That was wrong, wrong, wrong; and must be righted! Here ya go, Scumbag:
Posted on 04/11/2003 6:03:18 AM PDT by kattracks
Ex-President Bill Clinton blamed Republicans for the boos he got Wednesday night at a birthday concert for country singer Willie Nelson at New York's Beacon Theater.
"The place went wild when [Clinton] was announced," reports Friday's New York Post Page Six. "There was loud booing and yelling."
Several callers to WABC Radio's Steve Malzberg Show who attended the event described the scene afterward. One quoted the ex-prez as complaining, "I see the Republicans are here tonight."
Another saw a fellow concertgoer who stood up, booed and gave Clinton the finger - prompting security to escort him out of the hall.
The Post confirmed Clinton's Republican comment, adding that he "seemed angered" at his reception.
The remark riled the crowd so much, said the paper, that when Nelson returned to the stage, he asked if everyone was all right.
The concert was taped for a Memorial Day airing on the USA network. "No way will they include the Clinton booing in the broadcast," predicted Malzberg.
Listen to Steve Malzberg in his new time slot on WABC, 1 a.m. to 5 a.m. ET weeknights, 9 a.m. to 12 noon on Sundays.
Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:
That was wrong, wrong, wrong; and must be righted! Here ya go, Scumbag:
Do I think we should obsess on Clinton and devote all our efforts to getting him prosecuted? No. I would be glad to leave him in obscurity.
The problem is that he won't go away, and the media gives him inordinate attention. They do this to stick him in our face, not because they think we want to see him.
And does he ever say anything helpful or statesmanlike? No. He inevitable twists truth, plants seeds of doubt, runs down the country overseas, and generally violates every standard for proper behavior in a former president.
You say he can't cause harm? I will give you one example of his deliberate attempt to cause harm. In the run-up to the war with Iraq, President Bush and every other member of his administration cautioned that this would be hard, that lives would be lost, and it wouldn't be short.
Yet when we were in the "quagmire" frenzy of 2 weeks ago, the press accused President Bush of saying this would be a "cakewalk." He never said any such thing.
But the person making the most noise about this being a quick war and raising expectations was BILL CLINTON. He did it several times (including in PRINT in the London Times) and he did it with the full knowledge that he was raising expectations.
This is the kind of harm he does. Should the war have dragged on a bit longer before the tipping point was reached, he would have been out in front saying that it SHOULD have been quick, but Bush and Rumsfeld blew it. You know that is exactly what he would have done.
I am all for ignoring his silly comments which are obvious media grabs, but when he actively runs the country down in overseas speeches about our foreign policy, or when he tries to cause trouble by making people doubt our war-time leaders, I am NOT going to ignore him.
I am not as sanguine about him as you. I have seen him in action, and I know he envies and hates George Bush. He will do anything he can to harm him. Period.
I guess I should clarify, backtrack or whatever ... Bill Clinton certainly deserved censure for the comments you cited. I don't really have any problems with him being booed the other night. If I'd been there, I would've booed him too. Words can't express the contempt I have for that man.
However, I sincerely believe that there are folks not just here but at other forums ... and I frequent several ... who obsess about the guy to an unhealthy extent.
I think the problem with the right and Bill Clinton today is the same thing which contributed to him playing us like a cheap tom-tom drum for eight years. Namely, we made it personal instead of keeping it strictly business. I don't think it was ever personal to Bubba, it was just business, the way the game was played. Like Michael Corleone told his brother Sonny before he killed Sollozzo in "The Godfather" ... yes I know that's fictional, but I think the analogy is valid ... "It's not personal, it's business." I think then and now our side made it personal.
I don't know if I've ever posed this on FR in the five years I've been a member, but on another forum I speculated that a big reason for the personal animus toward Clinton has to do with the fact that in a lot of ways we're still fighting the battle of the '60s, and especially to an element of the social conservatives who think this country's gone to hell in a handbasket over the last 40 years, Clinton was from day one perceived as the ultimate product of the '60s, a long-haired, dope-smoking, free-loving, hedonistic libertine and radical, and it was viewed as sacrilege that somebody like that would bamboozle the American public enough to be elected president.
Anyway, again, because of that a lot of folks on our side have always made it personal against him, and while he was president that clouded our judgment and actions in a lot of ways and helped him jerk us around righteously where we had enough ammo and advantages to have done a lot better than we did against him.
Plus I think we refused to accept the reality that just doing the right thing and following principles, hoping that good would defeat evil in the end, etc., wasn't enough when you were in a battle royal with a street fighter. Because while as I said, I don't think it was ever that personal with Bubba ... I think Hillary is a committed socialist, but in his heart of hearts I don't think Bubba really gives two ca-cas about anything but satisfying his urges ... he's a street fighter and would do anything and use anything to win. And we kept trying to be high minded and above the fray instead of getting down in the gutter with him. That shouldn't be an offensive concept to people, IMHO ... top-level politics isn't a place for niceties. We did go to the mat on impeachment, true, but never did when it came to policy issues, plus we underestimated the value of perceptions and P.R. And we paid the price in both areas.
Bottom line, yes Clinton can still draw an audience and yes the media hangs on his every word. But every year that passes, and the farther we get away from his presidency, that will change. Plus as I said, IMHO he's preaching to the choir. He's not going to sway one opinion that's not already anti-conservative.
And as soon as Hillary runs and is crushed, that's when the decline into true irrelevance will start for that crowd.
That's why I wish she'd just go ahead and run in '04 so that we can get this battle engaged, because when it does happen IMHO that very well could be Armaggedon in the war between left and right in this country and a defining moment in this country's political history.
Some folks in this thread have been hard on the American people for electing Bubba twice. I've given my .02 about why that happened, the factors that I think contributed to it. Maybe I'm naive, but I still have faith that now that he's out of office, what Bubba says will go in one ear and out the other of the middle of the country.
"Freedom of speech isn't working out so well for liberals now that they aren't the only ones with a microphone. It's not so much fun when the rabbit's got the gun."--- Ann Coulter
Fox reported about a nationwide recount about a month ago(?) That had Bush ahead over all by @1000 votes. He did get the majority! (I'm sure CNN mised that one, aye?)
It was Clinton who made it personal. He didn't campaign on issues, as mush as his charisma and a mocking of Bush and Dole. He cares very much about himself and part of his technique is to paint everyone who disagrees with him as evil.
He has been a divisive force in politics. ANd he does make it personal. Right before the Republican convention, there was Bill Clinton on TV at a fundraiser at Cape Cod. He was mocking Bush as the "frat boy" who wanted to be president to "follow in daddy's footsteps" yada, yada. This was a man who wasn't even running, going out of his way to make personal insults against his opposition's candidates. His envy and hatred of President Bush have only grown over the last two years.
You see, I take this part quite personally. I am done with the Monica thing, the frauds, the pardons, all of that stuff. It was just a symptom of his deeper problem, which is basically a hatred of this country. Why else would he do so much to harm the military, the intelligence networks, etc?
And while I don't care whether he ever is prosecuted for those things he did while in office, I think it important that he be watched, and refuted, and yes...mocked, whenever the opportunity warrants. His wife is repellant, but there are plenty of dim bulbs who will vote for her if he campaigns...because they know he will be on their TV's again. I refuse to let him spout his lies and cause trouble without a rebuttal. Ignoring him is not a good plan, in my opinion.
I disagree with your stance, only because Clinton doesnt fear prison. I understand your rationale, but with Clinton, the loss of prestige,power and swooners will hurt him more than than indictment or prison sentence. Thats why NOT moving on is important to me. I believe that continuing to bash Clinton, will prevent his ilk and enablers from continuing the the horrific legacy of murder, treason, rape, and perjury that he spawned.
Do you really expect candidates to say abou their opponents, "He's really a fine man?" That's a recipe for defeat in my book.
I don't think Bill Clinton hates G.W. Bush. In fact, I've heard that Clinton has told people that he was impressed with Bush after meeting him.
By taking it personally, I'm saying that our side didn't look at Bill Clinton as an opponent to be defeated, they looked at him as the antichrist, as a dope-smoking, draft-dodging, immoral '60s hippie suffering from satyriasis who didn't deserve to be president. Just his mere existence made people on our side just sit there and literally quiver with anger.
I think Clinton, on the other hand, looked upon us just as opponents to be defeated and did what it took to achieve that without sitting their literally quivering with hatred at us.
Supposedly Bob Dole ran into Clinton after the '96 election and fussed at him for some of the stuff he said about him on the stump, and he said, "Hey, nothing personal, but you do what it takes," and I guess Bob pretty much accepted where he was coming from because apparently they get along today
Now do I like that? Certainly not. Would it be better if campaigns were based strictly on the issues, leaving personalities, spin and P.R. out of it? Certainly.
The reality, however, is that it is not like that anymore for either side and never will be again, and we need to accept it and get with the program.
And quite honestly, I hope G.W. Bush during the summer of 2008 when he's campaigning for whomever the GOP has nominated to be his successor will be out there tearing the Dem nominee a few new bodily orifices and coming up with some more pungent comments about him (or her) than "frat boy."
With all due respect, you sound like someone who would rather stand on principle and stand on issues and stand on righteousness and stand for good vs. evil, and if you lose so be it but at least you have the satisfaction of having stood on principle, issues, etc.
I'm a win man, myself. I don't go for place or show.
Hillary is still around though as a sinator. That's the 1%.
I don't. I prefer HONESTY.
As for Hillary for president, I would not bet on her winning, but I can't underestimate any political enemy. ANYTHING can happen, and it has.(A 22 year old beat an experienced county commissioner for state rep in a primary).
Bob Graham is the scary one.
Civility was killed under the Clintons. Can you imagine a grosser pig? And to think he was in the White House.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.