Untraining Pavlov’s dog *UPDATED*

Was I the only one who found it hysterically funny that Nancy Pelosi, after building a political career on the cult of victimhood — especially women’s victimhood — is now snapping at all those well-trained victimized women to give it up and get with the program?

“I think that women, we have to get away from the politics of victim. This is about you go out there and you fight,” she said. “I think that what Hillary Clinton did was tremendous for the country. She has kicked open many doors, which now we have to bring many more women through, millions more women through. My being speaker of the House was breaking the marble ceiling in Congress, which is hard. Sen. Clinton [had] a bigger challenge to run for president of the United States. What we have to do now is say, we have to translate that not just for individuals, but for all women.”

It’s nice to see the victim concept step out from behind the curtain.  As you and I have long realized, it has nothing to do with ones actual status, and everything to do with where one stands vis-a-vis the Democratic Party and its goals.

(As a by the way, I’ve been reading a delightful book about Einstein, and I’ve learned a lot of about the theory of relativity.  I can assure you, therefore, that when Einstein talked about relativity, he wasn’t contemplating whether the Democratic Party thought you were for it or against it.)

On the same trained dog theory, is it any surprise that Barack Obama, running for President of this land, is trying to terrorize TV stations into pulling an ad reminding people of his close ties to a terrorist?  When you’re a Leftist, you never fight ideas with ideas (or with truth), you just bring in the big guns.  Of course, given that the truth, for Obama, can only hurt him, it’s probably not surprising that he’s opting for bullying and threats in the face of a very damaging ad.

Here’s one more piece of food for thought about that Ayers ad.  The same news article that describes Obama’s bullying tactics contains this line:  “Obama has denounced Ayers’ past activities.”  All well and good, but please note that Ayers himself has never apologized or expressed remorse.  To the contrary:  He’s proud of what he did, wishes he’d done more, and believes that the “in-America” terrorist fight should continue.  Given that Ayers is unrepentent, who cares that Obama has “denounced” the acts he committed in the 1960s?  What matters is that Obama is completely comfortable with someone who continues to hold radical, violent anti-American views.  Again, sometimes you just can’t untrain Pavlov’s dog.

UPDATE:  I knew I’d seen the Ayers ad somewhere, but couldn’t find it.  Power Line has a copy running, though, so here it is.  So far as I know, there is nothing in that ad that is untrue.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • suek
  • BrianE

    Media bias? What media bias!

    Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist
    While the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal is conservative, the newspaper’s news pages are liberal, even more liberal than The New York Times. The Drudge Report may have a right-wing reputation, but it leans left. Coverage by public television and radio is conservative compared to the rest of the mainstream media. Meanwhile, almost all major media outlets tilt to the left.

    These are just a few of the surprising findings from a UCLA-led study, which is believed to be the first successful attempt at objectively quantifying bias in a range of media outlets and ranking them accordingly.

    http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx

  • dg

    BrianE, thanks for that link. Do you have the one to the original report, so I can see the methodology. It is similar to the Hoover Institute findings I referenced. I don’t know which sane, intelligent person thinks the MSM is unbiased, but I know a lot of Republicans that think that the non-MSM, which they call Fox, talk-radio and their favorite blogs, are unbiased. The data you include in the link on Fox, the WSJ editorial page, and the Washington Times cast doubt on that.

  • dg

    BrianE, actually, Bookworm’s original argument must stand on its merits (which it doesn’t), rather than be propped up by the fake authority of Goldberg. I believe that was the original argument near the beginning of this thread. BTW, Goldberg’s thesis doesn’t really stand either, as his “fake scholarly” thesis linking of fascism to the modern Progressive movement is simultaneously not novel and inaccurate. So it’s really annoying to see conservatives thoughtlessly recite it so frequently.

  • Danny Lemieux

    Dg, your obsession with academic credentials is truly astounding, especially given how we Americans live in a meritocracy where people are judged by the content of their works rather than their academic pedigrees. I also truly question that you have actually read Goldberg’s book.

    You aren’t European by any chance, are you?

  • http://bookwormroom.com Bookworm

    Couple of things, dg, before you get too smug. First, I never deviated from my original point. I don’t care about Communist, Nazi, Begin or whatever. I just note that Ayers is a despicable swine who wanted to kill his fellow Americans, and whose methods succeeded in doing so; and whose wife celebrated the brutal slaughter of innocent people (a fact that Goldberg points out). I note also that he and his wife still think their original acts and the ideas that gave birth to those acts are just hunky dory. Lastly, I note that one has to question Obama’s judgment in freely associating with these people and in trying to pretend that, despite their lack of remorse, their acts are in the past. I don’t usually hang around with people who seek out and celebrate the slaughter of their fellow citizens. Obama’s decision to do so is, well, questionable.

    Also, I dropped out of this thread because I got bored with your approach, which I see on a daily basis in my professional life: drag in irrelevant details, set up strawmen, and then knock them down. I also see a lot of attacks on the source, even when the facts are impeccable. Thus, you may not like Goldberg, but Dohrn’s own words convict her of a striking lack of humanity.

    These tactics are intellectually weak. You’re obviously a really bright, well-informed person, so you shouldn’t cheapen yourself this way, nor should you boast about it afterwards.

  • dg

    Suek, do you really not know what I am trying to say? Let’s try this a different way… The Ayers thing is a fake controversy to call into question the “judgment” of a candidate whose record is too short to pick at real votes made or policies championed. It is a tactic that the GOP uses when their candidate has a long record with lots to attack, not to mention an easy link to a sitting President with epic unapproval ratings. The Ayers relationship would not come up in a normal job interview for, say, the CEO of a Fortune 500 company, the head of air traffic control at LAX or the principal of the public school in your local community. Obama had a relationship with Ayers the lies somewhere between an arms’ length business relationship to a friendly co-worker type of relationship. I don’t know the details because the Republicans exaggerate the link and the Democrats minimize it. Either way, it doesn’t mean that Obama is suddenly less wrong in criticizing the launch of the War in Iraq, in drawing attention to serious economic problems at home, or any other parts of his campaign and agenda. That Obama wants to change the topic when the Republicans want to embarrass him is not surprising for a politician. But it doesn’t make him a liar in the same league as past presidents: “I am not a crook…” or “I did not have sex with that woman…” or “Read my lips…” or “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”

    The Republicans want you to think he protests too much, which is why they keep talking about the issue. We’ve talked more about the scary relationship between Ayer and Obama than the far more pernicious one between the Bush Administration and Chalabi–the guy who lied about whether Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, causing us to embark upon an unnecessary war and a foreign policy disaster. According to Google, the media (MSM and otherwise) has as well, about 4x as much. Pretty silly. But keep saying it’s important. Maybe we can make another major policy mistake because the voters are not informed on the real issues but distracted.

    I’ll take a look at Malkin’s piece, with my nose held. I stopped taking her seriously when I saw this on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mPkOberRCo. Methinks the lady doth pom-pom too much… And that was, in case you missed it, an ad hominem argument.

  • BrianE

    The Ayers thing is a fake controversy to call into question the “judgment” of a candidate whose record is too short to pick at real votes made or policies championed.

    Opinion.

    I don’t know the details

    Uninformed opinion even.

    But it doesn’t make him a liar in the same league as past presidents

    How do you know, since you don’t know the details.

  • dg

    Bookworm, I will concede that bringing up Begin or other associations is irrelevant when you show me why, when you show me it is distracting from rather than enlightening of the issue. Otherwise, it isn’t changing the subject at all. I don’t believe–nor do you, in all likelihood–that Carter showed bad judgment associating with a former terrorist (Begin himself called the tactics used terrorism), so why does Obama show bad judgment having an association, that I consider less consequential, with Ayer. I am not changing the subject but highlighting the lack of relevance. The Camp David Accords are widely praised, and nothing in Obama’s history suggest he lacks the judgment for similar deeds.

