<strong>I wonder how many Presidents have snorted coke or other drugs in their life?</strong><hr></blockquote>
That isn't the question. How many members of Congress and other prominent leaders have done this stuff? Democrats AND Republicans? No one really wants to know.
Wow! I thought this thread was a joke but you're serious?!?!! Are you actually comparing Bush's past alcoholism or drug use to Clinton's having sex in the oval office? The Republicans never dogged Clinton on past drug use. It was his actions while in office. Clinton made a mockery of the office of the president. Then he lied about it under oath. If you can't see the HUGE distinction here then this thread really is humorous.
I have never heard of Bush cheating on his wife. Never. Where did that come from? I agree he most likely did some drugs...probably including coke. And while he sometimes drank too much, I don't think we as an actual alcoholic.
The point is that Bush has moved on. He has had two main transformations in his life, one after he quit drinking and one after 9/11. He admitted the drunk driving...and it backfired on Gore, who PERSONALLY ordered it be excavated for political gain. As iMax said, Clinton's antics continued while President, and even in the Oval Office itself.
This thread is dumb. The only thing Bush has been given a bit of a pass on is the economy, which is not his fault at all.
Economic Lag Theory states that new policies take 2-3 years to take effect. There is also the natural business cycle, the dot-come bubble bursting, and 9/11, not to mention Enron and WorldCom. And, with all of this the economy is GROWING at about 3% per year. We are not in recession anymore.
Liberal Democrats are going to be pretty upset in 2004, when the economy is recovered, we have made significant progress in the War on Terror, defeated Saddam and passed sweeping tax reforms. Wait till you see the thread I post about THAT election.
<strong>In an effort to raise the level of discussion beyond knee-jerk reactions, I am including an article in the Washington Post reporting on President Clinton's speech before the Democratic Leadership Council. There, he mentioned the existence of a right-wing personal "destruction machine."
<strong>Liberal Democrats are going to be pretty upset in 2004, when the economy is recovered, we have made significant progress in the War on Terror, defeated Saddam and passed sweeping tax reforms. Wait till you see the thread I post about THAT election.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Stop perpetuating this Us against Them attitude. Stop spinning things when your group of ideologues is wrong and stop gloating when your group is right. With all this f**king dumbass bickering, we lose sight on what is important: the health of the nation and the world.
Liberals and Conservatives alike...GROW THE F**K UP.
I value Clinton's ideas very highly. But I know there are others who do not. That's why I wouldn't present his word about the existence of the Republican Destruction Machine as end-all proof of its existence. In my post, Clinton served only as proof that I was not "pulling something out of my ass" as they say. So while I may not have made the case for its existence, I certainly have bolstered my claim that it [i]may[i] exist.
<strong>I value Clinton's ideas very highly. But I know there are others who do not. That's why I wouldn't present his word about the existence of the Republican Destruction Machine as end-all proof of its existence. In my post, Clinton served only as proof that I was not "pulling something out of my ass" as they say. So while I may not have made the case for its existence, I certainly have bolstered my claim that it [i]may[i] exist.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Dude...seriously...enough is enough. You and many others in this nation are acting like five year olds. Don't you understand that the people who have the power in this nation WANT US bickering like blithering idiots over what party we affiliate with? It keeps the nation quite busy and prevents us from truly ever progressing to greatness. If the economy improves because of the policy of a certain group, it isn't I WIN YOU LOSE...it's WE, as a NATION, WIN. If the "other side's" foreign policy fails, it isn't YOU LOSE I WIN...it's WE, as a NATION, LOSE. GROW UP.
GROW UP
GROW UP
GROW UP
God dammit I swear that one of these days I'm going to be driven over the edge and beat one of these party-mongers with a swordfish or perhaps a halibut.
The minds that I wish to change are already welded shut. This is merely venting and letting other people that possibly feel similarly that they aren't alone in their anguish.
<strong>The point is that Bush has moved on. He has had two main transformations in his life, one after he quit drinking and one after 9/11. He admitted the drunk driving...and it backfired on Gore, who PERSONALLY ordered it be excavated for political gain. </strong><hr></blockquote>
<strong>No. He tried to cover it up but it came out anyway, right before the election. But thanks for trying to revise history for us.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Did he? Because I specifically remember him coming out with his drunk driving story.
I remember hearing lamentations from some of my fellow journalism students and some of the faculty about how "it didn't break fast enough to nail him".
Bush fessed up to it, Clinton didn't. That's bottom line.
<strong>Bush fessed up to it, Clinton didn't. That's bottom line.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Even if this were true (which it isn't - see my post above), he still wouldn't deserve credit for his actions. What politician wouldn't admit to wrongdoing in the aftermath of the Clinton fiasco? If a decayed plank in the bridge gives way under the man ahead of you, would you continue to follow in his footsteps?
