Sordid Tales Of Bush Twin In The Buff!
The search is on for a videotape rumored to show First Daughter Barbara Bush in the nude
Hustler magazine honcho Larry Flynt is hunting for a videotape rumored to show First Daughter Barbara Bush in the nude.
Flynt's people are scouring the New Haven, Conn., campus of Yale University, where Barbara, 21, is a student, in hopes of buying a video supposedly made at one of Yale's notorious "naked parties."
"We definitely have heard the story and we definitely have a rep over there but so far we have not been able to substantiate anything - yet," Flynt told PAGE SIX yesterday. "But usually where there's smoke, there's fire, so we're still looking."
A source says Barbara has attended plenty of the bare-all bacchanals, a Yale tradition in which overworked Ivy Leaguers relieve stress by doffing their duds and drinking some suds.
The footage in question was allegedly taken at a naked party several months ago, and Flynt's foot soldiers have been in talks with a student who says he is friends with the guy who has the tape.
Flynt has offered the person $1 million. more and more
Of course, the only reason I'm drawing attention to this story is to further piss off the conservatives who read this blog daily. My personal feeling is more power to Barbara Bush! I think an intrusion into anyone's personal life is wrong unless a crime is being or has been committed. Nudity at a private party isn't illegal yet but of course with republicans in power that could all change.
With the Bush twins partying like this, they're NOT partying republican style - which means they're not drilling for oil in the Alaskan wilderness, not blowing the surplus, not threatening to cut veteran's benefits, not cutting rich people's taxes, and not invading third world countries.
Payback is a bitch (Remember the millions spent on Clinton's penis?) and it's too bad someone like Barbara Bush, who I would have partied with myself, has to be a pawn in her moron daddy's political wars. She'll get over it. Hell, she probably doesn't even care. However, the public will perceive this as more light shined on republican hypocrisy.
More On Larry Flynt - How The Owner Of A Girlie Magazine Stopped The Republican Smear Machine
High noon had come for the President's enemies as the Senate trial got underway--the culmination of years of vicious allegations, wild conspiracy theories, and wholly partisan investigations, all of which had gone nowhere. Now reduced to criminalizing the President's personal life by alleging that he had lied about sex, the Clinton-haters were finally at center stage. The time had come for them to put up or shut up.
However, their earlier high confidence for the President's removal from office had dissipated considerably after the circumstances of Bob Livingston's resignation on December 19--and was further diminished by Flynt's continuing crusade to expose hypocrisy in the wake of his revelations about Bob Barr on January 11. In fact, other than the unmasking of Kenneth Starr as a partisan sexual witchhunter after the release of The Starr Report in September 1998 and the excellent legal work performed by the President's attorneys before and during the Senate trial, there was no single factor which had a greater impact on the impeachment process than Larry Flynt.
Had Flynt never emerged in this drama, Bob Livingston would have become Speaker of the House and the impeachment of the President would have shifted from the House to the Senate with a tremendous, even an overwhelming momentum. Instead, with Livingston's stunning resignation and the hypocrisy of the President's enemies clear and present to the American public, who kept the President's approval ratings high, the case limped to trial. . . .
Even though many of our supporters were disappointed that we didn't reveal all of the information we had collected, Flynt's finest hour in this project, other than his handling of the Livingston matter, came when he finally said, "That's it. No more."
In the end, we no longer had the stomach to go for the throat--unless the President was suddenly convicted and removed from office. . . .
... On November 23--as the OIC leaks investigation proceeded and the President's impeachment appeared inevitable over what many considered the criminalization of his personal life--a representative of Larry Flynt approached me with an offer to investigate hypocrisy among the President's critics: those who had one standard of behavior for the President and another standard for themselves. Earlier, on October 4, Flynt had placed a full-page ad in the Washington Post, offering "up to a million dollars" to those who could provide proof of such hypocrisy... more
U.S. Troops Fire on Iraq Protesters - Again!
U.S. troops opened fire on anti-American demonstrators for the second time this week as Iraqis marched Wednesday to protest the previous shooting. The city's mayor said two people were killed and 14 wounded in the clash.
I thought we were bringing democracy to Iraq? more
Spend-Happy Republicans Push U.S. To Brink Of Default
The Treasury Department says the United States could face the prospect of not being able to pay its bills in late May unless Congress raises the government's borrowing authority, now capped at $6.4 trillion.
Treasury's debt managers have taken a number of steps since February to prevent the government from defaulting on the national debt, but "on current projections, the extraordinary measures taken since Feb. 20, 2003, will only be adequate to meet the government's needs until the latter half of May," said a statement released Tuesday.
After that - absent a boost in the government's borrowing authority by Congress - Treasury would breach the current $6.4 trillion ceiling on the national debt.
"The Treasury will continue to work with Congress to ensure the government's ability to finance its operations," Treasury said.
Treasury has asked Congress to boost the government's borrowing authority, although it has not suggested a specific amount. A proposal is pending on Capitol Hill that would raise the debt ceiling to $7.38 trillion.
Last year, Congress boosted the old debt limit by $450 billion, from $5.95 trillion to the current $6.4 trillion.
At that time Treasury warned that Congress would need to again increase the government's borrowing authority.
