Hoover Was No Nixon Who Was No George W.

Nick Gillespie | June 2, 2005

Continuing with the theme below: So we now know that J. Edgar Hoover, usually figured as pure evil in popular culture, is a saint compared to Richard Nixon (and we'll just ignore for the moment the fact that Deep Throat/Mark Felt, Hoover's high-ranking agent who is being pretty fondly remembered these days, helped design the FBI's notorious COINTELPRO).

If it takes Nixon to rehab Hoover, who could possibly transmute Tricky Dick--the guy you wouldn't buy a used car from!--into something golden?

George W. Bush, of course. Here's the Watson and Crick of the Huffington Post, Jerry and Joe Long, thinking thoughts even deeper than the ones Matt Welch excerpted previously:

Compared to George W., Richard Nixon had an all consuming passion for the truth. The Watergate transcripts are basically a desperate attempt by Nixon to keep his lies straight. He was genuinely concerned about what lies he had told to whom; painstakingly repositioning aides and agencies inside his web of plausible deniability lest his actions be found out. Today's misdeeds make the Huston Plan [for illegal surveillance of Nixon's real and perceived enemies] look like an exercise in progressive government. Having to defend something like the Downing Street Memo would've dissolved RN in a puddle of vindictive jowl sweat. Yet the media never dares trouble our unconcerned Caesar for an explanation.

Whole bit here. The Longs' bio notes that they are "satirists," so maybe they're just being funny here. But this worse-than-Nixon meme isn't all that new. Hunter S. Thompson, a guy who made a small fortune ragging on Nixon like no one besides Kissinger ever pulled off, pronounced Dubya worse than Nixon.

I'm not clear exactly on why Bush is more hated than Nixon; I mean, I understand some of the reasons people have for hating him, but worse than Nixon? What does that even mean, exactly? Nixon's economic policies were ruinous; he also fomented racial hate and divisiveness in a way that no one can accuse Bush of. Bush's war--however misguided you think it was (and I do)--is already more successful and, perhaps more important, more out-in-the-open than Nixon's Southeast Asia adventures. I'm no fan of Bush but I just don't understand the utter, near-rabid contempt he inspires in many people.

Then again, I don't understand why more lefties haven't moved to Canada given the last presidential election.

Comments

|6.2.05 @ 3:25PM|#

I couldn't help but notice that neither this thread, nor the one below, contain any links to anybody stating what "we all know" - that the FBI was saintly. Every MSM and blogosphere story about the subject I've seen has raised the point about Felt not being a white knight.

Is there somebody out there sanctifying J. Edgar Hoover or the FBI that I'm missing?

|6.2.05 @ 3:31PM|#

i'm with joe on this one. politics is funny stuff.

|6.2.05 @ 3:39PM|#

Nixon's economic policies were ruinous;


Current government spending and expansion.


he also fomented racial hate and divisiveness in a way that no one can accuse Bush of.


Gays are the new niggers.

|6.2.05 @ 3:44PM|#

I think I'm with metalgrid on this one.

Further, someone's going to have to tell me how

"Bush's war--is already more successful".

Really?

You mean we've left with the regime we want in place intact?

Or is there some other metric of success that I'm not aware of?

|6.2.05 @ 3:58PM|#

Yeah, gays are the new Southern Strategy. Nixon was smarter too, and while creepy, didn't have that Slim Pickens riding the Bomb down vibe. Iraq is a fiasco, but I'm worried about Operation Iranian Freedom. I guess they wouldn't roll that out until 2006 though.

gaius marius|6.2.05 @ 4:09PM|#

I'm no fan of Bush but I just don't understand the utter, near-rabid contempt he inspires in many people.

what metalgrid said -- and i think we have to acknowledge that executive deceit has been taken to higher and higher levels of mastery since carter by each successive white house, necessitated by the increasingly imperial power commanded by the president (with its machiavellian applications) and the increasing explosiveness and polarization of vocal radical minorities within the electorate.

not only is bush the younger worse than nixon -- reagan, bush the sensible and clinton were probably worse than nixon.

|6.2.05 @ 4:11PM|#

George Washington: I Cannot tell a lie.

Richard Nixon: I cannot tell the truth.

George W. Bush: I cannot tell the difference.

|6.2.05 @ 4:14PM|#

I'd prefer Nixon. Nixon was a crook, but at least he knew full well that he was a crook, and he let the knowledge guide his actions to at least some extent. Bush, however, doesn't seem to believe that anything he does is even questionable, and so he will probably never think that he has any reason to even consider retreat from anything he fights for, no matter how poorly conceived it is.

|6.2.05 @ 4:17PM|#

metalgrid, Jim Walsh, and Shem all make excellent points.

Especially Jim Walsh.

gaius marius|6.2.05 @ 4:17PM|#

i have to say, though, that i think bush the younger is materially different from his predecessors. he really has no use for reality, inconvenient or not. he is (without being aware of it, i'm sure) a full-blown german idealist -- not an empirical bone in his body. the truth is in the self, and the will will manifest the truth and create the world anew.

it would take a man like him to make me feela twinge of regret for the loss of lawless machiavellian realists like kissinger. being lawless and objective is just a touch better than being lawless and utterly subjective.

|6.2.05 @ 4:18PM|#

Comment by: Jim Walsh at June 2, 2005 04:11 PM


That my dear fellow, is an absolute gem. I promise to treasure it by using it every chance I get.

|6.2.05 @ 4:20PM|#

W is viewed as a current threat. Nixon isn't doing much these days. Bush is not by any standard 'worse than Nixon'.

I remember when Clinton was the worst thing ever, too.

|6.2.05 @ 4:29PM|#

"Bush, however, doesn't seem to believe that anything he does is even questionable, and so he will probably never think that he has any reason to even consider retreat from anything he fights for, no matter how poorly conceived it is."

I just don't understand this. Bush is not unique in his willingness to surround himself with ideologically similar people. He is not unique in his unwillingness to change his mind on some matter he has previously discussed in public. He is not unique in his belief that the cost of retreat can be very high. Why do people act like he is the first president with these characteristics? Why is EVERYTHING assumed to be part of a messiah complex with this guy?

And, just to stir the pot, it is not at all clear that Iraq is a 'fiasco'.

I agree almost completely with Nick on this.

|6.2.05 @ 4:33PM|#

Ah, Nick, you've forgotten an axiomatic truth: Bush=Hitler.

Why just the other day I was strolling by the White House and saw Bush anally rape a gay man before shooting him in the head. Can you spell hypocrisy without a 'B'? Not anymore.

gaius marius|6.2.05 @ 4:43PM|#

Why is EVERYTHING assumed to be part of a messiah complex with this guy?

i think its his detachment from realism. it's not like they hide it. his cadre is openly rooted in the subjective, in the world as will. that quote ron suskind famously printed in the ny times says it all:

In the summer of 2002, after I had written an article in Esquire that the White House didn't like about Bush's former communications director, Karen Hughes, I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush. He expressed the White House's displeasure, and then he told me something that at the time I didn't fully comprehend -- but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency.

The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors ... and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''

that is not language that could have emerged from men like mcnamara or kissinger, who were profoundly realistic. and yet it's SOP in this white house.

|6.2.05 @ 4:53PM|#

I just don't understand the utter, near-rabid contempt he inspires in many people.

Being part of the Northeast Liberal Elite helps. Or even the Northeast kind-of-Liberal not-so-Elite. The guy just rubs us the wrong way.

Bush is not unique in his willingness to surround himself with ideologically similar people.

No, but he and his group are unique in their irrationality. Just one example: tie our aid to Africa to the deliberate withholding of information that might actually help lower the number of AIDS cases. I guess that's "faith-based" charity in action.

|6.2.05 @ 4:57PM|#

Why do people act like he is the first president with these characteristics?

Because Bush is a fanatic, in a way that Reagan, Bush 41 and Clinton were not. In fact, I'm having difficulty remembering anything that the man has retreated on, or even a situation where he acted as if there might be some reason why retreating might be a good, beneficial idea. I never thought that I would say this, but Bush doesn't have a political bone in his body, and that's a terrible thing, because the office of the President has become so powerful over the last several decades that some amount of discretion has become a necessity to keep all the power from being exercised at once and doing serious and possibly permanent damage to the COnstitution.

|6.2.05 @ 4:57PM|#

Interesting quote Gaius. Change one's environment while the opponent is still studying it. Classic Boydian OODA loop stuff.

Then again, anonymous aides get you fuck all in reliability points these days. Love to hear the tape though.

|6.2.05 @ 5:01PM|#

"that is not language that could have emerged from men like mcnamara or kissinger, who were profoundly realistic. and yet it's SOP in this white house."

I can't help but think people make too much out of this comment, which came after all from a single advisor speaking off the record about his own views. A realism that places significance on UN mandates is improperly labeled. A realism that recognizes that the US is the only force of significance to despots is not all that different from what the aide was expressing here. What I see is a lot of people willing to make the equation passive = realistic.

Realism doesn't mean appeasement.

|6.2.05 @ 5:02PM|#

"Being part of the Northeast Liberal Elite helps. Or even the Northeast kind-of-Liberal not-so-Elite. The guy just rubs us the wrong way."

Imagine that: building a political movement around demonzing people for the demographic group they belong to sometimes rubs those people the wrong way.

I've heard that extremely rich businessmen didn't like Huey Long, either. Go figure.

|6.2.05 @ 5:04PM|#

You're right, Jason, reality doesn't mean appeasement. The two concepts are completely independent variables, with no connection at all.

So, pray tell, why did you bring the concept of appeasement into the conversation?

|6.2.05 @ 5:06PM|#

"No, but he and his group are unique in their irrationality. Just one example: tie our aid to Africa to the deliberate withholding of information that might actually help lower the number of AIDS cases. I guess that's "faith-based" charity in action."

No offense, but blah blah blah. What you see as irrational I see as the result of coalition appeasement. This is what parties do. You might as well get all huffy at Democrats for banning firearms when they might actually help reduce crime, or increasing unemployment payments when they increase unemployment. Of course all this is irrational, it is the product of coalition politics. Bush is not unique in this regard at all.

R C Dean|6.2.05 @ 5:12PM|#

I'm no fan of Bush but I just don't understand the utter, near-rabid contempt he inspires in many people.

Its a style thing. Nothing more profound than that. He just rubs people from certain socio-economic backgrounds the wrong way.

Gays are the new niggers.

Call me when the lynchings start.

Bush's war--is already more successful.

Well, seeing as we haven't been driven out of Afghanistan and Iraq by hordes of Islamists who proceed to murder millions of their countrymen, I would say, yeah, more successful so far.

|6.2.05 @ 5:13PM|#

joe:

It goes like this. People bring up the reality community quote as a way of criticizing foreign policy decisions of the administration as unrealistic. Kissinger used different language but came to similarly aggressive positions.

When people want to argue that this administration is UNIQUELY irrational, to me they are kind of on the hook for explaining how others have come to rational decisions that were very similar, and as Nick pointed out, considerably worse in many respects. Further, those making this argument are saying that there can be no reality based way to arrive at a decision to go to war in Iraq, which is obviously BS if you consider Kissinger a 'realist'.

|6.2.05 @ 5:15PM|#

Nixon never suspended Habeas Corpus. Also, if the torture of political prisoners is more than just a few bad apples and was sanctioned by official administration policy (as it appears ever more likely to be) then there's another thing Nixon never did: approve and systematically implement torture of political prisoners. So, yeah, I'd say Bush is worse, just on those two counts.

Stormy Dragon|6.2.05 @ 5:20PM|#

Before we absolve Richard Nixon, let's not overlook his more frequently ignored sins:

OSHA, EPA, wage/price controls, etc...

|6.2.05 @ 5:22PM|#

Call me when the lynchings start.


That Shepard kid comes to mind.

Stormy Dragon|6.2.05 @ 5:22PM|#

Oh, and don't forget The War Powers Act, which made the subsquent era of the undeclared war possible.

|6.2.05 @ 5:23PM|#

RandyAnn:

I dunno. Pretty much that whole thing was on foreign soil. What do we know about the treatment of captured VC?

This:

"approve and systematically implement torture of political prisoners" is a very strong statement for which we have no evidence.

|6.2.05 @ 5:30PM|#

Nixon at least had the decency to resign when he was caught commiting impeachable offenses (Watergate etc). Whereas I dont think there would be a chance in hell that Bush will resign over his (lying to get us into war ...see the Downing Street Memo).

So from that aspect (unless Bush does resign) at least Nixon is better

Jeff|6.2.05 @ 5:31PM|#

Clinton still has a higher body count than Bush II.

|6.2.05 @ 5:41PM|#

Clinton still has a higher body count than Bush II.


Bush still has 3.5 more years to go.

|6.2.05 @ 5:43PM|#

That Shepard kid comes to mind.

Yes, and we all know that was done for the greater good of the Republican party. If we're going to make outrageous and inflamitory connections between two completely unconnected things I guess its only fair that the Clinton whitehouse (along with the Democrat party in general) get the blame for the time my wife got mugged by a black guy. Yeah, that's the ticket.

|6.2.05 @ 5:48PM|#

"I'm no fan of Bush but I just don't understand the utter, near-rabid contempt he inspires in many people."

Direct exposure to blatant incompetence brings that out in people. It's painful to watch a President repeat other Presidents' mistakes.

...We had the Powell Doctrine; we knew how to avoid this. Bush insisted on walking into the same trap!

|6.2.05 @ 5:59PM|#

Yes, and we all know that was done for the greater good of the Republican party. If we're going to make outrageous and inflamitory connections between two completely unconnected things I guess its only fair that the Clinton whitehouse (along with the Democrat party in general) get the blame for the time my wife got mugged by a black guy. Yeah, that's the ticket.


Does it matter for whose good it was done? It was done, it was a lynching, and Mr. Dean didn't apparently think such things happen in our country. So I am not linking the GOP with it, I'm just providing proof that people are still killed because of percieved sexual orientation and race.

