The fickleness of the masses? Delegates, super delegates and the war.
March 6th, 2008 | Sessions
Subscribe in iTunes
Site Admin
Top 10 Vacation Destinations!
Advertise your Web site with Yahoo! Sponsored Search. Sign up and get a $25 credit into your new account. Learn more.
10 comments ↓
Hey guys,
I think this was a good skull session.
This is in response to Joels argument about people jumping on the bandwagon. I know quite a few people who find it cool or hip to bash Bush. It is interesting when I inquire about their apparent disdain. They seldom give any compelling arguments, this is why I question their motives (if any). The most common response is just more bashing and name calling. This is yet another example of what contributes to polarization between the left and right, and unfortunately I see it all the time. But what they won’t say (and what I assume might be the case) is that they are simply jumping on the bandwagon. It is interesting to me that so many people don’t just disagree with Bush’s policies, but that they actually have a deep hatred for him. It has become quite clear to me that it is popular to bash the president in pop culture. I can still remember SNL skits back in the day of president Clinton. But I think it has acquired a much more ruthless and hating demeanor under Bush’s presidency. It is very easy to get caught up in the animosity, even with little political knowledge. It is so bad sometimes that I look forward to Bush leaving office so that the rampant mudslinging will stop. I really am sick of it.
On another note, check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Presidential_approval_rating
I find it interesting.
-Eli
Eli, I found this in your wikipedia article:
George W. Bush holds the record highest approval rating with 92% (10/8-9/2001 — after the September 11 attacks).
George W. Bush also holds the record lowest with 19% (2/16-19/2008 — during the Iraq War).
In my view, this precipitous drop in approval shows what happens when a leader flouts international and domestic consensus for a pre-emptive and ill-planned war that distracted us from our goal and squandered goodwill around the world.
justin
PS: oh, and the Bush hating? Not as bad as the Clinton hating. We Bush “haters” really just feel sorry for the guy because he’s so in over his head and Papa Cheney (who is kinda evil) runs the show. Clinton haters were moral crusaders against blowjobs which seemed kinda anti-democratic to me!
Clinton never had an entire TV series dedicated to bashing him (Lil Bush). I walk into the UB bookstore and see tons of Bush bashing material, playing cards, posters, books, dolls, jokes, t-shirts, etc. It is my experience that Bush is getting the stick much harder than Clinton in pop culture. Perhaps because I grew up in a different part of the country, I was not exposed to as much Clinton bashing as you. But it is posts and comments (like your PS) that further contribute to polarization. I don’t want to hear about how you “feel sorry” for him, or how you think “Papa Cheney” is running the show. Give me a break, provide some good arguments with some facts/evidence to support your claims. You can quickly turn people away by using absolutes, or making sweeping statements as if they are a given. If this is how you are going to continue, I’ll stop commenting.
Justin,
I say this as a former Clinton defender…
He did lie under oath which is a crime called perjury. Bush and Cheney have committed no such crime despite attempts to point at Patriot Act shenanigans. Fortunately, Bush and Cheney are not allowed to act on the Patriot Act until it is passed by Congress. Perjury, on the other hand, has been a crime for a very long time.
You may also recall that Clinton lead NATO to attack a sovereign nation in Europe. This is from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_policy_of_the_Clinton_Administration#The_Balkans
“In March, military forces from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), headed by the United States, began launching the bombardment of Yugoslavia. The strikes were not limited to military installations and NATO targets included civilian targets such as factories, oil refineries, television stations and various infrastructure. This war was not approved by the U.N. administration, General assembly or the Security Council; it was strongly opposed by Russia and China.”
Do you mean to tell me that Clinton went against the approval of the UN, the Security Council AND Russia and China?
Now I happen to think that Clinton’s aerial bombardment was justified. He did stop a potentially bad situation by standing up to Milosevic. I agreed with the decision then and I agree with it now. Now, in the Iraq War, our national security was threatened by a belligerent tyrant who was in a state of war with us for over 12 years. This was much more serious than any disapproval we had of Milosevic. Our strategic interest in Iraq was/is so much larger than any possible strategic interest in Kosovo? So in my view, even though I agreed with the reasons to bomb Yugoslavia, the reasons to invade Iraq were so much larger and more credible.
To avoid hypocrisy, I would like to see progressives and liberals either A) condemn the actions of Clinton in Kosovo, B) realize the validity of attacking the threat of Sadam Hussein, or C) explain why one invasion was justified and one was not.
