BILL CLINTON, the gift that keeps infecting.
Or, HE’S BAACK if Begala and “some Democrats and political analysts” have anything to do with another invasion from the television into trusting minds and hearts all over the nation, again.
In some sort of desperate rehash of bad ideas, this latest statement from Paul Begala and other “Democrat poliical advisors”: that Bill Clinton be awarded with (as in, bestowed upon, a public office delivered to Bill Clinton without so much as a public election) the New York Seante seat currently held by his wife, Hillary Clinton, should Hillary Clinton win the Presidential election in 2008.
I could repost my graphics from older threads here with every passing day, what with them remaining pertinent as time passes but, worse, them remaing timely regards developing news — the above image of Bill Clinton motivating before the DNC (from CHRIS WALLACE, REGISTERED DEMOCRAT, October 12, 2006) ) could not be more appropriate with this news from today of not only Bill Clinton being discussed as the Senatorial awardee for Hillary’s theoretically vacated Seat — but, more entertainingly, that Democrats continue to fulfill the already identified caricatures depicted.
Says “Democrat poliical analyst” Paul Begala about Bill Clinton:
“He excelled as attorney general and governor of Arkansas, he excelled as president and he’s been a model of the modern Senate spouse.”
Says in agreement, Larry Sabato, “director of the Center for Politics at the Univeristy of Virginia”:
“Clinton is a natural for the Senate,” Sabato said. “He loves to talk and schmooze. He could be a great vote-organizer. Majority Leader Clinton?”
Says “Harold Ickes, who was once a top White House aide to Bill Clinton and now gives behind-the-scenes advice to Hillary (Clinton)”:
“I think there’d be a real call on [Spitzer] to appoint a black senator,” Ickes said. “I think there’d be a real call on him to appoint a Hispanic senator.”
Begala and these Democrats forget — “overlook” is closer to the truth here — that Bill Clinton lost his privilege to hold a license to practice law, to represent the Court, because of Clinton’s bad ethics. That means he was disbarred for ethics violation/s. That means he’s demonstratively known for being unethical and being unreliable as to ethical issues (and are there any other kind of issues other than ethical ones in the realm of politics, public service [so called], matters of legislation management including voting, campaign and lobbying finances and practices, not to mention upholding our Constitution.
All things considered, this is another example of the trashing of public office by Democrats, of reducing the issue of public office to relationship and favoritism, preferences for skin color and/or ethnicity, subjugation of purpose to that of the cool (or, literally, “gang”) factor.
Democrats’ chief complaint used to negate Republicans is as to “corruption” but in my aged experience in hearing, listening to and reading about politics, the Democrats have always led the way in corrupt use of public office — but they don’t object to corruption in office by Democrats, if even recognize it when it occurs.
But, the worst about this notion by Democrats — awarding Bill Clinton the theoretically vacated Senate seat in New York held by Hillary Clinton should HIllary Clinton win the Presidential election in 2008 — is that it represents tired thinking and lack of imagination, as it does the sorry relapse into monarchistic comfort that the rest of us ancestrally confronted and rejected over two hundred years ago. Not to mention “equal rights” issues, of similar importance and long-standing (so most of us think) seniority over favortism, dynasties and monarchies and who is married to whom (and who isn’t) and is capable of what special helps based upon skin color, gender and/or last name can be offered and had.
Appoint “a black senator…(or) appoint a Hispanic senator”? Why not a Caucasian? What is it about declaring “a White appointee” that is problematic to some? I empathize, is my point, and thus, I see no improvement in the issues as to racial and/or ethnic supremacy when or as ANY race or ethnicity is declared to be “needed” (as in, necessary inorder to win votes) and/or, far worse, preferable as to who is to hold public office.
Democrats remain mired in the politics of gender, race, ethnic favoritism and the practice of personal favoritism (“the old Potomac two-step“) and far worse, they’re still motivated — and incentivized — by all that. Now, that is corruption.