I just find it kind of staggering that Clinton is out of office for six years now and Bush supporters are STILL trying to use him as a WMD: Weapon of Media Deflection. Anytime Bush does anything, they try to deflect criticism by claiming, “Oh yeah, well…Clinton did something similar/dissimilar-but-let’s-pretend-it-was-similar, and so how come Bush gets criticized? Huh? How come? Huh?”
As if Clinton was never criticized. As if he wasn’t frickin’ impeached.
How about this notion, Bushies: How about that Bush and his strutting, preening, self-righteous, holier than thou associates should be endeavoring to be SUPERIOR to Clinton? How in the world is, “Yeah, well…the previous guy was no better!” any sort of a defense anyplace other than in the mind of Bush’s most devoted and myopic supporters? If Bush’s entire approach to running for the President was “Vote for Bush–We’re No Better Than Clinton,” there’s no way he wins (I’m sorry, There’s no way he’s appointed.)
What’s it going to take for the Bushies to tumble to this? If Bush has an affair in the Oval Office and then lies about it, what’s the approach then? “Well, we can’t impeach him, because with Clinton it was justified but in Bush’s case it would just be partisan politics?”
Actually…yeah. That’s likely exactly what they’d say.
PAD
• 
What’s it going to take for the Bushies to tumble to this? If Bush has an affair in the Oval Office and then lies about it, what’s the approach then? “Well, we can’t impeach him, because with Clinton it was justified but in Bush’s case it would just be partisan politics?”
Actually…yeah. That’s likely exactly what they’d say.
No, first they’d slam the 19-year-old intern for seducing him and that it was in no way W.’s fault for succumbing to tempation.
Then they’d castigate the media for reporting on a private affair.
Then they’d blame Clinton for lowering the bar for presidential behavior.
PAD’s absolutely correct. Any president should strive to be a better example than Clinton. It isn’t like that’s stting the bar too high. Even if the next president is also named Clinton (which is about a 50/50 liklihood at this point) I’d expect them to be a much wiser Clinton than the first.
The longer Bush stays in power, the more Clinton’s administration looks like a golden age. Clinton seemed to me like a mediocre President back then, now I surely miss him.
Only one thing needs to be stated here…Clinton was able to get troops out of Harm’s Way in a reasonable amount of time…and “won”.
Rob
I just read about Bush’s new exit strategy for Iraq: Iran.
Forget Clinton … Bush II has done a phenomenal job of making me pine for his father. I was never particularly fond of the first president Bush, but his son has made it clear that we could have had it so much worse in the early ’90s.
(And on foreign policy, Bush I really was quite decent — I didn’t agree with everything he did, but most of what he did is something he did in the right way.)
TWL
well let’s remember that dìçk cheney shot a man at point blank range and bushies turned a blind eye.
mark foley the pedophile attempts to seduce young boys and bushies turn the other way.
with the bushies it’s not a question of right and wrong or what crime is committed, it’s about who does it.
if it’s a liberal they should be lynched and crucified, if it’s a republican we should turn a blind eye and look the other way and of course blame clinton.
No, first they’d slam the 19-year-old intern for seducing him and that it was in no way W.’s fault for succumbing to tempation.
It’s certainly not the man’s fault that an immodest woman is a “stumbling block”.
Of course the bush people always scream “Clinton …” whenever bush gets caught. It’s all they’ve got. They can’t defend bush, so they cry “Clinton …”.
They’re like little children who cry “he did it first!” as if 2 wrongs make a right. Which in the bushie worldview it probably does.
My question for them is, since bush was basically sold as the anti-Clinton, why aren’t you angry at bush behaving in a Clintonesque fashion? Why aren’t you feeling betrayed that bush is doing all the things you hated Clinton for?
By the way, how’s that whole “returning honor & dignity to the White House” thing going?
Wow, some pretty scary stuff there, Kelly…
Wow…I’d love to say you’re wrong, PAD. I’d love to say that Clinton was a mediocre president, that Bush really stepped up to the plate when it mattered, and that he’s acting in the interest of America.
Of course, I can’t say that. Mistakes have obviously been made, and each time they are, the Republican party has shot down even the hint of oversight, on the accusation that it’s a partisan attack and that we have to trust the administration.
How can anyone believe that anymore? How lethargic or power-hungry does one have to be to believe that Bush has another goal other than the elevation of he and his friends/cronies? Sorry, but I can’t buy into his grand talk and “just trust me” attitude. Even if you’ve been a die-hard Republican all your life, you should have some serious doubts about what Bush, Cheney and Rove’s ultimate goals are.
