1

I have more respect for a guy who goes to fight, then returns and does what his conscience requires: he protests. Contrast this with Bush who said he did not protest Vietnam because he wanted to "support his government". That's exactly what Bush and many conservatives want us to do now: put on the blinders of right wing patriotism and with great pride, support their policies, no matter what.

more on:
http://www.alt7.com

2

Why is there such tremendous concern over where Democrats put their penises, and little concern over what Republicans do with theirs? You don't still hear people harping about Gingrich divorcing his wife -- while she was on her deathbed -- so that he could remarry a woman half his age. But we still hear about Paula Jones, whose story can't be corroborated. I don't get it.

Democrats who excuse Clinton's infidelity and Republicans who excuse Limbaugh's illicit drug use only show me that people don't care much about those issues in the grand scheme of things, except when it's a convenient way to attack somebody they don't like. If their own guy is guilty, they're willing to excuse that (and go great lengths to do so), but if it's the opposing guy, then look out.

Give it a rest, already.

3

Someone on our site (http://www.leanleft.com/) posted a comment on this with an interesting theory -- that these rumors could be coming directly from the Kerry camp. If they're true, he's better served by airing the dirty laundry now, so that come November, it will all be old news. It's not unreasonable to believe that Bush is choosing right now to address his guard record, the failure to find WMDs, etc., for exactly the same reasons.

Not sure if there's any weight to that, but certainly food for thought.

4

T.,

You don't still hear people harping about Gingrich divorcing his wife...

Gingrich? Is this really the best you can do? Gingrich was a congressman in a state I don't live it. I find him repugnant and annoying but he never was one of my elected representatives.

Democrats who excuse Clinton's infidelity and Republicans who excuse Limbaugh's illicit drug...

Um, T., let me point out something for you. Clinton was the President of the United States. His actions as Commander and Chief would have gotten me court-martialed if I had done them myself. Limbaugh is wind-bag on the radio. I don't recall that he was ever an elected representative. I will say, though, that if Limbaugh is guilty of doing anything illegal he should be hammered for it.

5

I couldn't agree more with tgirsch. Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, and John Kerry need to immediately resign their positions in the US Congress, for the moral good of the country.

6

Joe:
Gingrich was a congressman in a state I don't live it.

He was the Speaker of the House! You know, the de facto leader of the Republican party? You might not personally have elected him, but your party put him in charge...

Clinton was the President of the United States. His actions as Commander and Chief would have gotten me court-martialed if I had done them myself.

If Clinton was guilty of a crime other than perjury, I'm not aware of it. For most people (in the civilian world, anyway), perjury would generally be punished by a fine, maybe a few days in jail. He certainly didn't do anything like sell weapons to Iran to finance an illegal war in Central America or anything.

Believe me, I'm no big Clinton fan. But for all my personal distaste for him as a man, the country seemed to do pretty well with him at the helm.

For the kids: sell weapons to oppressive, theocratic middle-eastern regimes to finance illegal drug wars elsewhere: You're a patriot! Let's put your face on the $10 bill!

Get blown by an intern: You traitorous bastard! It's a wonder the commies haven't taken over with you in charge!

7

He was the Speaker of the House! You know, the de facto leader of the
Republican party? You might not personally have elected him, but your party
put him in charge...

My party? You’ve got the wrong guy if you think I’m going to mount a partisan defense for Gingrich. I’m a “reluctant Republican.” I support them when I think they are in the right.

If Clinton was guilty of a crime other than perjury, I'm not aware of it. For
most people (in the civilian world, anyway), perjury would generally be
punished by a fine, maybe a few days in jail. He certainly didn't do
anything like sell weapons to Iran to finance an illegal war in Central America
or anything.

I should have been more clear about what I meant. If I would have had sex with a woman in my office and cheated on my wife then I would have been punished under the UCMJ. I wasn’t even thinking about the perjury. But you're right. Lying about it would have gotten me in even more trouble.

8

Unless the intern turns out to be a goat, an al Queda operative, or a Republican, it won?t affect his chances of being the nominee.

That was the funniest thing I've read today.

9

I don't find these pecadillo-matching contests to be very enlightening.

One point about Clinton as Commander in Chief, however: this business about adultery and the UCMJ is often brought up, and makes no sense to me. The simple fact is that being Commander in Chief does not make him subject to the UCMJ. The armed forces have a civilian commander - that's the whole point. The President is not a member of the military, and is not subject to the rules governing the military. It's not ambiguous - that's just the way it is. He cannot be prosecuted for actions in violation of the UCMJ - as many, many uninformed people kept insisting during the Lewinsky business - and if the argument is that he should somehow "live up to" those standards to be worthy of being CiC, that's both non-sequitur and clearly wrong. Most of the military regulations the President simply can't live up to - they aren't applicable or don't make sense. The rest the President should not be required to live up to.

The President is under no compulsion to refrain from asking people their sexual orientation and from telling them his/her own. The President can be critical of the Vice President, Secretary of Defense, or Secretary of Transportation with no fear of an Article 88 prosecution. And if the President wants his flute tooted by the second chair, well, what the hell. You don't have to approve, but it's not illegal.

I really don't get why the UCMJ, specifically, is so often brought up as a point of criticism. The President also has authority over the Health Department and the Department of Agriculture, but it's not his job to vaccinate babies or plant crops. Why it's his job to eschew blowjobs just because Marines can't get them too escapes me. I mean, the President should be sympathetic to the troops, but that's taking things too far.

10

Cool, arguments about Clinton and Lewinsky! It's the dot-com boom again, software jobs are plentiful, tech stocks are going up, up, up, and consulting rates are going through the roof! Ah, those were the days.

Yes, they were the days. This debate is not exactly fresh. Joe's snarky quip about this making Kerry more Clintonesque stands unassailed. If you think accusations of intern-adultery by the Democratic frontrunner aren't news, then don't post on political sites. Regardless of which party enganges in more or less illicit sexual activity, this is a highly relevant topic to be discussing.

11

Tim:
If you think accusations of intern-adultery by the Democratic frontrunner aren't news, then don't post on political sites.

Adultery is a vague term. Whether or not it's news depends on whether or not there was marital infidelity involved. If not, then this absolutely is not news. It could be that the allegations are true. But until we have corroboration, it seems opportunistic at best to attack Kerry over it now.

12

So, is the choice between a candidate who boinks an intern and one that boinks the facts sending 535 soldiers to their death?

That's not a difficult one to figure out.