In a Time of Universal Deceit, Telling the Truth is Revolutionary.
Sunday, April 2, 2023

Just a couple of bad leaders

Conventional wisdom said Hillary Rodham Clinton was the smartest candidate among the crowded fields for both the Democratic and Republican Presidential nomination. The same conventional wisdom promised great things from Nancy Pelosi - the first woman to lead the House of Representative as Speaker. So much for conventional wisdom.
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn

Conventional wisdom said Hillary Rodham Clinton was the smartest candidate among the crowded fields for both the Democratic and Republican Presidential nomination.

The same conventional wisdom promised great things from Nancy Pelosi – the first woman to lead the House of Representative as Speaker.

So much for conventional wisdom.

As we head into the primary season next week, Hillary is scrambling to hold on to that once perceived insurmountable lead as the Democratic contender, felled by a seemingly unending series of campaign gaffes, logistical screw ups and dumb mistakes.

With her campaign now a nightmare of political misadventure, Hillary moves from one SNAFU to another.

Nancy went home after a year of failure, leading a Democratic Congress down the path of capitulation to George W. Bush, the most unpopular President in American history.

Couldn’t happen to two more deserving failures as political leaders.

The two most prominent Democrats in Washington have set the cause of equality for women back at least 50 years then I’m guilty as charged.

I never expected much out of Pelosi, despite the pipe dreams of others who thought she could handle the job. She was, is, and always will be a political lightweight.

Not so with Clinton. She was another story. She may be cold, and calculating but few considered her dumb.

She was the Dick Cheney of Bill Clinton’s administration, the power behind the man, the manipulator of policy and, many thought, the architect of her husband’s political success.

But looking back on the Clinton years at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, we should have seen the warning signs.

I remember all too well that infamous television interview during the beginnings of the Monica Lewinsky scandal when she defended her husband, said she believed he was faithful to her, and blamed the whole thing on a “vast right wing conspiracy.”

Yeah, right. If Hillary didn’t know Bill was screwing around on her she was the only one in the country and, as H.L. Mencken once noted, nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.

When DNA tests finally forced Bill to ‘fess up, Hillary turned into the woman scorned, angry at her husband’s betrayal. The act was so good that some actually felt sorry for her.

Now she wants us to believe that the woman who didn’t realize she was married to the biggest Presidential whore hound since JFK is the most qualified candidate for the highest office in the land?

And, to make matters worse, she – along with too many other Democrats – voted to let George W. Bush launch his illegal and immoral war in Iraq.

That gives her something in common with the other over hyped woman in Washington – Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic leader who failed to deliver on a contract with voters who demanded change on Capitol Hill.

This column was edited on January 10, 2008, to remove language that, after reconsideration, I considered in poor taste. My apologies to those who were offended.)

81 thoughts on “Just a couple of bad leaders”

  1. Folks, it has been fun reading this and I appreciate the kind words of support from Carol, AvidFan, SEAL and others but the issue here should not be me or my style of writing. Those who are upset by the way I express my opinion are welcome to their opinions but the focus should be the performance of the two women in Washington.

    I’ve been writing this way for some four decades now and it has served me well. I’m not about to change or modify my style of writing at this stage in my life. Some appreciate my style, others do not. Such is the nature of writing opinion columns.

    I’m reminded of a television campaign launched several years ago by the American Cancer Society. The anti-smoking message was couched in a fairy-tale like story of life. In the end, the announcer said:

    Why are we talking to you like children?

    Because when we talk to you as adults, you don’t listen.

    Yes, I use language for shock value. Yes, I use broad, over-the-top satire to drive a point home. To some it works. To others it does not. Such is life.

    Joy, you are welcome to your opinion and no one has ever been banned from this site for being critical of me or my writing. I have tossed people for being disrespectful of other posters here but never for venting their anger at me.

    But trying to get me to change at this point in my life is a lost cause. I’ve been doing it my way for many years and while it may not work for you it does work for me and for other longer-term readers. I do burn out from time to time and have taken breaks when that happens. This ain’t one of those times.

    Joy, if your primary concern are issues then let’s discuss the issues of the performance of Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi or any of the other failures — Democrat and Republican — that I write about. That’s far more important than your opinion of my style of writing. Your concern over whether or not how I write may drive people away from this web site is touching but hardly relevant. I’ve never judged success by how many people read Capitol Hill Blue. I’d do it the same way if I had five readers or five million.

  2. Oh I’ve seen Doug use far worse language than printed here to describe our local officials and in each case the words he chose were well-deserved.

    When he started writing for the local paper he exposed what has long been a dark secret that county residents didn’t discuss: the widespread sexual abuse of children by parents and other relatives. His writing is credited with getting the incumbent Commonwealth’s Attorney tossed out on his butt by voters.

    I once asked him why he used “colorful” and what my grandmother called “gutter” language so often in his writing and he told me that the editor who taught him the most about writing always said he should write “like people talk.” Strong language, he said, stirs strong emotions and strong emotions are needed to bring change. Most people don’t talk in the stilted “correct” prose that appears in most news publications. They cuss and show their anger, expecially when talking about politics. I too feel that Hillary Clinton is a bitch and that George W. Bush is a bastard AND an asshole. The last thing this country needs is four more years of either a Bush or a Clinton.

    You say you are surprised that you have not been banned from Capitol Hill Blue. Is that your desire? Is your anger towards Doug motivated by the fact that you have not been able to bait him into doing so? Maybe we should be examining your motives here and not his.

