Bill Clinton Has Left the Building

New at Reason: Sidney and me.

Comments

[Hieronymus Braintree]

If you're looking for irony or wit go someplace else, this is not the place to find it. I'm getting pretty sick of writers making snide cracks about Sidney Blumenthal. Either it's a lot of inane juvenile sneering (read Cavanaugh's recent contribution if you want to see a prime example) or he's being damned with lies that are not his own (he was, in fact, asked quite extensively about press contacts by Starr's investigators, as the transcript of his first appearance clearly shows ? a reality which has been typically denied and distorted by the "fair and blanced" boys over at Fox at the deliberate expense of Blumenthal's reputation).

It takes no courage to make fun of the guy everyone else is picking on. In fact, it's kind of cowardly.

Cavenaugh, if you're going to pick on Blumenthal, make it real, make it important and get your facts straight. Anything else is just a load of abusive BS.

[Kevin Carson]

"Stan," eh? Maybe being dissed by Sidney will make him give up his obsessive pursuit, and drive his car off a bridge or something!

Braintree:

Sometimes a target is easy because they've so OBVIOUSLY got it coming. Blumenthal is an intellectual whore who will uncritically defend anything done by Bill or the even more odious Hillary.

[[my vaguely allusive internet]

Yes! Please give me more of this "debate," because it totally rules!

And I'm sure that good old TC will be laughing all the bank after this outrageously partisan hit piece! The REGNERY bank, if you know what I mean, and I think you must, Hieronymous!

[Anonymous]

Don't you mean elusive internet psuedonym?

[Czar]

-Blumenthal is an intellectual whore who will
-uncritically defend anything done by Bill or the
-even more odious Hillary.

Good lord, hasn't anyone ever told him about ladder theory?

[HH]

Sorry but the spin that Blumenthal wasn't being incredibly misleading on MULTIPLE occasions (interesting that you don't mention his fabricated questions in the other Starr appearance) doesn't wash.

[Hieronymus Braintree]

I can see where you might feel that way, oleagenous boy.

[Hieronymus Braintree]

Actually, I was going to respond to HH by entering some of the questions made to Blumenthal on the transcripts but, on closer examination, I'm a little confused by HH's remarks. They're a little fuzzy. To the best of my reading comprehension, he seems to be saying that I picked on an unfair example and that other, far worthier, yet unnamed examples of Blumenthal's mendacity abound.

The fact that what are claimed to be far more damning examples of Blumenthal's character flaws remain unspecified is, however, hardly out of character for Clinton-hating screwballs.

[Anonymous]

The "Ladder Theory" is a total bore.

[Hieronymus Braintree]

"Sometimes a target is easy because they've so OBVIOUSLY got it coming."

That's what they used to say about blacks, Jews and homosexuals. See, I keep looking for a solid reason why I shouldn't like him and all I get is this kind of crap. Saying that someone deserves to be abused is not the same thing as showing that they should. Apparently this needs to be explained to some people.

"Blumenthal is an intellectual whore who will uncritically defend anything done by Bill or the even more odious Hillary."

You mean like how they murdred Vincent Foster right? Or destroyed the character of that poor innocent Paula Jones? Or Whitewater where they were supposed to have....um, where they were supposed to have...Oh forget it! They're all guilty and anyone who says different is a whore like Blumenthal. Thank god we have right-winger to keep things honest. You certainly can't accuse them of being intellectual whores.

Look, like I said. Get something solid and get your facts stright. Anything else is BS.

And, HH, I'll be getting back to you later.

[tim]

"And, HH, I'll be getting back to you later."

Oh good!

I figured it would be the anti-Blumenthalians who didn't like the article, because I conceded that he was actually pretty engaging in person. If Blumenthal's gooey writing about Clinton in The New Yorker-even before he went to work for the White House-isn't enough to convince you that he's worth mocking, if his oleaginous writing about Clinton even now doesn't make you a little queasy, then I just don't know what to say to you. And I like Clinton.

Anyway, since you've now identified Blumenthal mockery as the last acceptable prejudice, I think this thread is pretty much spent.

[Spingarn Evan]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 82.146.43.155
URL: http://www.americanpaydayloans.net
DATE: 02/28/2004 08:57:29
It's safer to play with a man's wife than with his cliches.