Noonan asserted "Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton" is a "sickness" that "is giving so many people pause"
SUMMARY: Discussing "dynasticism" on NBC's Meet the Press, Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan asserted that "this Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton" is a "sickness" that "is giving so many people pause." But when asked how they felt about members of the Bush and Clinton families holding the presidency for nearly 20 years, 50 percent of respondents in a recent New York Times/CBS News poll said it "doesn't really make much difference."
On the January 20 edition of NBC's Meet the Press, during a discussion on Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) and the question of political dynasties, Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan asserted that "this Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton" is a "sickness" that "is giving so many people pause." Noonan further claimed: "as some people come forward and endorse, on the Democratic side, Mrs. Clinton, they must be thinking, stop the dynasty." According to a January 9-12 New York Times/CBS News poll, 50 percent of respondents said it "doesn't really make much difference" when asked how they "feel about members of these two families [the Bushes and Clintons] holding the presidency for nearly 20 years." Thirty-eight percent responded that it is a "bad thing," and 5 percent said it is a "good thing."
The Times/CBS poll asked:
Since 1989, a member of the Bush or Clinton family has been President of the United States. How do you feel about members of these two families holding the presidency for nearly 20 years -- it is a good thing for the country, because the individuals in these families have a lot of experience in government and politics, or it is a bad thing for the country, because it concentrates too much power among a small group of people, or it doesn't really make much difference, because each election is about individuals, not families?
A January 20 write-up on the poll question in the Times' The Caucus blog reported: "According to a recent New York Times/CBS News poll, most [voters] are indifferent, saying each election is about individuals and not families ... Democratic primary voters were divided on whether it is bad or makes no difference. But Democrats who support Mrs. Clinton's nomination are more likely to say it makes no difference."
Additionally, a July 27-30, 2007, NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll asked: "If Hillary Clinton was elected president, some people say this would be a problem because it would mean at least twenty-four years of having a member of the Clinton family or the Bush family as president. Is this a serious consideration for you, not much of a consideration, or not a consideration for you at all?" The poll found that 54 percent of respondents said it would be "not a consideration at all," with another 20 percent responding that it would be "not much of a consideration."
Polling also indicates that voters are comfortable with former President Bill Clinton being back in the White House. As Talking Points Memo reporter-blogger Greg Sargent noted on November 15, 2007, "[V]oters ... have told pollsters again and again and again that they are comfortable with" the prospect of Bill Clinton being back in the White House, and see it "as either a non-issue or a positive." Indeed, Media Matters for America has documented several 2007 polls in which a majority of respondents stated that Bill Clinton is an asset to Hillary Clinton's campaign and would have a positive effect on a Hillary Clinton administration:
- A September 27-30, 2007, Washington Post/ABC News poll found that 60 percent of respondents said they "personally feel comfortable ... with the idea of Bill Clinton back in the White House."
- A September 25-26, 2007, Fox News poll found that 53 percent of respondents thought that of the spouses of seven presidential candidates (including both Democrats and Republicans), Bill Clinton "would help [his] spouse the most to win the White House."
- An April 10-12, 2007, CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll found that 60 percent of respondents thought Bill Clinton would have a "positive effect" on a Hillary Clinton administration.
- A March 23-25, 2007, Gallup poll found that 70 percent of respondents thought Bill Clinton would do "more good than harm" for Hillary Clinton's campaign.
- A February 22-25, 2007, Gallup poll found that 70 percent of respondents thought Bill Clinton would be "mostly helpful ... to her [Hillary Clinton's] presidency."
The January 9-12 Times/CBS poll found that, among Democratic primary voters, 39 percent of respondents said that "Bill Clinton's involvement in Hillary Clinton's Presidential campaign" would make them more likely to support Hillary Clinton, 13 percent said it would make them less likely to support her, and 47 percent said it would make no difference.
From the January 20 edition of NBC's Meet the Press:
DORIS KEARNS GOODWIN (presidential historian): And Hillary, I think, is saying she understands the role of inspiration; she's talked about that and the role of somehow being able to mobilize the people. But she says you got to be able to manage on day one. And I don't think that he [Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL)] was really saying by saying he had a disorderly desk that he was going to be a Bush-like CEO president, but she was able to move right in. I mean, that was very quick on her part to change that level of the topic to that conversation.
TOM BROKAW (former NBC Nightly News anchor, to Meet the Press host Tim Russert): I think she's helped as well, Tim, by the perceived feeling in this country that President Bush has been a disaster in terms of managing the presidency. That's a lesson that everybody wakes up with every morning at this point.
GOODWIN: Competence.
BROKAW: Republicans and Democrats alike. I have never heard as many Republicans -- gold-star, born and bred Republicans -- so unhappy with the management of this country by a Republican president now.
NOONAN: Totally true.
BROKAW: And I think that when she plays the competence card and the experience card, it's measured against that.
GOODWIN: Right.
BROKAW: We don't want to go back into an unknown again. Here is somebody who does know what she's doing. That does pop up in the polls. But the counterweight to it, of course, is still not entirely comfortable with her. I have questions about her character and concern about whether she can win.
NOONAN: May I say, dynasticism is part of this, too?
GOODWIN: Oh, yes.
NOONAN: We haven't mentioned it, but there is this Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton -- I've called it a sickness. It is an odd way for a great democracy to comport itself, in this strange -- we have dynasties now backed by lobbyists, backed by machines and machinery. The fact that America is doing this is giving so many people pause. It is unlike us. And I cannot help but think, as some people come forward and endorse, on the Democratic side, Mrs. Clinton, they must be thinking, stop the dynasty. I know Republicans are thinking, stop the dynasties.
