Hillary Clinton: Mountain, or just another mole?

This story about Bush dismissing some US attorneys has kicked around all week. And to be honest, I wasn’t very interested. That is, until just about every Lib I know tried to voice their outrage over Bush’s misuse of his powers. So I dropped the Clinton ’93 bomb a few times an in attempt to get on with my day. Reactions ranged from feigned ignorance to the event to the typical ‘Oh well, but Bush…<insert irrelevant strawman here>.

Listening to Rush Limbaugh this week…He has seized on this in typical Pit Bull fashion as one more arrow in the conservative quiver to combat the political trickery of the “Clintonistas”. But another voice from the Limbaugh program reveals the duality of todays political landscape.

On Friday, Rush’s guest was Tom Delay. In discussing an unrelated subject, Delay explained that Liberals, by their nature, are collectivist. This fact is borne out in multiple examples where seemingly disparate factions of the left will coalesce to attack a common political enemy. Conservatives, Tom went on, a more inherently individualist. We basically require a strong personal motivator to ‘jump on the bandwagon’. So, stories like this one take on a Liberal life of their own, with little Conservative retort.

As a movement, our lack of passion with respect to the obviously trivial is perceived as weakness. Liberals, in their fervor to attack societal norms and their defenders, make mountains from political mole hills. And, when we as conservatives recognize them as mole hills, we are apologists or avoiding the ‘issue’.

Shillary’s latest display of moral relativism and revisionist history is no different. The tactic is quite simple but quite effective. Get everyone focused on the mole hill and not on important issues to which you have no answers. The proof of this plan’s worth is found in the mid-term pudding.

And so, I post this little tidbit from the WSJ with a caution. It’s intended purpose is as a pest control. Spray it on any Liberal moles that happen to cross your path on your way to the mountain.

OpinionJournal – Featured Article

Hillary Clinton knows all about sacking U.S. Attorneys.

Wednesday, March 14, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT
Congressional Democrats are in full cry over the news this week that the Administration’s decision to fire eight U.S. Attorneys originated from–gasp–the White House. Senator Hillary Clinton joined the fun yesterday, blaming President Bush for “the politicization of our prosecutorial system.” Oh, my.

As it happens, Mrs. Clinton is just the Senator to walk point on this issue of dismissing U.S. attorneys because she has direct personal experience. In any Congressional probe of the matter, we’d suggest she call herself as the first witness–and bring along Webster Hubbell as her chief counsel.

As everyone once knew but has tried to forget, Mr. Hubbell was a former partner of Mrs. Clinton at the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock who later went to jail for mail fraud and tax evasion. He was also Bill and Hillary Clinton’s choice as Associate Attorney General in the Justice Department when Janet Reno, his nominal superior, simultaneously fired all 93 U.S. Attorneys in March 1993. Ms. Reno–or Mr. Hubbell–gave them 10 days to move out of their offices.

At the time, President Clinton presented the move as something perfectly ordinary: “All those people are routinely replaced,” he told reporters, “and I have not done anything differently.” In fact, the dismissals were unprecedented: Previous Presidents, including Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter, had both retained holdovers from the previous Administration and only replaced them gradually as their tenures expired. This allowed continuity of leadership within the U.S. Attorney offices during the transition.

Equally extraordinary were the politics at play in the firings. At the time, Jay Stephens, then U.S. Attorney in the District of Columbia, was investigating then Ways and Means Chairman Dan Rostenkowski, and was “within 30 days” of making a decision on an indictment. Mr. Rostenkowski, who was shepherding the Clinton’s economic program through Congress, eventually went to jail on mail fraud charges and was later pardoned by Mr. Clinton.

Also at the time, allegations concerning some of the Clintons’ Whitewater dealings were coming to a head. By dismissing all 93 U.S. Attorneys at once, the Clintons conveniently cleared the decks to appoint “Friend of Bill” Paula Casey as the U.S. Attorney for Little Rock. Ms. Casey never did bring any big Whitewater indictments, and she rejected information from another FOB, David Hale, on the business practices of the Arkansas elite including Mr. Clinton. When it comes to “politicizing” Justice, in short, the Bush White House is full of amateurs compared to the Clintons.

And it may be this very amateurism that explains how the current Administration has managed to turn this routine issue of replacing Presidential appointees into a political fiasco. There was nothing wrong with replacing the eight Attorneys, all of whom serve at the President’s pleasure. Prosecutors deserve supervision like any other executive branch appointees. The supposed scandal this week is that Mr. Bush had been informed last fall that some U.S. Attorneys had been less than vigorous in pursuing voter-fraud cases and that the President had made the point to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Voter fraud strikes at the heart of democratic institutions, and it was entirely appropriate for Mr. Bush–or any President–to insist that his appointees act energetically against it.

Take sacked U.S. Attorney John McKay from Washington state. In 2004, the Governor’s race was decided in favor of Democrat Christine Gregoire by 129 votes on a third recount. As the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and other media outlets reported, some of the “voters” were deceased, others were registered in storage-rental facilities, and still others were convicted felons. More than 100 ballots were “discovered” in a Seattle warehouse. None of this constitutes proof that the election was stolen. But it should have been enough to prompt Mr. McKay, a Democrat, to investigate, something he declined to do, apparently on grounds that he had better things to do.

In New Mexico, another state in which recent elections have been decided by razor thin margins, U.S. Attorney David Iglesias did establish a voter fraud task force in 2004. But it lasted all of 10 weeks before closing its doors, despite evidence of irregularities by the likes of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or Acorn. As our John Fund reported at the time, Acorn’s director Matt Henderson refused to answer questions in court about whether his group had illegally made copies of voter registration cards in the run-up to the 2004 election.

As for some of the other fired Attorneys, at least one of their dismissals seemed to owe to differences with the Administration about the death penalty, another to questions about the Attorney’s managerial skills. Not surprisingly, the dismissed Attorneys are insisting their dismissals were unfair, and perhaps in some cases they were. It would not be the first time in history that a dismissed employee did not take kindly to his firing, nor would it be the first in which an employer sacked the wrong person. No question, the Justice Department and White House have botched the handling of this issue from start to finish. But what we don’t have here is any serious evidence that the Administration has acted improperly or to protect some of its friends. If Democrats want to understand what a real abuse of power looks like, they can always ask the junior Senator from New York.

See No Evil…Unless!

Almost two weeks ago, I published a social commentary piece as it related to the Anna Nicole Smith coverage here at The Chase. Since then, conservative talkers like Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Michael Savage have followed suit with similar “what does it say about our society” monologues. And now this fine piece on media influence from American Spectator. Never let it be said that we here at The Chase aren’t one step of the competition. Rush often says he’s show prep for the MSM. I guess we must be show prep for Rush. Hey Rush, can I get a hook up on that 24/7 subscription as a little ‘Thank You”?

It’s been fifteen years since the cultural elite ridiculed Dan Quayle mercilessly for criticizing the glamorization of unwed motherhood in sitcoms like Murphy Brown. Through innumerable press accounts and Hollywood asides, the message was clear: Only someone irremediably stupid would actually confuse a television program with reality!

A decade and a half later, however, the press is finally admitting that television role models may indeed have an impact on real-life behavior. Not surprisingly, however, the concern is highly selective. For most of the cultural elite, television’s influence seems relevant only when it comes to violence — and never when it comes to sex.

In recent days, the press has taken aim at 24 — the one massively popular television program known to be written and produced by people who hold conservative views. According to accounts in the New Yorker, the Associated Press, the Los Angeles Times and elsewhere, Human Rights First — a left-wing “human rights” group — is seeking to prove that the torture scenes depicted in 24 are affecting the behavior of American soldiers.

The audacity of the claim is remarkable. To charge that soldiers will ignore their training, risk criminal prosecution and jettison basic notions of morality based only on the influence of a single television show far exceeds any claim that Dan Quayle ever made about the power of television. What’s more, it plays into a stereotype — beloved by too many on the left — of soldiers as stupid, easily manipulated, and/or barbaric. Nevertheless, the coverage of the allegations has been widespread.

Now contrast that with the rampant glamorization of teenage sexuality — not in one program — but routinely. While the press focuses on the depiction of torture in a single prime-time television program, it’s worth noting that a 2005 Kaiser Family Foundation study found that 77% of the programs aired in prime time on the major broadcast networks contain sexual content; those that do include such content feature more of it than ever before. What’s more, the programs most popular with teenagers have an even higher number of scenes with sexual content than television programs generally. Fully 45% of the programs most frequently watched by teens include some portrayal of sexual behavior, according to the Kaiser study.

Even so, the press and the cultural elite remain conspicuously silent about this phenomenon. That’s a shame, given the damage to young lives (both of parents and unwanted children) that giving too much, too soon can cause — not to mention the daunting social costs associated with unwed and youthful motherhood.

If the media believes that a single program can incite disciplined, adult soldiers to acts of savagery, surely the onslaught of sex on television can influence the behavior of teens — who lack much of the training and life experience that can serve as a bulwark against bad decision-making. So why the media reticence? After all, the creators of 24 make every effort to demonstrate the toll that Jack Bauer’s behavior takes on him. Shouldn’t the creators of television’s sex-laden fare be held to the same standard?

Carol Platt Liebau is an attorney, political analyst and radio talk-show host. Her blog is at www.carolliebau.blogspot.com.

Video: President Rush Limbaugh, Vice President Ann Coulter

This is Hilarious!!!!! 

Hot Air » Blog Archive » Video: President Rush Limbaugh, Vice President Ann Coulter
Video: President Rush Limbaugh, Vice President Ann Coulter
posted at 10:05 pm on February 14, 2007 by Ian
Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter play President and Vice President on Fox News’ new satirical television show premiering Sunday Night at 10pm Eastern: