This just in; Hillary Clinton is a Liar

From what I've read about the book and seen of her interviews I know she is still peddling the whopper that she was shocked to find that Bill had broken his marital vows.
David Limbuagh

Miss Hillary recounts my favorite of her lies when she tells of how she told her lawyer in August 1998, when he warned her that there may be something to this Monica business: "My husband may have his faults, but he has never lied to me." . . .

After all, her statement is about as plausible as saying Adolph Hitler may have had his faults, but he always loved and admired Jewish people. "Bill Clinton never lied to me" is one of those statements that polygraph operators could use as a benchmark of a certain lie.
Tony Blankley

That's one interesting set of quotes--and there are other examples. Hillary claims she believed her husband when he told her he wasn't having an affair, and any one looking at the situation would know that she was totally lying. Because woman who's husbands' cheat on them never live in a place of denial. She's clearly lying.

Here's another common trope in conservative reviews of the book;

I haven't actually read her book yet (I may spend money like water, but I have my limits). - Tony Blankley

As for Hillary and her book, I doubt I'll read it. - David Limbaugh

I haven't read her book but, like a lot of other women (and men), I've read the excerpts and watched the interviews. - Suzanne Fields

The Earned Income Tax Credit

Interesting article by Bruce Bartlett today on the Earned Income Credit Tax Credit, and the Aid to Families with Dependent Children Tax Credit. He admits that the original purpose of the tax credit was to, as he puts it, "reinforce work incentives and help get people off welfare." Sounds like a worthy goal to me.

However there is a downside. Some people apparently aren't paying taxes at all. As Bartlett puts it, "Those with earnings below $10,000 pay no income taxes and get a check from the government for 2.6 times their payroll tax liability." Those lucky $10,000.00 a year making jerks. I wish I were only making $10,000.00 and had several kids to support. Then I'd have to pay no taxes (except sales tax, of course. And pay roll taxes). That would be wonderful.

What's also nice is the gloating tone about how all these lucky duckies don't bother to vote. So people who do pay taxes have voted in Republicans in order to shift the tax burden back to people making $10,000 a year.

The Pam President

It turns out that President Bush is invulnerable to scandal, according to Ben Shapiro, Boy Prognosticator. The stolen election, Enron, the flight to the USS Abraham Lincoln; President Bush has survived them all. As Shapiro puts it, "He might as well be called the Pam President. You can fry him, you can grill him, but nothing will stick to him." For those who don't know what Pam is, it's a "Non-Stick cooking spray."

Yep. The Pam president. You see when you cover your frying pan with Pam, it is briefly resistant to having food stick to it. And it looks shiny. And if you touch it, it feels oily. And it eventually wears off. You see Pam isn't part of the frying pan--it's just a temporary surface. All it takes is a little water and a little soap and the protection washes right off.

Come to think of it, I'm not exactly sure that young Ben really meant to call President Bush the Pam President.

But then again, we live in an age of lowered expectations. Where once the Republicans fielded a Teflon President, I guess we need to settle now for Pam.

Back with a Bullet, It's Brandy!

Yep, Brandy who posts here from time to time is posting and we'd all like to welcome her.

First off, I agree that Hilary's book sounds dull...I don't think it's full of 'lies' just rhetoric...check out the NY Times review...almost funny.

Second...those infamous weapons of mass destruction...are you seriously suggesting that you don't think there were any there??? Come on Bryant...The UN reports (and lets remember here these are NOT American reports) CLEARLY stated the weapons Saddam had that he was NOT suppose to...many of which are under that ridiculously large cover of 'WMD'...we ALL know he had them! But since Powell wasted so much time with the UN he moved them...it's like telling a kid -"ok, in 3 weeks I'm going to come check your room for the pot that I saw you bring in there"...even the dumbest of kids is going to move it to their friend Syria's house. And lets not forget the scud missiles he fired on our troops, or the gallons of liquid saraton (I'm sure I misspelled) that were found . . . what 'exactly' do the naysayers think they are going to find??

Lets look at this from another angle...let's 'say' Saddam never had any of the stuff reported from the 90's UN inspections...why wouldn't he let in the inspectors again?? Why would he have risked being over thrown or given away the chance to make the US look stupid...is he really that much of an idiot. And the last thought...Where is Saddam, oh, wait, we can't find him...hmmm, I'm beginning to think he was never really there, just something Bush made up so we could attack poor Iraq.

Now, then...I actually have other concerns about Iraq...ie, what is the next step (remember this was my concern 'before' the war) I feel our military will be unnecessarily harmed due to lack of the administration setting up a better plan for post-war. And What the hades is up with Bush criticizing Sharon for targeting a 'known' terrorist....Bush really gets me upset the way he half helps Israel and then ties their hands...I thought Bush said 'you're on one side of the line or the other...helping terrorists or getting rid of them'...and then he pulls this??

