Presidential Quiz

[astorian]

Okay, here's the test: I'm going to give some clues as to the identity of an American President. YOU have to guess the PResident I'm describing.

1) He's beloved by ideologues within his party, and LOATHED (to an irrational extent) by ideologues of the opposing party- even though he NEVER did ANY of the things his most rabid supporters wanted (and his enemies feared).

2) From the very begiining, ideologues of the other party despised his wife, blaming her for all his failings, accusing her of manipuilating him, and making her the butt of ridicule.

3) He's always been a charming, amiable, personable guy... and this has allowed him to get away with murder. Though his administration was marked by scandal after scandal, all he ever had to do was smile and say, "I didn't know anything about that," and the American people were ready to forgive him. His popularity INCREASED after each scandal, and honest people who tried to hold him accountable came off looking petty, mean and vindictive.

4) He's consistently underestimated by his enemies. When he first ran for President, the incumbent was delighted, considering him a lightweight, and the weakest of all possible challengers. When he soundly BEAT the incumbent, the other party still didn't take him seriously. "He just got lucky," they said. "He beat a weak, upopular incumbent during a recession... and besides, there was a 3rd party candidate drawing votes away from our guy. NEXT time out, we'll nominate a SERIOUS candidate, and demolish him." But when the opposing party nominated their most respected Senator, they lost by a LANDSLIDE!

5) Survey after survey shows that the American people love the guy, even though they don't agree with him on any of the major issues.

So... here's the test. What President am I describing? (The answer, of course, will tell us more about you than the PResident.)

[tracer]

Too easy.

This is both a description of Ronald Reagan, and Bill Clinton.

And if you had said he was born in a log cabin, it would've also been a description of Abe Lincoln. ;)

------------------
Quick-N-Dirty Aviation: Trading altitude for airspeed since 1992.

[The_Peyote_Coyote]

Tracer: It could not have been Reagan; he lost to Ford in 1976.
It would not have to applied to Lincoln, either; some of his bitterest enemies were Republicans. Also, the histories I‘ve read of The Civil War Era don‘t mention too many famous scandals, beyond U.S. Grant‘s fondness for strong waters. People had more important things to worry about.
Offhand, I would say it sounds like a description of Woodrow Wilson.

[LongHrn99]

I think it's FDR. No one thought he was going to win. There was a little recession I heard about when Hoover was President. You might have heard about it.

------------------
"There are many sweeping generalizations that are always true" -Space Ghost

[The_Peyote_Coyote]

Dear LongHrn99:
I agree with you that the first three criteria apply to FDR.
However, the only serious third-party candidate in those times was Eugene Debson the Socialist ticket, and somehow I don’t think he was going to take away too many votes from Republican candidates.
Also, I believe the majority of Americans at that time favored FDR’s policies.

[The_Peyote_Coyote]

Let’s apply some logic, people.
Since Astorian said the mystery president won a second term, that limits it to those presidents who have been elected two or four times.
I would say it cannot be George Washington since no one would have taken him lightly at the time. Grover Cleveland held the office twice, but was defeated in his second run.
Lincoln is out for the reasons I suggested above as well as the fact that he ran against Gen. McClellan in the 1864 election.
Coolidge, LBJ and Truman were re-elected to office, but they got to the presidency through the deaths of incumbents.
I’m going to rule out FDR and Eisenhower because there was no serious third party to drain votes away from their opponents.
That means the candidates are Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Jackson, Grant, McKinley, Teddy Roosevelt, Wilson, Nixon and Clinton.
Astorian, Tracer is right; much, if not all, of this description could apply to Slick Willie, but it is too damn easy to name him, especially for the SDMB.
I would say Jackson and Wilson best fit the description.

[Sam Stone]

It's got to be Reagan, and Astorian forgot that he ran against Ford in 1976. All of the other criterion fit perfectly. He beat Carter in 1980, because Carter was weak, the country was in a recession, and a 3rd party Candidate (John Anderson) had a pretty strong showing. He then beat Senator Mondale in 1984.

