I think that the dislike of GWB by dems and liberals is pretty much equal to the dislike of Clinton by the GOP and conservatives. Each seems to have become the lightning rod for the opposition.
It is true but there is a difference in investigating one president's administration for leaking the name of an intel agent while we are engaged in a war on terror where these intel agents are perhaps our first line of defense. It's a felony by the way. I would say that's vastly different than investigating Clinton on the possibility that he disignated some land to be a national reserve even though it might be coal rich. Or investigating Clinton to get to the bottom of who hired somebody else. They may both be lightening rods for the opposition but the causes being investigated are serious in the case of GW Bush, and weren't in the case of Clinton. Things got serious for Clinton once he committed perjury, and I understand the seriousness of that issue. In a legal court he might have been able to argue entrapment, but he still did it.
I can answer the question from my point of view: I'll vote ABB (anyone but Bush) this November. The U.S. president is in fact not a very difficult and complicated job. It requires a basic ability to read and write, a talent in public speaking, and a true belief in a particular set of values. This leads me to believe that just about any college graduate in this country could do this job better than Mr. Bush who has two major accomplishments during his term in the office: He divided the country like few did before (conservatives and liberals hate each other so much more today than they did four years ago) and he turned the whole world, including many of our allies, against us like no previous president ever did. He's leading our nation in a very dangerous direction. I generally identify with Republican platforms because they benefit me more individually. This time around, however, I believe that just about any other candidate would do a better job for the country and thus benefit me more than Mr. Bush even if the candidate's policies don't look the most appealing on paper. Hence I'll vote against Bush this November.
There were things related to Whitewater that were legitimate investigative targets. The fact that the Clintons turned out to not be guilty of anything doesn't mean the investigation should never have been undertaken. Of course, I think the whole investigate everything that the Republicans became so good at during the Clinton years started in the Nixon years with Agnew and, later, Nixon himself. Turns out those investigations were justified (though it took someone else pretty well proving the case before the Congress got involved). And that continued with Reagan, investigating October Surprise despite scant evidence of anything, investigating video rental records of Supreme Court nominees and anything and everything they could think of. In the end, they found something worth investigating (Iran-Contra), but there were plenty of things investigated that were undertaken simply because of politics. I just think as politics becomes more and more partisan, we'll always have the Congress itching to investigate a President from the other party, whether there's something there or not. John Kerry, should he become President, might not see it quite as bad since he's not a Washington outsider (I think a lot of people in government disliked Clinton being a Washington outsider), but I imagine he'll still get it should the Congress remain in Republican hands.
bush hatred is far worse than clinton bashing. the latter was primarily because he coopted so many republican ideas and was such a master politician. many dems/libs truly believe bush is evil and is ruining the country. they compare him to hitler and his admin to fascists. there was nothing comparable during the clinton years, ken starr's grand inquisitor turn notwithstanding.
Statute of limitations. Why investigate crimes that can not be punished? You know that there is some serious irony in the Congress investigating Whitewater and some implied S&L misdoings. The Congress would find its own fingerprints all over the S&L misdoings. In the 80s, if you needed some relieve from S&L regulators you called your Congressman and not your governor.
I don't know. Why investigate things that have no evidence (October Surprise)? Why investigate things that couldn't possibly be crimes (i.e. video rental records)? It's what Congress does. Sam Waterston can always get around those pesky statute of limitations. Surely the Congress could have if they had found anything. To be honest, I didn't follow any of it when it was going on. I've never heard the statute of limitations claim as reason to not do any investigation being brought up until now. If you say that was the case, then fine. It was all a waste of time like investigating Bork's video rentals and October Surprise. I guess that's what happens when you let the Democrats control Congress. There was certainly a concerted lack of regulation over the S&Ls that blew up and hurt a lot of people. And there were certainly plenty of people on either side of the aisle to blame for that.
I find it funny that both sides defend bashing of the opposition as fine, but decry bashing of their candidates by their opponents as wrong. What a surprise!
I honestly think a lot of the investigations of Clinton were wrong. At the time of the original looks into Whitewater and some of the related stuff, the case seemed to have been made that there was something that needed to be investigated. But there was stuff even at the time (Vince Foster's suicide, for an example off the top of my head) that were just ridiculous. But I honestly think it gets to be one of those things where because your guy was investigated, you say that the second your Party is in charge of Congress and there's an opposition Party in the White House, we're going to investigate everything and show those jerks up for needlessly investigating our guy. And there's a certain pleasure that I get from that. I mean, it is kind of fun to see the opposition supporters go on and on about how much it sucks that these investigations are going on knowing that the same people were gung-ho for investigations when it was the other party holding the White House (just like I get a kick out of Democrats suddenly being all for a fairer way to redistrict when they were so gung-ho to be as partisan as possible when they were firmly in control. And there's always a side issue that is used to justify suddenly being mad. "It's the wrong time" or "It's the fact that they're asking for membership lists" or whatever to show that the Republicans doing it is worse than when the Democrats did essentially the same thing). It's not right, and it's bad for the country that neither side can ever rise above the partisanship and attempts to "win" rather than make the country better. But I guess as long as we're doomed, it might as well be fun to watch. That's not to say that all investigations are spurious. Agnew and Nixon and even the Iran-Contra stuff related to my beloved Ronald Reagan deserved investigation. But Bork's video rental records? Com'on.
This is utter nonsense. The vitriol poured on the Clintons from the Wall Street Journal editorial page, Rush Limbaugh's show, and folks like Jesse Helms warning Clinton that he might be shot should he venture to a NC base stand above anything hurled at Bush. As an example, on 7/19/94, the Journal editorial page referneced "The Clinton Chronicles" (Falwell's despicable video about murders, "The Clinton Body Count," committed by Clinton) and provided a 1-800 number at which the videotapes could be ordered. They then ended the piece by saying, "finding no real evidence of a Clinton connection [to the murder], and feeling the President of the United States is entitled to a presumption of innocence, we decline in the name of responsibility to print what we've heard." The Journal also kept the Foster murder story alive for as long as possible, praising every right-wing hack who could prove that the bullet enrtry had to be from someone (Clinton? Hillary?) holding the gun to Foster's head. And I haven't gone into Mena, Hillary=lesbian, Hillary's affair with Foster, the Clinton's use of Blackmail, their Mob connections, Clinton=cocaine fiend, Clinton had Ron Brown killed, Ron Brown being a frontman for Chinese spies, Clinton using the IRS to intimidate opponents, WH staffers downloading bestiality and gay sex, Clinton=Manchurian candidate, Waco conspiracies, Reno blackmailed over sex, Clinton had whistleblower's office burglarized, WH phone system tapped by foreign intelligence, Clinton used male prostitutes for surveillance, Clinton had JFK, Jr. murdered, or black babies. And there are still more... Many of these found resonance in the mainstream through the sources I mentioned at the beginning and othe components of the right-wing press. When the NYTimes or the Washington Post puts something about Bush like the Journal did on their editorial page about Clinton, then we'll talk. The musings of a few netizens don't compare in kind or in scope to what was hurled at Clinton. Bush's stuff, including most of the personal attacks he's subject to, are related to his policies. Clinton's were pure personal animus and very specific in regard to his personal involvement. The only "Bush Body Count" is of soldiers who have died.
Why do you continue to allude to this myth about video rental records being subpoenaed? I've said it numerous times. Congress did not subpoena Bork's video records, nor Thomas' http://www.fair.org/extra/9904/bork.html It is a simple fact, easily checkable. It didn't happen.
I didn't say they were subpeanaed. I said they were investigated. And they apparently were investigated by someone since the paper had them and it resulted in the Video Privacy Protection Act. My understanding was that they were invoked during the confirmation process. So, it's an example of an attempt to discredit a Supreme Court nominee by using something that is entirely meaningless. Had the records showed a pornographic rental instead of Ruthless People, I'm sure it would've been an issue in the confirmation. But I admit I was under the impression that it had been a Congressional staffer rather than the newspaper that got the records (I never thought they were subpeanaed. I hadn't heard it getting that official). It sucks to be wrong, but it was bound to happen sooner or later. Well then, we're still left with the evidenceless October Surprise or McKay's investigation of Ed Meese. It really is easy to get caught up in things when they're going on. I recall really thinking Whitewater should be investigated. In retrospect, I think it was a waste of time, not only because it didn't amount to anything significant, but also the alleged improprieties really didn't seem all that significant. And there was a whole mess of stuff that didn't get investigated officially (that I know of) that were brought up in the press against Clinton that were so very meaningless. I recall a big todo about a deduction allegedly made by the Clintons regarding giving old clothes to Goodwill or something like that. I'm sure it was one of those conservative radio shows that I heard such a big deal about it. And, listen to that sort of thing enough, you start to think there's something up even if there isn't. One of the things that the Internet has changed is the ability to get a lot more information than was possible in 1992/93, etc. When even members of Clinton's cabinet remember there being a subpeana of Bork's video rental records, I think that's owed to the power of people like Rush Limbaugh who has mentioned that numerous times over the years that it has become "the truth" that everyone knows even though it's apparently not the truth. I like living in this time so I don't have to rely on the sleeping media or partisan attack dogs to find stuff out. I regret that, in the past when I didn't have the ability to do that, I allowed the "common wisdom" to become my wisdom, too. But I do think this desire to "get" Reagan after getting Nixon did exist and manifest itself in various investigations. And the Republicans took that and ran with it when it was their turn running Congress (and also is going overboard in not investigating when their guy is in the White House). I just think it's part of how partisan politics is played these days.
Well then, we're still left with the evidenceless October Surprise or McKay's investigation of Ed Meese. Ooops. Once again, I've messed up. Not McKay's investigation of Meese, but the earlier Meese investigation that didn't end up finding anything at all.
I'm glad to see my point about the separation of powers has sparked a good debate. My point is that I believe that having Congress and the Executive branch opposed to each other is overall a good thing and one that I think was foremost in the minds of the Founders. While its certainly sad that congressional oversight has become a partisan tool, if you look at the lack of it now vs the abundance during the Clinton years. Still I would say its better to have more than less. While the numerous investigations of Clinton where certainly distracting in the end government and society still did well. Numerous Clinton spending proposals were killed in Congress while radical moralistic social programs were vetoed by the President. Overall the US government policy kept a middle course balanced by each branch and each party. For those who like limited government the distractions of Congressional and Executive infighting kept them from growing government. As opposed to now where single party dominance has led to greater spending, bigger government and a rampant Executive asserting all sorts of privelages and acting secretly in a way that never would've been tolerated, or should be, if it was a Democrat in office. In short single party governence has not been good whether you look at it from the Left, Right or Middle. So in an odd way voting for Kerry is a vote for limited government as opposed to the expansionist Fed we have now.
Yes, it was investigated, but not by Congress, but a newspaper reporter (who tend to investigate the private lives of public figures to sell newspapers), and it wasn't invoked during any process that I know of. Thomas was questioned about his because it pertained to A. Hill's testimony directly; however his video records were not subpoenaed (Biden overruled whoever wanted to, apparently). Secondhand info from David Brock (back then, in his right wing hatchet man phase), inter alia, indicates that had they been subpoenaed, well, things would have been different...
