Take the ten minutes to watch Keith Olbermann eviscerate the Bush administration. This may well go down as one of THE memorable commentaries of the Bush era of disingenuousness and attack politics.
Clock with an eggtimer how long it takes the Daily Show or Colbert to have him on as a guest.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9g8fzNSOrY
PAD
Posted by Peter David at September 29, 2006 03:08 PM | TrackBack | Other blogs commentingNo bet, Peter! However quick I suspect it'll be, it'll be faster still. I saw "Of COURSE it's acceptable to think!"
Olberman had a killer commentary on 9/11 as well.
Forgot the URL (it's linked to my name above though).
I don't know if it's my computer or just a bad YouTube recording, but I can't hear a word he says no matter how high I turn up the volume.
I didn't think his 9/11 commentary was "killer," though. His basic argument was that the "terrorists have won" because there hasn't been any construction at the WTC site, which is the kind of naive and reductive statement people were making shortly after the attacks when emotion held sway over logic and reason, and it marred an otherwise intelligent editorial.
It's a staggering piece of commentary, as good as anything I've seen on television in years. Stewart and Colbert have done fine stuff, but none of it has the sense of pure rage that this does. But he doesn't managed to fly off the handle. Furious, but in control and with plenty of examples to back up his arguments. It's a hard trick to manage, but I think he succeeded.
Sadly, I suspect too many conservatives will simply write him off as being a Clinton apologist and ignore the other points he's making about the failures of the Bush administration.
Olbermann's been at it all month.
Hopefully he goes off on the Republicans in Congress next for their up and coming attempts to retroactively approve of all the shit Bush has been doing lately, such as torture and illegal wiretapping.
Is this the 'President Bush owes us an apology' commentary? If so, you can actually read the text at: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14912584/
You can also access the video there, as well as some of Keith's other commentaries. I'm not sure he'll ever be as good as Murrow, but at least if you set your standards that high, you're striving for something that will hopefully have a bit of substance, and I certainly have to give him a lot of credit for trying.
Yep, Olbermann's been going off lately. Of course, neocons are spinning it as his being crazy and/or angry, thinking in their haze that Bill O'Reilly is a master debater (drop one syllable and they've got it right, though :) )...
You can troll the Crooks and Liars archives to see all 3 (I think three) Special Commentaries Keith has made this month...(I only point there because I prefer to see my eviscerations in Quicktime rather than YouTube...)
Keith was on Stewart month's back, just as his feud with ORielly was getting rolling. These days, he and TDS sorta feed on each other.
I'd rather like to see him on Real Time with Bill Maher.
Craig: It's important to remember that no matter how much praise they get, Stewart and Colbert, at the end of the day, are commedians hosting comedy shows. And they have to service the laugh. Olbermann doesn't have that directive.
Ten bucks says Bush watched a tape of this... for one minute. Then he switched to cartoons.
Olberman wasn't just spot on, he was brilliant in his eviceration of this slime filled adminstration.
One small point: Olbermann quotes the famous epigram "I do not agree with what you say, but ill defend to the death your right to say it." and attributes it, as most people do, to Voltaire.
It is not, in fact a quote from Voltaire, but rather from a ore recent author, who actually said "As Voltaire might have said, 'I do not agree with what you say, but ill defend to the death your right to say it'."
Posted by Aaron Thall at September 29, 2006 05:56 PM
Ten bucks says Bush watched a tape of this... for one minute. Then he switched to cartoons.
Are you saying cartoons are only suitable for people of Bush's intelligence?
You need to say something a little less inflamatory like " ... and then, Bush popped in his DVD of SMURF cartoons."
My apologies to any Smurf fans out there.
It is not, in fact a quote from Voltaire, but rather from a ore recent author, who actually said "As Voltaire might have said, 'I do not agree with what you say, but ill defend to the death your right to say it'."
Just for another point of view on this, here's what the Wiki entry for Voltaire says:
"The quote I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it is commonly misattributed to Voltaire, but is actually a summary of his attitudes, based on statements he made in Essay on Tolerance, by Evelyn Beatrice Hall (writing under the pseudonym of Stephen G. Tallentyre in The Friends of Voltaire (1906))."
I think, in general, the idea behind the phrase being attributed to Votaire is in the right place, even if the exact words did not come from him.
For the record, I think Bush is a RELATIVELY smart man. Unfortunately, he belongs in the Princess Bride. He has all the foresight of Vizzini, all the strategic ability of Inigo, and the communication skills of Fezzik, where after he speaks one is left scratching the head and thinking "What the hell did I just hear?"
Bush must be color blind, for all he sees are black and white. We're in the white hats, they're in the black. He needs a Villian so he can show off the white hat. He needs to keep reminding us of the Villain so he can remind us of the white hat. Americans aren't stupid. I don't think there's anyone above a certain age that will EVER forget that the Villains are out there. Trouble is, the Villains are here, too. Unfortunately, several of them are the ones in charge.
I don't think that angry is at all inappropriate right now. When the media and people like Condi Rice started trying to belittle Clinton by saying that his interview was "combative," I thought, "Of *course* it was combative, of course it was angry. It *should* have been angry, he had the right to be angry." I think we're at the point where anger is the logical response.
It's like a child complaining that you're yelling at him whenever you take a stern tone, as if yelling means you're automatically wrong.
Sean, what is it that makes you think that Bush is a relatively smart man? I'm not trying to be confrontational or sarcastic here; I'm really interested to know.
And for those Bush supporters who thought Clinton was being unreasonably combative when faced with what he believed to be an unreasonable question from Chris Wallace, I presume you feel that George G.W. Bush was being unreasonably combative when faced with what he believed was an unreasonable question from Dan Rather on the CBS News some years ago? After all, fair is fair. Unless of course you want me to find some hairs for you to split.
Brilliant comment indeed.
It is sad to see how cons and media group tactics are all about the same in every part of the world. Bush's friends in my country, who got out of power after beign caught blatantly lying to the public to instrumentalize 3-11 tragedy for political gain are now trying to rewrite the story too.
Conservative radio hosts even go so far as to label the whole train bomb attack as part of a conspiracy between islamist and basque terrorist, spanish national police and teh socialist party. It doesnt matter is a lunacy, everytime they say that aloud a small percentage of people think "uh...theres some logic in that". Thats the whole mechanism of lying; you just need to have a tribune from where to speak and some people will believe you, no matter what nonsense you babble.
There are actually two things that make me think Bush is relatively smart. First, he managed to use his (admittedly sizable) assets to get into the highest seat of power. Now, I'm sure he had more handlers than a Macy's Thanksgiving Day balloon, but for all that, he IS the President. (As a sort of related aside, anybody hear Bob Newhart's bit on if they had to package Lincoln like any of the current politicians? Howlingly funny.)
The second thing is Bush knows how to play to the room like nobody's business. He also seems to know enough to never show all his cards, he keeps everything very close. Apparently, he learned from his father's "Read my lips!" He's sort of like the faith healer that can read a room and give the audience what it wants.
But not necessarily what it needs.
As I mentioned on my blog when I was talking about this, I think it's wonderful that he's starting to end his special comments with "good night and good luck." It's as if even he is reluctantly conceding that he's the closest thing we have these days to Murrow's successor.
This is totally off topic, but what did the punisher do to you?
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/3841/751/1600/Punisher38.jpg
This is totally off topic, but what did the punisher do to you?
He gave me a "Forbidden Error 403!" :)
I love it when people either attack Bill or Keith while supporting the other. They are pretty much both doing the exact same thing from opposite sides of the spectrum. They are both over the top pompous jerks. Admittedly I like Keith more than Bill because he can be funny when he is not in full on attack dog jackass mode. However, it does not really matter because all these guys do is preach to their choirs.
Clock with an eggtimer how long it takes the Daily Show or Colbert to have him on as a guest.
He was on The Colbert Report back in March, but has not actually ever been on The Daily Show.
"I think it's wonderful that he's starting to end his special comments with "good night and good luck."
Actually he's been using the phrase (to end each broadcast, not just the special commentary) for quite a while now...
Nice piece. I thought the American media was meant to be so supine that nothing like that would ever be allowed on air.
There's one little thing that peeves me whenever there are links like this on peterdavid.net though. Whenever I follow the link the address bar always stays as peterdavid.net. This happens on pieces like this I'd want to email over to mates, it happens on links you're trying to promote like jkwoodward.com the other day. Even more annoying, if I follow linkis on their page I still see it as yours, and then I really have no idea what I'm looking at.
I think the problem is that the other pages are all opening as frames within an invisible peterdavid.net frame page.
Oh, Kim, I don't see Bush has having the good taste to enjoy something like Avatar, Robot Chicken, or even Gargoyles...
No, he strikes me more as the kind to look at "Bobobo-Bobo-Bobo" and say "That makes total sense!"
I'd be interested to see how Bush will react to reporter's questions in the future. Clinton, while angry, showed he knew what his administration was doing. I doubt Bush Jr. will be able to defend himself as well as Clinton.
To Nick Eden, about the links.
Try either right clicking on PAD's link and opening it in a new window, or cutting and pasting the URL into a new browser (and into your emails to your friends). Should work.
And for those Bush supporters who thought Clinton was being unreasonably combative when faced with what he believed to be an unreasonable question from Chris Wallace, I presume you feel that George G.W. Bush was being unreasonably combative when faced with what he believed was an unreasonable question from Dan Rather on the CBS News some years ago?
Absolutely. When politicians react the way Bush 1 and Clinton did it's because they are trying to shut down the questioner and cow any future interviewers. Sadly, it works. Clinton usually gets fluff pieces anyway from his interviewers and I doubt any will DARE to do otherwise now (and risk getting hammered by partisans).
It IS fun though to see the mask slip off these guys and have them reveal their true personalities, not the ones they display for the rubes.
Try either right clicking on PAD's link and opening it in a new window, or cutting and pasting the URL into a new browser (and into your emails to your friends). Should work.
My head knows that. My heart though? There are three zillion pages on the world wide web. Every other link on the web, you click on it, you go to that page, in it's own right, not wrapped up in another. They don't force you to go back a layer and faff about with right mouse options instead of left. There are internet standards out there, and the fact that this one site out of the three zillion doesn't stick to them makes me think it's lazy programming, not user error.
The transcript is actually here.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15013772/
Look for it around 3/4 of the way down.
I watch and like Olbermann and I saw both the commentaries that have been mentioned here. Not really home runs in my book.
I like Olbermann a lot when he seems to be doing stuff on the fly, but his commentaries come off as feeling stiff and scripted. He comes off as someone reading talking points and trying to look outraged rather then someone actually outraged and saying what they feel. The bit he does with turning from the main shot and looking into a different camera just long enough to say something even more heated doesn't really help that feeling.
I may agree with some or most of what Keith says, but his commentaries are only going to be remembered as "one of THE memorable commentaries of the Bush era of disingenuousness and attack politics" by the people who are 100% anti-Bush. Me? I thought they were only a second base runs at best.
Holy poop on a stick.
I haven't been able to watch television since the lock step came in during W's Iraq invasion. I was so disgusted, I've been playing dvd after dvd since and getting my news from AP.
Even though I think it's years late, I may be temtped to reevaluate my stance in light of Mr. Olbermann's commentary and comments that he's been speaking up for a while now. People who speak the truth in high position need to supported. And people who lie need to be condemmed. I'm glad to see someone condemm lies as effectively as Olbermann.
Brian
Posted by: Nick Eden at September 30, 2006 10:08 AM
My head knows that. My heart though? There are three zillion pages on the world wide web. Every other link on the web, you click on it, you go to that page, in it's own right, not wrapped up in another. They don't force you to go back a layer and faff about with right mouse options instead of left. There are internet standards out there, and the fact that this one site out of the three zillion doesn't stick to them makes me think it's lazy programming, not user error.
Well, you're right and you're wrong. You're not guilty of user error, but you are in error. It's just a different kind of error: the erroneous assumption that somebody here owes you something, even though you're just one person amongst billions and you aren't paying anything to participate here. I imagine it takes a lot of work to run this site. I know it takes one hell of a lot of gall to refer to anyone involved with it as "lazy."
In a world where some people don't have access to clean water, food, shelter, medicine, let alone technology, it seems awfully small and petty to be griping about having to make a few extra clicks at a Web site.
For the record, I think Bush is a RELATIVELY smart man. Unfortunately, he belongs in the Princess Bride. He has all the foresight of Vizzini, all the strategic ability of Inigo, and the communication skills of Fezzik, where after he speaks one is left scratching the head and thinking "What the hell did I just hear?"
I would also say he has the bravery of Prince Humperdinck and the honesty of Count Rugen. :)
One of the saddest things in all of this is that Chris Wallace was a good journalist when he was with NBC.
All I can say to Keith is YOU GO, BOY! We need a lot more like himif we hope to save this country from the scumsuckers who are destroying it. I've said it before, and I'll say it again; we've had revolutions over less than this.
Miles
I wanted to take some time to think about Olbermann's commentary, and everyone's comments in this thread, before posting myself. I've done so and am ready to stick my head in the lion's mouth. I say that because I know that even though my liberal credentials and my track record of being anti-Bush are pretty well established, I'm probably gonna get pilloried and labeled a "neocon" or a "Bushie" for going against the crowd.
I thought Olbermann's commentary was nothing more than "partisan hackery," to borrow a term from John Stewart. It amuses me to no end that he and Bill O'Reilly are feuding, because those two are flip sides of the same coin. Oh, sure, one's liberal and one's conservative, but they engage in the same logical fallacies and rhetorical nonsense. I can throw a spitwad at you, or I can throw it at a person next to you -- but either way, it's still a spitwad.
I truly loathe Fox News. It is more nakedly biased than the supposedly liberal news outlets. Nevertheless, I agree with Bill Mulligan: Clinton was grandstanding. Chris Wallace's question was legitimate and worded fairly: "Did you do enough to connect the dots and go after Al Qaida?" Now, if he had asked, "Why didn't you do more to connect the dots and go after Al Qaida," I'd say Clinton would have every right to be angry. But the question was worded fairly.
The idea that Clinton was showing "courage," as Olbermann put it, is laughable. As Bill Mulligan so aptly put it, Clinton was trying to cow all journalists into avoiding that legitimate question in the future.
Like many of you, I believe the impeachment proceedings against Clinton were an unconscionable abuse of the political process. Nevertheless, I believe it is equally unconscionable to paint Clinton as a pure victim. The former president new damn well what kind of political environment that existed when he was in office. He was well aware -- or at least, he should have been aware -- of the fact that our society had long ago wrongheadedly blurred the lines between the public and the private, and that his personal behavior could well become fodder for his enemies if he got caught with his pants down (literally). Apparently, he didn't give a shit.
Yeah, yeah, I know everyone likes to say, "Don't blame the victim." But for crying out loud, if I knowingly go into one of the most dangerous neighborhoods in my area in the middle of the night and get stabbed, people have a right to question my judgment. Yeah, the guy who stabbed me is a criminal who deserves to be punished, but that doesn't mean my choices don't warrant scrutiny as well.
Clinton is a narcissist of the highest order, and he loves the spotlight. He could have taken the high road, and pointed out that terrorism wasn't foremost on anyone's list of concerns in the U.S. until after September 11, 2001. Instead, he too engaged in partisan hackery.
The real failure leading up to 9/11 was a problem that neither Bush nor Clinton invented. It was a failure to communicate on the part of the various federal agencies that are tasked with protecting us. Yeah, I know, it's not nearly as sexy to blame it on the kinds of organizational problems that affect ANY large institution, particularly governments, but there you go.
I'm not saying George W. Bush didn't miss opportunities. But frankly, just killing Osama bin Laden wouldn't have been enough in my estimation. We've killed a number of Al Qaida leaders, and they keep filling the empty positions. And while bin Laden's money IS critical to Al Qaida, I'm sure he's made arrangements to make that money available to the group even after his death.
Olbermann's outrage rings hollow to me.
I agree with him that the Bush administration has been particularly dishonest with us. And I do not believe we have been well-served by his binary thinking, where everything is either "yes or no," "right or wrong," "good or bad." His inability to reflect, to acknowledge his mistakes, to change course, has led to a disastrous and unnecessary engagement in Iraq.
Nevertheless, I don't give a rat's ass who was president in the months leading up to September 11, 2001. It wouldn't have mattered. The organizational inertia within our government, and our collective apathy as a nation, would have made it impossible to address the problem the way it needed to be addressed.
I mean, could anyone honestly believe that Clinton or Bush could have mustered up the support needed to invade Afghanistan before September 11, 2001?
You know what makes me sad about all this? That a dissenting opinion from anyone in the media is so noteworthy. For the most part, "newspeople" in this country have been so cowed into lockstep position with the current administration that you can just about see the end of a report being like a political ad. "I'm so-and-so in power, and I approved this news report."
I think it's sad that Olberman seems to stand out so much.
ooooo. A cable TV news commentator. Big friggin' whoop. See one lefty cable news commentator you've seen them all. You see one leftist newsguy, you've seen them all.
Posted by: Sean Scullion at September 30, 2006 05:22 PM
You know what makes me sad about all this? That a dissenting opinion from anyone in the media is so noteworthy. For the most part, "newspeople" in this country have been so cowed into lockstep position with the current administration that you can just about see the end of a report being like a political ad. "I'm so-and-so in power, and I approved this news report."
I don't think it is that noteworthy anymore, Sean. I agree that the press was in large part far too easy on the Bush administration for much of his tenure, particularly in the days leading up to the Iraq Debacle. But they found their voice again some months ago. Just a couple of weeks ago I saw Tim Russert asking Dick Cheney some really tough questions on "Meet the Press," and hitting him with uncomfortable facts whenever he tried to be evasive. Hell, even conservative commentators are critical of the Bush administration these days.
