New line: "People hated Clinton, too. You can deal with * for 8 years."

This line is becoming familiar: "A lot of people hated Clinton, too. If we could deal with Clinton for 8 years, you can deal with B* for 8 years." As if it's all the same, it's all "fair," it's all equal.

Is my viewpoint skewed, or is there a huge difference there? People hated Clinton as a person for whatever reasons, but his policies left the country in better shape than it was when he took office. Did they hate lowered unemployment and crime, did they hate economic growth and balanced budgets, did they hate investment in education, urban renewal, veterans, children, etc...? What about his policies were so hated?

People hate Chimp, but it is because we hate his policies. He will leave the country in much WORSE shape than it was when he took office. The dollar is tanking, the national debt is rising, the gap between rich and poor is widening, the world hates us, we're in a war we didn't need to get into, the environment is suffering, people are hurting... What about his policies are not hated?

The footprints left on this country by Clinton and Chimpy couldn't be more different, as I see it, and that's the crux of the matter. Am I right, or is my viewpoint skewed? What do you say when people try to equate the two?

"Nixon was statesmanlike and didn't unconcede even though Jon F. Kennedy stole the election from him.

Yeah, using Nixon as the paragon of statemanship is really persuasive, John! It was 42 years ago. Get over it already!

Blind party loyalty to repugs is going to kill this country.

Now they are inventing things that didn't happen to create a comparison of 'statesmanship'. Tell your cousin to wait until the official certification to see if there is an actual un-concession before he makes such a pronouncement. Because right now he just sounds really dumb.

WTF?

:wtf:

That's the first I've ever heard someone say that!

Especially in the Chicago area. Plenty of dead people voted. The Daly political machine was known to find innovative ways to get votes for the preferred candidate.

Can you offer a concise source where one can learn about the "lots of irregularities?"

www.google.com

republican election shenanigans in rural IL balanced Chicago ones

and for us to repeat this BS is to shoot ourself in the a* while ignoring that we didn't have a real election since 1998.

After the Nixon campaign realized that fact, they decided to shut up.

It's an article of faith among reThugs that Daley "delivered" Illinois to JFK. I imagine a fair number rationalized the thuggery we've seen in the last two elections as payback (with interest?) for 1960.

I doubt that Illinois would've gone Republican even if Daley hadn't "helped" Kennedy. However, it is common knowledge among native Chicagoans that the Daley political machine was not exactly a shining example of integrity and fair play. Of course, I can't really think of a politician who is.

Should be is. The Machine is alive and well.

They're all alive and well here.

that BOTH Kennedy and Nixon were involved election fraud in 1960.

And the election results of Hawaii (which originally went to Nixon) were quickly contested and the state eventually went to Kennedy.

Nixon couldn't contest the election because he had his own fraud going and didn't want it to be uncovered.

put in wrong spot

Every single one of them.

And there is a difference between fascism and democracy. Clinton was a Democrat. Bush is a fascist.

66%, as I recall. Reagan's was 64%, for second place. Bush is currently at 49%, I believe?

Even before Ronald Reagan died, people were going on about how Reagan was the most popular president of recent years. PBS, supposedly a bastion of liberalism, even used that claim to promote a documentary on Reagan. The Washington Post also made much of Reagan's supposed popularity.

But the approval rating records show a very different story. I seem to recall that George. Herbert Walker Bush enjoyed the most dramatically high ratings of recent memory, but that was during the Gulf War and obviously faded fast. Clinton generally had fairly decent approval ratings and actually left office with a slightly higher approval rating than did Reagan.

As for Bush, the press (and a fair number of voters) cut him an awful lot of slack, especially due to 9/11. Then there's the Washington Post (What IS wrong with them these days???), which plastered the phrase "popular wartime president" into story after story until it became too obvious that Bush had enemies, has always had enemies, and always will have enemies among the American public.

I can't stand Bush's domestic policies.

I can't stand Bush's foreign policies.

I can't stand Bush's economic policies.

I can't stand Bush's environmental policies.

I can't stand Bush's educational policies.

I can't stand Bush as a president.

I can't stand Bush as a person.

I can't stand the kind people Bush attracts.

...this is one of those cases where I hate both the sin and the sinner, and the horse he rode in on.

and now they're comparing Dubya to Clinton?

That's very interesting...

:think:

Like, "He won't really do any harm; it's just like how we hated Clinton..."

At least that's how I hear it.

You guys hate Dubya for no good reason, just like we hated Clinton for no good reason.

Even if we disagree with the first part of the premise, the second part stands on its own. It means Repugs are conceding they had no reason to hate Clinton, even though we have many reasons to hate the Chimperor.

Hundreds of reasons to hate him if you count the lies, thousands of reasons if you count the dead bodies, millions if you count the jobs lost, and billions if you count the dollars wasted.

:mad:

I actually see the utterance of such sentiments as modest progress. It really does mean that some Republicans recognize that they went overboard in tarring Clinton; it takes a few years of withstanding attacks from our side to realize that.

I'm not going to tell my fellow DUers to cool it, but I am slowly coming out of my self-imposed rhetorical hellhole and just about ready to start having civil conversations with members of the opposition again (I honestly haven't had any -- not one of any substance -- since Nov. 3) and one of the first things I'll be willing to concede is that too many on my side (without naming names) are focusing on the personality of Bush that they despise, rather than making a compelling case for why his policies (and proposed policies) are failures (or failures-to-be).

I can't even in my wildest dreams, imagine ANY Republican ADMITTING that they had no reason to hate Clinton. I can't even imagine them THINKING such a thought.

Hatred of Bill Clinton is so deeply ingrained in the Republican dittoheads minds that it is in their DNA. If any of them ever even dared to utter that line, Rush would kick them off the planet. After all, they are his students of Clinton-Hatred 101.

Because the big difference is: What Clinton was being persecuted for was IN HIS PERSONAL LIFE. How he managed to continue to run the country as WELL as he did while he was being hunted amazes me. Yes, Clinton was weak and shouldn't have provided ammo for the opposition, but....I think we all know he was hunted down like a dog.

Bush's policies are bad for the country, bad for the world, and we will ALL suffer as a result of it.

We didn't all suffer from Clinton's personal problems (contrary to republican belief). The country was much better off when Clinton left office.

Now it's back to hell in a handbasket.

may have the faint beginnings of awareness. It sounds to me like "Yeah, we know he's a disaster, but we'll live through it."

Or not. Who can understand the workings of the GOP hivemind? They're all nuts.

be leading the charge of Bush Bashing. The two 'liberal' institution are the Washington Post and the New York Times. Instead, Len Downie(editor of the WaPo) spends time blasting Clinton fours years after Clinton left office. The New York Times gives us a fake ass mea culpea, 1400 American soldier are dead along with 100,000 Iraqis but Judith Miller still has a job, as does Jeff Gerth.
This country has been failed by its so called liberal media. The bastards are protected by the First Amendment to the Constituion, but they do shit.
By any rational measurement, Clinton was a good president, and Bush, so far, has been a bad one. But Clinton didn't kiss the beltway insiders ass, so he's BAD.
Justice? Don't look for it in America!

during Clinton as well - the entire movement to punish him for having won.
Us meanwhile, talk about values, how W "won" and what strategery to employ so maybe next time they don't "win" again.
What they don't say (yet) is that everything from Raygun onward was payback for Nixon. Give W 1 more year with this media and you'll hear it.
The dangerous party vs the stupid party.

personal failings demonstrated about him. Bush has NO redeeming features, whatsoever, and his cronies are robber barons and financiers of international terror who profit from its spread.

didn't put our country in danger of economic solvency.

didn't make us a walking target for terrorism which is isolated from most former allies.

didn't impoverish more Americans, didn't oversee huge net job losses for americans, didn't promote an exodus of corporate cash from the country, didn't oversee a vast expansion of uninsured, etc.

didn't hand over the health, environment and all regulatory issues meant to give some balance between the needs of corps to the health of the country straight over to the corporations - leaving us all at great economic and health risk.

didn't have the potential to create so much damage that it is irreparable.

Darn, we'd probably send a bunch to Sumatra & look into buying more armor for our troops in Iraq.

Stupid liberals. When even the known facts about Bush's past would have sunk him if the "liberal" media had thought it worth repeating.

I guess I am a long way from being able to talk calmly with Republicans.

The war just makes me sick. Republican enabling of * makes me sick.

There's a BIG difference between living through 8 years of somebody you don't like controlling one branch of government and going through 8 years of somebody you don't like controlling 2 or 3 branches of government.

or something like that.

If Bush got to 52% people would be heralding him as the great uniter.

you'd like to sit down and have a beer with." That line always irks me. It just doesn't seem relevant. On the other hand, Clinton was the same type of guy. Who would you rather have over for dinner (assuming you don't have any teenage daughters), Clinton or Kerry? Could prolly ask conservatives to choose between Sr. and Jr.

Now for my actual point. I don't think it's a coincidence that Bush and Clinton are/were hated by their opposition. I also think it was no coincidence that Dole ran against Clinton and Kerry ran against Bush. Two prudish war heroes with respected careers in the senate. The right hated Clinton so much that they nominated the person least like Clinton. An old hero who needs viagra. I cant' speak for most, but I know many people who voted for Kerry in the primary because they thought he could beat bush. They chose their candidate based on hatred for Bush, just how Dole was chosen in 96.

A lot of people want to be the charmer in the room and I for one get jealous of people who can say the dumbest thing and people laugh. Bush is that person. It isn't merely what he says that annoys me, it's that the right loves him for it. I kinda feel like the right felt the same way about Clinton.

I think I have more to say but I'm rambling...

Umm - seems to me bush isn't the kind of person who should be drinking beer in the first place.

This is the best they can do in answer to Clinton - who DID leave this country better off than he found it. Not at all what you'll be able to say about bush. In fact, bush will have left the whole bloomin' WORLD worse off than when he found it. EVERYTHING he's touched is turning to shit, if it hasn't gone that way already.

Just another pathetic excuse. Just a weak, pathetic, embarrassing, pansy-ass, chickenhawk talking point because they have NOTHING substantial to offer in its place. That's the best they can do, 'eh? I suspect we'll be have a whole library full of "clever" retorts from these ridiculous people while they struggle harder and harder to rationalize and excuse their horrendously bad judgment. Imagine this type of exchange among five-year-olds. Or spoiled pre-teens. That's about how highly-evolved this is. The follow up from them would inevitably be the highly cogent and intellectual-sounding "nyah-nyah-nyah."

And then he didn't start the process and promise to finish it!

Correct me if I am wrong, ty.

But we've had many presidents with bad policies who weren't necessarily hated. Maybe I'm too young.

On both my mom's and dad's sides of the family, in an estimate, both families combined would be and are about 98% Repug. And their reasons for liking Bushie is because Bushie boy is a "born again Christian". So any mention of that, whether it is a lie or not, they immediately jump onto that political bandwagon. And yep, sadly blindly they follow him. And one of my right-wing nutter cousin Chris says Bush's war is justified from the Bible. I asked him 'what about thou shallt not kill?" and all he could do is spew Biblical verses, pretty much contradicting this tenth commandment. Of course it seems they all wanna go out of their ways and twist the Bible to justify Bush's brand of evil giving the real Christians a bad name.

My cousin Chris calls democrats "demoncrats" and that anything that had the word "demo" in it is a demon and I called him a real fundie. I said, "So by that logic a demo cd is a demon in disquise or something evil? Okkkk..... pretty screwed up logic there". He holds the extremist view that we're all whoremongers and baby killers and gay conspiracists all out after Christianity trying to turn Christianity gay... It is so silly and stupid. Anyone else have any fundie family members who make ridiculous statements like Chris's?

This is precisely why I do not go to church. The hatred is sickening....

Clinton was the most investigated president in history and his legitimacy as the people's choice was never questioned. And though certain factions consistently try to frame the conversation as "us against them", the troubling question is are fair, free and impartial elections a thing off the past in the United States? And will the citizens ever trust their elections again?

...protesting his presence there. Clinton's administration *prevented* terrorist attacks, rather than enabling them. Clinton left behind a budget surplus, not a record deficit.

Oh, why do I bother?

Clinton, before going abroad, didn't have to have his minions force other countries to promise that they wouldn't have him arrested for war crimes!

Clinton didn't cause a state dinner in Chile to be cancelled by trying to force the Chileans to make their highest government officials go through a METAL DETECTOR before they could sit down with the Majestic President of the United States.

There is NO, NOT, NEVER, NOTHING they have in comparison!

El-Smirkle-Roy is simply a BAAAADDDDD person!!

TO US!

Sorry to shout. The difference is so obvious!

Flame me if you want, but I will admit I was no Clinton fan. But now I MISS his presidency! As a member of my family said sarcastically (after Bush had been in for a while and had begun his path of destruction, scaring the hell out of us): "Our long nightmare of peace and prosperity is finally over!"

Clinton is a prince compared to this travesty of an administration.