Again, Clinton’s problem wasn’t just lying - it was corruption. I posted cites of the 1996 Chinagate issues and the pardon problems. Like I said before, I don’t particularly believe honest Democrats support the fundraising mess or the Marc Rich pardon - nor Hugh Rodham’s pay-for-play pardon advocacy. And they can oppose these even if they preferred Clinton to either Bush or Dole in the elections for good policy reasons.
If you don’t want to hand ammo to Republicans by agreeing with this - that’s your choice. That choice, though, helped enable this behavior and kept it going through two presidential terms, a Senate career, and yet another presidential run. So you have to decide how far your support will go.
I think it’s the end of the road for most people - nearly all Republicans and most of the Democratic Party. Took long enough, though.
Just to point something out - we were talking about vandalism and damage.
Indeed, which is much to your credit.
Note that none of the five could offer any comparison of how similar the damage and vandalism was between 1993 and 2001, since they did not observe the 2001 vandalism.
This is the part I was talking about, but you are correct - it was not a Clinton official.
Again, vandalism was observed in 2001 and not in 1993.
Again, not vandalism, which is what we were talking about.
Here again you are closer to right than I. The rest of the folks you quoted didn’t see the 2001 vandalism.
Gosh, do ya think?
I would maintain that there is a significant difference between saving backup tapes and deliberately trashing keyboards. YMMV.
BrainGlutton, mhendo linked earlier to a 2002 GAO report clearly showing that there was damage. How does your news story from 2001 disprove that? As a general rule the most recent information is more trustworthy.
It is especially so in this case, as the investigation by the GAO into this matter was pretty extensive, and shows not only that much of the damage in 2001 was deliberate, but that it was pretty limited in scope.
Doesn’t the fairly recent rise of intrusive TV media color this “who is the biggest politician liar” discussion a bit? Nixon didn’t face the same level of scrutiny and the constant barrage of questions, press conferences, cameras follwing his every move, etc in the 60’s and 70’s that current politicians face, right?
“In the 1950 mid-term elections, Nixon defeated Democratic Representative Helen Gahagan Douglas to win a seat in the United States Senate. Nixon called Gahagan “the Pink Lady”, accusing her of being a fellow traveler with Communist sympathies, and said she was “pink right down to her underwear.” Gahagan, for her part, bestowed upon Nixon one of the most enduring nicknames in American politics: “Tricky Dick”.”
I said Nixon didn’t have the reputation that the Clintons have, which is that of constant, blatant (and apparently shameless) lying. I never said that someone he defeated in a senate race didn’t call him names.
Much more ignorance could be fought around here (or at least less of it perpetuated) if people weren’t constantly misconstruing things other people say.
It was an enduring nickname. There’s a reason for that.
Much more ignorance could be fought around here (or at least less of it perpetuated) if people weren’t constantly blind to the facts of history that don’t mesh with their personal agenda.
Lots of politicians are tricky. Even the beloved Ronald Reagan was known to have left certain members of congress shaking their heads and wondering how he managed to either slip one by them or do an end-around by going over their heads to the people in order to get legislation passed (Tip O’Neil, are you listening?..Oh, yeah…guess not.)
Their is more than enough blindness to facts that don’t mesh with personal (and political) agendas around here on both sides.
Still, it would be delightful (and extremely rare) if I only had to defend what I have actually said. This very thread is a perfect example of how goalposts get shifted around here. I say [in another thread] that no other major politician in my lifetime has had the Clintons’ reputation for constant, shameless and bald-faced lying, and suddenly I’m confronted with allegations that this or that [invariably Republican] politician told a bigger lie, or a more important lie, or had a more dishonest character, etc., etc., ad infinitum.
To me this indicates that no real rebuttal is available, but, not liking what they hear and determined to win on some level, my opponents mischaracterize what I’ve actually said and then expect me to justify my comments in light of those mischaracterizations, and Starvy just don’t play that.
Nixon’s rep was and is worse than the Clinton’s. That’s not an allegation; it’s the truth. You’ve attempted no rebuttal. You’ve merely insisted that it ain’t so, and you’re wrong.
Starvy, it must be a hoot to play football with you. The game’s in overtime, we line up on the line of scrimage, snap the play, make a long pass, and throw it into the endzone. Touchdown. We win.
SA: “Why are you holding out your hand?”
Us: “Ummm…because it’s traditional at the end of the game to shake hands.”
SA: “Yeah, I know that, but so what? The game’s not over.”
Us: “Ummm…yes, it is. We just scored the winning touchdown in overtime.”
SA: “No you didn’t.”
Us: “What?”
SA: “You didn’t score a touchdown.”
Us: “Yes we did. Look, they’re showing a replay on the jumbo screen right now.”
SA: “That’s a different game.”
Us: “A different game? Look, that’s you right there on the screen.”
SA: “They must have photoshopped me in there.”
Us: “Right. Whatever. We’re leaving now. Better luck next time.”
SA: “If you leave in the middle of a game it’s a forfeit. We win.”
Us: “Tell that the score keeper. But you better hurry. He’s already left.”
SA: “You can’t just walk out like this.”
Us: “Game over, man. Bye.”
SA: “Well, then go ahead and quit. History will vindicate me and show that I won.”