A few comments.

First, Powell did not go to the UN by himself--he went at the direction of President Bush. It's inconceivable that he would do what he did without the full knowledge and approval of President Bush, and if there is to be any blame for the delay it should be appropriately ascribed to President Bush.

As near as I can tell the "Saraton" that they found (I don't know the correct spelling either) was found at a munitions depot, and on further testing turned out to be chemicals used to maintain their rockets (story here). In addition, the mobile laboratories recently found are not clearly weapons factories either. Of course there for a while we found weapons of mass destruction every couple of days--if they definitively found them would Ari Fleischer be back peddling, claiming now that President Bush was using the terms "weapons of mass destruction" and "weapons of mass destruction programs" interchangeably?

I do applaud your concern over Iraq--The Bush administration seems torn between the absolute necessity of rebuilding Iraq and the conservative's long-standing animosity towards "Nation-Building." Makes what they are doing sort of half hearted, in my eyes.

Slow News Day

There are two big stories right now in the political world. One is that we may or may not find Weapons of Mass Destruction, and what are the ramifications of either outcome. I already wrote on that this morning, but you might also want to check out Debra Saunder's latest article, in which she suggests that the fact that we haven't found the weapons of mass destruction will help President Bush win reelection. Apparently we Americans are too smart to believe that Presisdent Bush just overstated his case when trying to sell the war--we really believe that those Weapons of Mass Destruction have been moved into Iran or Syria (depending on who we want to invade next), and our fear of them will cause us to support President Bush even more. However, all of these articles, as interesting as they are, have one flaw--we don't know yet for sure what the answer is. It's still a bit early to declare that the weapons won't be found.

The other big story is the veracity of Ms. Hillary Clinton's memoirs. I cannot begin to express to you how little this story interests me. Anyway Conservatives continue to write staggeringly vicious attacks on Ms. Clinton. The entire book is assumed to be lies, and an attempt by the Clintons to knock the legs out from any liberal candidates in order for Ms. Clinton to run in 2008. At any rate, it's just dull to me. If you have any suggestions for an interesting idea or political theory or writing I could take on, please e-mail them here.

A Good Question

Well there are several interesting articles today on the lack of Weapons of Mass Destruction story. Terence Jeffrey suggests that presidential candidate Bob Graham of Florida, who was on the intelligence committee, knows that the evidence presented was good. In his argument he presents a discussion with Paul Anderson, Graham's communications director, who says of his candidate, "He believes that the intelligence that was presented suggested that." Theres the rub right there--was the intelligence presented complete enough to paint a full picture? Paul Anderson, Graham's communications director suggests that Graham believed it was honest information, but that's a) his opinion and b) still doesn't answer if the picture presented was complete.

Then David Limbaugh takes a different tack and simply presents the evidence gathered so far, denies it, and asks, "Whom do you trust, and who truly has the nation's best interests at heart?"

That's the $64,000.00 question.

Your Weekly Rush

Sorry, I haven't been keeping up with Rush as much lately. But yesterday he said something really interesting. "This is no criticism of the working poor, by the way. I'm probably the strongest voice of support they have." Great! Well let's go down how Rush expresses this support, but before we do, let me make one thing perfectly clear. Although the temptation is great, I will not be using the phrase "With friends like these . . ." or any variation on it. Its a temptation, but I will stay strong.

Here is what Rush wants to do for the working poor.

- Make them pay more taxes by eliminating the Earned Income Credit, and by repealing the recent child credit.

- Allow corporations to pay them less and to provide fewer benefits. Eliminating the minimum wage.

- Ensure that the working poor always receive minimal service from the American health care service.

- Eliminate the unemployment safety net. If a member of the working poor loses his or her job, he or she can go hungry until he or she finds work again. He's fond of saying, "When you are out of work, you have a job; to find another job."

And so on and so forth. With Friends like . . .. wait, I must resist. I'll think of some other phrase. A stitch in time saves nine. There, that's good.

A Time For Peace?

Townhall printed a good article today by Doug Bandow on the need for a rapprochement between the United States and our allies. He states;

The mutual snarling serves no one's interest. Repairing the relationship first will require honesty. Secretary of State Colin Powell recently argued, "This is a conflict that we did not ask for, we did not seek, we did not want, we did everything to avoid."

No serious person could believe him. Washington was determined to go to war; that very determination won President Bush popular support in the United States. The administration needs to justify its decision, not run from it.

Washington should acknowledge that it overstated its case. The failure to find any weapons of mass destruction is deeply embarrassing. If Iraq wasn't willing to use such weapons to defend itself, they apparently didn't exist or weren't worth using.

