Comments on: Comments on 5942

Post number 5942

owillis — Wed, 21 Feb 2001 18:11:34 -0800

"More than anything, I admit, I hate Chelsea because she is a Clinton. Not just genetically a Clinton, but in spirit and habit and manner. The evidence for this is now, I think, sufficient to indict." Gotta love them Conservatives.

By: Postroad

Postroad — Wed, 21 Feb 2001 18:16:25 -0800

Were I an editor of the National Review, I would not allow such crap to be published. No wonder that its rival, The Weekly Standard, has now become the mag of choice for conservatives.

By: locombia

locombia — Wed, 21 Feb 2001 18:32:45 -0800

National Review has nothing other than crap to fill their pages with. Personal attack after poorly informed expose, etc etc. My dad used to make me read NR. I can't believe how small-minded the writers are

By: anildash

anildash — Wed, 21 Feb 2001 19:09:26 -0800

This guy's a scumbag. What's his daughter's address? And if I understand correctly, this guy's British? Let's get started on why he's wrong on so. many. counts.

By: Kikkoman

Kikkoman — Wed, 21 Feb 2001 19:24:22 -0800

More than anything, I admit, I hate John Derbyshire because he is a Derbyshire. Not just genetically a Derbyshire, but in spirit and vacant facial expression.

By: rcade

rcade — Wed, 21 Feb 2001 20:03:26 -0800

I think Andrew Sullivan had the right take on that loathsome piece: "You want to know why President Clinton managed to evade his authentic critics for so long? Because some of his inauthentic critics were as ugly and vile as this. ... He doesn't actually call for killing Chelsea, but the sentiment is one of the most truly sickening things I have read in a very long time. Attacking nepotism is one thing - although there is no evidence that Chelsea has benefited from it in any inappropriate way. This kind of material is simply beneath contempt. National Review owes its readers and Chelsea some sort of apology."

By: Lynsey

Lynsey — Wed, 21 Feb 2001 20:19:23 -0800

Um, I don't think curmudgeon quite covers it. No, I don't think scumbag curmudgeon does it, either. Who gave this ranting fool a public forum anyway? Is this supposed to be some sort of thought piece? I don't think I've ever read anything as vicious and wrongheaded masquerading as, well, I don't know, journalism? Nothing like making it personal, eh Mr. Derbyshrew? Boy, are you ever in for some hate mail! Meanwhile, Chelsea and a dear friend, Kevin Marcussen, share the same birthday - he will be 21 too. And he was always fascinated with Chelsea as she assumed her place in public life. Happy birthday to both of you! You will both be better adults than the moron who wrote that hate screed.

By: argybarg

argybarg — Wed, 21 Feb 2001 20:50:15 -0800

Um ... I may not be up-to-date with the latest far-right Clinton fantasies, but what's this rape charge he keeps slanging around?

By: capt.crackpipe

capt.crackpipe — Wed, 21 Feb 2001 21:12:09 -0800

Dan Perkins: "Good satire is about attacking the powerful, and that tends to be more the purview of the left. But I think maybe I'm being too kind here. Clinton has been in power and plenty of right-wingers have been attacking him—they're just not funny. Maybe there's something about the conservative mindset that confuses mean-spirited name-calling and insults with actual humor. "

By: tiaka

tiaka — Wed, 21 Feb 2001 21:34:51 -0800

He's British? But I thought they were supposed to be smarter?

By: aaron

aaron — Wed, 21 Feb 2001 21:40:08 -0800

Let the record show that this is a piece from National Review Online which, unlike most magazines' websites, is mostly original content. In other words, I don't think William F. Buckley signed off on this crap. (FYI: According to NRO's front page, there will be a column from Derbyshire posted tomorrow (Thursday) responding to the firestorm he created.)

There are one or two quasilegitimate arguments made in this hatchet job (many have questioned why she suddenly became so visible just as the scandals were getting so bad, and she really didn't have any business butting in on deadly serious Middle East policy negotiations), but it's so buried in his blind disgust for the entire Clinton bloodline that the only thing the article does is make it obvious Derbyshire's got some serious issues to deal with.