  3. I’ve been a fan of Doug Thompson since his days as a columnist for The Alton Telegraph in Illinois. What I admired about him then and continue to admire now is that he is willing to say what needs to be said about the failed leaders who run our government. Sure, he often does it in a crude, lewd and rude style but he is non-partisan in his criticism and he does not play favorites. What he has said here about Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi is mild compared to some of his comments about Bush, Cheney and others. I remember when he exposed the mayor of Alton as a womanizing drunk who ignored both the law and morality. His columns pulled no punches and he often referred to public officials as crooks, bastards and worse. In Alton he was loved or hated depending on whose ox he was goring at the time. He was feared but respected. After he left Alton for Washington I learned that he would lead a team of volunteers into the rising waters of the Mississippi during our all-too-frequent floods to rescue those trapped by the waters. He never sought publicity or recognition for that and the fire chief in nearby Grafton, a town ravaged by the floods, told me that Doug insisted that his name never be connected with his rescue and volunteer work. I’ve often wondered what drives a man to leave himself open to criticism through his writing while avoiding the spotlight for other selfless acts that would give the public a better view of his true nature. I doubt seriously that he is burned out as some suggest. He has been writing this way for a long time and I am willing to bet he will write this way until the day he quits which I hope is not soon. Joyful, your “surprise” that you have not been banned says to me that you are trying to stir up trouble in much the same way that you claim Doug is doing. You have obviously made up your mind based on what you say is a limited exposure to his writing. Why don’t you do what I have often done when I have a problem with something Doug has written. Send him an email or a private message on this site’s discussion board? He has always responded and we have had an open dialog that has lasted for more than 20 years.

  4. It certainly did not read like tongue in cheek to me.

    Read like an accurate assessment of the cesspool we call Washington, DC !!!!!!!!!!!

  5. Carol, may I ask if Doug’s coverage of local government includes printing comments like “dumb broads,” “scum suckers,” and stories about sex scandals? If not, then that’s perhaps because he truly does know better.

    You may have met him and you may well like him in person — but you also admit that he gives a poor impression of himself here. That’s his problem. Not mine. How do you think he’d respond if someone said, “oh, I know Hillary and she and her husband are wonderful people. I really felt comfortable talking to them.” (And, in fact, there are people who do say that!) Do you think that would change Doug’s views on the Clintons? No, I didn’t think so. And as I’m sure Doug and hopefully you well know, a person can be very charming and likeable socially and still be mean-spirited and corrupt when it comes time for them to do their jobs.

    I’m not suggesting that he never say anything critical about any politician — on the contrary! I’m online looking for just such criticisms. But I am suggesting that he stick to making criticisms of how they go about their agendas as politicians and leave the namecalling, comments on their private sex lives, speculation on their marriages, etc. out of it. Carol, do you think that’s a bad suggestion?

    SEAL: There’s an old saying, “don’t let the bastards grind you down.” You seem to be suggesting that Doug is burned out, and this is responsible for his poor behaviour. That he’s capable of better, and you’ve seen better from him in the past, but right now, he’s not at his best.

    If that’s the case, then maybe it would be wiser for him to take a break and come back when he’s in better control of himself. Right now, not only isn’t he accomplishing what he obviously wants to accomplish, but he’s triggering a backlash of support for his targets. And really, it’s not fair to blame that on anything other than his bombastic presentation.

    As for getting kicked off the site, yep, I’m surprised I haven’t been. I suspect it may be because Doug, himself, knows I’m right. If you recall, it wasn’t that long ago that he pledged to clean up his act. But unfortunately, it only lasted a couple days.

    Maybe he really is just burned out. But his atrocious behaviour isn’t serving him or his point of view. I’m here criticizing him and arguing with him, because I’m familiar enough with this site to know it has value — but let me ask you both a really important question: how many times do you think people land on this site, accidentally get ahold of one of Doug’s regrettable bouts of digital Tourrette’s and leave, dismissing this site as the realm of a foul-mouthed yahoo, without ever even looking further?

  6. I have bookmarked your link and I promise you I will read it thoroughly this afternoon. And, as usual, I’ll also check out what I read there through other sources.

    You know what’s really funny? I was never all that impressed with Clinton when he was president. I didn’t feel he was a criminal and a traitor to the country (like I do Bush/Cheney), and I really didn’t make the effort to inform myself about what was going on under his administration. He just didn’t do it for me, even though I acknowledge that he was a very popular, 2-term president. You know what’s even funnier? Somewhere around here I have a little paperback entitled something like “The 1-term President.” (I think it’s in the garage — I’ve been meaning to dig it out.) Someone here in Ottawa passed it to me because they knew I wasn’t as dazzled by Clinton as many people and the media were.

    But when that Lewinsky scandal broke, it touched a nerve in me. You obviously think I’m lying about this, but seriously, my “defense” of Clinton is a pure byproduct of my belief that the whole Lewinsky thing including putting a president on the spot publicly to answer for his own personal and private sexual behaviour was so wrong, so inappropriate, and so unhealthy for the country.

    And it’s probably the same thing with any “defense” that you perceive me to make of Hilary Clinton here. If you open your mind and go back and look, again, anything good I’ve said about her is a byproduct of my distaste with Doug’s disgusting habit of making baseless sexist insults of her. Or even just baseless comments. For example, he’ll say something like “oh, anybody but Hillary in the WH.” Anybody? Gee, does that mean he’d rather see Bush/Cheney stay on for another term than to see Hillary in there?

    Those types of smear attacks might prove effective with some people. I’m the type of person, though, who gets pissed off when I see them.

    But if Doug were to present some solid arguments that stood up to research, that’s the kind of thing that would really score points with me.