At the same time, Washington's critics should acknowledge that their stance reflects less commitment to international law than concern about American dominance. Moreover, they need to recognize that Bush is no crazy cowboy, as evidenced by his circumspect response to the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11.

Both sides need to regain a sense of proportion toward multilateralism. If the United States believes that its vital interests are at stake, it should not wait for U.N. approval to respond.

Yet multilateralism has value. Washington is likely to find that the difficult process of creating a stable democratic Iraq would be easier with wider international support.

Wise words, well worth considering.

On Boycotts

I've been having a debate with myself since yesterday, on this Savage controversy. Michaelsavagesucks.com is, among other things, a boycott site. It lists at the top of its website various products that advertise on the Michael Savage Show and encourages you not to buy them. In other words, they are trying to get Michael Savage knocked off the air, by pressuring his sponsors to drop him. While the methods are different (and, for the record, suing those you disagree with is a lot more sleazy in my book) the end result is the same. The Coalition for Human Decency (who run Michaelsavagesucks.com) doesn't like what Michael Savage says so they are trying to silence him.

Similarly they are also trying an end run strategy. They apparently believe that attempts to convince Savage's listeners of the wrongfulness of his arguments would not work. Organizing a boycott of the show would have little effect. So they are going for the weak link so to speak. Advertisers do not like associating their products with controversy of any kind and so will fold much more quickly than the public might.

I e-mailed my thoughts to the Coalition for Human Decency, and received a very condescending letter. I e-mailed back for clarification, and received an even more condescending letter. I gather that I'm just wrong headed for questioning the tactics of the Coalition for Human Decency. Find it interesting that in with an opportunity to convince someone of the rightness of their cause, they basically didn't bother. This is pretty common among the true believers, I've noticed though.

Anyway to sum up, Make me a Commentator!!! reserve's its strongest condemnation for Michael Savage, who is using his wealth to silence his critics. But we feel compelled to point out that some of his victims are not entirely clean on the issue of free speech, either.

When Savages Attack!

You may or may not have heard of Radio/TV personality Michael Savage. He's a right wing radio guy who has adopted a novel technique in winning the American people over to his side. He's sueing those who disagree with his views. In particular, he's suing takebackthemedia.com, as well as Savagestupidity.com and michaelsavagesucks.com.

I just want to let you know that we at Make Me a Commentator!!! refuse to be cowed by such ham handed techniques. Although I haven't critiqued Savage's show or ideas as of yet, I can assure I will in the future, as and when I encounter them.

In a sign of good common sense, he did not, in fact, sue "Takebackthemedia.com" but instead he sued the founder wife. The Founder commented, "It's harassment pure and simple -- going after my wife instead of the Take Back The Media, a California corporation is sleazy. But it's the kind of thing I'd expect from this clown. It's either intentional or a stupid mistake by the lawyers he's hired. The other sites mention how his lawyers tried to take away their domain but screwed up the paperwork. They were laughing at them and it was kind of funny. Going after someone's wife? Real cute. As a Veteran (enlisted in 1971 during Vietnam) I fought for their right of free speech, but not their right to harass and intimidate and we will not back down."

Pop

Good news, music fans. According to Suzanne Fields, the failure of Madonna's latest album and the success of Diana Krall, proves that we are turning away from all this new fangled kind of rock music and getting back to the classics.

"Each generation searches for its own voice in popular music, but maybe we're finally passing through a particularly degrading time, when both lyrics and rhythms articulated anger rather than love. Maybe we want to be touched with a little tenderness again. Maybe nihilism and narcissism have finally reached the dead end they deserve."

Well we'll have to wait to see if the next Eminem album to see if we've really rejected nihilism. And does Ms. Fields really think that pop stars will ever reject Narcissism?

In other music news, Radiohead's "Hail to the Thief" comes out tomorrow. Something to look forward to.

Responsible Advertising

I got an e-mail today from a company advertising that they could provide me any drug over the internet. According to their copy, "One of our US licensed physicians will write an FDA approved prescription for you and ship your order overnight via a US Licensed pharmacy direct to your doorstep, fast and secure!"

And the E-Mail tagline to entice me into reading this e-mail? "Are you a junky?" What??

This is irresponsible advertising of the worst kind. The company and people involved should be ashamed of themselves. I would imagine they are all in a room somewhere, dressed like seventies TV pimps (I don't know why I imagine them dressing this way, but why not?) reading this website and laughing at my naivete, but maybe one or two of them will be shaken and will decide to not push drugs.

New Quotation

I've been busy this weekend, so haven't been able to post much--but I am changing the quote on top. Because I care.