Quote:
Originally Posted by RIJIMMY
|
Yes, the piece I've already referenced. I read the Online version of the WSJ quite often and it's filled with little bits like this meant more to stir the pot than offer real arguments.
Would Justice Clinton be more liberal than Bush 41 appointed David Sutor? Probably not. Would he take Robert's seat? Probably not. Roberts is very well respected by the vast majority and has a legal mind far beyond that of President Clinton.
So what's the point again?
Oh yes, that a silly pot stirring piece was read by someone at CNN, and in writing a followup blog'esque ditty didn't happen to mention that President Clinton was a criminal (which he isn't) or air some of his dirty laundry on the record, as he left office with a 60%+ approval rating.
Shame on CNN.
-spence