Redstate

May he make a full recovery and live for decades more.  

I thought he was a terrible President, but he's a human being.  And yes, if the worst were to happen and I lived nearby, I would pay My respects.  

..I've always had a soft spot in my heart for President Clinton; he went to my alma mater and is a fraternity brother.  As far as I know (and hope), reports of a heart attack were erroneous. My prayers are with him and his family.

I certainly disagree with his presidency but hope he pulls through and recovers well.  Both Bush and Kerry should visit him - maybe it will cut down on some of the rancor in the campaigns.  

I may not have voted for him (in either election) but he was still my President.

Best wishes to him and his family, and a speedy recovery to full health.

My grandfather recently had quadruple bypass surgery, so my family can deeply sympathize with the Clintons. Our thoughts and best wishes are with them.

We all watch the news, I reckon. We know that Clinton is going into surgery.

So such a post has no news value. And the commentary value has been explicitly banned.

So what's the point?

Yeah, yeah, best wishes and all that.

http://www.wnbc.com/politics/3705207/detail.html

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/ny-bc-ny--bush-clinton0903sep03,0,59
95015.story?coll=ny-ap-regional-wire

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040903/ap_on_el_pr/
bush_clinton&cid=694&ncid=1963&sid=96378798

Unfortunately, the crowd Bush was speaking to booed his comments. That fact has been edited from the Yahoo/AP report but remains in the others.

...is always appropriate.

Yes, always.

Jeez. <sigh>

Daily Kos is having fun picking out all the hateful comments they've heard/read about this. I hope they also notice that even FREEPERS have posted "prayer threads" for President Clinton.

He's going to be okay, right? ::worried::

I learned of this from Redstate.org, so I, for one, appreciate it.

are with you, Mr. President.  May God bless you and grant you a swift recovery.

I didn't vote for the man, but if there where a political leader that I would love to sit down over coffee and discuss politics with, Bill Clinton would be it, without question.  

This is one of the most intelligent human beings to ever sit in the oval office, and although we disagreed on much, I never doubted that his heart was in the right place, or his passion to serve the American people.  

Bill Clinton is simply too young to be going through such an ordeal, and I wish him, as well as Chelsea and Hillary, well.

Unfortunately, there have been many odious comments at Free Republic as well.

Of Course Kos won't go over to DU and read how Bush tried to murder Clinton to keep him off the stump for Kerry

I actually wandered over from DailyKos. Someone mentioned how great y'all were being so I thought I'd see it for myself. I've heard them mention this site a few times as having good discussions and civil discourse. I usually went to FreeRepublic to see what "the other side" is saying, so you can imagine that it's great to see you!

As I was reading through this I came across the booing thing. There's a thread on Kos about it. Apparently a lot of them saw the video and heard applause, not booing. Maybe the reporter just happened to be surrounded by a bunch of inhuman jerks that were not at all representative of the crowd. So that's good to hear.

Anyways, I probably won't really post much, but will likely read your work from time to time. And thanks for the kind words about a guy I really respect and admire. May we all hope he gets well soon.

-D

Good coverage by a blogger here.

the "booing" graf of the story.

NAFTA, cutting the welfare rolls, the balanced budget....  Heck, if he hadn't been such a doof about healthcare and military preparedness, he might have made a reasonable Republican! :^)

Hope he pulls through.  Seriously.

Bernard Guerrero

not accusation of bias, if they are retracting the incorrect parts! sheesh, what more do you want?

since im the one who brought it up, figured i should set the record straight.

If I may... it's because we believe in civility and graciousness.  Not to say "we're better people than leftists are," because that would be hypocritical, but because most of us are of the persuasion that in the final analysis, we owe compassion to our fellow man, and in more ways than just taking his money in the form of taxes and spending it on him.  It's because, however little I may respect the man, he is still a man made in the image of God and therefore has value.  It's because we value life and health, including his.  It's because I have no objection to beating an opponent in a fair debate, but there is no sweetness in winning by default.

Have you noticed how uncivil the protesters were during the Republican convention, and compared that to how conservatives behaved during the Democrat convention?  I'll tell you that I have more than one acquaintance who used to be an undecided voter, who is no longer because we simply behaved better.

Have you ever noticed how much ballot-box mischief has been conducted on behalf of the left (think South Dakota, think of Bob Dornan's defeat), and noticed most conservatives would rather lose than cheat?

However I may feel about homosexuals, for instance, I still care for men dying of AIDS.  However I feel about the root causes of poverty, I still give to charities to ease the plight of the poor.  I believe many of us do.  I believe most of us do.

And that's why most of us are moved for, and pray for, and hope for a full recovery for, even a man like Bill Clinton.