Boosting the debt limit is more a matter of politics than economics.
Economists doubt the Republican-controlled Congress will refuse to raise the limit. A federal default is considered unimaginable because it would rattle bond markets, force interest rates higher, weaken the world economy and deliver a political blow to President Bush.
Democrats point to the government's need to borrow more to ridicule President Bush's tax cuts, his handling of the economy and ballooning federal government budget deficits, which are expected to hit records this year and next.
By Memorial Day, Republicans hope to have pushed through Congress a tax-cut bill with a price tag of between $350 billion and $550 billion through 2013.
If Congress must approve a debt-limit extension during the same period of time, it could play into Democrats' political argument that the new tax cut will only make the government's red ink worse. more
Green Party Officials May Throw Support Behind Democrats; Cite "National Emergency" Of Bush's Hard Right Agenda; Nader Urged To Seek Senate Office
The surprisingly bellicose and hard-right direction of the Bush administration has given many Greens pause about running a third-party presidential campaign next year. One prominent Green Party activist -- journalist and former Nader confidant Ronnie Dugger -- has publicly and privately pleaded with his old friend not to run for president, urging him instead to run for senator or governor. Dugger argues that the extremism of the Bush presidency has created a "national emergency" that requires a unified effort on the left to beat the Republican ticket in 2004. more
Deciphering the Democrats' Debacle: Why the Republican majority (probably) won't last.
This is a very good and important read...
... despite the Republican tsunami described by many media outlets, the actual electoral shift was quite mild. Though politically the election was a landmark, the underlying numbers suggest a continuing partisan balance. Democrats lost two seats in the Senate, six in the House, and gained three governorships. As nonpartisan analyst Charlie Cook has pointed out, "A swing of 94,000 votes out of 75,723,756 cast nationally would have resulted in the Democrats capturing control of the House and retaining a majority in the Senate on Nov. 5. If that had occurred, obituaries would have been written--inevitably and prematurely--about the presidency of George W. Bush. Instead, we are entertained by predictions that the Democratic Party, as we know it, may cease to exist."
Given the very evenness of partisan division in this country, even minor fluctuations in public sentiment can cause sudden lurches in political power. Indeed, the last election differed markedly from 1994, when huge Republican gains (52 House and nine Senate seats, 10 governorships) really did change the partisan balance dramatically.
Nevertheless, the shock of '02 initially devastated Democratic morale. Many in the party seemed helpless before the Republican success, ready to concede the 2004 election. For their part, Republicans were riding high, canonizing Karl Rove, and mentally fitting Bush for a spot on Mount Rushmore. Conservatives like Fred Barnes even spoke fondly of an "emerging 9/11 majority."
But that's begun to change. Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu's December runoff victory in Louisiana put Republican triumphalism in perspective. Subsequent events have revived Democratic hopes, as Bush's approval ratings, especially on the economy, have fallen and his diplomatic failures leading up to the Iraq war have been exposed. That's not the only encouraging news. A careful reading of the election and its aftermath suggests the GOP position has serious underlying weaknesses. In fact, the Republican victory depended on a series of unsustainable advantages that a tough, smart Democratic effort should be able to counter, forcing a competitive 2004 election and the likely--though not certain--ascendancy that Judis and I predicted by the end of the decade.
The GOP's midterm wins depended heavily on their advantages in five areas that are either unlikely to persist or were overrated to begin with: a reliance on white voters, the growth of exurban voters, heavy GOP turnout, the tax-cut issue, and war. I'll tackle these in order.
Last November was all about the white vote. For all the talk of Republican minority outreach, the voters who showed up for the GOP on election day were, with few exceptions, white. In the 2000 election, 54 percent of whites voted for Bush and 56 percent for congressional Republicans; in 2002 that figure rose to 58 percent, which, coupled with higher turnout of whites, especially conservative whites, was enough for victory. Viewed one way, that's good news for Republicans, since whites comprise the overwhelming majority of U.S. voters. Trouble is, that majority is steadily diminishing. What's more, Republicans' core constituencies among white voters--those in rural areas, married men, married homemakers, and so forth--are also shrinking relative to other voter groups, which makes the demographic challenge of maintaining a majority even tougher.
As Matthew Dowd, polling director at the Republican National Committee, has pointed out, if minorities and whites vote in 2004 as they did in the 2000 election, Democrats will win by 3 million votes, for just that reason. In the long term, unless the GOP can make inroads among minority voters, they'll lose. In 2002, they made essentially no inroads at all. Recall that in the 2000 election, Al Gore got 90 percent of the black vote; in 2002, blacks appear to have voted at similar rates--if not slightly higher--for Democratic congressional and gubernatorial candidates. Hispanic support for Democrats was similarly rock solid, despite strenuous GOP outreach efforts. For example, California governor Gray Davis beat his Republican challenger Bill Simon by 65 to 24 percent among Hispanics--figures essentially identical to those by which Davis beat his 1998 challenger, Dan Lundgren. Nationally, a Greenberg-Quinlan-Rosner poll taken after the 2002 election indicated that Hispanics supported Democrats by 62 to 38 percent, figures nearly identical to 1998 numbers. more