    Please just don’t just tell me that someone’s bad and I should think so too. Tell me WHY I should think so. Don’t call them names or sink to the level of commenting on their private lives. Give me enough info about their public policy — info that stands up to cross referencing against other sources — that makes me mad enough to want to call them names.

    Christine

  7. Perhaps I can add some perspective to this debate since I have had the pleasure of both meeting Doug Thompson and getting to know he and his lovely wife since they moved to our county after leaving Washington.

    I am a regular and long time reader of both Capitol Hill Blue and his local news site, Blue Ridge Muse, which covers activities in Floyd County, Virginia. In 2005, while enjoying coffee in one of our town restaurants, some friends pointed out Doug sitting in a corner table reading a newspaper. From reading his writings on the two web sites and in our local newspaper I expected a bombastic, fire-breathing individual who could intimidate adults and scare small children. Nonetheless, I went over and introduced myself. He smiled, asked me to join him, and we talked for the next hour or so.

    To my surprise I found Doug to be a soft-spoken, gentle man who listened intently as I talked about my family and our lives growing up in the area. His voice was so soft that I sometimes had to ask him to repeat what he had said. He was quick to laugh at himself when he talked about the adjustment of moving from the hustle and bustle of Washington to the quiet and tranquility of the Blue Ridge Mountain. He talked proudly of his wife’s volunteer work with Angels in the Attic, our local charity organization that sells second hand goods to raise money for the needy but never mentioned his own work for local organiations that I later discovered was extensive.

    Yes, he is an advocate for change. His local web site, Blue Ridge Muse, is a thorn in the side of county and town government and his writings for our local newspaper brought an edge to community news coverage that was sorely needed. Yet I have come to learn over the years that there is a big, big difference between the public pesonna of the journalist who is both a lightning rod for criticism and a catalyst for change and the private, gentle man who works so hard out of public view to help others.

    Joyful if you were to turn Doug Thompson away from your door you would miss the opportunity to get to know a fascinating, caring man who cares deeply about people but who covers it with self-depreciating humor and even shyness. He would not come to your door because the Doug Thompson that I have come to know would never impose himself on someone in such a way. Yet he welcomes you in his house, i.e. this web site, without question and lets you attack him. That in itself should tell you a lot about the man.

    Doug is a complex man and there exists an incredible contradiction between the writer you see on these pages and the man that I and others have come to know in our little Blue Rige Mountain community. Our county is a better place to live because he and his wife chose it to be there home after Washington.

    I know that Doug would have preferred that I not join in this debate but I am a frequent contributer to Muse and I could no longer stand by and see so many false conclusions expressed about someone that I know and respect.

  8. Hi Joyful C …

    I’m providing a link that if you take the time to read the long list of Clinton’s criminal behavior, it just might percolate into your consciousness that he just might not have been “all that”…! Rest assured it’s not the Monica incident that chaffs my hide but his compromise of our nuclear technology to the “Red Chinese” for campaign contributions…!

    With your steadfast support of this former presidential loser, no different than dubya; actually worse, I’m beginning to think you are are an agent provocateur on behalf of the Clintonistas…?!

    https://members.tripod.com/~GOPcapitalist/clintonpage.html

    Carl Nemo **==

  9. Joyful: first of all, I agree with you that impeachment is out of the question at this point. Frankly, I fear what Bush would do if they filed the charges against him. He has juevinile rebellious mentality and his first reaction would be “I will show them!” There is no telling what form that would take with Cheney right in his ear knowing they could not allow it to go to trial. All the power behind them would huddle up and start planning. Something very bad would happen.

    Second, this is strictly my personal views based on nothing other than reading what Doug Thompson has had to say for many years. I would not know the man if I saw him on the street. Unlike you, I would love to meet him. And you. I don’t believe you can really have a good read on a person without personal intercourse.

    I read Doug to be typical of a man who became disolutioned and disgusted with those who have and are corrupting and destroying something he cares deeply about. It has been eating at him for a long time and this is compounded by the fact that the destruction has accellerated rapidly recently. He, along with many of us here, understand that we are at critical mass time and something “right” has to be done NOW.

    He has commented about all of the problems and the people so many times, in so many different ways, that I think he is just plain tired of beating around the bush (pun intended) and trying to be creative or clever anymore. I have noticed a trend in his rants lately of fuck it, I’ll tell it like it is. That is locker room jargon.

    I agree with you that rants like this one and a couple of others recently were in bad taste and disappointing to me. Also, I agree that he has a responsibility to this forum he created that rants such as these do not live up to. But when placed in context with all he has written over the years they become much less significant. It is easy for me to chalk it up to collumn writng at happy hour or right after being caught in a two hour traffic jam. We all have bad days.

    One of your complaints seem to stem from Doug’s rather narrow view of sexual habits and marriage. But events of late have continually opened the dialouge for that. Don’t blame Doug for that.

    I’m not defending or excusing anything. However, I do think you made way too much of something and offered judgments based on not enough information or knowledge of the man. There is one fact you should take special notice of in your evaluation. If this were any other forum, you would have been kicked off the list half way through your first response to the article. One of Thompsons finest qualities is his commitment to allowing everyone to express their own views regardless of what it is. What other list owner would allow you to personally attack them as you have Doug? Not only did he allow it he responded to you with civility instead of [I can’t think of the word].

    And, BTW, “if it were up to me” is not a disqualifier. It does not absolve you of the responsibility. You did say his citizenship should be revoked.

    [I appologized for all the bad grammer and mispellings etc. I’m really having a lot of trouble with my hands right now. It’s just too painful to go back and correct]

  10. Oh brother. You’re not seriously proposing that Clinton’s having lied about getting a blowjob from Lewinsky in the White House posed a serious threat to national security????

    If anything, I think the ensuing witchhunt over a complete non-issue that tied up the government from doing what it should have been doing posed more of a threat to our security and to our future.

    I have come to suspect, too, that it’s not the blowjob or lying about it that you feel is at the root of the security problem. That was just the best-chance ruse to undo a popular 2-term president when the actual issues might have soared right over the heads of the people and the new media. Okay, so I never thought it was a good idea, but nonetheless, it was tried …. and it failed.

    But that was yesterday. Let’s move forward. You know what they say about people who keep trying the same tactics and expecting different results.

  11. Uh… you’ve never seen my comments here regarding people making a big issue of Larry Craig’s or what’s-his-facey down there in Florida who was sending sexy e-mails to (over age of consent) male pages? You’ve never seen me tear into Doug over his obsession with Bill Clinton’s personal and private sex life? You didn’t see the post I wrote supporting Doug when, at one point over the past year, he stated that he was going to turn over a new leaf and discontinue using such language to call people down?

    I guess you haven’t read that many of my postings on here. That’s okay. There are a lot of good people here. I discover someone I’d been overlooking all the time.

    I don’t think it’s so much a matter of a “chip on my shoulder” — you might want to check with some of the guys I’ve skydived with and raced with over the years (not to mention my husband) before you go accusing me of being an oversensitive female. The fact is that I probably have had a lot more interaction with men over the course of my life than with women. Virtually all my friends are guys. Put me in a room full of women, and I’m a fish out of water. I like women — but man, I don’t understand them!

    I know men, though. And one thing I know is that a man who finds it necessary to constantly make degrading comments about women has a problem. Also, people who constantly make sniping references to other people’s sexuality have problems. I know a lot of guys. Very few would express their opinions in public and in mixed company like Doug does — and they’re the bottom of the barrel.

    I’m 50 years old. I’m pretty confident of my smarts and my ability to size up people. This Doug guy just seems off to me somehow. I can state for certain that he’s not much of a writer — if the purpose of his rant was to call attention to Pelosi and Clinton, then I guess he missed the mark. And he did so because he wasn’t in control. He has problems.

    You may think the world of the guy, but week by week, I’ve developed an opinion of Doug Thompson — and it’s not a pretty one. Like I say, he wouldn’t be welcome at my table — and I don’t say that about a lot of people. If he came to my door, he’d have to wait outside. He wouldn’t be invited in.

  12. “Sorry, I don’t agree with that twisted logic.”

    Twisted logic…huh!? Lady I’ve taken many courses in logic and “ethics” and have excelled in all of them. You evidently feel comfortable in the “gray zone” of non-committment between the concept of right vs. wrong!

    Your soft-touch, accommodating apologia for “Billy’s” behavior and no doubt other dangerous traitors to the safety of North America is “noted”…!

    All I can say is for you to be thankful every day and in every way that you live in Canada. If we finally go to “launch sequence” you have a far better chance of surviving than the the rest of your fellow citizens to the south…!

    Evidently, little do you realize I’m both your friend and protector by nature and commission…!

    Carl Nemo **==

  13. I feel the fire in your belly, Carl, but as much as I dislike this administration, I cannot possibly agree that impeaching Bush and Cheney is our best move right now. Impeachment isn’t a painless or cost-free process. Maybe in the Spring of 2003 I might have agreed with you that it was the best course of action — but let’s face it, you would have had even less success getting people on board for the idea back then.

    Bush/Cheney is going to have to be put up with for the time being. And I certainly do say that with the realization that they intend to drag their feet and be one useless and difficult “lame duck” administration. Best thing we can do is elect someone better next time around. Contrary to what many people here think, if asked to vote today, I really have no idea who I’d vote for. I couldn’t even give you any idea of a party affiliation or whether I’d go with an independent (are there any?). Some candidates have qualities I like, but no one has everything I think we need — or even enough to get us through the next four years. There’s not a one so far who inspires my confidence. And, of course, I’m thoroughly disgusted with the way this whole primary thing is being conducted. Do these people never learn???

    With less than a year in office to go, impeachment is too little too late and waaaayyyyyy too expensive for us to consider now.

    Might I suggest, instead, that we deposit the whole matter in the lap of the international courts and let them decide if this administration and/or this congress is guilty of war crimes. As far as our losses as a people, I think we’re just going to have to eat them and consider the lesson learned.

  14. Sorry, I don’t agree with that twisted logic. True, if you’re the president, you shouldn’t engage in criminal behaviour — but screwing around with another consenting adult isn’t criminal, as far as I know. Further, lying to defend against those who would take down the government of the United States isn’t criminal either, as far as I know. It’s like the old narc test where someone asks them if they’re law enforcement, believing that cops can’t lie. Not only can they lie, we PAY them to.

    If someone put the president of our country — any president — to answer a question affecting national security (… no really national security — I’m not talking about how the Bush administration likes to use this scenario) would you expect your president to lie, to refuse to answer (which might give an indication to the truth anyway) or to tell the truth?

    In the case of questioning Clinton on matters which no one had any business questioning him about, this was just an attempt to bring down the standing administration by a malevolent group who didn’t want to accept the will of a democratic people.

    It’s not my place to decide who can do what with whom where sexually — even if it’s the president. It’s not my place and it’s not yours or Doug’s either. The only purpose for making it an issue was to try to destroy the Clinton administration — which I can understand some people felt was necessary. But I feel that the damage they did by trying to do that, and going about it the way they did, was far and away worse for this country than anything Clinton might have or did do.

    I would have preferred that Clinton had stood up and said, “it’s none of your damned business what I do with whom in my private sex life” when asked — but you and I both know that the fallout would have been the same, regardless.

    He lied. Like I’ve said before, it’s like the old witch trials where the suspect either dies as a result of the test or survives only to be declared a witch and be executed. This was a no win situation for Clinton — but it was a no win situation for the whole country too.

    I just wish that those who so strongly opposed Clinton would have found more intelligent and less damaging ways to deal with him. Even now, some people call for Bush’s impeachment — but think about it. What good will that do now? It would be cutting off our nose to spite our face, and might even land us in worse problems than we already have. Sometimes you have to realize that the best thing to do is to ride it out and do better next time.

    I’m way less for the Clintons than you might think. I’m against treason.

  15. “she was angry because he was stupid enough to get caught…”

    Exactly, thus making her look stupid and pathetic as well as a probable liar — she HAD to know that he was boffing some other woman, though not necessarily whom, because that has always been his m.o. It was not the blue dress itself that pissed her off, just that he got caught. Back in the days of Ike’s constant mistress, and the Kennedy Boys with Marilyn Monroe, the press turned a blind eye and so did the other pols, because they were all doing the same thing, as was Newt Gingrich at the same time he was condemning Clinton.

    — Kent Shaw

  16. I’ve read all the posts to this article and when I analyze the “thought distillate” I realize that the Clintonistas, Bushistas and future regimes to come have won and “we the people” have lost due to misdirected intellectual energy.

    Doug comes out with a somewhat incendiary post concerning “two dumb broads”, truly both political losers; Pelousy and “Billary” and everyone soils their underwear especially the gals…?!

    All I can say, is you folks need to get motivated and start using your creative writing and no doubt high-order articulation to contact your elected reps and demand Bush/Cheney be impeached immediately if not sooner. Even Canadians are welcome to contact our reps. Never forget you share the same target zone as your insane neighors to the south… 😐

    This is a Defcon I situation and we’re watching the countdown clock to Armageddon. Bush/Cheney will do just fine in the bunker with their 10+ year supply of food, first run movies and “party women” (dumb, functional broads)…no?!

    Get motivated folks and fire your thoughtshot across the bow of dreadnaught “Tyranny”…!

    https://www.conservativeusa.org/megalink.htm
    https://www.congress.org/congressorg/home/

    Carl Nemo **==

  17. Great explanation Doug and in the tradition of one my favorite all time iconoclasts…Hunter Thompson…! πŸ™‚

    Carl Nemo **==

  18. Hi JoyfulC…

    “I never felt qualified to judge Clinton on getting a blowjob in the WH, or even on lying about it, because that was his personal and private business.”

    You always seem somewhat protective of Bill Clinton’s so-called privacy as President when it comes to Monica, b-j’s etc.

    The office of the President of the United States is serious business. We elect these people and entrust to them our safety and give them the fiduciary responsiblity to uphold and enforce the laws of the land and not to “break” them, either through perjurious activities or direct criminal behavior as in Bush/Cheney’s case.

    All I can say is none of these guys or gals aspiring to the presidency best be screwing around on my “dime and time” while holding this high office!

    Whether you are President of the United States or Captain of one of this nations vessels of war you have an absolute mandate to follow policy and to not engage in criminal behavior. There are no gray areas dear lady and to allow them such is the same as allowing the camel to get his nose under the edge of the tent!

    Bill Clinton is a traitor to the Republic as well as George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. I have nothing more to say on the subject except to simply say…I know the facts concerning these mattoids…!

    Carl Nemo **==

  19. Joyful: You’re a very smart lady and you have written some of the best comments I have seen on a variety of topics. So, it’s easy to understand why you would have a chip on your shoulder where sexism is concerned. But those of us who have been reading Doug Thompson for many years know he does not deserve the labels you are branding him with. Yeah, he went over the top with this one but so did you in your reaction.

    Funny thing is that I never saw you complaining when Doug tore into some of the male polititions in terms much worse than he used about the “two broads” here today.

    Why don’t we just chalk it up to everybody having a bad day and let it go at that?

  20. Well said, Doug. Truth can be a bitch, no pun intended. And hey, if these dumb broads want to play in a world dominated by dumb men, politics, they better get used to it.

    Besides, if Hillary’s and Nancy’s actions were performed by men, BOTH would be crucified. Neither one has the judgment or temerity or wisdom to operate a convenience store, let alone make decisions for millions.

    Hillary and Nancy obviously have a lot of sympathy from their ilk; stupid women who love the double-standard women have enjoyed for so long.

  21. In a news interview one time, Hillary made the comment there was nothing the other did which was unknown to the other. Therefore, I believe Hillary was never angry over Bill’s indiscretion — she was angry because he was stupid enough to get caught…

    Charlie Couser

  22. Why exactly are our reactions “just as bad as the rant”?? Is it really wrong to call someone out for pandering to the basest instincts of his fellow man? I notice that the rules of this site prohibit bigotry, racism, homophobia and anti-Semitism, but say nothing about sexism. Seems like a bit of a glaring omission, no?

    Don’t get me wrong. You’ll meet few people who are as sexist as I am — I believe men and women are quite different. But I don’t resent men their differences, and that’s why I don’t need to be rude about it. We can discuss racial issues here, or issues of religion without being racist or anti-semite — just as people can discuss Pelosi and Clinton without using rude sexist pejoratives. But obviously Doug can’t.