For that matter, I live in a rather nice suburb of Boston, and in the middle of winter, I'm pasty white, but I apprently walk like a black person with my winter coat and headgear on because a few months ago I had a bottle thrown at me from a car followed by the words 'nigger'. I can only imagine how much worse it is for people for whom it escalates when people think it's ok to bash em because hey, they're not like us, they don't have the same rights as us, so they're obviously not human.

|6.2.05 @ 6:10PM|#

I can only imagine how much worse it is for people for whom it escalates when people think it's ok to bash em because hey, they're not like us

Being pasty-white, as you say, I am confident you could experience the same virulent racism for yourself should you walk through the black sections of Beantown some evening without your Stepin Fetchit stroll...

gaius marius|6.2.05 @ 6:16PM|#

I can't help but think people make too much out of this comment

i wouldn't give it such credence if it didn't fit the evidence so well, mr ligon.

you can deny it if you like, but this administration is militant in refusing to admit wrongdoing on a level that none prior were, which is symptomatic of ideologues. they genuinely believe they are not wrong, despite the evidence.

the fiscal situation is a textbook exercize in reality denial -- right down to cheney's "deficits don't matter" comment.

in iraq, kissinger might have invaded to secure the oil, yes, if they had been threatened -- but oil would have been the objective and a threat to it would have to have been manifest.

that is not what bush did. in response to 9/11, bush decided to become a trotskyite and foment a "global democratic revolution" (his words) and manufacture a 'material' threat as pretense to starting a "crusade" (his word). that is not a realistic reaction to what is at core a law enforcement matter.

the administration is furthermore funding the overturning of regimes throughout the third world on the gene sharp principles through usaid to continue this "revolution". bush makes dostoevsky references in his speeches -- his inaugural address was as detached from reality as could be. he really believes in natan sharansky -- not freedom as a means to good material ends, but freedom as a panacea, an end of itself. that is idealism to the core.

and you can examine others in his circle of advisers, from wolfowitz to richard perle to michael ledeen, and find similar subjectivist rhetoric across the board. worse, they all have a common background in leo strauss' brand of ungrounded democratic idealism that provides frightening context to bush's symptoms.

for yet greater depth, you can read the books that have been written about this administration from suskind to woodward to hersh -- the blithe idealism of the primary actors is plain to see in all of them.

it's much more than one quote, i'm afraid, mr ligon, that led me to this conclusion.

|6.2.05 @ 6:38PM|#

Being pasty-white, as you say, I am confident you could experience the same virulent racism for yourself should you walk through the black sections of Beantown some evening without your Stepin Fetchit stroll...


Yeah, but when was the last time you got beat up by gays for walking through their gentrified neighborhood with your wife?

|6.2.05 @ 7:09PM|#

That Shepard kid comes to mind.

He was killed in 1998. By your strange logic I would suppose Clinton is somehow responsible for his death?

|6.2.05 @ 7:19PM|#

Because Bush is a fanatic, in a way that Reagan, Bush 41 and Clinton were not. In fact, I'm having difficulty remembering anything that the man has retreated on....

In the 2000 campaign he talked about limited government and free markets. He sure retreated on key elements of that pledge.

|6.2.05 @ 7:30PM|#

"In the 2000 campaign he talked about limited government and free markets."

He really did too! He talked about free markets!

...he did some real mouthwork about keepin' spending down too. New prescription benefits for seniors--that's one heck of a way to keep spending down! ...What a whopper!

|6.2.05 @ 7:40PM|#

He was killed in 1998. By your strange logic I would suppose Clinton is somehow responsible for his death?


I made that statement in response to Dean saying to call him when the lynching happens and I pointed out that lynchings do in fact happen to these minorities. It's due to the environment created by politician and majorities who marginalize them into a subhuman category that lead to it - Didn't Clinton sign the Defense of Marriage Act and push through don't ask don't tell?.

|6.2.05 @ 7:42PM|#

For that matter, I live in a rather nice suburb of Boston,

Well, if we're going to whip our dicks out and tell "for that matter" stories...

Yeah, but when was the last time you got beat up by gays for walking through their gentrified neighborhood with your wife?

Uh, that would be the aforementioned mugging. You see, I don't live in a rather nice suburb of Boston. I live in a rather crappy (but getting much better) part of DC. The type of place where the eating establishments are bulletproof. So I and my wife are the minority who occasionally gets shit for being white in a decidedly non-white neighborhood. But, thankfully, its only a very, very small number of asshats who pull that kind of stuff. Almost everyone in my neighborhood are very nice, just like every other place I've lived.

No one claims that nasty stuff doesn't happen, and that there aren't downright evil people out there. But lets not kid ourselves: there is (thankfully) no great "gay hunt" going on in america, where people are being pulled off the street and hung from lampposts. Yes, there are people who aren't exactly "friends of Dorothy," but there are also a lot of people who don't like my type in their city either. Bigots come in all shapes and political orientations.

|6.2.05 @ 7:43PM|#

Ken-

Just remember, though, that Bush only pushed for so much spending because it was necessary. If he didn't support so much spending he would have lost the election, and then we would have been stuck with a President who supports massive expansions of the welfare state and interventions in the economy.

|6.2.05 @ 7:52PM|#

It's due to the environment created by politician and majorities who marginalize them into a subhuman category that lead to it - Didn't Clinton sign the Defense of Marriage Act and push through don't ask don't tell?.

That's right. Republicans say that gays are SUBHUMAN. "Round up the twinkies boys, we're gonna put 'em in a ghetto. Tonight we're gonna party likes it Warsaw 1943! Yee haw!"

Wow, metalgrid, your sense of moral equivalence is finely honed, isn't it.

As for Shepherd, the story's not so cut and dried. Let's just say being a crankhead isn't exactly the smartest thing in the world. Its not as if drug dealers are known for their kind, zen-like ways.

|6.2.05 @ 7:55PM|#

Don't forget that that phony John Dean has also pronounced Bush "worse than Watergate."

|6.2.05 @ 8:02PM|#

unrelated: how would reactions have been different if a few muslims had killed matthew shepherd?

outside of the category of "freakin' hilarious" of course.

|6.2.05 @ 9:04PM|#

metalgrid, Jim Walsh, and Shem all make excellent points.

Especially Jim Walsh.

Thank you, thoreau and metalgrid. I should give credit where it's due - I got the line from Tommy Smothers.

|6.2.05 @ 9:41PM|#

That's right. Republicans say that gays are SUBHUMAN.

I'll walk you through the logic of my claim:
- Marrying the person of your choice is intrinsic to ones happiness.
- Singling out a segment of the population and telling them they cannot marry the person of their choice wouldn't stand under under the 14th amendment.
- This is the actual fear that leads them to want to amend the constitution to exclude a certain segment of the population from enjoying the priviledges of the others.
- Thus, singling out a certain segment of citizens whose rights are abridged, makes them less than the rest of the citizenry - hence subhuman.

Also, I don't particularly lay this at the feet of Republicans - just those who want to covet power at the expense of an entire segment of our citizenry. It just so happens that the Republicans seem to be at the forefront of gay bashing for votes at the moment.


As for Shepherd, the story's not so cut and dried. Let's just say being a crankhead isn't exactly the smartest thing in the world. Its not as if drug dealers are known for their kind, zen-like ways

Well, that was educational reading. Thanks for the link. I was, however, just using him as an example. A google for hate crimes yields several other examples.
Mind you, I'm not a proponent of increased sentencing for the 'hate' part of a crime, but it helps to have these things in perspective and it helps not to have people in power not provide an excuse for the weak willed to go around committing crimes and then absolve themselves by saying someone else promoted it.


unrelated: how would reactions have been different if a few muslims had killed matthew shepherd?

outside of the category of "freakin' hilarious" of course.

Although I can see the conundrum of the situation that would make all the ultra-PC people's heads explode, having some kid killed for it probably isn't something I'd find hilarious. Didn't a similar thing happen in the Netherlands? One of their gay politicians was killed by Muslims? Does it really matter who it is killing someone where it's not self-defense? Some do it because their religion promotes it and think they can get away with it, but it doesn't mean it's right.

Tim Higgins|6.2.05 @ 10:53PM|#

"Then again, I don't understand why more lefties haven't moved to Canada . . ."

Have you seen what's been going on in Canadian national politics lately? As I understand it (and I'm no expert), the majority party has been caught siphoning federal funds into party coffers. Not that this is what is keeping them here. I'm just saying, the grass isn't as green as it looks.

|6.3.05 @ 12:26AM|#

Try this: Bush has not one positive accomplishment to his credit. At least Nixon created the EPA, established relations with China, and was an honest-to-Christ football fan.

|6.3.05 @ 1:17AM|#

Establishing the EPA is considered a good thing? That's not quite the criterion I'd use to measure a presidency.

Martin Owens|6.3.05 @ 1:42AM|#

Richard Nixon has been rehabilitated already- by Bill Clinton.

Say what you like, when Nixon left they didn't have to wet-vac the carpet in the Oval Office.

|6.3.05 @ 2:38AM|#

metalgrid:

I think you're thinking of Pim Fortuyn, who was murdered by an animal rights activist Volkert van der Graaf, not a muslim.

|6.3.05 @ 4:11AM|#

Say what you like, when Nixon left they didn't have to wet-vac the carpet in the Oval Office.