[aseymayo]

Warren G.Harding...........no,wait, Chester Arthur.

Fillmore - I bet it's Fillmore!

Polk?

[Boris B]

I think the first criterion eliminates both Clinton and Reagan, but I know the OP intends for you to guess either Clinton or Reagan. Clinton has done plenty of things heavily feared by the ideologues of the right (gun control, gays in the military, humanitarian military interventions), and Reagan had the B-1, the Peacekeeper, mining Nicaragua harbors, etc. I think the first criterion should be something like, "This President is loved by his partisans and hated by opposing ideologues even though he did a lot of things not typically associated with his professed ideology."

I also think that by the "first time he ran for President" I think it means the first time he was nominated.

I think Reagan also ran in 1968, but maybe it was just so he could control the California delegation at the Convention. In any case, he won more total popular primary votes than Nixon (showing how little primary votes mattered back then).

I also don't buy that Perot took more votes from Bush than he did from Clinton in 1992, but I can't remember my source for that. I'll try to find it.

[tomndebb]

Jackson.

[WallyM7]

Gotta be Jackson.

------------------
If you're hot, that's good.
If you're cool, that's good.

I don't get it.

[StrTrkr777]

I have not studied the details of most presidents. All I really know is what I have experienced. Since Carter is the first President I remember, I do not know much before him other than the big things that get mentioned in history class.

Jeffery

[Fretful Porpentine]

Gotta be Jackson. Henry Clay WAS elected to the senate in 1830. IIRC, Horace Greeley (Grant's opponent in 1872), Charles Evans Hughes (Wilson's in 1916), and Alfred M. Landon (Roosevelt's in 1936) were not senators. Jefferson's wife died long before he was elected to his first term. Madison, Monroe, and (I think) McKinley did not run against an incumbent. Nixon probably couldn't be described as charming and amiable, but I guess that's a matter of personal preference...

------------------
On registration day at taxidermy school
I distinctly saw the eyes of the stuffed moose
Move.
- Gavin Gunhold

[Boris B]

Fretful Porpentine, you are exactly right. I looked at a bio of Clay's on the web, and I found he was elected to the U.S. Senate three different times! So I did remember stuff incorrectly.

[Boris B]

http://clerkweb.house.gov/histrecs/history/members/clay/biblio.htm

Four times! Clay was elected Senator four time!

[metroshane]

is my favorite>>> LBJ?

[PunditLisa]

Neither Jefferon nor Madison were bothered by a strong third party candidate on their 2nd elections. Neither Monroe, Lincoln, Grant, McKinley, T. Roosevelt, Wilson, nor FDR squared off against a Senator their second go around. DDE squared off against Adlai Stevenson twice, so it wouldn't be him.

Cleveland won a very tight race against James Blaine in 1884, then was defeated by former Senator Benjamin Harrison, then defeated HIM. But his wife, Frances, was a popular first lady. Axe him.

It could be Jackson (where the Nullification party and Anti-Mason party drew votes), but I wouldn't call him a charming fellow by any stretch of the imagination. Nixon's victory in 1968 was VERY close, with George Wallace running a respectable third. And he ran against Senator McGovern in 72. But charming? Geez, did anyone think so even before Watergate? And I thought Pat Nixon was a pretty popular first lady, too.

Reagan definitely fits the bill, esp. with the recession and how much people hated Nancy. There were a lot of times he said, "I don't know." to questions about Iran Contra, etc. But people seemed to love him. He was also charming and charismatic. There were lots of third party candidates in 1980 and Mondale is a former Senator.

Perot may have taken votes away from Bush in 1992, but the economy was good. So no on Clinton.

Sooooo, I guess I'll have to say Reagan.

[The_Peyote_Coyote]

Sorry, Pundit Lisa, but unless Astorian says a mistake was made in the criteria listed, it CANNOT be Reagan.
Ford defeated Reagan in 1976 when Ronnie sought the Presidency. Also, I am not sure Mondale was a senator in 1984 (and I voted for ol' Fritz). Does anyone remember if he was?
I would also hesitate to say Fritz was the most respected Senator.
IMO, the best choices remain Jackson (he was popular with the common people of the time -- you must remember people then would view attacking one's enemies differently than most of us do) and Wilson.

