality is terribly changed and we must deal with that change. We must do what we can to limit the threat of a second Sept. 11.

And what we can most effectively do is to strike where we can find something to strike at: to destroy or coerce those regimes that arm and support and hide the transnational terrorists who would wage long-term guerrilla war against the United States. Do-nothingism - Carterism - is no longer an option.

FOOLS FOR EVIL

New York Post

MICHAEL KELLY

WITH HIS LEGACY, CARTER SHOULD STICK TO BUILDING HOUSES

 

March 3, 2002 -- Instead of criticizing President Bush's description of Iran, Iraq and North Korea as an "axis of evil," Jimmy Carter should consider how his own policies were partly responsible for Iran becoming part of the axis ("Fools for Evil," Opinion, Michael Kelly, Feb. 27).

When the Shah of Iran was faced with growing radical Islamic revolution in his country, Carter pressured him not to crack down because of his concern for the human rights of the Islamic radicals.

As a result, the Shah was overthrown and we are now faced with a regime that is trying to overthrow Hamid Karzai's government in Afghanistan and is supplying vast quantities of arms to terrorist organizations in the Middle East.

Looking back on the fall of Iran, the Shah said "I should have never listened to Jimmy Carter." I hope the American people have enough sense not to listen to him, either.
Gamaliel Isaac
Manhattan

This is the president who did nothing while our hostages sat in Iran for 400 days. This is the president who gave us 18 to 20 percent interest rates, which drove small-business owners like me out of business.

Carter should continue to build houses for the poor. That's the only thing he knows how to do.
Dolores Kurtzer
Fort Lee, N. J.

Carter's criticism of the present administration is a pathetic attempt to show his own failed presidency in a better light.

Carter has become Ted Turner with more class and less Bourbon.
Andrew Romanic
Garden City

Thanks, Michael Kelly. I couldn't have said it better myself.

These comments are not only idiotic, but downright un-American.

Did Carter forget that most of the nuclear technology that North Korea has today came gift-wrapped from the Clinton administration?
Rich Pardo
Nutley, N.J.

[Mia T]

Q ERTY4 + Q ERTY6 = rodham clinton REALITY CHECK!

 

Clinton's failure to grasp the opportunity to unravel increasingly organized extremists, coupled with Berger's assessments of their potential to directly threaten the U.S., represents one of the most serious foreign policy failures in American history

Clinton Let Bin Laden Slip Away and Metastasize

 

 

Bill Clinton may not be the worst president America has had, but surely he is the worst person to be president.*

---GEORGE WILL, Sleaze, the sequel

 

Had George Will written Sleaze, the sequel (the "sequel" is, of course, hillary) after 9-11-01, I suspect that he would have had to forgo the above conceit, as the doubt expressed in the setup phrase was, from that day forward, no longer operational.

Indeed, assessing the clinton presidency an abject failure is not inconsistent with commentary coming from the left, most recently the LA Times: "Clinton Let Bin Laden Slip Away and Metastasize."

When the clintons left office, I predicted that the country would eventually learn--sadly, the hard way--that this depraved, self-absorbed and inept pair had placed America (and the world) in mortal danger. But I was thinking years, not months.

It is very significant that hillary clinton didn't deny clinton culpability for the terrorism. (Meet the Press, 12-09-01), notwithstanding tired tactics (if you can't pass the buck, spread the blame) and chronic "KnowNothing Victim Clinton" self-exclusion.

If leftist pandering keeps the disenfranchized down in perpetuity, clinton pandering,("it's the economy, stupid"), kept the middle and upper classes wilfully ignorant for eight years.

And ironically, both results (leftist social policy and the clinton economy) are equally illusory, fraudulent. It is becoming increasingly clear that clinton assiduously avoided essential actions that would have negatively impacted the economy--the ultimate source of his continued power--actions like, say, going after the terrorists.

It is critically important that hillary clinton fail in her grasp for power; read Peggy Noonan's little book, 'The Case Against Hillary Clinton' and Barbara Olson's two books; it is critical that the West de-clintonize, but that will be automatic once it is understood that the clintons risked civilization itself in order to gain and retain power.

