Do We Have to Take This Seriously?

20 Comments

1. 

   c u n d gulag on February 18, 2014 at 4:41 pm

   In a Senate full of Republican dim bulbs, outside of the OK contingent, this mop-topped-fop is arguably the dimmest!

   And THAT, folks, is saying something!!!!!

   • 

     Stephen Stralka on February 18, 2014 at 6:22 pm

     Yes, being an arrogant moron isn’t much of a departure from the last Republican president.

2. 

   Phil Perspective on February 18, 2014 at 4:53 pm

   Just as Ronald Reagan drew working-class Democrats into the GOP fold and Bill Clinton pulled his party to the political center, Paul has a vision of that magnitude in mind for his party.

   The Beltway never grows tired of old, tired and stupid cliches.

   • 

     Marie2 on February 18, 2014 at 5:35 pm

     Or they read Arthur’s diaries and comments here and conclude that the Pauls are very popular with a certain population of self-defined lefties.  That would be the anti-authoritarian, white male “lefties” that have as much use for women and other minorities and unions as the Pauls do.

     • 

       Don Durito on February 18, 2014 at 10:29 pm

       Good to put “lefties” in quotes with that small but loud contingent, who have about as much to do with the left (even in its current condition) as home runs do with basketball.

   • 

     evodevo on February 19, 2014 at 9:18 am

     Ronnie “drew” working class people into the GOPer fold using the “Southern strategy” and welfare-bashing.  Ron Paul will do the same.  Rinse, repeat.

     • 

       Marie2 on February 19, 2014 at 2:05 pm

       There are no non-GOP working class folks left for the GOP to hoodwink again.  The combination of the “southern strategy,” tax cuts, and anti-abortion was successful for a while, but they topped out in 2000 with less than 50%, were down to 47% in 2012, and will continue to decline.  Rinse, repeat, and the GOP will lose again at the national level.  

3. 

   MikeInOhio on February 18, 2014 at 5:07 pm

   The constant glimpses into this right-wing netherworld never cease to make me shake my head in wonderment.  

   But still, in spite of such lunacy on a daily basis, defeating Paul and his ilk in the Tea Party is going to be a monumental struggle.  If the Democratic Party does not find it within themselves to start driving home some type of populist stance, and find some way to begin to appeal to the working class voters that have defected over the years, it is going to be a long, slow climb.  Depending on the projected demographic changes and the loyalty of women is only going to carry the party so far.  It will mostly ensure the likelihood of success on the Presidential stage.  But we are going to need much more than that if we ever hope to begin to make irrelevant the likes of Paul and his fellow lunatics, and to turn the tide in some of the states which have defected from the Democratic fold over the last 30 years.

   I feel a bit optimistic in this regard.  It seems like many within the party recognize that their future is not in trying to thread the centrist needle.  But there are a lot of forces and money opposed to anything that might indicate even a small veering to the left.  It is going to be up to everyone to push from the bottom up to drive the party in the direction it needs to go in order kill this Tea Party zombie.

4. 

   Geov Parrish on February 18, 2014 at 5:25 pm

   What the Republicans need is a nominee with the courage and integrity to rub two brain cells together in public.

   Alas, the current Republican base will never, ever nominate such a candidate. So what the Republicans need is not to expand their base, but replace it.

5. 

   sunmusing on February 18, 2014 at 6:27 pm

   Just wait until Vlad P. tosses his shirt into the ring…there is a certain element of the Paul’s who would just love to see a real “leader” in the gop…

6. 

   gratuitous on February 18, 2014 at 7:29 pm

   Yes, Rand is a stumblebum of a candidate. But I think he’s also capable of learning, and if he can acquire some coherency, he has a whole lot of wrong, damaging ideas that sound good to the low-info voters. By that time, it may be too late to begin taking this nutbar seriously.

   Democrats should invest a little time and effort now to squash any of this nitwit’s aspirations, because it might require a LOT of effort later.

   • 

     Phil Perspective on February 18, 2014 at 11:41 pm

     Democrats should invest a little time and effort now to squash any of this nitwit’s aspirations, because it might require a LOT of effort later.

     We said the same thing about Christie and look where that got us?

7. 

   Arthur Gilroy on February 18, 2014 at 7:53 pm

   So, probably what the Republicans need is a candidate willing to call Bill Clinton a sexual predator.

   Y’mean…he wasn’t!!!???

   Oh.

   Nevermind.

   

   Yore freind…

   Emily Litella

   • 

     Marie2 on February 18, 2014 at 9:25 pm

     philanderer

     1. To carry on a sexual affair, especially an extramarital affair, with a woman one cannot or does not intend to marry. Used of a man.
     2. To engage in many love affairs, especially with a frivolous or casual attitude. Used of a man.

     sexual predator

     :  a person who has committed a sexually violent offense and especially one who is likely to commit more sexual offenses

     A big difference don’t ya think?  Even the lying Paula Jones didn’t claim that she was the victim of a sexually violent offense perpetrated by Bill Clinton.

     Always found it amusing that middle-aged men (mostly Republicans) that mostly admitted their unfaithfulness to their (usually multiple) wives were the loudest critics of Clinton’s philandering.    

     • 

       Arthur Gilroy on February 18, 2014 at 11:03 pm

       Google definition:

       predator-a person or group that ruthlessly exploits others.

       That definition describes all PermaGov hustlers in my opinion. Clinton’s habitual dalliances with much younger women…the success of which were no doubt based more upon his position (Governor, President, etc.) than on his attractiveness…were just further evidence of his own predatory nature. Feel free to define sexual relationships as you wish, as will I.

       We all have our own morality to follow and as far as I am concerned, presidents (of any party) get no free passes. In fact, they should be better than most of us.

       AG

       • 

         BooMan on February 19, 2014 at 8:30 am

         This was unimportant to you when the choice was between Hillary and a black man,  

         • 

           Arthur Gilroy on February 19, 2014 at 10:39 am

           I am not talking about “Hillary” here, and I do not ever characterize individuals according to their race/sex/religion etc. Nor do I have a preference for anyone in any situation based on anything other than their abilities as I perceive them. Given a choice between an amateur politician …an amateur hustler, in essence…and a consummate pro, I chose the consummate pro. The PermaGov was afraid of that consummate pro landing in a position of ultimate power if she used it well…which is how she would have handled the presidency, bet on it…and chose the amateur, someone who could be well controlled by better hustlers. On the evidence of the last 6+ years, they made a good bet. I would not at all be surprised if by hook or by crook Hillary Clinton is hustled out of contention once again for the same reason.

           We shall see.

           Won’t we.

           AG

     • 

       Errol on February 19, 2014 at 7:52 am

       yes, indeed. And how many “victims” (was Monica a victim?) did they find with all Ken Starr’s forces deployed – maybe one? two ?

       • 

         Arthur Gilroy on February 19, 2014 at 11:19 am

         Wikipedia:

         Sexual misconduct allegations against Bill Clinton

         Paula Jones[

         Paula Jones brought a sexual harassment lawsuit against Clinton while he was president. Clinton argued that as a sitting president, he should not be vulnerable to a civil suit of this nature. The case landed in the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that “Deferral of this litigation until petitioner’s Presidency ends is not constitutionally required.”[3]
         However, a U.S. judge in Arkansas, Susan Webber Wright, ruled that since Jones had not suffered any damages, the case should be dismissed.[4] On April 2, 1998, Judge Susan Webber Wright dismissed Jones’ lawsuit.[5] On July 31, 1998, Jones appealed the dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.[6]

         During the deposition for the Jones lawsuit, which was held at the White House,[7] Clinton denied having sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky – a denial that became the basis for the Lewinsky scandal and the president’s subsequent impeachment charge of perjury.[8] On November 18, 1998, Clinton agreed to an out-of-court settlement, and agreed to pay Jones and her attorneys a sum of $850,000.[9] Clinton denies ever engaging in a sexual affair with her.[9]

         Monica Lewinsky

         In 1995, Monica Lewinsky, a graduate of Lewis & Clark College, was hired to work as an intern at the White House during Clinton’s first term, and began a personal relationship with him, the details of which she later confided to her friend and Defense department co-worker Linda Tripp, who secretly recorded their telephone conversations.[10] When Tripp discovered in January 1998 that Lewinsky had signed an affidavit in the Paula Jones case denying a relationship with Clinton, she delivered the tapes to Kenneth Starr, the Independent Counsel who was investigating Clinton on other matters, including the Whitewater scandal, the White House FBI files controversy, and the White House travel office controversy. The news of this extra-marital affair and the resulting investigation eventually led to the impeachment of President Clinton in 1998 by the U.S. House of Representatives and his subsequent acquittal on all impeachment charges of perjury and obstruction of justice in a 21-day Senate trial.[11]

         Other allegations

         In 1992 nude model and actress Gennifer Flowers stated that she had a relationship with Clinton that began in 1980. [12] Flowers at first denied that she had an affair with Clinton, but later changed her story. [13][14] Clinton admitted that he had a sexual encounter with Flowers.[15]

         In 1998, Kathleen Willey alleged Clinton groped her in a hallway in 1993. An independent counsel determined Willey gave “false information” to the FBI, inconsistent with sworn testimony related to the Jones allegation.[16]Willey dodged perjury charges after Kenneth Starr granted her immunity for her testimony.[16]

         In 1998, Juanita Broaddrick alleged Clinton had raped her though she did not remember the exact date, which may have been 1978.[17] Broaddrick’s only sworn testimony about Clinton was a previous denial of any harassment by Clinton.[18]

         In 1998, in response to what she called false media claims that Clinton had raped her, Elizabeth Ward Gracen recanted a six-year-old denial and stated she had a one night stand with Clinton in 1982.[19] Gracen later apologized to Hillary Clinton.[19]

         Dolly Kyle Browning began writing a “semi-autobiographical novel” about her alleged affair with Bill Clinton. In the publication process, Browning asserted that Clinton did everything in his power to prohibit and undermine publication. Browning sued Clinton for damages, but the US Court of Appeals denied her appeal.[20]

         You think there weren’t other, similar fires doused by power before they became public?

         Please.

         Where there’s that kind of smoke there’s always a crooked dick. Bet on it.

         Am I a prude? A closet fundamentalist of some kind?

         No, I am simply a practical man who judges others on the basis of their actions. I envision the (younger, Arkansas days and before) Bill Clinton as a sexually driven, coke-snorting barfly who survived in politics by his undoubted charm..the same charm he honed and used in those cheap bars…and a lucky marriage to a real political force of nature, Hillary Rodham Clinton. I have many friends and colleagues whose life resembled the way I just described Bill Clinton, but I would not get into a business proposition with any of them if at all possible and the few times that i have been forced by circumstances to work for people like that the end result has always been a fuck-up on their part of one sort or another.

         So it goes.

         Hillary?

         She’s a pro and a survivor.

         How do I know?

         Look at her post-White House resume.

         Would I prefer someone who would flat-out fight the PermaGov?

         Yes.

         Will that happen?

         Not likely.

         So that goes as well.

         I do keep trying.

         The many abject failures of the Obama administration? I do not think that they would have happened under Hillary Clinton. Certainly some other things would have happened that I did not much like, but not what we are seeing now, a total lack of respect for the entire political system by a majority of Americans? I think not. She would have out-hustled the hustlers rather than the other way around.

         On the other hand, Obama’s many failures and mistakes…the cancerous rise of the security state being foremost among them…may work out quite well for the U.S. in the long run.

         We shall see.

         Won’t we.

         The truth is now out there for all to see.

         It’s just a matter of how many do so.

         AG

         P.S. Was Monica Lewinsky a victim? Yes. There were two victims that time. I believe that both Lewinsky and Clinton  were used by intelligence-allied forces in a honeytrap. If Clinton had not been a serial sexual predator there would have been no attempt at honey-trapping him, but he was. They either ran Lewinsky right straight at his weak point (She being fairly weak-minded herself and thus controllable.) or…after the affair had already started.,..they ran her to keep evidence. This is mainstream intelligence tradecraft, Booman, only this time it was used on a sitting president instead of on a minor government functionary somewhere.

         You could look it up, if you actually cared enough to do so.

         But I’ll do it for you instead.

         Love, honeypots, and recruitment[edit]

         U.S. intelligence services, for example, are concerned when their own personnel could be subject to sexual blackmail. This applied to any homosexual relationship until the mid-1990s, and also applied to heterosexual relationships with most foreign nationals.[11] See honeypots in espionage fiction for fictional examples. In some cases, especially when the national was a citizen of a friendly nation, the relationship needed to be reported. Failure to do so, even with a friendly nation, could result in dismissal.

         One former CIA officer said that while sexual entrapment wasn’t generally a good tool to recruit a foreign official, it was sometimes employed successfully to solve short-term problems. Seduction is a classic technique; “swallow” was the KGB tradecraft term for women, and “raven” the term for men, trained to seduce intelligence targets.[12]

         During the Cold War, the KGB (and allied services, including the East German Stasi under Markus Wolf, and the Cuban Intelligence Directorate (formerly known as Dirección General de Inteligencia or DGI)) frequently sought to entrap CIA officers. The KGB believed that Americans were sex-obsessed materialists, and that U.S. spies could easily be entrapped by sexual lures. The best-known incident, however, was of Clayton Lonetree, a Marine guard supervisor at the Moscow embassy, who was seduced by a “swallow” who was a translator at the Embassy of the United States in Moscow. Once the seduction took place, she put him in touch with a KGB handler. The espionage continued after his transfer to Vienna, although he eventually turned himself in.

         The Soviets used sex not only for direct recruitment, but as a contingency where an American officer might need to be compromised in the future. The CIA itself made limited use of sexual recruitment against foreign intelligence services. “Coercive recruitment generally didn’t work. We found that offers of money and freedom worked better”.[11] If the Agency found a Soviet intelligence officer had a girlfriend, they would try to recruit the girlfriend as an access agent. Once the CIA personnel had access to the Soviet officer, they might attempt to double him.
         Examples of people trapped by sexual means include:

         Clayton J. Lonetree, a U.S. Marine Sergeant embassy guard in Moscow, was entrapped by a female Soviet officer in 1987. He was then blackmailed into handing over documents when he was assigned to Vienna. Lonetree was the first U.S. Marine to be convicted of spying against the United States.

         Roy Rhodes, a U.S. Army NCO serving at the U.S. embassy in Moscow, had a one-night stand (or was made to believe he had) with a Soviet agent while drunk. He was later told the agent was pregnant, and that unless he cooperated with the Soviet authorities, this would be revealed to his wife.

         Irvin C. Scarbeck, a U.S. diplomat, was entrapped by a female Polish officer in 1961 and photographed in a compromising position. He was blackmailed into providing secrets.

         Sharon Scranage, a CIA employee described as a “shy, naive, country girl”, was allegedly seduced by Ghanaian intelligence agent Michael Soussoudis. She later gave him information on CIA operations in Ghana, which was later shared with Soviet-bloc countries.

         John Vassall, a British embassy official in Moscow, who was guided by the KGB into having sex with multiple male partners while drunk in 1954. The KGB then used photographs of this incident to blackmail Vassall into providing them with secret information.

         Bernard Boursicot, a French diplomat, was entrapped by Shi Pei Pu, who was working for the Chinese government. Shi Pei Pu, a male Chinese opera singer, successfully masqueraded as a woman and told Boursicot he was carrying Boursicot’s child. The situation was fictionalized into the play M. Butterfly.
         Sir Geoffrey Harrison, the British Ambassador to the Soviet Union, was recalled to London in 1968 after he admitted to the Foreign Office that he had been having an affair with a Russian chambermaid at the embassy, of which he had been shown compromising photographs by the KGB.[13]

         Katrina Leung, indicted as a double agent working for both China and the FBI, seduced her FBI handler, James J. Smith, and was able to obtain FBI information of use to China through him. She also had an affair with another FBI officer, William Cleveland.

         In 2006, the British Defence Attaché in Islamabad Pakistan, was recalled home, when it emerged that he had been involved in a relationship with a Pakistani woman, who was an intelligence agent. While the British Government deny that secrets were lost, others sources say that several Western operatives and operations within Pakistan were compromised.[14]

         In May 2007 a female officer serving in Sweden’s Kosovo force was suspected of having leaked classified information to her Serbian lover who turned out to be a spy.[15]

         Won Jeong-hwa, who was arrested by South Korea in 2008 and charged with spying for North Korea, is accused of using this method to obtain information from an army officer.[16]

         Spotting through emotional attachment[edit]

         Yet other factors may apply. True friendship or romance may draw others to become involved with a current agent. John Anthony Walker, who spied for money, recruited friends and relatives. Rosario Ames, wife of Aldrich Ames, was brought into her husband’s activities.

         Katrina Leung is one of the more complex cases, who came to the United States on a Taiwanese passport, became involved with a PRC activist, on whom she was recruited to report to the FBI. She seduced her FBI case officer, and eventually was recruited by the FBI as a “dangle” to PRC targets, specifically in the Chinese Ministry of State Security (MSS). Her first reports were independently confirmed by the CIA. Later, however, she was found to be passing FBI documents to the MSS, while still reporting to the FBI. While she was allowed, at first, to continue, on the belief that the information she provided to the United States was more important than that which she was giving to the PRC, she was eventually arrested and charged with a relatively low-level crime. Eventually, that was dismissed for reasons of prosecutorial misconduct, although a subsequent U.S. government appeal resulted in a plea bargain. Her true loyalty was never made public, but, at various times, she appears to have been a dangled mole and a doubled agent, as well as possibly a PRC access agent to FBI personnel.

         What? You think the U.S. doesn’t indulge in such practices?

         Please.

         • 

           Errol on February 20, 2014 at 12:07 am

           well, having an affair is different from being victimized, unless one is underaged. so that takes care of 2 (Browning and Flowers). Monica aggressively pursued him. Willey? credible? so maybe two or three?