So Billy-boy Clinton is pissed that he is not gonna be allowed to speak at Ronald Reagan's funeral. Can you imagine why Ronald Reagan, who was a great president and an honorable man would want a mediocre president like Clinton tarnishing his memory?
I mean I wouldn't want a draft dodging, coke snorting, philandering, sexual harrassing rapist speaking at my funeral.
I especially wouldn't want someone who fired White House employees and then sicced the FBI on them.
Or sold missile technology to the Chinese for illegal campaign contributions.
Or accumulated one thousand FBI files on political opponents.
Or politicized the IRS and had them go after his enemies with audits.
Or sold pardons right before he left the White House.
Or rented out the Lincoln bedroom for campaign contributions.
I certainly wouldn't want someone who bit his lip and promised to do sumpin' about the embassy bombings and the USS Cole and then went back to the Oval Office and got a blowjob.
I wouldn't want someone who disgraced the office of President of the United States and was the only elected president to ever be impeached.
Bubba bemoans the fact that he wasn't president when 9/11 happened. He wanted sumpin' to test his mettle so he could be a great president. He was part of the reason that 9/11 happened. By making empty threats and doing nothing it only emboldened our enemies. That was Clinton's mettle. Take the easy way out. Clinton has done that his entire life.
Clinton could have never been a great president. A great president has to be a leader. He has to make unpopular decisions and try to sell them to the American people so they will follow him. The only unpopular decision he made was not resigning and saving the country from his depravity.
Bill Clinton is a hollow man. He is the greatest politician of my generation but he has no core beliefs. None. His only belief was that he should have been president. He had no grand plan for the country. He had no vision other than the trappings of power and nailing babes. And even there he was a disappointment. He couldn't do any better than a fat ditzy airhead?
Bill Clinton couldn't be a pimple on Ronald Reagan's ass. Reagan had a vision for this country. Bill Clinton had a vision for Bill Clinton.
Ronald Reagan led. Clinton convened focus groups.
Clinton was a good speaker but does anyone remember anything other than "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms Lewinsky" or "It all depends on what the meaning of 'is' is"?
Reagan will always be remembered for what the press at the time derided as simplistic rhetoric: "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" And the wall fell.
The press adored Clinton. They looked down on Reagan. Who turned out to be the giant?
The Dimocrats even now are trying to say that Clinton was more popular than Reagan as if being a good president depends upon how popular one is. But I'll play that game. Clinton got 43% of the vote in 1992 and 49% of the vote in 1996. He never got a majority. Reagan won by two landslides.
Nope, I would not sully the honor of a great president by allowing a moral midget to speak at his funeral.
On the occasion of Ronald Reagan's funeral let us revere greatness.
We don't need to be reminded of mediocrity.
Posted by denny at June 9, 2004 09:00 PMThere will be millions who will go to their deathbeds thinking he was a great man, including The Big Me.
For the rest of us and historians, we'll make our own determinations when the Senate Judiciary Committee unseals the files in about 45 years.
hehehehehehehehehehehehe
Didn't Perot get something like 20% in the 1992 election?
Posted by: Eric on June 9, 2004 10:29 PMBrilliant, beautiful post. It really summarizes everything about Bubba. This one is a keeper
Posted by: James Ph. on June 9, 2004 10:47 PMI hate to sound irreverent here, but are we talking about the same President? The one who slept through his cabinet meetings? Old "Ronnie Ray-Gun"? Insane Anglo Warlord? (Scrambled, spells Ronald Wilson Reagan. Helluva co-inky-dink, eh?)
Later!
Joni
Posted by: Joni on June 9, 2004 10:58 PMGreat post. And for the record,
1980:
Reagan: 50.9% popular, 489 electoral
Carter: 41.1% popular, 49 electoral
Anderson: 6.6% popular, 0 electoral
1984:
Reagan: 58.8% popular, 525 electoral
Mondale: 40.5% popular, 13 electoral
Of course, Bubba was far more popular than Reagan, in media circles anyway.
You said it well Denny! James Ph states it is a keeper. So is Max Albert's article/letter to and in the Seattle Times, January 31, 2004 issue, "The Never-Ending Story"
In part, "...Character does matter, eventually. Bill Clinton, "Nixon of the liberals," is a type that Max Nordau (1849-1923) termed "the highly-gifted degenerate." Such a person "will employ his brilliant facilities quite as well in service of some grand object as in the satisfaction of the basest propensities."
For Democrats, it's the mother of all hangovers. For years they excused Slick Willie's "peccadilloes," keeping two sets of ethical books. Suffering charges of hypocrisy and cynicism, they pawned their credibility in defense of a man whose associates and appointees were convicted of felonies in unprecedented numbers, who worshipped the most amoral expediency, lied under oath, abused and maligned women ("bimbos," "blackmailing tramps," "trailer-park trash"), and generally disgusted even those who opposed his impeachment.
They called it inexcusable — then excused it.
Read the rest of this "keeper" article. It brings up Dimos, their anger, Algore, lost elections, etc.
Posted by: WestCoaster on June 9, 2004 11:27 PMYou forgot to mention the Dead Boys on the tracks in Mena, AK.
