In an act of negligence, reporters are hopping all over this
"troopergate" story. Except it's not "troopergate." It's
something-else-gate. Troopergate was a story about how,
while governor of Arkansas, Bill Clinton used state troopers and
state facilities to have extramarital affairs (depending on what
you mean by sex, of course). This story was reported on by the
Spectator in the early 1990s as an example of a story that
the media didn't want to cover because it was too "tabloidy," but
mostly because it didn't want to malign the then-candidate of
Change.
Of course, that was the very story that led to other problems
for the Clintons, ones that would eventually lead to the
Spectator's official unmasking as the Vast Right Wing
Conspiracy. If it's a conspiracy to dig up stories where you're
exchanging the public trust for sex, well, pleased to be of
service. Ahem.
Yet what's Palin accused of? Wanting to fire a trooper who might
have tazed a kid? Even if Palin were found guilty, is this a crime
that rises to the level of absurd corruption we found while digging
around Arkansas's public records? Really?
How about they find another name for the darn thing and move on
with it. This is silly. Stop trying to confuse your audiences.
topics:
Bill Clinton