[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by themoon *
**
**
I too see Bush as incompetent, shallow — and credulous — but it’s not just a question of stature. Bin Laden and Hitler actively sought the death of peaceable people simply for being different: Jews, gays, Gypsies; “infidels,” period, in bin Laden’s case. I’m no Bush fan, but I see no evidence that he’s wicked, that he wants to inflict death and suffering on people just for being from some “out group.” There’s a real moral difference there, a stark one; it’s not just a matter of “stature.”
I don’t consider W’s “bring[ing] honor and integrity back to the White House” remarks uncivil. They were tactfully vague and quite mild compared to what he could have said, given Clinton’s personal and policy actions. (Indeed, principled left-wing critics of Clinton such as Pat Caddell, Christopher Hitchens, and Ralph Nader said far worse — it always seemed to me that the most cogent criticism of Clinton came from the left, but I digress.) W might have mentioned specifically how Clinton had every woman he’d ever had an affair with trashed by his flacks and leakers, and was preparing to do the same to Monica Lewinsky when her semen-stained blue dress was found — whereupon he demolished the Al Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Sudan, a dubious target indeed, in a military action where he kept the Joint Chiefs in the dark (the plant produced most of that wretched country‘s pharmaceuticals and its destruction has cost tens of thousands of Sudanese their lives). Interesting timing, at any rate. Then there was the suspicious bombing of Iraq, which continued all throughout the House impeachment debate, and allowed Democrats to question the patriotism of Republicans proceeding with impeachment against “the Commander in Chief” in a time of military conflict. Again, interesting timing. (Mind you, I didn’t support Clinton’s impeachment, just as I wouldn’t support impeaching anyone for charges based on consensual sex, but on a personal level, his slander of his lovers was dishonorable, and his military actions during the House debate bloodcurdling.) How about Madeleine Albright’s statement that half a million Iraqi deaths as a result of sanctions were “worth it”? And Clinton’s granting a waiver to import 100,000 assault rifles from the People’s Republic of China after Wang Jun, head of Polytech (People’s Liberation Army weapons manufacturer) slipped him $600,000 in campaign funds, not to mention all his “colorful” associates and supporters from Webb Hubbell to James Riady to Roger Tamraz and Larry Lawrence. And of course Clinton began his tenure by firing all the US attorneys general, the better to put in all his own people. Not illegal, but an amazing power grab, and without precedent. Aren’t America’s liberals and Democrats supposed to cared about such things?
And I say all this as someone who voted for Clinton in two general elections and the 1992 primaries. I never got those who saw (or affected to see) him as a raving leftist — he was market-oriented in economics and moderate on social issues. I find those principles congenial in Republicans and Democrats alike. But… there were some profoundly unpleasant things about that amiable rogue, things that few Americans seemed to care much about. That disturbed, and still disturbs me. Does anything go so long as the trains run on time? I guess the spate of pardons at the end of his tenure, especially that granted Mark Rich, proved the straw that broke the camel’s back, even for many formerly strong supporters.
On the other hand, W’s civility was certainly calculated: all that business about “my opponent’s a good man, we just have different ideas.” Every time Gore started to make a strong attack in the debates, W acted hurt and and complained about Gore “questioning my heart.” And Gore would draw back. He fell into Bush’s niceness trap and didn’t flush Son of Shrub out of his “vague generalities.” Gore has only himself to blame for that.
I’d compare the old Willie Horton ad to Clinton’s condemnation of Sister Souljah before the NAACP convention in 1992 (you’ll recall that Clinton chastised the rapper for suggesting that blacks kill fewer blacks and more whites). Both opportunistic and designed to appeal to the white vote. Both worked brilliantly. The sort of thing leaves a bad taste in my mouth, but then, I sometimes think I’m a bit too exquisite in my sensibilities. Because divisive campaigning works. As such tactics go, what Bush the Elder and Clinton did there was pretty mild. Clinton’s statement, and Bush’s ads (paid for by an outside group supposedly — grain of salt alert! — not connected with his campaign) went after people who had said, and done, exceedingly nasty things. (And besides, it was pretty inevitable that some Bush backer would bring up Horton, given that Al Gore had already raised the issue against Dukakis in the Democratic primaries.) Neither said black person = thug. But yes, the race of the offender was no coincidence, the suggestion being in both cases that the candidate had the guts to stand up to thuggery when it came from blacks. I suggest you save your wrath for those who make unmistakable appeals to bigotry, such as Pat Buchanan, Jesse Helms, and Al Sharpton.