You know what’s missing from all our lives? Larry Flynt.

by

And down we go . . . .

First, Bush was “AWOL” from the Air National Guard. This is almost certainly incorrect (in both the legal and colloquial senses), but, hey, at least there was some weak evidence. (Kudos to Drum for maintaining objectivity, despite his partisan instincts.)

Then Kerry’s a morally-suspect, limp-wristed cretin for going to Vietnam. Why? He was evil enough to both oppose the Vietnam War and say so. (Anyone familiar with the concept of “duty”? No? OK, then, carry on.) Take us down a notch, Cap’n.

Then Kerry and Bush got into a pissing contest over who was bought by the special interests. Note to well-heeled Heinz-husbands and Oil-baronets: Change the subject. You’re both dirty. Cap’t, take us down another notch — for stupidity.

Now, however, the race to the bottom begins in earnest: Larry Flynt is putting the finishing touches on a book that tries to revive the old story about Bush driving an ex-girlfriend to an abortion clinic and paying for her to get an abortion. “‘This story has got to come out,’ the wheelchair-bound Hustler magazine honcho told the Daily News’ Corky Siemaszko. ‘There’s a lot of hypocrisy in the White House about this whole abortion issue.'”

Three things: (1) the story does not “have to come out”; (2) Larry Flynt should stick to publishing pornography, which is probably a more worthwhile endeavor; and (3) it’s not hypocrispy for someone to change their views on abortion, and/or to not advise you of each event in their past where they failed to measure up to their own standards.

17 thoughts on “You know what’s missing from all our lives? Larry Flynt.”

  2. I would prefer that these kinds of books not be published and instead be used as deterrents, sort of like Mutually Assured Destruction.
    Oh, well.
    That said, it’s laughable to assert that Kerry and Bush’s respective beholdence to special interest money is equivalent.

  4. There’s one notable item missing in the recent sludge. I very much doubt I’ll be linking to the Flynt sludge until after it explodes, but it will be interesting to see if it gets anywhere near being the #1-linked-to item as Drudge’s crap was all week.

  5. About the Drudge report…all five pundits on McLaughlin predicted the story had legs (of course all five mad bad puns about that too, but…), so I’m surprised it’s dying away as quickly as it is.

  6. Von wrote:

    Then Kerry’s a morally-suspect, limp-wristed cretin for going to Vietnam. Why? He was evil enough to both oppose the Vietnam War and say so. (Anyone familiar with the concept of “duty”? No? OK, then, carry on.)

    Um, no actually Kerry is being criticized for his activities which went beyond merely “opposing the Vietnam War”* but rather for his role in slandering the men who fought in it and his opportunism in trying to have it both ways in getting the benefits of being both a veteran and a man who rose to prominence by referring to his fellow veterans as “murderers.”
    TW
    * BTW I do not disagree with extracting a political price from those who protest against our country during a time of war. While such actions (in so far as they do not break the law) are unquestionably protected under the First Amendment**, it is equally unquestionable that those who do so are knowingly providing a morale boost to our enemies while acting to demoralize our servicemen and women. If Kerry wants to get the benefits of being a veteran, then he d*** well deserves condemnation for the harm he caused to his fellow servicemen and his country for his post-service activities***.
    ** Not that I stipulate for a moment that we need a First Amendment as freedom does not come from either the government or a Constitution.
    *** Not the least of which includes his horrible record in the Senate when it came to national defense and security issues which I would prefer be the focus of the debate than his role as a protester but I’m happy to talk about both.

  7. …it is equally unquestionable that those who do so are knowingly providing a morale boost to our enemies while acting to demoralize our servicemen and women.
    Sooner or later, people on both sides of the fence are going to learn that when they characterize subjective assertions on which reasonable people can disagree as “unquestionable” or “objective”, they undermine their own credibility and that of their argument.

  8. …freedom does not come from either the government or a Constitution.
    Absolutely right. It comes from Giblets. But only if he’s in a freedom-dispensing mood.

  9. Does Giblets’ freedom come in the Special Edition SpiderMan Pez Dispenser? I need one to complete my collection…
    by the way, Giblets is certifiable

  10. I dunno von. I think that perhaps the insight of a pornography publisher could be just what america needs in this time of division. Who are we to judge after all Hustler is I believe a high quality publication with a great deal to speak for it, for example its articles on economic theory and political developments around the world. Now while I find its writing style a little pretentious and somewhat ideological I have always found the magazines writing to be both balanced and informative and I am sure whatever work that its publisher puts out will be likewise.

