You would think that with “Shrub” esconsed in the Oval Office and the US at “war” against terrorism, that conservatives would have much more important stuff to do then to keep on bashing Clinton.
Why?
Is it because they believe that he got off way too easy, not just in the impeachment trial, but with the whole having what was it, 40, 50, people murdered, you know all of the usual stuff.
And why does Stephen Ambrose get thrashed about when he’s found to be a plagerist, but when Gary Aldrich writes a “tell-all” book about the early days of the Clinton WH, “Unlimited Access” and it is later found that most of the “truths” in his book are nothing more then rumors, he doesn’t get thrashed around or even criticized?
First, you posted this in the wrong forum. This belongs in either the BBQ Pit or Great Debates.
Second, Clinton is at best a polition who lies, which is nothing new. Clinton at his worst is a lying, woman raping scum who committed perjury in front of a Grand Jury. Clinton lied to the Grand Jury which I find unforgivable. He also lied to the public which I believe is worse.
I vote Republican but Clinton is not on my mind.
Clinton owned his own place in history. The books will quote "It depends on what the definition of is “is”.
I am inclined to agree with you, except for one fact. Those who refer to the sitting president by childish insults like “shrub” are as bad as those who hounded Clinton.
Yet another reason to hope for the end to the intillectually dishonest two-party system that pretends there are only two ways of seeing the world.
This has been going on since the days of George Washington. I’d give you a quote i remember from him but having a president named George who lives in Washington is making it difficult to find anything at the moment.
What grendel72 said. Funny how quickly all that “Respect the office if not the man” stuff got traded to Ulster once the man in the office changed, ain’t it.
Not really. The whole two-party system tends to polarize people’s views of politicians. Either you’re on our side, or you’re detestable scum.
I guess people can’t stop yammering about Clinton due to one of two things:
A well-considered opinion that he brought disgrace to the office of President
Idiocy
I’d say that most people who can’t seem to shut up about this stuff fall into a combination of the two. Probably about a 10/90 split. If it’s any consolation, this sort of monomania is not only seen on the right.
I think that’s an overstatement. Most liberals publicly backed off attacking Reagan once it was announced he had Alzheimer’s.
As for why conservatives can’t stop slamming Clinton, I think it’s because to them Bill and Hillary Clinton both represent perfect “liberal” bogeymen to rally the right-wing troops around. By merely mentioning their names, they can still get the faithful sufficiently scared so they’ll stop thinking and support whatever Republican candidate is running.
True. In many respects, the domestic policies of a “conservative” like Richard Nixon on such issues like health care and welfare were a lot more liberal than Clinton’s. I think that just shows how much more to the right the political spectrum shifted with Reagan.
These"conservatives" must have, at leat at one point, announced themselves to be same-such partisan-wise. Name them! Do not whistle that brushload of tar blindly, WSLer!
And you need to offer some documentation of “Clinton-bashing”
by at leat one nationally syndicated columnist/broadcasted talk-show host on what could be reasonably construed to be a regular basis. I DEMAND air-dates and hard quotes.
Then, and ONLY THEN, could I, an open-minded consumer in the free marketplace of ideas, agree that the same political bloc that spent 4 times the cost of the Louisiana Purchase to prosecute a $85,000 real estate / $40.00 stained-dress scandal so as to emplace an administration that then let $15.00 worth of boxcutters through $7.50/hr. airport security destroy 3,000+ lives is somehow remiss in its priorites.
Because it’s easier to slam Clinton than to admit the Republican party is the one that’s driving the nation into the toilet.
“The country isn’t in the dumpster because corporate CEOs were given billions in corporate handouts and used it to lay off thousands of workers – it’s Clinton supporting the welfare queens who are leeching from society!”
Philosophocles has it on the nose, though – the greatest irony is that Clinton’s policies were more moderate-to-conservative than anything resembling true liberalism. But because he wasn’t running on the GOP ticket, that made him an open target for the right-wing demagogues.
In my humble opinion (granted this post is misplaced) Clinton was a moderate politician with loose personal morals who tending to ignore problems caused by liberal special interest groups. Bush, on the other hand, is a moderate politician with loose personal morals who tends to ignore problems caused by conservative special interest groups. Both men have been attacked by ideological partisans who were more concerned about forwarding their own agenda than about whether their attacks had any relevance to their targets. However, due to the connection between corporate money and control of the media, attacks from the right tend to be much louder and more sustained than attacks from the left.
To a lot of the hardcore Republicans (like my dad, unfortunately), Clinton firmly established what the already believed… that Liberals were liars, shifty, horny, hypocrticial, ungodly, and ignorant. So they like to constantly point to Clinton as validation for their own mistaken opinions about those who see the world different than they do (perish the thought!).
Me? I miss Clinton. He was a hoot. I disagreed with a lot of his politics, but man… when he was in office, we ALWAYS had a Clinton parody on Conan O’Brien. Bush has some more political views that are more in-line with my own, but he’s boring. Except for his speech flubs, of course…
Clinton was more in line with the country on the actual issues (national health care and homosexuals in the military notwithstanding) and as said above more moderate than the Republicans, so criticism of his policies had little effect on the “silent majority”. And the stock market was booming, so they couldn’t go after him there.
Plus hard-core Republicanism seems to attract a certain personality (I’m thinking of Ann Coulter here, and I wish I wasn’t) that relishes in making outlandish statements about those who they disagree with. The same personality is found on the left, of course, but I’m having trouble thinking of someone who has said something along the lines of, say, killing Timothy McVeigh so conservatives would realize they can be killed too.
They’ll probably stop bashing him when he’s dead, WSLer, just like Nixon. The venom I heard spewed about him growing up stopped right around the time he died. * Everybody* holds their grudges.
I’m struggling to comprehend the relevance of comparing the cost of a congressional investigation in the 1990’s with a land purchase in 1803 with no regard for inflation. Also, I fail to see how the Bush administration let anyone through airport security, especially considering that FAA regulations on box-cutters were the same in the Clinton administration as they were on Sept. 11th, 2001.
Yeah, because those are the only two options available :rolleyes: