I thought I was imagining all the blame Clinton rhetoric. Now I see I was not imagining it.
I strongly suspect that Fox and Friends is going to be like the tiger who kept running around the tree until they turn in to butter. I will never get past Gretchen explaining why her job was as important as the President’s. Never….Never…Never….Any respect, any credibility….gone.
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Blame | ||||
|
||||
Gretchen’s job may not be as important, but she’s much better at it!
“I will never get past Gretchen explaining why her job was as important as the President’s. Never….Never…Never….Any respect, any credibility….gone” – did you ever have respect for her, somehow I doubt it.
However, that’s exactly how I feel about that lying crook and now apparently pervert Al Gore after his latest scandal nobody is talking about.
Did I ever respect her….? Actually, yes. She is highly educated and has a long list of accomplishments behind her.
Hello, what you don’t understand is that most of us can disagree with someone’s opinion without the rancor. Gretchen Carson used to be light years more professional. She also used to present a fairly moderate conservative viewpoint that was logical. Now she simply sounds like a babbling idiot in her hatred of the current administrtion. Go listen to her. Tell me that sounds like a woman who has a degree from Stanford.
It didn’t happen overnight.
Hello, so far you have called someone a douche, another a pervert, and someone else a lying crook. Rein it in there por favor. Name calling like that really speaks more about you than it does your recipient.
Substance please.
“She also used to present a fairly moderate conservative viewpoint that was logical. Now she simply sounds like a babbling idiot in her hatred of the current administrtion.”
She may be on to something — and being a babbling idiot is not one of them.
As to Gore being a crook and now a pervert – what part of that do you not agree with?
Al Gore is such a crook and is so riddled with dirty money it makes me almost embarrassed to talk about Corey Stewart taking campaign contributions from developers. There’s no comparison of the magnitude between the two. Gore is promoting policies that have, and will increasingly do so to the extent he is successful getting them enacted, made him incredibly rich – far more wealthy than his crusade has already made him.
Two examples of firms in which Al Gore has direct, personal financial interests that the media ignore completely:
KCPB is a venture capital firm that invests in small and start-up ventures that benefit directly from Al Gore’s success in promoting his global warming and cap-and-trade agendas.
http://www.kpcb.com/team/index.php?all
Generation Investment Management LLP stands to make billions trading carbon offsets if Congress and the Administration enact the cap-and-trade legislation.
http://www.generationim.com/about/team.html
Don’t get me wrong here – I believe strongly in conservation and sensible measures to protect the environment. However, Al Gore is one of the biggest con men ever to show up on the American political stage.
“Hello, so far you have called someone a douche, another a pervert, and someone else a lying crook” – I called Sir Paul a douche but I called the same person both a crook and pervert, not different people. But point taken… 🙂
@Need to Know
You hit the nail on the head Need to Know with Al Gore. If the economy didn’t crash I truly believe he would have pulled off the biggest con this planet has ever seen. Hopefully now he will be exposed for the P.O.S. he really is (sorry Moon, had to do it but I’ve got it out of my system now).
Also Need to Know, I’m right there with you as far as conservation and being all around good environmental stewards. I was on an ‘IT Green Team’ at my work that after two years of hard VOLUNTEER research, work and implementation got our building to be a LEEDS certified building. One of only a handful in all of DC. Gore talks the talk but wants everyone else to walk the walk, I loath those types of people.
On the issue of terrorism, blaming Clinton was not simply rhetoric. The man blew it big time.
Way to deflect the topic, Republicans. Looking at the title and the substance of the video, it seems that hard as I squint, I see nothing about Al Gore.
Actually, the content was about how Republicans and their agents blamed Clinton for everything during the Bush years. Now if Bush’s name is brought up, there is enough eye rolling to make a middle school.
So back on topic and address why it was ok to blame Clinton but not to blame Bush.
This I have to hear.
I blamed Clinton when Clinton deserved to be blamed. Counterterrorism was one of those issues, principally because I knew the ins and outs of it so well. Same general attitude toward Bush II. In fact, if you asked Mrs. W, she would say that old Wolverine used more expletives in referring to some of Bush II’s actions and failings than he did in reference to Clinton. It’s one thing when you are in clear opposition. Quite another when your own guy lets you down. There are no unassailable political “gods” in this household. The only real rule we have around here is that the expletives stay in the household and are not suitable material for the blogs.
I do not think Clinton blew terrorism big time, he did not get any credit for anything he did on the terrorism front, and continues to take blame, even for events that happened after he was in office.
Pat.Herve, I was there. I can assure you. Events which happen after a politician is out of office are often caused by the table previously set or not set. I assume you have looked at the 9/11 Commission final report. I could add some things to that, but, to this day, I am still not sure what I can and cannot say. I will add one thing. That famous “wall” in the 9/11 report. I was involved under Reagan and Bush I in finally breaking down that “wall” despite all the barricades put up by J. Edgar Hoover and then even his “ghost” after his death in 1972. And then, under Clinton, the damned “wall” went right up there again. Those not in the business have no idea how such a barrier limits the pursuit of effective joint action. Clinton was dead wrong to allow that to happen. I’ll leave it at that.
It has often been said that the only President who did not criticize the previous President was George Washington.
That is probably true, Rez.
And on the other hand, there are things that don’t change just because our president changes. Many things…..
Middle east conflict….Just because Bush took office doesn’t change that. Naturally one might refer back to something under Clinton. And by the same token, when Obama took over we were in the middle of a near depression. It is natural to refer back to Bush. It can’t all be dumped on the current president.
@Moon-howler
I enjoy Jon Stewart but he shows his bias in this segment. He seems to say that Bush was a terrible President and that Obama is justified in laying any problems (even a year and a half into adminstration) on Bush. However, he mocks anyone who sees any influence of Clinton policies on anything negative about the Bush administration. Come on Jon, you can’t have it both ways.
The truth is that Presidents have little, if any, short-term impact on the economy. I’ll leave other areas aside for the moment. Almost everything happening in the economy today is driven by events, trends and policies set in motion much earlier. Blaming or crediting a president for what’s going on economically is usually missing the point.
Longer term, policies do matter. The tax cuts during the Kennedy and Reagan administrations led to robust economic growth. Federal Reserve moves in monetary policy show their full impacts three to five years after being implemented.
Much has been made of Obama blaming Bush, especially with the wingers and the Foxies. I think he is making fun of them and pointing out their hypocrisy.
And I know he is not too fond of Bush.
I believe that what Stewart is trying to say is that Bush supporters would like to believe that anything that happened during his administration wasn’t his fault! Granting that things started by Clinton would be carried over to the Bush first term , you would think by the second term at least they would have expired and he could have influenced some of the policy in his Presidency.
Actually, in my opinion, Bush did make a big mistake in his first nine months. He did not focus enough on the status of our counterterrorism operations and detect those faults which I attribute to misconceived Clinton policies. This focus did not happen sufficiently until after 9/11. However, there were certainly some mitigating circumstances. The Clinton-Bush transition was much longer than usual because of the legal dispute over the 2000 election. It took Bush much longer to get his own team in place because of those legal delays. And, like any transition, a new president can be overwhelmed by the myriad of things brought to his attention and the need to begin comprehending them. Nevertheless, I understand Bush did have colleagues and professionals who were trying to warn him with regard to terrorism. In my view, 9/11 was a combination of mistakes and inattention from 1993 to 2001.