Same old song

<snip>
"(N)obody can argue that (President Bush) hasn't restored honor to the White House," pronounced Gary Bauer, president of the socially conservative group American Values.

Is that so? Clinton did dishonor the office with his uncontrolled sexual impulses (he did it "because I could," he confessed to Dan Rather) and his brazen dishonesty. But while President Bush has kept his pants on, that's not the only way to measure honor.

Bush, after all, lost the popular vote in 2000, yet has governed as if he had a mandate for a hard-right revolution. In its pugnacious effort to be the anti-Clintons, his administration in its first months waved off their predecessors' warnings about terrorism and al-Qaida to pursue neocon obsessions with Saddam and missile defense. Bush has utterly abandoned his party's former good sense about budget deficits. His push for war in Iraq was, at best, overstated, and in his zeal to make war on a non-threatening enemy — because he could — he has helped to create more zealots around the globe. Such "honor" we can do without.
<snip>

Maybe that explains why Clinton's critics still focus so heavily on his personal lapses: In no other area does their man Bush compare favorably.

http://www.bouldernews.com/bdc/editorials/article/0,1713,BDC_2489_2985545,00.html

Sorry...I'm channeling Sherman Potter tonight for some reason. :-)

"Clinton did dishonor the office..."

No, he did not. He screwed up on a personal level, and he has to live with that. Clinton's sexual indiscretions are no more dishonorable to the office of the President than were Washington's or Jefferson's or Kennedy's, et al. That is, they dishonored themselves with such acts, but those acts did not affect the office nor the people of the nation. (The only reason Clinton's actions affected anyone outside his personal circle was because of Starr and the RW cronies who tried to find anything they could to discredit Clinton.)

Dishonoring the office in my mind includes using that office to acquire profit for oneself and one's personal associates. That would be Dubya.

... but then again so (I think) does the author of the above material, who indicates that personal propriety is the only possible field in which * might beat Clinton and who (as I read the editorial) thinks that everything else is really rather more important.

I might actually go further and argue that when one puts their histories side-by-side, Clinton also turns out to be a vastly better person than *.

However, I doubt my own view gets any traction with swing voters, and I think the view expressed in the editorial is: (1) a view to which many people will subscribe and (2) good enough for political purposes. :)

Suppose you read in a history book that Julius Ceasar had several affairs while in office. Wouldn't your reaction be WTF? Like you give a crap!

brought about by the brutal thugs in our White House now, Clinton despite his lapses, was loved throughout the world, * can only speak in front of the military, and he is universally hated. Only a little fascist like Gary Bauer would consider * honorable. Thanks for the post.