That Bush could benefit from observing Clinton's past mistakes wouldn't make him the wiser man.
<strong>Did he? Because I specifically remember him coming out with his drunk driving story.</strong><hr></blockquote>Funny how faulty our memories can be, isn't it.
<strong>What politician wouldn't admit to wrongdoing in the aftermath of the Clinton fiasco?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Traficant? Condit? On and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on...
Are you seriously acting as if no politician has hid his past since Lewinskygate? <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
I remember that drunk driving thing (we had several threads about it here, of course). Bush didn't scoop the press totally, but he certainly came out and copped to it and didn't initiate some huge, orchestrated "divide, conquer, divert and confuse" strategy.
He certainly didn't go into full-tilt "political weasel" mode or wag his finger and look into the cameras and lie his ass off about it. And then nitpick - with a serious face - the actual meaning of some very simple words like "is", "was" and "drunk driving".
I'm quite sure he would've liked the story to never have surfaced. Who would? But when it did, he seemed to exhibit a smattering of grace and appeared fairly contrite.
I remember thinking "now THIS is odd...he's doing it wrong!".
But actually, he did it right. People, regardless of which side of the fence they see themselves, are forgiving by nature. We just don't like being yanked and having our intelligence insulted.
By coming out and going "yeah, I did...", it pops the balloon and instantly rendered it a non-issue. Where do you go from there?
Which is why, to this day, I honestly believe that had Mr. Clinton just said something like "yes, I did have an inappropriate relationship with Ms. Lewinsky..." from the get-go (NOT after he was backed into a corner) things would've been very different. Not saying he would've gotten off, but his entire image would probably be very, very different.
Most people - including me - would've gone "well that took balls...I'll give him that!" and - nearly five years later - he still wouldn't be seen as "the President who got Oval Office hummers from that pudgy chick."
NOBODY (well, almost nobody...a few sad, delusional individuals) bought the crap he was selling and felt like "You smug, lying creep! How stupid do you think we are?".
It was insulting and that's probably what did more damage. People can smell a rat and know when they're being yanked. Doesn't take any special skill or ability. You just know it.
I'd feel the exact same way had Bush pulled that crap about the DUI. But he didn't. Makes all the difference sometimes, simply copping to the truth. Gives the detractors and muckrakers nowhere to go, really.
and that is the exact difference. Bush has been pressured on many issues, however he has been honest about upfront about them. Clinton on the other hand was under investigation for sexual harrassment, and then in grand jury testimony, committed perjury. He did everything he could to cover it up, and lie. I do think he's sorry he got caught, and he may even be sorry for what he did, but he demonstrated a huge lack of character in his actions.
On a related note - anyone find it interesting that had they not been elected, neither of our last two presidents would have ever been given security clearances for the White House. Okay, Bush got them when his father was president, and he might have been able to get them when his brother gets elected, but that doesn't count.
Seriously, neither of these men (or Hillary for that matter), would have passed a security clearance to be in the White House. I'm not saying that to judge them, but don't you find that interesting.
<strong>Traficant? Condit? On and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on...
Are you seriously acting as if no politician has hid his past since Lewinskygate? <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
I said that Bush (or anyone else, for that matter) didn't deserve credit for learning from Clinton's mistakes:
1) Bush was nowhere near as forthcoming about his behaviour as you people (amazingly) continue to insist that he was, in spite of copious evidence to the contrary (did you even read the post I linked to?)
2) Clinton made mistakes and Bush (sortof) learned from them. When men like Condit fail to do likewise, it reflects very poorly on them...and perhaps I just hold people to higher standards of intelligence, but I don't think anyone deserves credit for following the most spectacularly obvious courses of action laid out for them by others.
The Clinton years transformed the political landscape such that, on the whole, the average politician is without excuse when it comes to honestly accounting for their behaviour. Indeed, we are indebted to Clinton's legacy for gems of overcompensation like this:
btw, I rhetorically asked "what politician wouldn't admit to wrongdoing" and you gave me one convicted criminal serving an eight-year prison sentence for ten charges of bribery, tax evasion and racketeering, and another who stood accused of nothing short of murdering his young lover. Bush was merely covering up a DUI from several decades ago. Hardly a reasonable comparison.
Comments
<strong>I wonder how many Presidents have snorted coke or other drugs in their life?</strong><hr></blockquote>
That isn't the question. How many members of Congress and other prominent leaders have done this stuff? Democrats AND Republicans? No one really wants to know.
<strong>Quick, someone tie my knee down...QUICK!
<img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
You manage to finger-wag AND be funny (albeit in an unintentional kind of way) in just one succinct sentence!
You practice this stuff, right? When do you have time for class?
That was inappropriate.
I have never heard of Bush cheating on his wife. Never. Where did that come from? I agree he most likely did some drugs...probably including coke. And while he sometimes drank too much, I don't think we as an actual alcoholic.