    And again I find myself dealing with other people’s poor reading comprehension. Where did I say that he “should” have his citizenship revoked? I believe I said that if it were up to me, he would. (Frankly, if it were up to me — which it certainly isn’t — I’d be tempted to dispense with democracy and appoint myself supreme empress of the world for the duration of my life. Then I could run the world the way I like — and how very different it would be!)

    When the most noticeable feature of a rant is the author’s obnoxiousness, you can expect the discussion to focus more on that. If Doug were a better writer, he might be able to focus readers’ attention on the subjects of his writing instead of his own character (or lack theereof) and antics. Doug wants attention, and he uses cheap ploys to get it. But when he gets attention he does’t want, then he blames everyone else but himself. He’s obviously not a very nice person, but he’s also obviously not a good writer.

    Now, some might disagree — and that’s fine. Some people might get a kick out of reading this type of rant. Some people would rather watch World Wrestling Federation than read a good book. Maybe even some like both. But let’s not confuse it. This wasn’t satire by a long shot. It was just a pathetic person showing his true colours and seeing if he could tempt others to sink to his level.

  23. It’s probably best that we agree to disagree. I believe you are basing your conclusions on admittedly limited reading of the site and probably of the writing I have done here for the past 13 years but you are welcome to your opinion.

    As for sensitivity, if I had a thin skin I would have quit this business a long time ago. People are welcome to their beliefs and they are free to take whatever shots they want. I just hope they base those shots on knowledge, not preconception or limited exposure to what this site is all about. Sadly, some would rather just drive by and fire randomly.

    That’s the nature of the business. But the fact remains that I do what I do because I love doing it and will continue to do so as long as it is fun. That is, and always will be, the bottom line. Those who don’t like it are free to express their opinion without fear of retribution or, if they wish, to seek salvation elsewhere. It’s a big web and there are plenty of places to seek salvation or agreement with a particular partisan point of view, philosophy or bias. The only thing you can sure of here is that — no matter what your political belief, philosophy or point of view — I will at one time or another, write something that will piss you off…and I will have fun doing so.

  24. “I have it in for any elected official who abuses the power of office, be them Democrats, Republicans, Independent or Socialist.”

    What about the remaining 1% ?

    — Kent Shaw

  25. Doug, it is your web site. Call it what you will. I confess I do not spend that much time here and no I have not read your FAQs. I do have other things to do. This has been my longest engagement.

    However, I have seen enough to conclude that the headman has a “tude” that is very negative. From the posts of others, I am not alone. As for being personal, when someone is giving opinion, readers have to understand something about the opinion maker’s persona. Sorry if I got too personal. Maybe you are more “sensetive” than I assumed. Would be nice if that sensitivity were directed outward as well as inward.

  26. Doug…I may not always agree with what you say about an issue or individual but, I ALWAYS learn from and, enjoy the input from you and my fellow posters. Many thanks & kudos for the time and efforts you put into this site. I am reminded daily that no subject is so serious that it can’t benefit from some serious satire…keep it coming Doug, I appreciate it.

    A Happy Healthy New Year to each and all!

  27. Interesting. Just last week the publisher of another web site said I have it in for Bush and the Republicans.

    I have it in for any elected official who abuses the power of office, be them Democrats, Republicans, Independent or Socialist.

    Don’t you just hate it when facts get in the way of your own biases?

  28. For someone who claims to deal with facts you sure seem to ignore some big ones:

    1–Capitol Hill Blue is not a blog nor am I the “chief blogger.” I’m a newsman and this is a news site. Again, you should read our FAQs:

    Are you a blog?

    Not really. Our main focus is news.

    2 — I never denied having an ego. As you said, everyone does. The question you raised is whether or not what you consider is my outsized ego is responsible for what you don’t like about this web site. I can only guess that if my ego was was big as you claim then only my stuff would be published here and not the work of our other very talented columnists like Rob, Hal and Phil or the many other excellent writers who work appear on our site.

    I’m starting to wonder, Mary, if understand our function as a news site or the ability of writers to have fun while pursuing serious issues. This ain’t a blog. Never has been, never will be. And one can love his country and still poke fun at it and its leaders. We do it all the time. We’ve been doing it for more than 13 years now and I expect to be doing it for 13 more.

    It appears obvious that you, and probably others, have pre-conceived notions based on what you think I am or what this web site is all about. Another commenter to this column claims I have it in for the Clintons. When I write about Bush others claim I have it in for him. One week we’re called lefty, the next right-wing. That’s the beauty of non-partisan political commentary. It keeps the minions confused and those who must stereotype everyone agitated.

    If, as you claim, you are interested in issues then I suggest you deal with issues. Your comments here have been more personal than issue oriented and, sadly, display what I believe is a misunderstanding of this web site, its purpose and its owner. I have tried to answer your questions but it appears to me, and to others on our staff who have commented to me about your claims, that you’re mind is made up and not interested in open debate.

    That’s your prerogative in a free society but we didn’t become the oldest surviving news site on the Internet by rolling over and playing dead every time someone gets pissed off or upset. I’m an old, ink-stained newspaperman who firmly believes in the adage that “it is the role of a newspaperman to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.”

  29. I dont pay much attention to the rants. To me they are just emotional venting. Once in a while they make a really good point or express an issue in a way that realy nails it. Doug’s rants never fail to stir people up, one way or the other. When I read this one I knew it was going to be the other.

    Personally, I didn’t like the way he expressed himself or his choice of language to make his points this time. But I, also, don’t like the reactions from some of the ladies. They are just as bad as the rant.

    It disappoints me to see some of the most gifted and intelligent posters in this group allowing themselves to be goaded into name calling and derogatory accusations. Suggesting that Doug should have his citizenship revoked is worse than anything he said in his rant.

    The rant should stimulate discussuion about an issue, not psychoanalysis of the author. Doug did lay himself open to a lot of criticism with this one but that doesn’t excuse branding him as the utimate egomaniacal sexist male pig.

    A very wise lady once told me that all men are bastards and all women are bitches. I have found her statement to be true. So, why don’t we just accept that axiom and get back to the issue of what to do about these two “broads” that should be expelled from our government.

  30. Bryan wrote: “Bringing up my three daughters I always told them be a Lady, they can’t take that away…”

    That’s really excellent advice to give any child. (With boys, I suppose it would be “gentlemen” — or maybe there’s some unisex equivalent.)

    It amazes me that people who want to pass judgement on what other people do IN PRIVATE are the first to whine when people criticize them for what they do IN PUBLIC.

    I never felt qualified to judge Clinton on getting a blowjob in the WH, or even on lying about it, because that was his personal and private business. He has mine, you have yours, he has his. Whether we’re politicians, beauticians, statisticians or morticians, we all have a right to privacy. And looking for a loophole by putting someone on the spot in public about their private life, then attacking them for lying is a bit like tying someone hand and foot and tossing them in the river to determine if they’re a witch.If they drown, oh well, they were innocent. If they don’t, haul ’em out and hang ’em as a witch. Either way, you get the desired result.

    I do feel qualified to judge Doug Thompson, though, because he acts out in public. A more eloquent and intelligent person could make much more lethal (and interesting!) criticisms of just about anyone, but that’s not Doug’s style. He shoots for the lowest common denominator. Perhaps he’d be happier if we abandoned democracy altogether and decided our leadership by UFC tournaments.

  31. Let’s stick with the facts, I did not call you a pig nor did I say reading your web site is a pain. It comes to my inbox and I quickly peruse it for any new and interesting information or insights. This I do despite not caring for the general tone of the chief blogger.

    You have a way of contradicting yourself. At one point you say you don’t take the world seriously and then you say you run this web site for love of country. Acting out of love of country is pretty serious stuff in my book.

    Your masochist/sadist analysis has no merit. I don’t view you as a sadist. I am motivated by an interest in issues and the political world. I will continue to read your web cite as long as it has some benefits, which often come from other posters.

    On denying an ego, only the brain dead don’t have egos. Given the tone of some of your posts and your accomplishments, I will continue to assume you have a sizeable one.

  32. Tongue in cheek?
    More like head up ass!!
    Doug is still obsessed with the Clinton years and the “blue dress”. Like sugar plums fairies to a child, Doug’s visions of the RepubliCon impeachment continue to dance in his mind.

    RepubliCons (read: “southern strategy”) still hold the majority in the U.S. Government (see Bush..see Lieberman…see Media). Yet Doug can only talk out his ass and blame it on the Clinton years and a couple of “dumb broads”.

  33. Interesting psychoanalysis Mary but one based on assumptions that ignore several realities:

    1 — If I had the ego that you claim that I do then I would never have publicly admitted failure with the Campaign for Our America and privately shifted my resources, time and money to a more behind-the-scenes effort that stands a better chance of succeeding without the stigma of my name;

    2 — If I had the ego that you claim that I do then I would never, ever, admit a mistake. Like all humans, I make my share — sometimes more than my share — and when that happens I admit them and take my lumps;

    3 — If I were the boorish and clueless pig that you claim that I am than I doubt that my wife — a loving, caring and liberated woman — would not have remained married to me for 28 years and I would not have blamed her if she had left;

    4 — What is done here at CHB is done for fun, not money; for love of country, not ego satisfaction and for the hell of it. No one here has ever made a dime off this web site. The ads you see on these pages produce income that we donate to charity because that seems the best use of anything produced by commercialism. I am reminded of the scene from Citizen Kane, the great Orson Welles film where his guardian asks him:

    Charles, is this anyway to run a newspaper?

    Kane: I don’t know how to run a newspaper. I just try everything I can think of.

    When we started Capitol Hill Blue in 1994, nobody knew much about putting a news site on the web. So we tried everything we could think of. Some things work, some didn’t. But we’ve had a lot of fun along the way and plan to keep having fun in the future.

    5 — The motto of the holding company that sponsors by various business enterprises and not-for-profit activities is: “Determine what sucks…don’t do it.”

    So let me ask you a question Mary. If reading this web site and following our efforts is such a pain, why do you continue to do it?

    Perhaps you are a masochist and, if I follow your reasoning correctly, you view me as something of a sadist.

    And when you think about it, a sadist is a person who does nice things to a masochist.

  34. Well, Doug perhaps your rather flippant and nonserious attitude is why you couldn’t get enough support for the organization you were trying to form. Besides, advising people not to take life too seriously contradicts what is done here at CHB.
    People who read and post here obviously take life seriously and care about issues.

    Anyone who displays the arrogance you do takes themselves very seriously. They may not take the rest of the world seriously, as they are preoccupied with their own over inflated egos.

    The description of your conversations at Hooters only serves to reinforce your image as boorish and
    clueless.

  35. Whether they’re women, men, blacks, asians, mexicans, extraterrestrial aliens, whatever, they’re still among the ‘best’ our political system has to offer at the moment. And that’s pretty damn depressing.
    -W-

  36. Mary, I gave up taking myself seriously for Lent.

    As it states on our FAQs (Frequently Asked Questions) page:

    So, are you a member of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy?
    Nah. We’re members of the Great Buffalo Wing Conspiracy. We meet on a haphazard basis at the local Hooters and, over a plate of wings, ponder important social questions like “do you think those are real?” or “is she wearing underwear?”

