The failure that is Barbara Walters, the Lautenberg Principle, and my non-interview with Hillary!

Many of us saw it...the interview between Barbara and Hillary. An obviously scripted puff piece that offered us no insight whatsoever (as compared to the anal probing given to candidate George W Bush turned President) into the insights of a woman who, by all admissable evidence, has aspirations to be the First Woman President with her duty bound, excess, narcissistic baggage...ex-president Bill Clinton as First...Man? Or more realistically, what exactly would Bill Clinton be? The First White, Black Man similar to the First White, Black President? Or howabout the First Impeached, White, Black Man similar to the First Impeached, White, Black President? Sound confusing? Well, for a common sense conservative thinker who is guided by the Constitution (you know...that living document, flexible in nature to a liberal Democrat when it does not suit their agenda...that we were accused of "perverting"), not to mention, honor, decency, character (which matters to me by the way) and integrity to name a few principles...the years 1992-2000 were nothing but confusing.

But anyway, I digress. Howabout something more seedy or sinister for Bill Clinton? First Perjuror? Well, that one has been proven...even the "smartest woman in the world" now finally admits it in her brand spanking new book that you by all entitlement accounts are supposed to rush out and buy. Hmm...she must've have gotten caught up in an un-spinnable lie...that damn blue dress!

Continuing on. First Traitor? Questions still remain in the minds of many on that one. The jury is still out as well since it's all about sex you know...and that we should just get past it, much like Hillary's book should have never been released if that were the case. Now we are being made to re-live "living history" by those that would have us forget about it a few years back. And make no mistake about it, the collective media conglomerate is doing it's Monica-level best by forcing it down our throats. Pun intended? Well, lest we forget and thanks to another "First" by Bill Clinton...that depends on what your definition of "Monica" is....

But anyway, I digress some more. My apologies. So collectively, we can sum up Hillary's prospective White House soulmate as the First Impeached, White, Black, Perjoring Man with possible traitorous tendencies to ever receive a Monica in the oval office! Our nation's state house...complete with newly replaced computer keyboards by grownups correcting the actions of past administration staffers turned children. Talk about taking your ball and going home after losing...

But surely one must agree, that is quite an accomplishment for someone who was not sure how to define the word "is"...on national television...as President...maybe he thought there was a "W" in it somewhere...

But it gets even better....Rapist? I repeat...Rapist??? The jury was never in on that one folks. Instead we were advised by another First by a sitting President...to consult his attorney on the accusation of Rape... Roll that one off your tongue just one more time. The accusation of rape...the seriousness of the charge...brings back Iran Contra days does it not? As Freepers would say...the "hugh" and "seriesness" (freeperese) of the charge. If you don't know what a Freeper is...well...they can spell...but you wouldn't know it because our last President clearly indicated it "is" okay not to... There's a pun in there...somewhere

So now enter The Lautenberg Principle. Senator Frank Lautenberg..."a candidate who could win" made it fair for the Democrats to retain a Senate seat for the state of New Jersey by simply showing up, fortune in hand. According to liberals the Supreme Court of the United States selected (not elected) our current President. Anyone with half a brain, and who would bother to do the research knows this is not true. And for anyone with less than half a brain, I'm not going to do the math for you...again. Because you only hear what you want to hear, you spell how you want to spell..add how you want to add...hence the Teacher's Unions and a failed public education system.

But before I digress again, who was it that "perverted" constitutions by circumventing the State Supreme Court and election laws of New jersey by placing ol' buddy Frank on the ballot? Yep...he was selected (not elected) by the Democratic constituency of New Jersey in order to give the Democrats a "fair chance of winning" in that state. And guess what? They did! To the dismay of freedom loving Americans nationwide. But, hey! I think we won Minnesota because of it so there's a plus side!