  13. First off, I’d like to note that I was quite happy to have Larry Flynt missing from my life, and would have been happy if he never, ever impinged on it again. He can go off and make lame porn magazines all he likes, with nary a complaint from me; all I ask in return is that he not darken my door.
    Alas.
    Alack.
    That being said, on behalf of the VRWC I would like to thank Mr Flynt for his tireless efforts to make sure that Evangelical Christians (who all know who he is, especially the ones that shamefully read his porn magazine on the sly) understand that Mr. Flynt is completely and totally in opposition to President Bush’s administration; every little bit helps.
    🙂

  14. That being said, on behalf of the VRWC I would like to thank Mr Flynt for his tireless efforts to make sure that Evangelical Christians . . . understand that Mr. Flynt is completely and totally in opposition to President Bush’s administration; every little bit helps.
    Was there confusion on the subject?

  16. Catsy wrote:

    Sooner or later, people on both sides of the fence are going to learn that when they characterize subjective assertions on which reasonable people can disagree as “unquestionable” or “objective”, they undermine their own credibility and that of their argument.

    Not according to the Los Angeles Times:

    Paul Galanti learned of Kerry’s [1971] speech while held captive inside North Vietnam’s infamous ‘Hanoi Hilton’ prison. The Navy pilot had been shot down in June 1966 and spent nearly seven years as a prisoner of war.”
    During torture sessions, he said, his captors cited the antiwar speeches as ‘an example of why we should cross over to [their] side.”
    “‘The Viet Cong didn’t think they had to win the war on the battlefield,’ Galanti said, ‘because thanks to these protesters they were going to win it on the streets of San Francisco and Washington.'”

    Former POW, John McCain also Agrees:

    But after he was released from the Hanoi Hilton in 1973, McCain publicly complained that testimony by Kerry and others before J. William Fulbright’s Senate Foreign Relations Committee was “the most effective propaganda [my North Vietnamese captors] had to use against us.”
    “They used Senator Fulbright a great deal,” McCain wrote in the May 14, 1973, issue of U.S. News & World Report. While he was languishing in a North Vietnamese prison cell, Kerry was telling the Fulbright committee that U.S. soldiers were committing war crimes in Vietnam as a matter of course.
    Sen. Ted Kennedy, a key Kerry presidential backer, was “quoted again and again” by jailers at the Hanoi Hilton, McCain said.
    “Clark Clifford was another [North Vietnamese] favorite,” the ex-POW told U.S. News, “right after he had been Secretary of Defense under President Johnson.”
    “When Ramsey Clark came over [my jailers] thought that was a great coup for their cause,” McCain recalled. Months earlier, Sen. Kerry had appeared with Clark at the April 1971 Washington, D.C., anti-war protest that showcased his testimony before the Fulbright Committee.
    ”All through this period,” wrote McCain, his captors were “bombarding us with anti-war quotes from people in high places back in Washington. This was the most effective propaganda they had to use against us.

    If John Kerry wants to tout his four months of combat service and (both) of his “band of brothers” on the campaign trail, then he and his supporters will also need to take responsibility for their candidate’s actions after his service and the greater harm it caused to the other men who fought valiantly in Vietnam.
    But like I said earlier, I would be perfectly happy just to focus on his disastrous record as a Senator when it came to national security issues which show that he is utterly unqualified to serve as Commander in Chief, rather than picking at the scars of Vietnam. However, as the saying goes, they started it and we mean to finish it.

  17. Thorley Winston you remain stupid. The problem with John Kerry is not that “protests can hurt soldiers feelings and make them do bad at war blah blah blah.” It is that war is good because it kills people and there are too many people, this is why we go to war! You do not protest a good war like Vietnam that kills like millions of people. You load up the bombs or better yet the people strapped to bombs and you keep it going! That is what war is for! Geez people is Giblets the only person who realizes this?
    I have said it before – on the campaign trail, on Fox News Sunday, in the General Assembly of the United Nations – and I will say it again. War is for making dead people, and dead people is good. Get it straight!

Comments are closed.