Why, Scylla, you old bugger! (blush)I didn’t know you cared! Now if only you could outplay that city boy with the guitar…
I love Bill Clinton. He tickles the living shit out of me. For the past two weeks now he’s been sticking his middle finger up at the Repubs and mooning them on the way out. You gotta give it to him, he’s a fighter, and a street fighter at that. An editorial in the Washington Post this week called him the worst person that had ever been president. Give me a break please! Just because we didn’t know John Kennedy was sneaking whores into the White House until afterward doesn’t make what he did the right thing to do, but he’s beloved! Nixon quit before they had the chance to impeach him, but he got caught red handed doing something illegal. And now people are beginning to speak nostalgically about him.
Bill Clinton is arrogant right?! Everyone has hated that about him. Well, tell me what can be more arrogant than to get half the country to vote for you on promises that you aren’t about partisanship and divisivness and then turn around and appoint right wing nutjobs to run your cabinet. It wouldn’t matter that much if you were Bill Clinton who you appointed. Because Bill Clinton if nothing else is a smart man, an interested man that is capable of learning and learning quickly. He is also not a lazy man. What he doesn’t know he finds out about. Georgie Porgie on the other hand is intellectually lazy, a delegator. And these are the people he has appointed to delegate too. How arrogant can you be to say one thing and do another. He must be a real politician after all. And I thought he was just the loser, underachieving son of a wealthy politician.
Needs2know
Personal notes aside….
Scylla, I find their complaints entirely fair. You blaze away with a shotgun and insist everyone else remain precisely on target. Have you been getting tips on rhetoric/debate from Milossarian, the Font of truly BAD Advice?
Now, to the matter at hand.
The original idea centers around Bill being stupid for blowing his chance at a pardon. Well, we’ve covered that. Beyond that, what reason has Bill to be warm and fuzzy with “Landslide” George? His criticisms are entirely accurate. The election was short-circuited by the Supremes for flagrantly obvious reasons, an un-elected president now sits down to rule as if he had won by a mandate.
Avoiding the temptation of quoting myself, Bill has nothing to gain from a pardon. But if its to happen, he wants it clearly perceived as a gesture of hostile politics, not as a warm, magnanimous gesture from the King of the Killer Needle.
(To my utter astonishment, “Landslide” George truly believes he won, that the vast majority of the people are solidly behind him, just like he believes he is a clever and successful businessman. Horseshit! If he hadn’t been Junior, those Texas oilmen would have had him for breakfast and then eaten his lunch!)
Slick Willy’s the most clever politician we have seen in ages. If he looks the situation over and decides his best course is to open fire, it’s a real good bet that he’s right.
More power to him.
I do not wish to seem ungracious, or unkind, but what the hell? Do you think I have been living under a rock for the last few months? The recap about the election was not really necessary. I have been watching the news. I was actually aware of all the events of the election when I wrote my previous post. Yeah. Really. I already knew about the whole thing in Florida. 
I am not ordinarily terribly concerned about what this pundit or that pundit says. But I found it quite telling that someone was able to predict Clinton’s classless behavior so far in advance. And yes, I still think it is classless behavior. He said things that were divisive, and he also broke a long-standing tradition among Presidents. I am sure Bush Sr. felt like Clinton’s behavior in office was “unprecidented”, (certainly there were a lot of “firsts”) and I’m sure he had many opinions on the whole thing. But he kept his mouth shut.
Well, elucidator was kind enough to cover the Pardon aspect of Bill’s comment.
The comment is still ill-advised as to the lack of class it shows. Especially as it:
a. Goes directly against Al Gore’s request in his concession speech.
b. Seemingly disingenuous as Bill did nothing to rectify this injustice while it was going on and only choose to complain about it after the fact.
c. as has been addressed, it's unpresidential.
As President, it is his duty to represent the entire country, and not insult the half that voted differently.
d. poor sportsmanship. As any half-wit pro football player knows, you fight as hard as you can during the game, but once the game is over, you don't bad mouth the other team. Especially if you lost. You don't get on National TV and bitch aboput the umpire's calls.
It seems obvious that we would expect at least this much class from our President, since we seem to get it from Pro athletes without a tenth the schooling or experience.
It is also traditional, and just basic common sense that the outgoing President doesn’t abuse or sabotage the incoming President.
I can’t resist this Gummi bear though
elucidator:
and who do you suppose is going to be our next President?
Oh, like it would have made you happier if he had tried to step in while it was going on?!?! Okie-dokie.
He didn’t insult those who voted for W. See, he would have insulted those who voted for W. if he said, “I think you had to be a moron to vote for that guy.” Alas ;), he didn’t say anything of the sort. He just correctly noted that the election came down to a contest about whether or not ballots should be hand counted and Bush won the election by getting the hand count stopped.
Not like it doesn’t happen. But, Scylla, politics and government is not a game. It is an on-going process. The reason people are complaining even after the election is over is that there is political advantage to be gained from reminding everyone that Bush does not have a mandate to appoint extremists to positions of power. Now, this use of political advantage may bother you, but since people on the Rep side such as Tom DeLay sent minions down to Florida to stage a “bourgeoise riot” in the Miami-Dade Board of Elections office, I don’t think you have much right to whine about the cynical use of political advantage. (By the way, that phrase in quotes is, I believe, from this guy Paul Gigot from the Wall Street Journal who is no liberal–pinko journalist.)
I think you folks are blowing this one little comment that Clinton made way out of proportion. [But, yosemitebabe, I am happy to have you back on the other side … I found myself in entirely too much agreement with you when you were arguing against Lizard in that “Short guys” thread. It was sort of scaring and confusing me! ;)]
yosemitebabe replies to my attempt to show the unprecedentedness of the current situation:
"*I do not wish to seem ungracious, or unkind, but what the hell? Do you think I have been living under a rock for the last few months? *
Actually, for all I could glean from your post you spend most of your time reading Cosmo and watching “Buffy the Vampire Slayer.” But I will bear in mind now that I’m in the presence of a sophisticated political intellect. 
"I have been watching the news. I was actually aware of all the events of the election when I wrote my previous post. Yeah. Really. I already knew about the whole thing in Florida. :)"
I don’t mean this to be ungracious and I say this with all my heart. Your remarks did not seem like those of a person who was tuned into the gravity of the affair. For one thing, your analogy between Bill Clinton now and George Bush during the Monica scandal is offbase. Since it’s not clear that Gore has a political future, Clinton remains the de facto head of the Democratic Party. (There have been several articles on this point. None of the Democrats in the legislature has the profile yet to replace Clinton.) The exact opposite was true of George Bush Sr.in 1999 who, as a one-term president whose most memorable act was puking in Japan, was so far from the head of the Republican Party that probably very few stations would have even wanted to air his opinion. Why would they bother when we had Trent Lott and all the rest of those moral crusaders in the legislature to do the job? So it’s ridiculous to applaud George’s Bush’s having kept silent on the matter when he was not in the limelight and several higher profile Republicans were yammering about it day in and day out.
And yes, I still think it is classless behavior.
Fair enough. To be honest, the word “classless” just doesn’t register for me. Usually I try to set my sights a little higher than “classiness” or showmanship but, on this one, I’m with needs2know. Clinton showed his trademark shrewdness and snake-oil charm. Under the circumstances–about which you are, of course, an expert ;)–you can almost love the guy.
As I have belabored, Slick Willy makes entirely politcal decisions. Likely, he doesn’t regard Gore as the standard-bearer. Likely, he regards himself as the Guy. Betcha, he has a successor in mind.
Oh, sure. Youbetcha! If Bill used his presidential power like the Supremes did, Scylla would have been screaming bloody murder on this very board! What would you have Slick do? Call out the National Guard to sieze the ballots? I can just hear you now “Jackbooted…liberal nazis…raw power coup d’ etat”
It’s his duty not to speak his mind? Huh? He said the Republicans didn’t win the popular vote and likely didn’t win the electoral vote. This is a valid political opinion, not an insult. Besides which, its bleeping true!
Once again, Scylla cynically disparages our Boys of the NFL, calling them half-wits! See how he disdains everything that is Truly American…
Sportsmanship, jo mamma! This ain’t the NFL, this is politics! Politics is dead serious business, for all its absurdity. The Bushwackers played dirty, did it with a straight face and we’re supposed to bow to the dignity of the office? Bush and Co. denigrated the dignity of the office by their pursuit of it, you can hardly accuse Clinton of degrading the office by pointing out that fact.
It case you missed it, Cousin Scylla, that’s exactly what is annoying me so much! I really shouldn’t have to point this out.
jshore:
No, I would not have liked it. However, once you make the decision to not get involved in the process, you are a whiny wheeny (technical term,) for bitching about it after the fact. Why is this difficult to understand?
When did he say this?
I see, so political expediance justifies reprehensible personal ethics? What exactly is this advantage that is worth prostituting oneself for?
I guess this is the obligatory cheap shot. Except it’s tired and it’s old, and it’s false. I’ve seen it repudiated in several previous threads. I’m sure you read them (since you participated,) and I’m sure you understand why it is bullshit. Yet you’ve chosen to post this execrable falsehood anyway as an alternative to thoughtful discourse.
Possibly. Perhaps we would have gotten over it a lot quicker had somebody actually agreed that it was a shitty thing to do instead of trying to turn it around into an attack on Republicans, the election, The Supreme Court decision, Dubya, his appointments, the environment, and the externalized costs of gummi bears.
The knee-jerk stonewall political rhetoric of never give an inch no matter how wrong your guy was really pisses me.
Here, watch me:
Ahem: Katherine Harris acted improperly.
See, that wasn’t hard. I didn’t have to betray my ideology, or swear allegiance to Al Gore or anything.
I just spoke the fucking truth as I understand it from my own independanty thought.
Failing agreement, why not a rational explanation? elucidator posted an excellent rationale for Clinton antagonism in the face of a potential pardon.
But this “Oh we gotta stop Dubya now before he destroys the trees” bullshit speaks poorly of those purveying it as an automatic response to any political discussion.
elucidator:
Stop it. You’re turning me on again.
Actually, I’m pretty sure Bush won the electoral vote. That wasn’t disputed, and there were no recounts.
Once again, the time to cry “foul” isn’t a month after the play is over. If there was such an injustice occuring, why didn’t he try to address it when saying something might’ve counted instead of just taking a cheap-shot after the fact?
Why? Because it’s bullshit, and he could get away with it now, but he would’ve been called on it then.
So you can read my mind, from a few sentences, and decide I really need your education on the matter? Gee thanks. Do you go up to people on the street and give them long droning lectures because you feel that they “need” to hear your wisdom? Because frankly, you kind of remind me of that kind of person. No offense, or anything.
I never mentioned Monica.
[quote]
Fair enough. To be honest, the word “classless” just doesn’t register for me.
[quote]
Fair enough. It does with me.
I have a lot of respect of needs2know, but we haven’t ever been on the same side of this political issue, so I am not surprised that we are not in agreement now.
If you admire and respect that quality, fine. Under the circumstances, I still do not.
Not me. Speak for yourself, and please, while I do appreciate that you are just trying to educate silly, vapid li’l old me, please try not to be so obviously condescending. Of course, I figure you are a pretty smart person, therefore, you knew you were being obviously condesceding.
Damn. The first time I’ve messed up the code like that.
mmm, the supreme court act was completely justified and unpartisan:)
I just don’t follow the logic here. I think Clinton made the right decision in staying out of the fray at the time, because as President it would be unseemly to be seen as trying to influence the outcome. But, I am sure he was biting his tongue and, now that it is over, he is finally able to make some rather mild comment on it.
Well, in all honestly Scylla, if this claim was ever repudiated, I missed that. If you can tell me where, I will gladly go check it out and retract it.
You’ve got the gummi bears parts wrong. The externalities go the other way with gummi bears … If you eat gummi bears, you are happier and nicer to everyone around you and everyone benefits from your purchase. That is why I, as Pres, would subsidize gummi bear production!
Actually, if you would go back and look at my posts during the whole election saga, I think you will find that I was very measured in what I wrote. E.g., while I argued to high heaven against the claims that most of the votes for Pat Buchanan in PBC were not mistaken votes, I admitted that I was not sure that anything could or should be done to mitigate this. And, in fact, when people posted and said, “Why can’t they just revote the county?” I explained why I felt that such a solution was “problematic” (to quote the word I think I used).
I also admitted at the time before the case came up for a hearing to not understanding whether or not the Seminole County allegations were serious enough to warrant remedy. And, I said that, without getting the chance to see the ballots and play around with the voting machines, I was not sure exactly what a reasonable standard was for the chads in the hand count.
And, at around the time the second FSC ruling came down (I think), I wrote that I found the logic of all the opinions in the case to be pretty tortured.
Besides which, in this thread, I have argued that while the claim that the Republicans won the election by having the hand recounts stopped is factually true, the claim that the Republicans were right in having the hand counting stopped in Florida is not a priori an indefensible position, even if I may disagree with it. (And, also that it is not clear whether or not they would have also won even if they had not succeeded in getting the count stopped.)
That, to me, doesn’t seem like too short a list on one subject for someone who it is claimed engages in “knee-jerk stonewall political rhetoric”! (But, I will admit that I can sometimes go off the rhetorical deep-end a bit when I get riled up by you conservatives!)
yosemitebabe:
"So you can read my mind, from a few sentences, and decide I really need your education on the matter?"
Actually, I gave up mind-reading when I quit selling snake oil ;). Seriously, yb, I was doing my best to make sure we were on the same virtual page. I know that if I’d taken your position in a case like this, I would have indicated that I understood how the other side might feel. Things are very different right now than they were when Bush handed over the keys to Bill Clinton. If that’s not sufficient grounds for you to justify Clinton’s political move–on grounds of class, or any other grounds–so be it. I gather you’re a Republican anyway and you’re entitled to your opinion in any case. But your post would have sounded a lot different to me had you said something like “In spite of all the controversy, I still think that…”
"Speak for yourself, and please, while I do appreciate that you are just trying to educate silly, vapid li’l old me, please try not to be so obviously condescending.
Obviously condescending? Oh dear–just when I thought I had perfected my subtly condescending tonal assault.
yb, I’m not trying to educate you. I’m trying to debate a point with you. Lighten up and stop feeling so persecuted. If the episode with Chronolicht a few weeks back was any sign, you have a tendency to turn political differences into petty personal squabbles. I’m not interested.
jshore:
It was all over the news. They interviewed the guys that were counting chads, and they said that it was ridiculous. The demonstration was no big deal, nobody felt intimidated or afraid, and any illusions to the contrary are pure political posturing.
I can appreciate that. I think you could have done this without going into details that I was well aware of (having the possession of a TV, and a computer.) In essence, you could have made your “explanation” quite a bit shorter.
I’ve been on this board for a while, and I daresay most people here are aware that I am already familiar with the controversy surrounding this issue. I have participated in multiple threads about it on this forum. My post was brief. Had I wanted to take more time writing it, I probably would have added some mention of the controversy. I figured most people here were aware that I KNEW about it already.
Yeah. That’s it.
I generally consider myself a “centrist”. Registered as a Democrat in California.
I understand where you are coming from, but I also think you could have spared yourself explaining the entire month of November to me, by saying “Because of the great controversy surrounding this election…” Had I been unaware of what you meant by that, I probably would have asked you to clarify.
Uh huh…
I daresay you are not totally up on the whole history of Chronolicht. He has locked horns with MANY (esteemed) Dopers, for many reasons, for a while. He can display decidedly trollish tendencies. I must humbly submit that maybe you not aware of the whole picture in his case.
Thank you GOD!! 
Well, okay, whether or not this is true, it doesn’t really make what I said wrong. (I sort of expected that you were going to argue that the connection to Tom DeLay was not in fact correct or something like that.) I.e., I don’t know if it was or was not of any consequence in influencing the decision on the count there. I have heard quotes both ways. And perhaps the account of the scene was a bit exagerated, just as the Republican accounts of the purported pandemonium under which the recounts were occurring.
