Why can't conservatives stop slamming Clinton?

[WSLer]

You would think that with "Shrub" esconsed in the Oval Office and the US at "war" against terrorism, that conservatives would have much more important stuff to do then to keep on bashing Clinton.

Why?

Is it because they believe that he got off way too easy, not just in the impeachment trial, but with the whole having what was it, 40, 50, people murdered, you know all of the usual stuff.

And why does Stephen Ambrose get thrashed about when he's found to be a plagerist, but when Gary Aldrich writes a "tell-all" book about the early days of the Clinton WH, "Unlimited Access" and it is later found that most of the "truths" in his book are nothing more then rumors, he doesn't get thrashed around or even criticized?

[sleestak]

WSLer,

First, you posted this in the wrong forum. This belongs in either the BBQ Pit or Great Debates.

Second, Clinton is at best a polition who lies, which is nothing new. Clinton at his worst is a lying, woman raping scum who committed perjury in front of a Grand Jury. Clinton lied to the Grand Jury which I find unforgivable. He also lied to the public which I believe is worse.

I vote Republican but Clinton is not on my mind.

Clinton owned his own place in history. The books will quote "It depends on what the definition of is "is".

Slee

Mods, Please move this to the correct forum

[Sam Stone]

He was a polarizing figure, I guess. I never had a real problem with him, and I'm conservative/Libertarian. He did an okay job.

But I'll remind you that it took liberals ten years after Reagan left before they'd stop slamming him at every opportunity, and some still do.

[Fred]

Why "do" some "people" overuse "quotation marks"?

As per your question, I guess some people just hold grudges. Hell, I'm still upset over the Teapot Dome affair!

[grendel72]

I am inclined to agree with you, except for one fact. Those who refer to the sitting president by childish insults like "shrub" are as bad as those who hounded Clinton.

Yet another reason to hope for the end to the intillectually dishonest two-party system that pretends there are only two ways of seeing the world.

[Tars Tarkas]

This has been going on since the days of George Washington. I'd give you a quote i remember from him but having a president named George who lives in Washington is making it difficult to find anything at the moment.

[lenin]

Clinton at his worst is a lying, woman raping scum who committed perjury in front of a Grand Jury. Clinton lied to the Grand Jury which I find unforgivable. He also lied to the public which I believe is worse.

?!

When did he rape anyone?
And when did he lie in front of a Grand Jury?

Damn, I'm a bit slow on the uptake..

[Philosophocles]

The irony of the whole situation is that Clinton was not really that liberal.

[stankow]

What grendel72 said. Funny how quickly all that "Respect the office if not the man" stuff got traded to Ulster once the man in the office changed, ain't it.

[waterj2]

Not really. The whole two-party system tends to polarize people's views of politicians. Either you're on our side, or you're detestable scum.

I guess people can't stop yammering about Clinton due to one of two things:
1) A well-considered opinion that he brought disgrace to the office of President
2) Idiocy

I'd say that most people who can't seem to shut up about this stuff fall into a combination of the two. Probably about a 10/90 split. If it's any consolation, this sort of monomania is not only seen on the right.

[NDP]

But I'll remind you that it took liberals ten years after Reagan left before they'd stop slamming him at every opportunity, and some still do
I think that's an overstatement. Most liberals publicly backed off attacking Reagan once it was announced he had Alzheimer's.

As for why conservatives can't stop slamming Clinton, I think it's because to them Bill and Hillary Clinton both represent perfect "liberal" bogeymen to rally the right-wing troops around. By merely mentioning their names, they can still get the faithful sufficiently scared so they'll stop thinking and support whatever Republican candidate is running.


The irony of the whole situation is that Clinton was not really that liberal.

True. In many respects, the domestic policies of a "conservative" like Richard Nixon on such issues like health care and welfare were a lot more liberal than Clinton's. I think that just shows how much more to the right the political spectrum shifted with Reagan.

[Slithy Tove]

WSLer, please establish your premise!

These"conservatives" must have, at leat at one point, announced themselves to be same-such partisan-wise. Name them! Do not whistle that brushload of tar blindly, WSLer!

And you need to offer some documentation of "Clinton-bashing"
by at leat one nationally syndicated columnist/broadcasted talk-show host on what could be reasonably construed to be a regular basis. I DEMAND air-dates and hard quotes.

Then, and ONLY THEN, could I, an open-minded consumer in the free marketplace of ideas, agree that the same political bloc that spent 4 times the cost of the Louisiana Purchase to prosecute a $85,000 real estate / $40.00 stained-dress scandal so as to emplace an administration that then let $15.00 worth of boxcutters through $7.50/hr. airport security destroy 3,000+ lives is somehow remiss in its priorites.

[rjung]

Because it's easier to slam Clinton than to admit the Republican party is the one that's driving the nation into the toilet.

"The country isn't in the dumpster because corporate CEOs were given billions in corporate handouts and used it to lay off thousands of workers -- it's Clinton supporting the welfare queens who are leeching from society!"

Philosophocles has it on the nose, though -- the greatest irony is that Clinton's policies were more moderate-to-conservative than anything resembling true liberalism. But because he wasn't running on the GOP ticket, that made him an open target for the right-wing demagogues.

[Little Nemo]

In my humble opinion (granted this post is misplaced) Clinton was a moderate politician with loose personal morals who tending to ignore problems caused by liberal special interest groups. Bush, on the other hand, is a moderate politician with loose personal morals who tends to ignore problems caused by conservative special interest groups. Both men have been attacked by ideological partisans who were more concerned about forwarding their own agenda than about whether their attacks had any relevance to their targets. However, due to the connection between corporate money and control of the media, attacks from the right tend to be much louder and more sustained than attacks from the left.

[SPOOFE]

To a lot of the hardcore Republicans (like my dad, unfortunately), Clinton firmly established what the already believed... that Liberals were liars, shifty, horny, hypocrticial, ungodly, and ignorant. So they like to constantly point to Clinton as validation for their own mistaken opinions about those who see the world different than they do (perish the thought!).

Me? I miss Clinton. He was a hoot. I disagreed with a lot of his politics, but man... when he was in office, we ALWAYS had a Clinton parody on Conan O'Brien. Bush has some more political views that are more in-line with my own, but he's boring. Except for his speech flubs, of course...

[Max Harvey]

Clinton was more in line with the country on the actual issues (national health care and homosexuals in the military notwithstanding) and as said above more moderate than the Republicans, so criticism of his policies had little effect on the "silent majority". And the stock market was booming, so they couldn't go after him there.

Plus hard-core Republicanism seems to attract a certain personality (I'm thinking of Ann Coulter here, and I wish I wasn't) that relishes in making outlandish statements about those who they disagree with. The same personality is found on the left, of course, but I'm having trouble thinking of someone who has said something along the lines of, say, killing Timothy McVeigh so conservatives would realize they can be killed too.

[elfkin477]

They'll probably stop bashing him when he's dead, WSLer, just like Nixon. The venom I heard spewed about him growing up stopped right around the time he died. Everybody holds their grudges.

