I do not dislike Mr. Clinton. I do not know him persoanlly.
That said, I find many of his actions in office to be amoral, unethical, and demonstrative of an arrogance that has pervaded politics and govenrment since Hammurabi.
In other words, I despised him as a president as much as I despised Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and both Bushes (Carter I just pity).
Did you really think I wrote it believing it was an indisputable fact? The OP asked why some people had a problem with Clinton. I posted a response. This is a political thread and I think it’s reasonable for you to understand that not all comments need to come with a disclaimer. Is “the continual assumption that if he did something, it must be heinouos” a fact or your opinion?
In an earlier draft of my response I did touch on the Bush pardon. Here it is: Looks fishy. But this isn’t a thread on “Why don’t you like Clinton, and oh, by the way, what’s your take on Bush Sr.” I thought I made it clear that I was under no illusion that Clinton was the first person to make a questionable pardon. The fact that Bush’s pardon may have less reason is not relevant to the Rich pardon.
I don’t know why he didn’t pardon Miliken (I assume that’s who you are referring to) but a guess would be that it would piss of his Democratic party more since Miliken is seen as a symbol by some of the Reagan '80’s.
I did discuss the ally wanted Rich pardoned angle. It’s weak. They wrote a letter. Denise Rich visited Clinton several times right before the pardon. So did Jack Quinn. The Israeli ambassador did not. I think those facts tend to show the relative weight of the factors.
Great Galloping Ganesha . . . that’s really saying something. I mean, geez Unc, I knew you disliked the guy, but refusing a beer?!?
The first part of my previous post came off a lot nastier than I intended. I thought it was obvious that claims of a quid pro quo would not be interpreted as a statement of fact, but rather my opinion since these issues rarely provide definitive answers even years after.
thanks. no harm done. 
there’s been a lot of “he was just rotten and awful” but there has also been alot of substantive reasons. Good to know. (Of course I disagree with a large number of them, but that isn’t the point. I just wanted to be reassurred that he wasn’t being vilified for his personal failings alone).
Thanks again.
stoid
UncleBeer - Don’t worry…you don’t sound like the type of person Clinton would have a beer with. Try getting a freebie with a Rotary Club member. More your type. Good luck.
Wait a sec – STOID asks a direct question; UNCLE posts a direct answer; and you show up for a drive-by posting to take a shot at him? WTF?
Well, Stoid, I guess that brings up another question then.
Er, what exactly is wrong with someone’s being vilified for their personal failings? Ol’ Mort Downey was vilified for being an asshole. Even prior to the plumbing job, Dick Nixon was as well.
I recall several folks around here (no names needed, I’m sure) who have taken several opportunities to vilify President Bush for coming across as a goober. Not knowing who’s PM of Canada and not being able to pronounce “strategery” are personal failings, no?
Nuthin’. But the energy behind it didn’t make sense to me. If the primary or exclusive source was his personal failings, why give a shit? So he’s a dick, makes no difference in how he performs the work that actually affects the country. But it turns out people had problems with the way he did his job, and being pissed off at him for that, investing emotional energy in that makes sense.
Well, see my previous answer. Getting blowjobs in backrooms doesn’t directly impact a man’s job performance. Being ignorant and inarticulate does. (Assuming the job is more complicated than janitor, and I think president qualifies)
And someone said that his blowjobs and lies affected his functioning as president, and I take exception to that. What affected his functioning as president 9and not much at that, all things considered) was the constant harassment he endured practiclaly from the moment he took office. I don’t think he had a week in office when he wasn’t being “investigated”. And as I’ve said before, the Supreme Court was wrong, obviously, when they decided that it was perfectly ok to sue sitting presidents. Evidently, it distracts from the job a little, ya know?
stoid
MGibson wrote:
Farmers weren’t the only ones worried about Gore’s environmental stance. His book Earth in the Balance reads like an eco-alarmist manifesto. He basically states, with scant and sometimes self-contradictory supporting evidence, that the whole planet is going to turn into a great big toxic sludge pile, with every continent completely under water thanks to the melting polar ice caps caused by all those naughty industrial greenhouse gases, and with everybody dying of skin cancer thanks to the total destruction of the ozone layers, unless we shut down everything with a smokestack or a tailpipe right now. He seems to feel that no price is too high to pay, so long as it results in just one milligram of pollution being cleaned up.
Yeah, just think of all that CO[sub]2[/sub] that won’t be released into the air if we all stopped breathing. :rolleyes:
I’m not exactly crazy about Clinton-I think he’s pretty sleazy and the pardon of Marc Rich was pretty shady, but he’s hardly the WORST president we’ve ever had-which would be Ronald Reagan.
But he’s not my favorite guy. I’d say he’s probably middle of the road, no better or worse than Bush Sr or whatever.
BTW, this is going to come off as extremely cynical, but what politician doesn’t lie?
Probably the last time we had a president with a good moral character was Jimmy Carter, and he didn’t succeed. Which is a shame-I think he’s a great humanitarian.
Guinastasia wrote:
Ronald Reagan?
Worse than Ulysses S. Grant?
Worse than Warren G. Harding?
Worse than Richard M. Nixon?
That’s saying quite a lot…
Maybe not worse, but he’s certainly right up there-or at least, his administration was.
Jodi
anyone who claims the media is “right wing” generally does not have anything to add to a discussion:)
Kinky Friedman, whom I would share a beer in a bar with, has met Clinton and judges him likeable and sincere. I don’t think Kinky had his tongue in his cheek when he said that, and it puzzles me. A New York Texas Jewboy can be as bad a judge of character as anyone else, I guess, but I’m sorry the man disagrees with me on this one. Roy Blount Jr., another folksy type, has also defended Clinton, making light of his philandering.
I see nobody bothered to fault the paranoid misrepresentation of the situation in Columbia in my earlier post. Anyone interested in the real facts should see Marc Cooper’s cover story on the Columbian drug wars in the March 19th issue of that excellent liberal rag, The Nation, which ought to be on the stands pretty soon. Their website is at http://www.thenation.com: and hey, it looks like the whole article is there, so you don’t have to pay the heady newsstand price of $2.75 an issue (jeez, I used to buy PLAYBOY for less than that), unless you want to tackle the British-style cryptic in the back of the mag.
Well, it’s obvious that the media can’t be LEFT wing, since the media is out for a profit, and there are no rich liberals.
That’s what they keep telling me…every dollar i accumulate is taking me closer and closer to being a Republican. AAAAAAAAAAAAAAIIIIIIIIIIIIIEEEEEEEEEE.
Nah, my vast fortune won’t yank me violently to the right. It will just taunt me into backing my liberal lip with my wallet.
stoid
I figured it out.
You work for a fortune cookie company, don’t you?
Dammit, guys, she’s on to us! Send in the snipers! She could blow the whole plot!