Posted by
Mr. H on Thursday, March 01, 2007 3:52:39 PM
Wow, it has been a long time since I posted anything...
How do you know when you are arguing with a liberal? When they can not refute anything you say and either have to fling personal attacks or divert the topic or as of late, insult President Bush. Take the following exchange:
First, read
"All the Ex-President's Money" by Cal Thomas.
Then read
this response by Indianapolis Star columnist Dan Carpenter.
Here is my response:
"If Dan had really read Cal's column, he would have learned that Cal's
problem is not that Bill Clinton is making money for giving speeches,
but that there appears to be a real conflict of interest when Bill's
wife is a sitting U.S. Senator running a campaign for President.
Hillary has already turned down federal funds for campaigning so that
she can spend unlimited amounts of money. Having an ex-president
husband, and one who is paid handsomely for making speeches that could
be considered campaign endorsements, is something that should be looked
at closely. McCain-Feingold was a travesty foisted on the American
people, but everyone should have to play by the same rules."
Dan's response: "Of course, she could have an ex-president father with lots of money and
lots of rich foreign associates. Hardly worth "looking into."
Nothing constructive at all to add, and nothing at all to refute my points. At the very least, he could have corrected me by saying that Hillary has not yet turned down federal funds (she has not had the opportunity yet), but he has to resort to diverting the attention to George W. Bush. Not that these are even the same thing.
Former President George H.W. Bush was restricted to giving his son $1000 in personal contributions just like any other private citizen. Former President Bill Clinton, however, does not have this restriction as his funds count as family assets, not restricted by campaign finance rules. That's the elephant in the room that Dan and the liberals are afraid to see.