The Art of Spinning the News and Revising History

Back in the Sixties, our teachers used to spin this revisionist tale of how our first president, George Washington, really died.  He didn’t catch a cold from horseback riding.  His sore throat was not what was commonly called “putrid throat” – it was syphilis (a symptom of which is a throat virus).

 

The revisionists couldn’t pin any love children on Washington. Washington was apparently unable to produce children.  That was not true of his wife, Martha, a young widow with small children when he met and married her.  So the Liberals had to settle for death by syphilis, instead.

 

The Liberals delighted in the candor of Benjamin Franklin’s dirty old man persona. Franklin himself delighted in it right into his old age.  He was an 18th Century Bill Clinton.

 

But Washington, a model of virtue, had to be taken down somehow in the cause of deconstructing America. He didn’t chop down the cherry tree and he died of complications of syphilis.  Never mind that the general sanitary conditions of the 18th Century were deplorable.  Washington wrote of it when he took over the Continental Army in 1775.

 

Washington was nothing, if not fastidious. It’s hard to imagine him even allowing his cloak to brush some unkempt prostitute.  He died of a sore throat.  That was it.  In those days, the solution to just about every internal malady was bloodletting.  Washington’s doctors drew some much blood, however, that it left him too weak to recover from an otherwise non-fatal malady.

 

The spinmeisters had a much better time with Pres. Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence. They gloat that he had a lifelong affair with his slave, Sally Hemmings.  Although docents at Jefferson’s Monticello estate claim that it was more likely his brother, Randolph, a few facts do support the Liberal claims.

 

The facts may prove to be inconvenient for the scandal-mongers. Sally Hemmings was born to one of Martha Skales Jefferson’s father’s slaves.  Sally and Martha were about the same age.  “Rumors” suggest that Martha herself was the off-spring of a slave, possibly the same slave as Sally.

 

Sally, it turns out, was white. She looked so much like Martha, Jefferson’s late and much beloved wife that the theory is that if Jefferson took her as a concubine, it was because of her resemblance to Martha.

 

The Democrat Spin has slimed every Republican candidate since Richard Nixon challenged John F. Kennedy for the presidency in 1962. Sliming, in fact, has been a pastime of the press since American politics began.

 

But here we are in the 20th Century and the Clintons have raised (or lowered, as it were) spin to new depths of muck, smearing the opposition, charging them with false or unprovable accusations, courting the upper echelons of the corporate media machine, and selecting favorable reporters for coveted interviews.

 

Franklin D. Roosevelt used to take the press on picnics. Today, the media environment is much more competitive, with the 24/7 news cycle.  Reporters on deadline are pressured to get the “big story” or “scoop” before their competitors do.  If they miss the scoop, they can be sure to hear from their editors and the company management.

 

During Bill Clinton’s presidency, according to Spin Cycle: How the White House and the Media Manipulate the News, by Howard Kurtz (Touchstone/Simon & Schuster, 1998), Mike McCurry, Bill Clinton’s White House Spokesman, broke the Media down into categories of usefulness in getting out the President’s “message.”

 

The ideal message bearers were the big television and cable networks: ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN.  The networks were chosen as the bearers of the worst news because any story only had about two minutes (at most) to deliver the bad news.  The biggest audiences with the shortest memories got the briefest version of any scandal.  A news item like Travelgate, for instance, got the minimum of coverage and then it was on to the next story.

 

Even if the story went on for months, that was good news for the White House because they knew viewers would soon get bored with the story and decide it was no big deal after all, or just politics as usual. McCurry referred to this delivery as “dribs and drabs.”

 

The big newspapers – the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Wall Street Journal – had more aggressive reporters, but the owners and publishers of the papers were on board with the Democrats and the President.  What’s more, the Times and the Post could count on a loyal, limited, Liberal readership.  Their articles were much too long for the average reader whose time was limited by work and family responsibilities.  The Times printed all the news that was fit to print.

 

But the average reader didn’t have time to read it all (my father did, much to my mother’s frustration). Other large cities had spreadsheet newspapers, like the Los Angeles Times, to service the Liberals in those cities.

 

Farther down the list were the tabloids. Of these, there were two types:  the legitimate tabloids like the New York Daily News and the New York Post, the latter of which had a decidedly Conservative bent; and the supermarket tabloids, like The National Enquirer and the National Examiner.  If a legitimate tabloid ran an anti-White House story, McCurry simply dismissed it as “tabloid journalism.”

 

Then there were the crucial Sunday morning news shows, like Meet the Press, that gave the White House a wide berth in putting forth its agenda and strategies.  The networks were anxious to have the White House spokespeople in front of their cameras, for the credibility it brought them, and the White House was eager to exploit that need.

 

Finally there was the gamut of mostly opposition news media: talk radio, led by Rush Limbaugh, websites, blogs, and social media, which the White House did its best to disparage – and underestimated at its peril.

 

One newspaper, according to Kurtz, that McCurry and the Slime Room (as New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd dubbed it) found useful was USA Today.  This newspaper was basically a tabloid printed in spreadsheet fashion.  Their prodigious use of graphs and graphics conveyed the news without the usual, inconvenient details.

 

McCurry was critical in getting the White House Press Team organized.

 

Kurtz writes, “To be sure, Clinton’s performance had helped create the sense that the country was doing just fine on his watch. But it was a carefully-honed media strategy – alternately seducing, misleading, and sometimes intimidating the press – that maintained this aura of success.  No day went by without the president and his coterie laboring mightily to generate favorable headlines and deflect damaging ones, to project their preferred image on the vast screen of the media establishment.”

 

During any scandal, McCurry saw to it that Clinton was scheduled for an overseas trip, promoting some international agenda and meeting with foreign dignitaries. During press conferences on those trips, Clinton would only take questions from the local, foreign media.  The national American reporters were roped off and their questions ignored.

 

“For much of Clinton’s first term,” Kurtz continues, “these efforts to control the message were clumsy at best. The core of the original team – Chief of Staff Thomas “Mack” McLarty, long-time confidant Bruce Lindsey, senior adviser George Stephanopoulos, counselor David Gergen, press secretary Dee Dee Myers – had trouble fashioning a consistent message, and Clinton himself was unfocused and error-prone.

 

“His casual response, at his first post-election news conference in 1992, about his plans to change the Pentagon’s policy towards gays in the military plunged his administration into a long and bruising battle that pushed other issues off the radar screen. Clinton would often stop to talk to reporters after his morning job, the sweat dripping down his face in a decidedly unpresidential fashion.  He seemed unable to leave any question unanswered, eve one on MTV about his underwear.

 

“In the second half of the term, the president’s new chief of staff, Leon Panetta, imposed some much-needed order on the operation; McCurry smoothed relations with the press; Communications Director Don Baer brought some coherence to long-range planning; Deputy Chief of Staff Harold Ickes rode herd on the political operation; Special Counsel Mark Fabiani deflected the endless scandal stories; consultant Dick Morris steered Clinton toward the political center; and the president himself was more disciplined [editor’s italics] in his dealings with reporters.

 

“He [Clinton] carefully measured his words about the Oklahoma City bombing and the two government shutdowns. Whatever the question, he would stick to the script, repeat his campaign priorities about protecting Medicare, Medicaid, education, and the environment, brush off scandal questions with the briefest of replies, and hold his famous temper in check.”

 

“The second-term lineup was more seasoned but less adventurous. Senior Adviser Rahm Emanuel assumed Stephanopoulos’s role of behind-the-scenes press handler.  Special Counsel Lanny Davis became the chief spinmeister on the burgeoning fund-raising scandal, an effort crisply supervised by Deputy Chief of Staff John Podesta.  Communications Director Ann Lewis handled the substantive planning.  Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles presided over the entire operation like the corporate executive he was.   Counselor Doug Sosnik served up political advice, joined over the summer by colorful strategist and former journalist Sidney [“Sid Vicious”] Blumenthal.

 

“McCurry stayed on for a final mission, determined to broker a cease-fire between the president and a hostile press corps. He and his colleagues were engaged in a daily struggle to control the agenda, to seize the public’s attention, however fleetingly, for Clinton’s wide-ranging initiatives.  They had to manage the news, to package the presidency in a way that people would buy the product.”

 

“When the reporters had the upper hand, the headlines were filled with scandal news, a cascade of Watergate-style charges that drowned out nearly everything else. Indeed, they had plenty of material to work with.

 

“The Whitewater investigation, which had dragged on throughout the first term, involved the Clintons’ role in a complicated land Arkansas land deal, their partnership with a crooked couple, and allegations of a subsequent cover-up. “

 

“The Travelgate probe involved charged that the First Lady had orchestrated the ouster of seven employees of the White House Travel Office so the work could be given to friends of the Clintons.

 

“The Filegate inquiry involved charges that White House aides had deliberately obtained the sensitive FBI files of prominent Republicans.

 

“The Paula Jones lawsuit turned on allegations by a former Arkansas state employee that Clinton, while governor, had asked for sex in a Little Rock hotel room.

 

“And the campaign finance scandal, in its broadest form, involved an alleged conspiracy by Clinton and [Vice President Al] Gore to use the perks of high office to solicit cash from foreign operatives, Asian-American donors, and ‘garden variety’ fat cats, ‘perhaps’ in exchange for political favors.

 

“Against this dark backdrop, what the White House press operatives did was to launder the news – to scrub it of dark scandal stains, removed unsightly splotches of controversy, erase greasy dabs of contradictions, and present it to the country crisp and sparkling white. The underlying garment was the same, but it was often unrecognizable.”

 

 

FDR instituted the concept of talking “on background” and “off-the-record.” At a 1933 press conference, Kurtz tells us, “He told reporters he didn’t want to be quoted directly.  It was a remarkable innovation; the president as chief source, setting strict ground rules that enabled him to shape the news agenda.  The assembled reporters gave Roosevelt a standing ovation, and for the twelve and a half years of his presidency he was treated with deference and affection by the correspondents, none of whom dreamt of telling the public that Roosevelt was confined to a wheelchair.

 

“John Kennedy was the president to hold live televised press conferences, an innovation that permanently altered the nature of White House communications by staging a regular drama, with the reporters as extras, that reached every American living room. He also personally befriended reporters (notably Newsweek’s Ben Bradlee), marketed his wife, Jacqueline [and children, Caroline and John Jr.], as a cultural phenomenon, and drew stunningly positive coverage by today’s standards.

 

“But even JFK could be stung by journalistic criticism, and he once canceled his subscription to the New York Herald Tribune for its ‘biased’ coverage.” And of course, the press never breathed his word about the many women he “entertained.”

 

“Lyndon Johnson made prodigious efforts to wheedle and cajole the press, dispatching military aircraft to pick up the likes of anchor David Brinkley and Washington Post publisher Katharine Graham and fly them to his Texas ranch for private meetings and intimate dinners.

 

“In recent years,” Kurtz goes on to write, “the modern practice of spin has come to occupy a sort of gray zone between candor and outright falsehood.”

 

“By the time Mike McCurry inherited the podium, the press operation had become increasingly crucial to the success or failure of any administration. On one level, the growing bureaucracy was needed to deal with an expanding media universe.  But it was also a natural outgrowth of television’s need to dramatize stories, to focus the camera’s eye on a single leader doing battle with the forces of politics and nature.”

 

“Bill Clinton had all the accoutrements of high office, but [in his second term] he no longer commanded the public stage. McCurry and his colleagues spent endless hours honing the Clinton message, trying to hype each modest proposal into another news cycle, as if the president were some freshman Congressman desperate for a flicker of recognition.  The competition was intense, for Bill Clinton dwelt in the same murky precincts of celebrity as Dennis Rodman, Courtney Love, and David Letterman.  In a hundred-channel world, the president had become just another piece of programming to be marketed, and high ratings were hardly guaranteed.”

 

McCurry played the press like a fine violin, conducting press conferences from the condensed press room in the basement of the White House. Yet, “McCurry and company needed the press to peddle their message to the public, and the journalists needed an action-packed presidency on which to build their reputations and name recognition…fireworks were inevitable when the two sides got in each other’s way.

 

“The White House partisans were convinced that the public was tuning it all out [the scandals], that most Americans viewed this as the typical Beltway follies, but the journalists were filled with moral fervor, determined that readers and viewers should care and that somehow they would make them care.

 

“The Clintonites were equally determined to rout the journalistic naysayers and prove that they could govern in this scandal-charged atmosphere. Neutralizing the media [and, thereby, the American people], had become Ground Zero in the struggle for supremacy, and the spin would clearly be as important as the substance.”

 

McCurry had to find a way to get the White House news out, without making an official announcement, and get a favored newspaper and news channel to make that announcement – before the announcement, in order to soft the public up to accept it with a positive mind-set.

 

“In an age of all news all the time, it was no longer enough simply to stage a presidential ceremony at the White House. Once Clinton made an announcement, McCurry felt, it was only a matter of minutes before Rush Limbaugh, cable commentators, online new services, ‘snippy’ White House correspondents, and anyone else with an opinion got to tear it apart.  The only way to break through the ‘static’ was through repetition, which politicians loved and reporters hated.  To keep a story alive through several news cycles, McCurry often resorted to the art of the leak.

 

“It was a trick he had perfected during the campaign; give one news organization a break on an upcoming development and it was certain to get big play, leaving the other reporters to play catch-up. Few reporters could resist the urge to breathlessly trumpet that ‘the president will announce tomorrow…’  They looked like well-wired insiders, and the White House got a two-day bounce.”

 

While McCurry slugged it out with the reporters, down in the basement, Communications Director Don Baer was polishing up Clinton’s reputation as soldier for the middle class.

 

“Baer was perhaps the most conservative Clinton’s top aides,” Kurtz writes, “one who believed it was important for the president to rise above the day-to-day strife [which was of Clinton’s own creation] and embrace the kind of values that would resonate with the middle class. Baer tried to ensure that every cog in the White House machine, from scheduling to speechwriting, operated toward that goal.”

 

In the news vacuum prior to the 1996 inauguration and the arrival of the 105th Congress, Baer and Rahm Emmanuel wanted to position Clinton as the “National Healer,” the “repairer of the breach.”  Kurtz writes, “They needed to stage some events that would convey this image.”

 

“They began,” he writes, “with a well-timed leak. Baer gave a background briefing to John Harris, a voluble, easy-going reporter who covered the White House for The Washington Post, laying out the broad outline of the coming events.  Harris’s piece ran the next Sunday, above the fold.  “Clinton Prepares to Push Role As National Unifier,” the headline said.  Baer was thrilled.  It had worked.  Several other newspapers and television programs would follow the Post’s lead.”

“The kick-off event the next morning had been a tough sell. Baer an Emmanuel had noticed that evangelical and other Christian leaders were scheduled to come to the White House for a prayer breakfast, and they pushed to open the session to reporters so Clinton could turn it into a high-profile event.”

 

But Clinton’s political instincts told him it was a wrong move. “The president wasn’t pleased.  He had made a point of keeping such events closed to the press so he could gain credibility with an audience that was already suspicious of him.  Clinton was always sensitive that an audience not think he was using them as props in his morality play.  But Baer and Emauel talked him into it.  They briefed the church leaders in advance.  Everyone was on board.”

 

“The careful planning paid off. Clinton hosted the ecumenical breakfast in the State Dining Room and made the front page of the New York Times.  ‘Clinton Seeks Help for the Nation’s Spirit,” the piece said.

 

But then, Newsweek put Paula Jones on its cover in early January.  McCurry was furious that the magazine hadn’t warned him that the story would be on the cover.  The Supreme Court was about to hear oral arguments on Clinton’s effort to delay Jones’ lawsuit until after he left office.  Ultimately, he was successful in at least stalling the case while the Court heard the arguments until after the 1996 election.

 

“Now,” Kurtz tells us, “like other buried ghosts of the first term, it was coming back to haunt him.”

 

“Temperatures began rising as soon as Newsweek hit the streets,” says Kurtz.  “John Harris wrote in the Post that the president was ‘furious’ about the magazine cover, viewing it as yet another example of the media’s determination to tarnish him.  After the first edition of the Post went to press, McCurry admonished Harris.

 

“’Do not write that, John,’ he insisted. ‘It’s not true, it’s not true.  When Clinton’s furious, trust me, I know.’  McCurry described Clinton more as feeling resigned to a spate of negative publicity over the Jones case.

 

“For later editions Harris deleted the word ‘furious’ and said the president saw the Paula Jones cover as confirming his ‘suspicion’ that journalists were using the case ‘as an occasion for airing anew her more sensation charges, according to people familiar with his thinking.

 

“But more than Clinton’s temper was in play. Karen Bresalu, Newsweek’s new White House correspondent, was approaching Clinton on Air Force One, about to hand him a copy of the magazine’s book on the 1996 campaign, when McCurry started haranguing her from behind about the cover story.  Breslau, who had been on the job only a couple of days, tired not to show that she was flustered.  It was McCurry’s way of sending a message to her ‘masters’; he did not like to be blindsided.  McCurry also refused to engage the Jones story in public.  When reporters asked him about the case, he merely referred the questions, to [Robert] Bennett, who, of course, wasn’t commenting.

 

Early on in his position, McCurry, a lawyer, told Bill Clinton not to tell him anything at all about his escapades. A cagey spokesman, McCurry believed in ‘plausible deniability.’  If Clinton didn’t tell him anything, than he didn’t know anything and wouldn’t be able to tell investigators anything.

 

McCurry, the master of spin, knew how to play the game.

 

“He understood the ebb and flow of the fungible commodity called news…A spinmeister extraordinaire, deflecting questions with practiced ease,” he sugar-coated the ugly messes in which the Clintons seemed to repeatedly stumble.

 

“He would mislead reporters on occasion, or try to pass them off to one of the damage-control lawyers who infested the public payroll. He would yell at offending correspondents, denounced their stories as inaccurate, denigrate them to their colleagues and their bosses.  He would work the clock to keep damaging stores off the evening news, with its huge national audience.”

 

Associated Press reporter Larry Margasak was covering the Senate hearing on the Democratic Party fund-raising scandal, led by then Senator Fred Thompson, in which both Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore were implicated. Lanny Davis, another member of the White House press team tracked him down as he was writing the report.

 

According to Kurtz, “Lanny Davis ducked into a broom closet of a room in The Hart Building, a few steps to the left of the cavernous Thompson hearing room, where AP reporter Larry Margasak was banging away at a black laptop on a battered folding table.

 

“‘These were simply statements of federal law and not of DNC policy,’ Davis recited as Margasak typed. He peered over the reporter’s shoulder.

 

“’You want to say, based upon the understanding?’ Davis asked.

 

“’That’s fine,’ Margasak said impatiently. “C’mon, Lanny.’

 

“Davis pointed to the screen and continued, ‘If you insert ‘this is based upon’ after the words ‘soft money…’ He was injecting his verbiage directly into the wire story, the one that would set the tone for much of the day’s coverage.  A second AP reporter, James Rowley, looked on incredulously as his colleague took dictation from the White House spinmeister trying to save Al Gore’s butt.

 

“Moments earlier, Davis had been in the vice president’s small office in the adjoining Dirksen Senate Building, plotting strategy in a conference call with Chuck Ruff, John Podesta, Lanny Breuer, and Charles Burson. The Thompson committee had just drawn blood.  The panel had unearthed a staff memo that Harold Ickes had sent to Clinton and Gore, explaining the difference between ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ donations and the ‘mix of money; required for campaign commercials.

 

“The left-handed Clinton had acknowledged the memo with his trademark backward checkmark, and a Gore aide had testified that such memos went straight to Gore’s in-box. The clear implication was that Gore knew of some of the big bucks he was raising were improperly being diverted to the Clinton-Gore campaign.

 

“Damn. Davis was aggravated.  Both Rowley and an ABC producer had asked him for the memo days earlier, after the committee had leaked word of its existence.  He wanted to put it out, but Burson had objected.  We don’t know which memos it is, [Lorraine] Voles explained.  Let them ask for it by the exact date.  What utter stupidity.  They never seemed to learn.

 

“Davis always called John Solomon at the AP in mid-morning to check on the Senate hearing story and see if there was anything he should respond to. That first dispatch was tremendously important in shaping the coverage of the rest of the journalistic world.  Now Solomon told him about the mem to Gore.

 

“’How much time do I have?’ Davis asked.

 

“’Twenty minutes,’ Solomon said.

 

“Davis bolted out of the veep’s second-floor office, down the stairs, through a connecting corridor to the Hart building, and up another flight to Margasak’s side. He emerged into the tan-carpeted hallway only after Margasak had finished tying his comments.

 

“Lanny Breuer, looking agitated, caught up with him moments later. What was he saying about Gore?

 

“’I’m not denying he saw the memos,’ Davis told him. “This is a very simple message and a very direct message.’

 

“Davis went back into the AP room, read his statement again – ‘That’s pretty damn good!’ he announced – and suggested a wording change.

 

“’We’re not going to edit your statement on the wire, Lanny,’ Rowley said.

 

“’Are you saying I have the chutzpah to ask you to edit this?’ Davis asked, sounding wounded.

 

“’I’m uncomfortable with this dictation of statements.’

 

“’You’re letting the White House respond to something pretty serious.’

 

“Soon Davis was back in the corridor in full spin mode, repeating his spiel for Mary Ann Akers of The Washington Times and Thomas Galvin of the New York Daily News and other reporters who happened by: ‘I can’t tell you the specific memos that Al Gore reads or doesn’t read,’ Davis said.  ‘I’m willing to say that it doesn’t matter.’

 

“A few minutes later, Davis returned to the tiny room and told Rowley his comment was ‘too low’ [too far down] in the story. Rowley snapped that he had no business trying to rewrite the piece.

“Davis backed off, looking sheepish and later returned to apologize.”

 

That was the Bill Clinton administration, bobbing and weaving, dancing and schmoozing their way out of one scandal after another.

 

“Bill and Hillary lived a precarious existence in what they once promised would be the ‘most ethical administration in history.’ The president was a Houdini-like figure when it came to this phalanx of investigations, always slipping out of a tight noose only to land in a nearby pot of boiling oil.

 

“The campaign finance scandal was merely the latest example,” Kurtz writes. The White House had known about much of the improper fund-raising, the hot checks laundered through relatives and employees, but had kept an airtight lid on the story until Clinton’s re-election was in the bag.  The president had gone through the entire campaign without holding a formal news conference.  Nettlesome questions were referred to the Democratic National Committee – the “other campaign,” Clinton called it – as if it were some independent fiefdom rather than a wholly-owned subsidiary whose officials could be fire y presidential whim.  Truth was an early casualty in this administration…”

 

The same people who ran Bill Clinton’s campaign in the 1990s are running Hillary Clinton’s campaign now. John Podesta, Sidney “Sid Vicious” Blumenthal, Cheryl Mills.  They’re using the same tactics against the current Republican candidate that they’ve used against other GOP candidates.  The same tactics Barack Obama used in his state senate campaign in Illinois, where his lawyers opened up his opponent’s sealed divorce files in order to smear him.

 

Hillary’s henchmen uncover an ancient beauty queen and almost-as-ancient audiotape of Trump using some admittedly cringe-worthy language, and a chorus line of feminist-girlies who claim Trump was an “octopus” three weeks shy of Election Day in order to smear him.

