BeggarsCanBeChoosers.com
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Americans Want Bush Impeached Far More Than They Ever Supported Clinton Impeachment
By MARC MCDONALD
When Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) introduced articles of impeachment against George W. Bush on Monday, he drew ridicule from Republicans, apathy from most Democrats, and silence from the mainstream media.
However, polls show that Americans want Bush impeached far more than they ever supported the impeachment of Bill Clinton in 1998.
In 1998, when the media was in a feeding frenzy over Clinton's impeachment, polls consistently showed that Americans opposed impeachment. Not only that, but Clinton's approval rating actually increased during the impeachment proceedings. For example, on Dec. 20, 1998, Clinton's approval rating climbed to 73 percent (a higher approval rating than Ronald Reagan ever enjoyed).
An Aug. 17, 1998 ABC News poll is typical of that era. That poll showed that American opposed impeachment by a wide margin of 69 percent to 25 percent.
Indeed, that same poll showed that Americans were sick and tired of the media hoopla over Monica Lewinsky. By a margin of 69 percent to 29 percent, Americans said the investigation of Clinton should end immediately.
By contrast, today Americans do support the impeachment of George W. Bush. And yet the mainstream media ignores this story and most Democrats refuse to take any action.
For example, an ongoing MSNBC "Live Vote" online poll shows that 89 percent of Americans support Bush's impeachment. The poll has drawn over 686,000 responses thus far.
While other polls show lower numbers in favor of impeachment, it's still clear that far more Americans want Bush impeached than they ever supported Clinton's impeachment.
And unlike Clinton (who enjoyed high approval ratings during his impeachment) Bush is clearly despised by most Americans these days. Bush's approval rating remains in the toilet (falling to as low as 25 percent in a recent CBS poll).
When Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) introduced articles of impeachment against George W. Bush on Monday, he drew ridicule from Republicans, apathy from most Democrats, and silence from the mainstream media.
However, polls show that Americans want Bush impeached far more than they ever supported the impeachment of Bill Clinton in 1998.
In 1998, when the media was in a feeding frenzy over Clinton's impeachment, polls consistently showed that Americans opposed impeachment. Not only that, but Clinton's approval rating actually increased during the impeachment proceedings. For example, on Dec. 20, 1998, Clinton's approval rating climbed to 73 percent (a higher approval rating than Ronald Reagan ever enjoyed).
An Aug. 17, 1998 ABC News poll is typical of that era. That poll showed that American opposed impeachment by a wide margin of 69 percent to 25 percent.
Indeed, that same poll showed that Americans were sick and tired of the media hoopla over Monica Lewinsky. By a margin of 69 percent to 29 percent, Americans said the investigation of Clinton should end immediately.
By contrast, today Americans do support the impeachment of George W. Bush. And yet the mainstream media ignores this story and most Democrats refuse to take any action.
For example, an ongoing MSNBC "Live Vote" online poll shows that 89 percent of Americans support Bush's impeachment. The poll has drawn over 686,000 responses thus far.
While other polls show lower numbers in favor of impeachment, it's still clear that far more Americans want Bush impeached than they ever supported Clinton's impeachment.
And unlike Clinton (who enjoyed high approval ratings during his impeachment) Bush is clearly despised by most Americans these days. Bush's approval rating remains in the toilet (falling to as low as 25 percent in a recent CBS poll).
Labels: Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, impeachment
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Now That Obama Has Praised Reagan, Will GOP Ever Have Any Kind Words For Clinton?
By MARC MCDONALD
Barack Obama's recent words of praise for Ronald Reagan surprised a lot of progressives.
Some believe Obama was just being diplomatic. Others wonder if outraged progressives are simply over-reacting to Obama's remarks.
As for me, I just have one question: when will the Republicans reciprocate and have some kind words to say about Bill Clinton?
Of course, you know the answer as well as I do: When hell freezes over.
The fact is, the Republicans and their henchmen viciously attacked Bill Clinton every single day he was in office. And they have continued to relentlessly attack him every day since then. Indeed, Clinton is blamed by many Republicans for things that didn't even happen on his watch (such as 9/11).
And we're not just talking about personal attacks (like when GOP Rep. Dan Burton called Clinton a "scumbag" in 1998).
We're talking about whole series of vicious attacks, lies, distortions (and even threats) for which no Republican has ever retracted or apologized for. And a lot of these attacks ("Bill Clinton murdered Vince Foster!" "Bill Clinton is a rapist!" "Bill Clinton murdered Ron Brown!") have been repeated so many times that a lot of Republicans fervently believe them to this day.
In fact, in viewing a right-wing hatchet job like the infamous video, The Clinton Chronicles one would be under the impression that Clinton has a lot of blood on his hands, murdering anyone who got in his way.
One might think that such baseless, crazy charges against Clinton would have been limited to the nutcase right-wing fringe. But that, of course, wasn't the case. These wild charges were eagerly embraced by the likes of The Wall Street Journal which promoted The Clinton Chronicles on its editorial page and ran over 60 editorials discussing Foster's "mysterious" death.
And here, we are, a decade later and all of the crazy right-wing charges against Bill Clinton have been thoroughly debunked and exposed as bullsh*t lies.
And yet, has any Republican ever apologized for these hatchet jobs on Clinton? And what's more, has any Republican EVER had any kind words, whatsoever, to say about Bill Clinton?
Of course not. The Republicans continue to viciously attack Clinton, even as they tune up the Great GOP Slime Machine to go after Hillary.
When Obama had kind words to say about Reagan, it was clear that he was being diplomatic. But if he (or any Democrat) is ever expecting the Republicans to reciprocate in any way, they will be in for a long, long wait.
Barack Obama's recent words of praise for Ronald Reagan surprised a lot of progressives.
Some believe Obama was just being diplomatic. Others wonder if outraged progressives are simply over-reacting to Obama's remarks.
As for me, I just have one question: when will the Republicans reciprocate and have some kind words to say about Bill Clinton?
Of course, you know the answer as well as I do: When hell freezes over.
The fact is, the Republicans and their henchmen viciously attacked Bill Clinton every single day he was in office. And they have continued to relentlessly attack him every day since then. Indeed, Clinton is blamed by many Republicans for things that didn't even happen on his watch (such as 9/11).
And we're not just talking about personal attacks (like when GOP Rep. Dan Burton called Clinton a "scumbag" in 1998).
We're talking about whole series of vicious attacks, lies, distortions (and even threats) for which no Republican has ever retracted or apologized for. And a lot of these attacks ("Bill Clinton murdered Vince Foster!" "Bill Clinton is a rapist!" "Bill Clinton murdered Ron Brown!") have been repeated so many times that a lot of Republicans fervently believe them to this day.
In fact, in viewing a right-wing hatchet job like the infamous video, The Clinton Chronicles one would be under the impression that Clinton has a lot of blood on his hands, murdering anyone who got in his way.
One might think that such baseless, crazy charges against Clinton would have been limited to the nutcase right-wing fringe. But that, of course, wasn't the case. These wild charges were eagerly embraced by the likes of The Wall Street Journal which promoted The Clinton Chronicles on its editorial page and ran over 60 editorials discussing Foster's "mysterious" death.
And here, we are, a decade later and all of the crazy right-wing charges against Bill Clinton have been thoroughly debunked and exposed as bullsh*t lies.
And yet, has any Republican ever apologized for these hatchet jobs on Clinton? And what's more, has any Republican EVER had any kind words, whatsoever, to say about Bill Clinton?
Of course not. The Republicans continue to viciously attack Clinton, even as they tune up the Great GOP Slime Machine to go after Hillary.
When Obama had kind words to say about Reagan, it was clear that he was being diplomatic. But if he (or any Democrat) is ever expecting the Republicans to reciprocate in any way, they will be in for a long, long wait.
Labels: Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, GOP lies
Friday, June 22, 2007
Violent Rhetoric About The Clintons Falls On Deaf Ears At Secret Service---But Watch What You Say About Bush
By MARC McDONALD
Right-wing nutcase Michael Graham's latest controversy---in which he said he wanted to see someone "whack" the Clintons in a Sopranos spoof isn't the first time he's used violent rhetoric when discussing the Clintons. In 2003, Graham said of Hillary Clinton: "I wanted to bludgeon her with a tire iron."