[WallyM7]

It has to be Jackson. He's the best fit.

There's even a little clue in the OP, about getting away with murder.

His duel with Dickinson, whom he fatally wounded, was regarded by many as murder.



------------------
If you're hot, that's good.
If you're cool, that's good.

I don't get it.

[astorian]

Rats... here I thought I had found a sneaky way to make a seviously subtle point, but it's all undone because people here are WAY too knowledgeable, good at trivia, and sticklers for detail.

Tracer and Boris, of course, caught on to what I was getting at immediately... though Boris also noted some sort-of mistakes in my presentation. This "quiz" was not reall ya quiz at all. My point was to get people of widely different beliefs to notice just how eerily similar Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton are, in a host of ways! Their most devoted admirers would be horrified by the suggestion, but there are all kinds of common bonds between the two.

Did I exaggerate a tad? Of course. Was I wrong to imply that 1980 was the "first" time Reagan ran for President? Oh... all right, I guess I was (I knew he'd tried unsuccessfully to get the GOP nomination twice before, but only counted the first time he actually GOT the nomination). But I certainly didn't think my errors would lead people to Andy Jackson!!! Actually, I thought my clues were dead giveaways.

Did ROnald Reagan do SOME things to earn the affection of the right wing? Sure. Has Bill CLinton done a few things to merit the devotion of the left. Yeah, a few. But on the whole, Reagan and Clinton governed as moderates. I mean, in 1982, Pat Buchanan asked (rightly), "Except for James Watt, is there anyone in this Cabinet who'd have looked out of place in the Ford/Rockefeller administration?" The answer was... NO! And with the exception of Donna Shalala, I could say the same thing about the Clinton Cabinet. Would Lloyd Bentsen or William Cohen look out of place in a Bush administration? I hardly think so.

Early in their administrations, both Reagan and CLinton tried to govern as ideologues... but quickly gave up. Reagan would TRY to slash a budget, he'd get some criticism for it, and would promptly retreat (while blaming somebody like Dave Stockmann for the idea). Similarly, CLinton tried to issue an executive order to allow gays in the mi,itary... but quickly backed off when the military objected.

Think about this: if you had asked a joyful Moral Majority member at the Reagan Inauguration "What wonderful things do you expect Reagan to do," you'd have been told, "He's going to abolish abortion, abolish the Dept. of Education, bring back school prayer, and balance the budget." Uh... nope, no, uh-uh, and wrong-o. Moreover, Reagan was hardly a model of "Christian family values." HE's divorced, is largely estranged from his children, and never goes to church.

As for Clinton... the man who implemented welfare reform is beloved by black America! The man who smokes cigars and treats women like dirt is adored by anti-smoking crusaders and women's groups!

Both men, despite their perceived politics, were FAR more interested in being liked than in governing.

There's one more similarity I see... but it involves the future.

Both Reagan and CLinton had Vice PResidents who were perceived as nice, decent, honest intelligent guys... but dull as dishwater, embarrassingly bad public speakers, WAY too rich and preppy to connect with ordinary voters. Despite the incumbent PResident's popularity and the strong economy, it appeared doubtful that the Veep would even receive his own party's nomination, let alone the PResidency. It looked as if he'd be trounced by a popular, moderate governor.
But... surprise surprise, the Veep had a lot of fight in him, found some issues with which to beat that governor over the head, and emerged victorious.

THis is my roundabout way of saying... (and as a right winger, I HATE saying this), Alg Gore is going to slaughter Bill Bradley. And he's going to prove a far tougher preisdential candidate than George W. Bush (or anyone else) expects. In spite of all Gore's current problems, I'd say the odds are much BETTER than 50-50 he'll be the next President.

[tracer]

The Peyote Coyote wrote:

Ford defeated Reagan in 1976 when Ronnie sought the Presidency.

True, but I interpreted Astorian's 4th criterion to refer to the first time he ran for President in a general election, not merely in the Primaries.

------------------
Quick-N-Dirty Aviation: Trading altitude for airspeed since 1992.

[tracer]

astorian wrote:

As for Clinton... the man who implemented welfare reform is beloved by black America! The man who smokes cigars and treats women like dirt is adored by anti-smoking crusaders and women's groups!

Now now, anti-smoking crusaders mostly target cigarettes, not cigars. And Clinton doesn't treat women like dirt, he treats them like sex objects! Big difference!

------------------
Quick-N-Dirty Aviation: Trading altitude for airspeed since 1992.

[tomndebb]

Sorry I derailed your discussion, Astorian. I saw where you were going, too. (You may remember I posted a lot of the same ideas in the summer of '98 when Dick Macy, Chevy55ss, and Optamissed were foaming at the mouth over Clinton.)

However, when the crowd started wandering away from your intent, anyway, I remembered Jackson's wife, noted the other similarities, and threw out my red herring.

Of course, this simply means that when some rabid right- or left-wing screamer starts in on Clinton or Reagan, I now have two names to throw back at them. < eg >

------------------
Tom~

[Boris B]

You "Jackson" people are kidding, right?

1) Jackson vetoed the Bank of the United States, something his ideological opponents really feared and really hated him for. (I think he did plenty of other things that Jacksonian Democrats wanted, and the National Republican feared, but I can't really remember what they were.)

3) I don't think Jackson was charming or amiable. He tried to beat a man to death when that man tried to assassinate him. He kept grudges for years

4) When Jackson ran for re-election, his main opponent was Henry Clay, who was a member of the House of Representatives. I don't think Clay ever served in the Senate. I also doubt that John Q. Adams considered Jackson the weakest of all possible challengers in 1828, since Jackson had won a plurality of the popular vote in 1824.

5) I don't think they had surveys back then. If they did, I bet most people would have agreed with him on a lot of major issues, including territorial expansion and the tariff.

Of course, this is all from memory, so feel free to correct any history I have recalled incorrectly.

[StrTrkr777]

Would you not want to beat a man to death who had just tried to kill you? You make it sound like this is a bad thing?

Jeffery

p.s. I am sure he wants us to choose Clinton and it does seem to apply to Clinton, but I am sure he has someone else in mind. Though I am not sure who, my guess is Nixon or another such republican.

[Boris B]

Would you not want to beat a man to death who had just tried to kill you? You make it sound like this is a bad thing?
If someone tried to assassiniate me, and I had a steel-tipped cane, I would probably beat them in the head with it. But then, I'm not an amiable person.

If Jackson were an amiable person, he would have said, "Hey old chap, it seems like both of your pistols have misfired. What sort of way is that to murder your chief executive? Just hand me over your pistols and I'll show you how to load them properly so that doesn't happen again."

Then when the Marines tackle the assassin (instead of the President as they did in the actual event), our hypothetical amiable Jackson would say, "Oh look! The Marines are here! Wait a minute now, don't handle the man roughly, I was just having a conversation with him on misfiring pistols. Can't we all just go shooting together and have some hard cider afterwards?"

That's my ideal for an amiable politician.

[StrTrkr777]

Sounds like a stupid politician to me. A person who is out to kill you is not likely to be won over by your being nice to them. They are probably a little off their rocker anyway. Beat the heck out of them and maybe they and no one else will ever mess with you again.

Jeffery

[Boris B]

Hey, amiable and stupid are fully compatible. What Jackson did was totally acceptable at the time.

[cmkeller]

StrTrkr777:

Though I am not sure who, my guess is Nixon or another such republican.

Can't be Nixon. Not only didn't his popularity go up after a scandal, also, he lost his first run at the presidency to Kennedy.

My guess is Grant.

