Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <What did become new under Clinton though, was the uber-personal attacks and the culture wars generated solely by the religious right.> Nonsense. Uber-personal attacks are as old as the Republic, and the religious right was responding to attacks on the culture by the left.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <But nothing like what started happening in the 90s.> The left has really stepped up its vitriol since it lost control of Congress.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> Once Bush was elected the left, who are nuts anyway, totally lost it. << He was 'appointed' in 2000 by the supreme court, not elected. A technicality, I know. He later went on to garner a majority of the electoral votes, although lost the popular vote. But none of that mattered because the supreme court placed him in office before all of the florida ballots had been counted. >> The "constant" criticisms of President Clinton and Democrats by Rep Gingrich and other Republicans were against specific policies. << Where were you? The "constant" criticisms of clinton were about his personal life - monica, hillary, gennifer, paula, and of course the other red herrings that the GOP dogged him on - white-water, travelgate, vince foster, ron brown - all of which he walked away from whistle clean. It was one of the lowest and most appalling moments the history of american politics, and clearly showed just how low the GOP will stoop. Unfortunately we now know it was only their 'opening act' and we've seen all manner of low-down attacks on decent and honorable people from a group that doesn't even recognize those qualities when they see them.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <Where were you? The "constant" criticisms of clinton were about his personal life - monica, hillary, gennifer, paula, and of course the other red herrings that the GOP dogged him on - white-water, travelgate, vince foster, ron brown - all of which he walked away from whistle clean< and you never wonder how, if you believe he was innocent of everyone of these items, there's some swamp land a realtor I know is selling.. it was a low point in many respects - from the nastiness of the personal attacks ( I agree ) - to the fact that he provided so much matrial for those who attacked him to work with.... btw - the personal attacks on Reagan by the Democrats I guess don;t count either since I am sure they were justified.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Anyone remember 'Hey! Hey! LBJ! How many kids did you kill today?' That was fairly personal. A bit further back, during the civil rights struggle, there were a few people calling names, if I recall correctly. Then we step back to the McCarthy era, where things got very nasty indeed... (although some here think McCarthy wasn't all that bad.)
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <Anyone remember 'Hey! Hey! LBJ! How many kids did you kill today?' That was fairly personal. < that was me , but I was yelling that at McNamara which is were the blame belonged -- the biggest liar in American politics in my opinion, and does that ever cover some ground
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> You're losing your grip on reality, gadzuux. << Care to elaborate, or just leave it at a snarky remark?
Originally Posted By ecdc "Nonsense. Uber-personal attacks are as old as the Republic, and the religious right was responding to attacks on the culture by the left." I'll see your nonsense and raise you a ridiculous. First though, I will clarify, personal attacks have been around forever - no denying that. But the attacks on George H. W. Bush by Democrats pailed in comparison to what the right handed Clinton. As 2oony pointed out, the personal attacks were nasty under McCarthy and under LBJ and others. But even those figures managed to avoid attacks on the validity of their marriage, while the GOP insists the Clintons remain married for political reasons, without a scrap of evidence to back it up. The personal attack on LBJ "how many kids did you kill today" at least goes to the heart of his policy in Vietnam (not that I approve of the phrase). The GOP made Clinton all about "character" and insisted he had none. Then they drudged up personal issues that had nothing to do with his policies to prove their point. Quite a different thing than what happened to Reagan or Bush, Sr.
Originally Posted By gadzuux Or what happened to john kerry and max cleland - both decorated war heroes who were cynically portrayed at treasonous traitors, and by men who never even bothered to serve in the military. Yet bush is now considered a "war hero" to some - the gullible ones. What do these perpetrators even know about honor, integrity, or even decency?
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <The GOP made Clinton all about "character" and insisted he had none. Then they drudged up personal issues that had nothing to do with his policies to prove their point. Quite a different thing than what happened to Reagan or Bush, Sr.< Reagan's supposed senility as well as a fair amount of digging into his divorce also to me are very personal .....no ? Bush Sr I will agree took very little nasty personal stuff -- I think they were al afraid of Barbara - LOL ! The issues with Clinton is he left a trail of issues very near the surface everywhere, in fact I really believe he got somewhat of a pass on the two bimbo's before Monica -- yes they were news but they were before he was President, but you can't be proud of those can you ? The Monica thing took on a life of it's own because HE LIED TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC ON TV .......he didn;t do that with the ones before that. The last President who lied to the public on TV left office in disgrace...so let's not pretend he is some model citizen...in fact had he admitted what he had done without lying to me in TV -- I would have put Monica in the same boat with the other 2. It was the flat out denial that made me not want to trust him any more, not the marital infidelity. Doesn't the deinal on TV mean anything ?
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Doesn't the deinal on TV mean anything ?>> Well, in my opinion the questions should never have been asked. Rather than lying he SHOULD have said "That is a personal issue I will not discuss with anyone other than my wife" and left it at that. Pity that he didn't.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 but the fact is that he didn't- and the fact that the indiscretions took place in the White House also is a concern to me-- that shows a real lack of judgement-- so I don't agree the questions shouldn't have been asked. This took place in your nations capital, not in a private setting, they no longer were private. the lack of judgement on where things took place as well as lying to the general public ( which so many seem to be willing to give a pass on - lord help us if Bush did that )- to me is an issue for a man who we all know was extremely intelligent. Lack of smarts not an excuse.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Care to elaborate, or just leave it at a snarky remark?> The wacko-left myth that President Bush was appointed by the Supreme Court has been elaborated on and shown to be false so many times that only those with a shaky grasp on reality could still believe it. The same thing is true with the statement that all the things that Clinton was accused of were strictly personal, or that he walked away clean.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <GOP insists the Clintons remain married for political reasons, without a scrap of evidence to back it up> While I do not believe the GOP has endorsed that opinion, neither do I believe there is not a scrap of evidence to back it up. The evidence might be less than compelling to reasonable people, but that doesn't make it non-existent.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Or what happened to john kerry and max cleland - both decorated war heroes who were cynically portrayed at treasonous traitors, and by men who never even bothered to serve in the military.> The only criticism I heard leveled at Senator Cleland was that he was wrong on a national security issue. And I don't believe the people who accused Senator Kerry of treason were being cynical - I think they truly believe his comments in the early 70's were out-of-bounds.
Originally Posted By gadzuux Quick google search comes up with this - ironically, written by robert scheer. <a href="http://www.thenation.com/doc/20040816/scheer0803" target="_blank">http://www.thenation.com/doc/2 0040816/scheer0803</a> >> Consider, for one, Max Cleland, who gave three limbs to that misguided war (vietnam), only to lose his Georgia Senate seat in 2002 to a Republican demagogue. His opponent, Saxby Chambliss, who avoided service in Vietnam with a knee problem, ran campaign ads morphing Cleland's image into Osama bin Laden's, implying the veteran was a soft-on-terror traitor. This is a prime example of how false patriotism can trump the real thing. Unfortunately, the measured cadence of strength tempered by wisdom during [the democratic] convention were muffled by the almost obsessive GOP flag-waving, which is fine so far as it represents a genuine love of country but too often is a cover for mindless us-against-the-world militarism. <<
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh Senator Cleland shouldn't have been immune to criticism on national security matters because he suffered an injury during the Vietnam War.
Originally Posted By gadzuux However, he SHOULD be immune to criticism that questions his patriotism - especially from someone who neatly side-stepped the same war that caused cleland's disabilities. Why can't you see that?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <However, he SHOULD be immune to criticism that questions his patriotism> Who questioned his patriotism?