    Also, you characterize my argumentation as similar to your colleagues. Based upon your writing style, I would guess you are a lawyer. If so, you’d be wrong to paint me with the same brush. Lawyers specialize in using words and rhetorical phrases to hide logical fallacies (“playing fast and loose with the language…”), while those of us who are numerate (of which, sadly, only a few lawyers can count themselves a part) can use math and stats to avoid logical fallacies. Sometimes that means changing the subject, since the subject is totally devoid of importance. For example, I once saw a 60 minutes journalist (they also are usually innumerate) ask the CEO of Ford why he didn’t do more personally to avoid the problem with F-150 trucks flipping over, to which the CEO laid out a bunch of statistics showing no significant issues, highlighted the tens of thousands of complaint letters the company reads that he cannot personally screen, and left the journalist grasping at straws. This journalist was focused on an irelevant issue (how many complaint letters the CEO reads) rather than an important one–does the truck actually flip over more frequently. While my questions may have been inartful, I am trying to establish why an association that doesn’t disqualify Obama for other very important jobs (CEO, air traffic control, security of nuclear plant, principal of your kids’ school) should call into question his ability to lead the country. Now, I know that people want to like their President, but to me the threshold questions should deal with issues. And we are not even talking about them (see my quantification of Google hits for Chalabi-Bush versus Ayer-Obama). If I am changing the channel, it is from the Cartoon Network to the Discovery (of the facts and relevance) Channel. Not a bad decision for parents of young kids, and not a bad decision for us voters.

    Sorry for the length, but I wanted to add that I actually do not dislike Goldberg, especially after he attacked Fox News for shoddy journalism and Ann Coulter for being extraordinarily insensitive. But he is an amateur historian and not the authority that people want to hold him up as.

  • dg

    BrianE, you are asking me to prove it is not a controversy. How do I prove a negative? You can continue to make up some other speculation on what he’s hiding because he’s silent. Do you not see that? That’s why the critics need to come forth with proof that he has bad judgment or stop talking about what unsaid, unproven connection says about a guy who otherwise should be scrutinized on the issues.

  • Ymarsakar

    Also, I dropped out of this thread because I got bored with your approach, which I see on a daily basis in my professional life: drag in irrelevant details, set up strawmen, and then knock them down.

    Would it surprise you to know that dg finds my deductive approach utilizing philosophical axioms from which all else may be derived or checked, incomprehensible?

  • Ymarsakar

    Dg simply prefers arguments to authority in the logical fallacies archive he utilizes.

  • Ymarsakar

    Do you draw any lines regarding the quality of people with whom you associate directly or do you draw any conclusions about what those associations might say about you?

    dg draws lines of right or wrong based upon his personal preferences. Essentially, if it makes you comfortable, it is correct. Everybody’s comfort level is different. Yours, Book, is different from Obama’s.

  • Ymarsakar

    rianE, you are asking me to prove it is not a controversy. How do I prove a negative?

    When you claim something is true in your argument, as you did with Ayers, you are supposed to prove what you claim.

    Btw, many things are legal but are ethically wrong at the same time.

  • dg

    Ymarsakar, don’t kid yourself. I find everything you write incomprehensible. I believe you are a well-meaning person and an ethical person. But I have trouble understanding where you are coming from, and I am pretty certain you haven’t got me figured out yet either.

  • dg

    Ymarsakar, one other thing. Rigorous math proofs take a couple of pages. Words are less concise. So if you think we are going to have a rational discussion with you taking snippets out of context and adding your own half-liners, I’m going to have to cut it short…

  • Danny Lemieux

    Hi DG,

    So, I asked if you are EUropean (no response).

    I note your obsession with academic credentials (no response).

    Are you a European academic? Just curious, is all.

    Here’s a good quote that highlights that of which I speak…”But he is an amateur historian and not the authority that people want to hold him up as.”