Such inflammatory language is nothing new for the right-wing. Recall how Ann Coulter once wrote that the debate over Bill Clinton should be about "whether to impeach or assassinate."
Recall also the comment by Jesse Helms in 1994: "Mr. Clinton better watch out if he comes down here. He'd better have a bodyguard."
Or G. Gordon Liddy's comment in 1995, when discussing how he'd used stick figures of the Clintons for target practice. "Thought it might improve my aim," he said.
I guess the right-wing nutcases excuse the above inflammatory comments as "humor."
The problem is, the Secret Service isn't an organization known for its sense of humor.
What's baffling is that right-wing nutcases can continue to use violent inflammatory language when discussing the Clintons and face no repercussions.
But when you talk about George W. Bush these days, you really need to watch what you say. Or else, you're going to get a visit from the Secret Service.
Case in point:
In September 2005, a North Carolina high school teacher assigned her senior civics and economics class "to take photographs to illustrate their rights in the Bill of Rights."
One of her students took a photo of Bush and tacked the picture to a wall with a red thumb tack through his head. Then he made a thumb's down sign with his own hand next to Bush's picture, which he photographed and pasted onto a poster.
The student took his film to a local Wal-Mart to be processed. The Wal-Mart promptly called the police, who turned the matter over to the Secret Service.
On Sept. 20, 2005, two Secret Service agents showed up at the high school and confiscated the poster and interrogated the teacher. At the end of the meeting, they told her the incident "would be interpreted by the U.S. attorney, who would decide whether the student could be indicted."
Although no further action was taken in this particular case by the Secret Service, I find it interesting how an innocent student project about the Bill of Rights could spur such a frightening and intimidating visit from the Secret Service.
And meanwhile, right-wing nutcases continue to use the nation's airwaves to spew violent rhetoric about the Clintons, which apparently falls on deaf ears at the Secret Service.
Right-wing nutcase Michael Graham's latest controversy---in which he said he wanted to see someone "whack" the Clintons in a Sopranos spoof isn't the first time he's used violent rhetoric when discussing the Clintons. In 2003, Graham said of Hillary Clinton: "I wanted to bludgeon her with a tire iron."
Such inflammatory language is nothing new for the right-wing. Recall how Ann Coulter once wrote that the debate over Bill Clinton should be about "whether to impeach or assassinate."
Recall also the comment by Jesse Helms in 1994: "Mr. Clinton better watch out if he comes down here. He'd better have a bodyguard."
Or G. Gordon Liddy's comment in 1995, when discussing how he'd used stick figures of the Clintons for target practice. "Thought it might improve my aim," he said.
I guess the right-wing nutcases excuse the above inflammatory comments as "humor."
The problem is, the Secret Service isn't an organization known for its sense of humor.
What's baffling is that right-wing nutcases can continue to use violent inflammatory language when discussing the Clintons and face no repercussions.
But when you talk about George W. Bush these days, you really need to watch what you say. Or else, you're going to get a visit from the Secret Service.
Case in point:
In September 2005, a North Carolina high school teacher assigned her senior civics and economics class "to take photographs to illustrate their rights in the Bill of Rights."
One of her students took a photo of Bush and tacked the picture to a wall with a red thumb tack through his head. Then he made a thumb's down sign with his own hand next to Bush's picture, which he photographed and pasted onto a poster.
The student took his film to a local Wal-Mart to be processed. The Wal-Mart promptly called the police, who turned the matter over to the Secret Service.
On Sept. 20, 2005, two Secret Service agents showed up at the high school and confiscated the poster and interrogated the teacher. At the end of the meeting, they told her the incident "would be interpreted by the U.S. attorney, who would decide whether the student could be indicted."
Although no further action was taken in this particular case by the Secret Service, I find it interesting how an innocent student project about the Bill of Rights could spur such a frightening and intimidating visit from the Secret Service.
And meanwhile, right-wing nutcases continue to use the nation's airwaves to spew violent rhetoric about the Clintons, which apparently falls on deaf ears at the Secret Service.
Labels: Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Hillary Clinton
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