------------------
Chaim Mattis Keller
ckeller@schicktech.com

"Sherlock Holmes once said that once you have eliminated the
impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be
the answer. I, however, do not like to eliminate the impossible.
The impossible often has a kind of integrity to it that the merely improbable lacks."
-- Douglas Adams's Dirk Gently, Holistic Detective

[Phaedrus]

I was surprised at the answer to this quiz. I would have thought it was FDR. As to the similarities between Reagan and Clinton, there is no question that some exist. However, Slick Willie is the worst President since Nixon. He has done more harm to this nation than the last 25 years of mistakes by former Presidents. He is a Communist (read the Cox report) and should be shot for treason. Everytime I think of THAT bastard I get sick enough to puke!

I come from a family of three generations of Union Democrats, and this BASTARD was enough to make me change parties forever! I was in office as a politician myself when I changed parties.

I couldn't say enough about how he makes me feel. When he was elected the first time I put a bumper sticker on my car that said, "Rescue America, Impeach Clinton". I was SO HAPPY when it finally happened! It fairly warms the cockles of my heart to know that he will go down in history right next to Nixon as a President that was impeached. Too bad he wasn't ousted to boot!

When he ran for office the first time all we heard was, "It's the economy, stupid." But when he got into office, all we heard was, "It's fags in the military, stupid!"

The democrats should be proud that it was THIS president that was so despised by the American people that he gave them a Republican Congress. The first one in over 40 years! Nice work, Bill!

If anyone wants to read more about this creep and his wife and the sickness they divide equally between them, I would recommend, Partners in Power. A great book that traces each of their lives from birth.

Thank God that baby-killing, faggot loving, minority glad-handing demon will be out of office soon.

:::::::snorting REAL big to hock a huge loogy at the thought of him::::::::::

BTW, I didn't mean to offend those of you who think he's great. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I just had to rant here. It is not my normal style and I appreciate this venue for giving me this opportunity. I think many of the posts are great and spend a considerable amount of time reading them. Cheers! And have a nice day! :)

[pldennison]

However,
Slick Willie is the worst President since Nixon. He has done more harm to this nation
than the last 25 years of mistakes by former Presidents.

Exactly what? Can you be specific?

He is a Communist (read the
Cox report)

I seriously doubt it, but so what if he is? Are we now making it illegal to freely and peacefully assemble?

and should be shot for treason.

Err . . . yeah.

When he was elected the first time
I put a bumper sticker on my car that said, "Rescue America, Impeach Clinton".

Yes, he certainly had committed any number of impeachable offenses by the time he was first elected.

It fairly warms the cockles of my heart to know
that he will go down in history right next to Nixon as a President that was impeached.

Nixon was not impeached. Johnson was, though.

When he ran for office the first time all we heard was, "It's the economy, stupid." But
when he got into office, all we heard was, "It's fags in the military, stupid!"

Are there any other groups of people against whom you are bigoted and don't feel should be allowed to shoot our enemies?

Thank God that baby-killing,

Do you have some evidence that Bill Clinton has killed a single human being, let alone and infant? Offer it up or shut up.

faggot loving,

Wow, you really are a homophobe, aren't you?

minority glad-handing

Yeah, they really loved that welfare reform.

demon will be out of
office soon.

I got news for you: If you think any of the jackasses who are sucking the collective dick of the Religious Right and masquerading as Republicans is going to win the presidency, you need to up your medication.

I think maybe you out to crawl back under Hate Rock and get your bearings, OK?


------------------
"I love God! He's so deliciously evil!" - Stewie Griffin, Family Guy

[Phaedrus]

pl: LOL that was so funny, I laughed until I cried! REALLY good! My sides hurt! Thanks, you made my day!

------------------
That which a man had rather were true he more readily believes.

[ExTank]

Astorian, not only are you the Devil's Advocate, I'm beginning to suspect you're the Devil him(her? it? damn all assumptions!)self! :D

Great post! You're right: the various respondants answers say more about them than any number of self-declarative posts (I'm almost ashamed to admit I picked Clinton to fit your criteria).

And Phaedrus? You frothing little hate-infested goober? My words for you would immediately get this thread tossed into The Pit, possibly even banned outright, so I shall largely abstain....except to say this:

In the time I wore a uniform in service to this country, I knew and was friends of or acquainted with several soldiers who were, in all probability, gay.

These soldiers served their country honorably and well, and their sexual preferences should in no way detract from the professionalism, integrity and courage with which they served.

Phil was altogether too kind.

<FONT COLOR="GREEN">ExTank</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="BLUE">"Damn all asumptions, anyway!"</FONT>

[ruadh]

Astorian: Not saying your argument doesn't stand up as a whole, but there are a couple things I take issue with:

He's [Clinton] beloved by ideologues within his party

If you mean the Democratic Left, you're seriously overestimating the support for Clinton. We (may I speak for the D.L.? Thanks!) like some of his policies, dislike a whole lot and basically realize our choice is him or someone a lot worse. But we don't hold him in anywhere near the same regard as the Republican Right held Reagan.

the man who implemented welfare reform is beloved by black America!

Most blacks are not on welfare. And most welfare recipients are not black.

The man who...treats women like dirt is adored by...women's groups!

Women's groups' main concern about the president is how his policies affect women's lives. I really don't see what's so hard to understand about that. ("Adore" is too strong a word anyway.)

Interesting post(s), though.

[The_Peyote_Coyote]

Dear ExTank:
Being the fool that I am, I am going to aks you what conclusions do YOU draw from our posts. Personally, this has been an amusing intellectual exercise to me, not a session of therapy.

[tracer]

ExTank wrote:

These [probably gay] soldiers served their country honorably and well, and their sexual preferences should in no way detract from the professionalism, integrity and courage with which they served.

Yeah!

And besides, if you really hated gays, wouldn't you WANT them in the military? (A la Operation Human Shield, from the South Park movie.)

------------------
Quick-N-Dirty Aviation: Trading altitude for airspeed since 1992.

[ExTank]

It tells me that even a hallucinogen-warped canine can have pretty sharp teeth! ;)

And that I need to do some more studying of American History that my high school glossed over.

<FONT COLOR="GREEN">ExTank</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="BLUE">"Alright! It showed me more about myself than maybe I cared to know. Happy?"</FONT>

[The_Peyote_Coyote]

Dear ExTank:
Hallucinogen-warped canine, eh?
I like that.

[PunditLisa]

Do you have some evidence that Bill Clinton has killed a single human being, let alone and infant? Offer it up or shut up.

I believe he's referring to Clinton's veto on the legislation banning partial-birth abortions. For this, I agree with the Pro-Lifers. I think abortions after 15 weeks should be outlawed, but I'm willing to compromise. And PBA's (that is, abortions in the third trimester) should be outlawed altogether. Cutting apart a fully developed infant is horrendous.

On the other hand, there are several things that Clinton has accomplished that I agree with: 1) He managed to get the line item veto passed. While I realize the Republican controlled congress technically passed the law, it got done while Clinton was in office, and Clinton supported it. Reagan and Bush both talked incessantly about it, but never got enough votes to get it passed. It doesn't really matter, though b/c the Supreme Court, in all its infinite wisdom, will no doubt strike it down. Oh well. 2) He pushed for an end to underground nuclear testing. The Republicans dropped the ball on this. Love him or hate him, the President is responsible for determining foreign policy. The Congress should let him do his job. 3) He's managed to go a whole year without any major debacles. Way to go, Bill! :)

[ruadh]

And PBA's (that is, abortions in the third trimester)

A "PBA" is not the same thing as a third trimester abortion.

[tracer]

PunditLisa wrote, re the Line Item Veto:

It doesn't really matter, though b/c the Supreme Court, in all its infinite wisdom, will no doubt strike it down.

Got news for ya, Lisa, they already HAVE struck it down. Many months ago, as a matter of fact.

------------------
Quick-N-Dirty Aviation: Trading altitude for airspeed since 1992.

[PunditLisa]

Mea Culpa. Tracer, you're right. The SC struck down the line item veto over a year ago. Where was I? Must have had my head up my ass. Sorry.

Clarification re PBA's: A PBA is a procedure where a doctor partially delivers a live baby, cuts a hole in the back of his/her head and suctions his/her brains out. It is performed after 20 weeks of gestation. It is not synonymous with third trimester abortions, but it is the method most often used in the third trimester.

I'm personally opposed to ALL third trimester abortions and ALL PBA's. Basically, my feelings are that if the baby has to be delivered, it's too big to be aborted.

Clinton, however, has vetoed the legislation banning PBA's and it's very doubtful that they'll come up with enough votes to override future vetoes.

[Polycarp]

I was skimming along towards the end of this thread when I read this thing about third-trimester abortions. The only problem is that I misread, in both Lisa's post and Ruadh's correction, the acronym as MBA.

:: off to get more coffee before I misread something else :::

[tracer]

This comes from Planned Parenthood's Abortion FAQ at http://www.plannedparenthood.org/abortion/abortquestions.html#after 24 weeks:

Only one out of every 10,000 women who have abortions have them after 24 weeks. These are performed only when there is a serious threat to a woman's life or health or if the fetus is severely deformed. [Italics mine]

One of the procedures is called the induction method. The doctor injects urea or salt solution into the uterus to induce contractions (labor) and cause a stillbirth. Or the doctor may insert prostaglandin into the vagina to induce labor and expel the fetus. Labor pains, which usually last from six to 24 hours, can be relieved with medication.

From what I understand, "induction" is the clinical name given to the procedure, and "partial-birth abortion" is the name given to it by its opponents.

------------------
Quick-N-Dirty Aviation: Trading altitude for airspeed since 1992.

[tracer]

Huh. It looks like the {URL} tags don't work if the address has spaces in it. But I swear that section tag is "after 24 months", with spaces between the words and everything.

[SterlingNorth]

Try this here:
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/abortion/abortquestions.html#after 24 months

------------------
Please allow me to lengthen this post by two additional lines with a content-free sig.

[PunditLisa]

Only one out of every 10,000 women who have abortions have them after 24 weeks

Both sides skew the facts their way. I personally know one girl who had two abortions after becoming pregnant by the same guy. The first abortion she had at 15 weeks, and the second at 24 weeks. That's right, 24 weeks. She was 6 months pregnant and clearly showing. She kept holding out, thinking the guy (a catholic, btw) would marry her. He didn't, so she ended the pregnancy. She had to be admitted into the hospital as if she was delivering a baby. Which, in fact, she was. She was in NO danger.

[SterlingNorth]

I believe he's referring to Clinton's veto on the legislation banning partial-birth abortions
<img src=http://www.straightdope.com/ubb/posticon.gif>PunditLisa

While that is a very good speculation about what Phaed. meant, but may I offer my own.
(This is a less logical assertion, but seems to be fought more vehemitly by self processed Clinton HATERS)

Many absolute Clinton haters seem to believe that Vince Foster were killed by the Clintons. Why? I dunno. Some say that Hillary had an affair with him. Some just mumble 'bout how the "gov'mit" goin' to march in and take thier guns an' implant chips and stuff.

Clinton also has something to do with Ron Brown's death, they claim. Why? I'm not too sure about that. I tried looking stuff up, but the tortured logic is giving me a headache.

For some "information" you can check this site out by a "concerned patriot."

Bill Clinton is a Murder, a Rapist, and a Trator (http://www.patriot.org/bill.htm) Home of the Clinton Body Count ®
(Motto: Now, almost 100% Fact-FreeTM)

£ ↑

[Boris B]

Don't forget Waco Ridge, murder perpetrated on innocent civilians by Clinton and that congenital liar, George Bush.

Elect George W. Bush now! It's the only way to save America!

[andros]

Pundit, do you give any credence to the President's reasons for not signing the bills? I think he makes a decent (not great, but decent) argument that the bills as presented did not offer enough protections to the women who would be affected.

-andros-

[SterlingNorth]

What?

They forgot WACO?

He should be immediately taken off the "Ring of Conservative Sites"!

------------------
Please allow me to lengthen this post by two additional lines with a content-free sig.

[astorian]

I brought up, earlier, the conflict between many Presidents' personal lives and their public poisitons to make a point.

Most religious conservatives, the type who claim to stand for "Christian family values" supported Ronald Reagan (a divorced man who never goes to church and has never been close to his family) over Jimmy Carter, a devout Christian, a pillar of his church, and a model family man. Liberals are quick to point out the hypocrisy of this position.

Meanwhile, feminists eagerly embrace Bill Clinton (who treats women like dirt), the teachers' unions embrace him (though he's always sent his OWN child to expensive private schools). COnservatives have gleefully pointed out the liberals' hypocrisy in this case.

Question is: in general, REGARDLESS of what you personally believe in, is it hypocritical to support candidates who don't practice what they preach?

Do you pro-abortion folks think it's wrong for a devout family-values Catholic to vote for a philandering anti-abortion Congressman like Henry Hyde? Do you conservatives neighborhood-preservation types think it's hypocritical for black America to embrace thge Kennedys (who have always lived in lily-white neighborhoods, and regularly signed contracts promising NEVER to sell their homes to blacks or Jews)?

Don't get bogged down on THESE or ANY particular issues. I'm asking you to consider a GENERAL point. Do YOU sometimes hold your nose and vote for a candidate you know is a fraud, but who (at least) supports the same causes you do? Is that hypocrisy or merely intelligent pragmatism?

And if you're prepared to rationalize and forgive your OWN inconcistencies, can you not at least be more understanding when your ideological opponents do the same?

In other words, can we ALL accept that our ideological enemies aren't necessaily immoral hypocrites, when they try to make the best of a bad set of choices?

[Boris B]

Those are excellent questions. In general, I'm much more concerned with what a candidate preaches. Faced with the choice of someone who fathered children out of wedlock but supports tough enforcement of child support laws, or a good family person who I consider soft on deadbeat dads, I'd vote for the former.

If I could get inside Jesse Helms' head, and discovered he had never had a racist thought in his life but was merely a shrewd political calculator ... and I could get inside some civil rights campaigner's head and discovered that person had secret racist thoughts ... I'd still vote against Helms and for almost anyone who ran against him.

There are many breeds of hypocrisy - for someone to tell a kid to quit being immature is in a sense hypocritical, since that person was probably immature as well. Still, it's often necessary to fight for mutual improvement. If only perfect people fought to make the world better, the world would be much worse.

Still, I don't think politicians should be treated any differently from any other person in the eyes of the law.

[tracer]

I'd go even farther.

If I were vehemently opposed to, say, baby-eating (what with the epidemic of infant cannibalism sweeping the country :) ), I'd want to elect a president or congressperson who campaigned against baby-eating but secretly indulged in eating babies. Why? Because such a person would go out of his/her way to pass the toughest anti-baby-eating legislation the U.S. has ever seen, just to draw people away from his dirty little secret.

------------------
Quick-N-Dirty Aviation: Trading altitude for airspeed since 1992.

[kaylasdad99]

tracer:

It's not the whole baby that gets eaten, usually they just eat the placenta. Oh, and if they can't afford the five grand to cryogenically store the umbilical cord against any future need for stem cells, [b]sometimes[b] they make jerky out of it.

kaylasdad

------------------
God in Heaven how do these Urban Legends get started?

[PunditLisa]

Pundit, do you give any credence to the President's reasons for not signing the bills? I think he makes a decent (not great, but decent) argument that the bills as presented did not offer enough protections to the women who would be affected.

The bill that is on the table now is worded to protect against cases where the mother's life would be in jeopardy, but Clinton has vowed to veto it anyway. I think he'd veto any legislation that restricted abortion in any way, no matter how it was worded. Why? Think about it. The argument pro-choicers use is that the "fetus" isn't a person until BIRTH. To push back the date of legalized abortion is to admit that a 6 month old "fetus" IS indeed a person, with rights as guaranteed by the constitution. And I don't think pro-choicers are ready to say that.