Which U.S. President's Lie Carries More Implications?

[TheStatutoryApe]

You are correct to an extent, but nothing in the past even remotely approaches the levels of the secrecy and spying of the Bush Administration. As for the examples given of past presidents "spying on Americans", for the most part they got caught.

Got caught? HUAC and COINTELPRO among others were fully legal and sanctioned organizations with the purpose of spying on, investigating, and sabotaging people that were involved in "Unamerican Activities" that existed for decades. What does getting caught have to do with the normal 'legal' operating procedures of the US government?

 

[McGyver]

Many of you have included some great contributions to my Question and Discussion. But, I was wanting to compare President Clinton's conduct to President Bush's. These comparisons are more relevant as they took place in our current political era. The 1960's and 1970's were periods that held unique political dynamics - different from today.

The party who can better answer my Clinton v. Bush comparison Question will likely do better in Fall '06 and Fall '08. These two Presidencies will define the Democrat and Republican parties, respectively, for at least the next two elected Presidents.

 

[franznietzsche]

The party who can better answer my Clinton v. Bush comparison Question will likely do better in Fall '06 and Fall '08. These two Presidencies will define the Democrat and Republican parties, respectively, for at least the next two elected Presidents.

I think you couldn't be more wrong. Clinton is completely irrelevant to the current democratic party. Everything I see from them, especially since their fairly complete defeat in '04 (entirely due to their own stupidity), is uncontrolled anger. They have become the party of hate. Rationality and logic are gone. Centrism and compromise are gone.

For example, take the fools who want bush and cheney thrown out agnew/nixon style. That would make Dennis Hastert president, not something you should be dancing and cheering about. And you certainly don't want Bush thrown out if Cheney isn't.

That said, I'm terrified of Bush. I would want him gone, except the alternatives don't get better down the line. No, we're stuck with him for now, since we lack a good ol' recall election at the national level (I bet you bitter California democrats are wishing we had one now that it would help you, eh?). And to be honest, I don't trust the democratic party any more than I trust the republicans. Especially not when all I see from them (including the members of this forum) is vitriol and bias, not reason and logic.

 

[McGyver]

I think you couldn't be more wrong. Clinton is completely irrelevant to the current democratic party.

Clinton and Bush remain to respective standards to emulate. Period. Gore SHOULD have beaten Bush in 2000, but he FAILED to capitalize on the Clinton/Gore 8 years due to Clinton's sex issues. Democrat candidates who can emulate Clinton's (centrist appearing) domestic focused campaign and initiatives (he did promote NAFTA) will win. Hillary is NOT electable due to her failed marriage during her husbands tenure, not to mention she snubs people.

Bush, albeit a failed Presidency, is the Republican ideolog - carrying the religious right, big business, and moderates narrowly. If he and Cheney weren't so hawkiish, reckless, and arrogant - they'd be at a 60%+ approval, and Iraq would be different too.

No candidate on either side has yet to emerge over the last 6 years and capture their party's majority more than Bush and Clinton. In these regards, they remain the idealogies to beat in '06 and '08.

 

[franznietzsche]

Clinton and Bush remain to respective standards to emulate. Period. Gore SHOULD have beaten Bush in 2000, but he FAILED to capitalize on the Clinton/Gore 8 years due to Clinton's sex issues. Democrat candidates who can emulate Clinton's (centrist appearing) domestic focused campaign and initiatives (he did promote NAFTA) will win. Hillary is NOT electable due to her failed marriage during her husbands tenure, not to mention she snubs people.

Bush, albeit a failed Presidency, is the Republican ideolog - carrying the religious right, big business, and moderates narrowly. If he and Cheney weren't so hawkiish, reckless, and arrogant - they'd be at a 60%+ approval, and Iraq would be different too.

No candidate on either side has yet to emerge over the last 6 years and capture their party's majority more than Bush and Clinton. In these regards, they remain the idealogies to beat in '06 and '08.

Again, i think you are wrong. The republicans will hold to the 'Bush Standard' only because the only people left to run for president in '08 on the republican ticket are the congressmen that helped define that standard, barring a strong democratic victory in Nov. that I'm not sure will happen. But the democrats? No, I don't see centrism winning out in the Democratic principle. Trying to be centrist and putting up Kerry over Dean didn't help any. I think we'll see stronger extremism from them in the face of continued republican control of both the Senate and the House.