The point is that Bush has moved on. He has had two main transformations in his life, one after he quit drinking and one after 9/11. He admitted the drunk driving...and it backfired on Gore, who PERSONALLY ordered it be excavated for political gain. As iMax said, Clinton's antics continued while President, and even in the Oval Office itself.
This thread is dumb. The only thing Bush has been given a bit of a pass on is the economy, which is not his fault at all.
Economic Lag Theory states that new policies take 2-3 years to take effect. There is also the natural business cycle, the dot-come bubble bursting, and 9/11, not to mention Enron and WorldCom. And, with all of this the economy is GROWING at about 3% per year. We are not in recession anymore.
Liberal Democrats are going to be pretty upset in 2004, when the economy is recovered, we have made significant progress in the War on Terror, defeated Saddam and passed sweeping tax reforms. Wait till you see the thread I post about THAT election.
<strong>In an effort to raise the level of discussion beyond knee-jerk reactions, I am including an article in the Washington Post reporting on President Clinton's speech before the Democratic Leadership Council. There, he mentioned the existence of a right-wing personal "destruction machine."
<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A5468-2002Dec3¬Found=true"; target="_blank">http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A5468-2002Dec3¬Found=true</a>;
[ 01-20-2003: Message edited by: ShawnPatrickJoyce ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
So are we to assume because Clinton said it, it's gospel?
This, from a man who lied under oath. Talk about getting a free ride.
Where would John Q. Public be right now if he perjured himself?
[ 01-20-2003: Message edited by: ryukyu ]</p>
<strong>Liberal Democrats are going to be pretty upset in 2004, when the economy is recovered, we have made significant progress in the War on Terror, defeated Saddam and passed sweeping tax reforms. Wait till you see the thread I post about THAT election.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Stop perpetuating this Us against Them attitude. Stop spinning things when your group of ideologues is wrong and stop gloating when your group is right. With all this f**king dumbass bickering, we lose sight on what is important: the health of the nation and the world.
Liberals and Conservatives alike...GROW THE F**K UP.
[ 01-20-2003: Message edited by: BR ]</p>
<strong>I value Clinton's ideas very highly. But I know there are others who do not. That's why I wouldn't present his word about the existence of the Republican Destruction Machine as end-all proof of its existence. In my post, Clinton served only as proof that I was not "pulling something out of my ass" as they say. So while I may not have made the case for its existence, I certainly have bolstered my claim that it [i]may[i] exist.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Dude...seriously...enough is enough. You and many others in this nation are acting like five year olds. Don't you understand that the people who have the power in this nation WANT US bickering like blithering idiots over what party we affiliate with? It keeps the nation quite busy and prevents us from truly ever progressing to greatness. If the economy improves because of the policy of a certain group, it isn't I WIN YOU LOSE...it's WE, as a NATION, WIN. If the "other side's" foreign policy fails, it isn't YOU LOSE I WIN...it's WE, as a NATION, LOSE. GROW UP.
GROW UP
GROW UP
GROW UP
God dammit I swear that one of these days I'm going to be driven over the edge and beat one of these party-mongers with a swordfish or perhaps a halibut.
[ 01-20-2003: Message edited by: BR ]</p>
And oral sex is, in fact, not sex.
BR, take a pill before you blow a gasket.
You make a valid point, but the method of delivery is not conducive to being received with an open mind.
[ 01-20-2003: Message edited by: ryukyu ]</p>
[ 01-20-2003: Message edited by: BR ]</p>
<strong>Right.
And oral sex is, in fact, not sex.
BR, take a pill before you blow a gasket.
You make a valid point, but the method of delivery is not conducive to being received with an open mind.
[ 01-20-2003: Message edited by: ryukyu ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
The minds that I wish to change are already welded shut. This is merely venting and letting other people that possibly feel similarly that they aren't alone in their anguish.
<strong>The point is that Bush has moved on. He has had two main transformations in his life, one after he quit drinking and one after 9/11. He admitted the drunk driving...and it backfired on Gore, who PERSONALLY ordered it be excavated for political gain. </strong><hr></blockquote>
<a href="http://forums.appleinsider.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=6&t=001506"; target="_blank">DéjÃ* vu - third post from the bottom.</a>
btw, I was more "transformed" the last time I plucked my nose hairs than Bush was after 9/11.
<strong>No. He tried to cover it up but it came out anyway, right before the election. But thanks for trying to revise history for us.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Did he? Because I specifically remember him coming out with his drunk driving story.
I remember hearing lamentations from some of my fellow journalism students and some of the faculty about how "it didn't break fast enough to nail him".
Bush fessed up to it, Clinton didn't. That's bottom line.
<strong>Bush fessed up to it, Clinton didn't. That's bottom line.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Even if this were true (which it isn't - see my post above), he still wouldn't deserve credit for his actions. What politician wouldn't admit to wrongdoing in the aftermath of the Clinton fiasco? If a decayed plank in the bridge gives way under the man ahead of you, would you continue to follow in his footsteps?
That Bush could benefit from observing Clinton's past mistakes wouldn't make him the wiser man.
<strong>Did he? Because I specifically remember him coming out with his drunk driving story.</strong><hr></blockquote>Funny how faulty our memories can be, isn't it.
<strong>What politician wouldn't admit to wrongdoing in the aftermath of the Clinton fiasco?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Traficant? Condit? On and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on...
Are you seriously acting as if no politician has hid his past since Lewinskygate? <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
--
Bush never got nailed with the drunk driving rap because he <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/Bush_Arrest001102.html"; target="_blank">admitted to it right away</a> (I stand corrected, he didn't scoop the press), very simple.
He certainly didn't go into full-tilt "political weasel" mode or wag his finger and look into the cameras and lie his ass off about it. And then nitpick - with a serious face - the actual meaning of some very simple words like "is", "was" and "drunk driving".
I'm quite sure he would've liked the story to never have surfaced. Who would? But when it did, he seemed to exhibit a smattering of grace and appeared fairly contrite.
I remember thinking "now THIS is odd...he's doing it wrong!".
But actually, he did it right. People, regardless of which side of the fence they see themselves, are forgiving by nature. We just don't like being yanked and having our intelligence insulted.
By coming out and going "yeah, I did...", it pops the balloon and instantly rendered it a non-issue. Where do you go from there?
Which is why, to this day, I honestly believe that had Mr. Clinton just said something like "yes, I did have an inappropriate relationship with Ms. Lewinsky..." from the get-go (NOT after he was backed into a corner) things would've been very different. Not saying he would've gotten off, but his entire image would probably be very, very different.
Most people - including me - would've gone "well that took balls...I'll give him that!" and - nearly five years later - he still wouldn't be seen as "the President who got Oval Office hummers from that pudgy chick."
NOBODY (well, almost nobody...a few sad, delusional individuals) bought the crap he was selling and felt like "You smug, lying creep! How stupid do you think we are?".
It was insulting and that's probably what did more damage. People can smell a rat and know when they're being yanked. Doesn't take any special skill or ability. You just know it.
I'd feel the exact same way had Bush pulled that crap about the DUI. But he didn't. Makes all the difference sometimes, simply copping to the truth. Gives the detractors and muckrakers nowhere to go, really.
Isn't that amazing? The wonder of it all...
[ 01-21-2003: Message edited by: pscates ]</p>
and that is the exact difference. Bush has been pressured on many issues, however he has been honest about upfront about them. Clinton on the other hand was under investigation for sexual harrassment, and then in grand jury testimony, committed perjury. He did everything he could to cover it up, and lie. I do think he's sorry he got caught, and he may even be sorry for what he did, but he demonstrated a huge lack of character in his actions.
On a related note - anyone find it interesting that had they not been elected, neither of our last two presidents would have ever been given security clearances for the White House. Okay, Bush got them when his father was president, and he might have been able to get them when his brother gets elected, but that doesn't count.
Seriously, neither of these men (or Hillary for that matter), would have passed a security clearance to be in the White House. I'm not saying that to judge them, but don't you find that interesting.
So I guess my chances are pretty damn slim, huh?
<strong>Traficant? Condit? On and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on...
Are you seriously acting as if no politician has hid his past since Lewinskygate? <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
I said that Bush (or anyone else, for that matter) didn't deserve credit for learning from Clinton's mistakes:
1) Bush was nowhere near as forthcoming about his behaviour as you people (amazingly) continue to insist that he was, in spite of copious evidence to the contrary (did you even read the post I linked to?)
2) Clinton made mistakes and Bush (sortof) learned from them. When men like Condit fail to do likewise, it reflects very poorly on them...and perhaps I just hold people to higher standards of intelligence, but I don't think anyone deserves credit for following the most spectacularly obvious courses of action laid out for them by others.
The Clinton years transformed the political landscape such that, on the whole, the average politician is without excuse when it comes to honestly accounting for their behaviour. Indeed, we are indebted to Clinton's legacy for gems of overcompensation like this:
btw, I rhetorically asked "what politician wouldn't admit to wrongdoing" and you gave me one convicted criminal serving an eight-year prison sentence for ten charges of bribery, tax evasion and racketeering, and another who stood accused of nothing short of murdering his young lover. Bush was merely covering up a DUI from several decades ago. Hardly a reasonable comparison.
[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>Bush never got nailed with the drunk driving rap because he <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/Bush_Arrest001102.html"; target="_blank">admitted to it right away</a> (I stand corrected, he didn't scoop the press), very simple.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Again with this. How the hell do you "admit" to something after you're already caught?