What Motivates Gonzo to Stay?
I have been pondering this question for a few weeks now (when I haven’t been too exhausted to think…). This isn’t a pleasant experience for Gonzo. He has been called a liar, a lap dog, an idiot and several other terms that are more derogatory. So why doesn’t he quit? Why doesn’t Bush tell him to hang it up?
There are two scenarios that I keep running through. One is that Gonzo doesn’t want to leave in disgrace. He has appealed to Bush to support him because either they have a long relationship and Bush takes care of his friends, or because Gonzo knows things about Bush and he would hate for some of them to make it into the press…
Or is Bush refusing to cave in on the pressure to remove Gonzo on principle? In that scenario, Gonzo is the victim here and has to keep trotting out to hearings and getting beat up. So why wouldn’t Gonzo resign? Fear of retribution? Promise of future opportunities? Loyalty to Bush?
I don’t know the answer, but it is a bizarre situation that we all seem to find ourselves in. Can this situation just continue to go on for 540 more days?
Tags: Bush, National Republicans
Pardon me?
Gonzo is the designated liar. Gonzo lies so Bush doesn’t have to. He is the dispensable perjurer. He is burned to a husk but is still an effective firewall, so he stays.
Why would he leave – to soothe public opinion? Bush doesn’t care about public opinion.
So why does Gonzo continue to take it? What motivates him to not quit and let someone else suffer the slings and arrows?
…one more thing, about Gonzo’s motivation:
Prosecutors turn people’s personal loyalties all the time, by threatening them with jail time or other unpleasantness.
But when the person you are loyal to holds pardon power, the prosecutor has no power to compel.
I also think Gonzo has swallowed the Kool-Aid about how polls don’t matter and they are creating their own reality. So he is just brushing off Senators and the public and following the plan.
anon has it right.
Why should he leave? 540 days from now blanket pardons come out the next Prez says something Fordian like “Our long national nightmare is over.” and everyone lives happily ever after. (Except fo the dead people.)
It is run out the clock time and (I hate to sound like a broken record – but) most of Congress plus all of the wise old men who run the media would like that outcome.
What motivates him to not quit and let someone else suffer the slings and arrows?
These people are sociopaths.
I think I heard the best reason on MSNBC.
There is no way that the president can have someone go through the confirmation process at this point.
The guy would be grilled to death so they just are going to let the guy hang on until something happens criminally, which as you know rarely happens in this administration
cough cough
Abramoff
cunningham
foley
Wilkes
Dusty
Vitter
Delay
cough cough
Supposedly Reid has shut off recess appointments, but we’ll see. Basically, nobody is getting confirmed unless they pledge to stop the politicization and to investigate the past wrongdoing.
OK, but what does Gonzo think is in it for him? Eternal respect of the President? Knowledge of a job well-done? You cannot psychologically have so much punishment dished out without some reward. Simply saying that you won’t go to jail isn’t a reward.
You cannot psychologically have so much punishment dished out without some reward.
For sociopaths, it’s not “punishment” in the same way it would be to you and me.
I wonder if he’s been told “Stay until we tell you to go, or no pardon for you.”
Either that, or he’s been promised 72 virgins in Paraguay.
“Hess had only one desire, to serve the Führer, and thus lacked the will to engage in self serving struggles for power and lost out primarily to his subordinate and eventual successor, Martin Bormann. As a result, Hitler gradually distanced himself from Hess.”
72 virgins in Paraguay! Ha ha ha! Good one!
“These people are sociopaths.”
Totally. And in the bunker now, at that… utterly impervious to reality, common sense, and even the last shredded pretenses of bare minimum public integrity.
Gonzales is a disgusting disgrace of a lawyer, forget about what he is as Attorney General. I thought Bush was the biggest retard in the Executive Branch until Gonzo was elevated (and exposed).
Only someone as dense as George W. Bush could find someone as thick as Gonzales to be his personal punching bag attorney, corrupting the DOJ all the while.
To W I can only say : Tu abogado? Tu abogado esta idioto…..y tu tambien
Impeach. Try. Remove.
The losers who voted for Bush just because of his political affiliation are just as culpable, IMHO. They certainly never investigated his morally corrupt past, either as Gov of TX or a multi-timed failed business owner. The things that mattered was the ‘R’ next to his name, that he was handsome, and talked cool enough to make all the wannabees wanting to have a beer with him.
All they had to do was find the readily available evidence of his hypocrisy:
CEO President? Bullshit. His businesses failed, while he paid himself a massive salary. His employees were left with NOTHING. His investors, on the other hand, were paid handsomely for their failed investment, with Ambassadorships by Bush I and, of course, claiming capital losses.
Compassionate Conservatism: Again bullshit. The man signed more death warrants than Torquemada, and Education and Child Health Care declined under his administration.
Point being, Gonzo’s been there the ENTIRE way, justifying the illegal and immoral practices, giving Bush legal and political cover throughout….
No “cons” (neo or otherwise) jumping to Fredo’s defense. No Masterpiece post from Rube or Chissy – nothing? Prehaps they’re on holiday in Paraguay.
Impeach. Try. Remove.
…Repeat.
C’mon, Von C. Spare us the broad brush condemnations. I NEVER voted for George W. Bush and I am a conservative Republican. Maybe not the type you would say we all are, but nevertheless.
…by the way, I agree with you about those culpable for enabling Bush. This is hardly limited to R’s or “cons”.
1/2 the current Democratic Presidential candidates, or so, are continuing Bush enablers at least vis a vis Iraq.
No, I’ll stick with the broad brush, and NO I won’t spare anyone who voted for this loser. These fools vote for people who are against their best interests, and they deserve what they get. But unfortunately the smart ones who saw through the facade in 2000 still have to pay the price.
Hey, I have no problem with true conservative republican ideals, i.e. Limited Government, States-rights, environmental conservation, and, of course, “Stay the fuck out of my bedroom!” But when was the last time a Republican candidate held those positions? Ike?
I didn’t ask you to spare anyone who voted for him or his war…if you are going to broad brush just make sure your paint job is not smear.
I say if the shoe fits…
Your Democratic party has plenty of people who I hope you “won’t spare”.
“But when was the last time a Republican candidate held those positions?”
Ron Paul.
Far fetched as it may seem, were some type of Marshal law to be declared, the “bunker” would need to remain intact to function. The loss of one or two, would be impossible to replace, since bringing in a new person who would be willing to pervert American values in order to protect his “king”, would be very hard to find outside in the real world….
It is the personal behavior of all the White House appointees that actually give these far fetched theories some legs.
Were they held more accountable for their actions, then we would not be here now, even discussing it…….
latest rawstory:
Gonzo kept George from DUI prosecution
Bush owes him a few
sorry – I don’t have the link at hand
And notice the scorn Ron Paul receives from the mainstream of his party, nevermind the 3% support!
Yes, there are quite a few, DINOs I wouldn’t spare, Carper for one! He has a pre-Magna Carta mindset, aka You-have-the-body!
BTW – I’m not a Dem; I’m a liberal. The Democratic party is a weak advocate of my views. Funny though, I have some views that would fall under the old republican mindset. But it looks like the Dems are incorporating the views that made Republicans popular a long time ago: Fiscal responsibility and rights of the individual….the GOP can no longer claim these.
Gonzo’s a liar and a true menace to the rule of law, therefore he needs to be incarcerated for a long time, to be made as an example.
Agreed on Carper.
And how are the only real anti-war candidates, Kucinich and Gravel (and possibly Richardson), doing with the mainstream of their party?
“Fiscal responsibility and rights of the individual….the GOP can no longer claim these.”
No party can or should claim these as their exclusive mantle. Of the R’s and D’s neither has done jack about them in at least a decade, except in the negative. These issues are certainly more important than any political party’s (or ideological bent’s) “claims” to right.
You see, Von C, I just don’t believe you further these things by alienating everyone who doesn’t meet your rather bitter-sounding retributive calculus. I would sooner work with anyone who has seen the light, whether it came to them yesterday or years ago, than to bitch about how they are too late so I can lump them out of the process as somehow “no longer” capable of contributing to progress.
But hey, that’s just me. Some people just have too much anger to see straight. There is plenty to be angry for, but it is not worth blinding yourself…or becoming that which you condemn. Bush and his bunch are great at demonizing and broad-brush condemning all their “enemies”.
I guess Gonzo thinks in 2009 he can slip away into a professorship, speaking tours at conservative institutions, consulting fees, etc. I mean, it worked for Gonzo’s predecessor Robert Bork.
Bork you may recall is the guy who followed Nixon (Richard)’s orders to fire Archibald Cox, the special prosecutor investigating the Watergate break-in. Two other guys resigned when Nixon told them to fire Cox – but Bork, the third-level guy, went ahead and whacked Cox.
Amazingly, Bork also came thisclose to getting on the Supreme Court.
So why should Gonzo worry?
Tyler – the high road only leads to a cliff with these self-imposed, mentally-stunted jerks. Just ask Kerry.
And I never mentioned exclusivity, though those values should be inherent to any American political party. It’s just that the Republicans are always going around saying factually incorrect statements like “we are the only ones who can do this or that (usually saving your scared ass from those dirty terrorists).
I don’t recall the Dems having control of the congress or the WH when our 90s surplus turned into the largest deficit ever.
The point we’re both trying to make here with the 3rd tier anti-war candidates is that there’s hell of a lot more that matters than just the war in Iraq. Health Care, the middle class squeeze, re-deployment, so-forth-and-so-on…
And yes, I am ANGRY…very ANRGY, about the 20-something percenters that still support this failed administration and their failed policies. And I will maintain my ANGER for those on the right who vote for W-wannabees currently running for the GOP ticket. Double Gitmo? 9/11, 9/11? Dirty Immigrants? (Never hear them bitch about the massive amounts of Eastern European ones, do ya?) They’ll come over here and kill us on our own streets? Please, they are the WORST our country has to offer, for everything they offer is predicated on FEAR!
“I don’t recall the Dems having control of the congress or the WH when our 90s surplus turned into the largest deficit ever.”
I don’t recall the Dems being in control of Congress when our 60s/70s/80s deficits turned into 90’s surpluses. Show me a Democratic Congress that has presided over a deficit cum surplus and I will agree with you that both parties are equally contemptible for abdicating fiscal responsibility.
Incidentally, I am not one who believes the President is anything but an end-of-the-line reactive player in the budget process.
1980’s – Bill Grey (D), Tip O’Neill (D), Reagan (R). Deficits.
1990’s (early) – Leon Panetta (D), Tom Foley (D), Clinton (D). Spiraling deficits.
1990’s (latter) – John Kasich (R), Newt Gingrich (R), Bill Clinton (D). Eventual Surpluses.
2000+ – Jim Nussle (R), Dennis Hastert (R), Bush (R). Return to deficits.
The GOP Congressional idealists (led by Gingrich back to the early 80’s) are the only ruling party instance in our recent national history of actual fiscal responsibility in Washington.
These idealists (Gingrich, Armey, Kasich, et al) were soon after pushed out by Clinton poison and the nasty RINO’s dishing up their own : Delay, Hastert, Bush – and all hell has broken loose since.
Let’s be real, it hasn’t been like the Democrats were about to put any brakes on this Bush-era spending spree, either. They made sure they got theirs. Like they always have.
In short, spare me the idea that the Democrats are suddenly fiscal responsibles because they are the anti-Republicans.