By: aaron

aaron — Wed, 21 Feb 2001 21:49:19 -0800

what's this rape charge he keeps slanging around?

Go to your favorite search engine and run a search on "Juanita Broaddrick." Even better, run the search at Freerepublic.com. That'll tell you far more than you'll ever want to know. But the one-line summary is this: She alleges that Clinton raped her after a Clinton campaign rally in 1978.

By: owillis

owillis — Wed, 21 Feb 2001 22:08:30 -0800

And that's all it ever was. Unsubstaniated claim 20 years after the fact. Womanizer? Yes. Rapist? No.

By: Capn_Stuby

Capn_Stuby — Wed, 21 Feb 2001 22:15:14 -0800

Can't anyone see that Derbyshire is simply exaggerating for entertainment purposes? He's thrown in a few facts, but the whole thrust of his article is to demonstrate hw contemptible the Clintons are, Mom, Dad, and Daughter, too, if she continues along the path of her parents. And I sometimes wonder how much her travel trips cost and how one could justify that cost. "17 year old girls with nice teeth and dancer's bodies were NEEDED at the Middle East Peace Negotiations!" Sheeat, peeps, that sounds like a job description for one of Bill's interns... Everyone here seems too blinded by liberalism and love for Bill and Posse, Inc. to talk sensibly on the subject... (I overuse ellipses. Maybe Derbyshire will hate my children, too!)

By: dhartung

dhartung — Wed, 21 Feb 2001 23:39:52 -0800

Stuby, that's the Alec Baldwin defense ... "see, it was just satire!" that FreeRepublickers have been deriding for years. How puerile. Just to be fair, I went back to that piece and tried to read it from the top in a jocular, satirical tone. By the third paragraph I was ready to vomit. (That is exaggerating for entertainment purposes.) With absolutely no evidence that a young woman has done anything wrong other than being born to opportunistic parents, he guts her like a fish. This is not an adult thing to do. It is not a rational thing to do. It is simply blind hatred, of Clinton and everything connected to the man. (Meanwhile, you allege in another thread that people here blindly hate Republicans. I challenge you to find anyone here who has, for example, extended their hatred of Bush -- assuming they have an opinion of him that goes that far, and I haven't seen it -- to the Bush children. Stuby, I think you're walking around with that right-wing chip on your shoulder and believe you're hated more than you are. Just one more example of Republican victim-speak. It's getting damned tiring.)

By: Optamystic

Optamystic — Thu, 22 Feb 2001 01:01:10 -0800

I'm going to foward this article to the Secret Service. Wouldn't it be funny if they read this piece and interpreted it to be a legitimate threat against Miss Clinton? And wouldn't it be even funnier if they snatched this bastard's green card and sent him back to the peet bog from which he sprang? I get a chuckle just thinking about it.

By: dagnyscott

dagnyscott — Thu, 22 Feb 2001 06:08:52 -0800

I challenge you to find anyone here who has, for example, extended their hatred of Bush -- assuming they have an opinion of him that goes that far, and I haven't seen it -- to the Bush children Didn't we have an entire thread flaming his daughter because she wrote a lame school assignment, updating a fairy tale? Yeah. We did. So that doesn't work.

By: rodii

rodii — Thu, 22 Feb 2001 06:19:20 -0800

Flaming? No. Laughing at? Yes.

By: skinjob

skinjob — Thu, 22 Feb 2001 07:52:28 -0800

wow... its hard to believe any "journalistic" organization would publish such drivel. Stuff like this just makes my head spin, to think that this writer did a bunch of research and theorizing about this girl who will soon be 21... in the name of news even - just creeps me out. Here let me tell you a secret... i know this girl named Wendy Weedameyer... and i feel really evil, really BAD... really horrible for saying this but i just have to get this out - i hate her. tabloid shocker sensationalism bleh /rude nro

By: rcade

rcade — Thu, 22 Feb 2001 08:41:41 -0800

I don't think anything in the Jenna Bush thread was as loathsome as Derbyshire's rant. many have questioned why she suddenly became so visible just as the scandals were getting so bad, and she really didn't have any business butting in on deadly serious Middle East policy negotiation. Is there a legitimate source for the stories about Chelsea "butting in" during peace talks, or is it coming from the same deranged gang that believes Clinton runs drugs out of Mena Airport and is responsible for dozens of deaths?

