I thought I was done blogging for the night, but then I saw this, and it needs a response. Phillip Girardi, in an attempt to make the case that Obama might be a solid choice for conservatives who are unwilling to vote for Hillary but hoping for a retreat from the disastrous Bush policies that McCain will surely continue, states the following:
As a conservative, it is frankly incomprehensible to me that anyone would want to go back to the sleaze, constant political triangulation, sense of aggrieved entitlement, and low life characters like Sandy Berger that characterized the Clinton White House. Nor is it possible to understand why anyone would want to cast a vote that would seem to establish a dynastic principle in American politics in which the White House alternates between people named Bush and Clinton. The American people and the country surely deserve something markedly better than the Bushes and Clintons that we all have experienced. Jeb and Chelsea, step aside please! Find a real job.
Taking aim at the deficiencies of the Clintons is not to exonerate George W. Bush, who has been a far worse, more corrupt, and much more dangerous president than Bill Clinton ever was. But let’s face it, as presidents go, Clinton was an ethical mess, actually making George Bush look good on the personal integrity scale.
What a load of crap. I wish that would suffice for a response, but it will not. So let me state again- what a load of crap.
I am not going to excuse the lamentable personal ethical lapses of Bill Clinton, nor am I going to excuse any other ethical shortcomings that may have occurred during his administrations. At the same time, I am not going to sit by and let someone glibly claim that those ethical lapses mean that Bill Clinton has less personal integrity than George Bush.
George Bush has been, without question, the most ethically handicapped President in my lifetime, and perhaps ever. From the top to the bottom of his administration, we have witnessed rampant and widespread criminality, cronyism, and incompetence of an unparalleled nature, and again, this has been from the top to the bottom of his administration. George Bush is responsible for the smoldering wreckage that is the current DOJ. George Bush is responsible for the disaster in Iraq. George Bush is responsible for the fact that the federal government has served as an affirmative action program for unqualified hacks from Regents University. George Bush is responsible for illegal surveillance of American citizens. And on and on and on.
On the day that the Yoo memo is finally coming to light, detailing how George Bush’s handpicked crew of war criminals orchestrated a regime of torture, and on the day that we learn the Inspector General is investigating whether qualified DOJ lawyers were fired because of their sexual orientation, it is particularly offensive to be told that George Bush, the man responsible for all of this and who knows what else, is a man of higher integrity than Clinton.
While I definitely agree with the premise that Obama will be a better choice than another Clinton administration, with all the luggage they bring, attempting to claim George Bush is a man of personal integrity while Bill Clinton is an ethical piker should be something that offends all conservatives and all Americans. Bill Clinton got a blow-job and lied about it under oath. George Bush, while violating every conservative principle imaginable, also oversaw the brutal rape of this nation’s most cherished principles, all while sneering and bullying those who tried to stop him.
There simply is no comparison.
Jackmormon
Amen.
glasnost
On the one hand, I agree.
On the other, if it was a conservative trying to gin himself up to vote for Obama, I would have maybe not tried to make him hate liberals quite this much right now.
Also, you need to link to this.
Rarely Posts
That’s a relief.
lee
Ouch…that is going to leave a mark.
Glen smacking down Yoo and now you leaving a mark on conservatives in general.
Pretty good day :)
Jason
Sadly, I think firing “teh gays” and democrats, attempting to prove that gov’t doesn’t work through incompetence, and starting baseless wars over oil only PROVES W.’s integrity to the neocons. Those were the principles he went in to office supporting, and by God, he stuck to them. That is integrity to them.
Incertus
Do you have any idea how much I hope a videotape of Dubya getting blown by someone, anyone, male, female, trans, what the fuck ever, appears? I’m about as atheist as you get, but I’ll pray to each and every god that has ever been believed in, and invent a few dozen more if that were to happen, just so we could throw it in those idiots’ faces.
