I have to give you props on “santorum-filled”. That’s genius.
Note to posters: If you don’t know what’s so funny about the above, just look up “santorum” on Urban Dictionary.
Silly me, I forgot that if something bad happens once, it’s bad, but if it has happened before, it’s ok.
One big difference is that he really was disgraced, in the eyes of essentially the entire political spectrum.
I remember the brief period in between the release of the transcript of the June 23, 1972 tape, and Nixon’s resignation speech. The House Judiciary Committee was ready to change its vote to 38-0 for impeachment on the obstruction-of-justice charge. The press had to search high and low for a single Congressman - Earl Landgrebe of Indiana - who still supported the President despite the evidence.
That’s where we were as a country when public understanding of the charges and issues was at its highest. The near-unanimity of the sentiments against him may have eroded over time, but largely because the specifics faded from most Americans’ minds, and it became easier to bullshit people that Nixon had been hounded from office in a partisan witch-hunt.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
The impeachment of President Clinton was in fact a partisan witch-hunt. And even after putting the issue before the voters in the election of 1998 (where it was THE pre-eminent issue) and being repudiated by the electorate, the GOP Congress chose to push impeachment through in a big hurry during the lame-duck session. The only people Clinton was ‘disgraced’ in the minds of were the GOP Congress, the 30% of the electorate who would support pretty much anything, no matter how crazy, and a few sanctimonious idiots like Joe Lieberman and the ‘liberal’ Washington Post editorial writers. Most Americans, as evidenced by polling done at the time, didn’t think he was disgraced at all.
Nixon was universally disgraced. Clinton was regarded favorably by a heavy majority of Americans, at the very height (depths?) of the impeachment efforts.
These two things are a good illustration of the concept of ‘opposites’. You may have heard it in your schooling. But happy to explain it one more time.
You’re so cute.
Ah, good old tu quoque. Always dependable when one can’t possibly win an argument on the merits. Also, for looking like a complete muppet.
Well, you have to admit that you don’t have much of a basis for outrage when you allow your own side the same type of behavior without a word of complaint.
What “same type of behavior” are you speaking of?
Prefacing articles about a disgraced former president with reminders of that president’s disgrace in an apparent effort to make sure said president’s foibles are taken into consideration in assessing the information which follows, as was the case with the mainstream media coverage of Richard Nixon decades even after he’d resigned. My point is that if the mainstream media is going to make a point of reminding us of a former president’s dishonesty in its coverage of him, then I see nothing wrong in Fox doing the same.
The disgrace of Clinton was on the Republican side for making a mountain out of a mole hill.
Sure Clinton got a BJ. Sure he lied about it. This was the result of a years long, microscope up the ass investigation into Whitewater which produced nothing yet cost tens of millions of dollars of tax payer money. Result? President got a hummer from someone not his wife and he lied about that when asked. Makes Bill jerk but hardly unusual.
You want to compare that to Nixon?
Really???
It was significant enough to get him impeached and disbarred.
In my opinion Clinton’s behavior exhibited a greater disregard for the tenets of law and the Constitution much moreso than Nixon’s did. Nixon merely tried to cover up some illegal activity that was unknowingly perpetrated on his behalf; Clinton on the other hand was of the opinion that he could choose to lie deliberately to grand juries and the American people if he deemed it in his best interest to do so. This is a serious offense, especially for a person who was not only President of the United States but an officer of the court as well. And the fact that it is such a serious offense is the reason why he was impeached by Congress, disbarred by Arkansas and forbidden to practice before the Supreme Court. These punishments had nothing to do with Clinton’s having gotten a “blow job” and everything to do with his intentional disregard of the laws of the land, laws which he had sworn both before the Arkansas bar and the American people to uphold.
Which one’s my side ? Warning: trick question !
SA, let’s get something straight.
Nixon went through with a massively illegal spying campaign on his political opponents.
Clinton got a blowjob and lied about it.
Which one of these things would be illegal outside of a court system? Just out of curiosity.
Your opinion disgusts me, and I would like to unsubscribe from your newsletter.
But, I suppose that, based on this and the general Republican response to the 2000 Florida debacle, you don’t really view election rigging/fraud as a particularly serious issue in a modern Democracy . . .
. . . unless someone might possibly be voting for a Democrat, that is.
In the words of one William F. Buckley, Jr.: “Cancel your own damn subscription!”
Now that we’ve got that over with, does the Arkansas bar and the U.S. Supreme Court disgust you also, for their assessment of his behavior agrees with mine.
Hey SA, as long as you’re going to derail this thread with a bullshit tu quoque, do you have any evidence to substantiate your tangent?
Neither. The President is doing it, so it’s not illegal.
Which one? Buckley or SCOTUS/Arkansas bar? 
They’re both pretty widely known.
If Buckley, here.
If Clinton, here.
How about a headline from a major news outlet that referred to Nixon as “Disgraced Former President Nixon”. Remember, headlines here.
Yeah, neither of those were your tangent.
That was your tangent. Got anything?
As far as I know, neither court has issued a ruling on Clinton v. Nixon, regarding which exhibited “greater disregard for the tenets of law and the Constitution,” so I’ll refrain from judgment.
It is some bizzaro universe, though, in which a person could honestly hold Nixon above Clinton in this regard. Though, maybe you’ve got 18.5 minutes of knowledge that the rest of us don’t that informs your opinion.