“they are the WORST our country has to offer, for everything they offer is predicated on FEAR!”
I totally agree with this statement, just not the scope of who you dub to be “they”.
Far fetched as it may seem, were some type of Marshal law to be declared
What if Bush declared martial law and nothing changed?
I mean, it’s not like it would be a sharp break with current reality. We’d just slide right into it. You’d still be having the same arguments:
kavips: “This is unthinkable! Bush has destroyed the foundation of America!”
Wingnuts: “Hey, if you aren’t doing anything wrong, what are you worried about? We need to protect America. Why do you hate America??”
See, nothing would change.
Except that one day, perhaps some article in USAToday would note the decline in the numbers of left-wing blogs, and ponder on whether that means the country is “moving back to the center.” And then maybe they’d reference an article of a few months ago of the shutdown and seizure of DailyKos servers due to “hate speech” and the indictment of several big-name bloggers on unspecified tax irregularities.
And of course, also in the headlines would be the articles about Democratic voter fraud, and the resurgence of Republican electoral victories in the red states.
You’d probably never know the coup had occurred.
Damn, blaming Clinton’s penis for Gingrich’s failure. That’s funny!
Maybe it was because he was such a dirty, low-life hypocrite, hummmm?
Clinton and the Dem minority made the balanced budget work just as much as the GOPers you’ve mentioned. So, you can’t place all the credit on them. And it’s obvious now that the current set of Dems are solid in their support of reducing debt. They saw it as what the people want and now run on having fiscal responsibility as part of their platform. What we got with the GOP rubber-stamp congress was an open checkbook for any and all of Bush’s follies. I think that’s a real issue for the GOP this election cycle, along with Iraq, education, middle-class squeeze, and health care.
“They” are the GOP only. No doubt about it.
““They” are the GOP only. No doubt about it.”
Says you, VC. I see plenty of Demo fellow travelers to what’s wrong with things now. Many Republicans got the boot and Bush will be gone.
On budgets, the fact that the 90’s D’s were dragged by their hair into the GOP surplus plans doesn’t make them the slightest bit creditworthy.
Your facade : “I’m not a Dem; I’m a liberal” is pretty laughable after you spend the next 20 sentences spouting defenses of the Dems.
But maybe you’re right, maybe you’re just a rabid anti-Republican.
Hey it’s your choice how you define your beliefs. The GOP, like any party, will not remain the way it is, so you best start thinking about what you plan to do instead of who you like to hate. Being the anti-Bush GOP-basher only gets you so far. Then you have to deliver on all your rhetoric. So far, the D Congress is all talk and no walk.
“So far, the D Congress is all talk and no walk.”
Couldn’t agree more
“Von Cracker Says:
July 30, 2007 at 12:44 pm
The losers who voted for Bush just because of his political affiliation… ”
VC – What about the fact that you Ds put up the two biggest losers (yes Gore and Kerry) of the last century as the alternative major party choice?
Remember it takes Independents to commit and Dems to crossover for an R to win. Fact is Ds did not stay home, Independents were not that foolish and Rs were unimpressed.
It must really kill you to know that as bad as Bush is, your boys would have been ten times worse! Don’t kid yourself, they suck worse than Bush. Sorry if I stayed home with my vote.
Says you Tyler!
http://www.drudge.com/news/96959/do-something-dem-congress
And I hear you wholeheartedly support Gingrich; so there goes your credibility…for certain, end of story.
Up yours, you liar! For making shit up just to make a feeble appearance that your point is valid.
And J, please think before you post. Gore had more votes than Bush. And if it wasn’t for the Brooks Brothers revolution during the FL recount, Gore would’ve been POTUS, 9/11 might not have happened, or at least Bin Laden would’ve been captured and killed, and Afghanistan would be just as safe as, um, Philly.
Kerry, on the other hand, played the election like a scared little pussy. He has no excuse….
And yes – proud to be RABIDLY anti-conservative; I believe the purposely RETARD the growth of our country, socially and economically, for ALL Americans. There’s nothing wrong with that.
Would you rather me, or anyone, be ‘lukewarm anti-conservative’? How about ‘somewhat vociferous’?
You put words together well, Tyler. It’s just too bad its sum only equals nonsense.
A couple of points seem to portend a major shift, that may, or may not occur………
The seed was sown by the comment: ” I am not a Democrat, I am a Liberal.” Through out my reading of comments from both sides, and the respect I have for those who think before they write, I am proposing aa alignment that is different from what is generally discussed.
Instead of Liberals, it seems like our society is realigning into those who are progressive and those who are not. “I was shocked, utterly shocked” to discover that people who thought they were conservatives were big fans of Battlestar Galactica. How could this be? Conservatives, concerned about the future? Throughout these discussions it was apparent that they were responding to the same issues that I was, just looking at different options. Whereas each of our ideas, by default were one sided, together they provided a workable solution.
Therefore the two groups that will emerge ( under whatever name evolves) will be Progressives, and for lack of a better word, Pigs, who will have their advocates on both sides of the aisle.
What it a Pig? Someone who puts a bill and a drawer and sits on it. End of discussion.
I’m the cream of the crop, I rise to the top
I never eat a PIG cause a PIG is a cop
Or better yet a terminator
Like Arnold Schwarzenegger
Try’n to play me out like as if my name was Sega
But I ain’t going out like no punk bitch
Get used to one style and you know I might switch
It up up and around, then buck buck you down
Put out your head then you wake up in the Dawn of the Dead
I’m coming to get ya, coming to get ya
Spitting out lyrics homie I’ll wet ya
Instead of Liberals, it seems like our society is realigning into those who are progressive and those who are not. “I was shocked, utterly shocked” to discover that people who thought they were conservatives were big fans of Battlestar Galactica. How could this be? Conservatives, concerned about the future?
Psst…BSG is fiction! That means it isn’t real, and probably not indicative of any future worth worrying about.
I’m worried about the future only in that the past is already happened, and the present is already here and gone. I vomit at the thought of being labeled “progressive” when modernity is what brought on this mess.
Hey, Von Jackass, don’t get your panties in a bunch.
I worked for Newt Gingrich from 94-95, so I saw first hand who really balanced the budget and brought fiscal responsibility to Washington for the first time in decades. Assuredly it wasn’t your buddy, big Bubba.
Incidentally, what do you mean I “support” Newt Gingrich? If by “support” you mean subscribe to his advocacy of balanced budgets and effective, functional government….well, you got me there, pal.
Notwithstanding your laughable, spittle-laden attempt to play “gotcha” on a subject about which I have already written extensively in these blogs, your nasty bile does nothing for your case. But go ahead and screech away.
It is pretty obvious that what I said caused you to blow a gasket, but I will duly note your nastiness and insane hatred of all things non-liberal Democrat.
Oh and by the way, you are a anonymous coward who will not put your name to your views, which makes you a fraud and a liar in my book. Apparently You don’t like accountability much. What a shock.
Modernity brought on this mess? Really? In what way?
If you mean terrorism, 40% of Americans without proper health care, and soldiers dying because of lies and ideology, all you have to look at is to see who profits from these situations…and they all support CONSERVATIVES. The Status Quo brings in the cash for Big Oil, Big Phama, and the Military Industrial Complex.
If you want a ‘Leave it to Beaver’ lifestyle, then move to Utah! Or convert to Wahhabism and move to Saudi Arabia. Women know their place and nothing has pretty much changed in hundreds of years. Plus, they have more in common with American Conservatives than most people realize – just exchange the name Fundamental Islam with Fundamental Christianity and you got basically the same mindset.
“I’m the cream of the crop, I rise to the top”
You put gibberish together well, Von Slacker. Except you are the cream of the crap. Shit floats, but that is not exactly “rising to the top”. In conclusion, your momma.
What a joke, Von Smackass. You are obviously a freak who thinks being a rabid fundamentalist hater of those who disagree with your distorted view is consistent with lecturing all of us about intolerance.
The Status Quo brings in the cash for Big Oil, Big Phama, and the Military Industrial Complex.
The status quo is quite modern.
And your perception of what “conservative” really means is opaque at best.
NOTE : The day I start reading, much less giving credibility to, Matt Sludge will be a cold day in Von Cracker’s ultimate destination.
(For interested bystanders, I only have ballistic scorn like this for nasty faceless, nameless, gutless cowards with Jesus complexes)
HA! Von Asshole! Love it, so clever! Personally, I would’ve went with Von Douchebag! Sorry there big-boy, didn’t mean to turn your Bloomers into a Thong, Tyler!
We’re playing ‘Gotcha’? I thought it was the ‘Blame Game’. Maybe ‘Playing Politics’? Since you were in the Heart of Darkness, maybe you can come up with a few more catchy labels we can use?
But no, to the point that got you all riled-up. I don’t care if you were Newt’s personal piss-boy, Newt is a hypocritical loser who holds impeachment hearings while sleeping around, and delivers divorce papers to his cancer-ridden wife’s hospital room. Yeah, go a head and attach yourself to that piece of excrement. Oh yeah, I almost forgot about the propping-up of Saxby Chambliss’ lies about a decorated Vietnam soldier. But that’s what you assholes do…try to take someone’s strength and turn it into a weakness. It’s the Conservative MO. Most of your issues are total losers and the only way the GOP can win in 75% of this country is through personal attacks and duplicity.
You’re still dishonest for making crap up just to make a point. Which brings me to this…
Isn’t anonymity just WONDERFUL! I’d give you my address off line, but knowing the Conservative penchant to be soooo reptilian, you’d probably show up with a gun! And I’m just a poor little, meek computer geek!
But I’m sure you know a coward when you see one….Does your spidey-sense tingle when you shave?
xo,
VC
“I worked for Biden dammit!, I know how hairplugs really work!”
Tyler, you’re such a moron. The link I provided isn’t to that drudge. It’s a retort to his biased propaganda…if you clicked the link, you would’ve known. Just like you don’t know white-boy rap.
Get a fuckin’ clue, dude!
And Ryan, stay out of this! Your ass is already on my mantle! But if modern to you means the 1920s to 1950s, then I think you prove my point!
Ok Tyler, I read up on you (I didn’t realize you ran for office, I certainly repect that!). Wish I could, but I’m a felon. 😉
Anyway, I’ve read a few of your prior posts and you don’t seem like a right-wing wacko, like Hube or Chris. You’re actually pretty damn progressive!
I will fight with you no more. peace….
VC
VC, stop staring at my ass.
But if modern to you means the 1920s to 1950s, then I think you prove my point!
Modern to me means anything from Descartes on, though the dates vary depending on what aspects of society you are talking about.
the great thing is tyler ran for office!
go back to your bible ryan, no one takes you seriously over here man.
I’m telling ya, dv…you’re the only person who’s ever called me a “Bible thumper.”
Sometimes I think you’re not liberal so much as cranky. Did you get your nap today?
Damnit – I miss everything good. I didn’t even realize this argument was going on. I do agree with Tyler on one thing, not posting using your real name is somewhat cowardly. I have considered changing the “DG” moniker for the same reason. (My name is Rob, by the way.)
Newt is another big douche bag though – and I don’t care that you ran for office of worked for him one iota. First of all he’s a big “family values” hypocrite, which is always a big fissure in my ass. And why doesn’t our “bubba”, as you put it, get some credit for cutting entitlements and balancing the budget. The whole welfare reform thing was Willy’s deal – it’s fairly well documented.
Descartes – now that’s funny!
“The whole welfare reform thing was Willy’s deal – it’s fairly well documented.”
Sorry, DG, but that is one of the biggest Clintonian lies of all. Clinton kicked and screamed all the way. In his first 2 years (under a D Congress, btw) he never so much as mentioned it.
Contract with America Item # 3 : WELFARE REFORM.
Yes, it is quite well documented, just not the way you say. Perhaps if you had actually read the Contract before assaulting it and vilifying Gingrich, you would have known this.
Look people, I only have bile in response to bile. I hate to admit it but my (personal) policy a while back of hands-off from attacking the other side went by the wayside after constant blog assaults from anons for my merely being an R or a conservative – the whole guilt by association thing.
I would rather talk positive things and save the bashing for Bush and his criminal clan, which is smaller by the day as far as supporters. Personally I always worked against Bush, going back to McCain ’99.
But when you guys rip everyone you paint up with Bush, whether deserved or not, it corrodes the whole dialogue to what I engaged in above. I always regret it. But as long as your policy is assault then my Infantry ass is going to shoot back with both barrels and a bayonet to follow.
Von Crankmeier – I always prefer peace and appreciate your post. I hate the things you hate too, with a vengeance, just not the massive swath of people you condemn in the process. These bastards royally effed up my party over the last decade. The neocons and theocons are targets in my sights, but to me they are pseudo-conservatives…ideological hijackers at best.
Good faith and respect are contagious, especially when you are dealing with strangers. All I ask for is a fair shake.
Thanks for listening.
A few more from the Contract With America
Item # 1 :
Balanced Budget Amendment and Line Item Veto
Item # 10 : Congressional Term Limits
Both stopped by the Democrats.
Tyler, you are wrong about Clinton and welfare reform. Please, no revisionist mythmaking here.
Welfare reform was a key Clinton campaign promise. Clinton was kicking and screaming FOR welfare reform, not against it. One of the reasons progressives despised Clinton’s DLC was because of its advocacy of welfare reform.
Clinton used the line “end welfare as we know it” in his 1991 stump speeches. This is well documented and is not a myth. If you don’t believe me, try the Heritage Foundation:
http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed082406a.cfm
You can argue if you like that Clinton dithered over fulfilling his welfare reform promises and didn’t actually act on it until 1996. But that’s a different argument.
“Please, no revisionist mythmaking here.”
Again, see Contract item # 3.
The GOP Congress reformed welfare. Tommy Thompson was constantly credited for his role, having worked on it at state level.
You just qualified Clinton’s role about 4 different ways.
So stop revising history to accommodate the Clinton myth.
stop revising history to accommodate the Clinton myth.
1991 – Clinton: “End welfare as we know it”
1994 – Gingrich, Item #3: “Welfare reform”
Well whaddya know – if you squeeze Tyler hard enough he oozes Kool-Aid after all.
Oh, I know alright. We squeezed Clinton hard enough and he bled the truth about himself : he is a slick-talking lying con artist whose actions never matched any of his pseudo-liberal nonsense.
The GOP was talking welfare reform long before 91, anonsense. Bill Clinton’s empty campaign rhetoric was more of his soul-less political triangulation. (And I bet you could find 5 other statements in 91-92 in which he said the exact opposite).
So, gutlessnon, you would have us believe that Bill Clinton’s uttering a phrase and doing NOTHING about it for 5 years running – 3 as President (to all of our shock and surprise) makes it somehow his work when he was dragged into it by the new GOP Congress in the middle of his re-election campaign?
You want to talk about Kool-Aid…you must be mass-producing a new flavor at your keyboard…like Chicken Shit-Horse Shit Blend.
Typical Clintonian garbage : say one thing, do another, let someone else take the heat who actually does what you originally claimed you might do, and then claim credit for it all yourself.
You are a pretty twisted mind. Really, what a hoot. Please share some more of your historical contortion act – we don’t get to see freak shows like this too often.