Let’s just agree that many men at some point dream of being 007. James Bond is a seriously dangerous ladies’ man who protects the free world from the forces of evil. Of course, if you scratch deeply, too many real life men are more interested in the ladies than risking life and limb. In fact, many would not mind at all if they could avoid the ‘risking’ part all together.

But the 007 playboy behavior, unencumbered with constant risking of life for the good of all, turns the 007 character into version of the modern male with very few redeeming qualities. If 007 is stripped of his ‘save the world’ element he becomes a womanizing, drinking, gambling rich guy who is not into ‘commitment’.

Such is the dichotomy that is becoming evident in light of the Barrett report. I am not finding much of interest in it, except how it illustrates the differences between the Clinton and Bush Presidencies.

Clinton was the Playboy President. And he had some playboy friends around him like Cisneros. They had mistresses on the side, and they built a facade of doing really important things and being really powerful men. But in fact they were afraid of scrutiny and, when they had to stand in the light of public opinion, they did all they could to obscure that view. They were not down deep confident. The NY Times has this to say about the Barrett Report:

Mr. Barrett began his investigation with the narrower issue of whether Mr. Cisneros lied to the Federal Bureau of Investigation when he was being considered for the cabinet position. He ended his inquiry accusing the Clinton administration of a possible cover-up.

His report says Justice Department officials refused to grant him the broad jurisdiction he wanted; for example, Attorney General Janet Reno said he could look at only one tax year. And after Internal Revenue Service officials in Washington took a Cisneros investigation out of the hands of district-level officials in Texas, the agency deemed the evidence too weak to merit a criminal inquiry, a conclusion strongly disputed by one Texas investigator.

Why all this effort to hide a mistress, payments to her and the fact Cisneros did not report all his income due to the payments to her? Why? That façade that is why. Same thing with Monica Lewinsky. The nation had to go through a national crisis because Playboy Bill Clinton couldn’t face the nation (and a court) and say admit what he was and what he had done! Clinton and Cisneros, and many in the Clinton administration, saw the White House as the ultimate power trip, not the ultimate responsibility. They were going to be 007, low risk mode.

Now contrast that with George Bush and his administration. No pizza parties late into the night. No interns in Oval Office doing the business why the nation’s business was put on hold. Clinton spent 8 years trying to build an image. His actions were calculated to build his image.

Bush has spent his time trying to protect the nation and change the suicidal dynamics of a world gone mad. His image has been derived by his actions.

The Barrett report is self explanatory. Cisneros paid his mistress under the table to keep quiet, thus his tax returns would be inaccurate if he did not have those payments reported. Nobody who does taxes is going to believe otherwise – the payments were enough to support a family of four for two years, with some left over:

Medlar, jobless and impoverished in Lubbock, sued on July 29, 1994, charging that Cisneros breached an “oral contract” he made with her in 1990, at the end of their three-year love affair. Medlar said Cisneros agreed to pay her $4,000 per month until she got a job or until her daughter graduated from college — $256,000 in all.

That cannot be hidden on tax returns. Cisneros agreed to a $49,000 fine for his cover up in 1995. So those, like the NY Times, who nitpick the report are just damaging their own credibility for some womanizing liar who has no spine to stand up and admit what he has done (let alone stand up to being blackmailed). Why would anyone try and defend Cisneros ten years later? Why did anyone defend him then? Well, if you feel personally impugned when someone else is being attacked, logic is replaced with emotion as you see yourself as the one being attacked.

The left wants to defend these people and their self centered behavior because they feel some connection to them I guess. And maybe that is why they hate Bush and his administration so much. Because the current administration stands tall and admits openly what they are about and what they mean to do. They are not cowed by bad press and polls like the Clinton administration was (and apparently their followers as well).

It explains why we see rigged polls and manufactured stories from the left instead of serious policies, plans and ideas. The left runs on image – not substance. Media stories and polls carry much more weight for them. Building image through dedication and taking on challenges is considered an act of extreme risk.

The left’s leaders are afraid to stand for something. They want to be seen as 007’s, but without having to risk anything. In contrast, the leadership of Bush’s team risks all to take on real difficult challenges, challenges full of real risks. Thus it becomes a constant reminder of how flimsy and fake the facades of the left are. And as their facades fail, they feel attacked, get angry and begin to lash out.

The Cisneros ‘scandal’ is the best example of the Clinton years. All the wasted resources and time for the defense of a marginal person with a marginal, personal problem. The fact we spent all this time and money on this report is a crime. In 1995 Cisneros paid for his actions in Federal Court. While unseemly, the Clinton administration efforts to derail further fishing expeditions were only equaled by the wasted effort to go fishing in the first place. Both sides went too far trying to make this none story a story.

Post 9-11 people like Cisneros seem so trivial. Clinton should never have lifted a finger to cover for this dope. But Clinton had no priorities, and that was his Achilles heel. Clinton’s image was built upon a flimsy facade instead of deep and historic achievement. If Clinton had spent a tenth of the effort he expended covering for the flawed people around him towards doing one thing of historic challenge, he would have had the bullet proof image he desired.

But that was not to be. Clinton needed to be admired and accepted before he could act. This crippled his ability to take on any challenge in the face of the army of doubting Thomases that inhabit Congress and the DC Federal establishment. Bush is his opposite. Bush has goals he wants done and bends the establishment to his will.

I always felt Clinton had all the elements for greatness, but one too many flaws for achieving it. The Barrett report is a great reminder on why this is probably true.