Zoe said:
Could you describe some of this repression?
Anyone have a link to how well Clinton did in approval ranking polls throughout his presidency?
http://www.pollingreport.com/beyle.htm
“In a late October 2000 Gallup Poll, 57% of the respondents approved of the job Clinton was doing as president. By comparison, in a mid-October 1960 Gallup Poll, Dwight Eisenhower received a 58% positive job approval rating, and in a mid-October 1988 Gallup Poll, 51% gave Ronald Reagan a positive job rating. Voter News Service exit polls taken at polling places on Election Day 2000 indicated Clinton’s positive job performance rating nationally among actual voters was also 57%.”
From that this indicates that even on his way out of office, Clinton wasn’t thought of as morally bankrupt by most people. The reality is that the perception of Clinton while he was president was quite favorable.
That Clinton had a high approval rating only means that people thought he was doing a good job. That leaves no indication of how they thought of his moral fiber, or if they thought he had any at all.
That would mean that people thought that moral fiber wasn’t an important element in being a good president. (Possible. Nixon was elected twice, and his moral character had long been an issue. “Tricky Dick”.) If this were the case, I can’t see people switching to voting a Republican into the White House. And the moral fiber issue wouldn’t have been much of an issue with Gore.
Slick Willie himself was quoted as saying “It isn’t the character of the President, but the character of the Presidency.”
Whatever that means.
The real hole in my earlier point was that there was no backlash against Democrats in 2000. It didn’t happen until the extreme left roared.
I beg your pardon. Bill Clinton was merely a horndog and less honest than he should have been. George W. Bush is morally bankrupt. George H.W. Bush was morally bankrupt. Richard Nixon was morally bankrupt. Ronald Reagan . . . lacked the capacity to tell truth from fantasy, let along right from wrong.
I see that you have some rather selective ways of defining morality.
What about Clinton was significantly more morally bankrupt than any other modern presidents? Clinton was hardly a saint. However, I agree with BrainGlutton’s analysis. Only thing about Clinton was he definitely was a horndog more than other recent presidents, at least AFAIK. However, I’d say that was between him and Hillary. And there is evidence to suggest that Hillary had a “boys will be boys” attitude towards this sort of thing. Maybe Hillary wasn’t all that horny herself, and would rather let other women satisfy Bill’s carnal lusts.
Go and think yourself immune to the laws of gravity, then take a step off the roof. Good luck. :rolleyes:
It’s not hard to grasp:
Having consentual sex with an intern: Crime against his marriage, possible slight abuse of authority.
Lying about nonexistent WMDs and starting a war as a result: Crime against humanity, against the principles of the United States, and a disgrace to both the office of the Presidency and the nation.
Having Monica play tonsil hockey with Bill’s gonads doesn’t even begin to compare with the thousands of people killed and maimed as a result of Bush’s damn fool war. If you can’t recognize the blinding obviousness of this fact, you must be a Republican.
I never really had a major problem with Clinton sleeping around…just the fact that he got caught sleeping around while he was president and splashing his fixation all over the worlds news. THAT I had a major problem with.
This again assumes (incorrectly IMO) that Bush lied about Iraq having WMD. I’m sure it makes you feel good to keep repeating this meme but there simply isn’t anything to back it up. As I’ve said before, even if Iraq DID have WMD coming out of their ears I still don’t see why the US needed to invade Iraq when it did, and if you want to make THAT case I’m right there with you. But this constant yammering about Bush ‘lieing’ about the WMD just makes you look stupid…as it does the other folks yammering the same meme. Want to say he cherry picked the data and only looked at that data that supported his conclusions? Right there with you. But thats not lieing rjung…its just being stuborn and perhaps stupid.
BTW, its kind of ridiculous of you to say the invasion of Iraq was a crime against humanity, even if Bush had lied about the WMD. Its not like SH was a great guy…which is what you are implying when you say invading his country was a crime against humanity. Ridiculous. Again, want to say it was stupid for the US to invade Iraq? I’m right there with you. But to call it a crime against humanity… :rolleyes:
-XT
When was Bill Clinton flashing his private sex life all over the world’s news? You’re thinking Ken Starr here.
You may wish to give him the benefit of a doubt, as is your right. For my money, he’s already lied about so many other things that lying about Iraqi WMD would be merely par for the course.
Sorry, but I don’t care for hair-splitting competitions. He repeatedly foistered the concept that Saddam Hussein had “massive stockpiles” of WMDs that would be used against the United States Any Day Now™, and rode that misbelief straight into Baghdad. To quibble over whether he lied or whether he merely implied is meainingless – he was bullshitting the populace, and thousands of people are now dead and/or maimed as a result.
