Uncivil Discourse: Clintonistas in their Own Words

Horiwitz's Front Page Magazine ^ | 7/8/03 | Chris Arabia

[MattinNJ]

Gorin insightfully conveys the absurdity of an ex-President mourning that the glory of ensuring national security after 9/11 had eluded him while demonstrating anew his inability to ensure the local security of a household pet.

Ouch-that's gotta leave a mark.

[Support Free Republic]

There's A Better Way To Beat The Media Clymers (And You Don't Have To Skate)!
	Donate Here By Secure Server Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794 or you can use PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD- It is in the breaking news sidebar!

[Egregious Philbin]

After dispensing with Buddy, Gorin shifted her emphasis to Chelsea. Arguing that the Clintons reproduced primarily for political purposes, the column contended that Chelsea became “a stellar child” to fulfill the requirements of the Clintonian script. Gorin asserted that the stress of playing her role was leading Chelsea down the path of substance abuse.

What would happen if the tables were turned and a liberal writer made the same speculation about Bush's daughters?

[Paul Atreides]

Before his death, Zeke wandered around Little Rock unattended and because the Clintons didn’t bother to have the dog neutered, he managed to father multiple litters.

Very analogous.

[Paul Atreides]

Whoever said it about the Bush daughters would be applauded by the mainstream media as very witty.

[Egregious Philbin]

Whoever said it about the Bush daughters would be applauded by the mainstream media as very witty.

And FrontPage would be outraged that someone could say something so "hateful and intolerant."

[dirtboy]

What would happen if the tables were turned and a liberal writer made the same speculation about Bush's daughters?

It would be a pointless comparison. Have you ever seen the Bush daughters as a prop in the Bush Administration the way Chelsea was in the Clinton Administration?

If you're going to make a point, I suggest you sharpen your schtick first...

[martin_fierro]

[autoresponder]

Another abused Clinton "family member".

Premature evacuation abounds.

[MarkL]

What would happen if the tables were turned and a liberal writer made the same speculation about Bush's daughters?

They already have! Where have you been? For the entire Clinton Administration, Chelsea was "off-limits," but the Bush girls, well, how many times were they in the press?

Mark

[Egregious Philbin]

Have you ever seen the Bush daughters as a prop in the Bush Administration the way Chelsea was in the Clinton Administration?

How does one make such a distinction? Are the Bush daughters never a prop when they attend political functions, yet Chelsea always was?

I have to sharpen my shtick so that you can see beyond what you want to see.

[dirtboy]

How does one make such a distinction? Are the Bush daughters never a prop when they attend political functions, yet Chelsea always was?

Nice try. I don't recall the Bush daughters being part of peace negotiations for the Middle East. And I really don't recall seeing them splashed all over the place walking from the White House to Marine One with the President and the First Lady to try and convince voters that they're one big happy family.

I have to sharpen my shtick so that you can see beyond what you want to see.

I see just fine. You, however, seem to have assumed the standard Dem position for viewing the world, where your head occupies a place normally visited only by doctors with flashlights.

[Hobsonphile]

This article doesn't surprise me at all. You should've seen the hate mail that I received when I dared to express a pro-Bush position on another forum a few months ago. My favorite was the email that read:

"Get the hell out of Boston you goose-stepping Nazi."

I knew then that I had won the fight.

[Bon mots]

My favorite words of the Clintonistas...

X   I did not have sex...

[Sabertooth]

In their perverse world, any criticism of Clinton is hate, rhetorical conveniences such as satire and humor are unfathomable beacons of lightened tone, and those who diverge from the left’s angry outlook are enemies to be despised and, where possible, destroyed.

Deja ping.

[AnnaZ]

Ms. Gorin was a guest on Unspun a few weeks back. (And she will be a guest again... she rocks!)

 

Archive:
WMP or RP

[an amused spectator]

What would happen if the tables were turned and a liberal writer made the same speculation about Bush's daughters?

And FrontPage would be outraged that someone could say something so "hateful and intolerant."

Pull your head out of The Alpha Male's posterior long enough to Google up the reams of vile screeds on the Bush twins made by "liberal writers", Egregious.

Even you might need a shower after reading some of them.

Let's also reflect that "right-wing" Chelsea vilenesses didn't come until probably 3-4 years after Clinton took office. The Left was vomiting this crap about the Bush twins BEFORE the election, and their foaming, pinwheels-for-eyes hatred has only increased geometrically since.

And BTW - find an article on FrontPage saying something about the Bush twin hitpieces. ;-)

[Paul Atreides]

I also seem to remember a lot of glee on the left about how the Reagan children behaved, and how the left would try to say that it was due to the Reagans being dysfunctional parents. Also, Miss Chelsea is being groomed as part of a Clinton dynasty. From what I have read, she is a nasty little piece of work who has inherited her parents' worst qualities.

[Egregious Philbin]

Pull your head out of The Alpha Male's posterior long enough to Google up the reams of vile screeds on the Bush twins made by "liberal writers", Egregious.

C'mon, amused, i've seen you 'round, you can do better than recycle dirtboy's lame comment! Leave Al out of this!

I took your advice, but went one step further. The first page of links on google for "bush twins" and "chelsea clinton" are not all that different. Speculation on love lives and articles about and photos of public drunkenness. There's also the article in the National Review that John Derbyshire wrote about Chelsea Clinton. The telling line - "Brace yourself: I hate Chelsea Clinton." Not yet 21, not yet in political office, and he hates her?

Let's also reflect that "right-wing" Chelsea vilenesses didn't come until probably 3-4 years after Clinton took office. The Left was vomiting this crap about the Bush twins BEFORE the election, and their foaming, pinwheels-for-eyes hatred has only increased geometrically since.

I guess the "right-wing" had the good grace to lay off Chelsea until she turned 18.

The fact is, the children of politicians shouldn't be a subject for political pundits unless the children are actively involved in politics, right? It's a blight on all media, biased one way or the other, that "info" like this gets so much coverage. It's a product of our sick celebrity culture, wanting to see the famous, and especially wanting to see the famous fall, drunkenly, outside of a club in London or a frat party in Texas.

But the subject does well to point out the hypocrisy in some political punditry, seen in the article, the type that says, "those (liberals/ conservatives, Republicans/ Democrats), they are dishonest and hateful, and without a grasp of the facts, whereas we (liberals/ conservatives; Republicans/ Democrats) are logical and would never stoop so low." This is the Ann Coulter/David Horowitz/Paul Krugman/Joe Conason school of punditry. This type of punditry is eaten up by the type of person invested enough in politics to write the potty-mouthed lettersm mentioned in this piece.