    Don’t you take anything seriously?
    Nah. Too many others do. We leave it to them.

    I’ve always subscribed to the advice of Bugs Bunny:

    Don’t take life too seriously.

    You’ll never get out of it alive anyhow.

    Respectfully yours,
    The Arrogant Doug Thompson

  37. Notice when Doug insults, he tells us to lighten up.
    That is so rightwing. Doug still has vestiges of his Republican background. I am well aware of people who insult with humor and then say “can’t you take a joke.” Interestingly, these attackers disguised as humorists are most often Republicans.
    Adding insult to injury, Doug admonishes us for taking ourselves so seriously, how arrogant and hypocritical. Who doesn’t take themselves seriously? I don’t for a minute believe that pompous Doug does not take himself seriously.
    Only the mentally challanged don’t take themselves seriously.

    I will only add that the same criticism of Clinton and Pelosi, some justified, could have been stated in a much more civil and respectful manner. I guess in the day of Coulter and Limbaugh that is too much to ask.

  38. I am also disappointed and dismayed at the pathetic cowardice of Pelosi and the pandering of seemingly republican lite Hillary . But lets not forget that other wimpy bitch , Harry Reid , whats his excuse , not to mention Hoyer , Emanuel etc ? I also keep remembering that the back bone of the republican party is white men ( I am one ) , without whom they would cease to exist . I am also disappointed with ” lets all hold hands and get along ” Obama . Trying to ” get along ” and make nice with the republicans won’t work . They need to be dragged out from under their rocks , exposed and stepped on like the vermon they are . This is a battle , not a tea party . These corporate fascists and their hired political guns aren’t interested in making friends or playing fair , the current batch of democrats don’t seem to get that . It also doesn’t help that they’re dependent on the same corporate money that fuels the republicans . We desperately need sweeping change to the left before whats left of our once proud experiment completes this decent into the dark , mean place we’re moving toward .

  39. Hey Bryan –

    …read the satire comment –

    …I was just havin’ some fun – keepin’ the whole thing light given the heavy turn it kept takin’! –

    …no offense taken here –

    …but I’m just one female – other opinions may differ!

    …CHEERS!

    LFTL

  40. I just became victim of my own poor choice of words.I apologize to all the Ladies.Bringing up my three daughters I always told them be a Lady, they can’t take that away, and that men by and large are assholes, but we were born that way. Carl save me!!

  41. I guess we’re a bit different that way. I like to see a good, vigorous discussion of issues — and I’ve found out about many things from reading people’s comments on this site and others like it that I sure never heard about through corporate news. It’s a good education. I wish more people would make the effort to express themselves (intelligently!) and read what others have to say. Frankly, even if someone votes entirely differently than I would, I’d sure rather have that be because they’ve looked at the issues from a number of perspectives and they’re doing what they really think is right — not because they were swayed by some namecaller, mudslinger, scandalmongerer, windowpeeper, cultural divider, or swiftboater.

    But the sad thing is — and you know it — too many voters in this country DO allow themselves to be swayed by that sort of thing. That’s why it’s very, very dangerous and must be rejected by anyone who cares more about democracy than about any particular outcome. Let’s hope, no matter who wins this election, that we’ll see a return to respect and civility. I’m not really all that impressed with our politicians these days either, but I believe that they reflect the prevalent values of OUR culture. The only way to get better politicians is to clean up our culture.

  42. Again, this not so

    …dumb broad will state that: hell will freeze over before she would ever consider voting for HRC –

    …and she will also repeat her support of Richardson –

    …and an ability to live with Edwards and/or Biden –

    …their wives might not approve but –

    …as someone who tends to have her own fun with sarcasm and cynicsm, I knew where Doug was coming from –

    …but then again, I’m smarter than the average dumb broad –

    LFTL

  43. From various dictionaries:

    Satire:use of ridicule or scorn, often to expose vices and follies…a literary technique in which ideas or customs are ridiculed for the purpose of improving society…ridicule, irony, exaggeration, and several other techniques are almost always present…a literary technique of writing or art which principally ridicules its subject (individuals, organisations, states) often as an intended means of provoking change or preventing it…satire is not exclusive to any viewpoint…

    Lighten up folks. We’ve got a long campaign year ahead of us and I intend to have a lot of fun with the collection of miscreants offered up by both parties.

    I’m sorry some here take themselves so seriously. We don’t. Never have. Never will.

  44. Hi JoyfulC…

    My comments were not to protect Doug Thompson. He’s quite capable of doing that for himself. I’m simply stating that we are all word and thought sinners at times. Most of Doug’s rants are spot-on and enjoyable to read. Once in a while he loses his grip on the mainsheet causing irritation among his readers, but all in all it’s a great site and he’s a great host and a standup guy!

    I like this site and I guess I’m so needy for a thought forum among people with similar ideas and goals relative to the preservation of our Republic that I’d sell my soul to the devil if the saving of this nation were in the deal. I’d fry in a christian hell for eternity to save this great experiment in freedom for all time and all places. I’ll probably do so anyway so my soul doesn’t have all that much value…:)) I believe Churchill said he’d make a deal with the devil;ie., bartering even his soul to stop Adolph Hitler…!

    When I post on CHB it’s always my hope that lurkers who possibly have no ideas on many political subjects or even a position just might get motivated to do what’s right for America when they vote in November 2008.

    To me you are my “friends in thought” family even if you strongly disagree with me. πŸ™‚

    Carl Nemo **==

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: