O'Reilly hosted "progressive feminist" Tammy Bruce to smear Clinton, liberals
On the February 21 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, during a discussion about comedian Bill Maher's recent comments that President Bush is a "rube" and a "yokel", host Bill O'Reilly asserted that conservative attacks on former President Bill Clinton were "not as bad as [liberal attacks on] Bush, but almost." O'Reilly then asked Fox News contributor Tammy Bruce: "What was it on the other side that drove the personal attacks toward Bill Clinton?" Bruce replied: "Bill Clinton being a sexual predator in the White House. I mean, when your behavior is personal -- and that was the difference between Bill Clinton and George W. Bush." She then added: "Bill Clinton's behavior ... almost destroyed the nation, with him being distracted from the nation's business -- big difference."
O'Reilly later agreed with Bruce that Clinton's behavior "distracted him from protecting us," adding: "Al-Qaeda -- hello?" Bruce concluded: "You're looking, at least with the attacks on Clinton, at what conservatives do -- what I respect immensely -- are the details. They give them details. With Bush's attackers, they don't."
Earlier in the segment, Bruce had told O'Reilly: "[W]hat ... my reflection is, having been on the left, is that these are people who look at the president in a way as like a father figure -- that they are projecting their issues that are unresolved in their past onto this stranger." She later added: "I think people like [actor] Danny DeVito and Bill Maher are envious of the president. They're jealous of the fact that he has power and they remind him of their father, perhaps, and they resent that."
In addition, despite calling herself "a liberal" during the segment, Bruce stated: "It [faith] is the thing that the president asks, as faith does, that you sacrifice something, that you exercise discipline in your life, that we want you to be a better person as conservatives." As Media Matters for America documented, Bruce is a self-described "openly gay, pro-choice, gun owning, pro-death penalty, voted-for-President Bush progressive feminist." Bruce has equated the election of former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean as chairman of the Democratic National Committee to "putting O.J. Simpson in charge of a battered women's shelter." Additionally, following the resignation of former Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) and his misconduct with underage male former congressional pages, Bruce asserted on the October 2 edition of Fox News Live: "All I want, frankly, is a gay person in office who is not a sexual compulsive," as Media Matters documented.
From the February 21 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: You know, it's way beyond policy differences here with these people. I have a list of people who've attacked President Bush personally. What do you think that is?
BRUCE: Well, it certainly isn't politics. It's -- I'm a liberal. It's not about even disagreeing with the president. I disagree with him on many issues, including the immigration issue and the abortion issue, but I still respect the man.
You can disagree with people. Your audience does not always agree with you 100 percent of the time.
O'REILLY: Correct.
BRUCE: This is personal.
And what our -- my reflection is, having been on the left, is that these are people who look at the president in a way as like a father figure -- that they are projecting their issues that are unresolved in their past onto this stranger, and the issue has to be for everyone who hates President Bush. But you got to ask yourself a question: How can I hate so much a stranger, a veritable stranger? We can disagree, but hate is an entirely different framework.
And my work has revolved around something called malignant narcissism. It's the idea that the damage in your childhood that may be inflicted by your own father, perhaps, is -- affects the way you view the world now. It is based in paranoia. You heard it with Bill Maher.
It is litanies, an orgy of personal attacks, name-calling that have nothing to do with logic or reason, and I think people like Danny DeVito and Bill Maher are envious of the president. They're jealous of the fact that he has power and they remind him of their father, perhaps, and they resent that.
O'REILLY: So, you're psychoanalyzing these people? Here's what --
BRUCE: We have to, I think.
O'REILLY: Here's -- look, you can make an argument that the Bill Mahers of the world think that this guy has screwed up the country --
BRUCE: Sure.
O'REILLY: -- in a policy way and then take that personally and transfer it. I think he's wrong, Maher, in doing what he does, but I understand that there's passion against President Bush. I understand that.
