Oops, My Bad
There's one reason and one reason only why I would back John McCain for President, he's the only candidate older than I am. It's time we had a grownup in the office again, even if it's one I don't agree with. It's par for the course to disagree with grownups, after all. I felt as if Bill Clinton was like the hot shot sophomore in high school when I was a senior, brilliant, dynamic, charismatic, and always in trouble, the one we'd call a juvenile deliquent if he weren't the smartest kid in his class. And when he screwed up we'd all secretly admire him for it. But George W. is like somebody's really annoying doofus little brother, the one you and your friends were forced to take with you to the amusement park and then ruined everyone's day by wandering off, the one who whenever one of the big kids got something new and cool he'd get his hands on it and lose it or break it.
posted by John M Crowther @ 6:59 AM
11 Comments:
Love the "dent of the unit"!
Geez, John. I'm a little disappointed that you "secretly admired" someone whose morals are such that he was able to have oral sex with an intern less than half his age, while on the phone with world leaders, and his wife in the same building.
And then lie about it, while under oath.
I don't for a minute doubt the man's intellectual brilliance, but he has the moral sensibilities of a sewer rat.
However, as a former president of the United States, I will still grant him a great deal of respect, (although not on a personal level)as I think ALL presidents deserve.
Funny cartoon John! And your description of your friend and mine is spot on.
Let's hope Cheney doesn't run away with his crown while he's under anaesthetic!? (((giggles)))
In my opinion respect has to be earned no matter who we are. Our leaders can't expect it as a "given". They must earn it... and most of them don't.
Agreed, Jean. To insist that I must respect the president is almost as silly as the notion that one must respect royalty. It's my respect for the Office of the President that makes me disrespect those who abuse it.
Kate, it may be a guy thing, that secret admiration of the kid on the block who engages in all kinds of nefarious deeds we were taught were forbidden. My admniration of Clinton, however, is not secret, and it has nothing to do with the piggy things he did behind closed doors with a cigar and an intern, things I would have admired as a 16-year old, even if I would have had zero intention of emulating them. My question is what specific harm was done the country as a direct result of those private transgressions, what decisions were made and actions taken by him while engaging in the occasional brief pursuit of quick gratification that left the country in far worse shape than he found it? (Not to mention that presidents and popes throughout history have engaged in private affairs that you would undoubtedly, and justifiably, find reprehensible.)
It sounds, John, as if you are rationalizing Clinton's actions to the point of justification.
I honestly could not care less where the man puts his dick. OR his cigar, for that matter.
But his flagrant disregard for discretion, and the blatant manner in which he broke ethical and moral codes, as well as committing a federal offense by lying under oath shows an enormous amount of hubris, and a humongous lack of plain common sense.
Both you and Jean have written how you think respect ought to be earned, and I agree. But I think being elected President in itself earns a person a certain measure of respect.
Trust, as well, must be earned. When Clinton lied under oath, he broke any trust I could ever have in him. What harm did he do his country?
To be regarded worldwide as a country led by a man with so little self control that he can't keep his pants zipped? And I don't think it a fair argument to compare his actions to the current administration. That's like comparing apples and pomegranates.
Besides, a strong moral compass and strong leadership skills need not be mutually exclusive. Our country's history is full of men (and women) with both.
Have to agree with a lot of what Kate has written. While I no longer believe that Bush has done what is best for the country, I still think that Clinton did a great deal of harm by lying under oath. No one, not even a president, should be able to do that. Not sure that I would agree that Clinton was brilliant but do agree that he has the politicial reteric down to a science. I do not care about his sex life except to object that he brought the whole world into what should have been a private matter between himself and his wife and definitely, he should have not used the oval office for his sordid affair.
It was the MEDIA that brought Clinton's sordid affair into the public eye... (and the world stage) not the man himself. I am not defending him... but had he lived in another time... his indiscretions may have escaped the ever-closer scrutiny of those in powerful places who play dangerous games. Who knows what those who went before him got up to? We can only guess... because the media back then had a modicum of decency and respect for their country... and their leaders... and would have gone to great lengths to cover for them. Now... it's open slather... everyone is fair game... and the "other side" doesn't mind using it to their advantage. The country is the biggest loser when all the dirty laundry is brought out... along with all those who otherwise may have remained blithely unaware... (like his wife). I'm sure she could have done without the public humiliation... and back in the day... she would have been spared that. The Kings of England have had sordid affairs and mistresses for centuries... but there was always a protocol of respect that protected them and those who would be hurt by their actions.
I'm not saying it's right... or just... or moral... but how right or just or moral are the media whose only real interest is making a buck out of a good story... regardless of who gets hurt. The US has suffered badly through the loose lips of the media.
George Dubya on the other hand doesn't have to rely on the media's loose lips to reveal his indiscretions and ineptness... he manages to do that all by himself.
Just my opinion...
Thank-you, Jean. I've been thinking all night about how to respond, but you did it for me, better than I could.
A bit of history to keep the record straight: Kate wrotes of "[Clinton's] flagrant disregard for discretion," and Lee said he "brought the whole world into what should have been a private matter between himself and his wife." It was Linda Tripp who made the whole thing public by handing over to powerful Republican friends tapes she secretly made of conversations with her "friend" Monica Lewinsky. Lewinsky herself first came to everyone's attention when she was subpoenaed in the Paula Jones lawsuit and denied under oath having ever had any sexual encounter with the president. The proceedings in Congress were abruptly and mysteriously halted after Larry Flynt offered a million dollars to anyone who could come forward with dirt about any of the congressmen leading the charge against Clinton.
So whatever happened to taking responsibly for one's actions or is one excused because others who have come before one has done it? No one could have reported anything if he had acted in a discreet way. I am not now nor ever have been the keeper of anyone else's moral fiber. I try not to make judgments about another's actions as long as they do not hurt other people while committing the act. So the media and Linda are responsible for the hurt and shame that Hillary and her daughter must have felt; odd, as I am sure no one was in the room egging Clinton on in his quest of hanky-panky with a young woman who was overawed with the fact that this was the president of the USA. Did he really think that she would not tell anyone and when she did that the other person would keep quiet? Lying under oath was an unlawful act. But more than that people have come to accept less than honorable behavior from others. Clinton was the beginning of the disillusionment of our leaders. So in my opinion, he did a great deal of harm to all of us with his total self-absorption and lack of respect for the office he held.
He couldn't have been much more discreet, Lee. It was private, very concensual, intended by both parties to remain private, and revealed only when Ms. Lewinsky was tricked by a so-called friend. I don't condone the behavior, but I do recognize that it isn't especially abnormal given what we know about human behavior in general and lawmakers specifically before and after Clinton. (Remember Newt Gingrich's affair being carried on while his wife was on her deathbed?) The sick thing is the hypocrisy of all involved, especially that of many of Clinton's attackers. The frightening thing is the lip service paid to puritanical values by men who routinely scorn those values in their own sordid private lives (Sen. Vitter, anyone?). As far as American reputation around the world, we were a laughing stock because such a big deal was made out of something the rest of the world considers normal and better left in private, which is exactly what Clinton and Ms. Lewinsky wished. Now then, let's drop all this backstairs gossip and talk instead about sending 3600 young Amemricans to their deaths based on lies and deception.
Post a Comment
<< Home