Why are there so many protests against the Bush administration? Were there this many during the Clinton years?

Answer 1

Protests are generally of the anti-war variety. Bush started a war which has turned into a quagmire and become unpopular with the American public, hence far more protests against him. He's also a less popular president than Clinton was.

I really get a kick out of how all the right-wing folks unable to think for themselves have one answer for everything: the liberal media. This is a great argument because it requires no intelligence to use and you can't prove it false. You could tell one of these republicans-without-a-clue that

1) Iraq is descending into civil war
2) we haven't found bin Laden
3) U.S. popularity is at all-time lows with the rest of the world thanks to Bush's pre-emptive war
4) Bush is very unpopular himself right now

And these folks will tell you straight up that everything's going just great - it's all the liberal media saying it isn't!

Ah, and the truly brain dead, who still blame Clinton for 9-11. How delusional can you be? Wake up, folks.

Answer 2

I'm not seeing that many protests against the President. You didn't see many against Clinton because these vocal bull$#!t protests are a tool of the loony lefties more than anyone else.

Oh yeah, someone tell the genius who said that Clinton was impeached for having a heterosexual tryst to do a bit more research. HE WAS IMPEACHED FOR BREAKING HIS OATH AND LYING TO A GRAND JURY, TO CONGRESS and TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

And for the other genius who said that Clinton didn't get 3,000 Americans killed, HOW ABOUT 9/11? Clinton could have had Bin Laden on a couple of occasions, and lets not forget that Clinton's idiot Secretary of State Warren Christopher FORCED Israel to release all those stinking Muslim terrorists, INCLUDING MOHAMMAD ATTA.

Answer 3

Two reasons: 1) the media is largely Liberal and would relagate such information to the back pages of the paper, if printed at all; and, 2) those who would otherwise oppose Bill Clinton, and his administration, were otherwise engaged at work. Republicans, generally, don't tale off from work for protests. Many Democrats would and do.

Answer 4

As a whole, liberals are more vocal in opposition to anyone who does not conform to their view of the world. Liberalism incorporates many different viewpoints and personal causes, so there is always going to be something that somebody considers protest-worthy. Liberals are demographically younger than conservatives, so they have more energy to amplify their protests. With the Bush administration, protests happen simply because Bush is not liberal. Clinton deflected much of the protests by liberals by paying lip-service to liberal causes and distracting the nation with his intern.
As for the administration itself, Bush is a magnet for protests for reasons stemming back to the 2000 election. Anything that liberals don't like about him can be traced back to this, with events like Iraq and Katrina being perceived as further evidence of why he should have lost the 2000 election. In effect, many protests are rooted in a sense of revenge, fueled by perception of governing errors, and stoked by the youthfulness of liberals.
Conservatives, on the other hand, are an older demographic segment of the population. Mostly, they have lives that trump the time requirements of activist politics, and the extent of political participation by them is in the ballot box. Conservatives also have a unified viewpoint on politics, so there can only be so many things to protest--most protests are smaller counters to liberal protests. The majority of the highly visible attacks on Clinton came from Congress during his impeachment. Ultimately, the resulting imbalance in activist events promotes an imbalance in media coverage, so the liberals get more air time. Consequently, the visibility of the protests are amplified, giving the perception of 'so many protests.'

Answer 5

I don't think there was as much & certainly not as hateful. I do have a hart time discovering what Clinton did that created such a fallowing. He did nothing to create the great economy. Yes, the Internet reached economic viability while he was in office. The military was the seed force that created it many years before Clinton or Gore. He didn't have a stronge environmental actions. Did he bring pease to the Middle East? He was manipulated by Arafat.

I know what got the fallowing, Clintons ability with self promotion. He still hasn't lost that ability. Some women still wish to get into his pants.

I would love for someone of his love fest follower to delineate what Clinton orignated/inspirer to generate his fallowing. To date the specifics have been lacking. I just haven't seen how he inspired the nation to be better than if he hadn't been our "leader".

Am I asking too much for the head of the most powerful country to inspire the individuals to be more than they would have been without their leadership?

Answer 6

Bush is an active president during a time of war with opponents who will never stop until they are dead. Clinton was a passive president at a time of relative peace with nothing on his mind but getting head.

Also, American protesters are young, hairy, naive, unemployed, ignorant, ne'er-do-wells.

Answer 7

Clinton didn't declare war. Most of the protests are against the war.

Answer 8

How soon they forget.

The Clintons suffered constant "Witch Hunt" trials throughout Bill Clinton's administration.

While Foley was emailing young male pages, and Haggart was probably getting massages through his meth connections, the Repugnicans were impeaching President Clinton for lying about a heterosexual tryst.

And through this all, the blind minions of the Repugnican Party were crying for President Clinton's head.

Answer 9

NO. See, republicans have jobs to go to, which cuts into their protesting time.

Further, because they have jobs, they have to get hair cuts. And, apparently one can not protest with out long hair and tie-dye.

Finally, republicans are too busy doing other things in their off time like raising children, owning houses, weed eating, fixing their cars...you know, generally taking care of their stuff.

Answer 10

Probably because Clinton was liked and made good decisions, except in his personal life. While Bush on the other hand is the most corrupt and criminal, war mongering hypocritical, liar that I have ever seen.