The Clintons: Conservative Public Enemy #1

In last night’s smackdown, Sean Hannity dealt with Rocky’s case for impeachment not by rationally challenging Rocky’s arguments, but by attempting to frame the entire case as a pathological hatred of President Bush. I believe he dismissed Rocky’s points several times as hatred, and then ridiculed that the alleged hatred of Rocky and liberals for the President.

…everything, if the dog bites, if the bee stings, if you you’re feeling sad everything is George Bush’s fault. Now, some of you, some of you drank heavily tonight. When you wake up tomorrow you’re not going to feel good. It’s George Bush’s fault, it’s not yours. Some of you women may get pregnant. If you do, it’s not your fault, it’s George Bush’s fault. (KSL)

According to Hannity, Rocky is merely fixated on Bush.

In a bemusing twist, Hannity not long afterwards turned his attention to ex-President Clinton. In a mocking impersonation, he implied that Clinton had ineptly botched an opportunity to capture Bin Laden. He further implies that the mess we’re in now, the entire “War on Terror” and presumably 9/11 itself, is the fault of Clinton.

Who is fixating on whom?

I can’t say I was surprised. Rarely does a conservative pundit debate national policy or politics without finding a way to bring it and abuse one or both of the Clintons.

Why is it that the Clintons have become the conservative boogeyman? Why is it that the pair rate right up with Darth Vader on their list of villains? Neither of them are arch-liberals. He created a few national monuments, implemented a handful of environmental and labor regulations, and went through the motions to put hold Microsoft accountable for anti-competitive business practices. Thats about it. Nothing which conservatives would be happy about, but hardly the end of the world. On the other hand, he did support NAFTA and the continued expansion of power of the WTF, both of which promote “free” trade. He supported economic policies which promoted the growth of corporate America and globalization. He played a big role in balancing the budget. On the balance, I think he helped advance conservative more than he hurt it. His one big truly liberal effort, health care reform, was ill-planned and easily defeated. You can argue that he tried wagging the dog in Middle-East, but he got the U.S. involved in no major, costly military episodes from which he could not extricate the nation or which had negative long-term consequences for the U.S.

Oh yes, and he was unfaithful to his wife. A terrible sin surely—for him and his wife. But it really isn’t the business of you, me, or the conservative noise machine. He isn’t the first President to have fallen into infidelity, nor the only high-profile politician at the time to have made such a mistake (I wonder if Dobson mentioned anything to Gingrich about throwing stones).

The loathing of Hillary is even more perplexing. You would think that, as victim of Bill’s sins, she would elicit some sympathy. But no. She may be even more reviled among conservatives.

“Anybody but her!” Hannity contemptuously declared when asked which candidate he wanted to become the next president. This very moderate Democrat, hardly deserving of the label “liberal,” is apparently the worst possible choice for president among the contenders. Other candidates have more liberal agendas and histories, but she is the one he fears most, the one he singles out for a derisive video presentation.

Is it some subconscious male-chauvinism deeply-rooted in the conservative philosophy? Conservatives tend to love the quiet, demur Laura Bush standing quietly behind her husband, and the matronly Barbara playing the doting grandmother for the cameras. But women who don’t know their place, who are willing to speak out, take stands, and show ambition—maybe that’s a bit too threatening for the traditionally patriarchical conservatives.

I’m no fan of either Clinton. From the first time I saw Bill debating the other aspiring Democratic candidates in 1991, I felt he exuded insincerity and was subtly malicious in his campaigning (deja vu in 1999; I got exactly the same vibe from Bush while he fought off McCain). I never voted for him. I was bitterly disappointed that he was willing to pursue such an agenda of economic globalization and “free” trade. I was never fond of his willingness to support corporate interests, particularly when it helped fill his campaign coffers. From a liberal perspective, the Clinton administration was mediocre, and I’ve no confidence based on her record or her willingness to change opinions when it suits her interests that Hillary’s would be any better.

But mediocre hardly deserves the level of scorn conservatives continue to heap upon Bill. It hardly merits the frequency with which Bill is dredged up in conversations about current political problems, or the frequency with which Hillary is held up as a boogeyman to scare religious folk, soccer moms, and small children (literally!).

The Clintons have their share of weaknesses and failings. Heaven knows that they are hardly models of integrity as politicians or liberals. But they did not create the conditions which foster hatred among the denizens of the Middle-East. They did not ignore the threat Bin Laden posed prior to 9/11. They did not involve us in a war under false pretenses, ill-planned and ill-prepared. Conservatives need to realize that they will do nothing to undermine the liberal ideology by burning the Clintons in effigy—we just don’t care enough about them for it to do anything but make the conservative torchbearers look silly.

Advertisements

74 Responses to “The Clintons: Conservative Public Enemy #1”

  1. Davis Didjeridu Says:

    An absolutely amazing analysis. I have not been a huge fan of the Clintons since about 1997, when I finally saw through their Democratic label and saw the conservative actions and policies each one has supported. It is precisely the schism that you note of Hillary Clinton’s moderate-to-conservative Senate record against her national image as an ultra-liberal which makes me not want to vote for her.
    I suspect that they only reason conservatives have such white-hot hatred for the Clintons is simply because they are jealous of their success. The Clinton machine is simply the most successful political family in the US since the Kennedys, and no where is this more apparent in sheer electoral victories.
    I do not have the same kind of sheer hatred for President Bush. I do not wish them ill personally, and loath the kind of ad hominem attacks unfortunately so common on the left. However, that does not mean I do not seriously deplore his actions, his attitude, and his policies.

  2. gwaltrip Says:

    Yes, as a conservative Republican, I am so jealous of the Clinton’s success. Seriously, I think Bill Clinton’s term in office was pathetic. I don’t hate the Clintons – they aren’t important enough to hate – even if the Clinton Administration was one of the most corrupt in US history.

    But their policies, and those of the Democratic Party, are simply wrong and bad for America. Our military seriously downsized and demoralized. Our security agencies hamstrung and their effectiveness reduced. And then there was that attempt to nationalize health care, which would have been an economic disaster.

  3. Jenni Says:

    As a liberal I’ve often wondered by the conservatives hate the Clintons so much — they are far more conservative than liberal. If they can foam at the mouth that much at the center to right Clintons, I think they’d spontaneously combust if Nader or Kucinich won the big office.

    Personally, I think it’s a think-tank tactic. Snarl and deride anything left of extreme right to create an atmosphere where the debate isn’t between the left and right and more, but the right and further right. That way the left gets completely shut out. This myth building worked on the “liberal” media. It kind of worked on Dems in 2004 as well — pro-occupation Kerry got the nomination while the peace and liberal candidates didn’t even have a shot.

    Great job at summarizing this repub weirdness.

  4. Derek Staffanson Says:

    Gwaltrip, is there anything beyond illicit sexual affairs that you can point to which suggests that Clinton was one of the most corrupt in U.S. history? In particular, anything which matches the illegal wars, unconstitutional power grabs, and repeated deception of the public?

  5. Amanda Says:

    Awesome analysis, Derek. I think that this visceral hatred we see directed at Hillary Clinton (and, if we’re honest, lots of other strong women) is a result of deeply held beliefs about how women *should* behave.

    On the other hand, I have some ideas about how men *should* behave. I wonder if the Religious Right’s favorite sons would meet my expectations?

  6. Arthur Smith Says:

    Hi Derek,

    I’m impressed that you and I had exactly the same reaction to Bill Clinton’s insincerity back in 1991/92. I never voted for the guy either. He was obviously extremely sharp and could handle the complexities of the office well. In the present era of incompetence if not outright maliciousness, insincere competence is something we look back on now with nostalgia. But it just seems we could have done so much better. Ah well… maybe it’ll happen this time around. I think Edwards is the best hope for 2008 – any thoughts there?

  7. jennifer Says:

    In my opinion, Bill Clinton was a better than average president, but not stellar, and not one deserving the constant harping from the right, ditto for Hillary. He had some good ideas but did not follow through. Gilwatrip summed it up well with the word “jealous”…. Clinton enjoyed unbelievably high approval ratings throughout his term, despite various shortcomings. Bush Jr. can’t buy an approval rating, and heaven knows he’s tried.
    I did want to point to one piece of legislation, the FMLA Family Medical Leave Act, which congress had passed 2 or 3 times previously – only to be vetoed promptly by Bush Sr. Clinton signed it straightway and the bill has proven helpful for many many US families.
    – Jennifer

  8. Derek Staffanson Says:

    I think you’re on to something, Dijeridu and Jennifer. Simple jealously may indeed play a large role.

    You’re spot on, Jenni. The work of the conservative noise machine and the Religious Right has created an atmosphere where liberalism is largely excluded from the debate.

    Thanks for the support (and link), Amanda. Yep, I think gender roles play a big part of the Hillary witch-hunt. I think that’s why the outspoken Teresa Heinz (wife of John Kerry) also got a lot of grief in 2004.

    Then again, conservatives seem to have no problem with strong women like Gayle Ruzicka and Ann Coulter, so there is either more hypocrisy involved, or there is something more at play which we’re not seeing.