    Hmmm…let me look at my bookcase of other amateur historians…William Shirer /journalist (Rise and Fall of the Third Reich), Edward Gibbon /Parliamentarian (History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire), Friedrich von Hayek/economist (Road to Serfdom), Toqueville /government functionary and sociologist (Democracy in American); Theodore Roosevelt /lawyer and politician (Naval War of 1812)

    (sigh) Oh well, I suppose I should relegate these amateurish tomes to the dustbin. They weren’t written by accredited scholars. Worthless rubbish, apparently.

    Book is right, you know…you do put up straw men. Here’s a good example in your recent post regarding Obama and Ayers…”But it doesn’t make him a liar in the same league as past presidents: “I am not a crook…” or “I did not have sex with that woman…” or “Read my lips…” or “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”

    I would have thought that the recent removal of 500 tons of yellow cake from Bagdad would have put that canard to rest. Even the notoriously Liberal/Left MSNBC put that to rest long ago http://www.factcheck.org/bushs_16_words_on_iraq_uranium.html.

    If you want more background…try, http://www.factcheck.org/bushs_16_words_on_iraq_uranium.html

    Then again, you aren’t relying on amateur historian Joseph Wilson for you info on this, are you?

    Do you believe in plastic turkeys as well (two can play at this game)?

    Straw man, knock down.

  • dg

    Danny, first thanks for that link to Annenberg. It is really, really good. I will use it as my new fact check source. Reluctantly, I will concede that Bush was merely wrong rather than lying about the yellow cake. I have that story wrong, so thanks for setting me straight.

    Still, all politicians lie. And Bush appears to have lied, in all likelihood, in other claims in the run up to the war (e.g., http://www.factcheck.org/misstatement_of_the_union.html or http://www.factcheck.org/iraq_what_did_congress_know_and_when.html), so I don’t think you can vindicate, much less sanctify, the man just yet on this major foreign policy decision. Also, you said the yellow cake found in Iraq proves the story, but your own fact check source actually says otherwise: http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/was_it_recently_revealed_that_the_us.html.

    I would disagree that I have set up a straw man. The point is that if a Presidential candidate wears briefs and answer boxers when MTV asks, this is less significant than when the President says, just ahead of a vote to authorize the war, that he knows that Al Qaeda trained in Iraq and ten-month old intelligence says otherwise. Clearly, Obama’s “association” with Ayer is a bigger indictment on his judgment than boxers-vs-briefs but far less than misleading the public about pre-war intelligence. I also have tried to illustrate this point by showing that lots of top lawyers had no trouble associating with Dohrn, nor did respectable companies that used that law firm. I also tried to illustrate the point by showing that an association with someone like Ayer would not even come up in an interview for important or sensitive jobs. Why don’t you respond to any of these, before dismissing my point as merely a “straw man?”

    On the historians, there is much I do not know about the famous writers you cite, but I do know that Hayek was a professionally trained economist and thus an expert on political economy. Also, de Tocqueville couldn’t have been a professor of political science, because he is credited with inventing the field (he is in the same league as Max Weber and Emile Durkheim). Shirer was the only American in Austria during the anschluss, and covered Germany for the entire war–so he was an expert in the history because he observed it first-hand. Gibbon was a member of the Royal Academy, so his contact with professional historians was likely frequent, as was his scholarly publishing. And I wouldn’t put Teddy’s work in the same league, no offense to the old rough rider, although maybe The Winning of the West qualifies. The other point I would make is that you are comparing mostly writers from nearly a century ago or more when PhD’s were few and merely graduating from Oxford or Harvard qualified. It’s a little different today. Most importantly, I would remind you that what I said was that it is very rare for someone, especially today, who is working entirely outside of the academy to come up with a powerful new theory or insight. I didn’t say it was impossible. Also, those books are not rubbish. I’ve read Democracy in America and consider it the most important description of America this side of the Federalist Papers.

