From the grave, Richard Nixon is lamenting that he didn't think of the "I am a gay American" defense. Bill Clinton may have avoided impeachment had he only been slick enough to utter, "I am a gay American." Connecticut Governor John Rowland, Oregon Senator Bob Packwood, Ohio Congressman James Traficant, and Washington, DC Mayor Marion Barry all might have won the public's favor by embracing their inner-homosexual--or at least pretending to do so. Aaron Burr, Alger Hiss, and Benedict Arnold would have gone down in history as brave pioneers for sexual freedom--instead of roguish turncoats--had they possessed half the political acumen of the current governor of New Jersey. All of this ignores the ramifications of Governor McGreevey's remarks beyond politics. Certainly courts will now have to grant an equal standing to pleas of "I am a gay American" alongside the more traditional "guilty" or "innocent." Kobe Bryant, Scott Peterson, Ken Lay, Martha Stewart, Lyndie England--are you listening? Do you follow politics? There's a way out if only you follow the example of Jim McGreevey. If you find yourself in trouble with the law, your boss, the principal, or some other figure of authority, learn the words to the 1983 Weather Girls classic, buy a pair of chaps, pierce your ear (right one please), thumbtack a Judy Garland poster on your wall, and declare, proudly, "I AM A GAY AMERICAN!"

Again dude, look into impeachment. It was an attempt at a right wing coup d'etat! (sorry about the French, there's no English word for that). Billoinares financing an eight year witchhunt that turned up nothing but office love affair were nearly able to subvert the democratic process and impeach a twice elected President. Look into it Danny. That's real journalism, not this whinny gay bashing the billionares have you doing. (BTW, I may speak negitively of billionares, but I love capitalism baby.) The problem is inherited wealth and monoploy are antitheical to the capitalist system. It's unfortunate that someone who may never make enough money to pass down defends the corruption of solid capitalist ideas that the Republican party represents.

DB, in your first two sentences you had the makings of what may have become a clear point, then you descended into rambling lunacy. You make vague mention of "right-wing," "billionaire" and even "gay bashing" but can’t even back up your assertions. (Who is gay-bashing by the way?)So, you’re saying that the American Spectator magazine and Matt Drudge are in league with and doing the bidding for billionaires? You want to take a look at the CEO’s and top brass of all of the major media outlets? NBC News: (GE/Telemundo/Bravo/MsNBC/NewsWeek/NBC), CBS News:(Viacom/Paramount/MTV/BlockbusterVideo/Infinity Broadcasting/Simon Schuster/CBS, CNN:(AOL/Time/Warner/CNN), FOX News: NewsCorp/News Int'l/Sky/The Sun/NY Post/FOX News). Michael Eisner, Jeffrey Immelt, Sumner Redstone, Les Moonves, Steve Case, Gerald Levin/Ted Turner are the billionaires running all of the major media outlets and their parent corporate interests. None of them are right-wing, Republican, or conservative by any stretch of your imagination. Save for Rupert Murdoch of Fox News/News Corp, all of these corporate and network exec’s are far-left leaning, socially progressive liberals. Want to find a concerted effort on behalf of billionaires to unseat a President? Ask George Soros and his campaign to defeat our current president. You want coup de etat? Look at the Gore campaign and Democrat Party effort to sue and sue and sue their way to the White House. Sure, so the Lewinsky affair uncovered by the independent counsel Ken Starr (who was on Clinton’s Supreme Court short-list) was merely an aberration? Ask Juanita Broderick, Eileen Wellstone, Elizabeth Ward Gracen, Regina Hopper Blakely, Kathleen Willey, Sandra Allen James, Kathy Bradshaw, Cristy Zercher, Paula Jones, Carolyn Moffet, Monica Lewinsky, Gennifer Flowers, Dolly Kyle Browning, Sally Perdue, Betty Dalton, Denise Reeder, not to mention the countless students he encountered and “mentored” in Arkansas, at Yale, and Oxford. Don’t forget about the countless women he used as dupes or cover within his administration and family. I don’t think any one of them was doing the bidding for right-wing billionaire’s; they just wouldn’t do the bidding for Clinton and his sexual advances and assaults. They also weren't useful to the feminist lobby that Clinton was said to have represented so well. No, these women had nothing to do with impeachment, but they had everything to do with the career of politician Bill Clinton. Impeachment is a part of the democratic process however, and our elected representatives agreed; as will constitutional, legal, and political scholars and historians. Fact of the matter is, Clinton lied under oath and obstructed justice of a grand jury investigation. He was impeached as president, and later disbarred as an attorney. Again, follow your own advice and look into impeachment. Read something other than the political musings of your favorite rock band, go see a lecture by someone other than Noam Chomsky, put down the Michael Moore books, and let a few of those "MoveOn.org" e-blasts to idle in your inbox for awhile. Take the advice though of MoveOn.org's mission, and put the Clinton impeachment, and even the 2000 Gore/Democrat attempt suing their way into the White House aside and move on. But again, you can still look at impeachment.

