OBAMA AS KEN STARR? — HE SHOULD ONLY BE SO LUCKY!!!

OBAMA AS KEN STARR? — HE SHOULD ONLY BE SO LUCKY!!!

By

Ken Eliasberg

There were many things — many, many things — that distressed me about the manner in which the Clintons conducted business during the 8 scandalous years that they reigned over our glorious country. And many of these things were not just serious, but criminal — notwithstanding the prosecutor’s inability to take any of these charges to their logical culmination, i.e. jail time for one or both of the Clintons, a pair of scoundrels. However, one matter of a possibly less serious nature that bothered me a great deal was the manner in which they conducted business, a pair of ruthless, vicious, unprincipled dirt bags who tried to destroy their critics or investigators by playing innocent victim and projecting their own pathology onto their accusers and/or investigators. And one of these situations that deeply troubled me was their treatment of Ken Starr, a thoroughly decent man with impeccable credentials, who, until he had the misfortune to run into the Clintons, was on a very short list of highly qualified individuals being considered for a Supreme Court appointment in the event of the next Republican presidency.

Recently, as I’m sure you are aware, Howard Wolfson, one of Don Clintoni’s Mafioso, accused Barack Obama of acting like Ken Starr. Why? Because Obama had the unmitigated gall to inquire in to the whereabouts of the Clinton’s tax returns, which, in passing, I note is a fairly routine request -and which, in normal situations, is a request that doesn’t even have to be made. Why not? Because candidates, typically, as a matter of course, make their tax returns available to the public. Of course, there is nothing routine about the Clintons; certainly not when it comes to moral or legal matters. Obama was just doing his job, and, for this, his inquiry was put into a prosecutorial context, i.e. like Ken Starr investigating the Clintons. Of course, Ken Starr was also just doing his job

Now Ken Starr doesn’t need me to defend him; his record, history, and station in life are more than enough to bear fatal and final witness to his essential decency — not to mention the very fundamental indecency of his critics. And, while the Supreme Court may have evaded him, he seems to have settled on a very comfortable and important position as the Dean of Pepperdine University’s Law School. Though I only met him (and his lovely wife, who was also splattered by the dirt flung by the Clintonistas) once, I found them both to be fine people — he was hardly the Torquemada that the Clintons were trying to make him out to be. As noted, he was merely doing his job, which the Clintons tried to make as difficult as possible by stonewalling whenever possible, and blaming the delay and cost on the Independent Counsel.

Starr has one of the most impressive backgrounds that you are apt to encounter. Permit me to quote from Wikipedia’s description:

“Prior to his appointment as Independent Counsel, Starr was appointed to be a federal judge on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals by President Ronald Reagan and served from 1983 to 1989. He was United States Solicitor General from 1989 to 1993 under President George H.W. Bush. When the Senate Ethics Committee needed someone to review Republican Senator Bob Packwood’s diaries, the committee chose Starr, and Starr was praised by Reublicans and Democrats alike for his fairness and decency. In 1990, Starr was the leading candidate for the U.S. Supreme Court nomination after William Brennan’s retirement. He encountered sstrong resistance from the Department of Justice leadership which feared that Starr might not be reliably conservative as a Supreme Court Justice. President George H.W. Bush nominated David Souter instead of Starr. [now that’s a real joke; Souter has been one of the most consistently liberal judges ever appointed by a Republican; Starr would have been an infinitely better choice, both as concerns his politics and his legal talent]. Emphasis supplied

As noted, Starr was (and is) much more than just a good attorney; he is a good man, and was so considered by almost all until he ran into the political mafia that is the Clinton machine.

What Obama is remains to be seen — after he comes out from behind all those flowery platitudes; if his wife is any indication, he is one angry guy, and all of this uplifting prose of hope, change, the future, motherhood, and apple pie is just flamboyant camouflage. Again, Starr is a good and decent man, and it is unconscionable that he was forced to suffer the slings and arrows of the Clinton’s trash machine — in addition to running what amounts to a political mafia, the Clintons are truly 2 despicable human beings. As far as Ken Starr is concerned, if one measure of a man is the manner in which he has handled and survived the onslaught of his enemies, then Ken Starr is a giant. From my vantage point, I truly believe that he is the guy that they had in mind when they coined the phrase — “a gentleman and a scholar.” Unfortunately, it has become common practice on the left to turn a good man’s name into a verb, e.g. Judge Bork, another fine jurist and a good man. To Bork someone is to try to besmirch them — an unsavory practice, to be sure, but then again, there is no depth to which the left will not sink in their effort to either secure or hold onto power. We cannot allow them to employ such a technique in the case of Judge Starr.

As far as Barack Obama is concerned, I don’t know who or what he is, but, if the worse thing that can be said about him is that he was trashed by the Clintons, then he’s on solid ground — he shares that position with others who the Clintons tried to demolish, typically the Democratic women who had the bad taste to sleep with Slick Willie. One thing that I do know — he’s no Ken Starr!!

This entry was posted on Thursday, March 20th, 2008 at 11:01 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

.