Whenever I hear that claim of Bush–“at least he didn’t cheat on his wife”–I’m reminded of Chris Rock’s bit from “Bring the Pain” where he’s talking about people who want credit for shit they’re supposed to do.
Well that, but with “he’s never cheated on his wife.” Yeah, but we’ve got all this other shit, thanks.
Wisdom
If the price of bringing freedom to 50 million more people on this planet is ethical constipation by some moonbat outliers, then I say bring it on.
A McCain Administration will exceed that number if we just have the courage to finish the course in the ME.
Good thing “ethics” didn’t win out in 1988, we’d still have a Wall in Berlin.
Liberal Masochist
Wisdom gets the Knucklehead award for the month! No point in countering that idiocy.
4tehlulz
>>we just have the courage to finish the course
>>we just have the courage
>>we just have
>>we just
>>we
lol we.
horatius
And yeah, John Cole may be too nice to say this Philip, so let me say it for him.
Go fuck yourself.
ploeg
Just piling on with Incertus, when somebody says that Bush is:
…and then goes on to say that Clinton makes Bush look good on the personal integrity scale, what the hell is that supposed to mean? Apart from the blowjob, in what way is Bush better than Clinton regarding sleaze, sense of personal entitlement, or association with low-life characters?
Cain
[hysterical clapping and then then flicking a BIC lighter]
cain
Loviatar sock puppeting for "F"
So John after writing this (all of which I happen to agree with) I’ll ask you the questions I asked in another thread:
.
Why, as an educated man whose knowledge of history and politics are well above average,
Why did you vote for George W. Bush the first time?
Why did you vote for George W. Bush a second time?
Why did you vote for a Republican Congress in 2004, which by 2002 in its current configuration had shown itself to be unethical, corrupt and immoral?
.
And no, I’m not trying to be snarky, I really would like to know why an intelligent, educated person would vote and continue to vote for a person who had proven to be wholly inept and incompetent in everything he had ever attempted (other than the lucky sperm contest) and for a group of people who were proven unethical and corrupt.
And this is without even referencing their “Southern Strategy” and its affect on race in this country or their other anti-middle class policies.
Adam
Hm. When I read that article through the first time, I read him as meaning Bush, Sr. He left out the W. (can’t remember if he used it elsewhere in the article), and he isn’t exactly kind to the Dubya Administration…
John Cole
Too long to go into tonight, Loviator.
Svensker
Gads. I’m an ethically constipated moonbat outlier! Mom will be so proud. Doesn’t pie work for ethical constipation? Slices all around!
tBone
Not bad, not bad at all. About time we got a decent new spoof around here.
Cain
Man, I was disapointed that Hillary is 9 points ahead in an Indiana poll. For some reason I thought my former state would hae preferred Obama over Hillary. Perhaps we have more of blue collar worker types.. But then with the why PA has been closing the gap it might be that mere presence is all you need to ride the MUP.
cain
ploeg
Good point. Mondale would never have thought to ask the Russians to tear down the Wall.
MNPundit
Don’t forget the footnotes!
4th Amendment Doesn’t Apply When It Comes to Terrorism
Well to be honest, after taking a 4th Amendment law class, it seems the 4th Amendment almost never applies ANYWAY but the point remains.
some guy
If the price of bringing freedom to 50 million more people on this planet is ethical constipation by some moonbat outliers, then I say bring it on.
A McCain Administration will exceed that number if we just have the courage to finish the course in the ME.
I’m not saying we wouldn’t get our hair mussed. But I do say no more than 50 to 100 years of war. Depending on the breaks.
joe
I totally agree with you. Bribery – TORTURE!!!! Cheating on your wife – TORTURING CAPTIVES!!! This is easy for anybody with a sense of morality.
And, also, Chelsea and Jeb strike me as the most decent of the bunch. Bad call to single those two out. How about the guy who got busted with the Asian whores, and Hughie?
jake
Bush was way worse than Clinton. Except he wasn’t, really.