However, I think it has to do with his religious beliefs. Bill Maher is a virulent anti-religious person. And I think Hollywood a secular community. Would you agree?
BRUCE: In general, yes.
O'REILLY: By and large?
BRUCE: Those who are people of faith or conservative remain hidden. But generally, yes.
O'REILLY: OK. So Hollywood: very secular.
[...]
O'REILLY: So, you agree with me that there's some linkage to the faith thing?
BRUCE: Absolutely. And faith is a dynamic, also, that asks things of you. It is the thing that the president asks, as faith does, that you sacrifice something, that you exercise discipline in your life, that we want you to be a better person as conservatives. That is the thing that gets rejected.
And those values that have made this nation great, that allows Bill Maher to say what he said, is based in a Christian ethic.
O'REILLY: Well, Judeo-Christian philosophy.
BRUCE: That's the irony.
O'REILLY: That's what Culture Warrior is all about.
BRUCE: Yes, exactly.
O'REILLY: Now, you're a liberal and you know the world -- and Bill Clinton was attacked personally, not as bad as Bush, but almost. What was it on the other side that drove the personal attacks toward Bill Clinton?
BRUCE: Bill Clinton being a sexual predator in the White House. I mean, when your behavior is personal -- and that was the difference between Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. George W. Bush is being attacked and being called names and being hated for a policy with which you can disagree.
Bill Clinton's behavior, what he was being chastised for, was personal behavior that did destroy people's lives and, in fact, almost destroyed this nation, with him being distracted from the nation's business -- big difference.
O'REILLY: But Lewinsky -- Miss Lewinsky was an adult. You know --
BRUCE: Oh, well, sure.
O'REILLY: Miss Lewinsky, you know, made her decision, and to me -- see, that never really factored in, and I couldn't really understand the hatred.
BRUCE: Hey, listen, I voted for -- I voted for Bill Clinton twice. And on the second time I voted for him, it was, whatever is his life is his business.
O'REILLY: Right.
BRUCE: The moment it moved into the Oval Office --
O'REILLY: I'm with you.
BRUCE: -- that's the only --
O'REILLY: The moment it distracted him from protecting us --
BRUCE: Yes. Yes.
O'REILLY: Al Qaeda -- hello?
BRUCE: Exactly. So, what --
O'REILLY: And the moment he abused the Oval Office --
BRUCE: Yes.
O'REILLY: -- by using that as his platform, then it got into the policies.
BRUCE: Yes. That's when you look at the attacks and what the differences are.
O'REILLY: But, do you think that the attacks on Bush are worse than Bill Clinton?
BRUCE: Absolutely. You're looking, at least with the attacks on Clinton, at what conservatives do -- what I respect immensely -- are the details. They give them details. With Bush's attackers, they don't.
Tammy Bruce Progressive? She's about as far to the right as you can get. To my memory, she is the right's go to person for recruiting gay and lesbian people to the Republican cause. She's just an example of Republican limited affirmative action for minorities that are willing to be used as tokens to muddy the decidedly anti-gay, ant-women's rights and anti-minority positions of the Conservative movement.
I need to see Bruce's CREDENTIALS for claiming herself a "Liberal". What of the Liberal Agenda does she support? Which candidates does she feel will best serve her issues?
Hearing her on O'Reilly, she comes down on each political and policy issue the same as any rightwinger, from Bill Bennett to Brent Bozelle. If one just READ her comments, one could not separate her presentation from the worst of the smearmongering rightwingers.
Ah, but she SAYS she is Liberal, so she'll do to count towards that "fair and balanced" thingie ... just like Ex-Clinton, Democrat promoting mouthpiece Dick Morris. Chalk up another on the LEFT guest list! WHAT FRAUDS!
Bill O'Reilly says he's an "independent" too. He's every bit as much an "independent" as this Bruce woman is a "liberal."
BRUCE: Absolutely. You're looking, at least with the attacks on Clinton, at what conservatives do -- what I respect immensely -- are the details. They give them details. With Bush's attackers, they don't.
WHAT!?!? You have got to be kidding. Cons provided facts, Bush critics don't. Oh that's rich!
you forgot all those details about how the clintons murdered vince foster?
clinton was too distracted to protect us from al-qaeda? he held weekly meetings on counterterrorism, and more than a few plots were stopped under his administration. it was bush that ignored the warnings in the summer of 2001 when the 9-11 commission said "the system was blinking red". anyone who says different is a liar.
MEFIRST:
Don't forget, Clinton authorized the largest bombing raids since Vietnam, targeting (using the military's intelligence) all of Saddam's suspected WMD sites. This was in 1998, when Clinton agreed that Saddam had the weapons ... and so Clinton did his best to destroy them. Apparently, he was completely successful.
Still, the rightwing like to say "But, CLINTON said there were WMD's, too, and said Saddam was a threat!" in order to bolster Bush's later mistaken claims. They ignore that Clinton took decisive action to DO something about those suspected WMDS, and he did it without starting a war or getting any American soldiers killed.
And guess what the rightwing was doing? Shouting "WAG THE DOG", suggesting that Clinton's actions were not in defense of the nation, but instead only a "distraction" from his Monica problems. In other words, they claimed our military action was useless, criticizing the Commander in Chief while troops were in harm's way.
How soon we forget ... and the MEDIA is no help whatsoever in educating the public about this recent history, instead being satisfied parroting the rightwing talking points which are false, disingenuous, selective at best and LIES at worst ... which is most of the time.
Tex, I must confess that I used part of your statement in a discussion I was having on youtube.
MIKE:
Fight the good fight. We Progressives are WINNING, the Neocons in retreat plunging towards total rout. Their panic is palpable.
Keep telling yourself that Mike. There are more of us neocons than you think. We don't all believe what our professors tell us. Early twenties, not religious, college degrees, yet as conservative as they come: a progressive's worst nightmare. We're not going to make change come easy. You're going to have to EARN your progressive America.
It's a tall order as time goes on, as the formerly faithful (Bruce, et al) proceed in the true spirit of Progressiveness ("change is good", "pragmatism is called for in the present world and for the future").
The Old Guard Libs pile on when somebody breaks ranks with their collective mindset and ceases to goose-step down the road with the rest of them.
RAYMAN:
We all look forward to the new wave of educated, thoughtful NEOCONS and their vision for America, their ideas and commentary which shows THEY are a force to be reckoned with, a force for a BETTER America in the future.
You can begin this campaign at any time.
And thanks for the "warning" that your expertise is coming down the 'pike. When can we expect to see the introduction of this new wave?
Oh, and how do you differ from the LAST wave of Neocon ideologues who held power for the past SIX YEARS, and were WRONG about everything, and DESTRUCTIVE to America? Your FIRST task is to denounce and run from your predecessors, from Bush and Cheney to Kristol to Condi to Rummy. Good luck with THAT.
Tex,
Care to comment on this one, since you're so high on Clinton's, vs. Bush's bombing campaigns--Clinton bombed the dog$#%t out of the Serbs because of the supposed ethnic cleansing (elimination of ethnic Albanians) and the 225,000 that were going to be found in mass graves.
What was that count on those mass graves? Roughly the same as the WMD's. Maybe they moved 'em. Guess we must have vaporized 'em. Maybe Bush thought "..what the hell, it doesn't matter if you find anything--nobody held Clinton accountable..."
C'mon, the whole choir can chime in.
Frogs croaking. Big ones.
LEMOC:
We'll set aside your suggestion that there WAS no problem in Serbia to be addressed, that absent "mass graves", they were doing "swimmingly" (to use a Coulterism) until the American planes started bombing.
Instead, let's for sake of arguement say you are absolutely correct, and Clinton's "evidence" for action was JUST AS NON-EXISTENT as Bush's in Iraq. The QUESTION comes: What was the COST of being WRONG?