It shouldn't take books, however, to see that a leader is a dangerous, self-absorbed sicko. People should be able to figure that out for themselves. The electorate must be taught to think, to reason. It must be able to spot spin, especially in this age of the electronic demagogue.

I am not hopeful. As Bertrand Russell noted, "Most people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so. "

Mia T, hillary clinton blames hubby for terrorism

(SHE knew nuttin')

Meet the Press, 12-09-01

 

 

*George Will continues: There is reason to believe that he is a rapist ("You better get some ice on that," Juanita Broaddrick says he told her concerning her bit lip), and that he bombed a country to distract attention from legal difficulties arising from his glandular life, and that. ... Furthermore, the bargain that he and his wife call a marriage refutes the axiom that opposites attract. Rather, she, as much as he, perhaps even more so, incarnates Clintonism

Q ERTY3 co-rapist  bump!

 

also:

 

it won't s-p-i-n

 

CLINTON-WAS-AN-UTTER-FAILURE Containment Team Scheme Fails Again

Ollie North Laughs Ann Lewis Off Stage

 

clinton Positively Reinforces 9/11 Terrorist Acts

 

Helen Thomas Syndrome: THE SYMPTOMS

 

Will Riefenstahl-esque "editing to perfection" resurrect the clintons?

 

WHOSE DOG WAS WAGGED?

 

Frankenstein, The Sequel:

'Black Hawk Down' Was Set to Blame Clinton for 9/11

 

hillary's head revisited:

hillary clinton's brain (such as it is) II

 

Buddy Death Report Raises More Questions Than It Answers

 

Fraudulent Democrat Scheme Fails as Bush Soars

BUSH: NATIONAL SECURITY 1^st PRIORITY. . ."I will not wait on events, while dangers gather."

THE CLINTON LEGACY PLACED IN STARK RELIEF

 

hillary clinton, Congenital Bottom Feeder, Cowers Below Network Radar,

Continues to Subsist on Cozy Clintonoid Interviews of Colmes Kind

 

"The Daschle Scheme"

 

THE HILLARY, YOU KNOW, CLINTON TRANSCRIPT:

Analyzed and Annotated

 

Can the President Think?

 

THE MYTH OF HILLARY'S BRILLIANCE

 

Mindless rhinestone-studded-and-tented kleptocracy

 

OFF THE RECORD: AN OLD DOG NEEDS NEW TRICKS

 

The man is an artist: He's not just 'Slick Willie' anymore

 

Hey, what a party!

New Year's at the White House

 

Senator Dim Bulb by Gary Aldrich © 2001 WorldNetDaily.com

Annotated by Mia T

 

[My Favorite Headache]

I LOVE MIA T!

[Vigilanteman]

Everytime somebody bad-mouths "the greatest living ex-President," I need to remind them of Jimmy Carter's most positive legacy for which I'll always be grateful:

Helping to elect Ronald Reagan twice.

[Graewoulf]

Thanks for the ping.

Do you know of any articles on FR that relate the story of a heckler at a dinner/speech in NYC being hauled off?

The heckler stood up to differ with a terrorist comment by the dinner speaker. Needless to say, the speaker was IMPEACHED sick willy, a typical democrat.

[Slyfox]

Bump

[AKA Elena]

What fun to read some honesty written by the Brown Journalist -- thanks for the ping for your artfully worded selections Mia -- and to seamole for the link for those like me who don't linger too long here anymore and had this chance to read that great article posted by NorCoGOP!

[Bush2000]

Never underestimate the stupidity or overestimate the attention span of the average American voter. Voters such as these elected Bill Clinton. Twice.

[f.Christian]

bttt

[Mo1]

Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

[Golden Gate]

** - Democrats are, by definition, constitutionally unfit to navigate the ship of state In the beginning, the Democrats had a good foundation. Inspired/&?founded by Thomas Jefferson, and wanting a strict interpretation of the Constitution. What is the history, of were the Democrats went wrong?

FYI - On the Democratic side, I just received an email from Chuck Pineda, who is on the Dem ballot opposing Gray Davis. He stated, "I support traditional values and the right to bear arms."
For California DEMOCRATS! Email Subject:   VOTE * Chuck Pineda, Jr. * for Governor!
* Encouraging Democrats to Say NO! to G.G Davis on March 5th!
Democrats, let's rally around the name ** Chuck Pineda, Jr. **, who is on the Democrat ballot for Governor! It is time for Democrats to work for restoration and reform in the Democratic Party! email: californiademocrats2002@yahoo.com
++++++
Also FYI - Visit:   http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/latest
A Political/Cultural News Forum - Search for: Golden Gate

[ATOMIC_PUNK]

BUMPS

[Leisler]

Could you explain that? Which one was which elections and what are the red states, those that Jimmy " the killer rabbit" carried? Thanks.

[John W]

The top one is 1980,Reagan vs. Carter.The bottom one is 1984,Reagan vs. Mondale.

[M Kehoe]

Excellent!

As usual.

5.56mm

[firewalk]

Good morning & bttt

[anniegetyourgun]

Thanks for the link, sea! And Mia T - I hope you're right about the American people. I'm still dubious about our situation. I fear the vast majority could still be duped by the mainstream media and whines from the Left that work in tandem. I wish I could have more faith in my fellow-countrymen, but I'll never forget that they wanted 8 years of Clinton and many of them wanted Gore as well.

[Mia T]

Would that we could put clinton in Jefferson's petri dish Q ERTY6 rodham clinton REALITY CHECK BUMP!

Two hundred or so years ago, we had Jefferson, Washington, Ben Franklin and Tom Paine, and there were four million people. Today we have more than 220 million, and look at our leaders...Darwin was wrong."

Mort Sahl, 1998

contingency principle

 

by Mia T

 

 

A trait or strategy that is successful at one time may be unsuccessful at another. Evolution is not progress. Populations are simply adapting to their current surroundings. Populations do not necessarily become better in any absolute sense over time.

 

Take RAPE. It may have been an evolutionary imperative for Homo erectus in the Pleistocene Epoch, but one can hardly argue that it is adaptive behavior for Homo sapiens in the year 2000, Boy Rapist-President notwithstanding.

 

 

 

This contingency principle was demonstrated experimentally (Paquin and Adams) with a yeast culture that was maintained for many generations. Occasionally, a mutant strain would arise that increased reproductive success. These mutant strains would crowd out the formerly dominant strains. Samples of the most successful strains from the culture were taken across time. In later competition experiments, each strain would outcompete the immediately previously dominant type in a culture. However, some earlier isolates could outcompete strains that arose late in the experiment. (Would that we could put clinton in Jefferson's petri dish.) Competitive ability of a strain was always better than its previous type, but competitiveness in a general sense was not increasing.

 

Any organism's success depends on the behavior of its contemporaries. (If you doubt this, just ask David Schippers.) For most traits or behaviors, there is likely no optimal design or strategy, only contingent ones.

 

Mort Sahl: No desire to meet clinton: "With no morality, there's nothing there"

[Mia T]

Beautiful BUMP!

[Elkiejg]

What is manifestly obvious and confirmed on a daily basis is the plain fact that Democrats are, by definition, constitutionally unfit to navigate the ship of state through these troubled, terrorist waters.

MEGA THANKS Mia T - your words should be banners across every newspaper in America (fat chance they would run it!).

[Mo1]

Beautiful BUMP!

Thank you Mia .... and a Bump for this thread

[Mia T]

Q ERTY6 (the clintons were utter failures and the GOP had better exploit it) ^{4th-Estate Malfeasance} (DEATH BY MISREPORT) _{REALITY CHECK} bump!

DEATH BY MISREPORT: 4^TH-ESTATE MALFEASANCE AND 9/11

This misreporting actually endangers people's lives. By selectively reporting the news and turning a defensive gun use story into one where students merely "overpowered a gunman" the media gives misleading impressions of what works when people are confronted by violence.

The Missing Gun

New York Post | 25 January 2002 | John Lott

Q ERTY6 (clinton was an utter failure) 4^th-Estate Malfeasance REALITY CHECK bump!

New York Times Chairman/Publisher Arthur Sulzberger, Jr. admits to Brian Lamb:

• "Times dropped ball during Holocaust by failing to connect the dots"
• Times was able to endorse clinton by separating clinton's "policies" from "the man" [i.e., by failing to connect the dots!]

 

by Mia T, November 30, 2001

alpractice and/or malfeasance by "compartmentalization" redux...

It appears that The New York Times doesn't learn from its mistakes. Will it take the Times another 50 years to understand/admit that by having endorsed for reelection a "documentably dysfunctional" president with "delusions" -- its own words -- it must bear sizeable blame for the 9-11 horror and its aftermath ?

(Note, by the way, the irony of Sulzberger's carefully worded rationalization of the clinton endorsements, pointing to clinton "policies," not achievements, (perhaps understanding, at last, that clinton "achievements" -- when legal -- were more illusory than real--perhaps understanding, at last, that the Times' Faustian bargain was not such a good deal after all).).

If we assume that the clintons were the proximate cause of 9-11 --- a proposition not difficult to demonstrate --- it then follows that The New York Times must bear sizeable blame for the 9-11 horror and its aftermath.

"I think the rock is still there, but I'm not sure," Helen quipped. Her punch line to clinton's response to her question about a -- (only in Helen's mind) 'fantasy' -- clinton kleptocracy, was in fact 4th-estate CYA-ing disguised as a joke.

Unbeknownst, however, to the always clueless Helen, the one-liner she was delivering was indeed a joke; it was the butt of the joke that was her misreport...

In the end,

if clinton's arrogant, ruthless, reckless nature is restored to him,

it seems the joke will be on all of us,

for it will be a victory for infinite victimhood and irresponsibility,

for seduction, for violence, for nihilism, for anarchy.

 

We will have set apart clinton as the hero

by making his victims less human than he;

we will have allowed clinton to carefully estrange us from his victims

so that we can enjoy the rapes and the beatings

as much as clinton himself does.

Mia T, A CLOCKWORK ORANGE

 

Mia T, 1.27.02,

NO NOSE FOR NEWS: THE HELEN THOMAS STORY

 

 

Will Riefenstahl-esque "editing to perfection" resurrect the clintons?

 

 

CLINTON-WAS-AN-UTTER-FAILURE Containment Team Scheme Fails Again

 

Ollie North Laughs Ann Lewis Off Stage

by Mia T

EW YORK, Jan.4--Second-string clinton lapdog, Ann Lewis, failed in her attempt to implement the CLINTON-WAS-AN-UTTER-FAILURE Containment Team Scheme on "Hannity & Colmes" tonight. The team's implementation score, thus far, is 352 failed attempts and zero successes, despite the best aiding-and-abetting efforts of The New York Times, the Washington Post and Helen Thomas.

Rather than disproving the motivating premise of the Harlem-hatched mission -- a clinton legacy of depravity, ineptitude and failure -- Lewis' tired shtick only served to underscore the premise's essential truth.

Oliver (Ollie) North, a combat-decorated Marine and host of the Fox News show, "War Stories," was substituting for Sean Hannity. Ollie delivered the coup de grâce: "Reagan didn't need to remind the people about his legacy... The people already made up their mind about clinton."

Said another way, the very existence of the CLINTON-WAS-AN-UTTER-FAILURE Containment Team Scheme is confirmation that clinton was, indeed, an utter failure.

[Mia T]

Daschle's Gamble

The Democrats take on the war

It had to happen eventually. Last week saw the first attempt by the political opposition to mount a real attack on the war on terrorism. On Wednesday, Senators started subjecting deputy defense secretary Paul Wolfowitz to withering questions about the expanding war effort. "We seem to be good at developing entrance strategies, not so good at developing exit strategies," opined Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia. "If we expect to kill every terrorist in the world, that's going to keep us going beyond doomsday," he went on. "How long can we afford this? We went [to Afghanistan] to hunt down the terrorists. We don't know where Osama bin Laden is or whether he is alive or not. We don't know where Mullah [Mohammad] Omar is hiding ... When will we know we have achieved victory?" Senator Ernest Hollings from South Carolina chimed in, "We've got a deficit and we know it will exceed $350 billion." He went on characterizing the Bush administration's argument as: "Since we've got a war, we've got to have deficits -- and the war is never going to end." He predicted that sooner or later, "this town is going to sober up."

By Thursday, in what had the appearance of a coordinated campaign, the Democratic Senate Majority leader, Tom Daschle, put the boot in: "Clearly, we've got to find Muhammad Omar, we've got to find Osama bin Laden, and we've got to find other key leaders of the Al Qaeda network, or we will have failed." Failed. That's a trial balloon for an argument this autumn. Senator Joseph Biden, one of the biggest blow-hards in Washington, added more diplomatically, "I think right now the administration is rightfully very proud of how far they've brought us from Sept. 11. But I also think there's a little hubris at work here."

What's going on here? Is this the beginning of another Vietnam? Or are the Democrats toying with throwing themselves off a political cliff? So far, the latter scenario seems the most likely. The latest polls show massive public support for the war on terror and huge backing for taking the war to terrorist-sponsoring states aiming to deliver weapons of mass destruction to the enemy. A Fox News poll, taken last Tuesday and Wednesday, shows some subsidence of urgency among the public about the war, terrorism, security and related issues. But the public still believes that these related issues comprise the biggest problem the country faces, and should remain the main task of the government. 82 percent still approve the military actions being taken in response to September 11. That number has subsided slightly from around 89 percent a month ago - but it's still a margin of support no-one but a masochistic politician would counter. It's also true that the latest numbers show president Bush's approval rating moderating somewhat. But it's still 77 percent. Last October, it was 80 percent. That's not exactly a collapse. And it's still historically unprecedented.

The reason for the Democrats' shift is, in part, desperation. Over the last year, they have watched helplessly as Bush has neutralized them on some key domestic issues, and soared ahead of them because of the war. Look at the poll results on what were, until recently, Democratic strong points: the economy, education, and healthcare. The Democrats have long hoped that they could make gains in the upcoming Congressional elections by ceding the war issue to Bush but taking him on domestically. Now, they're beginning to believe that strategy won't work. The economy is pulling out of a recession - and, in fact, may never have been in a recession in the first place. Numbers released last week showed the U.S. economy growing by 1.2 percent in the fourth quarter of last year. On the same day, the Democrats decided to put the emphasis back on the war. Coincidence? I don't think so. Last July, some 55 percent of Americans said they were very or somewhat optimistic about the economy. Last week, that number had risen to 66 percent. The opposition is rattled. Bush's Education Bill, passed last year with the help of Senator Ted Kennedy, has also neutralized a key Democratic issue - and the parties are close to even on the matter. Only on pensions do the Democrats have a real lead, but it is outweighed by massive Republican margins on homeland security and defense policy. The polls also show Republicans as a party opening up a lead in Congressional races for the first time in fifteen years.

So the Democrats have realized that if they don't dent Bush's war leadership, they're doomed. They also realize that the impact of Bush's tax cut last year and increases in defense spending scheduled for the next four years means almost nothing left for domestic spending - the Democrats' main tool for pleasing voters and appeasing their special interest groups. They feel trapped. They tried, with the aid of the media, to pin the Enron scandal on Bush. It didn't stick. So they're trying something that can only be called desperate - and enormously risky.

The liberal intelligentsia is egging them on. The liberal Washington Monthly this month bemoaned the lack of aggression among Democrats. "The Bush team can attack Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, lose $4 trillion of the surplus, and meet with campaign contributors whose company stock they own, and Democrats just watch," the magazine's editor complained. "And then there's Enron. Is there any doubt that if the situation were reversed, Republicans would be exploiting the scandal more aggressively? Would they have hesitated, as Democrats have, to frame Enron as a political scandal, or to bombard the White House with subpoenas? Democrats can't afford to go all wobbly, especially now." The left-liberal American Prospect's editor argues in this week's issue: "The moment for bipartisan triumphalism and unquestioning support for a wartime commander in chief is over. Dissent should be back in fashion. Mainstream critics need to give voice to their private second thoughts, not just on Bush's dismal domestic program or his odd global geography but on his dubious notion of permanent war."

Is this the Democratic theme for the foreseeable future? Some Republicans are praying that it is. They believe that if they can reinforce the notion that the Democrats are soft on terrorism and soft on defense, then a small margin in the Congressional races this summer and autumn could become a rout in their favor. The House Republican whip, Tom Delay, felt the need to issue only a one-word response to Daschle's statements question the conduct of the war: "Disgusting." For what it's worth, I think those Republicans are right. As long as the administration keeps its nerve, and as long as military competence continues, the Democrats could be handing Bush a political gift of massive proportions. The fall elections may well be held as military action in Iraq reaches a critical point. If that happens, the Democrats could not only risk losing the Senate and the House, they could undo many, many post-Vietnam years devoted to persuading middle America that the party could be trusted on foreign policy. If I were Tom Daschle, I'd be worried sick. Suicide isn't pretty for a political party - but the Democratic leadership for short-term political reasons - or for lack of any other viable strategy - is contemplating it once again.

March 3, 2002, The Sunday Times of London
copyright © 2002 Andrew Sullivan

MY COMMENT:

Andrew Sullivan has it almost right. What we are witnessing is not suicide but the death throes of a political relic.

[FryingPan101]

Thanks, Mia T, for this most thought-provoking post.

[OKSooner]

Mia's always at her best. Which happens to be better than anyone else's best, IMHO.

BTTT

[IVote2]

"Mia's always at her best. Which happens to be better than anyone else's best, IMHO.

It's my opinion also.

BTTT

[joyce11111]

great post Mia

[boltfromblue]

More great threads woven into the Dem goulish tapestry. That piece about Carter and the Shah, priceless. That peanut farmer should have figured out by now that aflatoxins in peanuts did in his family, but no doubt he has too much of this mold to figure it out.
BTW, the axis of evil has been known of in intelligence for 10 years, but the clinton amateurish cabinet was either clueless or sycophants or both. Thanks for getting it all out, Mia.

[Mia T]

_aflatoxin ^{carter-clinton abecedarian} Q ERTY6

_{INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS} double bagel _{Q ERTY4}

HILLARY, YOU KNOW, ^{KnowNothing Victim} CLINTON

W I D E B O D Y. _{low-center-of-gravity} Dim Bulb,

_{Congenital Bottom Feeder} Q ERTY3 ^{zipper-hoisted} _{utter failure}

"There isn't a shred of evidence." ^{Q ERTY2}

_{rodham-clinton} reality-check BUMP!

If Act I was a thinly veiled allegory about naked clintonism, then Act II is a parable about the plan for world domination by the Establishment, aged hippies in pinstripes all, with their infantile, solipsistic world view amazingly untouched by time.

Mia T, INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS

"I have no infrastructure to deal with this."

bill clinton

 

 

One of the unintended consequences of America's rejection of mandated political correctness is that legends crumble.

 

The classic case is that of Bill Clinton. The conventional wisdom has been (even from his critics) that notwithstanding policy and philosophy disagreements Bill Clinton was/is a smart, charming, even brilliant man.

 

The reality that is becoming increasingly clear to those willing to see is that "The President Clinton Package" and his team of advisers, managers, and spin doctors, were smart, charming and at times brilliant. However, left to his own devices and without the support, advice, counsel and coercive powers of office, Bill is (for the second time in two months) emphatically demonstrating he ain't all that smart.

 

Bill's big yap:

Geoff Metcalf slams Clinton's foot-in-mouth sophistry

 

CLINTON SYNCHRONICITY:

 

Orchestrated delegitimizing of Daschle (how much more illegitimate must he be?)...and "leaks" denying presidential aspirations of hillary clinton... simultaneously spewed by clinton "infrastructure"...together with convenient "pres--uh--I mean, you know, senator, HA HA" slips-of-the-tongue from the W I D E B O D Y. _{low-center-of-gravity} predator, herself...will continue _<YAWN> unabated through '08 in the hopes of conferring legitimacy on this inept, depraved, unaccomplished, repulsive fraud.

 

The basic clinton scheme: A non-announcement of a non-campaign by a non-entity to make that non-entity someone.

 

The scheme will fail. The first law of thermodynamics will accomplish what the laws of the land could not.