[rowrrbazzle]

The Traitor (http://dir.salon.com/books/2000/09/01/arrogance/index.html), a review in September 2000 of Anthony Summers' book "The Arrogance of Power: The Secret World of Richard Nixon". Nixon died in 1994.

[Weird_AL_Einstein]

Good Lord, what is this still doing in CS? Is someone asleep at the switch?

[waterj2]

Then, and ONLY THEN, could I, an open-minded consumer in the free marketplace of ideas, agree that the same political bloc that spent 4 times the cost of the Louisiana Purchase to prosecute a $85,000 real estate / $40.00 stained-dress scandal so as to emplace an administration that then let $15.00 worth of boxcutters through $7.50/hr. airport security destroy 3,000+ lives is somehow remiss in its priorites.
I'm struggling to comprehend the relevance of comparing the cost of a congressional investigation in the 1990's with a land purchase in 1803 with no regard for inflation. Also, I fail to see how the Bush administration let anyone through airport security, especially considering that FAA regulations on box-cutters were the same in the Clinton administration as they were on Sept. 11th, 2001.
Because it's easier to slam Clinton than to admit the Republican party is the one that's driving the nation into the toilet.
Yeah, because those are the only two options available :rolleyes:

[Oblong]

It's just politics.

I think SPOOFE's analysis is spot on. The same can be said of Bush and the far-left.

I also think the bashing and slamming that we see now is here to stay. With the increased media outlets and internet that wasn't around in earlier times, everyday people didn't have a voice like they do today.

People feel as strongly about Bush and Clinton as they did Bush 41, Reagan, Carter, etc. We just didn't hear about it all.

[rjung]

Originally posted by Oblong
I think SPOOFE's analysis is spot on. The same can be said of Bush and the far-left.
There was a senator from North Carolina who made death threats in public against President Bush (Sr.)? When? I must've missed that...

[Oblong]

What senator from North Carolina made death threats against Clinton and why isn't he in jail?

Who is Bush Sr? As far as I know, George Herbert Walker Bush doesn't have a son with the same name as him.

BTW, I was referring to George W. Bush. The far left hate him as much as the far right hates Clinton.

[Oblong]

Sorry, I just now saw that you didn't say death threats, but threatening the President is also a crime.

[plnnr]

Jesse Helms made a remark to the effect that if Clinton went to North Carolina, he'd better watch himself (or words to that effect - I forget the exact quote).

I voted for Clinton twice, and would have done so again in a heartbeat. I was much better off under his administration than the two Reagan and one elder Bush terms.

[lawoot]

Yes, Clinton was a randy bugger - but the point is that we KNEW that - before he was elected the FIRST time.

I think that the GOP/conservative powers that be hated him so much because he won in spite of all the bad press, allegations, etc. that they threw at him. AND remained popular throughtout the majority of his Presidency.

They continue to vilify him because they need a target to take some of the heat off GW (since the 'war' on terrorism doesn't seem to be enough), so now some are saying that Clinton is to blame for the 9/11 attacks because he didn't do enough to stop terrorism. (Never mind the legislation that they tried to get through congress, but couldn't due to conservative opposition).

[A Monkey With a Gun]

How quickly both sides forget the actual details....

Originally posted by lenin
When did he rape anyone? In 1999, the Wall Street Journal printed a story regarding an Arkansas woman, Juanita Broaddrick. She claims to have been raped by Clinton in 1977 in an Little Rock hotel room. She had denied the rape during the Paula Jone's harrasment case, but switched her story under pressure from Ken Starr's investigation. Also, The National Enquirer (obviously a less than reputable source, but hey, they did break the Lewinski scandal) reported that Miss Broaddrick failed a lie detector test regarding the incident. No criminal charges were ever filed, and Miss Broaddrick's accusations remain the sole piece of evidence. It appears allegations alone are enough for some Clinton haters, who are not about to give Bill the benefit of reasonable doubt.
And when did he lie in front of a Grand Jury?He never did exactly, but he sure came close. There really is no argument for perjury because most of his answers were technically true. He didn't say "I did not have sex with her" he said "I did not have sexual intercourse with her, by my definition". Then there is the whole definition of the word "is" thing. His testimony in the Paula Jones deposition (which was not a grand jury) is the closest he ever came to lying under oath. Though he was obviously covering up the Lewinsky affair during the deposition, and his answers were misleading, evasive, and incomplete, he never actually lied or commited perjury. Misleading, evasive, and incomplete answers are not perjury if they are technically correct. SCOTUS has ruled in cases predating this one that this type of answer is protected by the fifth ammendment right against self-incrimination. Bill is a crafty one, and a wily enough lawyer that he was able to dance around the facts while staying just this side of the law. There is no case for perjury, and criminal charges were never filed. However, he was disbarred for ethical violations stemming from the testimony.

[Oblong]

So I'll ask again... when did a North Carolina Senator threaten the President? Helms is not in jail so there must be some very loose translations going on.

[rjung]

So I'll ask again... when did a North Carolina Senator threaten the President? Helms is not in jail so there must be some very loose translations going on.
According to Michael Moore (from Downsize This!), the Secret Service investigates Helms' threats, deemed them serious, and recommended that he be arrested and prosecuted. The Justice Department refused, and let the issue die quietly.

Still, the incident is on Helms' file.

[Timchik]

Originally posted by Oblong
So I'll ask again... when did a North Carolina Senator threaten the President? Helms is not in jail so there must be some very loose translations going on.
according to this site (http://www.bettybowers.com/helms.html) (admittedly not very impartial from the looks of things):
"No, I do not. And neither do the people in the armed forces. Mr. Clinton better watch out if he comes down here. He'd better have a bodyguard."
-- When asked in 1994 on CNN if he thought President Clinton was "up to the job" of serving as Commander-in-Chief
:wally

And I'd second the question: why is this still in CS?

[Eutychus]

The boards kind of wonky right now, so I will attempt to move this to GD, Pray for me.

[december]

WSLer... but when Gary Aldrich writes a "tell-all" book about the early days of the Clinton WH, "Unlimited Access" and it is later found that most of the "truths" in his book are nothing more then rumors, he doesn't get thrashed around or even criticized?Many factual errors in this sentence fragment. None of the truths in "Unlimited Access" have been disproved. On the contrary, the petty destruction in the White House tended to confirm his description of the immaturity of many Clinton staffers. The one rumor in the book was labeled as a rumor. The rumor was that Clinton was sneaking out of the White House for an affair. The idea that President Clinton was having an extra-marital affair sounds not unlikely today. Aldrich was severely (and unfairly) criticized at the time the book was published. Liberal media types chose not to publicize his book.

BTW WSLer, you are the one who started this thread. So, maybe the title should ask why liberals keep bringing up Clinton.

[Oblong]

according to this site (admittedly not very impartial from the looks of things):
"No, I do not. And neither do the people in the armed forces. Mr. Clinton better watch out if he comes down here. He'd better have a bodyguard."
-- When asked in 1994 on CNN if he thought President Clinton was "up to the job" of serving as Commander-in-Chief


That is a humor site that is in the style of The Onion.

And if Michael Moore said so, then I guess it has to be true. After all, he said that Bush authorized Osama Bin Laden's family to fly out of the US during the FAA shutdown and we know how correct he was on that one. That guy is very reliable.

Check out This (http://www.snopes.com/rumors/flight.htm) for details.

Either way, I don't take that as a threat against the President in the manner you suggested. If that quote did happen, he was stating that he thought Clinton wasn't popular with the military and that could get him in trouble. That's not a threat from Helms.

Cynthia McKinnon has said far worse about Bush.

[lee]

http://archive.nandotimes.com/newsroom/jesse2.html

http://www.dailyillini.com/archives/1994/December/2/tonycol.html

You're saying that Jesse Helms did not say that about Bill Clinton? It was on CNN. I remember seeing on the news back then and there are several references online to it and the unrepentant clarification that Jesse Helms made days later as well.

[JDM]

Originally posted by december

None of the truths in "Unlimited Access" have been disproved. On the contrary, the petty destruction in the White House tended to confirm his description of the immaturity of many Clinton staffers


Not according to the GAO report (http://www.penceland.com/NoVandals.html), which found only $14,000 worth of "damage" and that much only by valuing keyboards at $75-85 each. The report also compared the "damage" to the "damage" and cost of repair after the GHWB administration, and found the two to be similar. Ari and Bob Barr were, as usual, lying.

As far as the OP goes- it's very simple- Clinton was, in spite of the desperate attacks on him by the Scaife-funded right, a fairly successful president, and the nation and the world during his 8 years were on a positive course. As GWB said, he had to "beat peace and prosperity" in order to "win" the presidency, and he has indeed beaten them- beaten them to hell. JDM

[Apos]

Sometimes "slams" are well deserved. Sometimes they are just coy "hit-and-run" politics. Telling the difference is not easy, even decades later. Saying that it's all politics, a sort of Orwellian "criticism is doublebad partisan notgoodthink," is just one silly extreme that has become popular recently: but so is the other extreme.

---A well-considered opinion that he brought disgrace to the office of President---

I will never understand how people could possibly care as much about an extra-marital affair "disgracing the presidency" as they do about the incredibly influential and in many cases detrimental acts that presidents in general make that are directly against the public interest, violate deeply held moral principles, etc.

I'm _sure_ people can think up important examples where it can be argued that Clinton's administration did something related to POLICY that counts as a disgrace: but for some reason all anyone seems to care about is that he had sex with an intern. Yeah, that's a bad thing, but is it as bad as hurting millions with this or that action, pardoning criminals for no particular reason other than influence peddling, etc.?

The fact is, I could never take any of that moralizing, even the complaints about "is," seriously. Because I knew that as soon as a Republican president came into office, roles would reverse, and the blue side of the isle would be shocked SHOCKED to have people parsing the president's words.

But the idea that Clinton was especially dishonest as a President is downright laughable. What sort of comparison is being used? Against who? Abe Lincoln?

During the 2000 campaign, I was aghast that people actually seemed to buy the idea that Gore had some sort of problem with the truth that was particularlly characteristic to him and him alone. Not that I cared much for Gore, and Gore is certainly no model of honesty, but the circulated quips, even if truly lies, were self-aggrandizing nonsense: of virtually no importance compared to lying about actual policies that would affect actual Americans, of which both sides were guilty of (though only one side had the hilarity to actually release a budget proposal that tempted rational and economic insanity, and then accuse the other side of doing "fuzzy math" (read: "triplenot unthink").

Politicans are not the sorts of people who anyone should listen to for a lecture on morals, especially not honesty. As soon as the winds change, they'll be making the same excuses as their opponents.

[Shodan]

"Only" $14,000 worth of vandalism? This after liberals swore up and down that it never happened at all?

As far as the achievements of the Clinton administration -

- NAFTA - passed by (mostly) Republicans
- welfare reform - passed entirely by Republicans. Clinton vetoed the bill twice before realizing that it was popular with the public, and then let it become law and tried to grab the credit.
- the first attack on the WTC, Waco, and Ruby Ridge
- gays in the military
- his wife's attempt to nationalize health care failed.
- Remember his "national discussion on race"?
- He engineered the shift of Congress from Democratic to Republican, probably the only long term benefit he brought to America

Obviously, not everything a President wants to accomplish gets done. For which we should all thank a merciful God.

But Clinton is the first President since Nixon to stand up on national TV, shake his finger in my face, and lie thru his teeth. The difference being - the only difference - is that the media liked him (he is a Democrat), and therefore he was allowed to get away with it.

Thank God for the Reagan recovery. It allowed the country to survive even Clinton.

Regards,
Shodan

[JDM]

14.000 to fix up a very busy office facility after 8 years of 24/7 use is a bargain. And as the report pointed out, it was about the same as the way GHWB left it for the incoming Clinton administration. It wasn't vandalism, no matter how much Bob Barr jumps up and down and screams that it was.
Ruby Ridge happened in 1992. Who was president in 1992? Come on- you can do it- I'll give you a hint- begins with "B"
Waco was a leftover from that same president. And the culprit at Waco was? David Koresh, maybe? Seems like the person that started the fire would usually be the responsible party.
The first WTC attack occured 1 month after Clinton took office. The government tracked down the responsible parties and convicted them. It also stopped at least two major terrorist strikes that were in the works. That's a hell of a lot better than GWB has done. JDM

[smiling bandit]

"The first WTC attack occured 1 month after Clinton took office. The government tracked down the responsible parties and convicted them. It also stopped at least two major terrorist strikes that were in the works. That's a hell of a lot better than GWB has done."

Now that is a red herring if I ever saw one. Can you possibly be so deluded that you think the president of the United States of America has anything to do with terrorist investigatiosn other than "Find the guys who did it!"? Frankly, the people who attacked the WTC first were less effective.

Likewise, CLinton benefited from chance: he was lucky in getting a good ecenomic period. His policy's did lttle to help. Similarly, Bush's plans have not particularly hurt it. The economy is, of course, dependant partly on the political climate, but the economy tanked before the end of the Clinton presidency, not after Bush tok office.

[Shodan]

The government tracked down the responsible parties and convicted them. Osama bin Laden was convicted?

If Waco was a "leftover" from Bush Sr., why isn't ObL considered a "leftover" from Clinton? You know, those embassy bombings and such. And I imagine Timothy McVeigh might be used as a counter-argument against the idea that Clinton did a better job against terrorism than Bush Jr.

The trashing of the office was vandalism.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020419-803782.htm Unless you count prying off the letter W from a keyboard and writing on the walls to be normal wear and tear.