But now, I must digress...which brings me back to the 60 Minutes interview. Does anyone recall Barbara Walters questioning the allegations of rape to Hillary during their script...uh...interview? And if so, were they answered satisfactorally to a nation faced with the prospect of Hillary as First Woman President (we will not hear enough about this as we receive our collective Monica when and if it does) along with the First Impeached Black White Whatever from Hope? Arkansas?? Socialism and Communism did not originate from the America I know. Especially, not Arkansas...they must have been imported....to Arkansas..................

Some other questions I personally would have asked, had I performed a little more stellar and informative puff piece

What is or was your stance on the War in Iraq? Do you think that your husband's inability to act against other terrorist attacks, for example the Khobar Towers or the USS Cole bombings may have contributed to 9/11 by emboldening would be terrorists? Notably, there has not been a terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11. Arguably, because of the war in Iraq and President Bush's (sometimes, disrespectfully referred to as Mister in liberal circles i.e. ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN etc...) response to terrorim. However, under your husband's tenure, several acts were committed against Americans, yet your husband's only attempt at deterrence just happened to coincide with the timing of the Lewinsky testimony...a bombing incident on the basis of Iraq having Weapons of Mass Destruction, as documented in many Congressional hearings and memos in support of your husband while President. And to expand on that...what do you think of this administration's inability to find the WMD's when your husband's administration did little to attempt to find and/or eliminate them knowing Saddam Hussein possessed them? You are not on record yet. Lastly, how can you assure this nation that we will not see a repeat of similar inaction should you become President?

Do you think President Bush lied to the American People regarding WMD's? While everyone else is out there demanding some evidence, you yourself have not outlined your position. As a Senator and possible presidential candidate, should you not have a position on such a highly volatile matter. Can you please state so now that you have, for the most part, a worldwide audience...we would like to know if lies matter now and why lies and character did not matter during your husband's Presidency?

You say the economy has turned for the worse since President Bush took office when it has been proven that the economy started tanking towards the end of your husband's administration. Some believe it was purposefully sabotaged by your husband's administration. And over the past year, economic indicators show an upturn in the economy and the Dow just this past week cleard 9000. Given that, is it safe to say that maybe the Bush administration's policies along with the tax cuts are actually giving life to our current economy?

You say you are a woman of faith. Then what is your postion on the filibusters taking place in the Senate that are holding up some highly qualified judicial nominees? Many believe that the filibusters are being done to keep Pro-Life judges off the Supreme Court. How does that coincide with your faith?

During your term in the White House and the 2000 Republican Presidential primaries, Alan Keyes stopped his radio show due to issues that might conflict (unequal air time) while a candidate. How does that differ from what you are doing with your latest book? Is that not unfair to the field of Democratic party hopefuls currently running? Oh...silly me...nevermind...you haven't formerly declared yourself a Presidential candidate...now I see why you're "the smartest woman in the world"...

How can you possibly be promoting your book at the same time while maintaining your New York Senate seat? And are the taxpayers of New York unknowingly paying for your upcoming trysts across the US to promote your book? As a Government official and public servant, isn't your time accounted for the same as other government officials and public servants through closely monitored tax payer dollars? And do you think New Yorkers approve? Oh...never mind again...you have that 8 million dollar advance...which was what...twice as much as Newt Gingrich got? Again...let me obligatorially tell the American people just "how smart you are"...

You have admitted your husband lied. You have also previously denied Juanita Brodderick's rape allegation against your husband. Knowing now that your husband lied to you, does this cast any doubt on your initial thoughts about Ms Brodderick's allegation? And if not...how can you justify that? Or should we ask David Kendall?

Many Americans feel that the United Nations has proven itself to be an irrelevant global body incapable of governing but more effectively operating as an opposition towards the sovereignty of the United States. Some have said that the demands to go through the UN for the war in Iraq, may have actually stalled the war long enough to remove the WMD's we are still looking for. This to some would indicate that the UN is actually working against the US. Many of these same people believe we should get out of the UN. Given all that, what is your position on the US maintaining a presence in the UN? And if you support the UN, would it be safe to say that you are for the undermining of American sovereignty? After all, the sovereignty of America is a vitally important issue to many Americans, wouldn't you agree?