I don't know how many of us feel we answer to a higher authority, but I think most conservatives do adhere to a higher standard of conduct.  Are we better people?  I don't know.  But are we better for it?  Resoundingly, yes.

Gone on too long already; herein endeth the sermon.  Your thoughts?

..It's easy to feel that way. We're reasonable here but then we go to liberal blogs where people say they hope Bush will burn in hell.  We see the uncivil protesters in NYC and say we'll never act that way.

However, go to any Dem site, and see the same discussion go on. They cite their goodness and then point to Freepers and "god hates fags" signs.  In addition, I grew up in the South, where I saw overt racism(although no racism against me) and homophobia (and I'm not an overly PC person so this isn't a case of reading into things).

I do feel that vitriol and hatred has seeped its way into mainstream Dem political culture more than into mainstream Rep politics, but a lot of that comes from living in DC and seeing close friends of mine say extremely hateful things about the right wing. However, I hope that that's just a perception and not a reality. I wouldn't want to make some claim about virtue unless I've walked in others' shoes.

Kinda confused, unless you were responding to someone else.

Curious how the first take emerged, but otherwise, am generally OK with how this was handled. That said, the reporter or editor who wrote that Bush did nothing to shush the boo-birds should be slapped down hard by his boss.

Knowing AP, I think that will happen or did happen. AP is a good, solid organization. (That exploits its workers. Which I endorse.)

But that was a bit beneath you.

I'm given to understand that the admonition above is deadly serious.

According to Drudge, the AP reported that the crowd booed the announcement. However AP later retracted that part of the story in a subsequent release and the local news reports did not contain mention of such actions.

Because 'everyone' uses AP when they 'accidentally' mis-report something it gets reported everywhere instantly --- and in this case the retraction will never be reported because by now the story is stale.  

Anyway, I disliked Clinton as a President and I thought his behavior in office was reprehensible. But he is a man, a husband and a father so I hope that all comes out well for him and he enjoys a long and fulfilling life.

Snark. Snipe. I care not what others do or don't. You're gone.

..he was responded to something I said about Kossacks.  Ban if you like, but reread the context just in case..the posts got separated quite a bit.

I was being churlish, but not about Bill. I was being churlish about the post. It offended me. And I am slow to offend.

Clinton irritates me obviouly. But as someone who emulates his lifestyle, alas, I wish him well. (The diet side of his lifestyle, I mean.)

That said, I think this was a mistaken thread. Any thread that at its start limits debate, in an in-your-face fashion, is counterproductive.

Again, what was the point? To show that even Republicans can be generous toward their political foes? Well, that's just posturing.

The better approach would have been a post saying, Send Bill Clinton Best Wishes. Just that.

The even better approach would have been to ignore it.

. . .if no one else credible confirms the account of whatever reporter passed on the report of booing, I would expect that reporter to be in need of updating his resume rather quickly, if AP wants to be seen as acting appropriately here.  If AP had cause to retract the booing report, they certainly have cause to question the integrity of that reporter, and to respond in draconian fashion if he or she intentionally passed on a lie calculated to defame persons at a rally a major presidential candidate was holding.

I wasn't saying your post was ban-worthy; and if Mike didn't knock you off, it wasn't. Specifically -- and it was my failing in not so saying -- your post might have been interpreted as saying, It's wrong that we can't say what we really want to say about this. Obviously, that's not what you said, but as it was worded, it sounded within range of petty. I was using that as an opportunity to say, Let's be careful here.

The point, I suspect, was to say, to a sometimes bitter political enemy, We hope you get better. The point of limiting debate was so that no one would add in He deserves what he gets, or even jokes about it. There is value in magnaminity.

Look, I know what you meant. There's a reason I said, "I understand." You're stand-up. But not everyone is. And your wording was susceptible to a cruddy interpretation by those not so stand-up fellows. That's all. If you think the posting isn't worthy of comment, don't comment.

but i tend to grant benefit of the doubt to these things. possible that the reporter just mistook nearby booing for the majority reaction.

also possible the reporter, Tom Hayes, is a partisan hack seeking to torpedo Bush anyway he can, the analouge to Nedra Pickler or something (whose mendacity has been unfortunately proved via repeated incidents). If Hayes goes the Nedra route and does this again, and again, and again... time to withhold benefit of the doubt and begin judgemental evaluation.

Let me essay one serious point: I think President Clinton was a disaster as president. I think he is a bad man, who did, however, have his moments.

But I wish him all the best. He was our president -- thank God for the past tense -- and he deserves our best wishes. No one, no one, should hope him ill when he is....ill.