Finbar, you are correct in your inital asssesment of my post. I did descend into rambling. I apologize for this. Please allow me to answer clearly the questions you have asked in your response. When I mentioned "right wing billionares" I was specifically refering to Richard Mellon Scaife, who financed the campign to unseat President Clinton. However, I also am refering to the billionares and family trusts who have for the past 30 years funded the infrastructure of the right wing. Some examples of these men and thier foundations are , aside from Scaife, Joseph Coors (founded the Heritage Foundation), The John M. Olin Foundation (funding the AEI, Brookings, the Hudson Institute, Project for the New American Century), and the Bradley Foundation( AEI, Heritage). These families and thier foundations are all wealthy through inheritance. Mr. Scaife is an inheritor of the Mellon banking fortune. Olin a midwestern industrial fortune. Etc. These familys essentially are the lifeblood of the entire right wing movement. It is not a people's movement. It is a movement funded by billionare families and orchistreated through the insitutions they established. And yes, I do indeed claim that the American Spectator was in leaque with the rest of the right wing who was in league with billionares. Richard Mellon Scaife was the single largest contributor to the American Spectator. According to American Spectator journalist David Brock, author of many of the anti-Clinton articles, the only reason that the Spectaor was following these stories was because Scaife was paying them to. Pertaining to your list of CEO's and owners of media outlets, you are correct that only Rupert Murdoch is outwardly a right winger. And you are correct that some of the people who own the other outlets, such as Ted Turner at CNN, are in some ways progressive. However, the other media mouguls do not allow thier political views to dominate thier properties, in the way that Murdoch does. So Murdoch's influence is greater. Also, the fact that much of the Washington Establishment (Heritage, Brookings, AEI, ect.) is right wing, this influence extends to the media as a whole. How many times have you seen a person from Heritage, Brookings, or AEI on CNN? MSNBC? FOX?. They're on all the time! Usually as "independant" experts. As for George Soros, you are right. The left has one billoinare on its side. One out of many. And why has he gotten so much press, yet almost no on has heard of Scaife? Soros at least donates his money to causes looking to unseat Bush in in a an ELECTION. Scaife tried to unseat a president through impeachment! Yes impeachment is a legal, constitutional process. But it was designed by the framers to be used very rarely, only for high crimes and misdemeanors. Do you know how many presidents would have been impeached if an independant council was established to investigate thier sex lives? Almost every one. If people didn't like Clinton's sex life they could have voted for Dole. They didn't. As to the Gore "coup d'etat" attempt, the situation is Flordia was shady enough on both sides.No one came out of that unscathed. Let's just leave that aside for now. As for your idea that people who hold opnions such as I do are nessacarily Communist, Chomskyphile, Mooreites, you are quite wrong. Moore is a dumbass. Chomsky has his points, but in the end he's an unrealistic anarchist of the old school.I do like what moveon.org is doing, however. The fact is Mr. Flynn, that the Clinton impeachment affair was a witchhunt financed by wealthy billionaires whose think tanks(AEI, Heritage, Brookings), publications (Scaife owns Tribune Newspapers), and laywers (Federalist Society) conspired to do anything to inflict damage upon the president. When these intrests could not find any wrongdoing in Clinton's financial life, or any part of his life in Arkansas, they went after his sex life. They made him into a rapist maniac, when in reality he was only an adulterer. Which, by the way, so is nearly EVERY republican and democrat in congress. Affairs are part of the bussiness. Where was your buddy Newt on impeachment day again?? The accusations of those women may or may not be true. The fact is it never mattered! Clinton's relationships with women should not be part of the public record or of any concern to the public. Clinton was elected to run the government, not be a moral leader. And yes, many of those women were paid. Many of them by billionares. As to gay bashing, nearly everyone on the right engages in gay bashing. They do so meerly by making gayness a political issue, but also by condeming the behavior as immoral. Glancing at your blog, I can see that Mr. Flynn engages in gaybashing as well. The function of this is to distract the electorate from the true issues of the day. Explaining the last part of my post, I believe that it is all of this inherited money that is corrupting our political process and our economic system. Adam Smith, the "father" of capitalism argued against the intrests of the aristocacy and thier inherited wealth, arguing that wealth must undergo a process of "creative destruction". The relevence here is that the foundations that these billionare families run are very powerful and they argue the opposite. They argue for inherited money and agaist policies such as the "death tax". They are arguing, essentially, against one of the tennets of capitalism, a system they supposedly defend.....any questions....I'll be glad to debate further.

Who farted!?!?!?!...........Oh sorry, Jim McGreevey burped.......gross.