 

That’s not to say that Trump hasn’t been a poor marksman, frequently shooting himself in the foot – or the mouth – or putting his foot in his mouth. Decent people say Trump is a hard candidate to support.  The more circumspect consider both sources and say, while they don’t like what he said and that they have to consider the source.  A higher proportion of voters who have no problem with Trump’s style elected him in the Republican Primary.  He’s the guy and what are you going to do?  Vote for Hillary?

 

Still others, say, “Yeah, it’s October. But what’s the surprise?”  And the faithful cry, “Who cares?!”

 

Hillary claims that Trump is undisciplined, unreliable, and unworthy to hold the office of President of the United States? Is she kidding?  Neither was Bill, yet a sordid American public, with appetite for sleazy tabloid types, elected him.  Twice.  Even though Bill’s reputation preceded him.  His last conquest was right in the Oval Office, or right off the Oval Office in an enormous bathroom.  At the time, the White House tried to deny there was a semen-stained blue dress, that it was fantasy, a lie.  There was a dress and there was semen.

 

White House spooksmen believe that perception is reality. People only read the New York Times or the Washington Post when those newspapers carry salacious, unsubstantiated allegations of a lusty nature.

 

Bill Clinton evaded political scandal after political scandal. He even evaded Paula Jones and Kathleen Willey, whom Hillary sent her secret police to intimidate.  They were on Sean Hannity’s show on Fox News the other night.  It took Monica Lewinsky, improbably, to expose “The Big Guy” as the White House staff called Clinton.  Most of the damage was to his ego, not to his political reputation.  He was impeached, but his term in office as president was already at an end.  He was disbarred, but given his health, he’s happy to retire to his Little Rock penthouse with its five – count ‘em, five – master bedroom suites and chase around young interns.

 

Hillary’s camp is now sliming Trump. Trump is a fighter.  He’s successfully battled this kind of attack before and won lawsuits against the offending publications.  Can he withstand the media onslaught, which will throw every hussy in its arsenal at him?

 

Hillary’s mountains of crime, stretching all the way back to Watergate, when she tried to deny that Richard Nixon had a right to counsel (she was overruled and fired from the panel), loom as high as Bill’s did. Maybe even higher.  She clearly endangered National Security, yet she has the arrogance to assert that we might not be safe under Donald Trump’s watch.

 

Bill and Hillary had no respect for the White House (they stole some valuable items from the residence when they left), for the Secret Service (“Where is that c—ks—er?!” she screamed at one hapless Secret Service agent standing duty in the residence), for the FBI, or for the military. What else could we expect from the draft-dodging Bill Clinton?

What’s most ironic and hypocritical about all this is that Clinton’s – and Bill, especially – felt ill-used by the Media.  Poor Bill.  Poor Hillary.  How could the lapdog press and media turn on them that way?

Trump said the “P-word” on a hot mic? Hillary’s language would make a sailor blush.  What’s she going to say to some foreign dignitary who displeases her?  Her favorite word is the F-bomb.  Trump’s manners, actually, are much more dignified than Hillary’s, for all his bluster and his campaign attacks , which were pretty unseemly, I must say; he insulted many a good, decent man during the debate, in case aggrieved feminists hadn’t noticed.  Trump is an equal-opportunity insulter.

 

Trump may be all that. Or he may not be everything he’s been depicted to be.

 

But Bill Clinton was all that and more. And his wife, Hillary, is worse.  She belongs in jail.  She’ll probably never seen the inside of a prison, or even house arrest.  But that simply speaks to culture of corruption (as it has been called) that surrounds the Clintons.

 

Haven’t the American people had enough of all that? Our heads are spinning.

 

 

Advertisements
Published in: on October 14, 2016 at 4:22 pm  Leave a Comment  

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: https://belleofliberty.wordpress.com/2016/10/14/the-art-of-spinning-the-news-and-revising-history/trackback/

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: