'His way,' exposed (Dubya, Bill, Hillary, David Rosen)

WASHINGTON -- The adage about these being "the best of times and the worst of times" could not be truer as we await the second inauguration on Thursday of President George W. Bush.

We read in the papers about the destruction of wonderful coastal villages and towns in Asia together with a mind-shattering loss of lives by a series of tsunamis. Then we read moronic nonsense of how the Democrats in Congress attempted to derail the electoral results in Ohio and deny Bush the presidency using a 1877 ruling.

On the positive side, Hillary Clinton displayed her nature by pretending to believe that there were "legitimate questions about the accuracy and integrity of the election." Having received some publicity, Bill Clinton's wife then pulled a John Kerry. She went into reverse and voted positively for the president. Let's hope that "accuracy and integrity" were in the forefront of Hillary's mind when the indictment of her campaign finance manager, David Rosen, was announced -- for fixing contributions to her Senate race.

While Mother Clinton was wailing about electoral fraud and her financial manager's indictment and Bill was raising money for tsunami charities, Monica and Chelsea were loose in Manhattan, "together" at 29-35 9th Avenue, once the meatpacking center of New York.

No, they were not looking for a union card from the packers, but relaxing at opposite ends of a very private club, the Soho House.

But, considering some of the horrendous happenings in our world, it is not surprising that the Democratic Party is seeking new policies.

Suddenly, the Democratic Party is realizing that the Clinton presidency was not an unqualified success and that it is time to retire his concepts from public display.

I'd like to know where this is happening...

As President Bush is inaugurated for a second term this week, we should remember that there are principles and policies in government other than Clinton's belief that it is better to be "wrong and strong" than "right and weak."

I've read this again and again and still do not comprehend what it means in this context. To say "other than" implies opposition, either an inverse or converse of what follows.

The inverse is crazy: it is better to be "not wrong and strong" than "not right and weak." Figuring out the sense of this requires a bit of Zen meditation to straighten out, if indeed that is even possible.

The converse offers a glimmer of understanding: it is better to be "right and strong" than "wrong and weak."

Even this has its difficulties. I think what confuses me is that the article seems to want to be constructively critical of the Democrat party but then concludes with exactly what is the problem: the Democrat party is wrong and weak. The Republican party is right and strong; to become that, the Democrat party will have to abandon the lefty weirdos and become Republican!

Do I need more coffee to understand this? Or is this simply liberal logic, warm and fuzzy somehow, but vague and ultimately invalid?

While Mother Clinton was wailing about electoral fraud and her financial manager's indictment Speaking of electoral fraud, perhaps we need to review the PARDONS FOR SALE that elected Hillary. Perhaps the "New Square Four" will jog her memory. Read chapter 11 of The Final Days (author Barbara Olson): (pg 143-145)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.