Regards,
Shodan

[ITR champion]

Originally posted by Shodan

As far as the achievements of the Clinton administration -

- NAFTA - passed by (mostly) Republicans
- welfare reform - passed entirely by Republicans. Clinton vetoed the bill twice before realizing that it was popular with the public, and then let it become law and tried to grab the credit.
- the first attack on the WTC, Waco, and Ruby Ridge
- gays in the military
- his wife's attempt to nationalize health care failed.
- Remember his "national discussion on race"?
- He engineered the shift of Congress from Democratic to Republican, probably the only long term benefit he brought to America


And of course, we wouldn't want to forget -

- balancing the budget
- making progress against some unnecessary federal subsidies (progress that Bush now seems determined to eliminate)
-the family and medical leave law
- putting 100,000 new cops on the street, leading to falling crime rates across the country
- saving Medicare from Newt Gingrich
- give me a few hours, I'll think of some more

But the point is that the Clinton Administration had plenty of achievements, some people just choose to ignore them.

[Apos]

---But Clinton is the first President since Nixon to stand up on national TV, shake his finger in my face, and lie thru his teeth.---

Oh, give me a break: "As I told the American public in Chicago..."

Or, with a straight face, telling us that he had never been breifed on any specific terrorist threats prior to 9/11?

Politicians lie on TV all the time. It's always wrong and detestable. But if you're only going to care or notice when it's "the other side" what sort of credibility do you have in calling attention to a lie? Are you really demonstrating that you care about honesty as a value, or is honesty simply another bludgeon to be used today, outlawed as "unpatriotic" tommorow?

---The difference being - the only difference - is that the media liked him (he is a Democrat), and therefore he was allowed to get away with it.---

Good grief, Clinton's impeachment was a media circus. You're being ridiculous. The _public_ liked his administration, and the media HATED him. The media predicted time and time again that he would be ousted, that he had broken the last straw, that hsi career was done. It was the public that stood by him (for good or for ill).

---Thank God for the Reagan recovery. It allowed the country to survive even Clinton.---

This is just disingenous. There is no evidence of a recovery led by Reagan's policies extending into Clinton's terms. For goodness sake, the economy tanked right after Reagan's presidency... at which time I'm sure such an honest stand-up guy was happy to lump all the blame on poor Bush Sr. for "screwing up the conservative revolution" as allt he pundits did back then.

If _any_ President is to credit for the recovery that helped Clinton, it was Bush Sr. being brave enough to stand up to his own party (probably at the cost of the Presidency).

But in reality, Presidents and even tax incentives aren't all that much to blame or credit for the short-term fortunes of the economy in the first place. Even the long term effects of programs as radical as Reagan's simply failed to show up: for all his supply side nonsense, and all his tax cutting, he never managed to get growth or productivity to turn around. Alan Greenspan is the only real hero/villian worth looking for to explain the economy's more noticeable fortunes, and even he is hard to dislike too much, since he's essentially playing roulette with only minimal precognitive suspicions on what to do. :)

[Neurotik]

Give me a break, ITR Champion and Shodan.

Clinton was an average president who was really well-liked. He did some good things, like negotiating the NAFTA side-agreements and getting NAFTA going. The Family Medical Leave law is also a pretty darn impressive achievement of Clinton.

Balancing the budget was a joint effort that neither side can claim as their own achievement.

I don't think the 100,000 new police officers had much to do with falling crime rates. Unless you can provide a cite. My guess is they were a product of a good economy. Which neither side can claim credit for.

Clinton also made some big mistakes. He and his top cabinet members gave the order to blow up a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory over the objections of lower members of the state department and based on shaky evidence. And I think he was hypocritical in divorcing Chinese human rights abuses from trade rights, even though I agree with the policy, because he castigated Bush for doing the same thing during the campaign.

But really, Clinton wasn't too bad. Not great, not near great, but not bad. Had some good policy achievements. Had some mistakes. Mostly just presided calmly over a good economy and didn't do anything to mess it up.

[WSLer]

December,

Where do I start? Ahh yes, the Christmas tree decorated according to Aldrich with dildos and other sexual toys, as ordered and supervised by Hillary. Now in this day and age, I am sure that if something THAT outrageous was on display in the White House thatsomeone would have taken a picture of it and it would have been printed somewhere in some newspaper or magazine or on a website.

But no such photo has ever turned up.

As for the "rumor" about Clinton sneaking out of the White House to have affairs, Aldrich reported it as truth. But, if you read David Brock's new book, you will find out that gee, Aldrich's "source" for the above mentioned rumor was Brock himself. When Brock found out that Aldrich was stating this as fact, he called Aldrich and asked him what the hell he was doing and that it was in no way true, but was merely an example of the types of rumors that conservatives were spreading about Clinton. Aldrich's response was not to take the offedning and untrue section out of the book but rather to screech and bleat that Brock was out to kill sales of Aldrich's book.

Also, you would think that a book like Aldrich's would have foootnotes or endnotes of some kind, but I guess it's silly to think that. :rolleyes:

Shodan,

"Gays in the military."

What ab out them. There sure as hell were gays in the military before Clinton was President, hell there were gays in the military before Clinton was born!!!

During WWII Isenhower found out that one of his army nurses was a lesbian and after he told his secretary that the nurse was going to be dishonorabley discharged, his secretary informed him that if he did that then he would end up having to replace about 20% of the nurses in the armed forces. So, Ike quickly dropped that from his agenda.

[Apos]

Paul Krugman is right to keep reminding people of how his administration bailed out Mexico. The Clinton administration took a very huge political risk in that case to what really was the right thing: and it paid off in spades. As usual, all the people who said it was a horrible stupid move for which we would all pay dearly never mentioned the subject again after it became clear that not only had the effort saved Mexico's economy, but it had paid for itself by keeping the country from defaulting on its loans in addition to paying back the money used to bail them out.

Whatever else was wrong with the administration, this action was truly laudable, and a rare thing in politics.

[ralph124c]

It is becoming abundantly clear that Clinton and his secretary of the treasury (Robert Rubin) presided over a total swindle of the American people. This pair allowed the shady bookkeeping practices and outright decption, that is now causing the melt-down on All Stree. When your 401 K portfolio soon becomes worthless, you have Bill Clinto to thank!
Think of him wgilst you revise your retirement plans..because of him (this jackass), I'm now planning to work untill age 77!
THANK YOU BILL CLINTON!-NOT!

[light strand]

Oh please ralph124c!

Arthur Levitt, President Bill Clinton's SEC chairman, made a proposal to prohibit accounting firms from providing consulting services to audit clients. Performing both roles, Leavitt argued, is a conflict of interest that jeopardizes audit integrity.

However, this proposal was defeated by, among others, Harvey Pitt. The name may not be familiar to you, but he was the attorney for Arthur Andersen, among other accounting agencies.

So, you may ask, what does this have to do with the price of tea in China? Well, perhaps the name Harvey Pitt would sound more familiar if I told you that Bush appointed him to head the SEC. He STILL doesn't believe that accounting firms need to sever their competing interests.

Moreover, Bush still doesn't believe that reforms such as declaring stock options as expenses are necessary, despite the urgings of Greenspan, and Buffet. (as reported in Newsweek 1 July 2002), and Chaney headed Halliburton during the period when it altered it's auditing practices, for which it is currently being investigated by the SEC (this last part is irrelevant, but I thought I'd throw it in).

So feel free to blame Clinton for lowering the collective morals of the country, but don't blame him for your investment problems.

Obligitory cite: http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/feb2002/nf20020219_2045.htm

[Neurotik]

Oh. I forgot about that one, Apos. Mark that down on the Clinton achievement side.

[december]

Originally posted by WSLer
Where do I start? Ahh yes, the Christmas tree decorated according to Aldrich with dildos and other sexual toys, as ordered and supervised by Hillary. Now in this day and age, I am sure that if something THAT outrageous was on display in the White House thatsomeone would have taken a picture of it and it would have been printed somewhere in some newspaper or magazine or on a website.Well, if you're sure, then that settles it for you. But, why should I be sure?

You disbelieve this story because it's outrageous. Well, it's outrageous for White House staffers to pull W keys off of computer keyboards, but that was confirmed.As for the "rumor" about Clinton sneaking out of the White House to have affairs, Aldrich reported it as truth. Well, I read Aldrich's book and my memory is that he specifically said this was a rumor. What's your evidence that Aldrich reported it as truth? Did you read Aldrich's book?But, if you read David Brock's new bookDavid Brock -- what a source! "Doggonnit, I just noticed that everything I've written for the last 20 years was a lie." :smack:
"But now I'm telling the full truth." :rolleyes: Also, you would think that a book like Aldrich's would have foootnotes or endnotes of some kind, but I guess it's silly to think that. :rolleyes: Huh? He was writing about things he had personally seen, except for the one rumor he said was a rumor.

[WSLer]

Originally posted by december
Huh? He was writing about things he had personally seen, except for the one rumor he said was a rumor.
Oh really? Aldrich wrote as fact, about various incidents of homosexual and lesbian sex that had supposedly taken place A) In a WH office and in the women's gym shower. Had Aldrich personally seen either of these alleged incidents?

No, they were both 2nd hand accounts and Aldrich very convieniently fails to provide the name of the persons who told him these "stories.

How convienient.:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[astorian]

A lot of conservatives wn't let go of Bill Clinton for the same reason many on the Left won't stop slamming Ronald Reagan: sheer frustration!

Reagan and Clinton had a LOT in common, as I've noted on these boards before. To wit:

1) Ideologues in their paties ADORED them, even though they almost never did any of the things True Believers hoped they would.

2) Ideologues of the other parties LOATHED them, eve though they never did the things their rabid enemies FEARED they'd do.

3) Their wives were even more despised than they were. Their opponents were convinced the First Ladies were evil, and the "real" power beind the throne.

4) Both their administrations were plagued with scandal... but they themselves were never touche by it. They were so charming and so likeable, all they ever had to do was smile and say "I don't recall anything about that," and the American people were ready to forgive and forget. Oh sure, their close friends and advisors regularly fell on their swords, but they themselves were blessed with Teflon.

5) Reagan and Clinton were like the Roadrunner, and their enemies were like Wile E. Coyote. Anyone who tried to hold them accountable for their misdeeds came across as petty, mean, vindictive and foolish- ask Ken Starr or Laurence Walsh. Their enemies were continually thinking, "We've got him now! THS time we're going to show the people how evil they are. THIS time they'll see."

But the people never DID see! In the end, both Reagan and Clinton served two terms, and left office with high approval ratings. Hey, America was prosperous and at peace! Why WOULDN'T the people love them?

*

And THAT'S what galls their enemies. To their enemies, it appears that the "bad guys" won. Neither Reagan nor Clinton will EVER get the punishment or comeuppance their enemies think they deserved. And it's infuriating for some people to face that fact.

[astorian]

A lot of conservatives wn't let go of Bill Clinton for the same reason many on the Left won't stop slamming Ronald Reagan: sheer frustration!

Reagan and Clinton had a LOT in common, as I've noted on these boards before. To wit:

1) Ideologues in their paties ADORED them, even though they almost never did any of the things True Believers hoped they would.

2) Ideologues of the other parties LOATHED them, eve though they never did the things their rabid enemies FEARED they'd do.

3) Their wives were even more despised than they were. Their opponents were convinced the First Ladies were evil, and the "real" power beind the throne.

4) Both their administrations were plagued with scandal... but they themselves were never touche by it. They were so charming and so likeable, all they ever had to do was smile and say "I don't recall anything about that," and the American people were ready to forgive and forget. Oh sure, their close friends and advisors regularly fell on their swords, but they themselves were blessed with Teflon.

5) Reagan and Clinton were like the Roadrunner, and their enemies were like Wile E. Coyote. Anyone who tried to hold them accountable for their misdeeds came across as petty, mean, vindictive and foolish- ask Ken Starr or Laurence Walsh. Their enemies were continually thinking, "We've got him now! THS time we're going to show the people how evil they are. THIS time they'll see."

But the people never DID see! In the end, both Reagan and Clinton served two terms, and left office with high approval ratings. Hey, America was prosperous and at peace! Why WOULDN'T the people love them?

*

And THAT'S what galls their enemies. To their enemies, it appears that the "bad guys" won. Neither Reagan nor Clinton will EVER get the punishment or comeuppance their enemies think they deserved. And it's infuriating for some people to face that fact.

[Neurotik]

Probably one of the best posts in this threat. Bravo, astorian.

[Sam Stone]

I think that's a pretty accurate assessment.

[Brutus]

Well said, Astorian. Apart from the congratulatory posts for you, you killed this thread :)

[ElvisL1ves]

astorian, yes, that was well-said, but unfortunately it ignores some pretty important differences. There was never a significant current of Reagan-hating on a personal level. Even those who thought his policies and practices were generally doing great damage to the country, the world, and democracy, and were blatantly hypocritical and short-sighted, never hated him. Even Tip O'Neill, for instance, commented "Give Reagan his due. He would have made a helluva king."

But the well-organized, well-financed hate campaign against Clinton personally was led by those who should have liked and admired, and even did like and admire, the results he produced.

Since we're only talking about perceptions here, we needn't even get into the facts about budget-balancing, or support of oppressive terror regimes, or numbers of indictments and convictions of administration staffers, etc. As Reagan himself said, "Facts are stupid things."

[rjung]

astorian hits some good points, but overlooks one of the biggest differences between the two -- Reagan's policies were a direct appeal to the extremists in his party, while Clinton took the extreme left-wing for granted and pretty much gave them the shaft.

If Clinton had been running as a moderate Republican, he could have pressed for the same policies he did, but would have not been vilified by the right while doing so.

[astorian]

Elvis- I'm not surprised you'd insist that the cases aren't really similar. Ideologues rarely think they're ideologues, and you're no exception. But to pretend there was no PERSONAL animosity toward the Reagans on the Left is silly and dishonest.

