How low can they go?

Here at The Outrage we’re all for lambasting the powers-that-be, whether they be Democrat, Republican or some other brand of rogue. But we like to fool ourselves into believing that our barbed javelins are hurled with some flair. We try to aim for the jugular, sometimes the heart, occasionally the brain. We hope we avoid going below the belt.

The mainstream American press however, seems to be engaged in a perpetual journey south, seeking an ever-lower common denominator. And we have to ask, how low is TOO low?

Here at the DO we’re no great fans of current monarch Clinton or his administration. His reign has been riddled with corruption and deceit, although that doesn’t really distinguish it from any other administration of recent years.

Clinton’s policies are often foolish and nonsensical, but we’re old enough to remember worse — the Trickster’s wage and price controls come to mind, among many other debacles of the Nixon administration. And of course, for sheer lack of character, it would be hard to top JFK or his follower, LBJ.

But policy aside, is there a limit to the sort of personal attacks that should be published?

We have to admit that even the sick minds here at the DO were disgusted by the Washington Times decision to report Paula Jones latest demands for a detailed “examination” of President Clinton. Jones asserts that the president has certain physical “irregularities.” Jones thinks her knowledge of these abnormalities supports her sexual harassment case against Clinton.

We won’t go into the details here, but the Washington Times did. We wrote that off, because the Times seems to be on a perpetual dirt-digging campaign against Clinton. It may be a well-founded campaign, and many of their charges may be true. But is it necessary to reprint every allegation that is made against a man, no matter how irrelevant to policy it may be?

The New York Daily News joined in the fray and also printed details of the allegations. Whether you despise Clinton or admire him, this sort of media coverage can only be called outrageous. The allegations have nothing at all to do with politics, and they can only contribute to the downward spiral of public discourse.

Most politicians, Bill Clinton included, deserve as much criticism as they receive. Let’s sharpen our swords and our satire and use these instruments fiercely. But honorable warriors aim for the head, not the crotch.

(Source: New York Daily News).

  • Save this Post to Scrapbook

0 thoughts on “BELOW THE BELT!

  1. Wee Willy, [possibly a good description of the area in question] tells us more about himself than he does about his choice of “partners”, when his spin doctors report on the social status of said partners. After all, he selected that group for his escapades, and most likely it shows in his choice of marital partnership. His spin doctors ought to know what he “goes for”.

    Time: 5/29/98 (2:29:51)

    I am shocked! Shocked! That you could take the politically correct ENFORCER of Politically Correct rubric of witch hunts against people who are innocent of anything but well-worded compliments, resulting in the ruin of careers of fine, upstanding gentlemen Military Officers, many of whom have earned Medals of Valor risking their lives for this country.

    BUT– if you are a Liberal Democrat, you can do no wrong, even if you whip out your left-leaning, crooked tool and wave it in a married woman’s face. You name yourself OUTRAGE– this is SELECTIVE OUTRAGE!

    SO THERE!,
    Luv, jet____

    Time: 3/25/98 (18:0:22)

    I’m amazed that you “fair-thinking & upright” Americans can be so horrid to your American Indians. You want to start being a little bit consistent in your views on the so-called minorities & underclasses.

    If all you people “over the water” took the same view on the Irish situation as you have done on the American Indians, then Noraid would not be alive & flourishing & bank-rolling the bombing & maiming that is going on in Northern Ireland – all in the name of “freedom”. Remember it was only a little over 200 years since your ancestors robbed the indigenous Americans of their lands & birthright – less than half the time since Henry VIII gave his Lords the estates in Ireland.

    And I think that you’ll find that the Catholics in Northern Ireland are somewhat better treated & regarded by the Government in Office (ie HM Government) than the American Indians by your leaders.

    So if you think so little of indigenous populations, stop giving money to the IRA & maybe we’ll have a better chance to sort things out over there.

    If you really want us to see NI governed by the descendants of the indigenous population, then set us an example & let the American Indians have the power of government in the USA – see what I mean?

    Best Wishes,

    Peter Lord

    Time: 10/20/97 (19:7:30)

    Has the DO been infiltraterd by Lefties. In the past I have agreed with you almost always. Lately you seem to be drifting to port. Did you defend Paula when Clinton’s hoods and their accomplices in the media called her a trailer park tramp and generally demeaned her. Sorry but if I have to choose between you and the Washington Times, you lose.

    Time: 10/20/97 (13:12:33)

    I agree that the news media has gone overboard on this Paula Jones thing. But they’re just giving the public what it wants. The average American isn’t interested in what should be the important issues, and therefore the news media spoonfeeds them this scandal garbage day after day. It seems to be the only foodstuff the lazy intellect of Joe Sixpack is capable of digesting.

    Time: 10/20/97 (14:24:3)

    What hilarity! DO “tut-tutting” anyone about too much negative stuff about Clinton.

    Time: 10/19/97 (13:21:31)

    I’m disappointed with you at DO that you feel you have to defend your President. Here in the UK we have similar cases, though not with such exalted public figures. A certain middle-aged MP (Member of Parliament) – Piers Marchant by name, has been filling the newspapers recently about his activities with a 19-year old of the opposite gender. First he was entirely innocent, then she was just a family friend, then – well, yes I might have had JUST the 4 nights of mad passion when I should have been at the Tory Party conference, but it was not meaningful or permanent.

    The point is that if a public figure (who is paid out of our taxes) can choose to lie or mislead over his personal life (& cheat on the person nearest to him, incidentally, namely Mrs. M) then how much more is he likely to lie etc. to people he has never met – ie. us, the public.

    Whilst we all suspect that MPs lie their way through their careers, we generally give them the benefit of the doubt – but once proved, they deserve all they get – and the higher they are, the harder they should be pushed – & your BC is no exception.