By: Sapphireblue

Sapphireblue — Thu, 22 Feb 2001 08:55:32 -0800

sickening. really, really sickening. and conservatives wonder why they all get tarred with the "hate speech" brush. look no further.

By: Skot

Skot — Thu, 22 Feb 2001 09:00:34 -0800

I tried to read this piece in the spirit in which it was intended to be read. I tried, but just really couldn't. What's most pathetic is not that he's just not funny (and it took me a minute to figure out that was the tone he was trying to catch), not that he's an inept writer at best ("Be afraid, be very afraid"--how fresh!), but that he is utterly unable to contain his anti-Clinton hysteria for even a paragraph. The Republicans won the office. They won! So why can't they just fucking let this go?

By: sonofsamiam

sonofsamiam — Thu, 22 Feb 2001 09:15:22 -0800

I didn't read the article because of the layout. But isn't that a funny picture of that guy?!

By: trox

trox — Thu, 22 Feb 2001 09:48:20 -0800

And who really thought he would apologize? Talk about taking the compassionate out of the compassionate conservative.

By: holgate

holgate — Thu, 22 Feb 2001 09:48:48 -0800

He's British? But I thought they were supposed to be smarter? We tend to exempt right-wingers from the smartness criteria (vide: Boris Johnson) because they're normally amusing. Not this time.

By: mikewas

mikewas — Thu, 22 Feb 2001 10:12:34 -0800

Just so everyone knows, Derbyshire is not properly associated with the group known as "conservative" but with the group known as "idiots." Virtually everyone, regardless of political persuasion, was offended by that piece. That's a good thing. Unfortunatley, as Michelle pointed out, many people will use this to reinforce their "conservative=mean" stereotype as a substitute for thinking, and turn a blind eye when the same type of drivel comes from the left. They are the ones who gleefully hooted along when James Carville described Paula Jones as trailer trash, when Paul Begala painted rural voters as bigots, murders, and mad bombers, and when Geraldo Rivera smeared Juanita Broaddrick and Congressmen Paul McHale. If those folks wish to judge all conservatives by some addle-witted hack who happens to have a web column, so be it. The sword cuts both ways.

By: mikewas

mikewas — Thu, 22 Feb 2001 10:37:33 -0800

By the way, if enough people linked to Derbyshire with the words unrepentant asshole as the anchor text, how long would it take before he becomes Google's number-one entry on the phrase?

By: owillis

owillis — Thu, 22 Feb 2001 10:40:47 -0800

Paula Jones was/is trailer trash. Paul Begala's essay said all kinds of people voted for Gore and Bush. Re-read it. Juanita Broadarick - riiight. Let's see... Anyone slam the Bush daughters? No, and they would be wrong to do so. This is just symptomatic of conservative thinking. Come on, look who printed it. Who always prints this kind of crap? It's why "We're Right, And They're Wrong."

By: mikewas

mikewas — Thu, 22 Feb 2001 13:52:32 -0800

Owillis: You make my point for me. Thanks.

By: rcade

rcade — Thu, 22 Feb 2001 14:00:22 -0800

Paul Begala is probably capable of an essay as vile and stupid as Derbyshire's piece on Chelsea Clinton, but his infamous "bigots" piece isn't it. The essay is still around on Free Republic, for those who have been damning it based on one excerpt.

By: owillis

owillis — Thu, 22 Feb 2001 14:50:21 -0800

mikewas: You've got your America, we've got the real one.

By: sonofsamiam

sonofsamiam — Thu, 22 Feb 2001 14:54:59 -0800

That's enough, now. C'mon, all us liberals/conservatives know that all conservatives/liberals are idiots. No need to beat the harp on the drum.

By: mikewas

mikewas — Thu, 22 Feb 2001 15:05:09 -0800

rcade: If you're insinuating I haven't read the whole piece, I have. It's inexcusable, at least the second half. The first half is mere partisan bloviating. Owillis: I'm not sure who your "we" is, but it's nice to know that you apparently define "real" America as a place where everyone has your viewpoint. To whom shall I submit my opinions for state approval in your America?

By: Optamystic

Optamystic — Thu, 22 Feb 2001 15:07:40 -0800

Have them on my desk by nine tomorrow morning. If I disapprove of them, you will be informed by firing squad. That is all.

By: owillis

owillis — Thu, 22 Feb 2001 15:31:58 -0800

mikewas: I'm talking about the America that's able to have a political discourse and disagreement without resorting to outright lies and fabricated scandals. But anywho, send those opinions by 8.

By: sonofsamiam

sonofsamiam — Thu, 22 Feb 2001 15:39:26 -0800

owillis, nobody lives in that America.

By: thirteen

thirteen — Thu, 22 Feb 2001 16:07:20 -0800

Who's Chelsea Clinton?

By: Octaviuz

Octaviuz — Thu, 22 Feb 2001 17:51:23 -0800

Where's America?

By: darukaru

darukaru — Thu, 22 Feb 2001 18:02:12 -0800

Who are you people and why am I wearing this lampshade?

By: Neb

Neb — Thu, 22 Feb 2001 19:02:28 -0800

unrepentant asshole?

By: UrineSoakedRube

UrineSoakedRube — Thu, 22 Feb 2001 19:35:38 -0800

mikewas> . . . when Paul Begala painted rural voters as bigots, murders, and mad bombers . . . This column was in response to Mike Barnicle's idiotic claim that the states that went to Gore represented "entitlement" and the states that went for Bush represented "family values". Begala's rhetorical response is that if you're going to tar entire states with the broad brush of being welfare recipients, you could also tar the states that went for Bush as being the homes of bigots, murders, and mad bombers. It's clear from reading the column that Begala was being rhetorical in order to point out how ridiculous Barnicle's claim was. And then Begala continued to say: "But that's not the whole story either . . . My point is that Middle America is a far more complicated place than even a gifted commentator like Mike Barnicle gives us credit for. It's not all just red and blue—or black and white." I haven't read Derbyshire's article, and I don't know whether it went over the line. But the claim that Begala was engaging in a smear of rural voters is wrong.

By: lucien

lucien — Fri, 23 Feb 2001 02:14:14 -0800

"And that's all it ever was. Unsubstaniated claim 20 years after the fact. Womanizer? Yes. Rapist? No." I'm not sure that anyone but the parties involved could possibly know that. It's an allegation yes, and has never been tried in a court of law (which as we all know, would resolve it once and forever!!?) Or was that one a joke? Going to the same extremes as the National Review story? Oh. To be honest, I did think that the thread about Bush's daughter was fairly unkind in parts. Not up to the vitriolic tone of the Chelsea story, but in both cases, it had me thinking how difficult it is to grow up in the public eye. You don't choose it, yet your inevitable mistakes are analysed and judged by millions anyway.

By: pikachulolita

pikachulolita — Fri, 23 Feb 2001 02:31:10 -0800

if clinton really *was* a rapist, don't you think the same people who get after him for consensual sexual acts would have strung him up at the gallows by now if there was any possible merit to this claim? seriously. in a pedantic sense, yes, it's an allegation and i personally can't conclusively say one way or the other, but that's splitting hairs that kenneth starr already split, in my opinion.

By: lucien

lucien — Fri, 23 Feb 2001 03:23:22 -0800

I too continue to be unsure about the case. Not being sure is not the same as splitting hairs, however (although this quibble might be) It's just a statement of opinion, or lack of one.