I’m no fan of Saddam, but given that there are now 1,000+ American servicemen and ~15,000 Iraqis killed (not to mention that many more who were wounded or crippled) because of Bush’s bullshitting – over a menace that didn’t exist – that certainly qualifies as a “crime against humanity” in my book.
Any moral value system where “lying to start a war” is not automatic grounds for condemnation is no moral value system I want a part of.
He fucked a girl who couldn’t keep her mouth shut about it…while he was the president of the US. He gave them the ammunition to use against him. Sorry, its not flying with me. If you are president and you are going to screw around at least be discrete about it…and be smart enough to pick women (or men) who can keep their mouths shut reguardless of what pressure is brought to bear against them. Don’t pick dizzy 20 something interns for gods sake. Or at least pick people who stay bought. Its really not so much to ask rjung that these guys who run our nation keep it zipped…or at least keep it out of the public eye.
lol…and THAT isn’t a biased source. Sorry rjung…lieing implies that GW KNEW that the Iraqi’s didn’t have WMD. I’m not buying that he knew any such thing and in fact I think he (like many other people around the world) was pretty sure Saddam et al had them. He didn’t have definitive PROOF that SH had them, and so he cherry picked his data…but I really have no doubts that the administration was convinced they were there. If you want to change my mind you are going to need to come up with something a bit better than your cite…something showing that the administration/Bush KNEW that SH didn’t have WMD but decided to invade anyway. If you can prove THAT I’ll be right there on the impeach GW bandwagon. I’m still not buying the ‘crimes against humanity’ BS though…not when we are talking about SH and the Iraqi regime.
And his repeatedly foistering said concept is the best indirect evidence there is that in fact he DID think they had them. I don’t even think he bullshitted the populace at the core (certainly he misrepresented the data and mislead through implication)…again, I really do think that he and the adminstration thought the things were there. If they did…sorry, but there was no bullshitting going on, only misrepresentation. They were probably all singing kumbya and telling each other the ends justified the means as far as misrepresenting the data to make their case look better…but in the end I think they really believed the things were there.
Again, I’m not excusing them at all…I think we seriously fucked up going into Iraq when and how we did it. But I think you are off the boat with this constant ‘lied lied lied!’ meme. Course, I would guess you feel the same way about me.
Sorry…but to me a ‘crime against humanity’ is something like ethnic cleansing. Its not the invasion and overthrow, reguardless of the reason, of a brutal and repressive dictatorship. Doesn’t make said invasion right…but doesnt make it a ‘crime against humanity’ either. You really need to get a grip and perhaps broaden your focus some away from the US and US related actions. Google up ‘Sudan’ to start with and see what REAL ‘crimes against humanity’ look like…crimes going on as we type. After that try ‘Rwanda’. If you need a few more examples look me up and I’d be happy to provide.
-XT
Wow, someone’s really deep into the revisionist history here. Yeah, Monica was just such a blabbermouth, the biggest problem Linda Tripp ever had was figuring how to stick a cork in her mouth given all the verbage that kept flowing from it. :rolleyes:
Sheah, right. You wouldn’t get on the impeach GW bandwagon even if he was videotaped in Times Square coordinating with Osama Bin Laden.
Leave it to you to justify the deaths of 15,000 people. Must be more of that “moral values” stuff I keep hearing these days.
And just think, if GeeDubya wasn’t dicking around with Iraq chasing phantom WMDs, we might’ve actually been able to do something about those places. But then, I’m sure you’d object to that, since there isn’t anything profitable involved. More “moral values” again, I guess.
Sorry rjung, but your post deserves nothing more substantial than a quick :rolleyes: .
Merry Christmas. 
-XT
Translation: “I’ve got nothing, but am too cowardly to admit so.”
xtisme, rjung, let’s get back to debating how “liberal” or “conservative” the American people actually are, rather than which position is right or wrong or which side is more sinned against than sinning, which is what you’ve been going back and forth about for the past page or so.
Now, assuming we can find some mutually acceptable, reasonably accurate picture of the American political spectrum or map, can anyone think of a reliably way to figure out how many people may be found at each region of it?
I’m only familiar with one scientific, statistical study of this question. The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, from 1987 through 1999, conducted several studies of Americans’ political attitudes, based on telephone surveys, and developed the Pew Political Typology (http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=98). They found the people fall into ten groups of roughly equal size. (Click on this link – http://helios.acomp.usf.edu/~jfbohr...ew_typology.htm – and you can see a pie chart I’ve prepared, with descriptions of each group.) The study has been updated three times, the last time in 1999, so they call it “Pew Political Typology Version 3.0.” (I wish they’d update it again, so we can see how, if at all, the post-9/11 environment has changed this analysis.)
STAUNCH CONSERVATIVES:
10% OF ADULT POPULATION, 12% OF REGISTERED VOTERS
PARTY ID: 72% Republican; 24% Independent, Lean Republican
COMMENTS: As in 1994, this extremely partisan Republican group’s politics are driven by a belief in the free enterprise system and social values that reflect a conservative agenda. Dissatisfied with the state of the nation, Staunch Conservatives pay close attention to what is going on in politics and are highly vocal.
DEFINING VALUES: Pro-business, pro-military, pro-life, anti-gay and anti-social welfare with a strong faith in America. Anti-environmental. Self-defined patriot. Distrustful of government. Little concern for the poor. Unsupportive of the women’s movement.
WHO THEY ARE: Predominately white (95%), male (65%) and older. Married (70%). Extremely satisfied financially (47% make at least $50,000). Almost two-thirds (63%) are white Protestant.
MODERATE REPUBLICANS:
11% OF GENERAL POPULATION, 12% OF REGISTERED VOTERS
PARTY ID: 76% Republican; 22% Independent, Lean Republican
COMMENTS: Although loyal Republicans, these voters split with other GOP groups in their more positive views toward government and politicians, the environment and even Bill Clinton. These upbeat Moderate Republicans strongly believe America can solve its problems. They take conservative positions on social welfare issues, however.
DEFINING VALUES: Pro-business, pro-military, but also pro-government. Strong environmentalists. Highly religious. Self-defined patriots. Little compassion for poor. More satisfied than Staunch Conservatives with state of the union.
WHO THEY ARE: White, relatively well educated and very satisfied financially. Largest percent of Catholics across all groups.
POPULIST REPUBLICANS:
9% OF GENERAL POPULATION, 10% OF REGISTERED VOTERS
PARTY ID: 72% Republican; 25% Independent, Lean Republican
COMMENTS: Populist Republicans stand out for their strong religious faith and conservative views on many moral issues. They are less affluent than other GOP groups, however. Many of their social values are similar to other wings of the Republican Party, yet Populist Republicans tend to favor government efforts to help the needy.
DEFINING VALUES: Religious, xenophobic and pro-life. Negative attitudes toward gays and elected officials. Sympathetic toward the poor. Most think corporations have too much power and money. Tend to favor environmental protection. Almost two-thirds are dissatisfied with the state of the nation.
WHO THEY ARE: Heavily female (60%) and less educated. Fully 42% are white evangelical Protestants.
NEW PROSPERITY INDEPENDENTS:
10% OF GENERAL POPULATION, 11% OF REGISTERED VOTERS
PARTY ID: 69% Independent, 21% Republican, 5% Democrat
COMMENTS: Affluent and less religious, this group is basically non-partisan with a slight lean toward the Republican Party. New Prosperity Independents are highly satisfied with the way things are going in the country. A majority approves of Bill Clinton, yet tends to be critical of government. One-third consider themselves Internet enthusiasts. Two-thirds favor having a third major political party in addition to the Democrats and Republicans.
DEFINING VALUES: Pro-business, pro-environment and many are pro-choice. Sympathetic toward immigrants, but not as understanding toward black Americans and the poor. Somewhat critical of government. Tolerant on social issues.
WHO THEY ARE: Well educated (38% have a college degree), affluent (almost one-fourth earn at least $75,000) and young (70% less than age 50). Slightly more men than women (55% to 45%, respectively). Less religious (only 13% go to church weekly).
THE DISAFFECTEDS:
9% OF GENERAL POPULATION, 10% OF REGISTERED VOTERS
PARTY ID: 73% Independent, 8% Democrat, 6% Republican
COMMENTS: The Disaffecteds feel completely estranged from both parties. This financially pressured and pessimistic group is not only dissatisfied with the ability of politicians to help improve things, but also has less faith in America in general.
DEFINING VALUES: Distrustful of government, politicians, and business corporations. Favor third major political party. Also, anti-immigrant and intolerant of homosexuality. Very unsatisfied financially.
WHO THEY ARE: Less educated (only 8% have a college degree) and lower-income (73% make less than $50,000). More than one-quarter (28%) describe themselves as poor. Half are between the ages of 30-49. Second only to Partisan Poor in number of single moms. One-fifth (20%) work in manufacturing.
LIBERAL DEMOCRATS:
9% OF GENERAL POPULATION, 10% OF REGISTERED VOTERS
PARTY ID: 56% Democrat; 41% Independent, Lean Democrat
COMMENTS: Extremely tolerant on social issues. Champion individual rights and a range of liberal causes. Despite steadfast support for Democratic candidates, many Liberal Democrats prefer to call themselves Independents. Most favor having a third major party.
DEFINING VALUES: Pro-choice and support civil rights, gay rights, and the environment. Critical of big business. Very low expression of religious faith. Most sympathetic of any group to the poor, African-Americans and immigrants. Highly supportive of the women’s movement.
WHO THEY ARE: Most highly educated group (50% have a college degree). Least religious of all typology groups. One-third never married.
SOCIALLY CONSERVATIVE DEMOCRATS:
13% OF GENERAL POPULATION, 14% OF REGISTERED VOTERS
PARTY ID: 70% Democrat; 27% Independent, Lean Democrat
COMMENTS: This group differs from other Democratic-leaning groups with its conservative views on many social and political issues. Socially Conservative Democrats are less tolerant of immigrants and gays. Almost two-thirds think people should be willing to fight for the country whether it is right or wrong. Nearly three-fourths describe themselves as working class.
DEFINING VALUES: Pro-U.S., yet disenchanted with the government. Intolerant on social issues. Positive attitude toward military. Think big business has too much power and money. Highly religious. Not affluent but satisfied financially.
WHO THEY ARE: Slightly less educated, older group (27% are women over age 50). Labor union supporters. Higher than average number (62%) are married.
NEW DEMOCRATS:
9% OF GENERAL POPULATION, 10% OF REGISTERED VOTERS
PARTY ID: 75% Democrat; 21% Independent, Lean Democrat
COMMENTS: Strong faith in President Clinton’s platform on a range of social and political issues. They are the most satisfied of any group with the president and the state of the union. New Democrats also include the second largest group of African-Americans.
DEFINING VALUES: Favorable view of government. Pro-business, yet think government regulation is necessary. Concerned about environmental issues and think government should take strong measures in this area. Accepting of gays. Somewhat less sympathetic toward the poor, black Americans and immigrants than Liberal Democrats.
WHO THEY ARE: Many are reasonably well educated and fall into the middle-income bracket. Nearly six-in-ten (58%) are women and 21% are black. Numerous are self-described union supporters.
PARTISAN POOR:
9% OF GENERAL POPULATION, 11% OF REGISTERED VOTERS
PARTY ID: 85% Democrat; 12% Independent, Lean Democrat
COMMENTS: Poorest of the ten groups, these voters are very religious, anti-business, and strong supporters of government efforts to help the needy. The Partisan Poor includes the largest group of African-Americans (39%).
DEFINING VALUES: Xenophobic and anti-big business. Disenchanted with government. Think the government should do even more to help the poor. Very religious. Support civil rights and the women’s movement.
WHO THEY ARE: Have very low incomes (40% make under $20,000), and two-thirds (66%) are female. Nearly four-in-ten are African-American and 14% are Hispanic. Not very well educated. Pro-labor union. Largest group of single mothers.
BYSTANDERS:
11% OF GENERAL POPULATION, 0% OF REGISTERED VOTERS
PARTY ID: 54% Independent, 25% Democrat, 10% Republican
COMMENTS: These Americans choose not to participate in politics, or are not eligible to do so (noncitizens).
DEFINING VALUES: Somewhat sympathetic toward poor. Uninterested in what goes on in politics. Rarely vote.
WHO THEY ARE: Young (49% under 30), less educated and not very religious. Work in manufacturing, construction and restaurant/retail industries.
Does anyone see anything in this analysis to dispute, based on any evidence, scientific or anectdotal?
And, if it’s valid, what does it mean? Are the American people more “liberal” or “conservative”? And is either camp strategically trying to make the other’s support base appear smaller (or larger) than it really is?
Oh, and is anybody familiar with any studies other than the Pew Center’s, which might present a more accurate picture, or a conceptually better-organized typology, of the American people’s political views and alignments?
Sorry, flubbed the link to the pie chart – here it is: http://helios.acomp.usf.edu/~jfbohren/floridairvcoalition/pew_typology.htm
The question “Are the American people more ‘liberal’ or more ‘conservative’?” can only be answered by measuring it against the only metric worth a damn – the political alignment of the entire planet (of which the United States is a subset). And I believe it is a nonpartisan and noncontroversial answer to say that, as a whole, the American people are decidedly more conservative than the rest of the world.
The only way for us to get even more conservative than we are now is to pick up pointers from some of the more restrictive theocracies in the Middle East, and I’m sure some conservative leaders are already angling to nudge the nation further in that direction. Which is especially ironic given all the “war on terror” noises the GOP keeps making these days…
OK, so suppose the Pew Foundation were to repeat their political-typology analysis for the whole planet. How do you think the results would look? And how would they differ from their typology of the American people?