Posted by: Sarah on June 9, 2004 11:29 PMYep Joni! We're talking about the bumbling, dumb cowboy who slept through meetings but somehow managed to win the Cold War.
Posted by: Denny Wilson on June 9, 2004 11:40 PMYou forgot to mention the Clintons' stealing furniture from the White House when they left. A real class act, that pair.
Posted by: Tim on June 9, 2004 11:53 PMWhat about all those strange deaths of those people who were part of his administration. I think something like 70 deaths during his 8 years in office. If anyone knows a site with info on this I would love to see it. If Slick Willie showed up at the funeral then I suppose his EX- Lesbian Butt Ugly Hiltery Clinton would show up too.
Posted by: Greg DiCroce on June 10, 2004 02:18 AMJoni forgot to mention that he confiscated the property of anyone making less than $30,000 and completely eliminated all federal welfare benefits. He once described poor people as subhuman.
Seriously, the way some of the further Left is portraying this in their hateful articles, you'd think that Reagan was an evangelical lunatic responsible for the deaths of 500,000 AIDS-infected people, and that somehow without income tax rates of 70% top/20% bottom (before Reagan cut 'em) it's just impossible to help the poor. Damn those evil rich!
Posted by: Eric on June 10, 2004 02:40 AMGreg - See truthorfiction.com. Or just do a Google search on Clinton Death Freinds and you'll get all kinds of sites to evaluate.
Posted by: WestCoaster on June 10, 2004 02:44 AMWell said Denny. Clinton never received more then 49% of the vote and yes, Perot did capture 20% of the vote in 1992.
Posted by: Sailor in the Desert on June 10, 2004 06:27 AMDenny - Thank you. Brilliant post. We should never forget that Bubba and enabler are truly evil. This helps. With kindest regards, Terry
Posted by: Terry Reynolds on June 10, 2004 10:24 AMwhenever i think of clinton i always think of harry mud on the original star trek series. they were both a little larcenous and had identical wives.
Posted by: other brother daryl on June 10, 2004 11:14 AMHarcourt Fenton Mudd! What have you been up to? BWHAHAHAHAHA!
Well said, Clinton sucks.
Posted by: Catfish on June 10, 2004 12:20 PMWestCoaster - I had to register to read the article, but you were right. It is a keeper! "Nixon of the liberals" What an incredible line. And, as I have pointed out before, Nixon requested one FBI file that he never even got. Clinton had over 1000. Nixon tried to sic the IRS on his enemies with no success. Clinton did. Clinton's crimes were more numerous and worse than Nixon's. Clinton ruined more lives than Nixon. There were three Republican senators with principles who told Nixon it was time to go. Too bad for the Dimocrats that they didn't have three senators with principles to do that with Clinton. If they had, Gore would be president today. In retrospect it's a good thing they did drink the Klinton Kool Aid
Posted by: Denny Wilson on June 10, 2004 03:37 PMI'd like to add to these numerous adjectives about Mr. Clinton, but I somehow can't think of any words bad enough to describe him further.
Posted by: Dudley on June 10, 2004 03:44 PMNice post, especially about Slick Willie's vision being limited to the future of Slick Willie. Oh, and maybe a Big Mac, and a cigar (but not for smoking).
He's only making noise about not being invited to speak at the Gipper's funeral for one reason -attention. His memoirs book comes out this month, and just before he hits the circuit to push it, the last great president we had dies, and we're all reminded what it was like to have a great president. Now compare that to the crap Willie's book will remind of us - a sitting president giving (perjured) testimony before a federal grand jury, among other things.
"I feel your pain." No you don't - if you did you'd shut the hell up and go away, forever, and take your co-president "wife" with you.
Posted by: Danny on June 10, 2004 03:47 PMBeaker, can you also give the election results for Mr. Bush Sr., fartface, and President Bush?
Posted by: Paul on June 10, 2004 05:32 PMBut, Denny, how do you really feel about Clinton?
Posted by: Bostonian on June 10, 2004 05:39 PMPaul,
Bush Sr vs Dukakis: (fartface?)
Bush Sr: 48,882,808 popular (53.4%), 426 electoral
Dukakis: 41,807,430 popular (45.6%), 111 electoral
1 electoral went to Lloyd Bentson (D)
G.W. Bush vs Gore
G.W. Bush:50,456,002 popular(47.87%), 271 electoral
Gore: 50,999,897 popular (48.38%), 266 electoral
Not touching various dirty tricks by the media to skew that election. Think that's on another post way back when.
Posted by: xCavTrooper on June 10, 2004 07:38 PMGreat post, Denny ( as always ). Clinton should
not even be permitted in the State of California
until the Gipper's funeral is over. Bill Clinton
speaking at the Gipper's funeral would be the
ultimate payment of final disrespect.
Not to mention, if Billy shows up, Hitlery
would be there, too
Thanks xCavTrooper. Do you have Clinton's election results? In fact, where do I go to get this information anyway?
Posted by: Paul on June 10, 2004 11:20 PMTo put it simply, Clinton was and is a narcissist. He cares essentially only for himself and his personal/political advancement. He strives to be loved and thusly, he stands for nothing. A man whose goal is to be loved is constrained from taking strong positions on important matters, as there would be those who would visciously oppose him.
The fact that he has publically voiced his disappointment shows that this is about him, Bill Clinton. His disquietude does not even hint at recognizing or respecting Nancy or Ronald's choice on who would be a speaker. Screw them, what do they know?
Posted by: addison on June 10, 2004 11:40 PMIndeed Billy boy does remind me of Mudd. And is notHilary the perfect Mrs. Mudd?
You are right Denny, Billy does have his book coming out and what better place to get face time the the funeral of a great and beloved President, something Billy can only fantasize of.
Posted by: Sailor in the Desert on June 11, 2004 05:00 AMPaul,
Use Google and you'll get a bunch of hits giving actual numbers and even state-by-state breakdowns.
Try "US election 1992" (without the quotes) for the 1992 results, for example.
Clinton-Bush Sr.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_1992)
Bush Sr:
39,102,343 popular, (37.38%), 168 electoral
Clinton:
44,908,254 popular, (42.93%), 370 electoral
interesting part of that election was strong 3rd party - Perot with 19,741,065 (18.87%) / 0 electoral
Clinton - Dole (1996)
(http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781448.html)
Clinton: 47,402,357 (49%), 379 electoral
Dole: 39,198,755 (41%), 159 electoral
again, Perot makes a (for an 3rd party) strong showing of 8,085,402 (8%) / 0 electoral.
For an analysis of the elctoral college / voting, go to USS Clueless and search his archives for "electoral college". Steven Den Beste does an excellent in-depth look at how it works, why it was put in place, and why it is still relevant to the politics of today.
Thanks xCavTrooper. I guess we can thank Perot for eight Clinton years. Perhaps Perot was giving him a blowjob on the side, too.
Posted by: Paul on June 11, 2004 11:05 AMAndrew Jackson was impeached and thrown out of office. I forget exactly what he did, but it was bad. He really pissed off *everyone* back then.
Clinton was the *second* President ever to be impeached, yet he squirmed his way out of that with a bunch of spineless-republicans' help and was not thrown out of office.
Posted by: Neo on June 11, 2004 02:41 PMSorry Neo. You have your facts wrong. I said Clinton was the only elected president to be impeached. The other president to have been impeached was Andrew Johnson not Andrew Jackson. Andrew Johnson was Lincoln's vice-president and became president when Lincoln was assassinated. He was impeached because he was against the harsh policies of Reconstruction. He was not thrown out of office. He was acquited in the Senate by one vote: 35-19. The deciding vote was cast by Edmund Ross who lost his reelection bid to the Senate. Kennedy wrote about him in Profiles in Courage, though there are others who say that he was actually an opportunistic scoundrel.
All this info is available with a few Google searches. I just love the internet. I'm so glad Algore invented it.
Neo, I'm pretty sure that it was our 17th President, Andrew Johnson who was empeached in the 1860's, not Andrew Jackson.
Talk about a 'Kodak' moment during the services in Washington! There sat the trash from Arkansas. Both had their eyes closed. Either taking a nap, or bored silly and besides themselves to just sit there and not be the center of attention. But then again, a church is alien to these types.
God bless Nancy. She had the class and dignity to omit the leftist scum to share in this occasion.
It was amazing to see the outpouring of people after all these years toward President Reagan....there is hope for the right.
Posted by: WestCoaster on June 11, 2004 09:10 PMThis is the post that my mama loved.
Posted by: Acidman on June 11, 2004 09:49 PMThanks Rob. I'll try to keep entertaining her. Does she like cats? I haven't done a Cute Cats For Pumpman series in a while.
Posted by: Denny Wilson on June 11, 2004 10:35 PMThat was really stupid comments. You need to go back and see really what Clinton did for the country. Who really care what he did behind closed doors except Hillary.
Posted by: Beverly on June 12, 2004 06:22 PMBeverly - We know what Clinton did for the country. Osama bin Laden has been quoted as saying that when we left Somalia with our tail between our legs that's when he knew we could be defeated. And you must be a really incredibly dumb woman to worship someone who has mistreated so many women.
Posted by: Denny Wilson on June 12, 2004 11:07 PMYou only need to look at the numbers Clinton is so proud of: "He balanced the budget" is the liberal cry, yet he only cut programs such as Defense, and CIA while passing the largest tax increases ever!
Facts and Democrats, oil and water!!
Thanks, Denny. That's what I never understood about NOW and others, who absolutely worship Clinton. He raped and pillaged whenever he wanted, and they would excuse him. If someone else had done the exact same things, they would have dragged him out and crucified him.
It beggared belief.
Elizabeth
Imperial Keeper
these comments are a little one sided, how convenient?????
Posted by: JP on August 28, 2004 12:04 AMOf course they are dickhead - This is a conservative/libertarian site and most of my commenters, you are the exception, have brains and see through the bullshit of the Dimocrats.
Posted by: Denny on August 28, 2004 08:41 AM