Eli,
I really don’t mean to turn you off with absolutes. I hate them myself. I guess this written form doesn’t translate jokes very well. Let me clarify:
Clearly, the crusade against Clinton wasn’t entirely about the blowjob, and certainly he was very much outside of the law when he lied under oath about it. But I have a hard time getting steamed about a lie like that when I know with conviction that the lies Bush’s administration has told have done much greater harm to our people and our moral standing around the world than Clinton ever could. Most developed countries laughed at our “obsession” over Clinton’s personal escapades and it is our puritanical past that fueled it. They thought it was funny… but Bush’s mistakes have made most of them turn away from us in a big way… just when we needed them the most.
As for having proof of Bush’s lies: all politicians lie and Bush is no exception. Just because Clinton did it under oath (in my eyes) doesn’t make it any worse than Bush doing it with the media’s microphone. Besides, Karl Rove is too good to let him get caught red handed… it will be years before we have any concrete proof that Bush sympathizers would believe. Doesn’t it give you pause when they invoke executive privilege over and over again to keep their people from testifying under oath? It seems like they know that they can lie as much as they want to unless it’s under oath… so they just avoid being under oath.
Basically I believe that where there is a large plume of black smoke… there is an oil fire… and even before I get permission to go check out that site… I’m pretty sure there will have been a fire there!
As for the “bashing” issue Clinton is bashable for entirely different things and by different groups. Conservatives find his lifestyle to be deplorable, it seems to me. Liberal would rather let his personal life be his own… just like conservatives are with financial issues. Neither is correct, per-se… but Bush gets bashed for mostly his intelligence (at least by me) and it’s hard to defend him on that issue,
In the end, it comes down to the fact that as humans, we will perceive our guy to get the worse rap when it comes to bashing, media favoritism, etc. That’s human nature. Sure, it’s cool to bash George W. Bush. That’s because it’s easy.
justin
PS: Joel, I’ll get to your argument later in depth. My short version is that I agree with you. German and Muslim extremist fascism is worse than ours. The video I presented doesn’t attempt to put America’s fascist tendencies of late anywhere near Hilter. I agree with you completely that Hitler was way worse. Note I didn’t invoke him at all. Fascism is bigger than Germany and unless we look honestly at what is happening under our eyes, we could inch closer to a place none of us really want to go…
Justin,
I want to apologize for my last comment. The last sentence was written while I was emotionally charged. Obviously your comment was very inflammatory for me. It appears to me that you like sparking debate. But I think intelligible and good discussion can spark without being inflammatory.
I realize you are a very busy man and might not have as much time as me to make comments. Thank you for your quick responses.
Hey! I found the Skull Session to be informative considering I learned about superdelegates. I also found Justin’s comparisons between Obama and Kennedy interesting. I do disagree with Justin about the “uprising of change” during Kennedy’s campaign. Remember Kennedy ran during the heart of the Civil Rights Movement where there was live footage of sit-ins and marches and the retaliation/reaction of white supremacist groups. Although there had been significant events (Montgomery Bus Boycott and Brown vs. Board of Education,etc.) in the mid-1950s, voters were looking for a major change just like they are now. Since you are “connected” (my new favorite word), why not look this info up online as you are discussing to increase the information. I will definitely keep tuning in
Eli, this is actually an interesting discussion to have now because since we’ve put the substance of the “inflammation” we can dissect it as an issue for this podcast…
Our Mission is about civilized and informed debate. We don’t aim to inflame people… but we do aim to provoke a lively debate! So there is a line there between joking and offending… and in the written form it’s alot easier to cross that line than, say, in our videos. You can tell when I’m intentionally sparking something when you can see my face.
So this will be a challenge for Joel and I as we mature in this role… the challenge to provoke without inflaming. And you, dear reader, are issued the challenge of reading, thinking, and responding with little or no emotion as not to let the facts and arguments get pushed aside.
So thanks, Eli, for the apology and for sparking this important debate about… our debate!
[joke]
Oh man, I just noticed something on this page that I’d overlooked before…. Joel said he was a former Clinton defender??? No way… when could he possibly have related to that crazy democrat? haha
[/joke]
Vada,
Thanks for your comment and recommendation. We can look into looking up information on our sessions in future videos.
Justin,
Yes, in college I was a Clinton apologist and a Democrat. I voted for Gore in 2000. I’m glad that the candidate I voted for did not win. Since leaving college, I have seen the light and was exposed to the error of my former misguided ways. Now I fight for truth, justice and the American way as a committed, yet open-minded conservative.
Leave a Comment