    Yes, the FMLA was a good step in the right direction. Bill did accomplish some good works (most of which were bad for conservatives). I wouldn’t deny that, only point out that he did a lot of things which hindered the liberal cause as well.

    Arthur, you sure are right–the Bush Administration makes it look back more kindly on the Clinton administration. I never thought I would EVER say that! Kucinich is the candidate closest to my heart. I think he would make a phenomenonal president. But I realize in this moderate Democratic Party he has no shot. Both Edwards and Obama seem very good prospects, but I’m trying not to jump on any bandwagons yet. There is still a lot of time left to learn and think before making that decision.

  9. jennifer Says:

    I agree w/ your sentiments about Kucinich. I think that because people generally recognize him as a longshot candidate, he is more honest about the issues and policies that face us all. If nothing else, he can add his points into the discussion for voters and others.

  10. Thom Says:

    I think gwaltrip is referring to things like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitewater_scandal . Let’s not forget that’s where the whole intern thing got started. I recently had a conservative friend express reservations to me about Hillary because of Whitewater and, in particular, because of her alleged (by some) involvement in Foster’s death.

  11. Part of the Plan Says:

    I must admit I am completely baffled by the never-right’s burning hatred of Mr. Clinton, but the reason they hate Hillary is pretty straightforward, and you touched on it, Derek. One of the bedrock foundations of the Christian Right’s dominionist movement (one of many, by the way, that they share with radical Islam) is the subjugation of women, returning them to their “proper” role, which is to say barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen. The threat of Mrs. Clinton becoming president is too much for these Neanderthals to accept, hence their contempt.

    I’m going to explore this further in an upcoming post.

  12. jessicalyn78 Says:

    Hannity Won Debate: The People Have spoken!
    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1829941/posts

  13. jessicalyn78 Says:

    Hillary being a female has NOTHING to do with conservatives disliking her. It’s more like the fact that she is fake, hillarycare is the pits, and just because she IS female doesn’t mean us conservatives don’t like her. If Condi was running I wouldn’t vote for her either, God bless her though. The last thing we need right now, at a time of war and turmoil is a woman president. I don’t care what side of the isle she sits on. It has nothing to do with the right-wing wanting their wives barefoot and pregnant, seriously?

  14. jessicalyn78 Says:

    Neanderthals ha POTP? Wow…that’s classy

  15. jessicalyn78 Says:

    Derek, Jenni…did you NOT read what GWaltrip wrote. It’s NOT just his immorality that’s dispicable, it’s also:

    Yes, as a conservative Republican, I am so jealous of the Clinton’s success. Seriously, I think Bill Clinton’s term in office was pathetic. I don’t hate the Clintons – they aren’t important enough to hate – even if the Clinton Administration was one of the most corrupt in US history.

    “But their policies, and those of the Democratic Party, are simply wrong and bad for America. Our military seriously downsized and demoralized. Our security agencies hamstrung and their effectiveness reduced. And then there was that attempt to nationalize health care, which would have been an economic disaster.”

    When we were attacked on 9/11, our military was so starved, and the responsibility relies on the Clinton Administration!

  16. jessicalyn78 Says:

    gwaltrip, I have just started a counterblog…conservative mormon. I’m new to this whole thing, so exuse me…I’d love for you to jump aboard!
    I’ve been erased and stiffled on the Hannity/Anderson blog, so I decided to continue on my own turf…!!!

  17. jessicalyn78 Says:

    My idea however is to focus on conservative vs. liberal views, religious affiliation removed from comments. I just wanted to disclose in the title, what my affiliation is.

  18. Derek Staffanson Says:

    Jessica, I erased comments of both you and those challenging you on the Rocky vs. Hannity post. I said no more posts on that post by anybody.

  19. Part of the Plan Says:

    If Condi was running I wouldn’t vote for her either, God bless her though. The last thing we need right now, at a time of war and turmoil is a woman president. I don’t care what side of the isle she sits on.

    Thank you. You just proved my point.

  20. Jenni Says:

    “The last thing we need right now, at a time of war and turmoil is a woman president. I don’t care what side of the isle she sits on.”

    Just goes to show that we can’t blame women’s lack of equality in this country solely on men — too many women through the centuries have been complicit in keeping women down, too.

    Statements like this make me glad that I escaped my conservative upbringing.

  21. jessicalyn78 Says:

    It has NOTHING personally to do with women. Look, our #1 enemy right now are radical islams, even though you folks may disagree and think that we are our own enemy, which is spewed by the left daily, therefore, why should we even place a woman as President, when you dems don’t even support out military. You better believe we would have to beef up our military to combat the fuel we would throw into the pool of jihad.

  22. jessicalyn78 Says:

    I dislike Hilary because she travels around campaigning with all of her various identities, most prominent her southern twang personna, she can not be taken seriously.

  23. Allie Says:

    Respectfully, what does a women president have to do with supporting the military?

  24. jessicalyn78 Says:

    It has to do with preparedness and responsibility…that’s what. What effect would it have on the world? Ever think that one through?

  25. jessicalyn78 Says:

    Rather what effect would it have on us? Just a thought.

  26. jessicalyn78 Says:

    May I just mention again, because your intro to this post is reference to the Hannity?Anderson debate,….that Hannity was declared the winner after a poll ofthe viewers….

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1829941/posts

  27. Jenni Says:

    “It has to do with preparedness and responsibility”

    So in your opinion, women aren’t prepared or responsible? Please explain.

  28. jessicalyn78 Says:

    No, a woman is more than capable of running a country, but I’m asking you, is the world capable of handling of a woman US President? Will there be reprecussions or backlash from our enemies. Will we look “weak” in their eyes. I’m just trying to look at this from a defensive POV, and how will it impact our offensive POV?

    If your answer is, “I don’t care what they think?” I ask back, “Than are prepared for retaliation or beefed up effort from the Radical Islamic, women-hating oppressors to hurt our nation?”

  29. jessicalyn78 Says:

    Then are we prepared for retaliation or backlash….(sorry)

  30. Jenni Says:

    “No, a woman is more than capable of running a country, but I’m asking you, is the world capable of handling of a woman US President? Will there be reprecussions or backlash from our enemies. Will we look “weak” in their eyes. I’m just trying to look at this from a defensive POV, and how will it impact our offensive POV?”

    We’re one of the few countries to have a woman leader. Pakistan had one. India had one. Many of the places that we see as having backward attitudes towards people have had one.

    We’d help our defensive point of view if we’d stop doing our best to create terrorists today that we are going to have to fight in the future. That means that we need to stop attacking countries that haven’t attacked us and we need to remove our bases and oil companies from the middle east, for starters. The best defense is an offense, and I don’t mean the attacking kind of offence — I mean the “how to we prevent problems in the future?” kind.

  31. Jenni Says:

    That was supposed to read “We’re one of the few countries NOT to have HAD a woman leader”

  32. jessicalyn78 Says:

  33. jessicalyn78 Says:

    Urrhh…like who? France just elected a man over a woman, please pattle off to me all of the woman leaders plaese.

  34. jessicalyn78 Says:

    OMGosh…
    Jenni said,
    “We’d help our defensive point of view if we’d stop doing our best to create terrorists today that we are going to have to fight in the future. That means that we need to stop attacking countries that haven’t attacked us and we need to remove our bases and oil companies from the middle east, for starters. The best defense is an offense, and I don’t mean the attacking kind of offence — I mean the “how to we prevent problems in the future?” kind.”

    Please tell me you are joking. PLEASE go back and slowly read what you wrote….do I have this straight?…

    So..It’s US who are creating terroists? Are WE terroists? It’s our fault that people are evil? It’s our fault that they want to kill us?
    Are you going to keep on and go as far to say like Rosie did, that fire doesn’t melt steel….that Bush orchestrated 9/11?…That cosmicly created the Hurricane to hit New Orleans, and is responsible for blowing up the levy? Is he now responsible for the F5 tornado?
    Please, you folks wonder why Hannity and other critics start going off the deep end when you start blaming the administration on EVERYTHING!

    With ideas like the one Jenni just spoke about, why don’t you blame your sorry, miserable exisitence on him too???

    PLEASE

  35. jessicalyn78 Says:

    You may want to have a hearing test, and go back and watch the debate. If we only attacked countries who attacked us, then what was Germany in WWII? Japan attacked us, but I don’t remeber Hitler. Oh, excuse me, he only tried exterminating people over in Europe, not us. So, according to you we shouldn’t have attacked, right?

  36. Allie Says:

    Now this just seems to be getting pointless.

    Are you having fun yet Derek?

  37. jessicalyn78 Says:

    Jews should have just dies at the hands of Hitler, and Jurds at the hands of Saddam. We have evidence of biological and chemical warefare. He violated the UN resolution 23 times.

    But, it’s not us, or you, right Jenni?