Just ask Gonzales why they’ll stay on and claim that they should be there. They’re there for the sake of the children.
Mary Tillman, mother of Pat Tillman, is on ESPN’s Dan Patrick radio show right now.
I’ll post a link later today if it’s available through ESPN’s website.
But she’s outright saying that the government has lied to her and her family over and over again, and they continue to lie to her with these latest reports that came out yesterday. And that leading up to his death, Pat did not believe in the war in Iraq.
It just disgusts me. Forget following political lines, just based on his record and a tad bit of common sense, I just can’t understand why impeachment hasn’t been brought up before now. Non-binding hearings with testifying NOT under oath? I guess Dubya did learn something from Clinton. He and his flunkies can’t commit perjury that way. Congress really needs to grow a pair. We already got rid of one tyrant named King George, we can do it again. This time following the laws from after the last time.
It just disgusts me. Forget following political lines, just based on his record and a tad bit of common sense, I just can’t understand why impeachment hasn’t been brought up before now. Non-binding hearings with testifying NOT under oath? I guess Dubya did learn something from Clinton. He and his flunkies can’t commit perjury that way. Congress really needs to grow a pair. We already got rid of one tyrant named King George, we can do it again. This time following the laws from after the last time.
It just disgusts me. Forget following political lines, just based on his record and a tad bit of common sense, I just can’t understand why impeachment hasn’t been brought up before now. Non-binding hearings with testifying NOT under oath? I guess Dubya did learn something from Clinton. He and his flunkies can’t commit perjury that way. Congress really needs to grow a pair. We already got rid of one tyrant named King George, we can do it again. This time following the laws from after the last time.
If Bush were caught in an affair with an intern, I suspect the majority of his evangelical supporters couldn’t forgive him fast enough – likely chalking it all up to demonic possession or something.
Whereas with Clinton (not to defend his stupid conduct, mind you) these same people couldn’t sling out their pitchforks and torches fast enough.
It all just goes to show that the universe’s three true constants are: death, taxes, and the double-standard.
This has bothered me for some time as well. What really gets me though is that I wasn’t a fan of Clinton either. The Bushies try and get me to defend Clinton, but I won’t play that game (because I feel that it’s a losing one.) Pretty sad that they can only defend their guy by pointing out the flaws of somebody else.
Let us not forget, that as soon as Bush was in for his second term, they started seeding the media to give reasons to start wars with either Viet Nam or Iraq. Of course, we are the only ones who are allowed to have Weapons of Mass Destruction, if anyone else has them, we might need to fear…you think those other countries sleep soundly knowing we have the Weapons? I don’t think so. Bush learned the trades paradied in Wag the Dog, to bring his Presidency from a very forgettable President, to one that could be re-elected. If anyone has a passport to hëll, it would be the President who uses a Christian foundation to get supporters, and act in ways as un-Christian as possible. I know there are a lot of people out there with prejudices, and I am a straight man, but everyone should have had their eyes opened when he wanted to change the Constitution, the paperwork that gives freedom to pursue happiness, and add to it a ban on gay marriage. Mr. Bush, what other freedoms would you like to determine are unconstitutional for us?
Here are some articles:
Government report says “no criminal wrongdoing” in Tillman’s death
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2813248
Investigation still leaves questions
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2813925
Submission for Tillman’s Silver Star was doctored
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2814047
Statement from Mary Tillman on the latest investigation
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2813963
Man, this is just plain fûçkìņg embarrassing, not only for our military, but for the country as a whole.
I tried to post some links, but it got held up in the filter.
So, this is the initial article about the government report saying there was “no criminal wrongdoing” in Tillman’s death:
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2813248
The other three articles I wanted to link to also are available via sidebar links in that article. One is about the investigation’s questions, one is about how Tillman’s Silver Star submission was altered, and the third is Mary Tillman’s statement.
Bill Maher’s “New Rules” commentary in his latest “Real Time” episode concluded with (transcribed from memory) “I hope that in 2008, Hillary Clinton runs for President on a platform of restoring honor and dignity to the White House.”
I’m not thrilled by Clinton; I think she’s more power-hungry than principled. But given that, the irony is even better. Frankly, at this point, Stan Freberg’s classic character Abe Snake could restore honor and dignity to the White House.
Thank you, PAD. I’ve been asking the question about the “Clinton did it” meme and no one seems willing to step up and answer it.
And Clinton may have lowered the bar of acceptable behavior*, Bush kicked the bar out of its railing and buried it in the backyard.
And of course, doesn’t even matter if their analogies hold up, so long as they can deflect the conversation away from Bush’s sleaziness and make his critics defend Clinton instead of talking about what’s going on here and now.
*But it’s not like Clinton was the first president to have an extra-marital affair, he’s just the first who got backed into a corner and lied about it. He was the first to be dragged into a deposition and made to answer questions about his sex life under oath.
Oh, and Sean Hannity is a pussy.
While I don’t disagree with your last post, Den, I’m not entirely comfortable with using the phrase “pussy” as an insult. Perhaps it’s from four years’ worth of teaching in a girls’ school, perhaps not … but I generally try to avoid using the word in that particular context, in any event.
Why do these particular conversations always come up (as it were) on a Clinton thread? 🙂
TWL
Someone give Tim a cigar!
Because sometimes a cigar is just a cigar…
I’ve always rather liked Clinton. I thought he behaved like any man (or woman) caught with his pants down… He denied having an affair. I truly believe that Clinton would have been one of the greatest presidents ever– if he could have only kept his “johnson” in his pants and if the Republicans had allowed him to breathe (let alone attempt to influence and shape America) for even one second.
But he didn’t keep it in his pants and the Republicans didn’t leave him alone— did they? So now we’ll never know.
In the meantime, we’re stuck with this guy– a man I have literally despised ever since he whined to the moderator during his first debate with Gore that the Vice President wasn’t following the rules. “Help me out here!” he pleaded over and over.
I just wish someone could help ME out here and make the next two years fly by in a wink of an eye. Hëll, I’d even settle for 10 months passing by… At least that way I’d have the New Season of Battlestar Galactica to keep me preoccupied and way from Bush’s bûllšhìŧ.
“I’ve always rather liked Clinton.”
I think of the 90s in general as a pretty optimistic and good time period all around. I don’t know how much credit for this goes to Clinton, but this decade is pretty lousy.
The question that pre-occupies my poor mund is, who cares who the president dicides to schtup? So long as the rendezvous is consensual, and the non elected participant is of age and able to make the decision, does it really matter?
Most of the best presidents were the biggest horndog skirtchasers, and most of the truly regretable ones were of the puritanical “no sex, I’m elected” crowd.
One of the exercises given out by a sociology prof at college went something like this:
You have three candidates.
Candidate A is a functionally alcoholic cigar smoker who repeatedly cheats on his wife, and sweitches political party allegiences.
Candidate B is an infirm man whose wife cheats on him. He smokes heavily, and drinks.
Candidate C is a lifelong bachelor and decorasted war hero who neither drinks nor smokes, practices vegetarianism, and does not believe in premarital sex.
Place yer votes.
Churchill, FDR, and Hitler, right?
Is wussy douchebag more acceptable, Tim?
BTW, one only has to look at how many republicans are rallying around Giuliani to see how they would react if Bush got caught with his pants down.
I 100% agree. As a republican, I hate it when people pull out the clinton tag. Course, I also hate it when Dems pull out the “Repubs did it first” tag. I think both tactics are schoolyard at best.
Wrong is wrong, right is right. It doesn’t matter if someone else did it first, or did something else wrong, or whatever.
If memoryt serves, when Bush was first elected he said there would be “a new era of accountability” at the White House. We all inferred that there would be *more* accountability. Instead, there is none.
Someone gives faulty information on the WMDs? Give them a medal! Move from firing anyone involved in leaking a covert agent’s cover to firing anyone convicted of a crime in leaking a covert agent’s cover. Have the greatest terrorist attack in U.S. history happen on his watch, then blame the former president. Use signing statements to skip any congressional laws he doesn’t like. And as the U.S. and Iraqui death toll increases on a daily basis, hurl more troops at the situation and blame any problems on partisan negativity.
I so look forward to the next president.
I just finished reading an article in the current Vanity Fair (one of many interesting articles in this month’s issue) on the six generals who dared to criticize Rumsfeld, what their credentials were, how they were all Bush supporters (one had never voted, but made an exception in the 2006 midterms), and the harm their careers suffered after speaking out. It really highlights the incompetence of the administration, and their condescension towards anyone who disagrees with them, Rumsfeld in particular.
Luckily, there’s an online version at: http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/04/iraqgenerals200704
Posted by Sasha at March 27, 2007 11:03 PM
“Churchill, FDR, and Hitler, right?”
Double Stuff Oreo for you!
I know it’s an old exercise, but the point was simple. A person’s personal habits (within reason) did not define what type of leader they would make.
In my class back in ’85, most of the people who defined the most important quality in an elected leader to be his or her “values” and “personal habits” chose candidate C.
The other one I liked was a billboard along I 44 a few years ago. It proclaimed loudly “Jesus was a vegetarian”. So was Hitler.
What defines the quality of a leader is not (again within reason) what s/he does during downtime, but his/her conduct of the job.
During Monicagate, most folks up here I know weren’t put out by Clinton bumping uglies with an intern. It wasn’t even so much that he lied. It was the amount of time and money put into the investigation.
When Bush I was running against Clinton in ’92, a big deal was made about whether or not he inhaled. The Repubs kept that little fire burning. In 2000, Bush II’s history of alcohol and drug abuse were buried under the mantle of “He was born again.”
Gotta get to wotk, everyone be careful out there.
At this point, I’ve trained my mind and body to automatically fill my head with the sound of a foghorn whenever Bush’s voice is in earshot, and to flip off his image at first glance.
Clinton never misled the American public into an unjust and unwinable war.
‘Nuff said.
“Wrong is wrong, right is right.”
Only trouble is, who knows anymore what either one is?
“Wrong is wrong, right is right.”
Only trouble is, who knows anymore what either one is?
Superman?
Who Knows?
The Shadow knows!
Mwahahahahahahaaaaa!
“Wrong is wrong, right is right.”
Only trouble is, who knows anymore what either one is?
Mother knows. Mother’s gonna keep baby healthy and clean.
Limbaugh, Hannity, and the rest of Faux News think they know. It’s whatever comes out of the Snowjob’s mouth.
Newt Gingrich seems to believe it involves the timing of divorce papers to one’s wife.
Mark Foley seemed to think it involved pages.
Ðìçk Cheney thinks it involves telling your child they are not quite human.
I think it involves trying to leave the world a bit better than you found it.
That and Double Stuff Oreos.
Is wussy douchebag more acceptable, Tim?
It’s not really a question of “acceptable” — hey, it’s your vocabulary, use it as you like. I was just expressing a bit of discomfort with the term, that’s all. Hope I didn’t offend — ’twasn’t the intent.
(And “wussy” isn’t really much better on that front, no.)
TWL
Posted by Jim O’Shea
It just disgusts me. Forget following political lines, just based on his record and a tad bit of common sense, I just can’t understand why impeachment hasn’t been brought up before now.
Repuiblican majority in Congress.
Aaron Thall wrote:
“… and to flip off his image at first glance.”
—–
Flip off as in change the channel? 🙂 🙂 🙂
Along these same lines, an excellent post by Marty Kaplan:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marty-kaplan/outing-homo-pomo_b_44367.html
– Frank
Come on everybody… you all act as if you really expect one to be different than the other. The very nature of politics dictates that the power be superior to everyone under them, but VASTLY superior to the opposition. Be honest with yourselves; the people who run the world are in no way, shape, or form in touch with the average citizen. If you truly believe that someone with a “D” after their name cares more for you then someone with an “R” after their’s, then you really have some issues. I’ve never written here before, and, in fact, found this site while goggling Peter( hope you enjoyed it!), but I have a hard time believing that people spend this much time complaining about Bush. Never mind the fact that 10 years ago, I was doing the same about Slick Willy….Anyway, this ain’t about me. It’s about the fact that we have let this country get in a position where the illusion of the common man having some say is gone. The “Haves” have always been in charge. Secret Societies and al that, but I remember when I thought that I had a chance at being something important. That’s gone now. I think that we all need to acknowledge that we live in a state of suppression. People go to jail everyday for crap, and we go about our business. Families are torn apart; perverts are online stalking babies… Sometimes I just get sick of it all. But, hey… don’t worry about me; go back to whining about the “bushies”…They are all the same, man….
“Be honest with yourselves; the people who run the world are in no way, shape, or form in touch with the average citizen.”
Perhaps not, but there are still differences between individual politicians and parties. I don’t believe in sharp manichean distinctions in politics, but the Ds have their own ideological agenda, like it or not, somewhat different from the Rs’ agenda. For this reason, political debate is still relevant.
Even acknowledging that there is a tremendous amount of hypocrisy, corruption, self-serving interests, and incompetence in both parties, they’re still not identical. If I happen to have a specific interest (for instance, gay rights), it is logical for me to support the Ds over the Rs, and to support a specific candidate more attuned to this issue. The candidate can disappoint me later, but it’s still vastly preferable than voting for someone I know carry some sort of evangelical agenda, or not voting at all.
We are imperfect people in an imperfect world, but I don’t see how that translate into “all politicians are exactly the same.”
How about cowardly sissy mama’s boy? 🙂