Raindrops of hypocrisy keep falling on my head

Did Yogi Berra say that it's déjà vu all over again?  It certainly feels as if the 1990s want their sex chats back.   

Back in 1998, I literally removed one of our sons from the living room when the late Peter Jennings was talking about whatever President Clinton and Miss Monica did in the Oval Office.

It got even more interesting when I had coffee the next day with a liberal colleague who had a suite on the same floor that I did.  My question went like this: "Aren't you embarrassed or concerned about hearing what was going on in the Oval Office?"   

His answer sort of went like this: "Crap, all powerful men are sex deviants.  Remember JFK.  Besides, how are your mutual funds doing?"   

My follow-up: "Isn't it a bit reckless for a U.S. president to engage in such behavior?  How do we know that she won't blackmail him or a double agent?  We do live in a very dangerous world, don't we?"

He said yes, but I don't see how any of this is hurting his job performance.  Again, how are your mutual funds doing?

Back then, it sure seemed as if a lot of Democrats were not outraged when President Clinton was busy with his escapades.  I guess everything is okay as long as your mutual funds are doing okay, or so they told me.

I loved this new post by Daniel Greenfield.  He certainly speaks for a lot of us watching Democrats:

These days the Clintons seem to have changed their minds about whether presidents should have private lives that ought to be pried into. 

So did the media, which back then insisted that it was “just sex,” but has belatedly decided that a president’s sexual conduct ought to be subject to scrutiny after all. But then again double standards are its stock in trade. They always have been.

Bill’s bedroom is off limits, but Trump’s isn’t.

Unable to run on national security, the Clintons want to run on the same subject that they once eschewed. 

And they want Trump’s sex life to be up for public debate, but not Bill’s.

The media has joined in this chorus which insists that when Trump mentions Bill’s rapes, he’s climbing into the “gutter,” but that when Hillary references Trump’s tape, she’s taking the “high ground.”

How can the same subject be both the gutter and the high ground? It’s either one or the other.

Meanwhile the clock to the next Islamic terror attack goes on ticking.

Back in ‘98 Bill Clinton complained, “Our country has been distracted by this matter for too long, and I take my responsibility for my part in all of this. That is all I can do. Now it is time, in fact, it is past time to move on,” he added. “We have important work to do -- real opportunities to seize, real problems to solve, real security matters to face.”

These days the Clintons don’t want to move on. They want to discuss the Trump tape as often as possible. 

Why? Because they don’t want to deal with what the Clintons did move on to.

That's right! Who wants to talk about those nasty crocodiles waiting for #45 to step into the Oval Office: Obamacare, a 1.4% GDP, lousy jobs figures, Syria, troops to Iraq, Russian MiGs flying over Syria and our aircraft carriers without consequence, China turning the Pacific Ocean into their private lake and others.

Who wants to talk about issues and force Mrs. Clinton to explain whether or not she supported the reckless withdrawal from Iraq?  Or what about that Iran nuclear deal?

As I told a Mexican reporter who interviewed me on Mexican radio the other day: "Aquí llueve hipocrecía," or here it rains hypocrisy. Yes, the roof is collapsing from these raindrops of hypocrisy falling on my head, with all due credit to B.J. Thomas!

P.S. You can listen to my show (Canto Talk) and follow me on Twitter.

Did Yogi Berra say that it's déjà vu all over again?  It certainly feels as if the 1990s want their sex chats back.   

Back in 1998, I literally removed one of our sons from the living room when the late Peter Jennings was talking about whatever President Clinton and Miss Monica did in the Oval Office.

It got even more interesting when I had coffee the next day with a liberal colleague who had a suite on the same floor that I did.  My question went like this: "Aren't you embarrassed or concerned about hearing what was going on in the Oval Office?"   

His answer sort of went like this: "Crap, all powerful men are sex deviants.  Remember JFK.  Besides, how are your mutual funds doing?"   

My follow-up: "Isn't it a bit reckless for a U.S. president to engage in such behavior?  How do we know that she won't blackmail him or a double agent?  We do live in a very dangerous world, don't we?"

He said yes, but I don't see how any of this is hurting his job performance.  Again, how are your mutual funds doing?

Back then, it sure seemed as if a lot of Democrats were not outraged when President Clinton was busy with his escapades.  I guess everything is okay as long as your mutual funds are doing okay, or so they told me.

I loved this new post by Daniel Greenfield.  He certainly speaks for a lot of us watching Democrats:

These days the Clintons seem to have changed their minds about whether presidents should have private lives that ought to be pried into. 

So did the media, which back then insisted that it was “just sex,” but has belatedly decided that a president’s sexual conduct ought to be subject to scrutiny after all. But then again double standards are its stock in trade. They always have been.

Bill’s bedroom is off limits, but Trump’s isn’t.

Unable to run on national security, the Clintons want to run on the same subject that they once eschewed. 

And they want Trump’s sex life to be up for public debate, but not Bill’s.

The media has joined in this chorus which insists that when Trump mentions Bill’s rapes, he’s climbing into the “gutter,” but that when Hillary references Trump’s tape, she’s taking the “high ground.”

How can the same subject be both the gutter and the high ground? It’s either one or the other.

Meanwhile the clock to the next Islamic terror attack goes on ticking.

Back in ‘98 Bill Clinton complained, “Our country has been distracted by this matter for too long, and I take my responsibility for my part in all of this. That is all I can do. Now it is time, in fact, it is past time to move on,” he added. “We have important work to do -- real opportunities to seize, real problems to solve, real security matters to face.”

These days the Clintons don’t want to move on. They want to discuss the Trump tape as often as possible. 

Why? Because they don’t want to deal with what the Clintons did move on to.

That's right! Who wants to talk about those nasty crocodiles waiting for #45 to step into the Oval Office: Obamacare, a 1.4% GDP, lousy jobs figures, Syria, troops to Iraq, Russian MiGs flying over Syria and our aircraft carriers without consequence, China turning the Pacific Ocean into their private lake and others.

Who wants to talk about issues and force Mrs. Clinton to explain whether or not she supported the reckless withdrawal from Iraq?  Or what about that Iran nuclear deal?

As I told a Mexican reporter who interviewed me on Mexican radio the other day: "Aquí llueve hipocrecía," or here it rains hypocrisy. Yes, the roof is collapsing from these raindrops of hypocrisy falling on my head, with all due credit to B.J. Thomas!

P.S. You can listen to my show (Canto Talk) and follow me on Twitter.