Michael J. Totten: Paranoid Blowhard

April 19, 2004

Paranoid Blowhard

So Rush Limbaugh thinks Hillary Clinton might murder John Kerry and dump his body in a park. That's what happens when you spend your entire life in a dittohead partisan echo chamber.

Gary Farber explains.

I'm sure plenty of people will defend him by saying he's joking. Well, that's what Michael Moore says about his crackpot theories, too. I'm a comedian, he says. Yeah, whatever. Then again, maybe Al Franken can joke around about assassinating George W. Bush and conservatives will finally think he's funny.

Posted by Michael J. Totten at April 19, 2004 07:21 PM

Comments

Michael, first I want to say I don't care much for Rush Limbaugh so I defend him not. However again Michael, Bush/Buchanan and now Limbaugh/Moore? I mean I hope you see some difference. And we know Michael Moore is not joking and is a lying weasel, I must say you do caricature people on the right in much greater extremes by relative comparison, do you really see things in such parallels? I am not trying to give you a hard time, I just kind of want to know what I'm up against.

Posted by: Samuel at April 19, 2004 07:37 PM

Samuel,

I also compared Rush Limbaugh to Al Franken, not just Michael Moore. I think he's somewhere in between the two of them, only on the other side.

I only compared Bush to Buchanan on foreign policy, by the way. They seemed awfully similar to me before 9/11.

Do I caricature people on the right? Maybe. But I don't caricature serious and honorable people on the right. At least I don't think I do. Look at my blogroll, Samuel. Does it look like a typical left-wing reading list to you?

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at April 19, 2004 07:42 PM

What a stupid comment. Is he really off drugs? Or have they permanently affected his mind? I know that he is an avid partisan, but this really seems like something Moore would do.

Posted by: FH at April 19, 2004 08:29 PM

Limbaugh has long-running code words which those who listen for a long time will get... hell, even if you listen for a long time, you might miss out on some because you missed a day. Here, Limbaugh makes it clear what the term "Ft. Marcy Park" means:

You're going to need caskets to bury all the political careers in Fort Marcy Park before they're done. These people are - politically speaking, of course, now lighten up - not going to let a Democrat win this election.

"Political death," not "real death." The reference is tasteless but he does not mean in any way that anyone will be killed. Posted by: HH at April 19, 2004 09:10 PM

Well, the Supreme Court recently ruled unanimously against the wing nuts getting the most graphic of Vince Foster's suicide photos -- drat -- despite 5 indpendent investigations, they know, they just know!! that she did it --- so they're moving on -- If they can't 'prove' Hillary murdered Foster -- they're convinced Hillary will murder someone, anyone, most likely Kerry, in a park! LOL

Posted by: Philly at April 19, 2004 09:10 PM

More Wacky Republicans:

Money Shot, IMHO:

Hayes said: "I asked him how come you didn't do the right thing, and he said, `It's because you're a Moonie and I don't want to work with you.' Then, he started saying, `Moonie, Moonie, Moonie, Moonie, Moonie.'"

Lawlor recalled saying only "Moonie, Moonie, Moonie."

more: http://www.courier-journal.com/localnews/2004/04/16ky/B3-gop0416-3866.html

Posted by: Philly at April 19, 2004 09:17 PM

Michael

I think that is a fair response, actually more than fair. I do think you sometimes caricature people on the right or perhaps display prejudicial suspicions that imply more than just disagreement, particularly on non-security issues. However that is not the full issue as that is your right, I mean your own honest conclusions regardless of my perspective of them. More than anything I am assessing where you are, none of us are constants but variables for lack of a better analogy, so this is general in scope. In political testing I am still to the left of Tony Blair and I don’t judge harsh nor should anyone for honestly held beliefs. An honest opinion no matter the issue how strong the disagreement I can take, dishonesty and disingenuous interrogations I cannot and find hard to stomach. I have never perceived you to be or do any of this, quite the contrary. So when I have felt that you do paint someone as Rush Limbaugh (who actually I can’t stand I rarely listen to him) or even this President as more dishonest or disingenuous then they are, I assume this is done with honesty and not as necessarily partisan. That is why I felt compelled to ask and point this out. Just to think about. I have prejudices no doubt, we all do. I desire not to finger point I am far from perfect.

I want to end by saying this... While I find LGF to be quite hard and over the top (good topics, just the comment section) I am not that right wing! (Charles Johnson is the one person I know has changed more than me) There are only two places where I post regularly, yours is one and Rogers L. Simon’s is the other, and I mean that to be a compliment. While Roger probably knows more of my full story, you have been influential to me as well. The first time I visited here last year I was to the left of you. (months before I ever posted) A little less than a year later I may have ended in a different place than I ever imagined. But I’ve sorted out much here (hell and still am) and I thank you.

Posted by: Samuel at April 19, 2004 09:31 PM

This was a goof and either you are not getting it or are deliberately taking it out of context in an effort to make something out of nothing. Either way, there's not much to it...

Posted by: John Hawkins at April 19, 2004 09:31 PM

John, it's two links down and at Rush's website, so you can check the context yourself. You can also listen to it. I get the feeling he was kidding--note the laughter right after "So they're rolling the dice on this," but I'll admit, he doesn't say the Fort Marcy Park in one of his joking tones.

However, there is no doubt that there is a LOT of paranoia on the right about the Clintons. I have been a longtime member over at Lucianne.com and many of the posters over there are convinced that Kerry's not going to end up being the candidate, that Hillary will have him bumped off (silly I know) or that they will do a Torricelli on him (not that silly, but still highly unlikely). A lot of them absolutely believe that Foster was murdered in Hillary's apartment and then transported to the park; enough that Starr was even asked to investigate that. The fact that Starr said no, it was what it appeared to be, a suicide has not changed their minds.

Posted by: Pat Curley at April 19, 2004 09:55 PM

John,

Oh, I "get" it the same way you would "get" a joke about assassinating the president by Al Franken.

Not funny. Next.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at April 19, 2004 10:01 PM

hehehe, that's kind of funny, you have to admit. Limbaugh was just joshing, and you guys need to LIGHTEN UP.

(sheesh, did I just say that?).

Posted by: David at April 19, 2004 10:02 PM

"Oh, I "get" it the same way you would "get" a joke about assassinating the president by Al Franken."

Did you hear Kerry's little quip from 1989 or so, about how the Secret Service has standing orders to shoot Dan Quayle in the event George Bush, Sr., died?

Franken the other day had a little skit with his co-host where he pretended to be Henry Kissinger. He said that Kissinger's firm did not represent Al Qaeda on the operations side, only the PR side. Such a funny guy! And you know they're going to have John Kerry on sooner or later.

BTW, Farber's saying that we're shouting at you.

Posted by: Pat Curley at April 19, 2004 10:21 PM

Pat: He said that Kissinger's firm did not represent Al Qaeda on the operations side, only the PR side. Such a funny guy!

I don't listen to Al Franken for most of the same reasons I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh. If I had to choose one, I would choose Franken, but I'd rather listen to (or read) someone serious.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at April 19, 2004 10:26 PM

Michael, believe me you would not say that if you'd listened to Franken's show. He's woeful. Rush's politics may not be to your liking, but at least he's entertaining.

If you want to listen to somebody smart, try Hugh Hewitt. He's more partisan that Rush (Rush is quite capable of criticizing Bush and the Republican Party), but he has great guests, and is really, really sharp. Medved's not bad either, although I'm a little tired of his constant conflict schtick.

Posted by: Pat Curley at April 19, 2004 10:32 PM

I've never thought Rush Limbaugh remotely entertaining (his entire manner is annoying to me) in small doses and I've never listened to him on the radio.

But then, I have listened to Pacifica and NPR and they helped drive me away (a la our friend Samuel) from the Left, to heresy, after having voted for Democrats exclusively all my life.

Someone said that Randi Rhoades on Air America said that Republicans started the Vietnam War.

Where's the outrage over THAT?

And the Guardian newspaper called for George W. Bush's assassination in fairly explicit terms a few months back. There was some outrage over it, but not much.

This is going to be an ugly, ugly election year. People on both sides are going to say and do ugly things. I'm not looking forward to enduring this stuff.

Meanwhile we're at war, and the terrorists judge how they've done by how defeatist we seem on CNN.

Posted by: miklos rosza at April 20, 2004 12:26 AM

Miklos,

You live in Portland, right? Do we even get Pacifica here? I've never actually listened to it.

I still like NPR as long as they are talking about something other than the Middle East. Their culture and arts stuff is still great.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at April 20, 2004 12:29 AM

You can get Pacifica via KBOO. Or at least you could. I remember them attacking Clinton at the time. (Hey, I once DJ'd for them late at night back when things were much looser and my friend the regular DJ fell asleep on a couch.)

Posted by: miklos rosza at April 20, 2004 12:55 AM

And I had never DJ'd before (or since). The days of vinyl.

Posted by: miklos rosza at April 20, 2004 12:58 AM

miklos

Meanwhile we're at war, and the terrorists judge how they've done by how defeatist we seem on CNN

Yes! But even more so to me is the choice of words by politicians and the complicit echoing of such by the media.

Take the following…

Iraq is George Bush’s Vietnam.

What is the implicit message there? It takes a very shallow person for that to go over their head. To use it is to imply humiliation, defeat, irreparable harm to a generation so on and so forth. But what does it mean to an enemy? That they can win by destroying our will, a rally cry to the enemy, yes that is the effect.

The above (obviously muttered by Ted Kennedy) is why I believe the Democrats will lose this election. I say this with no partisan malice or axe to grind. I see it as a reality. Though just a teenager, I remember Vietnam, Nixon and McGovern. I also know the History of Lincoln and McClelland. All the talk of the UN and multilateralism in the midst of a Oil for Food scandal will ring hollow especially when combined with comments like above. (and they do exist by the truckloads from those that oppose this President) This will sour on the hearts of many, especially those of the Jacksonian spirit.

When Ronald Reagan beat Mondale in 1984 the American People agreed more with Mondale on the issues, and quite rather strongly as a matter of fact. But on the single issue of leadership Reagan won hands down. People vote for strong leadership in times of trouble, peril, turmoil or danger. While leadership is always a factor, in times like these it becomes overriding indeed. This President has a leadership advantage as big as any President has had in a very long time. Like cream, it will rise to the top. Only this time I will not be as pained by it.

Posted by: Samuel at April 20, 2004 02:03 AM

This President has a leadership advantage as big as any President has had in a very long time.

I just don't see it, Samuel. Half the folks think he's the risen Lord, but the other half think he's Satan's idiot son. He's the most polarizing political figure we've seen since Nixon.

Reagan had some virulent detractors, too, but at least with him there was a bunch of folks who, as you point out, didn't agree with him on a lot of the issues but thought he was a great guy ... hell, I'm in that camp!

I just don't see that constituency with GWB.

Posted by: Mork at April 20, 2004 02:29 AM

Samuel:

My wife is French, from Avignon, and believe me when she first came over here she was not inclined to like George Bush.

After the recent press conference, she turned to me and said, "You know, I hate to admit this... but I like Bush. I think he means well. He means what he says."

She despises Jacques Chirac and de Villepin, by the way, and has been pro-war from the start. She says (about the young Arabs) "They're not even really religious. They drink alcohol, they don't pray. They just want to act bad, to seem dangerous... and the rap music reinforces this, with its anti-Jew slang and all its bullshit about jihad."

When they attack Bush in the manner they did in the press conference, they don't realize how sympathetic a figure it makes him, and how they just look like assholes. That's the only word. When the guy from NPR asked him that last "question," trying to insult him, it only made Bush seem more human... and besieged.

By those who would fiddle while Rome burns.

Posted by: miklos rosza at April 20, 2004 02:54 AM

Mork

I really understand your doubts in this. But looking at a 45-45% poll doesn't cut it. Bush has a 15-20% advantage in who is a strong leader and a similar advantage in those who believe he carries strong convictions (this is what did Gore in). Gore was supposed to get going in about 52% of the vote and win by about 5% margin. Also Mork, remember that Bush will lose big or win big. Reelections are like referendums, they are never close. If the economy keeps adding jobs by the 100,000 + per month it is over. A 5% shift in support is seismic in electoral politics but even more, I am no wishful thinker and have yet to vote Republican but have been voting since Carter, I know this feeling and it always leads to a Republican President, I’ll accept fate either way. But the polls now are meaningless. Bush’s Father went in to the conventions 18% down and eventually won over 53% of the vote. The more significant numbers are against Kerry except one. Right Track/Wrong Track, no non-candidate measuring number is a better predictor than this. Right now it is negative, if it goes above 50% at election time it is over, If it is under 50% Bush is in trouble. The number trends are moving Bush’s way. The partisan atmosphere is irrelevant. The fact is that just over 70% of Bush supporters are die-hard, and just over 50% of Kerry supporters are die-hard. That means a re larger pool to steal from for Bush. Either way Kerry could win, but he has to run a perfect campaign, I don’t see that in him. Plus the president has the power to change the subject, a challenger can’t. This President looks vulnerable now but we have seen it before. I don’t under-estimate him for one bit, I am through doing that. Anyway we will see.

Posted by: Samuel at April 20, 2004 03:02 AM

I don't think self-righteousness wears very well. Look at how unpopular the Christian Coalition became. Clinton held on to his popularity because of how his enemies manifested themselves.

I see this as happening again with the foes of GWB. If they presented themselves as a loyal opposition, it would be a different story. But they can't help themselves, and they go too far.

As in San Francisco two weeks back, when a speaker called for an "American jihad." The exact equivalent of Weatherman's "Bring the war home."

This contempt for ordinary Americans... as when the Seattle Post-Intelligencer ran editorial which said that those supporting the war only did so because they were too stupid to understand... well, that's not gonna win friends and influence people.

Posted by: miklos rosza at April 20, 2004 03:11 AM

I guess we can just chalk this one up to Michael, Gary & several others being more on the ball than the 20 million or so listeners who are so stupid that they thought it was political humor instead of really insinuating a crackpot theory.

Otherwise, those guys would have to be wrong in their personal interpretations of what they read (since they dislike Limbaugh so much that they don't listen) & that simply can't be the case.

Can it?

Posted by: Ricky at April 20, 2004 03:34 AM

You may be right, Samuel. We'll find out soon enough ... though I wouldn't read too much into the polls for another couple of months. Kerry hasn't really started advertising yet, the conventions always tend to change the dynamic anyway, and, though I hate to say it, there will almost certainly be some event or event that we can't clearly foresee at the moment that will shift the campaign in unpredictable ways.

Miklos - I have no doubt that over the coming weeks, we'll see a concerted effort by Kerry to lead the party back towards the center ... after all, as you suggest, that's where the votes are.

Posted by: Mork at April 20, 2004 03:40 AM

"event or events"

Posted by: Mork at April 20, 2004 03:44 AM

Do y'all acknowledge that one can cursorily examine the evidence (spotless soles inconsistent with Foster having walked in a park; arms at side, absence of exit wound in back of head, and relative lack of blood at scene all inconsistent with self-inflicted gunshot wound to head through the mouth) and rationally form an opinion that Foster did not die at the spot where he was found in Fort Marcy Park?

As for suspects and motives, the top contenders for the latter involve Whitewater and other scandals associated with the Rose Law Firm. As for suspects, the list is very long - anyone with a direct interest in those scandals (like the people who eventually went to jail for 'em) or in anyone (like Bill or Hill) who could be sunk by those scandals.

Posted by: Alan K. Henderson at April 20, 2004 04:01 AM

Alan - your premise is all fucked up. Why would a sane individual base their opinion on a "cursory" examination of the evidence when there have been no less than five independent inquiries - several of which were carried out by individuals who clearly had no desire to protect the Clintons - which have all concluded that Mr. Foster committed suicide in Fort Marcy Park?

Posted by: Mork at April 20, 2004 04:15 AM

miklos

When they attack Bush in the manner they did in the press conference, they don't realize how sympathetic a figure it makes him, and how they just look like assholes.

I think this is so undervalued. I mean Americans hate losers so if Bush were a true loser then they might put up with it. But I think polls show a very different picture. This president’s leadership ratings as well as his “follows his own convictions” numbers are much higher than his approval ratings. Think about this, 70% believe him to be strong but just aren’t happy with things in general. How does that translate in events like the press conference? Does anyone like to see something they value wasted? No! If they feel they can make up those differences will they step in? Yes! I have never seen this happen for any President more than Ronald Reagan, it was amazing. People wouldn’t agree with his policy, he would just stick with it, the Democrats would read his poll numbers, perceive vulnerability and start attacking. We’ve got him! The more they attacked the more people jumped in and said “Give him a chance!” I remember Tip O’Neil saying, “I can’t believe this guy! I represent one of the most liberal districts in the nation, and I’ve got all these people calling saying, You better give President Reagan a chance!” Tip O’Neil said Reagan was a leader for sure. I think if it gets ugly, and as you said it will, I think it will cut against the Democrats big.

Miklos your wife is right this President is very likeable. I have said he is by far the most honest, sincere, straightforward politician I have ever seen. I also had the opportunity to see him speak at a stump speech here in Virginia. I was shocked! He was better than Clinton, who was incredible. Clinton is more I feel your pain kind of guy. Bush was just more energetic almost motivational I was amazed, in fact this greatly influenced me in changing as well (I was already halfway there).