I think I’ve found the problem though: Neo-cons must have some sort of implant that will cause their heads to explode if they stray too far from the party line. Kind of like Wedlock but without the sex.
demimondian
Excellent, excellent. “Moonbat outliers”, in particular, is a very nice turn of phrase. May I use it in the future? Gratis, of course — I wouldn’t want to pay more than it’s worth.
Ted
How’s that freedom going five years later, by the way?
jones
as the Dems were wont to say during the clinton years, where’s the people getting convicted then? Outside of Libby, who was NOT convicted of outing Valerie Plame (no one was, no one in the White House was even implicated, it came from State, as everyone now knows) and unlike Cisneros and the Willey’s and, well let’s see, shall we:
http://prorev.com/legacy.htm
{Jesus fucking christ. Don’t spam my comments. I edited this shit down from a three page wall of text to the link we have all seen 100 times. Jackass- John Cole}
joe
I would also be interested in reading John Cole describe his political journey.
You used to be one of those “treason-Munich-coward-latte-freedom fries” bloggers, right? “John Kerry sucks because he doesn’t like shitty cheese on his sammich,” right?
You are obviously an intelligent, educated person of some discernment. You had to know better.
So, what’s up with that?
Wisdom
These people will never have a chance to laugh again if we fail to support them.
It will take we as a people to make that happen. I know it’s hard to bring about real change, but maybe you should strive to support something more concrete and less abstract than your latest flavor of the month.
Is this historical accuracy par for the course here? Not knowing who the candidates of either party were in 1988?
some guy
Dude, you harshed my buzz.
Ted
Hey John? You might consider banning the IP that dumpster just came from.
joe
Arabs will always be savages unless we conquer them, and show them the True Path of Freedom.
Also, there will be no laughter in Iraq absent an American occupation, because “your granny getting patted down by foreign soldiers” equals “foundation for a liberal, democratic republic.”
Got it, ace.
joe
Oh, man don’t mess with the Cole in his house.
The Cole will mess your shit up.
SoulCatcher
Well said…
Ted
Um, can you and your crazed FIX THE WORLD!! maniacs go find another country to use as your vehicle for executing your fantasies? We’d like to get back to fixing our own now.
Liberal Masochist
Wisdom – you are such a knobshine. Pick up yer shinebox and move on.
Ted
I’ll bet anyone here fifty bucks “Wisdom” is within the new (under 50? you’re in!) military recruiting guidelines.
DrDave
John:
For another conservative opinion in favor of electing Obama, check out this piece from Andrew Bacevich. Bacevich only supports Obama because he will get us out of Iraq and in his view, this is the necessary starting point for fixing all that wrong with America. He does not mention Hillary in the essay; this is all about what a colossal clusterfuck the Bush presidency has been, and how electing McCain will ensure a continuation of the status quo.
There is something to be said for that conclusion.
conumbdrum
You know, except for this glaring sentence (which is the understandable source if your ire, John)…
…this guy is making a surprising amount of sense for a Republican. I’m going to choke down my bile and give Girardi props for the rest of this piece, and think of the comment above as a mental tic that’s encoded into the GOP DNA.
Dennis - SGMM
Naw, Clinton wasn’t anywhere near Bush. Clinton was just a low grade carnival huckster who assured us he was feeling our pain as he signed into law legislation dear to the hearts of the Republicans. I doubt that in his wildest dreams of ambition that he would have conceived the Unitary Executive with extra-Constitutional powers in time of never-ending war.
Bush represents a threat to the Republic, Clinton merely an embarrassment to it.
conumbdrum
You know, except for this glaring sentence (which is the understandable source if your ire, John)…
…this guy is making a surprising amount of sense for a Republican. I’m going to choke down my bile and give Girardi props for the rest of this piece, and think of the comment above as a mental tic that’s encoded into the GOP DNA.
John Cole
AJ Bacevich was the CO in charge of my Army unit when I was on active duty. I read everything he writes.
My First Sergeant for my troop is now the Sergeant Major of the Army.
Calouste
Apparently this guy doesn’t realize that Dubya policies are responsible for about twice as many civilian deaths as Idi Amin managed in his 8 years in power.
Amin’s regime btw was described by the American ambassador to Uganda as “racist, erratic and unpredictable, brutal, inept, bellicose, irrational, ridiculous, and militaristic”.
DrDave
I didn’t know that.
I hope you’ll let us know what you think of the essay.
Phoenix Woman
What John Said.
Soylent Green
Girardi can tell Republicans that Bush is the next incarnation of Mahatma Ghandi if it will help persuade them to vote for Obama.
So it’s utterly bogus, so it’s true that Bush will be added to Webster’s as a new definition for “worst,” so what? Maybe these people need some cover for the shame and embarrassment they must feel for having been Bushies in the past. But if you say to someone “you stupid motherfucker I fart in your general direction for backing Bush, now come over to Obama you stupid moron” their face-saving, pride-salvaging impulse will be to stay put. It’s human nature.
Later, after they’ve had a chance to experience life in the real world, they can figure out where they went wrong. Baby steps.
Dennis - SGMM
Dennis doffs hat. Never touched greatness myself.
ploeg
Hi, Wisdom!
You are quite correct. Reagan and Mondale ran in 1984. Bush Sr. and Dukakis ran in 1988. And I don’t see how this has anything to do with anything important.
Rick Taylor
*claps*
Brachiator
Well done, sir. Well done!
As far as this nonsense about “personal integrity,” Americans have been there done that when they chose Grover Cleveland for president over James Blaine. Cleveland had a reputation for honesty despite a messy personal life and long-standing rumors that he had fathered an illegitimate child, while Blaine was suspected of being an anti-Catholic bigot and politically corrupt.
Americans decided for the guy with political integrity and overlooked his supposed personal flaws.
By the way, Blaine may have been done in by his own “Jeremiah Wright” moment (with a nod to Wikipedia):
RSA
How many freedom points does a dead Iraqi count for, anyway? (What am I saying? Iraqis don’t count for anything at all.)
Redhand
And this makes him far more execrable than Bubba by far. Bubba was morally corrupt, and did some seriously illegal sh*t — consider the Chinese campaign finance scandals and the crowd of crooks who regularly visited the Lincoln bedroom, not to mention lying about the BJ under oath. But this stuff is almost quiant compared to Bush.
From the get-go Bush staffed his team with right wing nut-jobs whose totatilarian tendencies have been allowed to run riot. Through legal scum like David Addington and John Yoo, who had to know what they were doing was illegal because they’ve tried so hard to keep it secret (through wholesale violations of the Presidential Records Act, to cite one tactic) Bush has greatly damaged the basic constitutional principal of separation of powers in favor of a tyrannical and lawless executive, and has made us a torture-enabling disgrace throughout the world. His mad, ideology-driven, don’t-bother-me-with-the-facts war in Iraq has killed and maimed more Americans than Al-Q did on 9/11, and is resulting in Iraq becomming an Iranian satellite, of all things.
Domestically Bush has infected the supposed-to-be-neutral bureaucracies of this country with some of the most disgusting, incompetent and self-dealing political ticks I have ever seen. (The scumbag who just resigned as Secretary of HUD is the rule rather than the exception.)
Bottom line is that Bush’s corruption is orders of magnitude greater than anything Bubba ever did.
Like John Cole, I tended strong conservative before Bush, but after Bush I can’t imagine EVER voting Republican again, not with the kind of Republican Congresses that enabled Bush to do as much damage as he has. Even though I didn’t vote for Bush in the big elections, and instead boycotted them both because of my general disgust with politics, I feel a bit ashamed of that, because my failure to vote helped bring this about. NEVER again will I fail in my modest civic duty of voting for President. (Obama in ’08!)
cbear
Col. Bacevich lost his son in Iraq last year and wrote one the most provocative and heart-rending articles I have read about the war.
Here it is:
I Lost My Son to a War I Oppose. We Were Both Doing Our Duty.
theturtlemoves
I wouldn’t say Clinton was worse than Bush, but it wasn’t just the blowjobs. The thing that pushed me over the edge into voting for Bush the Senior during a brief conservative period early in college (how else do you rebel at a liberal arts college?) was the brain damaged guy Clinton executed so he could look tough on crime in Arkansas. It was really only to look tough for a news cycle or two, but he made a big show of signing the death warrant for a guy so profoundly retarded that he saved his pecan pie “for afterward”. That told me Clinton was willing to do pretty much anything for his own career, ethics or common decency be damned.
It isn’t thousands of dead Americans and Iraqis or waterboarding, but it really didn’t surprise me a few years later that he was getting hummers in the oval office.
jrg
If you’re so uptight that hearing about someone else getting a blowjob is torture, Bill Clinton was the worst president ever.
On the other hand, if you’re so uptight that it bothers you to see young disabled veterans, you’re a traitor and a hippie.
Since puritan tightwads and flag-burning hippies even each other out, I think we can all agree that George Bush and Bill Clinton are equally bad. That seems like a fair and balanced compromise.
Ted
I take issue with that subtle comparison to the Bush administration. The Bush administration is highly predictable.
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
Bravo John!
Well said.
The worst that could be said of Bill Clinton is that he helped to set the stage for W by giving the Republicans something sleazy to fixate on while ignoring and excusing the ethical gangrene that was developing within their own party.
“The Democrats are worse” was the slogan chanted loudly and often on the road to Hell taken by the GOP under W.
It is important for Democrats to remember this, to remember that the same could happen on our side if we become careless and lazy in our thinking, to become alarmed if we hear echoes of it coming from our side, and to remember that the most important safeguard we have against this sad and disgusting history repeating itself is the willingness of both Dems and Reps to look long and hard at the problems in our own backyards first before using the transgressions of the other party to justify our lapses.
Otherwise mote-and-beam logic will turn into a race for the bottom again at some point in the future.
John has performed a signal public service by showing us how to recognize and then to walk away from this political form of a prisoner’s dilemma – this lesson needs to be spread as widely as we can through both parties.
J Bean
It’s worth noting that most, if not all, of the Clinton “sleaze” — except The Blow Job — was made-up GOP crap. “Clinton Rules”, remember? In two years, insh’Allah, the GOP will be trying to throw Michelle Obama into jail on trumped up charges and in ten years, people will be talking about the “Obama corruption”, too. The GOP has a whole flock of ratfuckers who get paid to create and disseminate lies about Democrats. At least the missing “W” keycaps was a funny lie.
Conservatively Liberal
While I consider Bush to be at least a few hundred times (cubed) worse than Bill Clinton, lets not get ahead of ourselves here. While the goopers made up more than enough crap about the Clintons, Bill is no saint.
Bill Clinton at his worst beats Bu$h at his best.
My political evil scale:
Cheney>Satan>Bu$h>Clinton
And just to torque off the Clintonistas, append:
>Mother Theresa>Obama
to the end of that. ;p
Conservatively Liberal
OT, according to a post at Kos, it looks like Jimmy Carter will support Obama but will not state it openly since he is a super delegate. But the wink and nod is implicit in his statement. This will not impress the wingnuts (or be welecomed by Hillary and Bill), but I am glad to hear of it.
I think Carter is one of the under appreciated presidents of our time, but I have always thought highly of him.
DrDave
I have long been amused/astonished/angered by the notion that “it is the duty of the opposing side [usually the Democrats but in this instance, Col. Bacevich] to offer ‘patriotic’ opposition to policies with which they don’t agree.” But I have yet to see any voice of opposition that wasn’t branded unpatriotic or aiding and comforting the enemy.