I'll let YOU answer. If Clinton and Bush were identically wrong about the situation on the ground justifying military action -- and this is your ONLY point -- then let's hold both men accountable. What have been the CASUALTIES associated with both "errors of judgment"?
Do you REALLY think you want to compare these two head-to-head, as it applies to the massive COST associated with the actions? I didn't think so.
"Bill Clinton being a sexual predator in the White House."
Whoaa... time out! I stopped reading right there.
Please correct my memory if I am wrong but didn't Monica Lewinsky say in interviews (after she bacame FAMOUS) that she went after Bill... something about bending over so he would notice she was wearinga thong. And some other remarks, too... But to my recollection she basically admitted that she was the one who made herself available for his use. (Omigod... the President!)
I've said many times I have mixed feelings about Bill Clinton... some good, some not so good, where he let us down. And I am certainly not defending his sexual escapades in the White House. But let's keep it real... Bill was Monica's target... not the other way around. Accusing Bill Clinton of sexual predation is both factually and ethically wrong.
That's Rightwing Wacky World for you, where someone who commits adultery with a willing 22-year-old is a "sexual predator" and a "pretty good rapist" (Coulter).
SO what do they think of Giuliani in Righty land....oh wait he's there HERO!?!?!?!
I always hate how the rules don't apply with people who agree with them.
My bold prediction, you heard it first here. Monica and Linda were part of a conspiracy to bring down Clinton. I base this mainly on the fact that the blue dress was not thrown away or cleaned. In my personal experience and everyone I have discussed this with, no one can recall a garment with peter tracks being "preserved" in a plastic bag except in criminal cases where the offending evidence was placed into a plastic bag and logged into an evidence facility of a law enforcement agency. To me, the behaviour of saving the dress with the semen speaks volumes about her intentions. Not sure at what point Monica was recruited, but at some point she became an operative.
You are absolutely correct. A normal person would have had the dress cleaned right away. She either new it would be needed as evidence, or had some kind of wackjob reason to save it as a souvenir.
How could a real man resist THAT?
butt ugly is as butt ugly does. My momma always said that...
Too funny.
This is serious.
"...the idea that the damage in your childhood that may be inflicted by your own father, perhaps, is -- affects the way you view the world now."
I'm not a real psychoanalyst... but like Tammy Bruce, I sometimes like to pretend I'm one. ;>)
Examine that portion of Ms. Bruce's statement above... I've sometimes wondered why George W. Bush once told one of his college professors (something the prof never forgot) that people were poor because they were lazy. I've often wondered how a young man could have picked up such an awful idea like that. Do you think it was something he learned at home? From his father, perhaps? His mother? Bush has long been reported to be temperamentally more like his mother than his father. Maybe there's something Oedipal going on... out-doing his successful father perhaps. Being tougher and more masculine. Who knows? Just wondering if we could apply some of this psychoanalytical stuff to our President to figure out why he says and does some of the bone-headed things he does... you know, like that Iraq war, for example.
This is NEWS??? This is INSIGHTFUL ANALYSIS??? OF WHAT???
One group of critics is more "thoughtful", "moral", "justified" or "detailed" when smearing a sitting president???
Clinton has been out of office FOR SIX FREAKIN' YEARS!!! Can't these morons get over it already?
Olbermann's right: Fox Nothing Channel - We decide, then report.
Again, how did an affair ALMOST DESTROY A NATION?
Republicans were looking for ANYTHING to use to destroy Clinton's presidency.
Again, HE WAS NOT MY HUSBAND!!!
I bash Bush because he's inarticulate, flip flopper and just plain unqualified to hold the highest office in the land. He is a puppet who follows whatever his money men tell him. He has no knowledge of the Middle East, Russia or any other place outside of Texas and Kennebunkport. I am extremely ashamed when I see him on the world stage, can't find the door after making a speech or giving PM of Germany a massage just to name a few.
"I bash Bush because..."
Okay... so you mean then that it has nothing to do with your childhood or your father?
I need to write Ms. Bruce to tell her that I could list a few dozen reasons why Bush has been so dangerous to the welfare of this country and how it may take another generation to rectify much of his insanity and imcompetence... and not one reason has anything to do with hating my father. Actually, I loved the old guy and I cried when he died. Tammy Bruce should stick to what she's good at... whatever that might be.
Isn't it somewhat tactless to bring up the subject of sexual predators on O'Reilly's own show?
If anyone has almost destroyed this nation it is George W. Bush not Bill Clinton.
While Clinton's tryst with Monica was based on poor personal judgment and hurt his family and tarnished his legacy a bit... Bush's war with Iraq was based on lies and has cost thousands of lives and destroyed thousands of families as well as tarnishing the reputation of our nation.
You gotta hand it to O'Liar. He's a sneaky, slick son of a gun. In his never ending effort to play the "everyman" character who's looking out for the little guy, who's not republican or democrat, he tries to keep up the charade of being neutral. He claims he has more liberals on than conservatives. Well here you go, chalk Tammy Bruce up in the "Liberal" colum or O'Liar right. Hey guess what Bill, I'm a Martian. Put me on your show and you can claim that you're intergalactically neutral.
the "everyman" character
FOX News reminds me of how many years ago educators figured out that kids could learn better if the information was presented in an entertaining fashion. That spawned shows like Sesame Street and the use of more interactive teaching methods. FOX's purpose is to keep the Republican base on the reservation by feeding them a steady diet of "information" that reinforces their right wing beliefs. FOX's purpose is also to keep that right wing Republican base sufficiently riled up so they'll get out and vote. But FOX News treats its viewers like children by purposely providing the requisite "information" as entertainment... but disguised as legitimate political talk shows. Therefore, shows like O'Reilly's and Hannity's are nothing more than stage-managed affairs that create almost theatrical clashes between good (right wing) and evil (liberal). Bu the shows are crafted like dramas so that the good guy always triumphs over the bad guys. The "liberal" guests are, more likely than not, unprepared pushovers... just nominal opponents. It sometimes reminds me of professional wrestling it seems so contrived.
And you are correct, every night Bill O'Reilly plays the role of the "everyman" character. But have you ever tried explaining any of this to an avid O'Reilly fan? Good luck... ;>)
Can someone explain to me how Clinton almost destroyed this nation by being unfaithful? You know, as opposed to every thing Bush has done.
Oh I should also mention that I don't care for Maher's anti-religious comments. Basically equating anyone that believes in a God with someone having a mental disorder.
Does that mean Hollywood is anti-God? No. I wouldn't say so.
You apparently missed Maher's explanation of the Universe, and why he is therefore qualified to put down anybody's belief system.
It's not that the President's critics don't provide details. It's that the press generally ignore, deny and/or bury them. Instead, the press provides sophomoric "pyschoanalysis" via second-rate, non-credentialed media stooges like Tammy Bruce. Anyone with a high school education could do a little research and find documentation on the innumerable transgressions of Dubya even before he took office.
After he was handed the Presidency in spite of the will of the voters, his record is even easier to pick apart. Do you want to know how to silence a Beltway media insider or FOX news contributor like Tammy Bruce? Ask her to name a Bush policy that has proved successful for the betterment of the country as a whole during his tenure. Then ask her to look you in the eyes and tell you if knowingly using bad intelligence as a pretext for war, legally sanctioning torture, indefinitely detaining U.S. citizens without official charges and legal representation, and ignoring FISA are not noteworthy enough to warrant investigation and criminal charges. Finally say, "And I'm supposed to believe that we should impeach a President because of a breathlessly hyped intern-gone-wild episode, but not impeach a President guilty of violating binding international treaties, federal laws and the Constitution itself?" Monosyllabic gibberish would be too generous a term for whatever response she could muster.
They say the 'devil' is in the details. Tammy Bruce, please allow me to introduce myself...
2007 Year of the hate
I can see now we better get used to the attacks on the Clintons throughout 2007. This Tammy Bruce makes me sick. Are we to be suprised O'Reilly had her on? After all he hosts the disgusting Dennis Miller and Michelle Malkin I am sure I am missing more.
There are a few Fox News Dems who, no matter what you think of their "fraternizing with the enemy" at Fox, are at least genuinely liberal in their philosophy and will come on shows, however weakly, to give the liberal perspective. Tammy Bruce is a registered Republican who wears the progressive label simply to attack it. Along with Media Matters' own documentation of her career as a liberal bashing progressive, the Daily Howler did a brilliant expose of her back in 2003 (links below). Well worth reading.
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh121603.shtml
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh121703.shtml
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh121803.shtml
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh121903.shtml
Thanks for the info! ;)
>>She then added: "Bill Clinton's behavior ... almost destroyed the nation, with him being distracted from the nation's business -- big difference."
Yup, starting an unnecessary war that drains lives and money while helping recruit terrorists does nothing to destroy the nation.
OMG -- they're STILL doing this??
I remember an old Daily Howler post about Tammy Bruce, but I figured that since she now has a right-wing kook book prominently displayed in stores, Fox would drop the act.
I gotta show this posting to my conservative friends, then take them to Barnes & Noble.
What a loon!
Shes says conservatives give details and thats why she respects them. This woman is a joke and I can't stop laughing. Why doesn't she ANALYZE Beck, Hannity, Linbaugh? You see BO defends Clinton a bit because of his own past sexual harrassments. I would love to see this woman go on the Bill Maher show. So that his been my whole problem about Bush. I see him as a father figure and I had a bad childhood. All of you out there have to be laughing.
Glen Beck's idea of giving details is showing a video of brown people yelling.
Nothing new here....This idiot Bruce has been whoring herself out to every right-wing nutjob show she can book herself on for years.
Life must be so much easier when you have no soul or conscience...
Maybe this woman is Ann Coulter's secret lover?
Only on Faux News can a woman with a right wing book on the shelves be portrayed as a left leaner. Her first book is subtitled "Exposing the Left's Assault on Our Culture and Values.
Her second book is on the CONSERVATIVE BOOK CLUB website that is being sold by saying "it's time to take our nation back from the Leftist "Hate America First" crowd that has controlled our public discourse for four decades now. She unapologetically calls for Americans to recover pride in our own country: "It's time," she declares, "to swing back the curtains and invite the light in. And that light is American Nationalism, perennially shunned by the Left, condemned by Socialists, and without any special interest group fighting for its rebirth. It has no legitimate advocates. And yet it is the very idea that will save not only our nation, but the rest of the world as well."
Unfreakinbelievable.
Why is that unfreakinbelievable? Don't use such superlatives without at least brief explanation.
Whoops. She has FOUR books. All of them as far left as Ann Coulter. Here they all are. Stop calling yourself a liberal you lying WENCH!
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/002-5498555-2616000?%5Fencoding=UTF8&search-type=ss&index=books&field-author=Tammy%20Bruce
Yet another phony "expert" on the O'Reilly show. A few weeks ago he had a body language "expert" on and she analyzed a joint press conference with Bush and Blair. She talked about how Blair seemed hesitant, etc., while Bush was authoritative and agressive. Of course, she didn't mention his constant stuttering and reptilian head-bob.
The Flying Monkey liars are really getting desperate now; I guess they figure that if they remind the drooling GOP base how evil Clinton was, they'll forget that they elected a lying moron to the White House in 2000. Yesterday Sean Hannity had a caller who was pontificating about how Clinton "destroyed the military". You have to admit...the GOP Big Lie Machine has done its job well.
Would that Ms. Bruce were more effective in her campaign to help conservatives "to be a better person". Anyone can see they desparately NEED the help!