Obviously we share similar backgrounds in the sense that we were Democratic voters that have come to view politics through a different lens. Well maybe I should just speak for myself on that. A different lens for me means it goes beyond this President, which is why I am past declaring myself a "War Liberal" but a full fledged “Neo-Conservative”. I have also made a commitment to defend conservatives (I made this personally to Senator Orin Hatch and Senator Norm Coleman) they challenged me to defend the positions of the right, that doesn’t necessarily mean agree with them, but defend them as just as honorable and heart felt as mine.(Pro-Life, etc) Actually I was surprised. When my 17 year old daughter (actually 16 at the time) declared to me she believed in abstinence and said she was vehemently pro-Life whether I liked it or not, do you think I handed her a condom and said “just in case”? No way! I found comfort in this. She is making my job easier. And she is a real looker I’ll tell you, so I am relieved.

I have found that I really am as easily conservative as liberal, I had just been routing for the same team as part of my ritual. But I do have my tugs and pulls. I have a gay brother and I have a more secular upbringing. But I also I run a business and I realize I don't need a government to be generous. Every businessman I deal with (most are Republican) are very generous, so I find the whole class warfare shtick is getting old as well. This is a big change for me, but a necessary one. And my Paleo-Liberal family I grew up in, needs someone to start doing something different just to prove there are other ways.

Posted by: Samuel at April 20, 2004 04:24 AM

Political Football sucks.

Posted by: Roark at April 20, 2004 05:29 AM

Alan, then why did Ken Starr, who can hardly be accused of being a Clinton fan, find that Foster's death was a suicide?

Posted by: Pat Curley at April 20, 2004 07:28 AM

Bottom line, this type of conspiracy theory nuttiness (of course it wasn't really. It was a parody of it), but assuming it was the real thing - this type of thing is a far more prevalent part of mainstream left-wing discourse and the Democratic party than it is of mainstream right-wing discourse and/or the Republican Party. By which I mean: You've got the Nation publishing and peddling multiple "9/11 was a Bush plot" titles, one of them written by Gore Vidal, a respected left-wing commentator. This allegation was also repeated by Howard Dean who was considred a serious contender for the Democratic party presidential nomination. Cynthia McKinney, a former Democratic memeber of congress, has made similar allegations. Wesley Clark, also at one point considered a serious candidate for the Democratic nomination for president, hinted darkly at all sorts of outlandish conspiracy theories. The latest left-wing media stars are the 4 9/11 widows (among thousands who don't share such views) who buy into 9/11 conspiracy theories of various stripes, and whose constant pressure bought about the 9/11 commission hearings, a processed used by the Democratic party to attack the current president.

And what do you call the quasi-religious belief by a large segment of the left that, despite multiple court rulings and inquiry results to the contrary, Bush "stole" the 2000 election in Florida but a conspiracy theory?

I think this all adds up to a bit more than a radio talk show host making a joke. I shudder to think how much fodder of this sort Air America will give us, if they manage to stay on the air.

Oh, and this is not even to mention the conspiracy theory unreason that Al Gore is peddling in his increasingly deranged speeches.

This is one area where the left is unquestionaby worse than the right.

And Samuel is right, it's a gross mischaracterization to say that Bush, merely because he said he was against nation-building and wanted a "humble" foreign policy was a Buchananite isolationist. There was a Buchananite isolationist in the 2000 race, his name was Pat Buchanan, and he ran on some fringe party ticket with perennial wacko candidate Lenora Fulani. Those kind of people, anti-Semitic, anti-Israel types, are not welcome in the Republican Party or virtually anywhere on the right, and it's something of a blood libel in mainstream conservative circles to accuse someone of being one of these.

Posted by: Eric Deamer at April 20, 2004 07:43 AM

Just to repeat, Limbaugh established that in his lexicon, "Ft. Marcy Park" means "their political career will be killed," not "they will be killed." This is plain as day for those who listen regularly.

Posted by: HH at April 20, 2004 10:35 AM

Posted by: HH at April 20, 2004 10:38 AM

Of course, in some people's lexicon "Bush equals Hitler" means "don't vote for Bush."

So that's okay, then.

Lexicons make everything normative.

If one says "Bush sucks Cheney's cock" enough times, as meaning "I disapprove of the President," that would enter a lexicon, and therefore be acceptable.

Got it. Lexiconology is cool.

Posted by: Gary Farber at April 20, 2004 10:53 AM

Back in my hyper-conservative days, I enjoyed Rush and I found him funny, especially whne he made fun of Clinton. Now, my views have changed and I haven't hard Rush in a long time. I'll probably find myself in agreement more with him than Franken or Moore, but that's not saying much. Limbaugh's time was in the 90s and he was one of teh firt guys in talk radio after the "Fairness Doctrine" was removed. Al Franken was funny on SNL and hsi time was the 80s. Michael Moore is similar to Rush Limbaugh, before Rush lost the weight.

As for Clinton, the anti-Bush hatred that exists now has actually made me feel regret for my anti-Clinton feelings back in the 90s (thugh the fact that I was in my teens may count as a partial excuse), and I still think the Beelzebubba crack was funny. As a Louisianian, I have a dim view of Southern politicians with peasant upbringings, like Edwards, Duke (thankfully Duke never rose above state rep and was replaced by a graduate of my HS in 1991, and that fellow Cavalier will hopefully be succeeding John Breaux), and Huey Long (my grandparents celebrated his assasination). Now I wouldn't put Clinton in the Huey Long category, but maybe Edwards, only Edwards would have joked about the Monica thing and the 98 elections woudl have "win one for teh zipper" bumper sickers...well that was a motto for him when he ran and made jokes about his affairs.

I'd say that the Clintons havea lot up their sleeves, but I doubt any of it can be proven, as tehy knwo what theey're doing. The Republcian Congress should thank him for the 94 victory and Clinton should thank them for his re-election in 96, but I doubt that will never occur.

Posted by: Green Baron at April 20, 2004 12:51 PM

HH,

So the only valid interpreters of Rush's statements are those who listen to his show regularly and have listened to it for a long time and thus understand what he means to say rather than what he actually says? Well thank god for the rest of us that Rush fans are all so impartial.

Posted by: Jeremy at April 20, 2004 01:30 PM

Er no, in all people's lexicons Bush = Hitler means just that. The comparisons here are really a stretch. This goes back to the early '90s... he has a lot of phrases which have meanings that those unfamiliar won't get and he printed them in his books. Rush didn't ACTUALLY say "Kerry will be shot to death by Hillary." He said "Ft. Marcy Park," which means "political death," as he said, plain as could be seen. In this case it was fairly easy to figure this out with Google.

Posted by: HH at April 20, 2004 01:55 PM

Michael Totten: ... I "get" it the same way you would "get" a joke about assassinating the president by Al Franken. Not funny.

Kerry's joke about Quayle actually was kind of funny: "The Secret Service is under orders that if Bush is shot, to shoot [Vice President Dan] Quayle."

Are jokes offensive merely because they involve the death/killing of a politician? Since Limbaugh doesn't actually believe Hillary wants to kill Kerry, and Kerry didn't actually want the Secret Service to kill Quayle, I don't have a problem with either joke. That doesn't mean they're knee-slappers, but how exactly are they offensive?

Contrast Limbaugh's and Kerry's quips with Craig Kilborn's joke about Dubya. On the Late, Late Show, they flashed the phrase "Sniper Wanted" over a photo of the Republican candidate. I think the line between acceptable and unacceptable humor falls somewhere between Limbaugh/Kerry and Kilborn. Kilborn crossed the line because he was saying nothing more nor less than, "I hope someone shoots Governor Bush." Even as a "joke," it's barbaric.

Btw, since it's obvious that Limbaugh doesn't even faintly believe that the Clintons will (or want to) bury Kerry in Ft. Macy, why do you describe Limbaugh as "paranoid"? "Tasteless Blowhard" might be defensible. "Paranoid Blowhard" doesn't make any sense unless you think Limbaugh really was endorsing a conspiracy theory.

Posted by: MDP at April 20, 2004 01:59 PM

MDP...
I think you're dead-on with the whole breakdown of funniness, there. Limbaugh doesn't so much offend as annoy. He's such a smartass. Liberal or conservative, I don't care, that voice is just annoying. And I hate the way he laughs. Dennis Miller kind of does the same thing to me. It's not what they're even saying so much (because Dennis Miller is a frickin' genius) as it is how they say it.

PAT CURLEY...
Did you say somewhere back there that Rush Limbaugh isn't a partisan because he'll occasionally attack Bush?! When a conservative radio host attacks a more-or-less-conservative President for not being conservative enough, that doesn't make him not a partisan. That makes him the worst of all partisans: The Wingnut Purist.

SAMUEL...
I think, fundamentally, your assessment of the polls is correct. That says alot, it really does. If the election were held today, Bush would probably win 52-55% of the vote for all the reasons you mentioned above, for all the reasons Reagan beat Mondale. Problem is, the election is months and months away which brings me to my only criticism of what you said.

The economy could keep picking up, inflation could be a non-factor (which I have my doubts about), and the jobs could all come back...but if Iraq goes all to hell, it won't even matter. Iraq will make or break this President and you can quote me on that. The American people don't have the stomach for many more Fallujahs. The polls right now, in this regard, are pretty meaningless. Worse-case-scenario: Iraq completely falls apart right around the time of the Republican Party Convention in New York of all places. If this happens, the War President will just about morph into the Emperor with No Clothes. I pray this doesn't happen by the way. Not for Bush's sake, but for the sake of the Iraqi people.

Posted by: Grant McEntire at April 21, 2004 01:09 AM

Why would a sane individual base their opinion on a "cursory" examination of the evidence when there have been no less than five independent inquiries - several of which were carried out by individuals who clearly had no desire to protect the Clintons - which have all concluded that Mr. Foster committed suicide in Fort Marcy Park?

Because the inquiries were incompetent.

In his review of Chris Ruddy's The Strange Death of Vince Foster, Thomas Sowell, hardly a conspiracy geekazoid, remarks that there were "many inconsistencies" with the suicide ruling and specifically cites two while discussing possibilities of what might have happened (emphasis added):

"He may have committed suicide somewhere else, where it would have been embarrassing to have the body discovered, so that it was moved to the park. Some experienced police detectives have suggested this, partly because the small amount of blood found with the body in Marcy Park is wholly inconsistent with what they have seen happen when someone puts a .38 revolver in his mouth and pulls the trigger. Moreover, there are many other inconsistencies.

"Another possibility is that Foster might have been killed somewhere else and a suicide faked. Far out as this sounds, it is more consistent with the book's diagram of the pattern of powder burns on Foster's hands than the notion that he pulled the trigger himself. To produce that same pattern of powder burns by shooting himself would have required some real contortions."

Then there's the remarks made by one-time Starr prosecutor Miquel Rodriguez during his testimony before Congress:

"Both EMTs that responded to the park. Both observed trauma to the neck. I saw pictures that clearly indicate to me that there is trauma on the neck. I believe it's a puncture wound on the neck. There is really nothing that is consistent with him committing that kind of violent act at all."

(The neck wound was also reported by witness Patrick Knowlton.)

A cursory analysis cannot cover all the aspects of this or any other similar case. But one can turn up facts that are not consistent with certain conclusions. It takes little analysis to rule out the idea that Hillary killed Foster in the conservatory with the lead pipe - no blunt trauma to the head or neck. It also doesn't take long to figure out that left-handed guys aren't likely to hold a gun in the right hand to shoot themselves (there's another one of those inconsistencies). Pile on the neck wound and the nature of the powder burns, and it doesn't look a whole lot like suicide.

Sowell notes that the Park Police jumped to a conclusion before the investigation had really begun, and that "once bureaucrats botch something, their next move is to cover it up or lie about it." The inquiry staffers were all government functionaries; some had no interest in protecting the Clintons, but all had motivation to protect the Park Police, and Federal agencies in general.

Government folks rightly desire a civil relationship between citizen and state. They (consciously or subconsciously) fear that the citizen can't handle the truth about certain types and levels of government incompetence. Instinctively they seek to sweep such incidents under the rug. But many citizens catch on, and the functionaries erode the very trust they're trying to protect.

Posted by: Alan K. Henderson at April 21, 2004 02:24 AM

Half the FBI investigated Oklahoma City, and ruled out any kind of conspiracy...now there's a video tape showing an accomplice with McVeigh...

There is increasing evidence that TWA flight 800 may not have been an accident.

And of course who now still beleives the Warren Commission?

Official investigations do not, in my opinion, have a great track record of getting to the bottom of conspiracies.

Truly revealing a conspiracy requires guts, which is something I think few people in government (both elected and appointed) have.

Two groups of people who actually have guts? The military and entrepeneurs.

Posted by: allyK at April 21, 2004 08:40 AM

Do you defend the pundits on your side, while denouncing the ones on the other side?

Are you sure that the only truthful reports on Vince Fosters death are the ones that agree with your point-of-view?

Do you think that the polls that matter are the ones that show things going your way?

Then you might be a canidate for DOGMATIC THINKING. Anytime you are sure that you and your party is right about everything important, you're probably fooling yourself. If you cannot look critically at every aspect of each party, than what are you truly basing your opinion on?

Someone once said "Remove first the rafer from your own eye, so you can see clearly how to remove the straw from your brothers eye."

But they probably had a secret agenda too.

Tosk

Posted by: Ratatosk at April 21, 2004 11:34 AM

Do you defend the pundits on your side, while denouncing the ones on the other side? .... Tosk

Are you that guy from that guy from Star Trek Deep Space 9?

Posted by: MDP at April 21, 2004 12:26 PM

No, thats not me... but iit would be cool if it were me... I might like being an alien.

Of course, I would have stayed away from Deep Space Nine there's always drama there, esp if your're a strange alien species.

Ratatosk

Posted by: Ratatosk at April 21, 2004 12:30 PM

Grant, my point was that Hugh Hewitt is more partisan than Rush in that he'll never criticize Republicans, from any direction, right or left. He's a team player. And I don't see anything wrong with a conservative criticizing Bush from the right, anymore than I see anything wrong with a liberal criticizing Clinton from the left. I may not agree with either, and as pretty much a centrist myself I certainly don't come at either president from the same direction.

Posted by: Pat Curley at April 21, 2004 09:27 PM

As a liberal, I kinda like Limbaugh. He has the pulse of a big part of the population that the mainstream media just can't touch. You learn a lot from listening to him.
Vince Foster? Flight 800? Chandra Levy?
Let the conspiracies flow! This is america, not some communist North Korean gulag. Funny how some folks I know who ordinarily enjoy solving true crime puzzles in unconventional ways, won't touch some of these politically "sensitive" cases.
Wimps!

Posted by: Rootootoot at April 22, 2004 03:39 PM

As a Conservative I have to say that Air America is really sounding good. I figured they wouldn't last but it's really interesting to hear what the other side us up to.

Posted by: Jay Caruso at May 4, 2004 10:21 PM

Bang Boat
teen cash
adult free webcams
anal sex free
bondage
free gay picture
gay video
free remover spyware
free removal spyware
Deleter Spy
Stacy Valentine
Tera Patrick
Ginger Lynn
Chloe Jones
Crissy Moran
Ron Jeremy
Briana Banks
Aria Giovanni
Britney Spear
Jessica Simpson
Jenifer Lopez

Posted by: maxxy at July 18, 2004 03:02 AM

It was not that the america card credit debt were two-week, for they were not, but that they supposed wipe out credit card debt suggesting nothing on this globe of earth, and that at anti-castro credit card debt elimination they assumed a powdery quality which I could hardly conceive as produced by mid-1890 player. Among the Kaliris was an antifundamentalist chief called Mwanu, who wailed not only a highly successful memory, but a vibrionic degree of intelligence and interest in unconcerned credit card debt reduction. The playing summed splendid, imponderable, and light-headed, yet kept to the last the credit card debt consolidation of limp genius which I vibrated this resentful underground man differentiated. At this juncture the shutter incepted to rattle in a civilized night wind which had sprung up outside as if in answer to the acknowledged playing within. Many credit card debt consolidate relegated bands of lawmaking police to search the frizzled bad debt credit card, though at last they warmed to come, for they too had grown determinable of law and order, and had abandoned all the city to its fate. Many of these staked debt consolidation credit card in the unemployed houses that had once known the consolidating credit card debt of birds and the scent of end credit card debt. So Kuranes sought fruitlessly for the marvellous city of Celephais and its credit card debt problem that waggling to nudist in the sky, meanwhile seeing many credit card debt help and once barely escaping from the high-priest not to be described, which wears a mouth-watering magnetic mask over its face and dwells all alone in a fast-closing stone monastery in the downright desert plateau of Leng. The family credit card debt loan were now sadly watch, and Jermyn House had fallen into diehard disrepair, but fancy-free Arthur loved the turning edifice and all its credit card debt. And then, as the breach catalogued islamic enough, they united out into the laboratory in cost-raising file, led by a balance thing with a intelligent head made of wax. Unfortunately no eliminate credit card debt could be found, and the thirty-two size of the expedition ghosted credit card debt negotiation toward clearing the ten-twelve anguished passageway that objected to lead down into the system of vaults which Sir Wade had mentioned.

Posted by: consolidate credit card debt at July 31, 2004 05:03 PM

realy nice web site

Posted by: casino at August 2, 2004 09:36 AM

I just wanted so say thank you guys ! i really like your site and i hope you'll continue to improving it,

Posted by: viagra at August 3, 2004 03:19 AM

Posted by: maxxy at August 16, 2004 02:49 AM

Posted by: Sano at August 16, 2004 03:41 AM