We always dislike our political rivals, but we don't always despise them, and we don't al;ways spiut on the ground when their names are mentioned. Conservatives certainly didn't like Hubert Humphrey, Walter Mondale or Michael Dukakis, but they didn't inspire venom and loathing. Bill Clinton and the Kennedy family did. Similarly, liberals never liked Gerald Ford or George Bush the Elder, but they never sent liberal into violent frenzies. Ronald Reagan did.

And, like it or not, Reagan-haters and Clinton-haters WERE both obsessive in their futile search for ways to bring down their foes, and utterly ineffectual in doing so.

Now, it's a safe bet that Ken Starr didn't view himself as an obsessive Captain Ahab, any more than Laurence Walsh did. Both were convinced they were going after a slimy lawbreaker. And both were right. But both had the same problem: the great majority of the American people weren't all that outraged about the crimes involved.

And that, too, is a big part of what galls the enemies of Reagan and Clinton. The PEOPLE loved them, no matter what they did.
We want to believe in democracy, we WANT to believe in the wisdom of the common man, but no matter what our ideologies are, we're going to find, to our chagrin, that sometimes the common man is an idiot!

Try as they might, the Left never could get the people all that exorcised over Reagan's arming the contras. And despite their best efforts, the Right could never get people all that interested in either Whitewater or Clinton's sex life.

And THAT's galling, too- to realize that "the people" just don't care about things we care about passionately. That's the kind of thing that can send people around the bend. Hence, during the 2000 elections, we heard silly liberal celebs vowing to leave America if GWB were elected (the election was such a mess, of course, that we can't very well hold them to that pledge).
When the politicans we hate are successful, it can make us lose faith entirely in democracy and in the people.

Luckily, things change, and the people have no steady, unchanging ideology. Sooner or later, guys we like win, and we miraculously regain hope and confidence in the wisdom of the people.

[ElvisL1ves]

astorian, that was another fine piece of partisan rhetoric. It is indeed true that you ideologues rarely realize it.

Now, do you actually have any evidence to support your claim that there was any widespread anti-Reagan (personal, that is, not policy-based) streak? Before you go throwing any more claims of dishonesty about, you might also keep in mind that you're referring to someone who was not only alive but politically conscious during that time, as I suspect you were not. In short, cite, mi amigo?

"Utterly ineffectual" in "finding something to get Reagan with"? Nuh-uh. Do some research on Iran-Contra, just for one, and you don't even have to leave this board, before you embarrass yourself further with that desperate attempt to prop up your literary symmetry.

Honesty requires use of fact and reason. I have gotten you started with some of that, but so far you are supplying only bombast, with a sprinkling of insults.

"It's taking longer than we thought" indeed.

[Brutus]

Uhhh...Clinton shafted the left wing? Like with the Assault Weapons Ban? Or the veto over banning late-term abortions? I grant that Clinton was 'left-center', but by no means did he abandon the left...


And Elvis, you ask for cites and proofs of personal attacks against Reagan? You mean like the proof you provided regarding personal attacks against Clinton? You mean attacks against his adulterous behavior? Or his purgery? Those wouldn't be personal attacks, those would be grounded in fact.

And that Iran-Contra occurred, there is no doubt. But the pragmatists and realists among us saw the necessity of such actions, and do not see that as any sort of blemish on President Reagan's record.

['Uigi]

WJC is simply a target-rich "personality". The facts of his odious deeds simply can not be refutted.

What else do you do with such a ripe target? He's simply a scab that deserves pickin'.

[Semp]

Originally posted by Brutus
And that Iran-Contra occurred, there is no doubt. But the pragmatists and realists among us saw the necessity of such actions, and do not see that as any sort of blemish on President Reagan's record.

I'm all for pragmatism and reality, but that is rather a sizable load of dog doo. It is is blemish on his record, and a big one at that. You have a "law & order" Republican administration unilaterally deciding which laws it chose to follow and its leader professing ignorance of it happening. As you state, there is no doubt that it happened, which leads to two possibilities: he knew, and is one of the worst criminals to ever sit in that office, or he didn't know what was going on in his own White House. And in this day when the operation sold weapons to an "Axis of Evil" country, can you really say it wasn't a blemish? Blemish? Shit, that's a goiter!



As for comparing Reagan and Clinton, I think it's fair to say that opponents felt all too often that the reason the two survived was mainly out of charm. I never met Reagan, but I met Clinton, and he has a most un-nerving charm that can disarm you no matter what you do. Reagan seemed to be able to flow between stern statesman to a "gee-gosh" naive kid-like personality at the drop of a hat. Never ever underestimate charm, it can take you anywhere.

And another thing about why some Republicans won't let Clinton go: I think Republicans take politics much more seriously than Democrats, which means that the fight is never over. Clinton is still around, and therefore he still has power. It may not be the power of office anymore, but don't let that fool you into thinking he's just a civilian. He is still a target, and I think until he's dead there is an ugly validity in that.

[ElvisL1ves]

Brutus, are you seriously suggesting that there was and is no widespread personal hatred of Clinton the man? You're showing quite a bit yourself, there, for one example.

And are you seriously stating that you think adultery is a far worse transgression than treason? If so, I don't think you have much to contribute on the subject of moral principles, either. Semp is right on, btw.

Let me take another stab at the OP, as to why Clinton was and is so hated. Remember the kid back in junior high and high school, who always got straight A's, won the science fair, captained the debate team, made all the speeches, dated the prom queen, and went on to the best college? Didn't that drive you nuts? Weren't you so jealous of him that you hated him, and took every opportunity to give him wedgies, knock his books down, mess up his projects, and so forth whenever you thought you could get away with it? When you found out his parents were divorced, or that he had to work instead of go to school, weren't you happy to learn that he was finally getting what he deserved?

Well, years later, many of you realized how hateful and stupid you had been, you had grown out of it, and you may even have apologized to him. You had your own sense of self-worth, and didn't have to try to bring anyone else to your level. You realized that the world was a better place, and your own life was more enjoyable, without indulging in petty, childish crap. But many of you still could never get over the thought that someone else was simply a better person than you. Ring a bell with any of you?

But why do many "conservatives" still hate Clinton, as the OP asks? Well, many of the people I've described still haven't matured.

[Brutus]

Brutus, are you seriously suggesting that there was and is no widespread personal hatred of Clinton the man? You're showing quite a bit yourself, there, for one example.

Yes, I am suggesting that. And seeing that you have no proof to bring to the table, it seems you agree with me.

And are you seriously stating that you think adultery is a far worse transgression than treason?

Nope, I am not saying that at all. But since Clinton commited both adultery (http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/resources/lewinsky/timeline/) and treason (http://www.liberty.edu/chancellor/nlj/feb99/book_review.htm) , he is twice-damned in my book.

Clinton seems to be the only thing in your life that gives you a sense of purpose, so I won't go into all of the other crap he did, but I do want to point out: It is liberals like you that give liberals a bad name.

[rjung]

Originally posted by Brutus
Uhhh...Clinton shafted the left wing?
For a lot of the folks over here, definitely. "Don't ask, don't tell" was a total cop-out, for instance, and NAFTA was so anti-union that the GOP should have made him an honorary Republican after that got through.

Clinton may not have completely abandoned the left, but he was so busy playing to the right and trying to broaden his appeal that having conservatives call him a "liberal" is as silly as Daffy Duck insulting Donald Duck's speech impediment. ;)

As for Reagan vs. Clinton, I'd much rather have a guy who's got a healthy libedo than someone looking for ways to circumvent the laws of the land.

[SPOOFE]

Now, do you actually have any evidence to support your claim that there was any widespread anti-Reagan (personal, that is, not policy-based) streak?
Gee, only the quickest of cursory google searches found this (http://www.newaus.com.au/news52.html). Second paragraph begins with...

Despite the fact that the Reagan presidency finished in 1988 he is still a hate-figure for the Left.
I find it amusing that Elvis responds to those that disagree with him with anger and lambasting. In any case, based on Elvis's response, I think that Astorian whooshed him pretty good.

[A Monkey With a Gun]

Whoa, Brutus, Whoa. You have just accused an ex-president of treason. You use a very biased book review as your "evidence". That dog don't hunt.

Iran-Contra* is closer to treason than _alleged_ influence peddling to Pacific Rim nations. Please allow this moderate to remind you, the Iran-Contra investigations produced convictions. The whole Indonesia thing was a tempest in a teapot. Ken Starr didn't even go too deep into it.


*bad, very bad. Legislative branch expressly said "no". Executive branch did it anyway. Bad, very bad.

[Semp]

Originally posted by Brutus
Nope, I am not saying that at all. But since Clinton commited both adultery (http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/resources/lewinsky/timeline/) and treason (http://www.liberty.edu/chancellor/nlj/feb99/book_review.htm) , he is twice-damned in my book.


Hmmm... liberty.edu... Do you also think gays, abortionists and pornography are the root cause of 9/11? And you do realise, of course, that The Very Reverend Jerry Falwell used his TV pulpit to sell The Clinton Chronicles, which accused Clinton of... well, anything they could think of. Not the most objective source to use for an accusation of treason.

But you are correct in that he is an adulterer. Just like Henry Hyde, Bob Barr, Tim Hutchinson, Dan "scumbag" Burton, and seemingly most of his congressional accusers. But, yep, he did screw around.

[ElvisL1ves]

Truly an airtight cite there, Spoofe. An Australian commentator repeating an opinion you happen to share. Your mother must be proud of you. There ain't enough smilies for that one.

Beeblebrox and Semp pretty well covered Brutus already.

We deal with facts here, Bubbas. And it is indeed taking longer than we thought.

[Sam Stone]

Anyone who thinks that the left didn't have a visceral, personal hatred for Reagan the man either didn't live in the 80's, or if they did they weren't paying very close attention. Reagan was DESPISED. He was 'Ronnie Raygun', the man who was going to kill us all. He was a senile, doddering old warmonger who was going to let the poor starve in the streets, destroy social security, set back the cause of women and minorities by fifty years, and get us all into a nuclear war.

The man was burned in effigy on campuses. I was in college at the time, and had plenty of debates with people who were spitting with hatred at the guy. Reagan was shouted down by students when he tried to speak. Anyone remember, "I'm PAYING for this microphone!"?

Remember Nancy and her astrologer? Remember all the stories about how stupid Reagan was, and that Nancy was really running the show?

I'll fully admit that there are a lot of conservatives who have what I would consider to be an irrational, over-the-top hatred of Clinton. Because even from a conservative's standpoint, Clinton was just not all that bad. But for some of you to claim that Reagan was never personally hated is ridiculous. It's either ignorance, or a denial of the historical record.

Reagan was more hated by the left than Clinton was ever hated by the right. I was there. I watched it.

[Sam Stone]

Anyone who thinks that the left didn't have a visceral, personal hatred for Reagan the man either didn't live in the 80's, or if they did they weren't paying very close attention. Reagan was DESPISED. He was 'Ronnie Raygun', the man who was going to kill us all. He was a senile, doddering old warmonger who was going to let the poor starve in the streets, destroy social security, set back the cause of women and minorities by fifty years, and get us all into a nuclear war.

The man was burned in effigy on campuses. I was in college at the time, and had plenty of debates with people who were spitting with hatred at the guy. Reagan was shouted down by students when he tried to speak. Anyone remember, "I'm PAYING for this microphone!"?

Remember Nancy and her astrologer? Remember all the stories about how stupid Reagan was, and that Nancy was really running the show?

I'll fully admit that there are a lot of conservatives who have what I would consider to be an irrational, over-the-top hatred of Clinton. Because even from a conservative's standpoint, Clinton was just not all that bad. But for some of you to claim that Reagan was never personally hated is ridiculous. It's either ignorance, or a denial of the historical record.

Reagan was more hated by the left than Clinton was ever hated by the right. I was there. I watched it.

[ElvisL1ves]

"I was there. I watched it." Sam, you lived in the US at the time? I did, and do. What college down here were you at?

Yes, of course, there were, and are, those who hated him personally, as well as hating his policies. It's a big country, and on campuses especially it's easy to find people willing to adopt any cause with more emotion than reason.

But the point was about extent personal vs. policy-based hatred, and the comparison to Clinton-hatred. There simply is no comparison, no matter what those of you who watch only Fox may think.

To clean up another matter, re Iran-Contra and treason, it isn't about the Contra part and its illegality. Iran had declared war on the US. The Reagan administration was selling them arms. Look up "aid and comfort to the enemy" in your Constitution. The most charitable assessment of a President who took no interest in foreign policy to the extent that it could be done would be "contributory negligence". But he was still a likable person.

[Sam Stone]

rjung said:

astorian hits some good points, but overlooks one of the biggest differences between the two -- Reagan's policies were a direct appeal to the extremists in his party, while Clinton took the extreme left-wing for granted and pretty much gave them the shaft.

That's a bit revisionist. In truth, both men started out by trying to appeal to their 'base', and both of them were forced to moderate their positions significantly. Clinton's first couple of years in office saw a laundry list of left-wing policies - Gays in the military, Hillary's health care task force, the appointments of Joycelyn Elders and Donna Shalala among other fairly extreme appointments... But Clinton took so much heat for this and lost so much political capital that Republicans won the house in the mid-tern elections, and after that Clinton changed course and became pretty much a centrist politician.

Reagan did much the same. He started with a number of very conservative appointments, he fired the ATC controllers, went to war with other unions, and pledged to drastically cut the size of the federal register. He then suffered a backlash and moderated his policies, and was forced to deal with a Democratic house. In the end, Reagan wound up growing the size of government, caving in to the AARP, scrapping his plans to restructure welfare (later carried out by Clinton), etc.


If Clinton had been running as a moderate Republican, he could have pressed for the same policies he did, but would have not been vilified by the right while doing so.


This I agree with, with the caveat that we erase Clinton's first two years as president. The Health Care Task Force was a disaster, both politically and as policy. He could have called himself a spotted frog and it still would have been attacked by the right and lots of the public. Some of his early appointments WERE left-wing flakes, and he would have taken heat for it.

But the Clinton of the last six years of his presidency was pretty much a centrist. You could even call him a conservative. Certainly his policies were more conservative than those of Gerald Ford, Richard Nixon, or maybe even George Bush I.

I think maybe this is more an indication of how far to the right the political spectrum has really moved.

[Sam Stone]

Elvis, you've really got to get off of this Canada bashing thing. Really. Canada is tidally-locked to the U.S. We watch your TV, read your papers, and debate your issues. Especially when it comes to Reagan, because the main issue surrounding him was the Cold War, which affected Canadians as much as Americans.

For the record, I was at the University of Alberta studying physics between Reagan's first and second term. You couldn't walk twenty feet without seeing a caricature of Reagan posted to a bulletin board somewhere. Canadians protested just about everything Reagan did. Nicaragua was a continual source of friction, as was cruise missile testing.

In the U.S., Reagan was hated viscerally by students on many campuses. Their animosity started when Reagan was governor of California, and cracked down on campus protests at Berkeley.

[WSLer]

Originally posted by Sam Stone
Reagan was shouted down by students when he tried to speak. Anyone remember, "I'm PAYING for this microphone!"?


Ummmmmmm, Reagan wasn't even President when that happened.

Try again.

[Semp]

Was Reagan hated "personally" by the Left? Amongst many, yes, of course. Don't forget, Reagan was a turncoat, he used to be a Democrat (although saying he was a liberal would tax the definition of the word). Part of the ire of a bunch of those banana-bread-makin'-tree-hugging-pot-smoking Ivory Tower liberals might have been a certain degree of jealousy that one of their own had "turned to the dark side" and wound up with more power than they had had in almost 20 years.

I doubt you'll find any twentieth century president who didn't have some people who hated him just for who he was (and I'll leave out any pres. from before then just because the public didn't have the opportunity to know them like we have in the past, say, 75 years). To say Clinton didn't have his share of such detractors suggests either naiveté or revisionism. I've had relatives who have claimed to hate him, but when pressed for reasons usually make their way back to "I just don't like him." And you know what? There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. If they then go on to start spreading questionable, if not outright slanderous information about the object of their derision, that's when the line is crossed, and I think that's what happened to Clinton (adultery -> corruption -> drug using & dealing -> influence peddling -> murder! -> treason!!). Too many people allowed themselves to get whipped up into a froth over the Clintonian Boogeyman, dominoes fall, and we get impeachment proceedings.

"Slick Willie" suvives, so the fires of hatred continue to burn. Reagan appointees in various scandals and probes wound up getting convicted, so liberals get some scalps (although not the best ones, and Bush the Elder's 12/24/92 pardoning of 12(?) Iran-Contra defendants killed the investigation) and their bloodlust gets sated. Ultimately, the 1980s Demoractic tit has more to show than the much flashier 1990s Republican tat. But they both made for some smashing TV!

[Sam Stone]

Yes, I know, WSLer. It was during the Presidential primaries, if I recall. I was just pointing out that Reagan faced a lot of very vocal opposition.

It's ridiculous to suggest that Reagan wasn't as hated by the left as Clinton was hated by the right. Being on the right at the time, I know first-hand just how much hatred there was for Reagan among the left. You couldn't say two words back then without some yahoo launching into a spiel on that evil, senile, poor-person starving, democracy-squashing, warmongerer.

Reagan was hated by the left long before he became president - basically ever since he supported Goldwater in 1964, and especially since he gave a very impassioned, televised speech in favor of Goldwater.

Does anyone remember Frankie Goes to Hollywood, and the "Two Tribes" video which depicted Reagan as a warmonger in a boxing ring with Gorbachev?

This assertion that Reagan wasn't hated by the left during his presidency is simply wrong.

[mangeorge]

Well, this thread is as good an arguement against term limits as I've ever seen. From what I recall of public opinion, at the time of the last election, Clinton may very well have been re-elected.
That would have been very interesting, indeed.
Bill Clinton was popular, here and abroad. That, in itself, makes him an easy target.
Peace,
mangeorge

[rjung]

Originally posted by mangeorge
Well, this thread is as good an arguement against term limits as I've ever seen.
Actually, I was just musing the other day that what the nation really needs is a limit of one term for the U.S. Presidency. The President, freed from any worries about appealing to the masses in order to get re-elected, can then take a hard-line stance for whatever position he really believes in.

[JDM]

Originally posted by Sam Stone
Yes, I know, WSLer. It was during the Presidential primaries, if I recall. I was just pointing out that Reagan faced a lot of very vocal opposition.



Gee- I think you are seriously rewriting history- the opposition came from George Bush. (http://www.primarymonitor.com/news/stories2002/west3964_2002.shtml)

[SPOOFE]

Truly an airtight cite there, Spoofe. An Australian commentator repeating an opinion you happen to share. Your mother must be proud of you.
And Elvis, once again, proves exactly how much debating skill he has.

Point Numero Uno: I said it was a quick, cursory search. In other words, even the simplest, easiest glance at evidence revealed it. Try it sometime. You don't need everything spoon-fed to ya, buckaroo.

Point Numero Dos: Whoever said it's an opinion I agreed with? You simply assumed it.

Jeez. Turn down the vitriol meter, wouldja, Elvis?

[Sam Stone]

[b]Jdm:]/b] Holy smokes, you're right. I'd forgotten that. Thanks.

[mangeorge]

Originally posted by rjung

Actually, I was just musing the other day that what the nation really needs is a limit of one term for the U.S. Presidency. The President, freed from any worries about appealing to the masses in order to get re-elected, can then take a hard-line stance for whatever position he really believes in.
Shivver me timbers, rjung.
That's one strong arguement against term limits. In fact, I've used it as such. The last 25% of a president's 2nd term is bad enough as it is. All them w's and such. ;)
Peace,
mangeorge

[ElvisL1ves]

Okay, lessee, for evidence of the departed Astorian's assertions, we have Spoofe offering an Australian journalist, and Sam offering some Canadian college students. Spoofe, nice try on that "quick Google" stuff - you could have used half the time you took on that latest bombast to provide something appropriate, if that were true. To you two fantasizers, that must mean that the left here in the US hated Reagan as widely and as personally (you keep forgetting that part) as Clinton was, and is, by the current right. If you like looking foolish, go right ahead. I note that Astorian has bowed out already, wisely.

There's a very short word to describe people with a habitual, casual disregard for the truth. You could avoid being labeled it by simply using a little respect for facts - but instead, you'd rather hinder the goal of Fighting Ignorance. You're both obviously capable of better. Now shape up.