The Cellar - View Single Post - Would this be mainstream American thought?

vsp · 05-10-2002, 01:21 PM

Bill Clinton was a consummate politician with all the good and bad that the word implies. He was a highly conservative Democrat, the kind that had devout lefties holding their nose to vote for him (twice), and an unrepentant pussyhound (a characteristic he shares with many politicians, and which is nearly a requirement for holding office in the South). He was a liar, a schemer and a wheeler-dealer capable of selling out anything for purposes of political gain, and married to someone who's even worse in those respects. And you know what? If anything, that makes him _more_ qualified to be a politician in this day and age, because that's (unfortunately) more of the norm than the exception in the U.S.

The neo-conservatives were infuriated by his very existence -- how dare he dwell in the White House that was theirs by birthright! (Listen to some of the yobbos declaring that "God put Dubya in office" sometime, or tune into some of the talk radio programs that make Limbaugh sound like Leo Buscaglia.) Much like the current volleys at Tom Daschle, most of the attacks on Clinton have had very little substance and merit, but they fall right into the neoconservative battle plan of "attack, attack, attack, ALWAYS attack, the opponents are always wrong, and if we repeat our attacks often enough and loud enough, much of the public will believe it." What does it say that the WORST thing they could throw at Clinton that the general public found credible was that he nailed a pudgy intern? Comparing Nixon's paranoia to Clinton's transgressions is like comparing a mortar shell to an M-80.

This is not to say that Clinton was a great President. He wasn't, by my standards. He was adequate, and much of the country prospered during his terms, but he was neither a shining star nor a blight on the nation, and is certainly unworthy of the level of invective heaped upon him to this day by the hardcore right.

You can name any problem in this world -- hunger, war, disease, hatred, drive-by shootings, the Iverson-Brown feud, Kid Rock's career, the Fall of American Morality and Decency and Goodness, whatever -- and neocons will have fourteen reasons ready why Bill Clinton was the root cause of it. Enough, already! The more they demonize Clinton, the higher they end up building him up, portraying him as having enough power, influence and magnetism to DO all those things they accuse him of in the first place.

Coulter has made a career out of parroting neoconservative gibberish, reaching surprising levels of vileness at times. She's funny as hell in a perverse way, but strictly unintentionally -- it's one of those "Can you believe anyone actually THINKS like that?" spectacles every time she opens her mouth. Sort of a William Bennett with ovaries. Her obsession with Clinton makes me wonder exactly if something transpired between them on a personal level -- maybe she's just upset that she was among the only women in Washington that Clinton DIDN'T want to nail.

Frankly, I'd rather have sex with a compost heap than Ann Coulter. Not only would it probably be more enjoyable, but the pillow talk would be much more palatable with the compost.

05-10-2002, 01:21 PM	#15
vsp Syndrome of a Down Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: West Chester Posts: 1,367	Bill Clinton was a consummate politician with all the good and bad that the word implies. He was a highly conservative Democrat, the kind that had devout lefties holding their nose to vote for him (twice), and an unrepentant pussyhound (a characteristic he shares with many politicians, and which is nearly a requirement for holding office in the South). He was a liar, a schemer and a wheeler-dealer capable of selling out anything for purposes of political gain, and married to someone who's even worse in those respects. And you know what? If anything, that makes him _more_ qualified to be a politician in this day and age, because that's (unfortunately) more of the norm than the exception in the U.S. The neo-conservatives were infuriated by his very existence -- how dare he dwell in the White House that was theirs by birthright! (Listen to some of the yobbos declaring that "God put Dubya in office" sometime, or tune into some of the talk radio programs that make Limbaugh sound like Leo Buscaglia.) Much like the current volleys at Tom Daschle, most of the attacks on Clinton have had very little substance and merit, but they fall right into the neoconservative battle plan of "attack, attack, attack, ALWAYS attack, the opponents are always wrong, and if we repeat our attacks often enough and loud enough, much of the public will believe it." What does it say that the WORST thing they could throw at Clinton that the general public found credible was that he nailed a pudgy intern? Comparing Nixon's paranoia to Clinton's transgressions is like comparing a mortar shell to an M-80. This is not to say that Clinton was a great President. He wasn't, by my standards. He was adequate, and much of the country prospered during his terms, but he was neither a shining star nor a blight on the nation, and is certainly unworthy of the level of invective heaped upon him to this day by the hardcore right. You can name any problem in this world -- hunger, war, disease, hatred, drive-by shootings, the Iverson-Brown feud, Kid Rock's career, the Fall of American Morality and Decency and Goodness, whatever -- and neocons will have fourteen reasons ready why Bill Clinton was the root cause of it. Enough, already! The more they demonize Clinton, the higher they end up building him up, portraying him as having enough power, influence and magnetism to DO all those things they accuse him of in the first place. Coulter has made a career out of parroting neoconservative gibberish, reaching surprising levels of vileness at times. She's funny as hell in a perverse way, but strictly unintentionally -- it's one of those "Can you believe anyone actually THINKS like that?" spectacles every time she opens her mouth. Sort of a William Bennett with ovaries. Her obsession with Clinton makes me wonder exactly if something transpired between them on a personal level -- maybe she's just upset that she was among the only women in Washington that Clinton DIDN'T want to nail. Frankly, I'd rather have sex with a compost heap than Ann Coulter. Not only would it probably be more enjoyable, but the pillow talk would be much more palatable with the compost.