Newsweek noted Bossie's upcoming "tough documentary" about Clintons, but not his past "slimy tactics"
An article for the June 18 edition of Newsweek reported that Republican activist David Bossie is producing "a tough documentary" about former President Bill Clinton and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) aimed at "a new generation of voters who don't remember the old Clinton wars." The article noted that Bossie "worked tirelessly as an investigator for" Rep. Dan Burton's (R-IN) House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight in the 1990s. But Newsweek failed to inform readers that Bossie's alleged actions in that post ultimately got him fired from the committee and earned him the condemnation of congressional Republicans and Democrats.
From the Newsweek article, headlined "Can Hillary Overcome Her Likability Gap?":
Some grudges just don't die. In the 1990s, David Bossie worked tirelessly as an investigator for Rep. Dan Burton's government-reform committee. Burton was a top-echelon antagonist to Bill and Hillary Clinton, leading wide-ranging investigations of Whitewater and campaign finance. All the digging didn't amount to much: six years after the Clintons left the White House, Burton is a little-heard-from member of the minority party and Hillary Clinton is the front runner to be the Democrats' nominee for president in 2008.
But Bossie is still working away. In recent months, he has returned to investigating the Clintons, this time for a tough documentary scheduled for release in theaters this fall. One of the documentary's key potential audiences: a new generation of voters who don't remember the old Clinton wars. He points out that someone who is 18 today was "4 years old when the travel-office scandal broke." These young voters, he predicts, will be hungry for Hillary dirt, new and old. "There's an enormous market for Hillary Clinton information," he tells NEWSWEEK. Other inveterate Hillary hounders agree. R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr., the editor of The American Spectator who has authored multiple books on what he sees as the Clintons' sins, says there are "active research teams" looking into the New York senator. "They're out there," Tyrrell tells NEWSWEEK. "I get calls all the time."
In describing Bossie as having "worked tirelessly" on "wide-ranging investigations of Whitewater and campaign finance," Newsweek made no mention that Bossie was fired from his position on the Government Reform Committee in 1998 for his alleged role in releasing selectively edited transcripts of former Clinton administration official Webster Hubbell's prison conversations. At the time the allegations surfaced regarding the transcripts, Bossie drew sharp criticism from members of his own party, as Media Matters for America noted. According to a May 7, 1998, Washington Post article, then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) told Burton, "I'm embarrassed for you, I'm embarrassed for myself, and I'm embarrassed for the [House Republican] conference at the circus that went on at your committee."
Moreover, Bossie's career as an investigator has been marked by, in the words of journalist and Media Matters Senior Fellow Eric Boehlert, "downright slimy tactics." In a July 20, 2004, Salon profile, Boehlert noted that James Rowley III, the chief counsel to the Government Reform Committee, resigned his position in July 1997 after Burton refused to fire Bossie. Boehlert reported: "In his one-page resignation letter, Rowley, a former federal prosecutor employed by Republicans, accused Bossie of 'unrelenting' self-promotion in the press, which made it impossible 'to implement the standards of professional conduct I have been accustomed to at the United States Attorney's Office.' " Boehlert further noted that Bossie's alleged tactics in investigating the Clintons had caused controversy as early as 1992, when "President George H.W. Bush, repudiating Bossie's tactics, filed an FEC complaint against Bossie's group after it produced a TV ad inviting voters to call a hot line to hear (almost certainly doctored) tape-recorded conversations between Clinton and Gennifer Flowers." A July 20, 1992, report in Time noted the Bush campaign's repudiation of the Presidential Victory Committee, of which Bossie was the executive director:
The Bush- Quayle campaign tried to hit [conservative activist Floyd] Brown's operation in the pocketbook last month by obtaining from the Federal Election Commission the names of 362 large donors to Citizens for Bush, a project of Brown's Presidential Victory Committee. A letter to each contributor pointed out that Brown's enterprises are not part of the Bush effort; those who had the wrong impression were encouraged to ask for their money back. Only a dozen did so.
Additionally, the Newsweek article reported that Bossie "points out that someone who is 18 today was '4 years old when the travel-office scandal broke.'" But Newsweek did not point out that the investigation into the "travel-office scandal" found no wrongdoing on the part of the Clintons. As Media Matters noted, in a June 2000 report on the firings of White House Travel Office employees, independent counsel Robert Ray wrote that the decision to fire the employees was "lawful" and that "the evidence is insufficient to prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that either Mr. [former White House director of administration David] Watkins or Mrs. Clinton committed perjury or obstruction of justice during the course of their testimony before GAO [Government Accountability Office], the Congress, and this investigation."

















I see in this threads future horrible things. Folks who don't read the column, but must inform us of how horrible they know Hillary and Bill are.
What a wonderful person Bossie is.
Its all the liberals/progressive/ anyone who gets contrary information's, fault.
The insults might make them feel better. I can't see the rhetoric changing anyones mind.
All the slimey little creepy crawlies who made a cottage industry out of lying about the Clintons are slithering back into the daylight again, now that Hillary is within reach of the Democratic nomination.
Hungry for Hillary dirt? This stuff speaks for itself. If anything, this slime could win her more votes.
Will the Clintons be remembered by the slimy right wingers long after Bush has been forgotten? The answer is yes.
Five hundered years from now a little fairy tale book will be read to the children. It will be about a gingerbread house with the Clintons inside ready to eat you.
And they'll tout Puddinhead George as the second greatest president ever, right behing Ronnie Reagan.
You don't have to wait...
Thanks to "Kids Ahead" publishing and few psychotic "authors", rightwing political smear books targeted at children are already a reality.
I'll bet it was written by the same talentless hacks who write Fox's "Half Hour News Hour".
The left has no problem when "Heather Has Two Mommies" is used in public schools supplied by our tax dollars, but when someone sells a book a few paranoid lefties don't like in a free market economy, it's just despicable.
Typical.
ROGER:
You make a good point.
"Heather" seeks to promote tolerance towards loving people whose only crime is to not fit the "traditional" heterosexual mold (which, in America, ends up more than half the time in bitter divorces, which rend the children in torturous conflicts). Of course, the Rightwing objects, because THEIR message is to HATE any who are "different".
In "TYPICAL" consistency, the main feature of these "Conservative Children's books" is to HATE, and to DIRECT that hate at people like Hillary Clinton, who is depicted as the dreaded monster who hides under your bed, kiddies. Propagandizing youth to HATE and FEAR, before they have the slightest notion of what politics means.
So, what is the common thread here? "Heather" = children must be taught to HATE gays. "Conservative Children's Books" = children must be taught to HATE Democrats.
HATE. The unifying propaganda tool the Right uses to indoctrinate the next generation. Perfect, and TYPICAL.
Since you're WAY too ANGRY to get any point I'll EVER make, which I THOUGHT I made VERY clear LAST time, I'll just say that it's ALWAYS the people who use CAPS as INCREDIBLY often as YOU do who are the MOST unhinged people online, even as they TRY to pretend it's REALLY all the OTHER people who are so VERY angry, while THEY themselves give their FRAGILE emotional state away EVERY time they post HYPERCRITICAL comments like YOURS, Tex.
Well, sarcasm aside, would you Tex like to lie to me and tell me you've read the children's book in question here? If you haven't read it, how can you be sure its intent is to promote hate? Sounds like another one of your factually baseless assumptions.
Seek help, good sir.
Heal thyself.
ROGER:
Yours, I fear, is a wound that will not heal.
Myself? Healthy, happy, and looking forward to two more years of increasingly informative congressional investigations into ever more corrupt and lying rightwingers. These are good times politically for us Liberals, and will only get better come 2008.
It's really incredible. The GOP had six years of TOTAL POWER, able to pass ANY legislation, and get it signed into law by their GOP president ... and to create the AMERICA which shows their vision, ambitions, and the realization of their ideology.
They DID it.
And the people HATE it. Looks like it's off to the wilderness for another 40 or so years (as happened after WWII) for the "Conservatives". The only problem is how much damage the GOP does to America before they are rejected wholly.
Tex, by your refusal to answer I think we can safely assume that you didn't read the children's book in question here, so yes, you're assuming it's an evil book of hate and lies without having even looked at it.
To which I can only respond, grow up. Does the book mention the left's affinity for higher taxes? Their adoration for Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez? Does it really teach kids to hate liberals? I don't know, and neither do you. Stop commenting on what you haven't read.
On to your remarks... Myself? Healthy, happy, and looking forward to two more years of increasingly informative congressional investigations into ever more corrupt and lying rightwingers.
Most of us look forward to love and laughter with family and friends, while your happiness revolves around the goings on in D.C. How pitiful.
The GOP had six years of TOTAL POWER, able to pass ANY legislation, and get it signed into law by their GOP president ... and to create the AMERICA which shows their vision, ambitions, and the realization of their ideology.
Change "GOP" to "Democrats" and change "six" to "two" and you've just described 1993 and 1994, during which time the Clintons and the left in general did such a spectacular job running the country that they promptly lost the House and Senate, and they'd controlled the House for 40 years.
This stuff is cyclical, and I personally hope the GOP falls completely apart so it may be put back together by conservatives, as opposed to the people currently running the GOP, who for some reason have as much in common with liberals as they do conservatives.
ROGER:
Here is the cover of the book in question:http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0976726904/ref=sib_dp_pt/104-7830874-5182362#reader-linkThe title, "HELP, MOM" describes a child in fear, in distress, being threatened. It could portend nothing else. So, what is so scary?The title continues, "There's SOMETHING under my bed!" Ah, yes. the age-old fear children have of horrors lurking under their beds. Monsters and demons, ready to devour the helpless child. This is the description of horror, fear, and hatred, common to children everywhere ... the ultimate BOOGIE MAN tale.
So, what IS that "something" under the bed? It's LIBERALS! LIBERALS depicted ON THE COVER as monsters, as a mortal threat to children, as objects of loathing and fear. As something to be hated.
Do I have to READ this book to understand what it's about? Nope. It's all there, on the cover.ROGER: "Does it really teach kids to hate liberals? I don't know ..."RESPONSE: I DO know. Just look at the cover. It DOES.ROGER says, "Most of us look forward to love and laughter with family and friends, while your happiness revolves around the goings on in D.C. How pitiful."
RESPONSE: It would be pitiful, if true. However, I can multi-task, accomplishing BOTH pursuits.I'll agree, the American Public will give the GOP a chance once in a while, and 1994 was one instance. If the trend continues 40 years on, 10 years off for Democrat Majority, that ought to be about right (although the damage done to this nation by the GOP DOES take about four decades to undo, and that's infinitely sad ... especially for those whose lives were ended due to GOP incompetence.)
ROGER says, "I personally hope the GOP falls completely apart."RESPONSE: Congratulations! You got your wish!ROGER: "... so it may be put back together by conservatives"RESPONSE: Who would that power broker be? Ron Paul? Newt Gingrich? LOL You're up that proverbial creek, Roger. Enjoy the swim.
A better LINK to the "Help Mom!" book:
[link to www.amazon.com]
Here is the cover of the book in question:
The title, "HELP, MOM" describes a child in fear, in distress, being threatened.
Tex,
You've not only intentionally ignored the cliche that is quite possibly the one cliche we've heard most often over the years, "don't judge a book by its cover", you've also decided without reading even one page, that instead of teaching kids the failures of liberalism, the book's cover is an attempt to scare kids and force them to hate liberals based on the cover's depiction of cartoon versions of Hillary, a donkey, a piggy bank, and a puppy.
I for one may never recover from the abject horror I've experienced ever since I saw the cartoon puppy.
ROGER:
If you wish to deny that lump of flesh and cartilage on your face with two breathing holes is a "NOSE", that's fine.
Most folks don't care to so clearly make asses of themselves, but you seem a unique trooper.
Great point, Tex.
The rightwing hates people different than they are. They walk in lockstep with one another, and they seem deathly afraid of people who are different.
No homosexual will ever break up my marriage. No homosexual marriage will ever hurt my relationship with my wife!
They walk in lockstep with one another
I guess that explains the firestorm over the immigration bill eh? Or do you think that opposition to the bill came only from the political left and center?
ROGER:
HATE drives all Rightwing policy, although sometimes that HATE is in conflict.
SOME rightwingers just HATE immigrants, because they hate anyone different, and they hate feeling threatened by "interlopers" they don't understand.
SOME rightwingers HATE immigrants, because they fear losing their jobs.
SOME rightwingers just HATE American workers, and their demands for fair wages, and so they SUPPORT importing a workforce which works cheap and demands no benefits, and who can be THREATENED with legal action if they don't do as they are told.
So, in this instance, Rightwingers are playing "DUELLING HATERS" on their banjos.
That must explain why liberals cheered when Cheney had heart trouble, and why many of them wished he would just die (see democraticunderground.com for many, many, many examples).
one thing I forgot...
They walk in lockstep with one another, and they seem deathly afraid of people who are different.
If you're describing the GOP, why was Joe Lieberman forced to run as an independent in his last election? Because the Democratic party is one great big open tent full of many different ideas?
Jim Jeffords left the GOP to get more power, especially when it comes to education legislation; he was promised this, and was stiffed for his efforts. Lieberman had to leave the Dem party because he was forced to since liberals are the most closed-minded, intolerant people in politics, as handily demonstrated by people on this website who wonder why on earth right wingers post here (why hang out on a site/thread with people who agree with me on most issues? what could I possibly learn?)
Lieberman was not forced to leave the democratic party. Lieberman lost the primary required for him to go on and represent the democratic party in the general election.
Re-read that 1st paragraph slowly a couple times so that you truly may learn - in obscurity - as is your claimed purpose. Then you can go back to posting here - as your normal smug pseudo-intellectual persona - but with a little knowledge under your belt. Nothing helps cure priggishness quite like a little education.
Neon you're a pathetically bad liar. Lieberman was forced out by the far-left, most notably the Daily Kos/MoveOn lunatics who bragged about forcing him out afterwards.
Were they bragging about something they hadn't accomplished?
You're finally right about something: I am a pathetically bad liar. Which is why I don't do it.
I also admit when I am wrong. This is not one of those occasions. Lieberman lost the primary because not enough Democrats voted for him because not enough Democrats liked his alliance with Bush and the republicans. Kos and MoveOn had little - if anything - to do with it, and if they were bragging, it was false bravado. It takes more than a couple websites to bring down an incumbent senator.
Now quit milking this topic to save face.
Kos and MoveOn had little - if anything - to do with it, and if they were bragging, it was false bravado.
An awful lot of false bravado was displayed, but I guess you know more than they do. Do people show up by the thousands at your annual convention Neon, or is that just a Kos kind of thing?
According to you, your fellow lefties are lying when they claim to have forced Lieberman to run as an inde. Interesting.
Lieberman lost the primary because not enough Democrats voted for him because not enough Democrats liked his alliance with Bush and the republicans.
While I'm stunned that you can't grasp this, that's precisely what I mean by Lieberman being forced to leave the party.
Many liberals are so incredibly closed-minded that when even a lifelong Democrat dissents on one issue, a Democrat for whom people like you voted along with Gore in 2000, he is no longer worthy of the left's support.
You're right. He got to close to Bush by agreeing on the war. This one issue is enough to doom him with closed-minded liberals.
Glad we agree on that.
Many liberals are so incredibly closed-minded that when even a lifelong Democrat dissents on one issue, a Democrat for whom people like you voted along with Gore in 2000, he is no longer worthy of the left's support.