BROKAW: But on NBC, you'd be happy with Russert, Brokaw, Russert, Brokaw. That would be OK?
NOONAN: Forever, Tom. Forever.
The January 20 post on The Caucus in its entirety:
Americans have lived with either a Bush or a Clinton in the White House since 1989. And that pattern will continue if Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York captures the Democratic nomination and goes on to win the presidency. How do voters feel about that?
According to a recent New York Times/CBS News poll, most are indifferent, saying each election is about individuals and not families. But the national survey found that about a third of all voters -- and similarly, a third of all Republican primary voters -- consider the pattern bad for the country, because it concentrates too much power among a small group of people. Democratic primary voters were divided on whether it is bad or makes no difference. But Democrats who support Mrs. Clinton's nomination are more likely to say it makes no difference.
The telephone poll was conducted Jan. 9-12 with 1,061 registered voters.
Peggy Noonan is a "sickness" who gives me a pain in the neck.
I can't believe this person still gets called in to bloviate about politics; she's about as relevant as Susan Estrich or Bob Beckel or any of the other political dinosaurs of the 1980s. Noonan's whole "career" is based on churning out flowery light-as-air glurge for Ronald Reagan, who made every piece of garbage she wrote sound great. She floated back to television by having orgasms over GW Bush on the air after 9/11. Her fifteen seconds of fame really needed to be over twenty years ago.
As for the substance of her comments-- where was Noonan when Bush ran in 2000? How come I didn't hear anything about "dynasties" then? Probably for the same reason I won't hear this crap when Jeb runs in 2012.
Without even taking to mind content, just the sound of hearing this woman speak has to turn off 75% of even her target Republican audience, and 99.9% of Democrats. She comes across as possibly the most arrogant, snobbish, and uppity [rhymes with witch] I have ever seen - and her Queens English accent makes her sound all the more phony. It’s obvious that she has spawned the likes of Anne Coulter - another nose-in-the-air know-it-all pretending to have class – I’m sure she must at least be Anne’s godmother. Like cockroaches, they both live in the dark, feed on decomposing matter, and sporadically appear in the light when you least expect them.
All I know is that every time I see her sitting there sounding all so prim and proper, it makes me wish I could just run up to her, sit on her lap, and fart.
Isn’t this just a parroting of Faux News talking point #236 – the “fear the dynasty“ crap they started when Hillary first announced her candidacy? JJAMELE2880 is right on – if Jeb was running you wouldn’t hear such nonsense.
yeah, I don't remember Peg being too nauseated back in 2000.
You know, of course, that she's bonkers. Just listen to her talk. The living definition of the word 'precious.'
Remember in 1994 when Noonan was against George W. Bush's candidacy for Governor of Texas on the grounds that it would propagate a "dynasty?" Me, either.
Remember in 2000 when Noonan was against George W. Bush for President on the grounds that it would create a dynasty? Me, either.
It's not at all surprising that she's against "dynasties" only when it's a Democrat whose election win might fit her definition of one. After all, as she never tires of reminding us, she was Reagan's speech writer.
She's a poet. Remember those "thousand points of light?"
As some people said back then, why only a thousand?
“Thousand points of light”? You mean the laser beams that crippled the Unions - shot the "Government off the backs of the American people" and allowed the unleashing corporate power from public oversight - and fought the Soviet "Evil Empire" by beginning the US training, arming and funding Osama bin Laden?
I suppose she thought up the “Star Wars” term, also?
Augh yes, Ronald Reagan - The patron saint of the Republican party, “The Great Communicator”, whose Alzheimer’s riddled mind was barely able to iterate the fluff and fantasy in the words of Peggy Noonan from the teleprompter.
1st,
I agree with you that she wouldn't be bringing it up if it were Laura Bush running for prez.. But no doubt Carville or someone else be reminding everyone of the fact if the shoe were on the other foot.
I think Hillary will be as polarizing as Bill or George. It looks to me like she already is.
I am one of those people Peggy is talking about who is ready for someone else. Anybody else. I prefer the Republican nominee, whoever that may be, (My guess is Romney,) but I would be cautiously optimistic Obama might move to the middle if he's elected based on his 'unifying' theme. Maybe he'll be able to effect needed change in the political culture and in Washington. I'm for wholesale housecleaning in Federal Bureaucracy. I'll be holding my breath if Hillary wins, wondering what sort of scandals those two will be involved in next. Feel free to disagree. :-)
But no doubt Carville or someone else be reminding everyone of the fact if the shoe were on the other foot.
Something you have absolutely no proof of.
This is typical of the kind of right-wing, means-nothing blather that is created and perpetuated on "hot talk" radio. Regressives didn't care about this when it was Bush in 2000, but now they do? Hardly. It's just another reason to talk trash about Senator Clinton without actually looking at the positions either side takes.
Marv,
Of course there is no proof. It is simply my opinion that there would be dynasty fatigue if it were a Bush running in this election. I guess you disagree with me about my example of Carville. Feel free. My 'no doubt' was really only my own 'no doubt'.
You are right, I did not feel this way in 2000. I guess the passing eight years have made me come to this conclusion. The thought of 20 or more years of just the two families doesn't float my boat.
Having said that, I still agree with Noonan. I have had my fill of Clinton's and Bush's. I'd rather see someone else these next four years in the White House.
AA,
Hypothetically, then, if the Republican nominee was Jeb Bush, would you be voting for a Democratic candidate for this reason?