I think it's sad it took so long, but it did happen. Olbermann is in no way noteworthy for speaking out -- it's been done. And I don't think he's comparable to Murrow, either. Murrow was instrumental in bringing down McCarthy. The Iraq Debacle dragged down Bush's approval ratings, and Olbermann is simply going after easy pickin's. Moreover, I don't remember reading about Murrow ever being nearly as partisan as Olbermann.
Bill Myers, thank you for trying to point out both sides of the argument here; I'd much rather here from somebody who doesn't automatically take his place on the left or the right without pointing out the obvious, which is that there is plenty of blame to go around on both sides.
I despise the current adminstration and just about everything they've done since 9/11. They told us that we had to invade Iraq because there were weapons of mass destruction and sent Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld and Powell out into the field to make their case. When it turned out that they were wrong, their defense was, 'Hey, the rest of the world had the same intelligence, so don't blame us!' neglecting to mention that it was the United States that led the charge. Nt to mention the fact that they showed the flawed intelligence to Congress in order to support the war, and now they pillory the Democratic congressmen for supporting them! Talk about a 'when did you stop beating your wife?' scenario.
The reason I bring all this up is because after 9/11, Bush was more than happy to fill the airwaves with macho sound bites about catching and/or killing Bin Laden. Remember the 'Dead or alive' comments? He was so resolute about it that one almost believed he was going to strap on his six guns and hop on a plane to track down the big guy himself. And night after night, we were repeatedly told, WE WILL CATCH BIN LADEN! That's why it's so disingenuous for the White House to be deflecting the issue by saying that Bin Laden isn't the main issue; gosh, what happened to that 'dead or alive' talk that got him back into office in 2004? And as a total non-sequitur or a potentially great drinking game, has anybody ever noticed that Condi Rice's forehead wrinkles whenever she's not telling the entire truth? Sorry, that's just something that's been driving me crazy for years.
Having said all that, the fact that the Bush adminstration has seemingly done sweet FA to capture Bin Laden does not suddenly make me think that Bill Clinton was the greatest president since sliced bread. I think his arrogance bordering on contempt for the American people was reprehensible, and if there's any justice in this world, his tombstone should simply be engraved with the word 'Is.'
But do I now retroactively hold Clinton responsible for not capturing and/or killing Bin Laden? If the current, post-9/11 adminstration hasn't been able to do much more than posture, I'm not going to pillory the pre-9/11 anminstration for not doing an even more effective job, especially knowing that the Senate would have resisted him every step of the way shouting 'Wag the dog!' all the while.
I have never agreed with Clinton or his wife about the vast right wing conspiracy theory that they've been espousing for years, but if there was a shred of truth to that theory, wasn't Bill making a bone-headed move by appearing in the center of the enemy camp so to speak? I'm sorry, but Clinton is a much smarter guy than that. Everything I've seen about the man would suggest that he saw that question coming about ten miles away, and probably spent days practicing his rightous indignation in front of the the mirror. That doesn't change the reality of the situation. Fox News thought they'd ask a tough question and make the former president squirm. Clinton knew they were going to ask and had his response ready. Soldiers are dying in Iraq every day, based on a lie concocted by the present adminstration, more people than actually died on 9/11. And Bin Laden is still out there somewhere, hooked up to an aging dialysis machine somewhere, but still very much alive. In my opinion, there's more than enough blame to go around.
Bravo to Olbermann for the courage to speak out as he has been. The real question now, I suppose, would be is if this will have any real impact.
Slightly off topic, I found an interesting web site. Ever want to compose a speech for Bush? Well, at http://www.actofme.co.uk/bush_speech/bushspeechwriter.html you can have that chance - even if it won't ever make the 4pm news conference. :)
Something just hit me, rereading PAD's original post on this thread. He called Olbermann's speech "one of THE memorable commentaries of the Bush era of disingenuousness and attack politics."
It was a commentary.
Made by a commentator.
My question is this. Are there any real journalists left in TV news? It just seems like more often than not, you have people who don't so much tell you what happened as much as they tell you why it's good or bad. I could be just looking at this pessimistically(I've been in that kind of mood all day) but right now, I just don't know.
I didn't see Bill's post right before mine until a little while ago. He's right on target, especially with it not mattering who was president. The terrorists weren't attacking Bush. They didn't all of a sudden see that Comedy Central show and say, "Let's get this guy!" They attacked New York. Mistakes were made by a LOT of people. Don't place blame, just learn and move forward. On the same foot, though, while everyone is learning, if you're responsible for something, don't be afraid to TAKE the responsibility for it.
Having finally watched the entire interview (it's available at foxnews.com), I understand why Clinton was outraged.
It wasn't the question - he seemed prepared for that sort of thing to happen.
It's that one of the ground rules for the interview, announced by Wallace at the beginning, was that half of the interview would be about the charity effort that Clinton was in town to espouse, and the other half would be "open".
It might be reasonable to expect that, when the questions started off about the charity effort, they might continue along that line until about the halfway point.
However, in the event, Wallace asked three or four questions about the charity, then jumped immediately on the bin Laden question. And I agree that it was more than somewhat ingenuous of Wallace to try to claim that he only asked the question because it was "e-mailed in by the viewers." Who runs your show, anyway, Wallace - the news division, or some yutz in Missouri who's barely figured out how to work his Hotmail account? Are we really supposed to expect that you have so little journalistic instinct that you have to poll your viewers to figure out what to ask an ex-President??
Bill--your entire argument falls apart because a fast check of two on-line transcripts from two different sources doesn't support your claim. Wallace did NOT say, "Did you do enough to connect the dots and go after Al Qaida?" He said, according to the transcripts, "but the question is, why didn't you do more, connect the dots and put them out of business?"
You said it yourself, Bill You said, "Now, if he had asked, "Why didn't you do more to connect the dots and go after Al Qaida," I'd say Clinton would have every right to be angry. But the question was worded fairly." But it WASN'T worded fairly, it was worded EXACTLY along the lines of what YOU said Clinton would have "every right to be angry" about.
So I'm really not understanding where you're coming from on this.
PAD
"The former president new damn well what kind of political environment that existed when he was in office. He was well aware -- or at least, he should have been aware -- of the fact that our society had long ago wrongheadedly blurred the lines between the public and the private, and that his personal behavior could well become fodder for his enemies if he got caught with his pants down (literally). Apparently, he didn't give a shit."
e
I have read Bill Myers posts for a long time. As well as his civil and respected rivalry with Bill Mulligan. In this day and age of acidic name calling debate, I find this forum refreshing. I must however take issue with the above quote. Simply stating the nature of the "neighborhood" of the political environment as "bad" does a disservice to the civil debates you have had in this forum.
That bad neighborhood is responsible for the partisan rancor in this county today. Getting in the mud with name calling a patriotism-questioning arguments has been business as usual for the Republicans since the election of 1988. It detracts from the real issue of stopping terrorists who want to kill us and any peace process. It is killing our democracy and it has to stop.
The reality is as much as there is "a lot of blame to go around" and that only a fool would call President Clinton a paragon of virtue, I vividly remember more discussions and stories on the Clinton Administration's response to Al Queda in their last 8 months in office, that in G.W.'s first eight.
I do however remember hearing more talk about Iraq's threat in his first eight months of the Bush Administration than I did about the treat of Al Queda.
I dream of the day that Republicans and Democrats can ethically debate the issues as "the two Bills" have, but unfortunately I fear that dream may not come true anytime soon.
Captain Naraht
Hmm, my last comment didn't go through but I got a message that said it would later...I'll wait to repost.
Bill Myers, PAD's correct that Wallace's question was indeed worded the way you thought would make it an unfair one. I don't see it that way...and neither did Clinton:
WALLACE: I asked a question. You don’t think that’s a legitimate question?
CLINTON: It was a perfectly legitimate question but I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked this question of. I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked why didn’t you do anything about the Cole. I want to know how many you asked why did you fire Dick Clarke.
(For the record, Wallace asked Donald Rumsfeld almost the same question. To Clinton it was "Hindsight is 20 20 . . . but the question is why didn’t you do more, connect the dots and put them out of business?" To Rumsfeld it was "I understand this is 20/20 hindsight, it’s more than an individual manhunt. I mean — what you ended up doing in the end was going after al Qaeda where it lived. . . . pre-9/11 should you have been thinking more about that?" followed later by "What do you make of his [Richard Clarke’s] basic charge that pre-9/11 that this government, the Bush administration largely ignored the threat from al Qaeda?" and "Mr. Secretary, it sure sounds like fighting terrorism was not a top priority.")
But that's Bill. Jesus. Hillary may not get the nomination but she is SO manifestly better qualified for the Presidency than Bill ever could be.
Dang it, how is it that one comment gets posted and the next doesn't? I'm going to have 3 or 4 of the same ones show up at once and look like an even bigger idiot than I already am.
(Yes, yes, I know it said DON'T REPOST. Yeah, like I'm going to listen...)
Posted by: Peter David at September 30, 2006 11:42 PM
Bill--your entire argument falls apart because a fast check of two on-line transcripts from two different sources doesn't support your claim. Wallace did NOT say, "Did you do enough to connect the dots and go after Al Qaida?" He said, according to the transcripts, "but the question is, why didn't you do more, connect the dots and put them out of business?"
You said it yourself, Bill You said, "Now, if he had asked, "Why didn't you do more to connect the dots and go after Al Qaida," I'd say Clinton would have every right to be angry. But the question was worded fairly." But it WASN'T worded fairly, it was worded EXACTLY along the lines of what YOU said Clinton would have "every right to be angry" about.
So I'm really not understanding where you're coming from on this.
Actually, I don't think it should be too hard to understand where I was coming from. I was basing my argument on what I believed to be an accurate quote. I hadn't seen the actual interview and was relying on a quote from a Yahoo! News article. In fact, I copied and pasted the exact quote into my post. Of course, now I can't find the damn article to save my life, so I hope people will take me at my word that it does exist.
Anyway, after reading your post I decided to look for the source material and found it on YouTube. I watched the actual interview and lo and behold, the article from which I copied the quote was dead wrong. The transcripts you cited are in fact correct. Wallace's question was loaded and decidedly unfair, and Clinton had every right to be angry.
So, yeah, that portion of my argument goes out the window.
I think it is a bit imprecise to say that my entire argument falls apart, though. I still maintain that it was irresponsible of Clinton to have had an affair while in office, given the prevailing cultural winds. And I also maintain that the failure to prevent 9/11 had more to do with federal agencies failing to play well together than it did with the actions of any president, past or present. I think those aspects of my argument hold up pretty well.
Olbermann made some good points, and I would agree that George W. Bush has failed to stand up and take responsibility for the numerous mistakes he has made since September 11, 2001. Unfortunately, Olbermann couldn't leave it there, and had to devolve into partisan hackery. He had to take a side in the "which president was to blame for 9/11" debate. It's a debate that is about as meaningful as arguing over whether Montgomery Scott or Geordi La Forge is the better engineer. The failure to prevent 9/11 was the result of a number of missteps at a number of levels over a number of years, coupled with a failure on the part of the entire nation to realize just how grave the threat truly is.
And, therefore, I believe Olbermann falls far short being in the same league as Murrow. I believe Olbermann is in the same league as Bill O'Reilly. They're both partisan hacks.
Posted by: Captain Naraht at September 30, 2006 11:47 PM
I have read Bill Myers posts for a long time. As well as his civil and respected rivalry with Bill Mulligan.
One point of clarification: Bill Mulligan and I disagree about politics, but that doesn't make us rivals. We are in fact friends. Hell, my girlfriend and I met him for lunch this summer when he was in our area. He even paid for lunch! (You didn't have to do that, but thanks, man.) So, no, there's no "rivalry."
Posted by: Captain Naraht at September 30, 2006 11:47 PM
Simply stating the nature of the "neighborhood" of the political environment as "bad" does a disservice to the civil debates you have had in this forum.
I am not above criticism. But I fail to see how drawing an analogy with which you disagree was in any way un-civil. Can you clarify?
It amuses me to no end that he and Bill O'Reilly are feuding, because those two are flip sides of the same coin.
To a degree, yes. To a degree, no.
O'Reilly is an opportunist of the worst kind. If, in '08, Congress and the Presidency end up in the hands of the Democrats, I wouldn't be surprised to see him 'switch sides'.
But Olbermann? I'm not going to outright say that I think he's liberal or conservative.
Olbermann himself has said (on the Dan Patrick Show on ESPN Radio) that he was labelled as a right-winger when, during his first stint with MSN, he was stuck covering the Lewinsky scandal day in, day out.
Is he working from a position of convenience? Well, yeah, who isn't these days? Republicans control all branches of government, and with all the stupidity surrounding what they've done lately, they're good targets. So was Clinton with Lewinsky. So, I can't blame him for that.
In the end, Olbermann says a lot of the stuff I've been thinking about Bush & Co, but he says it a helluva lot better than I ever would. :)
And personally, I find his feud with O'Reilly amusing. O'Reilly is an "I'm always right" kind of guy, even after he's been called out after saying some really stupid stuff. O'Reilly just gets uptight about it, while Olbermann is obviously just enjoying himself.
He had to take a side in the "which president was to blame for 9/11" debate.
When the Bush Administration (or their supporters) try and blame 9/11 on Clinton's Administration, then they open themselves up as fair game.
And that's where we currently stand: Bush doesn't admit to any mistakes, and it's everybody else's fault anyways.
If you're going to take that stance, you deserve whatever is coming to you. That's not political, that's just making yourself a target.
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at October 1, 2006 12:42 AM
Bill Myers, PAD's correct that Wallace's question was indeed worded the way you thought would make it an unfair one. I don't see it that way...
As a former journalist, I tend to bristle at any questions that are loaded with assumptions. Asking someone "why didn't you do more" assumes there was more that could have and should have been done. "Could you have done more" omits those assumptions and is thus a fairer question.
Frankly, I didn't know Wallace had asked a similar question of Rumsfeld. So I have to give him credit for being a notch more even-handed than I thought. But it was a shitty question to ask of Clinton, and a shitty question to ask of Rumsfeld. A good journalist keeps assumptions out of his questions.
This is driving me nuts. It's not a long drive but still...
See, I post this one comment and I get a message that says it's the first time I posted here and that it will be posted laters after someone checks it out. It says not to repost.
Well, I figure that's odd. So I post another, different comment and it goes right through. Well, I figured I screwed up so I repost my old comment. Same problem!
Apparently anything I try to post other than this one posting will go through but something about this one post is tripping the circuits of the anti-spam filter. I figured maybe it was the fact that I posted an url so I removed it and (you guessed it) reposted the comment. Same reply.
Now I've lost count of how many times I ignored the perfectly reasonable request NOT TO REPOST. So at some point in all liklihood you are going to see the same post over and over and over again and begin to seriously wonder just how many chromosomes I was born with. At this point I honestly can't be sure.
Oh, and don't think this was all because what I had to say was so freaking groundbreakingly brilliant that it just HAD to be shared. Not at all!
But I now have a better appreciation for Wile E. Coyote.
What truly drives me crazy about the whole "Blame Clinton" thing is that none of the people in that camp seem to want to deal with the fact that the administrations BEFORE Clinton were the ones who armed and trained these guys. You know, back when they were called "Freedom Fighters". But of course, whenever I've brought this argument up, saying since that scheme turned around and bit the U.S. on the hindquarters, they're essentially blaming Clinton for not cleaning up someone ELSE'S mess.
The universal response I've gotten to that from Conservatives/Republicans? "Where they got the weapons, training and resources from is immaterial. They were a necessary tool back then."
Wait... What?
Denial. It's not just a psychological coping mechanism.
Going through Patrick Neilsen Hayden's blogsite, I ran across this. Remember Hugo Chavez calling Bush the Devil? Read this hilarity from Marek Morford...
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2006/09/27/notes092706.DTL&feed=rss.mmorford
I believe Olbermann is in the same league as Bill O'Reilly.
I don't know... Granted, I'm not intimately familiar with either man's work, but just from what I have read, until Olbermann does something as glaringly stupid as pontificate about the "War on Christmas," I'll have trouble directly correlating the two.
-Rex Hondo-
Bill Myers
"One point of clarification: Bill Mulligan and I disagree about politics, but that doesn't make us rivals. We are in fact friends. Hell, my girlfriend and I met him for lunch this summer when he was in our area. He even paid for lunch! "
Well, Yaskov and Kendig bought each other drinks and they were sorta kinda friendly rivals. And, strangely, having never met either of you, some of your exchanges have from time to time put those two in my head.
Mulligan as Kendig and you as Yaskov.
:)
Bill Myers: " 'Simply stating the nature of the "neighborhood" of the political environment as "bad" does a disservice to the civil debates you have had in this forum.' I am not above criticism. But I fail to see how drawing an analogy with which you disagree was in any way un-civil. Can you clarify?"
Certainly. The fact that "the Two Bills" are friends in life but "rivals" in political opinions, flies in the face of your acceptance of the state of political discource in this country.
Why is someone who has a strong and healthy and civil debate with someone he disagrees with politically turns a blind eye to how modern Republicans since the first Willie Horton ad have turned political discourse into name calling, patriotism-questioning, and fear mongering?
You simply said that Clinton should beware that he is in the "bad neighborhood" of political discourse and should watch himself. You ignored who created that bad neighborhood in the first place -- neocons like the Bushies.
It's a small point that I take issue with, and have always believed you have conducted yourself in a civil manner. So I'm quite serious when I say I admire both you and Bill Mulligan for your civil rivalry among friends. You both make it a habit of admitting when you've been proven wrong through the crucible of debate.
Can you imagine the the Bush Administration or Fox News doing the same?
--Captain Naraht
I assume this poor trucker missed another Olbermann salvo across the neocon bow. Having just watched "Good Night and Good Luck", I ask, not to denigrate KO, but in honesty, if he is channeling Murrow.
I am a fan of Olbermann's willingness to ignore the news media's apparant lemming like instinct to not question, just do.
However, since the only direct attempts to put Olbermann's proffesionalism into question have come from Bill O'Really and Faux News, I would opine that he is not yet facing the risks that Murrow faced in his fight with McCarthy.
Whether that will change as election time approaches remains to be seen. Since the Bushies seem to consider the Constitution and the protections found therein to be flexible and revocable when convenient or inconvenient, Olbermann may find himself in Murrows seat.
Bill,
Why are you the KGB guy? Cause Mulligan nails the sarky better then you do.
:p
Captain Naraht,
"You simply said that Clinton should beware that he is in the "bad neighborhood" of political discourse and should watch himself."
Yeah, Clinton SHOULD have watched himself. He knew that some of the garbage being thrown at him would go away because it was b.s. He also knew that there were guys in the conservative movement who would use anything, no matter how small, to try and nail him to the wall. So, instead of being an adult for eight years, he goes and hands them a club to pound on him with because he didn't want to show enough control to keep it in his pants.
Granted, he didn't do anything that a lot of guys in that office hadn't done for decades before him. However, he also knew that the lines of what would and would not be talked about involving private lives was changing fast and had been for some time. Decades ago it almost seemed that people expected powerful pols to have a mistress. They gave it a nod, a wink and a grin while talking out of the other side of their mouths about the pols "moral values". But that changed. By the late 80's it only took one photo of Donna Rice sitting on the knees of Gary Hart to end Hart's first real presidential campaign. And it gave "Monkey Business" a whole new meaning for a years to follow.
It pisses me off that Clinton should have been smarter and use his brains and that he didn't. He failed to apply just a little more self control, got backed into a corner, screwed up and lied about it under oath and set himself up for his own worst legacy. Most the other charges being thrown at the Clintons were falling apart after just a few years. Many of them have since been debunked and had the people making the charges outed as liars or admitting to telling lies (troopergate) before someone could out them. Most people would have and did forget most/all of the bogus stuff and he would have been seen in a better light. Now his greatest legacy for many is a stained blue dress, a hummer in the oval Office and victimhood status granted to him by some.
"You ignored who created that bad neighborhood in the first place -- neocons like the Bushies."
No, they didn't create it. They have become the baddest gang on the street though. It seems like it's worse then ever before because it rarely happens when dealing with major parties or players that one side becomes so good at playing the game at the same moment that the other side wants to become a bunch of clueless chimps at playing the game.
Some of the rules have changed as well. Tough. That's life. But I don't subscribe to one side being blamed for creating the foul discourse or that the debate is worse now then it ever has been before. I have books one politics from years past and some of the stuff that was done in both U.S. and world politics was as down and dirty as anything being done today. And, least we forget, this is a country in which its recorded history includes pols ending nasty feuds or debates by SHOOTING EACH OTHER. I don't think we've done anything to top that for quite some time now.
Mulligan as Kendig and you as Yaskov.
HEY! Why the hell am I the KGB guy????
'Cause you're a pinko commie, THAT'S why!
Also, I share Walter Matthau's famous attention to sartorial excellence.
Why is someone who has a strong and healthy and civil debate with someone he disagrees with politically turns a blind eye to how modern Republicans since the first Willie Horton ad have turned political discourse into name calling, patriotism-questioning, and fear mongering?
You simply said that Clinton should beware that he is in the "bad neighborhood" of political discourse and should watch himself. You ignored who created that bad neighborhood in the first place -- neocons like the Bushies.
Cap, you're a good guy (by which I mean you've said nice things about me) but really--it won't take long to uncover a LOT of perfectly good examples of Democrats using these very same scorched earth tactics against Republicans (and each other, for that matter). Keep in mind that the furlough issue was first brought up against Dukakis by Al Gore. The actual story of Willie Horton was available to anyone who read Reader's Digest 2 years earlier.
Also, the ads that actually showed Horton's face were produced by independent groups, including one financed by his rape victim, who, whatever side of the fence you sit on, had good reason to carry a grudge.
But what hurt Dukakis was not the Horton incident per se (After all, he was not the one who signed the law into action, though he did stupidly veto a bill that would have made first-degree murderers ineligible for furloughs. It was his tone deaf response. He kept insisting the furlough program was a good idea (for first-degree murderers? What?). This in the face of a series of articles about the program that led to both a Pulitzer prize and the eventual abolition of the program.
Sorry, the Willie Horton issue in no way reaches the level of poison politics reached by, say, the Johnson "Goldwater will blow up little girls picking daisies with nuclear weapons" ad or the one produced by the NAACP that all but accused Bush of complicity in the lynching of James Byrd.
We'll never reduce the vitriol if we cling to the idea that it's "the other guys" who are responsible.
Arrgh! I tried AGAIN to send that comment I've endlessly referenced above and even though I (cleverly, I thought) chopped it up into smaller bite sized pieces, it STILL got hung up in the anti spam filter. This is like a bizarre psychological experiment which I am clearly flunking.
I'm going to try one last thing and if it doesn't work I am consigning the comment to comment purgatory.
It's that one of the ground rules for the interview, announced by Wallace at the beginning, was that half of the interview would be about the charity effort that Clinton was in town to espouse, and the other half would be "open".
The only reason the question took up so much time is because of the way Clinton responded. You can hardly blame the interviewer for the amount of time spent on 1 question when it is you who made it into such a big deal. As Mark Evanier says "The discussion wound up being so much about Osama because Clinton took it that way."
Now whether or not this was planned by Clinton or not I can't say. It's not like his temper isn't well known--both George Stephanopoulos and DeeDee Myers have mentioned it (Myers called it his "morning purple rage.").
Or read this article in The Nation (http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20061016&s=berman)
Here's Clinton surrounded not by the Right Wing Bullies of Fox News but rather the more sympathetic comrades at the Democracy Alliance (an influential group of progressive donors)
A surprise guest at the meeting was Bill Clinton, whose agenda seemed to be protecting his wife. But things didn't work out quite as planned. When Guy Saperstein, a retired lawyer from Oakland, asked Clinton if Democrats who supported the war should apologize, the former President "went f***ing ballistic," according to Saperstein. Forget Hillary, Clinton said angrily during a ten-minute rant; if I was in Congress I would've voted for the war. "It was an extraordinary display of anger and imperiousness," Saperstein says.
This is who he is. Thinking that everything he does is somehow a deliberate political act plays into the myth of Bill Clinton being the most gifted politician of our time but does anyone still buy that?
Bill Myers--great commentary. Yeah, I see O'Reilly and Olberman as two peas in a pod. It amazes me that anyone sees either one in any impressive light but to each his own. This ridiculous feud between the two is well suited to a couple of morning DJs but for anyone to bring up Edward R Murrow in the same paragraph as these ass-clowns...please.
Addendum- Captain Naraht--It's easy to have a civil conversation with Bill Myers and others I may disagree with on political matters (Tim also springs to mind). He's a genuinely nice person. I've met him and shared a good time. And I don't consider politics to be very high up on the qualifications for friendship.
Yes! Yes! Booyah! Who da man?
Ok, so for future reference, naughty words are best replaced with an asterix or two.
Huh. Wasn't worth the wait, was it?
"This is who he is. Thinking that everything he does is somehow a deliberate political act plays into the myth of Bill Clinton being the most gifted politician of our time but does anyone still buy that?"
Yeah, and even many of his defenders were pointing stuff like that out for days after the blow up. I keep seeing lots of guys talking about people who knew Clinton in private refered to his "purple rages" and how he often had them. They would point out that this was a display of the real Clinton and not his "public" self.
I would still rank him fairly high though. He could talk people into or out off just about anything. Even Newt did interviews where he talked about giving hellfire speaches about Clinton, getting the troops ready for war, heading into a one on one with Clinton and then having Clinton play him like a fiddle for almost whatever he wanted. I saw him talk about one of his one on ones one time on Fox. The talking head made the comment that Newt should have sewn up all his pockets before going into those things to keep Clinton from just taking whatever he wanted. Newt responded by saying that that wouldn't work. His advise was to sew up the pockets after having taken everything out of them and leaving everything, including things in your bag of tricks, behind or you WERE going to lose them to the man before it was all said and done. He could often play the game that well even if you hated the man.
He could also often get a packed, non-cherry picked crowd in damned near any room to get behind him or his causes before he was even half done with whatever he was saying. When that man was on, it was almost scary how well he could play the game.
Sorry,
Those should be "kept" and "advice".
Kinda need to catch on some sleep today and it's showing.
%(
Bill, my point wasn't the length of time spent on the question; my point was that when it's supposed to be divvied up half-and-half like that, and questions 1-3 have to do with the Global Initiative (hey, that sounds like a pretty cool name for a comic-book supervillain group!), having question 4 suddenly jump topics like that smacks more than a little of attack journalism. Now, that was fine with Mike Wallace, attacking on issues of substance; Chris Wallace, however, is no Mike Wallace, and the question he asked wasn't exactly on the level of Watergate or Iran/Contra. Hell, it wasn't even on the level of the issue the Seattle City Council came up with a couple years back, when three councilmen were caught taking bribes to give extra space for parking outside a strip club!
The phrasing of the question wasn't exactly conducive to a proper interview, either, but at the moment, that's beside the point...
The thing about Clinton, at least as far as I can tell, is that he can get angry and still make his point, because he's a good speaker. He's driven, and he's in control of the conversation.
Bush, when he started getting angry in that Matt Lauer interview, just went back to the same handful of talking points he always works from when he doesn't have handlers around, and it just showed, once again, how he can't control the situation.
So not only do politicians have the ability to demand exactly how much time an interviewer can address certain issues, we are also going to allow them to set exactly when the questions can be asked? Why not just let them write the questions out ahead of time, read them, and the "interviewer" can just nod sagely at the answers. Put them on a teleprompter while we're at it.
Jerry, for all of Clinton's supposed political genius, look at what he did NOT achieve. Never once got a majority of the vote. He saw his party get decimated in the congress, senate and govornerships. The republican majority was born under his presidency.
His one skill was in getting himslef elected but he seems to have little ability to transfer that gift to others. If Bush is able to stave off the well deserved heavy republican losses this election--which is highly unlikely but you never know--he'd have to be considered a far better politician than Clinton.
Bill,
No argument on some of that. But I still think he had the skills to get himself what he wanted when he really wanted it. I just also think that he often wanted what was best for Bill rather then what was best for the party.
"Never once got a majority of the vote."
Not really a good example to use. I can't remember any other elaection in my lifetime where we had three choices that were all as strong as they were in 92 & 96 and that the press treated as strong enough to give time to all three.
At best, we often get things like the Pat & Ralph show that we got in 2000. They get very little airtime or real coverage and most of that is them being told that they have no chance and that they'll throw the election into the hands of the "wrong" guy if they don't pack it in and quit.
"He saw his party get decimated in the congress, senate and govornerships. The republican majority was born under his presidency."
"If Bush is able to stave off the well deserved heavy republican losses this election... ...he'd have to be considered a far better politician than Clinton."
Maybe. Maybe not. Look at my home state. Virginia votes strange sometimes. We go Rs for Senators and Prez but do two-in-a-rows with D Governors. The buzz from the national press on VA is that our George my suffer from the faults and failings of the other George. Well, that and his never ending foot in mouth moments. But few locals see it that way. I know people who are sick of Bush but plan to vote Allen.
Hell, I work with a guy who back in 2000 thought that the sun would rise and set from Bush's @$$ each and every day. Now he hates the man and what he feels Bush has done to the party. He would risk jail time to pound Bush senseless with his bare hands if he could. He still plans to vote Allen.
I see the same thing when I read the online editions of a lot of other states' papers. People seem to be quite able to look at the national party/guy and not judge their local guy by those actions. There are a lot of conservatives out there who are sick of Bush but state quite clearly that they will vote R for their congressman.
I think the day of the party line voter has been nearing its ultimate end for some time now. I see and hear a lot that makes me believe that there are and have been more people then the press coverage would lead many to believe out there that will vote differently on local votes then they might on national and not always base the vote on who is an R or D.
Plus, that example would mean that Carter was a far better pol and Prez then Reagan. Carter kept the majority intact for four years. Reagan, despite some times of very high numbers and support, couldn't build one in eight years and had a VP turned P that failed to do so for another four. I know very few people who would say Carter was a beter politician or Prez then Reagan.
It's a lot harder to flip a congress or senate than it is to maintain a majority--especially the kind of House Majority Carter had. Very few people ever expected to see the Democrats lose the House (which is one reason why they did).
Boy, your Senate campaign is one for the books. I like how the Washington Post is now calling for more attention to the issues after running over 100 stories on the "macaca" incident.
That said, thank God george Allen is no longer mentioned as even a possible presidential candidate. Yeegads. Another case where my first impressions turned out to be true.
"Very few people ever expected to see the Democrats lose the House (which is one reason why they did)."
Bingo!!! One main reason that they lost, I felt, wasn't Clinton. It was that they felt as though they couldn't lose. They started to act like they had all three keys to power, would always own them and that they would stay THE party just because they were and should. Then they got knocked down a peg and still kept acting like they were the party in power.
The other side got better at playing the game. They just kept spinning their wheels and dusting off the playbooks that stopped working for them years ago. It was like the Ds just couldn't understand that they had to show people why the deserved to be there. I still don't think many of them have figured it out and it's gonna hurt them this year, in 2008 and every election until the old guard either dies off or smartens up.
The sad thing for hardcore D supporters is just how bad the party has become at the game. This year should be a slam dunk for them but it's not. They've botched it up so bad that I don't think they'll do squat this Nov. Hell, while I don't think it would actually happen, I wouldn't be at all shocked to see them lose a few seats and gain none.
"Yeegads. Another case where my first impressions turned out to be true."
Oh, you have no idea. Even though you think you do, you don't. I've dealt with the man. I know other people who have had to deal with him. The results? There are a lot of us who wouldn't vote for the man if you put a gun to our head in the voting booth.
Bill Mulligan, you know I love you, man, but you're letting your emotions get the better of you. You're beginning to sound like the people who were accusing Bush of delaying the arrest of terrorists for political gain a few weeks back.
Let's see, where do we begin...?
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at October 1, 2006 01:37 PM
Jerry, for all of Clinton's supposed political genius, look at what he did NOT achieve. Never once got a majority of the vote.
Neither did JFK. And George W. Bush won the presidency in 2000 even though he lost the popular vote, and there were legitimate questions about whether he won the electoral vote fair and square.
He saw his party get decimated in the congress, senate and govornerships.
Ronald Reagan presided over a Congress controlled by Democrats. Does that mean he too was a myth? It cuts both ways, Bill.
The republican majority was born under his presidency.
And that majority has failed to do anything worthy of note. The Iraq war by any objective measure has been a failure, we are suffering setbacks in Afghanistan, the deficit is out-of-control once again... need I go further?
His one skill was in getting himslef elected but he seems to have little ability to transfer that gift to others. If Bush is able to stave off the well deserved heavy republican losses this election--which is highly unlikely but you never know--he'd have to be considered a far better politician than Clinton.
No, he wouldn't. Not by any objective measure. On September 11, 2001, President George W. Bush came into a windfall of political capital that no president in recent memory has had. The entire nation, reeling from a devastating attack on our own soil, was ready to unite. Even people like myself who had very little confidence in Bush were willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. What has he done since then? Burned bridges with much of the world, gotten us embroiled in an unnecessary war with Iraq that has made us less safe rather than more, and mismanaged the war in Afghanistan. Bush squandered an opportunity to lead this nation.
By the way, it's easy to say Clinton's gifts were "mythical" as long as you focus on his negatives and pretend his positives weren't there. His military intervention in the Balkans brought down a dictator. He did that in the face of some really illogical criticism from the Republicans at the time: that the Balkans wasn't an area of strategic interest. As though, y'know, that area hadn't been the flashpoint to trigger two World Wars. As though Europe could never again be destabilized. As though history had never happened.
By the way, using George Stephanopoulos as a source merely undermines your argument. You can't simply quote his criticisms of Clinton while conveniently ignoring the way Stephanopoulos has praised him. After Clinton left office, Stephanopoulos recounted how Clinton was able to fire him from his cabinet and yet convinced him to stand with Clinton while his replacement was announced! Stephanopoulos has called Clinton a "good president" who "could've been great" had he kept his sexual appetites in check.
Yes, Clinton has a temper. But you're arguing that if Clinton has a temper then there can be nothing else to him but his temper. To paraphrase Whitman, people are large. They contain multitudes. The mere fact that Clinton has a temper is not enough to disprove his gifts as a politician.
Look, Bill, I think Clinton is a narcissistic jerk who squandered his immense talents and botched an opportunity to leave a real mark on history. But that doesn't mean he wasn't a gifted politician. The two are not mutually exclusive.
The sad thing for hardcore D supporters is just how bad the party has become at the game. This year should be a slam dunk for them but it's not. They've botched it up so bad that I don't think they'll do squat this Nov. Hell, while I don't think it would actually happen, I wouldn't be at all shocked to see them lose a few seats and gain none.
I'd be shocked if they lost any seats. The republicans are smart enough to know they are in trouble and will be using all of their get out the vote techniques but there is no way the Democrats don't pick up any seats. If that happens...jeeze. 2008 will be a massacre.
From Bill Myers:
Neither did JFK. And George W. Bush won the presidency in 2000 even though he lost the popular vote, and there were legitimate questions about whether he won the electoral vote fair and square.
We'll never know what would have happened had Kennedy lived but things were looking good. There is also some question about whether or not you can actually say he did not win a majority of the votes in 1960--there's the confusing (to me) matter of the 286,359 votes for "unpledged electors" (Democratic party). Those votes would push Kennedy to 50.3% of the vote.
And GW Bush WAS able to increase his share to over 50% in his re-election bid, which Clinton could not do.
Ronald Reagan presided over a Congress controlled by Democrats. Does that mean he too was a myth? It cuts both ways, Bill.
Reagan inherited a Democratic congress. However he was able to increase Republican numbers in both the House and Senate. Clinton left his party in worse shape, Reagan left his in better shape. Unless I have my numbers wrong I don't see this as a valid comparison.
And that majority has failed to do anything worthy of note. The Iraq war by any objective measure has been a failure, we are suffering setbacks in Afghanistan, the deficit is out-of-control once again... need I go further?
Nobody is more distressed by the fumbling of the ball than I am but that has nothing to do with the fact that Clinton's lack of ability to get his people elected got us here.
By the way, it's easy to say Clinton's gifts were "mythical" as long as you focus on his negatives and pretend his positives weren't there. His military intervention in the Balkans brought down a dictator. He did that in the face of some really illogical criticism from the Republicans at the time: that the Balkans wasn't an area of strategic interest. As though, y'know, that area hadn't been the flashpoint to trigger two World Wars. As though Europe could never again be destabilized. As though history had never happened.
His military actions in the Balkins came after the level of genocide reached levels embarrassing even to him. And many Republicans--myself included- only criticized him for waiting so long.
By the way, using George Stephanopoulos as a source merely undermines your argument. You can't simply quote his criticisms of Clinton while conveniently ignoring the way Stephanopoulos has praised him.
Not really. I was talking about Clinton's temper, whether or not this was a real reaction or something staged for the cameras. Stephanopoulos is a perfectly good source for how the real Bill Clinton acts. These are facts. Whether or not one believes that these facts add up to a bad or great president is in the realm of opinion.
Similarly, I'm sure that those who dislike George Bush can freely find quotes from his supporters that reinforce their opinions. One man's resolute is another man's stubborn.
I didn't mean to imply that his temper was ALL he was. When I said "this is what he is" I meant "A man with a temper". I can see where that might be inferred though. Believe me, I think there's a lot more to Clinton than that, good and bad.
And keep in mind; I think there's a big difference between being a gifted president and gifted politician. Johnson was a great politician but ended up a broken man in office. Reagan was a gifted politician but not everyone agrees he was a great president. It's probably a minor thing but I just roll my eyes when I hear Clinton described as such a political whiz for being able to get elected twice. By that standard Grant was a political genius.
Anyway...you do realize that my discovery that the Spam Filter won't accept anything from me with dirty words means that i can no longer amuse you by dropping the F bomb?
I have never trusted any thing said by Bill Clinton since he said "I did not have sexual relations with that lady."
And before anyone mentions it, yeah, I think Bush will and should come in for a lot of the same critisizm over darfur that Clinton will get for the Bosnian and Rowandan genocides.
At this point I just wish somebody would try something. Hell, give WAR a chance. I suspect those dying would just as soon go down swinging. It can be an ugly world but really, shouldn't there be some level beneath which we just can't allow things to continue? Genocide seems a fair level or am I setting the bar too high?
Posted by Bill Mulligan at October 1, 2006 08:36 PM
We'll never know what would have happened had Kennedy lived but things were looking good. There is also some question about whether or not you can actually say he did not win a majority of the votes in 1960--there's the confusing (to me) matter of the 286,359 votes for "unpledged electors" (Democratic party). Those votes would push Kennedy to 50.3% of the vote.
Yeah, but there were some allegations of voter fraud leveled against the JFK campaign. Those were never really resolved, in large part because Nixon declined to press for a recount of the affected votes. (As an aside, Nixon tried to paint this as a noble choice on his part. Turns out that Eisenhower had a... talk... with Nixon and told him not to even think about pushing for a recount.)
Posted by Bill Mulligan at October 1, 2006 08:36 PM
And GW Bush WAS able to increase his share to over 50% in his re-election bid, which Clinton could not do.
As Jerry C already pointed out, Ross Perot was a significant factor in the '92 and '96 elections. He was able to draw on his vast wealth to make a significant impact on those elections. That had less to do with Clinton and his opponents than it had to do with the oddball phenomenon that was Perot. You're comparing apples and oranges.
By the way, according to Wikipedia, Bill Clinton won 49.2% of the popular vote in 1996, and that's with Ross Perot taking 8.4% of the popular vote. George W. Bush won 50.7% of the popular vote in 2004, during an election in which all of the significant independents combined won less than 1% of the popular vote. I don't think that's any cause for a cry of, "Booyah, in your face, Clinton!" :)
Posted by Bill Mulligan at October 1, 2006 08:36 PM
Reagan inherited a Democratic congress. However he was able to increase Republican numbers in both the House and Senate. Clinton left his party in worse shape, Reagan left his in better shape. Unless I have my numbers wrong I don't see this as a valid comparison.
Touche. I concede this particular point to you.
Posted by Bill Mulligan at October 1, 2006 08:36 PM
Nobody is more distressed by the fumbling of the ball than I am but that has nothing to do with the fact that Clinton's lack of ability to get his people elected got us here.
No, what got us here was the bungling of the Republicans. They've had total control of the Federal Government for awhile now and haven't been able to do a damn thing with it.
It just goes to show you that the Utopia promised to us by the Republicans was just as empty as the promises made by Democrats. Neither party knows what the hell it's doing anymore.
Posted by Bill Mulligan at October 1, 2006 08:36 PM
His military actions in the Balkins came after the level of genocide reached levels embarrassing even to him. And many Republicans--myself included- only criticized him for waiting so long.
So he was damned if he did, damned if he didn't.
Posted by Bill Mulligan at October 1, 2006 08:36 PM
Not really. I was talking about Clinton's temper, whether or not this was a real reaction or something staged for the cameras. Stephanopoulos is a perfectly good source for how the real Bill Clinton acts. These are facts. Whether or not one believes that these facts add up to a bad or great president is in the realm of opinion.
Bill, that was my point -- George Stephanopolous is an excellent source for insights into Bill Clinton's personality. My point is that you were citing only those facts that supported your argument (things Stephanopolous said that were negative) while leaving out equally relevant facts that didn't support your argument (that Stephanopolous had many positive things to say about Clinton, and on the whole judged him to be a "good president.")
By the way, please stop making me write "Stephanopolous." It's a hard name to spell and if I have to write it again I may lose molecular cohesion.
Posted by Bill Mulligan at October 1, 2006 08:36 PM
Similarly, I'm sure that those who dislike George Bush can freely find quotes from his supporters that reinforce their opinions. One man's resolute is another man's stubborn.
Actually, I'm more inclined to judge Bush by the results of his actions, and his unwillingness to make adjustments in light of the consistent failure of his policies.
And keep in mind; I think there's a big difference between being a gifted president and gifted politician.
I agree with you. And as I've said, Clinton has some major character flaws and did a lot of dumb things while president. I'm not saying the man was a "political genius" or even a great president. I'm merely trying to take a more balanced view of the man.
I realize you likely believe I have an unbalanced view of George W. Bush. That is probably a topic for another show. I'll simply say I think George W. Bush is an abysmal president who is vastly inferior to past presidents including Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush, and Ronald Reagan. It's not Bush's ideology or party affiliation that bothers me, it's his abject incompetence.
Posted by Bill Mulligan at October 1, 2006 08:36 PM
Anyway...you do realize that my discovery that the Spam Filter won't accept anything from me with dirty words means that i can no longer amuse you by dropping the F bomb?
That's OK. There are many other ways in which you amuse me. :P
You know, I just realized that in my last post I consistently misspelled "Stephanopoulos." I had best go to bed before my molecular cohesion is reduced to the point that I become incorporeal.
And Bill Mulligan stop making me say "Stephanopoulos," damn you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
So he was damned if he did, damned if he didn't.
Well, sure. I seriously doubt there is ANY decision that can be made that won't bother SOME-damned-body. If Clinton or any other president thinks that some course of action is the right one but hesitates because they are afraid that the opposition part will, you know, oppose...they should quit. Let the VP try his or her hand. Lead, follow or get out of the way.
I am SO looking forward to President McCain. Or Guliani. Or even Romney. Hell, I'll take Clinton, H. Clinton, that is.
You know, I just realized that in my last post I consistently misspelled "Stephanopoulos."
Like anyone would notice. Hell, I can't spell Gulliani and I'll probably VOTE for the guy!
And many Republicans--myself included- only criticized him for waiting so long.
Really?
That would be the first I've heard of it, more so since both taking down Milosevic and Somalia were humanitarian efforts, and humanitarian isn't something Republicans have been going for for as long as I can remember.
I'd love to see some quotes from others on this. :)
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at October 1, 2006 11:47 PM
I am SO looking forward to President McCain. Or Guliani. Or even Romney.
Why's that?
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at October 1, 2006 11:47 PM
Hell, I'll take Clinton, H. Clinton, that is.
Bill, I'm a card-carrying lib and even I don't want to contemplate a Hillary Clinton administration. Of course, I don't think it'll actually be an issue. I very much doubt she'll get elected.
It's funny: I'm fully ready for a woman president. It's just this particular woman that I wouldn't want to see in office.
That would be the first I've heard of it, more so since both taking down Milosevic and Somalia were humanitarian efforts, and humanitarian isn't something Republicans have been going for for as long as I can remember.
No, of course not.
Remember Bob Dole, a Repoublican of some note? Tried to get the arms embargo on Bosnia lifted for some time before Clinton decided to send in the troops, then supported the move.
Both the National Review and The Weekly Standard supported the Yugoslavian rescue.
Steve Forbes--"the bombing should have taken place six months ago, a year ago, two years ago."
McCain- "That the president has so frequently and so utterly failed to preserve one of our most important strategic assets -- our credibility -- is not a reason to deny him his authority to lead NATO in this action. On the contrary, it is a reason for Congress to do what it can to restore our credibility. It is a reason for us to help convince Milosevic that the United States, the greatest force for good in history, will no longer stand by while he makes a mockery of the values for which so many Americans have willingly given their lives."
And so on...
McCain- "That the president has so frequently and so utterly failed to preserve one of our most important strategic assets -- our credibility"
Maybe it's just me, but this sounds like a total hindsight comment on McCain's part.
Much like terrorism, there just didn't seem to be a lot of interest in it until something happened. In this case, Clinton decided to go to Bosnia, THEN the guessing game started.
Of course, it's amusing to see how thoroughly that part of the quote I've taken applies to Bush more than it ever will to Clinton.
Here's a quote from PBS NewsHour I found from McCain regarding the deployment of troops to Bosnia:
"ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: What has led you to move towards supporting the President in the deployment of troops in Bosnia, albeit with reservations?
SEN. McCAIN: Elizabeth, I don't support the deployment of the troops. I've accepted the fact that the troops are going. There is nothing the Congress of the United States can do in reality to stop the deployment."
That doesn't sound like somebody who was interested in going to Bosnia in the first place, so I really have to question McCain's 20/20 vision.
This is why Olbermann has the -- as he claims -- highest cable news rated show (Just so long as you're only looking at the EST Midnight re-run numbers, not those meaningless live broadcast numbers.)
This is why Olbermann has the -- as he claims -- highest cable news rated show
Well, there's a reason that other station is called Faux News.
Y'know, if HALF the politicians displayed either the intelligence, wit, or consideration that routinely gets exercised here, this country would be a hell of a lot better off.
I've been thinking about something for a while now. Does it bother anybody that we spend so much time, effort, and resources outside our own borders to make things better when there's a whole lot of people that could use help here? I'm all for helping people, here or there, but sometimes I wonder if maybe we shouldn't get our own place in order before we set someone else up.
McCain's support was grudging but it was there. You might enjoy reading the Weekly Standard's editorial on the issue, where they excoriate the Republicans who voted against the bombing of the Serbs, arguing that the last thing we need is Republicans acting like McGoveren Democrats.
At any rate, while the fact that there were plenty of Republicans that supported the overthrow of Miloshovek (sp?) might be news to you, the articles are out there.
Does it bother anybody that we spend so much time, effort, and resources outside our own borders to make things better when there's a whole lot of people that could use help here?
Personally I don't think we do enough. We have the ability to help, it seems dishonorable not to do do so.
I would certainly agree that we should take a good hard look at how we do it though. The level of corruption in many countries (And at the UN, sorry to say) means that a lot of what we give it wasted. You also have to balance out the fact that by helping out the people living under some corrupt regime we are, in fact, making it easier for the regime to survive.
Sean, I'd like to echo and amplify what Bill Mulligan said. We're part of a global community, as the attacks perpetrated against us on September 11, 2001, demonstrated. If we want prosperity and security for ourselves, we have to work to provide it for others.
As Kendig -- uh, I mean, Mulligan -- pointed out, the problem is that a great deal of foreign aid is misdirected through bureaucratic waste and corruption. In fact, it's one of the reasons why radical Islamic terrorists hate us: because we support governments they feel are corrupt or unjust. (Never mind the fact that most of the world's Islamic theocracies make the Middle Ages look like the Age of Enlightenment.) The bottom line is that the very nations most in need often have governments that are obstacles to getting aid to the people who need it.
Still, I'd rather see us continue to provide aid to foreign countries. It's not perfect, but I believe it's the right thing to do. I would, however, like to see us get smarter about it. As I say this, I'm crouching in anticipation of having to duck a brickbat from Bill Mulligan, but... Bill Clinton was particularly good at attaching strings to foreign aid packages. We should be attaching our foreign aid carrots to sticks that will force reforms, however small, in nations in need of such reforms.
Well, like I said, I'm all for helping people whether they're here or there. And I'm not saying don't help, that's the LAST thing I would say, but there are people who need help HERE. If I came off as completely isolationist, that wasn't my intention. All I WAS saying is that sometimes we seem so intent on helping people THERE, that some of the people who need help HERE get forgotten. Or seem to, anyway.
Sean, I fully understand where you're coming from on. And no, I didn't think you were being isolationist.
I'm about to commit liberal blasphemy, but... I often wonder if we're doing too much for the underclass in this country rather than not enough. My girlfriend has worked for the social services department in the county in which we live for as long as I've known her. Her experiences have been quite illuminating. To you and I, the aid we give to the poor in this nation may seem like a pittance, but it's a king's ransom compared with what's available to the poor in many other nations. And it shields people from the consequences of poor behavior. Why not have a half-dozen kids with a half-dozen fathers if the government will provide for all of them?
(I know it's different in every state, by the way. I live in New York where the social assistance laws are quite generous, relatively speaking.)
We've habituated people to living on social assistance. Children are growing up not knowing any other way to live.
There was a time when social assistance was delivered more rationally. My grandfather was the beneficiary of government make-work projects during the depression. But that was the key: he provided the government with a service and received a paycheck in return.
On the flip side, my girlfriend is now working at a children's detention facility and has seen another facet of the problem. Many of the children who end up in this facility come from broken families where there are no role models exemplifying proper behavior. My girlfriend is a conservative, and no fan of government largesse. But she believes it is unrealistic to simply say these children need to be given a kick in the seat and told to straighten up and fly right. They need to be shown an alternative way to behave. If their families will not or cannot provide that, she believes the government must play a role.
It's a complicated problem. I think we're simultaenously doing too much and not enough to help the less fortunate. I think we need to really look at how we deliver social assistance, from the ground up, and determine how to get the best bang for our buck. I don't think that necessarily means spending more. It may mean spending less. But it definitely means spending smarter.
Bill, yeah, she's right. I've seen kids who have no greater ambition than to live on welfare and smoke weed. At first I thought they were kidding, because that sounds like hell to me but I'm pretty sure now that they were very serious.
I've also seen kids who did whatever it took to get out of poverty, even in the face of family members that are trying to keep them down ("We don't want her taking on airs".)
If there is some code to this I haven't cracked it yet. Could ambition be something you're born with (or not)?
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at October 2, 2006 03:21 PM
Could ambition be something you're born with (or not)?
I don't think any reasonable person could dismiss the possibility out-of-hand.
I tend to wonder if it isn't a case of the bell curve at work. Maybe some people are so exceptionally rotten to the bone, they'll end up being dirtwads even if they're born into a loving and balanced family. Maybe some people are at the other end of the curve are so exceptional they'll beat any odds. That leaves the majority in the middle of the curve -- people who can be tipped one way or the other by their environment.
If I'm correct, I think the best way to spend our social services dollars is not to provide subsistence to the chronically irresponsible but instead to provide people with an opportunity to learn better and more successful habits. That, of course, is a tall order and infinitely easier said than done. Nevertheless, I think it's a conversation we need to have. As a liberal, I believe the government has a role in helping the indigent. As a liberal who recognizes the value of conservatism, however, I think that aid needs to be spend wisely with an eye on tying expenditures to results.
Bill (Myers, that is) once AGAIN you've beaten me to the punch. And I LIKE to punch. (Hey, I'm Irish and Scottish, comes with the blood.) There ARE better ways to spend the social services money. Unfortunately, a lot of people react like "Throw enough money at it and it'll go away" without ever thinking "Put the money in the RIGHT PLACES and it'll go away." It's not a question of doing too much, it's a question of doing what will work. Hey, I think a revival of the WPA would go a long way toward helping a LOT of people. (Sometime remind me to tell you my mom's WPA meets the DAR story.) The world has changed, people have changed, society has changed, so social programs need to change.
My wife is living proof of your second theory, exceptional enough to beat any odds. I've said it before, her life story could be turned into a two-week-long mini-series on Lifetime. I thought I knew what being inspired was, given my parents' history, then I met Stace.
Hmm, Sean, sounds like you can join Bill and me in the "How'd this dame end up with ME?" sweepstakes. In my case it's my pure animal magnetism and copious charm...what are YOU laughing at, Myers? The others haven't seen me, I could be Brad Friggin' Pitt for all they know.
With all the great stuff that is easily available to the average person it astounds me that boredom and lonliness still plague us. How anyone could want to waste their life drunk or stoned is totally beyond me.
The others haven't seen me, I could be Brad Friggin' Pitt for all they know.
Completely true. However, one would think that a Brad Pitt would spend quite so much time here. ;)
As for myself, I know exactly how I managed to land my wife, a fortuitous synergy of my white knight complex and good ol' fashioned geek love. Ain't love grand?
-Rex Hondo-
Hmmmm, I may have not been around but in my humble knownledge of history, I can't recall Murrow calling a fellow journalist "a monkey". Perhaps I am wrong?