Sure. And which ONE issue would that be?
When he joined forces with Lynne Cheney to attack academics for being "un-American" if they questioned the Bush administration?
When he allied with Christian fundamentalists in making an assault on the separation of religion and state?
Or is it because on foreign policy issues, Lieberman is a Neoconservative, and supports the Iraq project for the same reasons that Douglas Feith and Paul Wolfowitz did?
Maybe that ONE issue was when, after visiting Iraq in '06, he said " "The country is now in reach of going from Saddam Hussein to self-government and, I'd add, self-protection, That would be a remarkable transformation ... I saw real progress there." saying at the same time that he foresaw the troops heading home near the end of the year, or early '07.
Pick one. According to you, democrats did, and ignored the others. I have a personal leaning toward the last one, where he showed he was either willing to lie for Bushco, or just plain ignorant.
as your normal smug pseudo-intellectual persona
These are the posts that make me want to keep showing up.
You're just not bright enough to know how insecure you really are.
The left has no problem when "Heather Has Two Mommies" is used in public schools supplied by our tax dollars, but when someone sells a book a few paranoid lefties don't like in a free market economy, it's just despicable.
Who the heck made you an expert on what "the left" thinks about anything? FYI, pal, we liberals don't all march in lockstep like the sniveling cowards who have allowed the neocon thugs to have unchecked and untrammeled power these past six plus years because they're too bloody afraid to challenge anything these murderous cretins have perpetrated. So don't tell me what I think and further try to intimidate my right to speak out by invoking the blessed"free market", which in your mind apparently means that anybody can do anything they damn well please and nobody can say a word about it. And BTW, Rog, in a rhetorical fistfight between you and Tex, you can't even answer the bell for round two.
Considering there are a bunch of righties out there saying we shouldn't be bringing up the past, focus on the present (Newty, Guilli and Johnnie to name a few) their minions are sure working overtime to do just that in the name of "Democracy"!
Great point Snoopy.
They do get great satisfaction, it seems, from telling us to not worry about what happened in the past, don't they?
This is another attempt from the rightwing to claim that this is a fresh look at her questionable past. The only problem with that claim is that in previous looks into her past, at great cost to our nation, nothing out of the ordinary was found.
If what they were going to show us was simply a compliation of all the nonsense from the numbskulls out to get Hillary, and exposed them as the disreputable people they are, I'd have no problem with that. What they do is to give those people more credibility than they deserve. It's like the he said/she said argument I discussed on the stem cell research thread yesterday.
It's okay for journalists to say what differing parties are saying on a subject, but it's not okay for those journalists to give equal weight to all opinions. It's not okay for them to ignore reality and deny their viewing audience the facts. Not all opinions are created equal!
They do get great satisfaction, it seems, from telling us to not worry about what happened in the past, don't they?
People of all political stripes do that and to try and pretend it's a Republican tactic or trait is pretty weak.
I was told only yesterday on this very site that it doesn't matter that Democrat Robert Byrd is the only former KKK maggot in congress, since it happened long ago and he apologized (funny how apologies don't do much for the left when a GOP'er is asked to apologize and does...ask Sen. Lott.)
In 1992 we were told all year that Clinton's dubious draft shenanigans didn't matter since it happened so long ag
Often on this site when someone mentions Hillary's more interesting moments over the years, they're told to get over the 90's and "stop hating" as though it's "hate" when someone merely points out a politician's record.
But the hypocracy comes in when someone goes "gee, he said he was sorry, why doesn't he get a pass?" when that person just the day before said sorry doesn't cut it. (see trent lott)
Trent Lott made a comment supporting Strom Thurmond's failed attempt to become the white supremacist president - contemporaneously. Byrd's KKK membership is ancient history. You aren't going to find a lot of Byrd fans on this site - as you know - but - as you also know - there is a difference. One difference is that Lott still represents the bigots in Mississippi and reluctantly apologized. Lott gave the impression that he'd gladly don his white sheet tomorrow.
Of course, trolls don't really care about distinctions like that when desperately trying to sidetrack the discussion.
Uneasy, I think we've gotta spell it out for him. He don't get that saying "I'm sorry" means nothing if the person saying it doesn't back it up with actions. Byrd does not act like a KKK klansman anymore, therefore his regret after 60 years is believable. Lott? It's clearly just another word to him.
And Hillary doesn't need to say "sorry" because it has been proven over and over again that she did nothing wrong.
Thank you for helping me make my point.
Lott made no reference to segregation or race in his comments , but you assume (pretend) he did so he's evil and was right to apologize. And it didn't matter to the left when he did so. As I said on another thread, even the journalists who were there said he was just being nice to an old man on his birthday and that race played no part in it.
Byrd belonged to the KKK, and it's ok since it happened a long time ago.
Ted Kennedy got Mary Joe Kopechne killed, but it's ok since it happened along time ago...
If you still believe MMore's lies and think Bush was ever awol, relax, it was a loooong time ago.
take an "o" from loooong and add it to Moore's name...better...
why don't you put 10% of the effort you spend on clinton into criticizing our current gigantic failure of a president.
That 10% (plus some) is already being used working Michael Moore's name into every thread.
Why? Do you really want to read my complaints about the farm subsidies, overspending in general, no child left behind, the steel tariffs, the prescription drug bill debacle, the failure to build even the partial fence that was in the last "immigration reform bill", the current disaster of an immigration bill that was mercifully killed temporarily as Reid pretended he had nothing to do with it, lol, etc, all on a site devoted to conservative media bias where none of the people who've replied to me can name even one conservative at the broadcast networks aside from George Will, whom I had to name?
Look around, notice all the conservatives who are livid with the GOP for abandoning conservatism in the name of higher spending, a bigger government and bringing "12 million unauthorized Americans out of the shadows", as Reid pathetically calls these criminals.
I've barely spent 10% of my thread time on the Clintons. Though you might not know it, this isn't the only political site on the net.
I noticed you just flew past my comments about actions speaking louder than words. You are apparently a little more comfortable word parsing than you are debating the root argument.
you might have a little more credibility if you weren't constantly harping on piddling nonsense about the clintons. and all you conservatives supported bush and now you don't want to know the guy.
This site is in part devoted to spinning everything in Hillary's favor almost all the time, as several people agreed on another thread yesterday.
Don't blame me. No, it's ok, blame me. That's easier than admitting I'm right.
This site is not involved in spinning anything for Hillary's betterment.
Many rightwingers are attacking Hillary right now with conservative misinformation. Media Matters debunks that type of misinformation.
You have the cause and effect backwards. It's not that Media Matters started the defense of Hillary out of nothingness! She gets unfairly smeared, and they point that out. She gets attacked a lot, and they point out that disinformation.
Spinning, on the other hand, would be in effect in your comments. Media Matters does nothing but correct the misinformation with facts. Using facts is not spinning. Media Matters provides facts, and lets the readers make conclusions based upon those facts. This is in direct contrast to the closest approximation of an opposite voice in media watchdogs, AIM. AIM tries to claim it diagnoses liberal bias by coming to conclusions about so-called liberal misinformation, and by abusing factual information with their own biases.
http://www.wordspy.com/words/spin.asp
To convey information or cast another person's remarks or actions in a biased or slanted way so as to favorably influence public opinion; information provided in such a fashion.
roger is down to claiming "i'm right because i'm right". he carries on about the clintons over basically nothing, like most of the right wing, and yet the conservatives are the ones that have supported bush, who has messed up everything he's touched. it's collective amnesia now. george w. who?
No he didnt help you make ANY point. Lott said that if Strom had been elected (on his segregationist ticket) we wouldnt be having all these problems now if you are REALLY pretending that has nothing to do with race you are being intellectually dishonest. THAT is why he got slapped down. By the GOP, not by democrats OR liberals his own party.
Lott said that if Strom had been elected (on his segregationist ticket) we wouldnt be having all these problems now
I love the fact you included the your reference to segregation parenthetically. It's almost as though you know Lott didn't mention race, and it had to be inferred by people like you.
Brilliant.
Actually sincere appologies always mean something to me. Especially when backed up by NOT doing it again. I am sure both parties would like to burry past behavior when convienient and bring up the other guys when convienient. However that wasnt my only argument about Lott as opposed to Byrd. Rather Lott went beyond just praising Strom Thurmond he also indirectly praised the segregationist ticket he ran on. Praising someone who was once racist is one thing praising the racism he was praciticing is another thing.
"They do get great satisfaction, it seems, from telling us to not worry about what happened in the past, don't they?"
Interesting how we're not allowed to mention how Saddam and Reagan were buddies...or David Duke...or the Iran Hostage Crisis...or the fact that Bush has caused more deaths than Osama...or this.
http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_07_17/cover.html
I'm happy to discuss David Duke.
Duke = GOP KKK scumbag who never came close to congress and whose career has long been over.
Robert Byrd = Democrat and former KKK scumbag who is senator-for-life in the party that pretends to care about minorities.
Thanks for bringing it up.
OK, how about the connections between St. Ronnie and Saddam?
Your brain can fight it all you want but...
http://www.diosa.net/art-net/RumsfeldHussein.jpg
What about it? We were once more worried about Iran, at which point we were on speaking terms with Saddam.
Joe Kennedy supported Hitler as the US Ambassador to the Court of St. James. Prescott Bush made money with Nazis.
Then Hitler flipped out and many people felt silly for even talking to these lunatics.
Our allies in the world of the "religion of peace" (lol) change all the time. Shifts in geopolitical dynamics are routine. Get used to it before it confuses you again.
http://www.hermes-press.com/BushSaud.htm
Still in your little bubble, Roger? Still think The King Can Do No Wrong?
Dang I wrote that before I knew I was going to be accused of trying to be physic.
Either blows that myth, or I'm about to be accused of fip flopping. the horror, the horror.
Ken Starr spent countless hours investigating the Clinton's and at the end, we got 44 boxes of nothing for about $43000000 . That is about one mil per box and Mr Starr got some free porn to look at.
They cant stop smearing the Clintons.
That's not gonna happen, take a gander at this!
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/06/12/morris-clinton-woman-iraq/#comments
morris is so full of hate he can't even see that he's a sexist pig!
It's no secret that the first woman to be elected prez will have to act slightly tougher than she is on certain policy issues to avoid losing votes from sexist pigs who assume women are weak.
Sorry, obviously it is still a secret to the political neophytes out there.
There once was an activist, Bossie
Who got all his facts from dear Flossie
The cow flatulated
Bossie's writings thus sated
Sold straight to the media posses
Julia my muse:
Bossie acts like a flatulent cow
Who ate his lunch on a garbage scow
He thinks his work has class
Instead he's passing gas
Offending even the barnyard sow.
Blue, at least Bossie is doing his part to alleviate global warming by recycling.
When CBS wanted to create a docudrama about Ronald Reagan, Conservatives were up in arms because in was not accurate.
Then when CBS yanked it, the New York Times said this, "Ronald Reagan's supporters credit him with forcing down the Iron Curtain"..."so it is odd that some of them have helped create the Soviet-style chill embedded in the idea that we, as a nation, will not all critical portrayals of one of our own recent leaders."
Then when ABC created a docudrama about Bill Clinton, the exact same Times said this, "Perhaps the entertainment industry will com eup with a few lasting lessons from the out cry over ABC's 'dramatization' of the events leading to the terrorist attack on 9/11..."One suggestion: when attempting to recreate real events on screen, you do not show real people doing stuff they never did."
This is a pure example of liberal hypocracy. MMFA is no different here.
"Critical portrayal" is not analogous to "false characterization".
Try selecting a different outrage about which to be indignant. That one fell far short of "justifiable".
"In a portion of the script published in The New York Times last month, Reagan was depicted as uncaring and judgmental toward people with AIDS. "They that live in sin shall die in sin," Reagan's character tells his wife as she begs him to help AIDS victims."
[link to www.cnn.com] never happened, the scene and dialogue were fictional.
Solon says in the next post "The ABC documentary MADE THINGS UP and was dishonest."
As this CNN article demonstrates, the CBS docudrama "made things up" as well.
Damn those pesky facts...
http://www.aegis.org/news/wb/2003/WB031106.html
Rightwing trolls who either cannot or will not acknowledge reality.
The letter on 60 Minutes might not have been an original, but it clearly represented actual events according to the secretary who typed a similar letter about Bush.
Reagan's Administration, his voice, clearly said similar things to what was in that docu-drama, and Reagan himself said several similar things.
On the other hand, the events recounted in the 9/11 docu-drama never happened, nor anything like that happened. It was not representative of what happened, or who did what!
From Edmund Morris, Reagan biographer and respected historian, Reagan's own (real) words:
"Maybe the Lord brought down this plague [because] illicit sex is against the Ten Commandments."
The supposed quote from the movie is hardly a mischaracterization. Damn those pesky facts, indeed.
I saw that Raygun movie. It portrayed him overall in a pretty good light but it wasnt suffiently hagiographic and worshipful of him. The ABC documentary MADE THINGS UP and was dishonest. Conservatives didnt even make that claim about the Raygun movie. That is a pretty big difference
Conservatives were not up in arms because the Reagan docudrama was inaccurate.
They were unhappy because it was accurate, and that accuracy was painful to have exposed!
CopiosDB: I would be grateful if you could rewrite the end of your 2nd paragraph. To quote my favorite marxist, Groucho. Someone run out and find a four year old. I can't make heads nor trails out of this!
Ah, educating the next generation.
IMPORTANT FACT # 1: Bossie hopes to instruct "a new generation of voters who don't remember the old Clinton wars."
The "OLD CLINTON WARS" ... not limited to Whitewater, Travel Office, Flowers, Chinese Contributions, Arlington Cemetery, Paula Jones, FBI Files, "vandalism" upon leaving office ... were all battles in the war, and the GOP, along with Bossie, LOST EVERY SINGLE BATTLE.
So, what we have here, is a FAILED "warrior", a loser, a man who fled from the field of battle with tail between legs, a bitter and devious man who couldn't even win by cheating, lying, and smearing ... writing about WHAT HE KNOWS. All he knows how to do is LOSE.
Will LOSERS line up to read what another LOSER has to say? Will he detail all the mistakes, errors, and boneheaded judgments he made over the years to be an UTTER FAILURE at his every attempt? Will he make excuses for strike-outs at every at bat, along the lines of "the sun got in my eyes", or "I wasn't ready", or some other whiney baby excuse? Might be instuctive after all ...
Hard to answer that one, Tex!
For one, can you name a righty who learns from the past? That requires reading "history".
On the other hand, we know they buy this stuff in bulk and lap it up.
So the real question is, how do you read and not read?
Actually, MY question is:
Since we're talking about Bossie here, shouldn't the phrase in Tex's 4th paragraph be "UDDER FAILURE"?...
....
I apologize for that one, and will attend 2 sermons this Sunday. Please, forgive me.
I can't say anything as tails became trails for me on my last. Ugh.
Roger Ramjet, have you read "Heather Has Two Mommies"?
No, he's too busy making out with Penelope Pitstop over on the railroad tracks.
Yes I read it years ago.
Oddly, it really turned me on.
I guess H.R.Clinton will need to bring Syd Blumenthal back on board to write the movie script for "The Clinton Wars" to release right after this slime job. While her connections to K street and the personnel she's brought on board to guide her campaign (see Sirota's blog site for in depth treatment) will preclude my vote, I wish the world would be seeing her genuine warts, along with her undeniable virtues, and not the mockumentary slam like the Swiftoboat garbage.