While there may be dynasty fatigue, why didn't it come up in 2004 when the Bushes and Clintons had been in office for the same amount of time (2 terms)? Why is this only coming up now? If you are going to be fatigued with anyone, why not the Bushes? After all, we have had 12 years of a Bush in the White House.
To me, this reeks of pure politics, nothing more, nothing less.
For Noonan, or ANYONE else to credibly state this they would have needed to say it in 2004 if not earlier.
Fried,
It all depends on who the Dem is. If it were Jeb vs Obama, I would seriously consider Obama purely for the sake of ending the dynasty.
I agree that it is political and much has to do with my antipathy for Hillary. I think Noonan is illustrating how many of us feel. Granted Democrats as a whole feel different. Fair enough.
I've thought about it back to 2004 and why it wasn't brought up? I don't recall that it was. However I voted for Bush because I supported his stance on the Iraq War over Kerry.
Also back then, Not a whole lot of thought was given to having Hillary as the Presidential nominee in 2008 and what it would mean. Now that the nomination process is upon us, having both Clinton's back in the White House is a distinct possibility.
Of course having spouses serve as President is unique in our country's history. That is different to me than father-son. Bush 41 did not move into the WH with Bush 43. I guess if Bill hadn't disgraced the office and covered up his affair, causing an impeachment, I might think differently. But I think too much has transpired and the Clinton's have this chip on their shoulder, or at least experience, that I would rather not see in the W.H. I think it will affect how they govern, and not necessarily in a good way. I am not looking forward to four years of Bill and Hill and all the baggage they bring to the table. I think Hill's Presidency will be divisive.
AA,
The fact that Noonan would say its Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton makes it purely political. Why didn't the nation have the fatigue when it was 8 years of Bush and 8 years of Clinton? I know in 2004 that Hillary was not an option, but its awfully convenient for Noonan to bring this up now and, frankly, a cheap political move. In 2004, when both families had equal time in office, people with Bush-Clinton fatigue should have spoken up then. I understand what you think about the Iraq war, but the war is still going on. Why dynasty fatigue now?
I guess I was responding to these points you made:
"The thought of 20 or more years of just the two families doesn't float my boat." Well, we have already had 20 years of the two families. Is that your limit?
You also added: "I am one of those people Peggy is talking about who is ready for someone else. Anybody else." However, I asked you if it was Obama v. Jeb Bush and you said you would only "seriously consider" Obama to end the dynasty. It seems to me like you don't have Bush fatigue, but rather you would not like to see Hillary in office.
I hope this doesn't take the discussion way off-topic, but do you really want to compare the events that led to Clinton's "disgracing" the office with his impeachment to the events of the past 8 years? My major question with the Republicans who were so eager to put Clinton under oath and go after him is why did these same Congressional members never put Bush or Cheney on the stand alone and under oath when matters of national importance (9/11 commission, etc.) were being discussed. Are you disappointed that Bush has never been brought before Congress and placed under oath to clear up supposed "scandals?"
In your opinion, why was Clinton's affair something that "disgraced" the White House and the current administration's scandals not disgraceful? Why was Bush not put under oath and made to testify in front of his Republican colleagues for matters like FISA, etc.? We have had a war where there are still serious questions about how our involvement started. Should Bush be forced to testify in Congress about his rationale for War? Certainly, this is far more important than an affair, isn't it? If Bush testified, maybe more of us would sympathize with his point of view. If not, maybe he is covering things up.
Was Clinton's impeachment purely political in your mind? If not, why has this current administration avoided the same type of Congressional scrutiny? Do you think this is justified?
Fried,
Your question regarding why not end after Clinton's term is a good one. I don't recall anyone bringing it up at the time. Bush 43 was not my first choice in that year. When I voted for Bush 43 I did not see it as a return of Bush 41. I think that makes a big difference between the Bushs and the Clintons. But I don't disagree with you that it is based a lot on my political leanings.
How long is long enough? Lets say Hillary wins and re-election and Jeb is the candidate in 2016. Would it then be long enough for you to weary of these two families holding the office?
I guess I was responding to these points you made:
To answer your question, Yes, 20 years is my limit.
I only said, 'seriously consider' Obama since this is all hypothetical and I have no idea what would be Jeb's platform. Let me say that I would be very much pre-disposed to vote for Obama if another Bush were the GOP candidate.
Perhaps the Dems could have put GW under oath. However the mantra of "Bush Lied" was simply that. Had the Dems felt they really had anything they would have pushed it. But we all know they don't. They would have lost and experienced many losses because of how it would look as defeating the war effort.
The President is constitutionally granted the ability to take the country to War. Can the Dems impeach because they didn't like it and changed their minds?
The other part you fail to mention is the Special Prosecutor statute has expired. How would they go about investigating?
There is also the issue of separation of powers. Their was a compromise to get testimony from the Pres regarding 911 if I recall.
I don't call what has happened scandals so I don't classify the Bush Administration as scandalous. FISA has been well vetted and tried by the media.
Bush had made his case for the war countless times. Requiring a President to testify before Congress regarding the war would be seen as a witch hunt. Remember the separation of powers would make it unlikely.
I don't think Clinton's impeachment was purely political. I still feel that Clinton lied under oath, and suborned perjury, which I would classify as 'high crimes and misdemeanors'. He subjected taking the country through an impeachment in order to save himself. I think any honorable person would have resigned. Bill's actions coarsened the political dialog, driving a wedge that still exists today. He was a scoundrel, a philanderer, and if he were in business would have been fired and sued for using his office to get sexual favors. And he is remorseless about it. He and many others blame the Republicans for all this when it was his fault to being with.
You may disagree, but Bush had congressional approval and UN approval for the Iraq invasion. That is not, in my opinion, impeachable.
AA,
When the Dems did not hold the majority, they did not have subpoena power.
On the compromise to get Bush to testify before the 9/11 commission: why was a compromise needed? Why was he not under oath and before the people of the United States? Why did he so strongly resist a 9/11 commission?
You don't call what the Bush administration has done scandalous yet find Clinton's testimony about his affair to be a "high crime and misdemeanor against the United States of America?"
What do you make of his AG lying about the U.S. attorneys who were fired and Bush's unconditional support for him? The warrantless surveillance act Bush pushed through has not been tried to the fullest extent of the law yet. If it was fully legal, why wouldn't the telecoms get immunity? Why did the Bush administration need to tap phones pre-9/11 and lie about it? What do you think about no-bid government war contracts to cronies? What about torture? What about the secret energy meetings? Why were the oil executives not under oath? Why is Cheney getting away with not divulging his documents and saying he does not belong to the executive branch? What about paid White House reporters?
Regarding your "witch hunt" scenario, was calling Clinton to testify about his personal life not a witch hunt? Why was Clinton under oath for his private life, but Bush not under oath for the 9/11 Commission???? It is impeachable if Bush manufactured some of the rationale to go to war, is it not? And Clinton did not committ perjury. Perjury requires a conviction. How did Clinton "coarsen" political dialogue???? Did he do more than the people attacking him? I really don't know how you can say there were no Bush scandals and support the Republican Congress pushing testimony about an affair and then support them for not investigating a war. Doesn't add up to me.
AA,
While I don't often agree with you or someone like Noonan, in this case I actually do..... although that doesn't change my mind that Noonan is just another 15 minute charactor, I to feel that it is time for a change in a name that might be in the White House.
Edwards, Obama, hell.... give me Gravel (ok, maybe not Gravel) but you get my point.
If Hillary does end up winning the nod I'll vote for her, unhappily, but I will, as she would still be a better choice than any of the Republicans running this time around.
Sadly, Noonan, like you, do have a point that Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton is a hard pill to swallow, in the end, just getting rid of the 2nd Bush will be a step in the right direction, even if that step has to be another Clinton?
Capt,
You start off agreeing but in the end do an about face. I don't see your point that voting for HRC, if she gets the nod, will remove GW. We'll be rid of Bush no matter who wins the WH.
It is your prerogative of course, to vote for whomever you choose. Watching excerpts from yesterday's debates reinforced my feeling that Hillary will say anything to try and win.
AA,
What could Hillary have said in your opinion, to raise her stature in your eyes? I am guessing there is nothing she could say or do to get your vote. Am I right?
Fried,
I think if Hillary would stick to the issues and Bill would sit this one out it would change my attitude quite a bit.
As some here have posted, I think Hillary is more to the center than Obama, and I like her stance on Iraq. So from a strictly political point of view, Hillary is closer to my views than Obama.
That being said, I think the Clinton's are corrupt. I think Bill is a sociopath where he feels rules don't apply to him. The fundraising scandals, the ties to China, the sale of nuclear technology to N. Korea, the hit or miss foreign policy including Bosnia and Kosovo, the failed brokered deal with Arafat that led to the infantada, the failure to do anything meaningful against the islamofacists, renting out the Lincoln bedroom, Whitewater, futures trading, bimbo eruptions, the list goes on and on regarding issues I have with Bill. Hillary's presidency is, in my mind, more of the same.
I just don't trust Hillary. She's a politician who has done everything she can to make it to the White House. I see her every move as a calculation toward that goal rather than doing what is best. I saw that in her answer regarding illegal immigrants getting drivers license. I think Obama would bring a clean slate to the Presidency and all of the Bush Derangement Syndrome and Clinton Derangement Syndrome would be finally behind us.
AA,
Doing nothing against the Islamofascists? First of all, Bush et al, coined that term, second of all, try these articles:
This one may shock you:
http://www.cnn.com/US/9607/30/clinton.terrorism/
"We need to keep this country together right now. We need to focus on this terrorism issue," Clinton said during a White House news conference."
From the same article:
Hatch called Clinton's proposed study of taggants -- chemical markers in explosives that could help track terrorists -- "a phony issue."
http://dir.salon.com/story/politics/feature/2002/01/15/clinton/index.html
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/10/18/column.billpress/
http://www.orwelltoday.com/anti_terrorism.shtml
Let me know your thoughts.
Your tired propaganda parrot talking points are stupid and frankly delusional sale of nuclear technology to N Korea, I dont even know what this is supposed to mean unless you are talking about helping them build a light water nuclear reactor that CANT produce weapons grade material to replace the HEAVY WATER reactor they already had that COULD produce weapons grade uranium. the hit or miss foreign policy including Bosnia and Kosovo, I wasnt happy with Bosnia but there WAS relative peace in the middle east and he brought a LASTING peace to Northern Ireland. the failed brokered deal with Arafat that led to the infantada, This is an AMAZINGLY ignorant statement. The infatada happened because Sharon took a contingent of soldier to the DOME OF THE ROCK the second holiest Muslim site. Was Clinton supposed to have Sharon SHOT to stop him? the failure to do anything meaningful against the islamofacists, :More ABSOLUTE BS. He did ten times as much as Bush did before 9/11 he tried to kill Ben Laden BEFORE 9/11 Bush doesnt care about him NOW AFTER 9/11 he raised budgets he froze the assets of the Taliban he tripled the amount of FBI agents on counterterrorism. I know this is what the hivemind is TOLD to believe but its incredibly stupid. renting out the Lincoln bedroom, As Bush has also done why do Dems get called venal for doing what Republicans have been doing since Abraham Lincoln?Whitewater, futures trading, All investigated to the tune of tens of millions of dollars with NO WRONGDOING FOUND. In your world of hivemind delusion if you just keep repeating the allegations long ago shown to have no validity they magically become true. bimbo eruptions, Cute but stupid. the list goes on and on . You mean the list of your dumb baseless counterfactual hivemind talking points yes they do mores the pity.
Scandals? Is that all you got? As bad a shape as our country is in after 8 yeaars of Bush (and with 5 out of the last 7 and 7 out of the last 10 presidents being Republicnans) you're actually carrying on about scandlads? You actually think those matter? You think those are significant? Not the economy? Or war? Or security? Or freedom? Or our relationship with the rest of the world? No? Scandals. Boy. You are a sad, stange little man.
It's pathetic how the media has warped your mind. (Never mind that most of the recent scandals have all been republican - Foley, Craig, etc...) If http://www.armchairsubversive.org/ doesn't change your POV on scandals, nothing will. You righties all think it only the other guy. Republicans are every bit as bad, if not significantly worse and they are 100 times as hypocritical about it.
ANOTHER AMERICAN IS WORRIED: "I'll be holding my breath if Hillary wins, wondering what sort of scandals those two will be involved in next."
History can be your guide, AA. They will NOT be involved in dirty trick squads who break into the offices of the opposition, burglars, thieves and anti-democratic low lives. That was Republicans.
They will NOT use lies and deceptions to get us into WAR for no reason. That was Republicans.
They will NOT form unaccountable governmental forces OUTSIDE the government of the USA to enact foreign policy (like arming the enemies of the USA, or funding groups forbidden aid by our Congress). THAT was Republicans.
They will NOT expose CIA covert assets to undermine America's national security. That was Republicans.
The "scandals" you may be holding your breath for, rest assured, will be along the lines of Whitewater, Travel Office, Monica, Arlington Cemetery, "Chinese" contributions ... all of which were investigated thoroughly and extensively, and NONE of which yielded the least wrongdoing on the part of the Clintons. The "scandals" you seem to fear are of the "NO WRONGDOING FOUND" kind.
Yes, Bill had an affair and attempted to keep that secret, but what was the true effect of that affair on the concerns of the American People? None at all. Of course, the DISRUPTION of government caused by a baseless impeachment (in addition to all the baseless investigations) were arguably very harmful to the American People, but that, too, was the Republicans.
So, breathe easy if Hillary wins, Another American. There may well be "scandals", but there are ALWAYS scandals of some sort, and the Republican scandals kill tens of thousands of innocent people, undermine the Constitution, bankrupt the nation, and cause harm to the American People ... while Democratic "scandals" are either phony, or harm nobody.
Feel better now?
Tex,
Thanks for adding your opinion.
AA:
Earlier on you stated that the Constitution gives the President the power to take us to war. I suggest you read it,(http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A2Sec1) and get the Yooish Cheneyism of "inherent powers" out of your head. The Constitution gives the warmaking power, including the declaration of war and the raising, regulation, and maintenance of the armed forces. The President is, in effect, the "Chief of the Generals." Read, also, Madison and Hamilton in the Federalist Papers. The greatest fear of the Founders was the monarchical prerogative of taking the country to war, which inevitably increases the power of the state, and destroys the freedom of the people. The Cheneybush Junta has shown how right they were.
By the way, devestating response to Tex.
Conch,
You make a good point. Frankly I didn't expect this discussion to go in this direction. Thank you for your correction. The point I should have said is that the President is granted the right, through the War Powers Act to use military force for 60 days without yet getting Congressional approval.
Congress did grant the President the ability to use force against Saddam. We have all seen they periodically debate defunding the war, so Congress can pull the soldiers out if they decide to do so.
My reply to Tex was to acknowledge his offering his point of view. I have expressed my opinion and will allow Tex having the last word.
In response to your little dig, (which I found amusing. Good one.) At this point, the discussion has gone off topic and although interesting, one comment spawns another and another. I wish I could respond to everyone's comments but at some point, I am simply happy to read what others have to say and move on to other topics that interest me.
I'm sure we'll carry on the discussion somewhere else. I look forward to it.
AA,
Can you refute what Tex was saying about the scandals leading nowhere and no one being affected? If you are allowing him to have the last word, that's fine, but in the spirit of good debate, I would love to hear your counters.
Fried,
I thought I was done, but I guess I'll give you my take regarding both you and Tex's post.
I disagree that the Clinton investigations turned up nothing. The Clinton's are magicians at avoiding taking the fall, but if memory serves me there were dozens of felony convictions, sixty or so misdemeanors, and dozens of people who fled the country. But that is past history. To believe they were innocent of anything when so many around them took the fall fails the smell test.
IMHO you and Tex are reflexively defending the Clintons. You discount all the bad things Clinton did simply because you don't like the fact that Republicans caught him and impeached him. Clinton lied in the Paula Jones depositions but plea bargained his way out of a conviction. To say he did no wrong is to ignore the facts.. which lead to his impeachment
The reflexive defense forgets that that the House of Representatives found him guilty of the following charges.