'Bruce stated: "It [faith] is the thing that the president asks, as faith does, that you sacrifice something, that you exercise discipline in your life, that we want you to be a better person as conservatives." '
Got so wrapped up in formatting, that I used wing-nut "desparately" rather than "desperately". Even "housewives" know better!
Would that we could all just touch the hem of YOUR garment.
"Bill Clinton's behavior, what he was being chastised for, was personal behavior that did destroy people's lives and, in fact, almost destroyed this nation, with him being distracted from the nation's business -- big difference." - Bruce
Who's lives did his behavior destroy? Did anybody die because he was getting a hummer from Monica? He was trying to go after Osama and Al Qaeda, but it was the Republican controlled House and Congress that kept forcing this adulery to the forefront. His outgoing administration TRIED to get the incomming administration to take serious the growing threat of al Qaeda and Osama but they didn't.
Foreign countries looked at the Lewinsky controversy as a joke, but we still had their respect as a nation. Now we are alienating these same countries with our policies. And how many troops have been killed because of Bush and Co. and his undrying need to be the bully on the block.
Like I said before, I respect the Office of the President, I just DON'T respect the person in it.
This has to be the silliest exchange in a while. Clinton's sexual misconduct endangered America more than a policy of preemptive war without an exit strategy? Clinton was distracted from pursuing Al Qaeda (which he did in fact pursue for 8 years to such a point Republicans called it "an obsession" and later considered Al Qaeda as inconsequential as "swatting flies")?
So, is this mock news comedy show Fox promised?
I thought this was a very interesting interview. I completely disagree with most of what Ms. Bruce is asserting but at least she appears to have put some thought into it. Unfortunately, her brains seem to have leaked out. And anything O'Reilly utters is meaningless drivel anyway.
The ad hominem attacks on the "Hollywood left" are beyond ridiculous at this point. Bush's approval ratings aren't in the dumpster simply because Hollywood liberals don't like him. Bush's approval ratings are in the dumpster because he squandered any political capital he thought he had.
Their assertion that Bush is criticized more than Clinton has more to do with their clear and obvious bias for Bush. They can't get over the fact that despite Clinton's transgressions, his poll numbers were much higher than Bush's. Their assumption is Bush's approval ratings are low simply because he is attacked more.
For all of their self-righteous posturing that Clinton's sexual liasons were a distraction for him, one can simply retort the active campaign of the right wing to investigate and attack every facet of the Clintons' personal lives was more of a distraction than Bill's casual sex.
Bill and Tammy's collective amnesia into those endless investigations into the personal life of a sitting President serve only to prove their own deep seated hatred for Bill Clinton.
While it is true I personally hold President Bush in contempt, I could care less what he does in his personal life and who he sleeps around with. The fact of the matter is his policy decisions are incredibly misguided, his management is incompetent, and his stubbornness is dangerous. He is disingenuous, dishonest, mean-spirited and cruel.
Any President who sits silently while his Vice President maligns the patriotism of elected representatives is not worthy of respect or admiration. A real man and a true leader would tell his Veep to shut the hell up. Bush clearly isn't capable of doing that.
Tammy and Bill should know better.
Among the many lies and smears within the interview, I want to point out on particular logical fallacy the I find intriguing that I find in Tammy Bruce's thinking.
She makes the logical fallacy known as Equivocation when using the term "personal" in her comparison of why some hate Bush and some hate Clinton.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation
When regarding George Bush, you should never hate him for any reason whatsoever in the world because you don't know him PERSONALLY.
But regarding Bill Clinton, it is OK to hate him because he committed a PERSONAL transgression.
Just leave out the fact that you don't know Bill Clinton PERSONALLY either and Bruce sounds logical to a Bill O'Reilly fan.
what a joke. "al quieda" hello?" "Mr. President, we have a national security situation" "Monica's more important!" Give me a break, man. Beyond that, was it actually suggested that resenting Bush is related to hatred of authority with a deep father-rebellion complex? Wow. What a world.