Am I a part of the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy"?

I don't often comment on politics. I've always felt it was useless. Robert Heinlein write "Never try to teach a pig to sing. You waste your time and you annoy the pig." (Time Enough for Love, 1973). But this time, I think someone was talking about me.

Sen. Hillary Clinton has returned to her comments of the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" (VRWC). In fact, she says that the New Hampshire courts have proven that it does exist. In order to reference this, I pulled a random report from http://www.pantagraph.com/articles/2007/03/14/news/doc45f6c394a6e41539528436.txt. I have no idea if the Bloomington Pantagraph is right wing, left wing or no wing. I chose the first entry from a Google Search (well, the third actually, the first one didn't work, the second was Rush Limbaugh and I figured quoting Rush would ruin any credibility I might have).

The phrase came about just before the Monica Lewinsky incident came to the surface. After the incident, her comments were ridiculed. Now, she's using the same words.

First, let me say that this is a SMART move. I've always thought Sen. Clinton was a smart lady. By using these words she 1) fans the flames of anti-republican fires - motivates her people, 2) fans the left-wing fires - helps redeem her in their eyes after her early vote to support the Iraq war and 3) successfully brings up the Monica Lewinsky issue and puts it to bed (pardon the pun). No one can bring the issue up again.

As to the validity of the VRWC, I have to borrow a page from former President Bill Clinton's playbook: define "vast". One definition says it is "huge: unusually great in size or amount or degree or especially extent or scope". Well, I think that this definitely qualifies. The scope of this conspiracy (if there is one) is definitely unusually great in size (although one might argue that since this happens often, it isn't unusual - "is" means "is").

So the next question is, is this a conspiracy. Again my trusty Google search for a defintion says that a conspiracy is "a secret agreement between two or more people to perform an unlawful act." Well the legal NH case was definitely a secret agreement, there were numerous people involved and they were performing an unlawful act. While the court decision is being appealed, by definition, the court has decided (unless overturned) that the acts were illegal.

So, I think I must agree with the Honorable Senator that there is a VRWC. And illegal acts by those involved should not be tolerated.

Now (not but), the question is, is there also a Vast Left Wing Conspiracy (VLWC)? Well, there are numerous examples that would say yes. One that comes to mind is Dan Rather using forged papers to prove his points. His points may have been right or they may have been wrong, but using forged papers blew any chance for him to be seen as unbiased. Using the points above, Mr. Rather's incident was indeed vast and indeed a conspiracy. There are other more recent examples, but this will suffice.

So, if there is a VRWC and VLWC what's the point? The point is this: illegal acts should not be tolerated. As a part of the VRWC (I confess), I can not condone or tolerate the actions of the NH branch of this group. Neither can affiliates of the VLWC condone or tolerate actions of the CBS branch of their group. I can't use actions of the VLWC to excuse the actions of the VRWC. We both need to keep each other accountable.

So, I guess in a way, I'm agreeing with Sen. Clinton. Excuse me while I go wash my hands.....