Years ago you mentioned a vast right wing conspiracy wanting to bring down your husband's Presidency when we now know that it was his lies...lies to you, his administration and the American People. Do you think there should be some sort of apology and would you care to be more specific about who this conspiracy is? And would you not now think that your husband should shoulder partial blame as to the inequities of him and his administration? And if you don't think so, what will you do as President to assure Americans there will be no repeat of these type activities during your tenure as President?

You have commented that many activities and fallacies of your husband, former President, are matters of a personal nature and deem no response. Further, they are not anyone else's concern. That's fair, but how would you define the nature of questions I have just asked you? Personal? Private? Or legitimate concerns of the American People? And do Americans deserve a response from a Senator and possible Presidential candidate?

And lastly, Senator...will you declare your candidacy at a time that coincides with current Campaign Finance Laws, the one's that allow no criticism of a candidate 60 days prior to an election. The one's that stifle free speech and political discourse. Will you declare this candidacy by employing the Lautenberg principle...the principle (which has no principles at all) that gives Democrats a "fair chance at winning" based on the New Jersey Supreme Courts "perversion" of state election laws. Will you yourself not have "perverted" this nation's Constitution by employing your candidacy in such a manner?

Well, now I have completely digressed...but we as a nation must embrace some thoughts. Those who care, anyway... It's no longer about Whitewater-gate, Travel-gate, File-gate, Monica-gate, China-gate or whatever-gate you want to recall from the "First" Clinton administration. Embracing these thoughts means not letting the conglomerate media, liberal or conservative, define our focus of the issues. Those issues being issues pertaining to questions I have asked here, but that are yet to go unanswered. Those issues NOT being the "gates" of hell that are old news and will be portrayed as such, purposefully so. It's time we as concerned Americans demand answers to questions that will determine our future, not those that are designed to redesign, re-write, and refocus on the past and purposefully distract from the real issues at hand. I, for one, do not enjoy the thought of having two pathological liars(?) in support of one another determining policies for Americans bearing the title "First Woman President and First Man (fill in the blank possible traitor and rapist)" in a manner that fits their agenda of what "they" think is better for all Americans. That is purely not...the American way. Socialism? Communism? Whatever-ism? You decide...

Here's a question I would ask Hill:

Since you consider Paula Jones' sexual harassment case so unfair to your husband, would you consider new legislation that would repeal the law ( signed by your husband btw ) that gave her standing to bring the case to court?

I, too have a question for Hillary; "When it was revealed the Vince Fosters car keys were not found at the crime scene, who snuck the keys into his jacket pocket at the MEs office two days later? A followup if I may, why whack Vince? Was he about to blow the whistle on Whitewater?"

Awesome!

Your questions illustrate why Broom-Hillary can never do an uncontrolled interview.

Every question to her is vetted in advance. None of your type questions can ever be posed to her heinous.

Hillary can never do an uncontrolled interview

She certainly never did one in her bid for the NY Senate seat, and she won that.
I had the misfortune of catching Hillary! on "Fresh Air"--an egregiously misnamed interview, complete with softball questions and absent any follow-ups. At least for the length of time I could stand it . . .
The question I would ask would go to Filegate/Craig Livingstone. Was it appropriate for Chuck Colsen to be sent to jail for a year? If President Bush were impeached for allowing a repetition of the Chuck Colson affair, would you vote to convict?
Was it appropriate for Craig Livingstone not to be prosecuted for hundreds of counts of the same crime? Was it even appropriate for Craig Livingstone to be kept on as chief of WH security for a moment after the impropriety came to light?
If, Heaven forefend, you were to become President, what surety would we have that no such behavior would be repeated?
But we know that no such questions will ever be answered by Hillary!

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.