The American Spectator

Reader Mail

(Page 2 of 8)

p> Considering the number of illegal Chinese donors involved in his own illegal campaign contributions, I am surprised that Bill Clinton is " shocked " -- shocked! -- at this latest revelation. I should think it would give him a feeling of nostalgia and everybody else that sinking feeling of déjà vu. br> -- John Krogstad /p>

How do we know if Hillary or Bill ever return illegal campaign funds? What happened to all that illegal money in the '90s? Who follows up on that? Who would they return it to? Chinese Generals? A windfall for the perhaps unsuspecting Paw family? Isn't the IRS interested in all this? Her brothers got caught some years back for promising to return ill-gotten gains, and then didn't.

p>Inquiring minds want to know. br> -- Tom Smith br> Austin, Texas /p>

R. Emmett Tyrrell ended his recent catalogue of the Clintons' questionable ethics and legality with the (I assume) rhetorical question, "The press cannot be manipulated forever, can it?"

The most applicable definition of "manipulate," found in several sources at dictionary.com, is "to influence or control shrewdly or deviously; 'He manipulated public opinion in his favor.'"

Perhaps the problem with Mr. Tyrrell's question is this: the media, by and large, does not require "manipulation" by the Clintons. Shrewdness, nor deceit, is required to effect behavior in others that they are already disposed to exhibit. The long and deep Clintonian history of scandalous behavior without the ensuing media frenzy that one might expect is the result of the simple reality that most members of the media have very little interest in embarrassing the Clintons, nor in providing the rhetorical rail for riding them out of the public sphere that they so (Marc) Richly deserve.

topics:
Taxes, Hillary Clinton, Mainstream Media, Islam, Books, Law, Military, Iraq, NATO, Socialism, Conservatism