As I noted, my characterization of it was apparently from a quote by Paul Gigot, who is on the WSJ editorial board and often serves as the conservative balance to Mark Shields on the McNeil Lehrer News Hour when they do their political commentary shtick.
I just went back and finally managed to dig up the original article by Gigot (having previously read the quote only secondhand) and I do have to admit that while my quote was perfectly correct, Gigot (who, I remind you, is a member of the WSJ editorial board) does have a take on the whole thing which can best be paraphrased as “it was a justifiable riot given what how the Democrats on the canvassing board were doing in the vote counting there in Miami-Dade”. Here is the full article: http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pgigot/?id=65000673
To be honest, this story has a rather different flavor than the spin that either you or I were putting on it. He seems to imply that he believes the “riot” was important in getting the canvassers to change their mind…But, he also argues that the counting process as it was going was very flawed. So, take from it what you will.
In the interests of balance, here is another “take” on the whole thing from an admittedly left-of-center source: http://www.salonmag.com/politics/feature/2000/11/28/miami/
Scylla, jshore: FWIW, here is the way the NYT characterized the event in their 12/21/00 article
“GOP’s Depth Outdid Gore’s Team in Florida.” (No point in posting the link as the story must be gotten from the archives for $2.50 a pop.)
“In many ways, all the forces of mobilization converged…when the Miami-Dade canvassing board abruptly shut down its manual count, in the very county where Mr. Gore’s advisers believed he could win the elction. The extent of Republican organization was on display here. Two Republican members of Congress had gone on the radio urging listeners to head for the county government center and join the protest. A recreational vehicle, turned up by Mr. Bush’s campaign, was set up outside to provide a stream of fresh T-shirts and placards to the hundreds of demonstrators who chanted and yelled in the very room where the votes were being counted.”
"The canvassing board headed upstairs to perform the manual recount. Even from there, Mr. Leahy said, he could hear the shouts and the pounding on the doors and windows below. When the board returned downstairs, Mr. Leahy noted that many of the demonstrators were the same Republicans who had been methodically filing ballot protests over the previous two days.
“Mr. Leahy said he was not swayed by the tumult but instead was weary by a realization that it would be impossible to count the disputed ballots in time for a deadline set by the court…”
Make of that what you will.
yb, well, if I’d know you were from California…
elucidator, the almighty intellect, the Great Debator, doesn’t like me? How ever shall I survive?
Mandelstam: Your characterization of the events of a few months ago was priceless. Bravo! Bravo!
**
There’s something to be said for all of what you are scornfully referring to, however. Both were more discreet, more careful, more … presidential.
Granted, Kennedy benefited from a press corps that was hands-off on the subject. But I’ve also seen White House reporters from that day on TV in recent years saying, “If I’d known about it, I would have reported it.” They may be just trying to make themselves look better now, certainly.
And yes, Nixon almost caused a constitutional crisis in his last days, when the megalomaniac was trying to hold on to his power, but at the end of the day, he did the correct, right, presidential thing, and resigned.
Clinton got caught being very undignified, dishonorable and unpresidential. The unspoken rules of past presidencies indicated he should have resigned. He thumbed his nose at this and didn’t.
The unspoken rules then said he should resign rather than drag the country through an impeachment and its hearings (particularly when the impeachable act is not in question, only whether you should be kicked out for it). Again, he decided his grip on power was more important, and thought of himself.
Clinton’s lowered the bar. Terms like “honor,” “integrity” and “responsibility” don’t seem to matter all that much to him.
And if you want to paint that as a partisan issue, you’re daft. I can rattle off many Democratic Senators for whom I have great confidence that those terms mean a lot; and for whom I have great confidence they would have handled the above scenarios in a non-Clintonian fashion – or wouldn’t have put themselves in those positions at all.
All that said, is anyone really surprised that Clinton is being unpresidential in his comments regarding his successor?
I’m sure he’ll lower the bar on being an ex-president as well.