On August 17, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton swore to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth before a Federal grand jury of the United States. Contrary to that oath, William Jefferson Clinton willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury concerning one or more of the following:
(1) the nature and details of his relationship with a subordinate Government employee;
(2) prior perjurious, false and misleading testimony he gave in a Federal civil rights action brought against him;
(3) prior false and misleading statements he allowed his attorney to make to a Federal judge in that civil rights action; and
(4) his corrupt efforts to influence the testimony of witnesses and to impede the discovery of evidence in that civil rights action.
In doing this, William Jefferson Clinton has undermined the integrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the Presidency, has betrayed his trust as President, and has acted in a manner subversive of the rule of law and justice, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
Wherefore, William Jefferson Clinton, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.
-------
He was impeached because of these facts. We all know he was not removed from office, but he was still guilty of the above. In my opinion, to ignore this is laughable.
Thanks for the discussion.
AA,
I am by no means reflexively defending Clinton. I think what he did was terrible, BUT I don't think his actions even come close to hurting the country the way Bush's have. The same people who think that Clinton is a disgrace for his testimony seem to be ok with Bush not going under oath for the 9/11 Commission, won't badger him for not talking about the Libby investigation (which led to a conviction for the highest ranking political officer in history) or testifying about his role in it, are ok with him not providing Rove to testify about the firings of U.S. attorneys, seem to feel like Bush listening to phone calls without a warrant is fine. To me, those are more heinous acts that perjury.
Here are my bottom line questions: Do you want investigations into President's personal lives after the meat (Whitewater) of the investigation turns up nothing? OR Do you want hearings into rationales given to the American public for a war turned out to be dead wrong (9/11 link to Iraq, if we don't invade Iraq we could face a mushroom cloud in our country)? Why did Bush lie about getting the inspectors out of Iraq? What investigations are a better use of taxpayer money? Let's say, hypothetically, that Bush's rationales prove correct, but there is something in there about a possible marital infidelity. How much taxpayer money are you willing to pay to pursue it and why?
If you think that Clinton's scandals have hurt the country more, please explain how. If you feel this way because Clinton violated the trust of the public, weigh that feeling against the following:
1) Did Clinton pay newspaper columnists to further his agenda?
2) Did Clinton have a Jeff Gannon type plant in the pressroom?
3) How many attorneys did Clinton fire DURING (not at the beginning, all Presidents do that) the middle of cases for false or, at best, shifting reasons?
4) How many governmental agencies under Clinton had fake press briefings (i.e. FEMA)?
5) How many times did Clinton lie after a natural disaster to the public (Katrina and the levees)?
6) After 9/11, the Bush Administration ok'd the air around Ground Zero far too quickly, did that revelation hurt your trust in him?
Should I go on?
Fried,
Like I said, this topic has gone way off on it's own. I explained my reasoning regarding my attitude toward Clinton.
If you feel Bush is worse, that is fine by me. My intent here is not to debate if Clinton's are worse than Bushes. I am tired of them both. I would prefer not to see Hillary in the Whitehouse. I think she and Bill are corrupt.
You are free to petition your Congressman or anyone else to see if you can get Bush impeached and I will defend your rights to try and do so. However I do not agree with any of your assertions. So my friend, I have other items on my agenda tonight. I'm sorry but I'll just leave it at we'll have to agree to disagree.
Thanks for the discussion.
AA:
My pleasure. In fact, I'll share a couple more of my "opinions" with you.
The sun rises in the East.
Apples grow on apple trees.
Water is wet.
In my OPINION, of course!
Funny.
At least we agree on some things. :-)
I know you meant thanks for the FACTS, those werent just opinions there were a whole slew of indisputable FACTS there. You DO know the difference RIGHT?
Could have saved us all a lot of trouble....
Yea, the 2nd Bush to get in was KEWL but they sure dont want Clinton.
The big guns are still turned on Hillary, and she's still out in front. Thats the best medicine.
If 38% of the responders think it's a bad thing (Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton), that is a substantial number of people. Noonan did not say a majority of the people, she said so many people.
It's purely subjective for MMFA to claim she was wrong in saying this based on the cited poll.
And Noonan calling the phenomenon a “sickness” was not subjective?
This is just another Republican fear mongering ploy with absolute no basis of fact. Can she, or you, explain to me what is “sick” about it?
There is nothing to fear but fear itself.
Sure, that wouldn't be maintaining a dynasty, that would be insuring a steady navigator in the midst of our troubled waters.
See, it's not hard being a poet-- especially a political one.
You could argue that it is a "sickness" to keep electing leadership that performs poorly.
I'm not saying I agree with that term, in fact I think MMFA should have focused more on that instead of citing polling data that did not prove their claim.
And of course the Boogyman.
Pat Paulson.
If Peggy Noonan had written this "sickness" piece were it a member of the Bush family running, instead of a Clinton, it would be applauded with enthusiasm here as dead-on accuracy........but now that it is a Clinton, Noonan is swiped at as being a "used up hack", or something.
Vote for whomever you want to, but Noonan's opinion, considering Bruce's point about the 38%, is valid.
Hi Tommy,
My beef with Noonan making this statement is her involvement with the Bushes and who she is politically. The Bushes have had 12 years of power, the Clintons 8. Now, since there is a chance this may even up, she is making this statement.
If she would have said this in 2004 when both families had led for the same amount of time (8 years each), yes, I would have applauded its accuracy. Her timing is what I have a beef with and, in my opinion, its purely a political move to be anti-Hillary.
Honestly, her reasoning reminds me of how parents sometimes lecture kids. For example, if I punched my brother, and he punched me back, and I punched him again, and my mom was watching the whole thing since the first punch and didn't want him to hit me again, he would be right that she was being unfair. If she had said this after Hillary, I would applaud it, but I think its a cheap shot making it before Hillary when there has not been Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton.
Furthermore, if this is a "sickness" why does she not acknowledge her role in promoting it?
Hi Fried,
Absolutely Ms. Noonan is using hyperbole to make her point, and she is highly partisan, but I believe that is well known and any points she makes should be viewed through that prism - just as any partisan pundit from any ideology. And I would expect her to be nothing less than anti-Hillary based on her partisan history.
But the fact is this is her opinion, anyone is free to disagree.
Tommy,
I think a lot of what MMFA posts would not be necessary if the American public did a better job of educating itself as to who the pundits are who are making these statements. For people like you and me who keep up with this stuff, we can laugh.
However, a less-informed viewer just might go along with what she says because of her platform and miss why he or she should be skeptical.
Noonan is given national forums for her writings and utterings.
Her utterings and writings are wrong, provably incorrect, are informed by FALSE premises, and all this renders her writings and utterings GARBAGE.
This site, among others, call her GARBAGE for what it is. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, of course, but the rightwing believes it is entitled to its own alternative reality.
She takes a word with meaning, DYNASTY, and perverts it to define something she observes, which does not meet the traditional definition. She is being disingenuous.
She claims the American People share her view. She is lying. She does not speak for the American People.
She is terrified of a "Clinton Dynasty", when the "BUSH DYNASTY" doesn't bother her a whit. This is rank hypocricy.
Sure, she can express whatever crap opinions she might dream up, but the FACTS are that (1) she does not operate from REALITY, and (2) she is a hypocrite with no consistency and no credibility. She has no FACTS, and her OPINIONS are worthless. Other than that, she's an OK gal to have a beer with, I guess.
Some of you liberals get absolutely hysterical in trashing those who have opinions that differ from yours, why are you so threatened you feel the need to call them "garbage", "lies", "dreams", "fantasies", or other typical nasty names?
So go ahead Tex, haul out all the expletives you can think of, you are the one who looks desperate in your silly attempts to discredit those you disagree with.......grow up.
So many people think Peggy Noonan is a used up hack. I still can't forgive her for the stupid Katrina remarks. I beleive the dynasties that create journalists cum pundits cum bloviators for life - when their expiration date is clearly up- should be reviewed.
It is always interesting when you go look at the actual poll numbers. You see how agenda driven organizations spin the numbers.
I took a look and you see the numbers dropping for "the dynasties". Those who didn't care dropped from 60% to 50% in between the previous poll and this latest one.
Also 40% of the respondents were self proclaimed Democrats. Nothing like a little weighting the poll in one direction eh? Not that it is intentional, but groups then cite the overall numbers when it suits them but they never tell the fine points that show why those numbers are so high.
It is another reason why I hate polls. They mislead more often than they elucidate.
It is another reason why I hate polls. They mislead more often than they elucidate.
From your post, it doesn't sound as though you have an issue with polls as much as you do with the spinners.
Marv,
Good point. I dislike the spinning that results from polling data.
I view polls as reactions to news, not news itself. In my view, the media is very lazy and self-serving by offering up polling data as news. The inference is that the polls themselves affect future polls. And in some cases they actually do influence outcomes of elections. I hate exit polling on election day. I wish the government would outlaw it. Lets keep everyone in suspense until they count the votes.. or at least until the last poll in Hawaii or Alaska has closed.
I also dislike politicians who rely on polls rather than what they think to formulate their talking points.
I also know that polls can be 'pushed' to influence a specific outcome. There can also be weighting like this poll which included an over sample of Democrats which in turn, in my opinion, skewed the results because Hillary will continue the dynasty if elected, and she's a Democrat. Had the poll included 40% Republicans and 20 something % Democrats, and you'd have a much different result.
So, I'm down on the polls, the polling, and the spinners. I only like one poll and that is on election day. And at that point, I can read about it the next morning.
I wonder if they fail this cycle, will the GOP consider recruiting Michael Reagan. He’s glib and knows the issues as well as the media. The way they revere his father, it would seem a natural to me, especially now that Obama has shown that people don’t value experience so much anymore.
Off topic but...
...this debate is an absolute joke. It has come down to "I'm the black guy", "I'm the woman", "I'm the southern guy". And all of them have said nothing about how to spend money more wisely. It's "I can outspend you because I really need your vote". And the R's are no better. I keep waiting for the one full fledged Conservative to step up, but that won't happen either. What a crappy election this one will be.
I disagree. I think that the voters are the problem. The pandering politicians, the insufferable pundits are problems...but how about all those people who don't have enough sense to know what's up? The Republicans spend money they don't have and pretend to be fiscally responsible. It's a big scam.
And those so-called undecided voters who don't bother to do the hard work of reading the policy positions and voting records of the candidates. And still don't know, still think they can't know, what the candidates stand for.
All of the Democratic candidates are solid individuals. How many of us could stand what they go through?
The time for complaining about a "DYNASTY" was the year 2000.
Didn't hear a PEEP from the unctuous Ms. Noonan back then on that topic, in fact, in August 2004 she took an unpaid leave of absence from the Wall Street Journal to CAMPAIGN for George W. Bush. ("This DYNASTY is WONDERFUL!")
Her credentials ... on morality, consistency, on Politics, on correct ways of thinking, on being "expert" on ANYTHING ... are NON-EXISTENT.
She is a know-nothing self-important hypocritical wildly partisan HACK who seeks to ignore her responsibility for bringing us 7 years (so far) of BUSH, which has been the greatest disaster this nation has seen.
And now she DARES to try to affect another election with her "observations"? RETIRE, Noonan! From here on out, it's only ridicule and embarrassment for your future.
With Reagan, you brought us a divorced B-actor who ran the debt up 3 trillion dollars, got 260 Marines killed in Beirut before he "cut and ran", oversaw the Iran-Contra scandals, ballooned the SIZE of government, engineered the S&L debacle that cost Americans hundreds of billions in bailouts, devastated every program in place to help average Americans, from environment to housing to civil rights, and was steeped in corruption and cronyism. He was a TERRIBLE president for the nation (but he sure had an actor's sunny smile!)
Then you gave us George W. Bush. I won't even LIST his disasterous record ... we're all LIVING it today.
Peggy Noonan: The Typhoid Mary of American Politics.
The House of Bush. The House of Clinton...and so on. And we preach to the Middle East about the values of democracy. Ugh.
For me, it's anyone but Clinton. Fortunately, we have some good options.
WORKINGMAN:
DYNASTIES traditionally were the delivery of power and position STRICTLY due to blood relations. Kings and Queens took the ruling position over their nations due to NO MERIT WHATSOEVER, but only based on parentage relation. That is a BAD way to have leaders foist on a people.
In America, there have been a great many families whose members contributed to public service. Each is subject to being evaluated on their own merits, and a blood connection should never be a DISqualifier. We had Adams and Roosevelt and Kennedy (even Romney and Gore) ... and say what you will about the individuals, this nation was formed in part by their family's contributions.
Learn to evaluate candidates on their own, rather than an irrational fear of some sort of royal bloodline dictatorship forming in America. It cannot happen. It CAN happen that some families will be more prone to public service, and in that consequence, the American People can easily vote against the bad ones.
Needless to say, some BAD members of political families CAN get elected, and bring lots of harm to America by their individual actions, but the DYNASTY to be concerned with THERE is a supposedly "free press" that is not doing its job, instead owned and operated by elites with an agenda.
Just enough Americans can be fooled by a corrupt Media that a BAD leader can actually be allowed to serve. But we learn from our mistakes, as this year's elections are showing.
I wonder if the public would appreciate the idea of keeping up the data base, ie dirty tricks, to keep media and politicians in line!
How about cheking these out.
http://judicialwatch.org/judicial-watch-releases-records-re-hillary-s-health-care-reform-plan-0
http://judicialwatch.org/files/2007/0108HRCHealthcareCritique_0.pdf
http://judicialwatch.org/files/2007/0108HRCHealthcareRockefeller_0.pdf
http://judicialwatch.org/files/2007/0108HRCHealthcarePublicLiaison_0.pdf
All of this clock and dagger once again in the Whitehouse! Oh, joy!
Of course I would, PC, let's start with the last 8 years of the current administration, shall we?
And its "cloak and dagger," not clock.
I agree with everyone that Noonan's objectivity in these statements is questionable. However, as stated above, 38 percent of people IS a large amount of people, which is all that she said. Also, the word "sickness" referred to both Bush and Clinton in the way that she said it.
I'm to the left of both Clinton and Obama, but I want to see a the Republicans outta there most of all. However, I too am sick of America's recent dynastic tendencies. For one, I think it reflects laziness on the part of the American electorate. Many of the initial support for GWB in 2000 was from people who looked at GHWB's term positively. Now the same thing is happening with Hillary. Compared to these last 8 dark years, what liberal wouldn't look back at Clinton's time with a smile? I'm shocked at the number of left-leaning folks who are falling for this and ignoring Hillary's long-time centrist stance, to the right of their beliefs. People, she voted FOR the Iraq war. I know that there was faulty intelligence, but somehow a lot of us folks on the left were still against the war back in 2003.
Also, I think that liberals' fond recollection of the Clinton years is very misguided. Like Hillary, he was very much a centrist — well to the right of most liberals — one who caved into the excessive demands of a Republican Congress way too often. Here are just some of his more egregious moments:
-enacted NAFTA
-Don't ask, don't tell policy
-spearheaded the HORRIBLE "Crime Bill": expanded death penalty, put in place the ridiculous "three-strike-and-you're-out" policy, overturned a section of the 1965 Higher Education Act which permitted prison inmates to receive grants for postsecondary education while incarcerated, made gang membership a federal offense, boot camps for minors
-signed Defense of Marriage Act, which allowed states to refuse recognition of same sex marriages, and defined marriage as between a male and female for purposes of federal law
-signed welfare reform bill, which went way too far in kicking people off of federal aid
-took hardline with Iraq, with frequent bombings and continuation of murderous embargo (killed 100K children by UN estimates)
-unilaterally bombed civilian pharmaceutical plant in Sudan in response to embassy bombings
-initiated practice of "extraordinary rendition" by the CIA
-speech attacking Sistah Soulah
-repudiation and betrayal of Lani Guinier
-asking Jocelyn Elders (perhaps the most progressive Surgeon General ever) to resign after harmless masturbation comments
-Marc Rich pardon
Let's also not forget that Clinton's inability to keep it his pants is part of the reason that GWB even got enough votes to make the election close enough for him to steal it.
Of course, I'd prefer a Clinton (either one) over a Bush anyday. But let's face the facts people...