"Will you care what Bush says or does after he's left the White House?" I asked.

"No. Of course not."

"Then they hate Clinton way more than you hate Bush."

It didn't take long for conservatives to forgive Ah-nold for non-consensual sexual impropriety. They've dismissed the Terminator's gropes as youthful indiscretion. Those women probably asked for it. Short-shorts were popular then. Ah-nold was a steroid-ladened body-builder. Of course he groped chicks. Bill Clinton's consensual sexual impropriety was another matter. He stuck the Presidential penis in an intern. For this offense conservatives have never forgiven him. His wife has forgiven him, but her ego is less fragile than that of Rush Limbaugh.

Conservative pundits have spent so much time on Clinton since January 2000, you'd swear he never left the White House. Before debris had a chance to settle, right-wing pundits cast blame at the ex-president for the September 11th catastrophe. Bush could not be held responsible as he was busy fumbling over single-syllable words in books designed for school children. Yet nobody blamed his daddy for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing which occured in the second month of the Clinton administration. Then they accused him of destroying the United States military. But if you've watched those servicemen on television this year, you know that's not true. Clinton's army kicks ass!

The Spaniard and I agreed that conservative pundits spend a lot of time on things that really matter, you know, like ex-presidents. But I needed a way to quantify that without spending a lot of time actually quantifying that. So I decided to rely on the Ann Coulter method: sit in my house and perform a websearch.

Unfortunately conservative pundits are a slippery lot. They understand how difficult it is to hold them accountable for what they say if you don't know what they said. Initially I had planned to search their sites for "clinton" to see how many references they contained. Unlike this website, not one conservative pundit site had a search mechanism. Thank Speed Racer for Google.

The Google search engine allows you to narrow your search to a particular site. The syntax is site:conservativepundit.com. By restricting my search one pundit at a time, I could quantify the page counts for "clinton" on each selected site. clinton site:www.rushlimbaugh.com yielded a page count of 1230. Interesting. But how many pages does the site contain. I figured that just about every page on the site contains a definite article. I chose "the." But google omits common words from its search. You can clear this hurdle by prepending a "+" at the beginning of the word: +the site:www.rushlimbaugh.com Google had cataloged 4950 pages that contained the word "the." See table below for results:

The first thing my astute readers will notice is this: G. Gordan Liddy is a complete nut job. EIGHT pages containing "clinton" for each page containing "the"? He's either completely obsessed or he's allergic to definite articles. (Hint for Liddy: definite articles precede nouns. Example: The White House was completely perverted by the President's jism.)

At this point "Tom" will interject that my method does not allow a distinction between President Clinton and Senator Clinton, the chick Bill sleeps around on. To me it doesn't matter. Rush Larbaugh has not devoted 1230 pages of his website to a senator from New York because he likes her legs. I contend that his obsession with Hillary is found in his obsession with Bill. Having had four marriages to Clinton's one, Lardbaugh wants to know Slick Willie's secret. (Hint for Rush: oral sex.) Now that's a pretty good excuse to keep "Tom" at bay. But the real reason is this: I don't want to read 1487 pages of conservative punditry.