    Nice to have talked to you – I’d like to see a little more (or even 1 article??!!!) on activities outside the US – there’s plenty of fodder in the UK, believe me !!

    Keep up the good work – if you want any dirt on UK public figures, get in touch with “Private Eye” – E-Mail strobes@cix.compulink.co.uk – they are the equivalent of your National Enquirer, but a bit more up-market !!!

    Happy Outraging & Best Wishes,
    Peter Lord

    Time: 10/18/97 (23:14:4)

    Sorry D.O. but the allegation is relevant to policy. It’s the same policy used to manipulate supreme courts, corporate board rooms and wall street law firms.

    As for discourse, you must be joking…60 Minutes hasn’t changed or presented a differing view in decades…have you read TIME lately?

    It reads like the White House Newsletter- there is no discourse. And as for outrageous, that’s exactly what this administration needs, an Abbie Hoffman or Jerry Rubin bringing blow-up dolls to senate hearings or handing out deeds to phony Whitewater property to D.C. tourists.

    Time: 10/18/97 (3:29:21)

    I’m writing as a canadian who’se been living in England for the past 30 years so perhaps my perspective is different.

    First of all, americans seem rather prissy about all this stuff – the ongoing Clinton saga gives me immense pleasure as it roles along – perhaps he could request the ultimate lineup for the lady (what a wonderful cartoon it would make!) – but in any case, in the real world sexual behavior isn’t really much of an indicator of anything else (shall we all think back to how we may have once behaved in our earlier days?)

    I reckon that there are more important areas (pun not intended!) to worry about. In any case the current low grade of politician in most countries may be because all the sensible ones aren’t willing to brave the censors any more- look at Britain’s conservative politicians – they are MUCH better at sleaze – Clinton & company are total amateurs – consider yourselves lucky!

    Time: 10/17/97 (17:29:29)

    I say no holds barred criticizing and reporting all details concerning this President, the worst in the history of the US.

    I did not provide my name or email address as I don’t need the hassle of an IRS audit. I pay what I owe in taxes but I don’t relish dealing with the American Gestapo.

    Time: 10/17/97 (16:2:44)

    The problem is the sleeze of the man, not the sleeze of the report about the man. Little boy Willie has the morals of an alley cat (not meant to be demeaning to animals).

    Unfortunately, the majority of the voters chose to disregard this. That doesn’t mean that it is not true.

    There are those who say that this constant attacking is undermining the Office of the Presidency, as opposed to just criticizing Willie as a private (no pun intended) citizen. But, we cannot separate the behavior of the man from the behavior of the President.

    All we can do, at this point is either have him impeached, or learn to live with it.

    Eventually, his term will expire and we can get somebody else — and hope the next President is a better person.

    Time: 10/17/97 (16:1:24)

    To answer Lee’s question below: Yes. And we were.

    Time: 10/17/97 (15:59:39)

    This president will be much longer remembered for the activities of his crotch than for the area above his shoulders.

    Time: 10/17/97 (15:45:12)

    Would you be as outraged if the accuser was Anita Hill and the accused was Clarence Thomas?

    Time: 10/17/97 (14:10:37)

    DO has it backwards on the crotch complaint. The stories about Clinton are sleazy not because Wes Pruden and the folks at the Wash Times are sleazy, but because we have a tabloid President.

    When Bill Clinton opts to think with the little head instead of the big head it is no one’s fault but his own. Papers don’t avoid reporting on rape cases and I doubt DO would have gotten fussed up about Anita Hill’s fallacious and deceitful charges against Judge Thomas.

    When the President plays in the mud don’t claim the messenger that reports it is dirty. Point to the pig.

    Time: 10/17/97 (14:4:44)

    The job of the Washington Times is to report news. That includes the activities surrounding the president of a criminal nature. Your outrage is misplaced.

    What is outrageous is our president and his utter lack or morals or character. What is outrageous is that our country elected him, not once, but twice! to be president. That the Times reports on his alledged (and likely true) behavior to Paula Jones (both the
    hotel scene and the IRS attack), we should pity them for having to soil themselves.

    Much like changing a poopy diaper, it’s a disgusting job, and liberals won’t do it (they were joyous to display a Republican’s misdeeds and alledged misdeeds in public thought). But to get the place cleaned up, the filth must be exposed to the cleansing of the sun and bright daylight.

    Left under the slimy rock, Clinton’s misdeeds only ferment.

    Time: 10/17/97 (12:57:22)

    I’m astounded by your stance in today’s Outrage. Instead of being Outraged that a sitting governor (who would, unfortunately, later be elected President) in the United States would perform such an act as is alleged, you’re Outraged that the Washington Times would have the temerity to report on it.

    I expect such thinking from the NY Times or the Washington Post, not from The Outrage.

    Time: 10/17/97 (12:6:21)

    Yep, it’s disgusting that these graphic details are being discussed in public.

    Of course, quite without regard to the incredible corruption scandals, this president has lowered the dignity of the office (MTV discussion of his underwear, etc.) more than any previous officeholder (even the drunk Grant).

    And if the press has leaped into Bill’s jockstrap, at least they’ve maintained a dignified silence about evidence for the Foster and Brown killings, what actually happened at Waco, and Billy’s cocaine habit. So I guess it all balances out…..

    Time: 10/17/97 (9:7:49)

    Sorry, but Clinton is in the class of aristocratic leaders who make law like sexual harrassment, and then thinks such laws don’t apply to elite rulers like himself. He brought this on himself.

  2. All that crap about how the press is objective in thier
    reporting is just that-Crap.
    They push thier own political agenda and God help even thier mothers if they are on the wrong side of the fence

  3. If I drop enough bombs, maybe
    they’ll forget I dodged the
    draft, lied about my drinking,
    and stole an election.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *