The Evil Genius Posted August 22, 2003 Share Posted August 22, 2003 Interesting take from FoxNews.com.... http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,94666,00.html Some Things in Common Thursday, August 14, 2003 By Radley Balko It should be of no surprise that a couple of weeks ago, President Clinton came to President Bush’s defense with respect to the flap over whether or not Iraq attempted to purchase uranium (search) from the African country of Niger (search). Newsweek reported that the current president’s advisers carefully added language attributing the uranium accusations to the British, thereby enabling the president to make a statement that was true on its face, but that would lead those of us listening to draw false conclusions. It was the kind of word-parsing we had become familiar with hearing from our former president, so it’s really not surprising that Clinton would come forth with some begrudging respect for his successor. It was also not surprising because our current president and our former president are beginning to show some striking similarities. A recent poll by the New York Times (search) shows that while President Bush still enjoys generally popular support on the whole, there is a deep, seething hatred for him among the far left. This isn’t mere disagreement or a divergence of viewpoints on policy; it’s acidic, and it’s personal. In fact, it’s the very same kind of deep-seeded loathing that the far right had -- and still has -- for President Clinton. Clinton was hated by the far right (search) because they found him morally unfit for the office of the presidency. A common refrain among conservatives was that President Ronald Reagan (search) so respected the honor of the presidency that he never removed his suit jacket while in the Oval Office. Clinton, we all know, removed far more than his jacket. The right thought Clinton a moral midget, and so developed an unrelenting, gnawing disdain for the man, and for the idea that he could have somehow found his way to Washington. Similarly, Bush is hated by the far left (search) because they find him intellectually unfit for the office of the presidency. We heard throughout the campaign how he lacked the intellectual curiosity we should all be looking for in our policy makers. We have since seen Bush's malapropisms (search) and mis-turns of phrase regularly rehashed and replayed on late night television. The left thinks Bush an intellectual midget, and so has developed an unrelenting, gnawing disdain for this man, and for the idea that he could have somehow found his way to Washington. The similarities go on. Both former President Clinton and our current president also present a kind of philosophical paradox. Each man commands huge support among his respective base. President Bush can count on strong support from conservatives in the election ahead, just as President Clinton didn’t need to worry about strays from the left in 1996 (unlike Al Gore (search), who lost disgruntled leftists to Ralph Nader (search)). Likewise, each man knows that about 15-20 percent of the electorate positively loathes him. And yet neither really embraces policies that should inspire such vehement feelings from either side. President Clinton was a “triangulator.” (search) He chose his policies carefully, so as not to upset the fat part of the philosophical bell curve. When his proposal for universal health care grew unpopular, he dropped it. He offended his gay supporters when he embraced “don’t ask, don’t tell.” He took on Sister Souljah (search). President Bush, while promising not to “govern with polls” in the campaign, has done precisely that. Much as he is despised by the left, it is President Bush’s political strategist Karl Rove (search) who prevents him from straying too far rightward. Consequently, the president has decided to postpone any serious discussion about Social Security reform (search) until his second term. Rather than veto a wasteful, gargantuan prescription drug benefit (search) that pretty much everyone in Washington knows is doomed to failure, President Bush knows that seniors vote in droves, and so he has promised to sign it. In fact, you could make a convincing case that President Clinton was in fact more conservative than President Bush has been so far, which makes the intense loyalists and detractors of each all the more perplexing. On free trade, President Clinton wooed union leaders and union members while simultaneously opening huge new channels of free trade (through NAFTA (search) and GAT (search)), which unions vehemently opposed. President Bush talked free trade up in his campaign, but has largely been a disappointment, having signed a disastrous farm subsidies bill (search), and upheld protectionist tariffs (search) on steel, lumber, catfish and computer chips. In his first two years in office, President Bush has increased federal spending (search) considerably more than President Clinton did in his first two years, even after adjusting for defense and homeland security. President Bush talked much in his campaign about education choice (search), but in the end, signed an education bill President Clinton would have been proud of -- one that increases, not decreases, federal involvement in primary and secondary schooling. On civil liberties (search), President Bush has certainly upheld his conservative credentials. But even here, it’s hard to see where he’s been that different than President Clinton. One can’t imagine former Attorney General Janet Reno (search) -- architect of the Waco (search) disaster -- showing any more post-Sept. 11 deference to the Bill of Rights (search) than Attorney General John Ashcroft (search) has. Foreign policy? Both men dropped bombs on Iraq and Afghanistan. President Bush is about to send a “humanitarian” military mission into Liberia (search). President Clinton sent one into Somalia (search). Both were/are interventionists (search). When President Bush’s father first ran for president in 1988, Democrat Ann Richards (search) delivered a famous (if borrowed) line at the convention of his opponent, Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis (search). Addressing feminist issues, Richards said, “Ginger Rogers did everything Fred Astaire did, only backwards, and in high heels.” You might say that today, President Bush is doing many of the same things President Clinton did, only backwards, and in cowboy boots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted August 22, 2003 Share Posted August 22, 2003 I must say that was a damn good piece. It was right on In fact, you could make a convincing case that President Clinton was in fact more conservative than President Bush has been so far, which makes the intense loyalists and detractors of each all the more perplexing. Indeed. Actually there is one thing I disagree with the piece. I find that Clinton's base was far more loyal than Bush's base. A lot of conservatives are by no means happy with Bush. I think in general democrats are more loyal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted August 23, 2003 Share Posted August 23, 2003 Clinton's base has no ethical foundation whatsoever. Their true moral cowardice shone through like a beacon of inequity during his whole presidency. That is why we must no longer listen to them and must fight them at every edge and corner. The time for "reverse extremism" has arrived!!!! FFFF Clinton and his entire base. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEF Posted August 23, 2003 Share Posted August 23, 2003 Bush's base has no moral foundation whatsoever. Their moral hypocrisy has shone through like a beacon of inequity during his whole presidency. Blah blah blah, blah blah blah blah. Blah. Blah blah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soliloquy Posted August 23, 2003 Share Posted August 23, 2003 Originally posted by The Evil Genius President Bush is about to send a “humanitarian” military mission into Liberia. President Clinton sent one into Somalia. Actually, Herbert Walker Bush sent the troops into Somalia. The "Blackhawk Down" incident occured under Clinton's watch, but Bush elder first sent the troops there in 1992. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJWatson3 Posted August 23, 2003 Share Posted August 23, 2003 very right soliloguy... it was Bush 1's welcoming present. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted August 23, 2003 Share Posted August 23, 2003 sfrench...twinkle twinkle little star...when we find out where you are....nice to have you back....we missed your pointed barbs.......you are what you abhor: that's the real humor in all of this! chilled out after your little tiff from a week ago? been a bad boy? feeling more "at ease with your good self" now? well.......others can cyber stalk as well..... bahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahaha we're waiting!!!!! edit edit edit missssspeelllll misssssspeeeeeel bahahahahahahahahaha where are you? come out, come out wherever you are. she wore Blue Velvet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEF Posted August 23, 2003 Share Posted August 23, 2003 fan- Off your meds again? :laugh: Yeah, I let your ideological twin brother Kilmer get under my skin with his clown act. The difference between you and him is that you have the intelligence to not act like a clown but you choose to do so anyway. I guess it makes up for the whole "lack of a good argument" thing. If that's how you have fun it's fine by me. If it would make you happy I can put a red ball on my nose and adopt your tactics. It sure takes a lot less thought and effort. But you already know that, don't you? Since about 75% of the posts "from the right" around here are nothing but trolls anyway, it really wouldn't change the quality of the debate one bit. Naw, I think I'll still "attempt" to discuss topics without resorting to the tactics of your kind. That's more fun for me. Obviously, there is only so much a man can take before he resorts to his base instincts. So, I can't promise I'll never be out there with you wearing big ole shoes. But I'll do my best to avoid that. For some reason they are blocking this site on our net at work but I'll attempt to keep up with all of your pearls of wisdom. Keep on trollin'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted August 24, 2003 Share Posted August 24, 2003 sfrench....you're the one! please........you flatter yourself. I'll return one complement and no more: you obviously are endowed with a higher level of intelligence. but your preferred tactic is well established. you haven't laid out any extended arguments - at least ASF did that. you wait in the bushes (no pun intended), piano wire in hand, spy an argument you don't care for (really not even argument but small facts) and then spring with some sarcastic factual corrections ranging from the trivial (e.g., spelling) to the substantive (e.g., interpretations of court decisions following the Fla debacle). i have seen next to nothing from you that takes the lead in laying out a position - it is all derivative. but this is symptomatic of how the left argues generally. have at it! blast away. i'll continue to troll and plant pearls of non-wisdom as I chose: that is how business is done on this board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted August 25, 2003 Share Posted August 25, 2003 Clinton's base has no ethical foundation whatsoever. Their true moral cowardice shone through like a beacon of inequity during his whole presidency. That is why we must no longer listen to them and must fight them at every edge and corner. The time for "reverse extremism" has arrived!!!! FFFF Clinton and his entire base. Bush's base has no moral foundation whatsoever. Their moral hypocrisy has shone through like a beacon of inequity during his whole presidency. Blah blah blah, blah blah blah blah. Blah. My 10 year old used the tactic on me the other day. You'll have to do a little better to swim in this pond, sfrench. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted August 25, 2003 Share Posted August 25, 2003 Ahh Sfrench, you couldnt leave well enough alone. Well I'll tell you something you ignorant backwoods piece of crap. You and your ilk are the problem in this country. You offer nothing to the discussion but the whining cries of a little *****. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo-toni Posted August 25, 2003 Share Posted August 25, 2003 While all of you are busy name-calling.... Both of these Presidents are essentially Nixonian reincarnations - Speak all the rhetoric vis a vis your party's ideological stance, whilst legislating in your opponent's court. Tricky Dick wanted to be loved like Kennedy, but also wanted to scoop up all of George Wallace's supporters. So he railed against racial preferences and preached getting tough on crime; while he passed the most sweeping racial quotas ever into law and expanded the welfare state far beyond anything LBJ had proposed. The reason Bush is further to the left than Willie is because today's Congress is even further to the left than the 80s Dems were, whereas Clinton tried to bulldoze an ultra left-wing agenda his first 2 years, but then astutely realized (with the help of Dick Morris) it was going nowhere and allowed a fiscally conservative congress to dictate policy. Still, an objective observer would have to give Slick Willie mega-kudos for his work on finalizing GATT and NAFTA, even when most of his own policy advisors were against it. Furthermore, W's petty animosity towards NAFTA expansion following the UN Iraq resolution mess is not doing us any good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted August 25, 2003 Share Posted August 25, 2003 Ive consistently given Clinton props for NAFTA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief skin Posted August 27, 2003 Share Posted August 27, 2003 They are both WHORES at least Clinton had a working economy. W and daddy don't have a clue or have any advisors who know economics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.