Letters to the Editor
Elephantman
Published Letters: 1312 Editor's Choice: 15
-
ThinkProgress.org on Lott...
[Read the article: Tell us again why you're retiring, Senator]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm not so sure how "closely" it is that ThinkProgress.org is following the Trent Lott-resignation story, but it's last word so far on the topic seems to be this:
Breaux ‘would love’ to have Lott lobby with him.
Yesterday, ThinkProgress noted former Sen. John Breaux (D-LA) was leaving his current position at lobbying powerhouse Patton Boggs to open up his own lobbying shop. The move fueled speculation that Breaux and his good friend, retiring Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS), may be going into business together, which may have been one of the motivations for Lott’s early retirement. Speaking to The New York Times today, Breaux confirmed that he is “going to open up” his “own shop” and that he “would love to have Trent involved.”
Let's make this much clear; Patton Boggs specializes in Democrat Party relations and lobbying. Mr. Boggs is the son of Lousiana Democrats Hale and Lindy Boggs and is the brother of NPR's Cokie (Boggs) Roberts. John Breaux is a Louisiana Democrat.
If it turns out that the worst of Trent Lott's indiscretions is that he bailed early on his Senate term in order to get a one-year head start on becoming a lobbyist, he'll be lucky. Because his brother-in-law, the Democrat-supporting trial lawyer Dickie Scruggs is looking at an indictment and a long federal prison term. These matters don't worry Republicans; most Republicans are gleeful about it. There's not a hint of a Republican Party role in any of this. See yesterday's WSJ Editorial.
-
Larry Craig -- Hillary Clinton
[Read the article: More men claim sex with Craig]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Both are U.S. Senators. Both are rumored to be bisexual. Both are adamantly closeted, if they are bisexual. Both supported the Defense of Marriage Act, which apparently is the one of the touchstones that makes private sexual activity relevant. On the "closeted hypocrite" theory. (It isn't relevant, apparently, for Tammy Baldwin or Barney Frank, since they don't have the stain of hypocrisy; they are openly gay and they openly and consistently support the generalized gay legislative agenda.)
So what's the difference between Senators Craig and Clinton, other than party affiliation?
-
No apologies to Hillary, and none to Salon, either.
[Read the article: More men claim sex with Craig]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]There is this, for those who want to do more research on their own:
http://www.lukeford.net/Images/photos4/huma6.htm
But the point is not so much to compare the quality of Craig stories versus Hillary stories. My point is to compare the morality and the utility of the two inquiries.
Do the Salon readers think that it is okay to investigate homosexual tendencies because homosexuality is inherently evil and corrupt? Probably not.
The usual trope is that it is okay to, uh, probe those issues because, they say, there is a public policy element if public officials who oppose gay rights legislation are themselves gay or bisexual.
When it comes to Hillary, she may have a better record of gay-rights support than Larry Craig, but not a perfect record by any means. DOMA is arguably the most significant piece of federal legislation on national gay rights between 1994 and 2006. Bill Clinton signed it into law. Hillary stands behind that decision. Hillary opposes the normalization of homosexual marriage now.
So why does she now get a pass, other than that she is a Democrat, and Democrats want to use these kinds of issues for their advantage, and want to plead "offense" if it is used against them.
Let's assume, arguendo, that the allegations about Hillary Clinton's bisexuality are not supported as clearly as say, a Larry Craig bathroom arrest. That certainly didn't stop the bloggers and reporters from investigating Craig for months prior to his arrest. And no one said the investigation of Larry Craig was a moral offense.
And now that Larry Craig is old news, here we have Tim Grieve having a bit more fun with the story just for the hell of it. I honestly don't care if Tim Grieve does that. The Idaho Senate seat will be Republican while Craig remains, and it will be Republican when he is finally gone. I'd probably do the same whit the story if I were Tim Grieve, but I don't think I could pretend that it was about anything other than the perpetual election campaign.
Here's what offends me: I am just not going to have any of the phony "outrage" bloviated by people like David Remnick in The New Yorker over the supposed monstrosity of anyone's breathing a word about the Hillary rumors.
Hell, I didn't make any of this up, and neither did the editors of The Weekly Standard, The Wall Street Journal or The National Review. It was Gennifer Flowers who, to the best of my limited knwoledge, wrote about it in one of her books, saying that her lover Bill told her that Hillary had "eaten more p---y than I did." And if you want to pick sides in a he said/she said fight about pillow talk between Bill Clinton and Gennifer Flowers, I think Gennifer Flowers is a three-touchdown favorite.
-
Me? Hillary-obsessed? I think not.
[Read the article: More men claim sex with Craig]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]For the record, I think Hillary would be (barring an incident like "Brokeback Airport" or Lewinskygate) the Democrats' best candidate. She's a lot more palatable to me than Edwards or Obama. I probably have better regard for Hillary than a lot of the far-left ideologues at Salon. And, I think she's a lot more likely to win a general than Edwards. Obama's a joke.
Now I didn't bring up this scandalmongering; Tim Grieve did. You all seem to have a rather imaginitive bunch of theories, however undounded, about the general predilictions of Republicans. And you take offense at the mildest of observations about Senator Clinton?