 

hillary's head revisited:

hillary clinton's brain (such as it is) II

 by Mia T

The smartest woman in the world would relish "the raucous give and take of American democracy, " as Charles Kuralt once put it.

hillary clinton, by contrast, subsists on cozy clintonoid interviews of the Colmes kind...

In her new book, Political Fictions, Joan Didion indicts the fakery of access journalism practiced by vacant politicos like the clintons, whom she sees as "purveyors of fables of their own making, or worse, fables conceived by political strategists with designs on votes, not news."

(Didion on him: "No one who ever passed through an American public high school could have watched William Jefferson Clinton running for office in 1992 and failed to recognize the familiar predatory sexuality of the provincial adolescent.")

(Didion on Woodward: His accomplishment, she says, is to have produced "books in which measurable cerebral activity is virtually absent.")

Miss Hillary. . . strikes me as one of those innumerable people whose prose is so dull that they are reduced to using equally prosaic cusswords.

Paul Greenberg, The man is an artist: He's not just 'Slick Willie' anymore

John Podhoretz recently asked, "Whence comes hillary clinton's reputation for brilliance?" For the answer, he intuitively, rather brilliantly in fact, looked to her anatomy and noted,"This isn't the first time she's shot herself in the foot."

 

...The above anatomical analysis supports the Podhoretz thesis. Notwithstanding The Pod's erroneous conclusions concerning HILLARY! clinton's heart and nerve, he basically has it right. Anatomy is destiny.

 

Ian Hunter recently observed that our leaders are shrinking. "From a Churchill (or, for that matter, a Margaret Thatcher) to a Tony Blair; from Eisenhower to Clinton; from Diefenbaker to Joe Clark; from Trudeau to Chretien -- we seem destined to be governed by pygmies."

 

...The clintons' fundamental error: They are too arrogant and dim-witted to understand that the demagogic process in this fiberoptic age isn't about counting spun heads; it's about not discounting circumambient brains...

Mia T

Mindless rhinestone-studded-and-tented kleptocracy

 

 

"Hillary's people are very bright," said a well-connected Democrat yesterday. "But they think everybody else is stupid."

Stupid is as stupid does, says Off the Record. . .

OFF THE RECORD: AN OLD DOG NEEDS NEW TRICKS

 

Q ERTY4

hillary's typo

"Hillary thinks that Tipper is an unintellectual nice lady who doesn't have a brain in her head"...

DEBORAH ORIN

BIG CHILL FOR TIPPER & HILL

 

Talk about the pot calling the kettle empty...

To paraphrase Abe Lincoln: She can compress the most words into the smallest idea of any person I know. [NOTE: Lincoln didn't know HIM.] ...

And Adlai Stevenson :In America, anybody can be co-president. That's one of the risks you take.

Rumor has it William Jefferson Clinton himself is to recite Honest Abe's lines in this New Year's Eve pageant. Whoever writes these scripts has a natural talent for irony. For some irrepressible reason, one cannot help but think of that costume party in "The Manchurian Candidate,'' complete with Red Queen and Abe Lincoln in stovepipe hat and fake beard.

Hillary Clinton says it's a great opportunity to unite the nation. (The way she's united New York?) But the Clintons are never so polarizing as when they are intent on uniting us. How can that be? Maybe it's their perfectly fabricated authenticity. The Nineties have had much the same effect, stirring the same vague dissatisfactions -- and sparking sudden outbursts of temper. What was it that poor, embarrassed David Brinkley, thinking his mike was off, said after the president's victory speech in '96¿ "We all look forward with great pleasure to four years of wonderful, inspiring speeches, full of wit, poetry, music, love and affection, plus more goddam nonsense.''

Still not finished, Mr. Brinkley added that this president "has not a creative bone in his body. Therefore, he's a bore, and will always be a bore.'' Oh, dear. The commentator's unintentionally public thoughts were all the more embarrassing for being so widely shared by any Americans still sentient four years into the Age of Clinton. But it's one thing to notice such things, quite another to say them out loud. Why belabor the obvious?

Hey, what a party!

New Year's at the White House

more...

 

[FReethesheeples]

Hopefully the electorate as a whole see this.

We'll see November 2002.