Because wet-vaccing the Oval Office carpet is an arduous chore when compared to forcing Congress to pass an entire suite of laws in order to prevent the crimes that you committed while in office from happening again. I pity Nixon, and in a lot of ways I think that he was one of the great tragic antiheroes of the previous century, but that doesn't mean that his crimes weren't completely despicable, nor that they were mitigated in any way by Clinton's actions, which, by the way, have a long and, if not celebrated, then at least tolerated historical precedent. (N.B. if ever you want to see an example of real slime in the White House, look at what Woodrow Wilson did when his wife died of cancer. Her bed was barely cold before he had moved his mistress in.) What Clinton did wasn't right, but it was small-time compared to Nixon.

|6.3.05 @ 8:26AM|#

Didn't a similar thing happen in the Netherlands? One of their gay politicians was killed by Muslims? :Posted by metalgrid

I think you're thinking of Pim Fortuyn, who was murdered by an animal rights activist Volkert van der Graaf, not a muslim. :Posted by Akira MacKenzie

Theo van Gogh, the film maker, was killed by a muslim. van Gogh had produced a documentary critical of Islam. It's not that hard to get two stories crossed up.

|6.3.05 @ 8:41AM|#

Have you seen what's been going on in Canadian national politics lately? As I understand it (and I'm no expert), the majority party has been caught siphoning federal funds into party coffers.

Corruption has a long pedigree in the Liberal Party. When I was in college in the 60s one of our required readings for a poli sci class was the White Paper of the Committee investigating Lib connections to organized crime figures in Quebec. Although the report was damning their political fortunes hardly suffered. Another was the machinations of the Liberal political machine in Toronto to get highway construction for connected developers approved.

Of course Quebec politics are even more corrupt than the French they speak.

|6.3.05 @ 9:06AM|#

It's almost like this discussion is about who is worse - Muslims who murder gays vs. rednecks meth-heads who murder gays, animal rights activists who murder Dutch politicians vs. Muslims who murder Dutch film-makers?

Who was a worse President? Bush vs. Nixon vs. Clinton vs. Reagan vs. Bush I vs. FDR vs. (see list of virtually all previous presidents).

Some things are wrong no matter who does them. I don't care if you're a red-neck or a fanatic (animal rights, Muslim, or Tim McVeigh-type). Murdering people who pose no threat to you is wrong.

This sort of exchange seems kinda silly to me:
"Try this: Bush has not one positive accomplishment to his credit. At least Nixon created the EPA, established relations with China, and was an honest-to-Christ football fan." - Lux

I can guesstimate the response: "Bush is a baseball fan, the American pastime! The EPA sucks! Bush managed to topple the Taliban & Saddam Hussein with fewer than 2,000 military losses!"

Maybe we can all agree that murder is wrong regardless of who commits it and why, and that no President has ever batted 1,000/completed every pass for a touchdown.

|6.3.05 @ 9:10AM|#

As a side note, Matthew Shepard is certainly not proof of widespread lynchings of gay people.

I think it's probably a sign of how well this country is doing that literally ANYONE, regardless of race, gender, sexual preference, religion, political affiliation or whatever can expect to receive some harassment in their lifetime.

Why is that a good thing? Because there will always be idiots, we can't get rid of that, but at least they no longer move in packs by night wearing sheets and operating with near-total legal immunity.

We've managed to trim the dangerous idiots back to a minimum and to remove their ability to operate as a big, organized, violent group - for the most part.

Although there are people here who seem to think that there is evidence that such is happening, the crime statistics and news stories are generally to the contrary.

The overwhelming majority of people, regardless of who they are or what group they fall into, never have to worry about being lynched in this country.

|6.3.05 @ 9:35AM|#

"Maybe we can all agree that murder is wrong regardless of who commits it and why, and that no President has ever batted 1,000/completed every pass for a touchdown."

That is what I'm saying. The hysterical rantings about Bush drive me nuts, and they make me feel like I have to defend a guy I don't like all that much. All of the arguments I hear revolve around his unique idealism or his unique detachment from reality, whatever that means. I read Dan Drezner during the election worrying about the 'decision making process' of the Bush camp when he was running against a guy whose whole foreign policy plan was to be charming. I'm not saying Bush is uniquely good, except to the extent he is willing to engage certain topics that need to be engaged - he just isn't uniquely bad.

|6.3.05 @ 11:00AM|#

I'm opposed to specific hate crime legislation, but the posters who claim that there's no noticeable level of violence directed against homosexuals need to pay attention more.

Read the article at the website below to start:

http://www.365gay.com/newscon05/04/042605violence.htm

|6.3.05 @ 11:03AM|#

The three worst presidents ever in order of their worseness

1 Linden Johnson (Vietnam, USS Liberty)

2 FDR (Social Security, and a general sleazyness about getting us into WW2)

3 Clinton (Bombing a medicine factory to distract the public from a stain on a dress, and not doing anything to counter a real terrorist build up that brought about 9-11, also failing to do anything but what was most politically expedient about the war in Iraq, ie bombing it, and starving Iraqi kids)

That is my humble opinion.

If Bush dismantles Social security, or fixes it, then he is in the running as the best of recent history.

I don't really care what reality he believes, I'll take the lower taxes and a fixed social security and an end to the war in Iraq (I wouldn't have considered constantly bombing it and starving it's children the way Clinton did as not war).

gaius marius|6.3.05 @ 11:24AM|#

his unique idealism or his unique detachment from reality, whatever that means.

mr ligon, i wouldn't claim he is unique -- simply that his presidency is the fitting cumulation of a gradual societal abandonment of objectivity. i think clinton and reagan were also ideological in their measure -- you can hardly be elected in this society without being detached from reality. its one of the fundamental reasons behind the 'teflon president' phenomena, imo, where real events have little impact on approval ratings.

bush simply represents a next step, an evolutionary leap in that direction.

|6.3.05 @ 11:34AM|#

The hysterical rantings about Bush drive me nuts, and they make me feel like I have to defend a guy I don't like all that much.

Jason, you are exactly right about this. I have plenty of issues with Bush but when people are comparing him to Hitler and Satan, how can I not sound like a Bush apologist. Plus so many people get caught up in that type of view have what I call circular hatred:

Anti-Bushie: We know the administration has authorized torture because they have such a weak stand on human rights.
Me: Really, how do we know they are so weak on human rights.
Anti-Bushie: Well, for one thing they authorize torture.


Just like Bush, with many people you can't even acknowledge ANYTHING positive in Iraq or Afghanistan without it being said that you are a cheerleader. First people ask "What has gone right in Iraq", I usually forward the latest collection of "Good News" from Chrenkoff. They then complain that "this guy is covering up the problems" blah blah blah. I then point out that the problems are well known and that they had asked "What has gone right?". They then ignore the link and not read any of it. I've done this about 6 times with friends and their responses were so similar they could have just used a form letter.

I am cautious of anyone who is 100% for/against all aspects of all our current conflicts.


As for Matthew Sheppard, we are a country of 280 million. You will NEVER get rid of all idiots who do stuff like this. While I will accept other people have been targeted because they were gay, the fact that you have to go back 8 years for an example illustrates that it is far from some wide spread problem.

but the posters who claim that there's no noticeable level of violence directed against homosexuals need to pay attention more.

Once again, I don't think anyone has said that there is no violence but this link comes from a definite point of view/agenda.

Evan McElravy|6.3.05 @ 11:38AM|#

Of course Quebec politics are even more corrupt than the French they speak.

Not to wander too far off topic, but provincial Qu�bec politics has actually been cleaned up a fair bit over the years (with exceptional moments, like the 1995 referendum excepted), and the politicians there are about as honest as your average politician anywhere -- that is, not very, but close enough not to keep most people awake at night. Federal politicians from Qu�bec, on the other hand, are about as bad as they come.

|6.3.05 @ 12:14PM|#

"Although I can see the conundrum of the situation that would make all the ultra-PC people's heads explode, having some kid killed for it probably isn't something I'd find hilarious."

not the murder, of course, but the reaction. not just on the pc side, as fun as their twistings may be, but on the conservative side. think about it: if you've got it in for the gays and the 'slims, who do you root for? talk about yer tooth gnasher.

i'm speaking of the "moon god/religion of peace my ass" types in particular.

gaius marius|6.3.05 @ 12:17PM|#

I have plenty of issues with Bush but when people are comparing him to Hitler and Satan, how can I not sound like a Bush apologist.

point taken on the radical anti-bush camp -- they have a lot in common with the radical anti-clinton camp, as either sides of an increasingly polarized coin.

but -- at the risk of stepping into very emotional ground -- that doesn't mean that comparisons to the black fruit of german idealism are invalid. the structure and development of postmodern thought is largely the story of adopting throughout the west the radical idealism that was embraced by first prussia and then germany in the later 19th c -- which gave rise directly to men like bismarck, hitler and the society that glorified them.

i think it's altogether appropriate (unfortunately) to speak of american society devolving along those same lines which emphasize the personal, the spiritual, the inward and the ideal. now, that doesn't justify "bushitler", i know. but room has to be made for an empirical, historical discussion of the adoption by the broader west of the principles of subjective idealism -- and the kind of rulership it manifests.

|6.3.05 @ 12:57PM|#

gaius marius

Do you think most of the Bush=Hitler types have put that much thought into their position?

|6.3.05 @ 1:32PM|#

The Bush is worse than Nixon folks are just immature kids who are prone to exaggeration and put style over substance. I really don't give a crap whether Bush never thinks he's wrong, or whether he's surrounded by like minded idologes (isn't every President?), or that he loves Jesus. From a libertarian perspective, he's been often bad, just like all American Presidents have been this century. But he's no Nixon. Nixon worsened the Social Security mess. Bush is the first President ever to touch the third rail and suggest at least some privitization. Nixon wasn't a tax cutter. Bush pushed through a sizable tax rate reduction. LBJ is more responsible for Vietnam than Nixon, but Bush's war pales in comparison to that mess, and yes, it is more successful than Nam thus far. Less than 2,000 dead, and the prospect of outright defeat (the Bathists retaking the country) is virtually nil. The worst that could happen (and I don't necessarily see this as all that bad) would be partition into three states, at least one of which would be free and democratic.

|6.3.05 @ 2:52PM|#

The worst that could happen (and I don't necessarily see this as all that bad) would be partition into three states, at least one of which would be free and democratic.

How is that the worst thing that can happen? There can be a massive and bloody three-way civil war, in which Kurds fight Shi'a fight Sunni that manages to polarize Iran, Jordan and Turkey against each other and in support of their respective interests. And there's little chance of a Baathist regieme retaking the country, but if things go badly then we may very well consider the new Overlord of Iraq and look back on the days of Saddam with wistful sighs. Neither of these things seem on the verge of occurring, I grant, but to say that they can't happen is as wrongheaded as saying that they'll happen tomorrow.

|6.3.05 @ 3:01PM|#

LBJ is more responsible for Vietnam than Nixon, but Bush's war pales in comparison to that mess, and yes, it is more successful than Nam thus far.

Before yu crow about how Iraq is more successful than Vietnam, wait and see how it ends first. We;ve only been there for alittle over two years; Vietnam didn't seem like that big of a clusterfuck back in the early, early Sixties either. Check back in Iraq in 2010.

|6.3.05 @ 3:02PM|#

Make that "before YOU crow." God, I hate this keyboard at work.

|6.3.05 @ 4:17PM|#

So Bush is the lesser of evils. That doesn't really make me feel any better...

|6.4.05 @ 5:57PM|#

Metalgrid said...

"He was killed in 1998. By your strange logic I would suppose Clinton is somehow responsible for his death?"


I made that statement in response to Dean saying to call him when the lynching happens and I pointed out that lynchings do in fact happen to these minorities. It's due to the environment created by politician and majorities who marginalize them into a subhuman category that lead to it - Didn't Clinton sign the Defense of Marriage Act and push through don't ask don't tell?.



So let me get this straight...it was BAD for Clinton to retreat from his positions? But you'd like Bush if he did that more? So it's really that you don't agree with him, not that he's wrong or even stubborn. And so Bush is bad because he won't do what YOU want? I'll take stubborn over wishy washy. It's called leadership. The executive should have that. That's why Bush is a successful president. And pisses the left off so much.

|6.4.05 @ 9:17PM|#

I'll take stubborn over wishy washy. It's called leadership

This right here is a perfect example of the problem. No, stubborn=/=leader. A leader acknowledges the need to convince people to follow him. Just doing what you want and then punishing the people who don't go along the next time you get the chance in retaliation is just bullying, and that's the opposite of leadership.

|6.5.05 @ 4:44PM|#

kwais-

I can't heap much praise on Bush for domestic policy (let's just leave foreign policy aside for now). He touched the third rail, sure, but he spent so much political capital on other stuff that SS reform is practically guaranteed to go nowhere. Not to mention that he massively expanded Medicare, expanded federal education spending and regulations, and has done nothing to rein in spending overall.

Here's what the Compassionate Conservative could have done upon taking office: He could have made it his goal to implement modest but meaningful tax cuts while also cutting spending. He could have couched it in "Compassionate Conservative" terms by calling it the "2020 Plan", whereby every child born during his first term will enter adult life with no national debt to pay for and a lower tax burden than his or her parents faced when they entered adult life. He could have made it sound like an investment in the next generation, ensuring that they won't have to pay for the mistaken political decisions of their parents.

But he didn't want to tackle spending. Instead his top domestic priorities included massive expansions of federal spending on Medicare and education. I cannot applaud that.

|6.5.05 @ 4:48PM|#

Oh, and instead of pushing for a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, he could have pushed for some sort of balanced budget amendment. We can debate the details of the ideal amendment, but if he was really interested in reforming domestic policy he could have pushed for some sort of amendment to make it more difficult to ramp up spending. But he didn't.