  38. jessicalyn78 Says:

    I think I am making great points…anything in Jenni’s defense, Allie?
    Know what, I’ll save you the time. Just tell me that I am brainwashed by Hannity, Limbaugh, O’Reilly and I’m stupid. There, you are off the hook.
    Unless you have something more poinent to say.

  39. jessicalyn78 Says:

    =Kurds

  40. jessicalyn78 Says:

  41. Jenni Says:

    You are at home, minding your own business, living your life. A bomb drops on your home killing most of your family, the others wounded and in terrible pain with no way to get care. Your life is destroyed. You have no home, no money, and no where to go. Do you:

    a) forgive the the people who dropped the bomb on your house and go on living life normally as if nothing happened?

    b) do you dream about revenge on the people that did this to you? Are you willing to go after those who have caused you and your family so much suffering?

    c) do you support or condone others who have suffered as you have and are going on the revenge route, if you don’t personally revenge them?

    Remember 9/11 — how angry and scared we all were? Because of those events, we whipped ourselves into a fury revenged ourselves on two countries — one that didn’t have anything to do with 9/11.

    Now imagine how much agrier and desiring of revenge you’d be if it was your home, your neighbor’s homes, your family destroyed by violent actions and not others. That will create an environment of even more hate and desire for revenge than 9/11 did for us. We lost less than 3,000 people on that day. The Iraqis have lost over 600,000 in a country with a much smaller population. Think that the Iraqis will just shrug their shoulders at the loss of life and livelihood and forgive us? That’s one way that terrorists are made.

  42. Jenni Says:

    We provided Saddam with the chemicals that he gassed the Kurds with. We also didn’t go to war when he gassed the Kurds — we just gave him a slap on the wrist. Making the Iraq war about the Kurds is way too much of a stretch for reality.

  43. jessicalyn78 Says:

    Nice try honny, but these people were NOT just sitting around. Mother’s sons were taken from them and recriuted to Saddams regime, these people were terroized day in and day out by him. You nor I, except I at least embrace the possibility of, what it’s like to live over there. For the MAJORITY!!!!…..life is better without Saddam, we are still there so that Saddam is not going to be replaced by Medenajad, Bin Laden, or any other extremist leader..what don’t you understand?

  44. Jenni Says:

    “It’s our fault that people are evil?”

    There will always be a certain percentage of the population that are sociopaths, no matter how wonderful a world we create.

    We can do a lot to help create a world, though, where people have something to live for — where there are better options than dying for a cause. Most people won’t willing won’t die for cause if there’s a lot of good reasons not to.

    By “we” — our government, multi-national corporations, oil corporations. We as citizens and consumers also have some power to stop the abuses of our rulers and corps if most of us work to end it.

  45. Jenni Says:

    Jess: “Mother’s sons were taken from them and recriuted to Saddams regime, these people were terroized day in and day out by him. You nor I, except I at least embrace the possibility of, what it’s like to live over there. For the MAJORITY!!!!…..life is better without Saddam,”

    Saddam was a bad guy, but that doesn’t make us the good guy. We are just more efficient at killing Iraqis than Saddam was.

  46. Jenni Says:

    The thread is really getting off topic now.

    Jessica — you seem really interested in debate. May I recommend the non-partisan America’s Debate forum?
    I’ve really gotten a lot out of that forum and the debates there: http://www.americasdebate.com/ . There are people from all political stripes debating all kinds of issues there.

  47. jessicalyn78 Says:

    Oh…more blame……….okay….wait, let’s see……it’s OUR FAULT that he gased all those people, okay. Right. At what point do you stop? When will you stop all of this finger pointing, Bush bashing, and join hands with our troops and unite as a country instaed of spewing all this hate?

    Does it make you feel good to participate in embellishing all of the mistakes and frabricating ones that don’t exist? What is patriotic about that? I don’t remember President Regan blaming and pointing fingers adn ranting and raving about what our country had or was doing wrong. His goal was to unify a nation. We need to go back to that place because unfortunately, and this is why I get so upset….going down this delepitating path you are going down is scary. You spew enough hate to home grow terrorist right here in the US…OH WAIT…it may not be your fault, but by gosh, I bet your spewage of everything being OUR fault emboldening an enemy here at home? Maybe a possibility!

  48. jessicalyn78 Says:

    Saddam was a bad guy, but that doesn’t make us the good guy. We are just more efficient at killing Iraqis than Saddam was.

    No, just say it then Jenni, at least have the moral courage to say it, WE ARE BAD GUYS……just freakin’ say it already. Call a spade a spade. Say how you really feel about our country and the military. Stop beating around the Bush……no punt intended

  49. jessicalyn78 Says:

    How do you live with yourself hating this country so much?

  50. jessicalyn78 Says:

    Say, are you the high school student. I have a sneaky suspicion. You seem enveloped right into the hands of the far left. If so Jenni….please, please just for a second consider what my point of view is…Please.

  51. Jenni Says:

    Sorry Jessica — I don’t play the nationalism game, which is a game made up to bring people in to compliance with the ideology of the ruling classes and give the lower classes a cause to die for. I don’t hate or love this geographical area of the planet (or the people living here) anymore or less than any other.

    I’m a citizen of the world first and foremost and I care about all the people on the planet. I believe in working towards peace, equality and social justice for everyone.

  52. Jenni Says:

    No, I’m not a high school student. I’m probably older than you are. If you click on my name you’ll see my blog photo.

    I was a conservative Mormon in my childhood and teen years, so I have an idea where you are coming from. I can remember thinking: I belong to the only true religion. I live in the best country on the planet — God must really think I’m special. But it was just a story that people told me and I told myself. I had to believe I special, so I ate it up.

  53. jessicalyn78 Says:

    Bravo jenni…in the mean time you go excersise your freedom, freedom that you have because why? why? oh yeas, in your own words they “played the nationalism game, which is a game made up to bring people in to compliance with the ideology of the ruling classes and give the lower classes a cause to die for. I don’t hate or love this geographical area of the planet (or the people living here) anymore or less than any other.

    I’m a citizen of the world first and foremost and I care about all the people on the planet. I believe in working towards peace, equality and social justice for everyone.

    So, on your world peace quest, visit all the fallen soldiers graves and you tell them that fell short of the so called “game” They loved their country enough to lay down their life for you and instead of loving this nation which supplies you those freedoms, that’s the attitude you have?
    Good, get the hell out of dodge…go somewhere where you intolerence will be tolerated. You are washed up hon, BAD!

  54. jessicalyn78 Says:

    Any moderate democrats willing to step up pand help this girl?

  55. jessicalyn78 Says:

    That’s your problem. This has NOTHING to do with church. It’s COMMON sense an CIVIL RESPONSIBILITY to your country and people who die/died for your feedoms. You are the worst attitude I have come accross in a long while. Heavenly Father loves all of his children. that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

  56. Jenni Says:

    There was only one war that gave this geographical area what you would call “freedom” and very few wars whose purpose was to protect that freedom. Most wars throughout history (this country and others) have been for more underhanded and nefarious reasons.

    “You are washed up hon, BAD!”
    Ad hominem attacks don’t really get us anywhere, do they?

  57. Jenni Says:

    Jess: “That’s your problem. This has NOTHING to do with church. It’s COMMON sense an CIVIL RESPONSIBILITY to your country and people who die/died for your feedoms. You are the worst attitude I have come accross in a long while. Heavenly Father loves all of his children. that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.”

    You are the one that asked me to look at things from your point of view.

  58. jessicalyn78 Says:

    It seems to me that you may feel as if you were dooped growing up. I’m sorry. Your attitude is negative. So negative that it’s like a cancer. A cancer that you and your far left libs are spreading everyday. I’ll make a promise to you though….from me to you. I’ll continue to stand up and fight against our country’s own citizens beating down like you are. I’ll go down having faith in this great land. the promise land. Land of the free home of the brave; home of the free, because of the brave. That’s just what it is. Call a spade a spade. You my dear, are not brave your undermine this country and it’s a shame.

  59. jessicalyn78 Says:

    nice. great counter argument. we’ll see how and where your attitude will lead this country. Let me guess, 12 million people around the WORLD are brainwashed by the church, right? Umm…..wonder whos the problem here….you or 12 million members? Good luck. I have to go recharge my batteries.

  60. Jenni Says:

    Another stab at looking at things from your point of view.

    *You seem very afraid of the “other”. I can symphathize with that.
    *You seem to want to take an eye for an eye — I’ve been at that point in my life a few times.
    *You seem uber patriotic — can also relate as I was when I was younger, as I stated above.

  61. Allie Says:

    “I think I am making great points…anything in Jenni’s defense, Allie?
    Know what, I’ll save you the time. Just tell me that I am brainwashed by Hannity, Limbaugh, O’Reilly and I’m stupid. There, you are off the hook.
    Unless you have something more poinent to say.”

    I’m sure you think you are making great points, but they’re kind of wasted here. You aren’t going to change anyones mind, just like no one is likely to change yours.

    I generally try to avoid name calling, and this discussion seems a bit pointless to me, although Jenni has made comments that I can identify with.

  62. Derek Staffanson Says:

    I enjoy having more traffic and discussion on this board, but things are getting out of hand. I have no problem whatsoever with people saying virtually anything on my blog. The only things I won’t tolerate are crude sexual references and advertising. I’m confident enough in my own opinions to allow criticism and debate, or even flaming. If people want to hoist themselves on their own petard, that’s their business. The volume of comments the past several days is ridiculous, particularly considering the content (or lack thereof). So I’m gonna make some decrees to head things off before this and other posts ends up like the Rocky vs. Hannity one.

    Given that Jessica has contributed by far the most posts during the recent flurry, and that the rate at which others contributed skyrocketed after she joined us, I think it is safe to say that she has been the catalyst. Therefore, Jessica, I am asking that you restrict your comments to ten per day (starting now, so you can post ten more today if you are so moved). I think this request is very fair. You can still say anything you want and as long as you want, but only ten per day. If you cannot comply, you will be banned. Ten comments still give you plenty of opportunities to share your feelings–and should you feel you need to say more, you have your own blog and myspace page.

    I think this will decrease the constant zinging and volleying. I don’t know about you, but all this rapid back-and-forth hurts my neck! Maybe this will give people a better chance at a more reasoned discussion. If it seems anyone else stirs up the pot more than I deem appropriate, I’ll make a similar request of them. It may be arbitrary, but its my blog. That makes me the decider 😉

  63. Derek Staffanson Says:

    Jennifer, I wonder if Kucinich is more honest and liberal because people recognize him as a longshot, or if he is recognized as a longshot because he is more honest and liberal (for the conservatives out there: I’m not saying that honesty and liberalism are connected, but that he is both)? Chicken or egg? Regardless, its always good to have him in the mix.

    Good to hear from you Thom. I used to be very concerned with Whitewater. I still think that Whitewater was a bit shady. But based on what I’ve looked into, I’ve decided that there really wasn’t any criminality or serious corruption involved. I’m pretty sure if there was, Ken Starr would have uncovered it and made a case. It was the lack of any evidence of serious malfeasance that sent Starr sniffing up Lewinski’s skirt. His congressional bosses were desperate to come up with something against Clinton, and a sex scandal is better than nothing.

    PotP, Jenni: I agree with your related points. Isn’t it funny that some of the staunchest defenders of the status quo and chauvinism are women?

    – Derek

  64. Dawn Says:

    This is in response to Jessica’s comment “Urrhh…like who? France just elected a man over a woman, please pattle off to me all of the woman leaders plaese.” , which she made at 10:22 am. (everyone scroll up) 🙂

    15 current and former presidents and prime ministers: Benazir Bhutto, Pakistan; Mary Robinson, Ireland; Khaleda Zia, Bangladesh; Vigdis Finnbogadottir, Iceland; Tansu Ciller, Turkey; Eugenia Charles, Dominica; Violeta Chamorro, Nicaragua; Gro Harlem Bruntland, Norway; and former leaders Corazon Aquino, Philippines; Sirimavo Bandaranaike, Sri Lanka; Edith Cresson, France; Maria Liberia-Peters, Netherlands Antilles; Kazimiera Prunskiene, Lithuania; Hanna Suchoka, Poland; Margaret Thatcher, Great Britain.

    Shall I go back further? Let’s see, the Russian empress Catherine the Great, the Eygptian queen Cleopatra, Mary Queen of Scots…is that enough?

    If/when a woman is elected as the first US President, I’m not concerned in the least about other countries viewing the US as “weak”. There’s no evidence showing that large companies with female CEO’s are viewed as “weaker” companies by competitors, just because the President and CEO happens to be a woman, why would we think our country’s reputation would be negatively effected? Ever hear of Meg Whitman?? CEO of E-bay? Is that a weak company? But….it’s lead by a “woman” *gasp*

    Personally, I don’t care if our President is short, tall, wears pink, is married or single. I want someone QUALIFIED to represent and strengthen our country. I want someone capable of independent and intelligent thought. I want someone with high ethical standards. The US will always have enemies. The chromosomal make-up of our president won’t change that.

    Just think Jessica, maybe one day even your daughter could be President.

  65. Emily Says:

    A woman will make the USA weaker? Give me a break. That’s about the stupidest thing I’ve heard in a long time.

    That’s all I’m saying about this post, tho. I’ve made my opinions abundantly clear.

  66. Jessica Says:

    okay. i can’t dispute facts. Thanks for that information Dawn. I still remain skeptical, given the current situation with the kind of enemy that has raged war on us. Isolation of these terror groups is a near impossible task right now, so I maintain that skepticism.

    I still, still don’t think that someone should vote for a woman solely on the fact that she is female. Obviously it goes beyond that for you, I hope for your sake, in regards to why you would vote for her.

    Derek, you moderate this blog. You have the power to control it as you wish, I respect that. I will point out though, that it is rediculous that I can not exercise my right to free speech. You don’t seem to have a problem with your friends using wikipedia and other sources to make their points. It is hypocritical to impose that because of me. I can’t help but question your intentions of that move to ban website references…maybe it has something to do with the debate poll results I posted…ummmmm. I also believe that you would truely embrace my input, material content excluded, merely on the fact that I give it attention.

    Chauvomistic? You can throw that word out there, but I maintain the tradtional, “sexist, sterotyping” (to be politically correct, you folks like that), because I respect and appreciate the position, strength and patriarchical essence of a male. Just as I believe in the role of a father in the Proclamation of the Family in the church, I maintain its important roll in other aspects of leadership whether it be in the home or the oval office. I’m content with the “sexist” (as you would call it) POV. I also maintain the importance of the roll as mother, as do the roll of “First Lady”. I don’t question nor have the desire to dispute Heavenly Fathers divine design of the man and the woman. People have left the Church over the fact that women cannot hold “office” or the Priesthood comparable to a man. I admit that comparing the two, (Church and Government) is not always appropriate, HOWEVER I am SECURE in the role of a woman in the secular world and the spirit world. I think my view is respectable…..do you? Keeping in mind however, that this explanation is of more substance to an active member of the Church who embraces it’s doctrine.

  67. Jessica Says:

    Dawn, you say, “I want someone with high ethical standards.” AH ha. Interesting. More evidence that what you deem as “high ethical standards is where we seriously have disagreement. The standards she maintains comparable to, let’s say…a true conservative in regards to morality, standards and the nuclear family doesn’t hold a candlestick to those people like Hillary Clinton, then again, in the secular world those types of standards don’t apply in the minds of you LDS liberals, correct? They are okay with you, but the rest of the world can undermine the sanctity of life, marriage for example. I just don’t understand this. I realize I never will and I realize that you will not change your minds, and you will maintain your justification of this double standard.

  68. Jessica Says:

    By the way, liberals muske the best whiners and complainers, sorry.

  69. Jessica Says:

    =make

  70. Dawn Says:

    Jessica, I specifically referred to “ethical” standards, not moral standards. Again, separation of church and state. If you are confused, I suggest you take a class on Ethics. I’ve had several. There is a fine distinct line. Doctors, counselors, politicians, and teachers should uphold certain ethical principles. In fact, most licensed professionals have published ethical principles they sign and abide by. Each profession outlines what the “ethical standards” of that profession are.

    Moral standards are something we all could debate until the end of time, and then even beyond for those who believe in “the beyond”. But, my comment was about “ethical standards”, and that is all that I’m responding to. I want a politician that can abide by ethical standards.

    Also, please be careful in generalizing and referring to me as “you LDS liberals”. I’m Catholic.

  71. Derek Staffanson Says:

    Jessica, I did not ban the use of website or other references by you or anyone else. Link away to anything you’d like in your comments. All I insisted is that you keep your contributions on this blog down to 10 comments a day.

    Thanks for the list of names, Dawn. Queen Elizabeth and Hatshepsut would be good additions to the historic woman leaders.

    Thatcher is particularly relevant to the question. No one would accuse Britain of looking “weak” with the Iron Woman at the helm. No one would accuse her of being soft and feminine in dealing with the Falklands or N. Ireland. Whether or not that was a good thing is a whole different story, but she proved indisputably that a woman can be strong in handling war and turmoil.

  72. Jessica Says:

    Funny that you said that Dawn, I just took my final exam in a class called, “Ethical Dilemma”. Although you are right in regards to ethical values on a professional level, I am referring to politics. Moral values and ethical values are intertwined when I am seeking the best canidate for President. You are correct when you say that moral values can be debated…that’s the difference between you and me. My moral standars and values are of somewhat different wave length when applied to politics.

    Isn’t that great…all of those iron handed women in power. It’s great to aknowledge that. I appreciate it. That being said, Hillary is not the answer nor comparable in my book. She is weak. Very weak. Her promises are empty and her phony southern personality is humiliating.

  73. jennifer Says:

    Jessica, I’ve been enjoying Derek’s blog for some time and I like reading people’s comments. Usually they are thoughtful, polite and brief, even if they do agree with others. I really admire people who do that.

  74. Emily Says:

    where’d she go?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: