Poll: Do You Hate Bill Clinton?
You do not have permission to vote in this poll.
Yes
0%
0 0%
No
0%
0 0%
No Opinion
0%
0 0%
Yes
0%
0 0%
No
0%
0 0%
No Opinion
0%
0 0%
Total 0 vote(s) 0%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Clinton-haters vs. Bush-bashers? No contest
#1
When I hear republicans and conservatives bashing former president Bill Clinton I am reminded of, well Conservatives just being conservatives. Hypocrites. Short sighted and mean spirited as well as having short memories.

When ever Clinton comes up - and that will happen a lot more over the next few months - Conservatives start frothing at the mouth like a bunch of wild animals! GRRRR comes out of the computer...hatred and visiousness comes to the surface.

And yet when some of us bring up Bush as incompetent and dislike his policies, conservatives, droolingly say we hate Bush like he is evil incarnate - the hypocracy of the right is revealed with bright lights and bull horns.

How soon they forget...so for a reminder I present to you a wonderful editorial by Rchard Roeper - a man who dislikes the policies and incompentency of Shrub - but hardly hates him as conservatives hate the Bill. If anyone can be called hatefull it's the Clinton bashers and haters - Liberals don't hold a candle to conservatives in this regard.

Read on...

Quote:Clinton-haters vs. Bush-bashers? No contest
June 16, 2004
BY RICHARD ROEPER SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST

After I gave thumbs-up to Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" on "Ebert & Roeper," some conservatives demanded I come clean. "Admit it, you hate Bush!" said one e-mailer after another.

After I wrote a couple of columns about Ronald Reagan in which I failed to advocate placing Reagan's visage on Mount Rushmore, the dime or the $20 dollar bill, I heard from conservatives who maintained this was just another example of my anti-Republican bias.

After I marveled at Ann Coulter's bottomless reserve of hatred for liberals, I once again heard from outraged conservatives.

"Coulter doesn't hate liberals any more than you hate President Bush!" said one caller.

Do I hate the president? Not the kind of "Hate Lite" discussed in yesterday's column about the minor everyday inconveniences -- but a pure, evil hatred, like the loathing we harbor for the likes of Hitler and serial killers.

Answer: not even close.

Heck, there have even been times when I've admired the man, e.g., when he stood amid the rubble of Ground Zero, megaphone in hand, and rallied the firefighters, police and rescue workers.

More often, I've been angry at Bush's arrogance and incompetence, and I've despised his policies -- but I don't hate the man.

I have to admit, though, that it's hilarious to see so many conservatives displaying such sensitivity over this issue. Again and again, I hear from Republicans who are shocked, saddened and sickened by the level of vitriol against their beloved President Bush. Why, they've never seen anything like it. How can people be so irrationally emotional, so personal, so vicious in their hatred of a sitting president?

Right. Because the anti-Clinton movement never turned hateful.

How soon they forget

Talk about your institutional amnesia. It is absolutely astonishing that some of the same people who spent more than eight years beating up on Bill (and Hillary, and Chelsea, and Buddy the dog), are now so offended by attacks against their guy that sometimes land below the belt.

Folks, do you not see the hypocrisy at work here?

This makes about as much sense as a bully taking a kid's lunch money for eight years -- only to complain when the kid finally lands a counterpunch during freshman year in high school. "Ow! You're mean!"

Understand, I'm not denying the existence of more than a few liberals who truly hate President Bush. Whether it's an idiot singer saying Bush should have died instead of Reagan; photoshopped images of Bush and Cheney as Nazis; Web sites filled with personal insults; or conspiracy theorists accusing the Bush family of participating in a ludicrously diverse litany of crimes up to and including the assassination of JFK, there's some nasty, unfair, off-the-wall stuff out there. Even if you abhor everything about the Bush presidency, this is not the way for decent human beings to campaign against his re-election.

But in volume and variety of rumor-mongering, the Bush-haters aren't even in the same league with the Clinton-haters. I'd say that for every anti-Bushite who's ticked because we didn't find weapons of mass destruction, there were a dozen anti-Clintonites who spent a good chunk of the 1990s screaming, "IT'S NOT ABOUT SEX, IT'S ABOUT LYING UNDER OATH!"

And for every Bush-basher who whispers about the president's "unstable" behavior in the White House, there were a dozen Clinton-haters going around saying it was a "known fact" that the president was a rapist.

And a cokehead.

And a murderer.

Don't hate the prez, hate the policies

The Clinton-haters were consumed by an obsessive hatred that had them believing (and advancing) every insane rumor imaginable. If we were to believe every unfounded story swirling about, Hillary Clinton was a communist lesbian married to a drug-running serial rapist, and when Bill and Hill weren't working to bump off anyone who might expose their criminal doings, they were conspiring to destroy organized religion and/or each other.

And that's why Vince Foster was murdered. Or something.

Indeed, some of the Bush-bashing is out of hand -- but anyone who claims it's worse than the anti-Clinton garbage is either in denial or is 8 years old.

Because if you're old enough and honest enough to remember the 1990s, you have to admit the Clinton-haters far outnumbered and out-hated the Bush-haters.

To borrow an old Republican catchphrase: In your heart, you know I'm right.
Reply
#2
Yes I am sure there were Clinton haters. Personally I didn't think Clintons policies (modified/controlled by a republican congress) were all that bad. He was mediocre, of the type to be remembered with Millard Fillmore and his pantheon of greatness.

I think you are right, there is some institutional amnesia in regards to the Clinton versus Bush detractors. I am not one of them. I wonder if the democrats also remember that hate without a plan usually ended in lost elections. Something that the republicans did not put forward against Clinton and something the democrats seem to be missing in their attacks against Bush. Kerry will lose based on that alone.
"I detest the man who hides one thing in the depths of his heart and speaks forth another"
-Homer
Reply
#3
Well - if the dems can be blamed now for hating Bush - they have a plan. And if we forget the past and how poisoned the atmosphere was during Clintons term, and not put out a more positive agenda - then yes, the dems will lose this fall. but from all the mail I get from democratic causes, not all of it is negative. And while there is some of that, there are a lot of solutions being put out there on everything from Health Care to the War in Iraq.

Strong emotions motivate voters. Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gringrich were masters at this in 94'. Motivate the base but try not to alienate the masses. But it can come back and bite you in the ass...
Reply
#4
Did it get Dole elected? No.

If you recall Gingrich had a plan and that plan was what ensured a majority in the Congress.
"I detest the man who hides one thing in the depths of his heart and speaks forth another"
-Homer
Reply
#5
Yes and then Gingrich got caught boinking an intern and screwing up the following election with the loss of some seats in the congressional elections...he got his ass bit! S1

And then he resigned his speakership and left the house. But still - I watched him debate with Robert Reich and found myself greatly stimulated. Both made good points on the economy and the current state of political discourse and it was very enjoyable. And they obviously liked one another, and seem to be doing this for a number of causes and events.

If you can catch their act - it's worth the time watching.
Reply
#6
Murdok Wrote:When I hear republicans and conservatives bashing former president Bill Clinton I am reminded of, well Conservatives just being conservatives. Hypocrites. Short sighted and mean spirited as well as having short memories.

That's an awfully wide brush you've got there. Did you get it in the same place you got your giant spoon?
In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. -- Johann von Neumann
Reply
#7
I am of an opinion that we are reaping the benefits of the policies (or the lack of) US pursued in the 90-th. And Clinton contributed to these policies very substantially. Reagan managed to push the SU over the edge so it dissolve shortly thereafter, but Clinton just squandered valuable time and turned opportinities on their heads.
Reply
#8
I don't hate the guy. I'm just tired of him (that'w why I did the thread about him not going away). Right now everywhere I look it's "The Summer of Bill" in the media - that's the term they use. He remains the focus of the Democratic Party.

Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, all pretty much retired from public life except for a few notable occasion like Carter's Habitat for Humanity or Bush I's skydiving. Pretty mundane stuff. Clinton is still talking policy as though he's relevant to it's formation.

Bill Clinton will just not take his 15 minutes and head on out. As John L said the opposite of love is not hate, it's indifference. I'm indifferent torward Bill Clinton and just wish he would get off the public stage like the rest of the presidents do.
I have seen the fnords.
Reply
#9
Yes, I just voted at the top and placed it in the "no opinion" slot, because I have nothing but indifference for BillyBob. Actually, the best description of him was by E. Emmett Tyrrell. He called him the "boy President", because of his huge ego-centric personallity. In all honesty, everything in the known universe revolves around him.

And I am just so tired of BillyBob this, and BillyBob that. And,.........I suspect that by the time November 6 rolls around, JFK the lesser, will have had more than his fill as well. What amazes me is how Chucky and others just can't seem to get enough of the most self-centered Baby boomer the world has ever known. Sort of like my ex. She just loved one of those Chicago songs about being Sorry. So she believed that if once was great, 1000 times was 1000 times better. I wonder what ever happened to Dianne?
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
About Coronavirus - “Suddenly I begin to understand why Charlie gets so excited over taking a walk outside.”
Reply
#10
Chuck's posted article about Clinton-haters being worse than Bush-haters is incorrect and actually proves the point it is trying to rebut.
Quote:But in volume and variety of rumor-mongering, the Bush-haters aren't even in the same league with the Clinton-haters. I'd say that for every anti-**** who's ticked because we didn't find weapons of mass destruction, there were a dozen anti-Clintonites who spent a good chunk of the 1990s screaming, "IT'S NOT ABOUT SEX, IT'S ABOUT LYING UNDER OATH!"

And for every Bush-basher who whispers about the president's "unstable" behavior in the White House, there were a dozen Clinton-haters going around saying it was a "known fact" that the president was a rapist.

And a cokehead.

And a murderer.

Don't hate the prez, hate the policies

The Clinton-haters were consumed by an obsessive hatred that had them believing (and advancing) every insane rumor imaginable. If we were to believe every unfounded story swirling about...
Sorry, but those were not unfounded stories. Clinton was the perpetrator of the actions that caused his own downfall. This columnist softpedals the vitriol unleashed at Bush that is truly unfounded and knowingly disinformational, then repackages the legitimate complaints about Clinton's factually proven actions (which did enter directly into the policy arena) into mild gaffes taken out of context by whackos. Sorry, but the PRC did learn about Clinton's sexual proclivities prior to the waivers of regulations that gave our highest-guarded military technology to them. Following the PRC policy of enhancing compromized foreign nationals, they gave him illegal campaign contributions which just upped the ante. This, in turn caused the firewall to be bricked-up between law enforcement and intelligence gathering to protect his actions yet leave us vulnerable to 9/11. No - it's not his personal gaffes it was his Presidency and his nation that he compromised.

An article in rebuttal of an article:
Quote:The Antidote to the Clinton Revisionism
- Like the proverbial phoenix rising from the ashes, he is back, catapulted to the front pages, plastered all over our television screens, blanketing the airways.  Last year Hillary’s book was the primer for History Rewrite 101. Now we hear from the master himself, the professor of circumlocution, a man who elevated doublespeak to an art form, one who can parse language with the precision of the most highly skilled surgeon.  He is smooth as silk, soft as butter, sincere as a summer breeze. Not unlike his compatriot, however, it is a pack of lies and distortions: half truths intertwined with no truths.

Certainly he did all possible to prevent terrorism and bring Osama bin Laden to justice.  There simply was not enough evidence to extradite and bring criminal charges.  Otherwise, Clinton would have been the first to try him anywhere in the world, perhaps the World Court at The Hague. He would have done whatever was necessary to satisfy the United Nations Human Rights Commission co-chaired by Syria and Cuba. With respect to the infamous wall that prevented the pooling of resources between FBI and CIA, it was necessary for it to reach new heights during his administration. How else to impede those pesky investigators from linking illegal Chinese campaign contributions to waivers of regulations?  If there were collateral repercussions, a leader always has to set priorities.

The scandals were all trumped-up allegations by bitter, jealous, revengeful conservatives, the flames fanned by vicious right-wing talk show hosts. What about those pardons of fugitives and terrorists that were so important normal Justice Department procedures had to be short-circuited?  They were all justified. Why waste taxpayer money observing inconvenient formalities?  Furthermore, there was a presidential library to be funded.  Susan McDougal earned her pardon by remaining silent, declining immunity, even going to jail rather than testifying truthfully. Indeed, her classic honor among thieves mentality demonstrated loyalty worthy of a pardon. If Monica Lewinsky was just about sex, this was all about payoffs. 

Lying under oath, forget about it!  Those involved merely personal matters.  As if one could pick and choose what issues required truthful answers in a court of law.  With respect to signing an agreement with the special prosecutor admitting wrongdoing at the end of his term, what better time to move on for the good of the country.

The excuses go on and on with the adoring media and most prestigious book reviewers lapping it up - all with the expectation of being in his presence, receiving a signed copy while attending some lavish party.
Reply
#11
Maybe this is going to be another example of Clinton hating soon. The NYTimes book review of his life/perceived life/wishes, you name it, is less than glowing. In it,The Pastache of A Presidendy, imitating a life, in 957 pages, is sure to raise the ire of Clintonistas who will actually put forth the money AND attempt to read it. Can you just imagine the anger arising from the emotional Left after having been fleeced for eight years, only to be fleeced once again.

Well, fool me once, shame on me, fool me twice,...........................

Chuck, don't forget to run out and grab your advanced copy.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
About Coronavirus - “Suddenly I begin to understand why Charlie gets so excited over taking a walk outside.”
Reply
#12
Quote:He does a persuasive job of explicating his more successful initiatives like welfare reform...
Was it his initiative? As far as I recall he was actually dragged to it after dems. lost congress. Is my memory faulting me?
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)