It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Clinton - The Retrospective

page: 1

log in


posted on May, 31 2004 @ 12:14 AM
I followed with great interest and in great detail that Clinton thingie - as I know many of you did.

What I have always found confounding… How did Bill manage to stay in office? It's the question which still to this day many folks can not answer; or have not examined.

Some have suggested it was his superior political skills; while others, like Dick Armey, credit Hillary as being his savior.

But the question, in large part, has been given little attention while most energy has been focus on what I would call “sour grapes” or for others, a need to get it behind them.

I have given the matter some thought and would like to share with you some of my ideas and observations as the possible reason for Bill finishing his term.

Early on my first thought when hearing just what Bill did was…"How many days before he is forced to resign?"

My answer was 20 days. Boy was I wrong. What the “hill” happened to let him complete his term? How did he get by? Good luck? Was it God’s good grace? His stars?

After some thought I must confess to you it is my firm, considered belief Bill remained in office because of the over zealousness efforts of the American Right Wing (ARW).

N.B. (I define that term, American Right Wing, (ARW) as that independent and seeming unconnected group(s) of Republican Party members, sic. (public) interest groups, think tanks and assorted other interested parties; that, at times come together on an issue oriented basis and act without formal leadership on a perceived shared principle or goal.

I don’t care for the use of terms like VRWC. They tend to become value charged and cloud meaning and understanding).

How can he say that you say? Why do I say that? How can I support that conclusion that it was folks like many here that kept Bill in Office? Lordie, how could that be???

Let me explain:

The ARW got out of control in its blood lust for Bill Clinton. Rather to, step back and let events unfold within the confines of accepted American process and law the ARW opened a hostile and vitriolic campaign of character assignation against Clinton and all voices of moderation for due process. Their distain for Clinton was intense they did not stop to see how their actions were being perceived by the public at large.

There was so much confidence - now, after 6 frustrating years attempting to "pin the goods" on Bill, - this was the answer to their prayers. No holds were barred; no measure to extreme; anything to get Bill out was OK now.

This even escalated to bashing the President to the point of demeaning the Office. So very shocking and much out of character for "principled" republicans and conservatives. One only need think of the comments of Rep. Burton as an example. It seemed that any means would justify the end result of seeing Bill back to Arkansas.

For months it played out 24-7 in the media. It was a made to order boosts for cable TV and they played their part in letting America know the "blow by blow" of every nitty-gritty details, right down to the DNA samples. But the story unfolded slowly enough so the average American (FOLKS I HATE TO TELL YOU THIS BUT..........MOST OF US HERE ARE NOT IN THAT CLASS. We are the 3% on the either side of the bell curve of politics. The out-lyres so to speak...)

Rather then go on, boring you all with the details and many other examples - we all know of and what was seen by average folk as, what could be referred to, mean-spiritedness - let me get to the point:

As the story unfolded, ARW gave little thought to the underlying belief system the American people have in their government and system of laws. ARW believed they had the coup de grace and the only thing they needed to do was let the American people know the dirty story about Bill. Little thought was given to the fact that the common folk actually believe in the concept, “innocent until proven guilty”; had the patience and attention span to let "due process" play out. Common folk even believed that one accused was entitled to counsel and/or "to have his/her side of the story told.

When some asked for moderation and due process, they were attacked and accused of being “Clinton supporters” who agreed with Bill's disgusting behaviors. They were anything but and folks did not buy into the charge. Those attacking people who were calling full and fair disclosure were perceived as a lynch mob by average folks.

Another principle held dear by the American people is their nature to root for the underdog. The ARW attack was so strident and perceived to be unfair... folks got so turned off, just did not want the ARW to win. (No one I know and I suggest no one at all condoned Dirty Bill's deed. All America hated, and still does, what did Clinton. But the attacks were too………over the top, and unfair for folks to stomach. One need go farther than to follow the polls of Bill’s popularity for proof.

The final error was a belief the ARW holds that the American people are stupid. They needed nightly reminders of Bill’s transgressions in graphic and sickening detail. As poll numbers swung in ever increasing amounts, ARW redoubled there efforts to "teach" the "dimwitted mob.

Just how many times do you think folks can hear the term blowjob and scumbag on national TV before they become offended and stop listening to the messenger? Or, as they did, revile and oppose the message?

And in conclusion, and at the heart of the failure of the ARW to remove Clinton from office, are its basic flaw in viewing the world. - a lack of trust in the American people and their penchant for fair play; distain of personal rights over property rights; lack of trust in our system of laws and process; and contempt for the wisdom of its people.

I doubt folks from the ARW will agree with me. As I have found, those who espouse "being responsible for ones' behavior" is the duty and responsibility of others - not them. Any failures or miscues they experience is due to the actions of others i.e. liberal press, Unions, Trial Lawyers, Hollywood, American Universities, and of late and in large part, Bill Clinton.(Bill has been credited and/or responsible for so many things, that to believe the same, one must also believe Clinton to possess god like power.)

Viewing the ARW’s actions over the years it could be argued they see as their responsibility: point out and tell others of the mistakes; what is, and constitutes being, a "good American"; and how others should live their lives.

And in final analysis, their failure to get Bill out of office was their biggest victory. Had they stayed quiet, let the process play out 3-4 weeks after first reports surfaced Bill Clinton would have to resign the Presidency in disgrace. Al Gore would have become President with enough time to distance himself from Clinton and enter the race in 2000 as his own man.

As we know, few Presidents running for a second term are defeated; meaning Gore most likely would have been President until 2008. So the ARW's loss left the door open for the likes of George Bush II.

Strange how things work out!

At least, that’s how I see it.

posted on May, 31 2004 @ 03:12 AM
Hmm, the names have changed, as well as the what the president did, but sounds like all the "anyone but BUSH" people may be overbeating their drums too...think they will manage to desensitize voters to their overhyped message and end up causing the opposite result as the right did with clinton using your example?

posted on May, 31 2004 @ 06:11 AM
No. I doubt it will happen like that............

It's a bit different........

Those 'anyone but bush' folks ain't the red blood screamer that was on Bill case.........those folks if you remember......... were ravidly rabbid.... and they wanted Clinton out now and by any means........... Those Any one but Bush folks with thir Volvos and Bregenstocks or what every are will to hang out, lay around, not cutting anyone thats in the line and wait till November to vote for who winds up on the other line Bush ain't on......

See the difference?

posted on May, 31 2004 @ 02:43 PM
There is a difference. These ARW (your term) people had a gut full of Mr. Clinton, a man who went on television and looked the American people in the eye and flat out lied. Then he did it again under oath. Now I know that you have said on another thread that this is ok, that in a situation like this (extra-marital sex) a man is expected to lie and that "half of America has done it".

Well I for one have not, and if I had I would own up to it like a man.

And really, for most people this was not about oral sex, it was about the leader of the United States, being bound by the laws he had sworn to uphold.

This is the reason that Mr. Clinton was in trouble, and I found the fact that many on the left were willing to discount this as appalling as the people that thought OJ was innocent.

If a president can lie under oath on any subject (including WMD's) then anyone can. If we hold our elected officials to a lesser standard than our average citizen there is a problem. Like it or not, when you come right down to basics, Nixon resigned for similar reasons, Bt Mr. Clinton fully expected that he was above such petty laws.

Then to make matters worse, many prominent Deomocrats lined up behind the President and basically said "yes it is ok for the President to lie in this situation becuase it is a personal matter". It is ok for the president to break the law!

You say, "As the story unfolded, ARW gave little thought to the underlying belief system the American people have in their government and system of laws." As I've just shown, the lack of regard for the laws of the United States was from the people on the other side if the aisle.

You say "The final error was a belief the ARW holds that the American people are stupid. They needed nightly reminders of Bill’s transgressions in graphic and sickening detail. As poll numbers swung in ever increasing amounts, ARW redoubled there efforts to "teach" the "dimwitted mob." I fully agree with the sentiment you provide if not the reality of the situation. Public opinion was indeed swayed, by the liberal press and a constant barrage from Clinton's supporters

Mr. Clinton should have resigned when the facts came out, just as Mr. Bush should if it can be proven that this WMD situation was an intentional lie and not just faulty intel. I beleive Mr. Bush fully expected to find these weapons and that eventually they will be found.

It strikes me funny to this day that so many of the people that said it was all right for Mr. Clinton to lie uner oath, to break the law, are the first ones to accuse Mr. Bush of the same thing, but I guess that is the way of liberal politics.

You state that the "anyone but Bush" folks are different... They are. They have no basis for their arguements aside from their dislike of Mr. Bush. Well guess what, in this country that is a fully acceptable way for people to think and vote. And I intend to try my best to help these people see the validity of my arguements and my opinions while at the same time showing that I respect theirs.

You ought to give that a try. And don't call me son.

posted on Jun, 1 2004 @ 09:19 AM
That there were continued & repeated lies; not faulty intelligence.
I hear the grandios egalitarianism you're putting out there Seth, but only see the same partisan blindness in action.

And we know about the actions speaking louder than words, no?

The altruism to the laws of the land, and how our elected officials should be near deities by your definition, falls to pieces upon even the most casual of views on the life of our Fortunate Son pResdient. Unless of course, if you are considering the re-writing in mid stream actions on laws that don't suit them by him & his cohorts?

GMc: Very well put together synopsis. The Rabid Right Wing has benefited by their on point faxed out message, but also suffered by it because they've alienated the free thinkers within the conservative ranks as well.

[Edited on 1-6-2004 by Bout Time]

posted on Jun, 1 2004 @ 01:07 PM

Originally posted by Bout Time
The Rabid Right Wing has benefited by their on point faxed out message, but also suffered by it because they've alienated the free thinkers within the conservative ranks as well.

[Edited on 1-6-2004 by Bout Time]

.............they DON'T care.

posted on Jun, 2 2004 @ 12:24 AM
Oh these nuances of inside politics are booring....

lets focus on the oral dictation in the oval office....

To this day Clinton has never admitted how good Monica was!!!
When will he stop the political double speak and tell us if she was eager or not?

Surely someone on here has a link to pics of the dress?

My point is sex sells...this contributed to Clinton being occupied while al queda was not just his fault...the whole country was too hypnotized over this tale of sex and power to be paying attention to real world issues....

posted on Jun, 2 2004 @ 11:51 AM
Breaking the long standing tradition of NOT talking about a president's mistress?
Who chose to make public detailed , blow by blow, accounts of sex acts ....instead of just saying "sex"?
Who lead willful obstructionism contrary to Americas best interests & security, in order to topple a Democrat President? And if falling short, taint his VP by association so that IT becomes the focus of the 2000 race?
( note: I was always praying for Al Gore to be a little bit NYer on that issue and say, "What? Like I was tickling his azz or something while this was going on!?!? Get the F**** otta hear 'for I smack you cross eyed!!!"

The BIGGEST sin was never a married man having a consentual affair. It's what one rabid & power hungry faction who felt the power of rule to be their entitlement subjected the country to.

[Edited on 2-6-2004 by Bout Time]

posted on Jun, 7 2004 @ 04:35 AM
Bout Time,

As IF the democrats arent waiting to find something to do the same to Bush with.....In fact if you read about all the Bush lies that people on this site expouse, youd think they already HAD this dirt to sling. BUT they dont, hence this hasnt happened.

The moment Bush's opponents have ANYTHING they could use against him in the same manner as Clinton got it...they will pull the trigger with no hesitation. Can you tell me that democrats would NOT use this tactic if it was available?

I await to see what type of mud they will attempt to throw.

top topics


log in