Karmakin
I’m pretty sure that McCain would be worse than Bush in pretty much every regard. I’m pretty sure that he’d be even more of a colossal screw-up on a fractal level.
Clinton’s stuff, to be honest WAS quaint. It was typical alpha posturing. Frankly, we should kind of expect it from politicians, considering the mindset that leads people to get involved in politics in the first place. Not that it shouldn’t be punished when caught. But it shouldn’t be shocking.
Obama doesn’t strike me as being too big on the alpha posturing. That’s reason enough to support him really. Clinton is a big alpha as well on the other hand. That alone explains the difference in outlooks.
MMM
AMEN!
ITMFA!
4tehlulz
>>It will take we as a people to make that happen
>>It will take we as a people
>>we as a people
>>we
So, how many tours in Iraq have you done? I think we need the perspective of someone who has been there. If not, will you consider the Army? They could use people like you who are hoping to preserve
an Iranian puppet statedemocracy.Fe E
Good grief–is that real? Not that I doubt you, but that just sickens and saddens me to my core. It wan’t for that, but Clinton’s Rebpulcian-lite act had worn thin on me by then. I voted for Nader in 1996–but not in 2000.
Now I think I’m gonna be melanchloy for awhile….
Jay C
But, John, don’t you know that 9/11 CHANGED EVERYTHING!!!
It did – it provided (and, if McCain and the Republicans get their way this election year will continue to provide) a handy-dandy, one-size-fits-all, all-inclusive exculpation to excuse any and all wrongdoing/incompetence by the second-rate hack currently disgracing the Oval Office: as well as any of his (scarcely less hackish) Republican successors. Any questions about the capabilities of the Bush Administration? Hide behind 9/11!
Dept. of Justice? ZOMG SCARY TERRISTS!! TERRERISTZ!! WE NEED PERTECTION!!! 9/11!! 9/11!!
Iraq? POISON GAS!!! MUSHROOM CLOUDS!! MUSLIMS!!! OMG SCARY TERRORISTS!! NEED WHISKY, DEMOCRACY, SEXY!!! REMEMBER 9/11!!
Unqualified ideologues appointed? WAR!! WAR!! WE’RE AT WAR!!! HOW DARE YOU QUESTION THE WAR PREZNIT???!!!
Illegal surveillance? WAR!! TERRISTZ!! WHAT IF WE’D HAD WARNINGS OF 9/11??!!!! RIGHTS MEAN SQUAT WHEN YER DEAD!!!!!
Dubya and his criminal regime (and this is, remember, a group effort: anyone here think the Hon. George Walker Bush is capable enough to manage this political mafia on his own?) have ridden the Great National Freakout over 9/11 to unparalleled depths of incompetence-in-power, and it has been aided and abetted by the American public pretty much all the way. Barring one sucessful (and probably unreapeatable) act of spectacular teerrorism, do you really think there is any way these sleazeballs wouldn’t have been tossed out on their collective asses years ago?
Jay C
And BTW, how come multiple exclamation points on Balloon Juice display as normal text in the Preview box, but show up as !!!! in the actual comment?
Another tragedy of 9/11?
Rick Taylor
Fe E Says:
Yup, I remember it too. It made it just a little harder to pull the lever for Clinton.
Egilsson
This is why Balloon-Juice has become my favorite blog, and I read it every day now.
Great post.
Chris Andersen
Clap Clap Clap
I have many problems with Clintons, mostly having to do with their inherent belief that the only way to get ahead in politics is to play games. But this idea that Clinton’s administration was an ethical cesspool is pure right-wing agitprop.
His enemies spent over $100 million tax payer dollars investigation every aspect of his private political and economic life and the ONLY thing they could get him on was fudging the truth in a deposition in a lawsuit that was thrown out by a judge for lack of merit.
I challenge ANYONE in this forum to say they could come out as well.
Clinton’s administration may very have been one of the most ethical in history.