    By the way, you didn’t ask but perhaps the leading American authority on fascism is Charles C. Maier. And he, not Goldberg, was one of the first to observe that FDR and other progressives admitted to admiring and borrowing ideas from the Italian fascists, who themselves were influenced by Antonio Gramsci, who was a Communist. Like Gramsci’s version of Communism, which was less radical than Lenin’s, Italian fascism is less radical than German Nazism–actually, many scholars (including Maier) have argued that they are entirely different. So Goldberg did not break new ground but merely popularized what academics have known for years. The problem with Goldberg’s book is that this warmed-over insight, that Italian fascism is not a horrific totalitarian ideology and more like a benign Socialist third way between Communism and laissez-faire capitalism, is then perverted back into a negative moniker to hang around the neck of liberals in the 70s, 80s and 90s. No respectable historian would attempt to tie Carter, Clinton or Kerry to Antonio Gramsci or Ugo Spirito. Also, Goldberg ignores the very different sources of fascism and Nazism that are the subject of ongoing debate; rather, his initial attempt to develop a clear, scholarly definition turns into political stereotypes. That is my view anyway, although there are professional book reviewers who agree. Interestingly, Charlie Maier and other specialists in the field have never reviewed much less endorsed his book. But for some reason, conservatives on this blog cite it as though it were the Good Book. I wonder why.

    BTW, whether I am European or not is really irrelevant.

    Sorry for the length of the post. You raised very good points throughout your last post. Thanks for that.

  • suek

    My comment consisted of 61 words. It included 6 questions.

    Your reply consisted of 417 words and included not a single answer to my questions, which could have been answered with yes or no.

    I’ll say this for you, though…you sure must be a fast typist.

  • suek

    Here’s more info on the Ayers/Obama link. Very long article – full of links to other sources.

    http://globallabor.blogspot.com/2008/04/who-sent-obama.html

  • dg

    Suek, and you are a fast counter…

    I’ll try and spell it out for you.

    “What are you trying to say here?”

    see response above

    “Obama was not associated in any way with Ayers?”

    obviously he was. it’s a matter of public record. whether this association rises to the level of “friend” or “good friend” is a matter of debate.

    “Even if he was, it doesn’t matter?”

    it doesn’t matter very much and has little value in predicting what Obama’s judgment will be on policy matters. I’ve tried to explain above why this is the case. You can find it uncompelling but should at least try to say why rather than faulting me for a word count.

    “Obama is not a communist?”

    are you seriously asking this? of course not.

    “All of the above?”

    see above

    “Anyway…if one or two, why has he lied about the extent of his relationship? to what end?”

    because he is a politician and all politicians lie. he needs to because people use it as fodder to attack, which is fine. but the quality of the President we get is a function of the quality of the debate we have. this issue is less important than substantive discussions around issues. the GOP wants to have this debate rather than the issues debate, perhaps because they think they lose on the issues.

    “And why _this_:

    http://michellemalkin.com/2008/08/27/document-drop-turning-the-tables-again-on-obamas-speech-squelching-thugs/

    Did you see my Youtube link on her? She looks great in a cheerleading outfit. When I see her I don’t hear words but just watch her mouth move. When I read her stuff, I understand the other reason why I don’t hear words…

    “Methinks he doth protest too much. Smoke/fire etc.”

    McCain and his staff protested a lot about his alleged affair with Vicki Iseman… I guess he’s hiding something too, to follow your logic.

  • dg

    And here’s a link to the Iseman association: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/20/john-mccain-affair-links_n_87690.html

    Remember, your party impeached a President over an affair and subsequent lies to cover it up. An impeachable offense should be a candidate’s disqualification.

  • dg

    And whenever you want to talk about real issues, let me know.

  • suek

    >>And whenever you want to talk about real issues, let me know.>>

    I’m always interested in real issues – and if you were the last person left on the internet, I wouldn’t choose you to discuss them with.

    Whether you’re mark, greg, or dg.

  • dg

    Suek, I’m not sure you know what they are…

  • http://bookwormroom.com Bookworm

    Now, now, children. Play nicely. Although I do agree that dg and suek are at an impasse, which definitely leads to frustration.

  • dg

    Bookworm, can you point me to your posts that have the most substantive take on the issues you think most important in this campaign? It’s hard to know where they are. Where do I find the critique of Obama and McCain’s energy policies, tax policies, immigration, trade policies, foreign policies, legal philosophies, etc.? Obama, as you point out, has a light-weight record to flesh these out–where do I find your fill-in-the-gaps kind of postings? McCain, as should be pointed out, has changed his views recently to accomodate his part–where do I find the which-is-the-real-McCain discussions? Maybe Suek and I can act like adults on those pages…

  • Danny Lemieux

    DG – good response to my post, by the way, and we agree to disagree.

    Three quick points:

    1) I don’t think that you have read Goldberg’s book. He clearly makes exactly the point that you do – America’s brand of fascism (the Progressive movement) was/is very different than that of Europe or Russia (after all, he gives it a smiley face) – at both the beginning and the end of the book. His book is also exceptionally well researched, referenced and footnoted. Read it…then judge it.

    2) For the record, Clinton was impeached for perjuring himself in front of a grand jury (a Federal crime) over a case involving sexual harassment – not for Whitewater, not for enjoying oral sex with Monica Lewinsky.

    3) My question to your about being EUropean is that I am half European (born and raised there) and I recognize that there is a vast gulf between how (most) Europeans and Americans view the world and express opinions about it.

  • dg

    Danny, thanks for the post. Three quick reponses:

    1. I have read the book and see a slow transition in connotation around fascism from positive early in the book to negative later in the book. I don’t have the book with me to give you specific quotes, however. We can agree to disagree on Goldberg, you might have to admit that those that quote the book frequently rely upon the negative connotation of fascism (in the post Nazi era) to attack liberals that Goldberg has linked. I also think that despite the research and references his link between Carter, Clinton and Kerry with Italian fascist thinkers is tenuous.

    2. For the record, Clinton would not have been in front of that Grand Jury if the GOP had not started a wild goose chase over this sexual daliances, a strategy eerily similar to the charges of a cover-up regarding Obama’s associations with unconvicted terrorists.

    3. Consider us kindred spirits, although my views would be more aligned with the old continent and less aligned with the US, while yours appear to be the opposite. N’est pas?

  • suek

    >>Maybe Suek and I can act like adults on those pages…>>

    And if all else fails, insult the blog owner.

    Wow. Unbelievable.

  • Danny Lemieux

    DG –

    One more reply:

    #1. You and I had very different takes on Goldberg’s book. We are arguing past each other.

    #2. The whole thing did not begin with Clinton’s sexual dalliances but with the Whitewater investigation, which resulted in 14 convictions, including of Arkansas’s sitting governor and many of Clinton’s closest friends and associates. One of the convicts went to jail in order NOT to testify on the Clinton’s role. This issue brings us back full circle to the beginning of our posts, which had to do with character, reputation and the taint of bad associations. All the sexual stuff came much later and, if you read David Schipper’s (House Impeachment Counsel and Cook County Democrat) book on the subject, Clinton got a pass on the impeachment because Senate Republicans (led by Trent Lott) refused to review the evidence against him, including an FBI report on the rape of Juanita Broderick.

    #3. C’est exact. I devote considerable time advocating to Americans why we should never, never want to be like Europe. Why that might be will have to await another post.

  • Danny Lemieux

    Ooops! I didn’t mean “advocating”. I meant “warning”.

  • dg

    Suek, I didn’t insult Bookworm. Only you. I really would like to have a substantive discussion on the issues wherever she has set it up. Your understanding of the English language rivals your logical reasoning skills–and that’s not a good thing (in case you didn’t follow either of mine).

  • dg

    Danny,

    1. I agree.

    2. I kind of agree. And I think the Clintons are crooked. Still, the fact remains that he was impeached for lying about something totally unrelated to Whitewater, and all of the criminal investigations stopped when the Clintons left office. Now I ask you, what does that show? That the GOP was out for justice or merely playing politics?

    3. I kind of agree. I think Charles de Gaul said it best, when he remarked that America is the daughter of Europe but that she stopped living in its house long ago. I think America should not want to be like Europe; however, I also think that Europe should not want to be like the US, and there should be mutual respect of and a willingness to learn from one another.

  • Danny Lemieux

    I think that we are edging toward common ground, dg.

    #2 – I blame Republican Senators’ cowardice and lack of principles, which sadly is still much in effect today (please don’t interpret this as an endorsement of the Senate Democrats, which I consider much, much worse). Personally, I would have preferred that criminal investigations into other issues had gone on, such as into the nature of the relationship between Clinton and the Chinese, but that will have to be left to historians. The country was understandably tired of it all.

    #3. – I think that we agree on this one as well.

    Let me, for once, throw you some bipartisan meat to chew on…

    if you want to know what truly does outrage me about both Republicans AND Democrats is how past-Presidents (or ANY past Cabinet official or elected senator or representative) should be permitted to collect massive speaking “fees” (post hoc bribes is more like it) from foreign entities once they leave office. I hold both Bush I and Clinton in contempt for their speeches in Saudi Arabia and Dubai once they left office.

  • dg

    on #3, I am not sure. I think Presidents should be allowed to collect whatever the market bears, quite honestly, provided they aren’t in a position to take real bribes–so Bush senior perhaps should not be collecting fees while his son is President, but after 2008 I think it’s ok. Everyone from soldiers to celebrities to former White House aids sell books, so why should the President be less entitled?

    I have more of a problem with the Presidential libraries and the outrageous fundraising for them, since that fundraising occurs while they are still in office.

  • Danny Lemieux

    Because, DG, the way it works (as we in Chicagoland /Illinois well recognize), you can’t take a bribe while you are in office but there is nothing to stop someone paying you for favors rendered AFTER you leave office on the pretext of a speech or book advance that has no bearing on its worth in the marketplace.

  • suek

    >>Suek, I didn’t insult Bookworm. Only you. I really would like to have a substantive discussion on the issues wherever she has set it up.>>

    You seriously did not intend the following as an insult?

    >>Bookworm, can you point me to your posts that have the most substantive take on the issues you think most important in this campaign? It’s hard to know where they are. Where do I find the critique of Obama and McCain’s energy policies, tax policies, immigration, trade policies, foreign policies, legal philosophies, etc.? Obama, as you point out, has a light-weight record to flesh these out–where do I find your fill-in-the-gaps kind of postings? McCain, as should be pointed out, has changed his views recently to accomodate his part–where do I find the which-is-the-real-McCain discussions?>>

  • suek

    >>2. For the record, Clinton would not have been in front of that Grand Jury if the GOP had not started a wild goose chase over this sexual daliances,>>

    Actually, Clinton was sued for sexual harrassment in civil court, and it was his perjurious testimony in that suit that started the whole impeachment thing. If he had just settled with Paula Jones, the whole thing would have gone away.

  • dg

    Suek, who paid the legal bills and goaded the plaintiff into that lawsuit years after it occurred? Mellon Scaife, a well-to-do Pittsburgh family that notoriously attacked Clinton as soon as he was elected President. This is the wild goose chase I talked about. If Scaife cared about the harrassment, he could have funded it shortly after it occurred and BEFORE Clinton became President. And why did the plaintiff wait years to file it and, apparently, only after being paid (bribed?) by Scaife and other GOP operatives? And why did all the investigations and lawsuits suddenly end when he left office? Either you are naive or take me for a fool. This was a political hit job from start to finish.

  • dg

    Suek, it was seriously not an insult. I’d like to know where I can find the post in which we can have a civil discussion on energy. I’ve already had a good one with Earl on abortion and another with Danny Lemieux on a variety of topics, including Goldberg’s book, Whitewater among others. I look forward to discussing energy policy (e.g., how offshore drilling closes a 15m barrel per day gap), economic policy (e.g.., whether the American dream is really in danger), foreign policy (e.g., how to resurrect the Bush failed diplomacy with Russia). There are lots of important discussions to have, but I don’t know where to initiate them. I am hoping Bookworm can do it.

    Just because you can’t past guilt-by-association and ad hominem arguments to deal with more substantive issues does not mean other conservatives on this site cannot. I am hoping that Bookworm has, can or will open up those discussions.