So was the unthawed chicken story Paul Harvey "reported" true, too? I'm not saying anything about this story about Clinton (which as far as I know is truth and has been reported in forms close to this one in other sources for years), but Paul Harvey has not exactly been the most accurate news source over the years. His book "For What It's Worth" passed off at least nine untrue Urban Legends as true.
In case any of you are interested, Paul Harvey also comes on 560 AM in Beaumont. I can usually pick it up in Houston. They carry 3 versions of his programs. The short news version is at 7:30 am the long news version is 12:05 pm and "The Rest of the Story" at 5:55 pm. CK
And the gravestone contradicts the CNN biography in that CNN said Roger Clinton, Sr. died in 1968. His gravestone (which I would expect to be more accurate) says November, 1967.
That's still not proof, either way, I think I'm going with Mr. Harvey, who by the way, if you asked people who've heard him, they would probably say he is a conservative.
I would expect nothing less......even if I "presented evidence." But as you've pointed out....I haven't.
What amazes me is how Paul Harvey got this story that no one else managed to get. I've found no other source to say that Roger Clinton, Sr. physically abused Roger, Jr. (The Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia came closest when it said Roger, Sr. verbally abused Bill and Roger, Jr. Virginia's own testimony in divorce proceedings vs. Roger, Sr. mentioned abuse of her, but not of Roger, Jr. or Bill, either) and no other source or biography lists the reconciliation between Bill and his dying stepfather. The story, as recounted in "First in His Class" tells it that Bill broke into his parent's bedroom and made Roger, Sr. face him and told him the beatings of his mother would stop then. No mention at all of physical abuse of the Clinton children. This is the problem, should Paul Harvey have gotten some of the facts incorrect. The story in and of itself (Clinton standing up for his mother at a young age) is a great story already. Adding the rest of the stuff and changing some of the facts just adds doubt to the original story.
That's true mrpaige. I'm not crazy about Clinton, but while looking up these stories myself, I have to admit that they cast him in a more favorable (well, at least more human) light. Did they even have "long term care facilities" in the 60's? I have to admit; I've become a deplorable cynic lately. Actually, I've always been a cynic, but it's gotten worse lately. I look for the spin in everything I read. Whether the slant if from the right....or the left. What keeps me cynical it seems.....is that there ALWAYS seems to be a slant. I can't seem to take anything at face value.
Not that it excuses anything, but are there any Psychologists out there who could connect his child hood to his obvious problems with infidelity? Just curious is all.
you're also assuming i got the story entirely correct, too...i heard it while driving home with traffic and wet streets in the dark...so it is possible i've messed up some facts here...but the point of the story remains...
I can understand that, but as I stated earlier, Paul Harvey is a respected newsman, and if he leans to any side, I've always found him to be fairly conservative. But I understand cynicism. On a side note, him being buried in Arkansas isn't enough reason to doubt the story, a lot of people are buried in their hometowns.
MadMax could have misinterpreted "mother" as "brother". Like it matters. The fact is that he stood up for his loved ones. More power to him. Clinton is a flawed man, but who isnt? Nice to hear a positive story after having Monica rehashed 1000x times.
I'll give you that, though it's weird that you would imagine the whole reconciliation stuff that hasn't come out before. The general fact of the story (that Bill Clinton stood up to protect his mother from an abusive husband) is accepted as true and appears to have good sourcing. And that story is a great story that shows an admirable aspect of Bill Clinton's personality and character without adding anything to the story Anything beyond that is new to this telling. Whether the new stuff came from Paul Harvey or from MadMax's mishearing or misremembering doesn't really matter. The fact that Paul Harvey has such a long history of massaging the facts for his stories does lend credence to the idea that Paul Harvey got it wrong. But if you're willing to admit that you could've confused the mother/brother stuff and may have inadvertantly added the reconciliation part in your retelling (which might well be true. It's just that will all the retellings of the story, that aspect has never come out to my knowledge. Unless Harvey were to give his source on the story, it would remain suspect simply because it's a new twist to a story that's been told many times), I'll give Paul Harvey the benefit of the doubt this time.
Resisting...urge...to...crack..."yo mamma" joke. Resistence is futile... Oh yea, your Mom must be a Packer fan then!
Clinton may have been a moral scumbag, but think of him this way: He was the first President in 20+ years who was able to get elected President without being a gazillionaire. Seems like being ultra-rich is almost a prerequisite for being elected President. Perhaps that's why Republicans hated him most. He gave hope to those of us who are not in the top echelon of wage earners. Sure wish he could have kept his zipper zipped and his mouth shut though!
